argument
stringlengths 201
3.55k
| stance
stringclasses 2
values | id
stringlengths 36
39
|
|---|---|---|
The legal drinking age should be lowered to 16. That is a very good point. But I believe that if a 16 year old can physically go out and get a job, legally drive, and be treated as an adult then they should be allowed to drink. If I was a 16 year old guy and I just got home from a long day at school and then work and I wanted a cold Bud Light why shouldn't I be enabled to the right? "Dwight B. Heath knows what he is about to say will sound a little crazy to most people. When asked what the minimum legal drinking age should be in the U.S., Heath says 8, or maybe even 6. No, the Brown University anthropology professor is not advocating getting kids drunk. Instead he favors a cultural model, common in countries like France or Italy, where parents serve small amounts of wine to their children at family meals. By doing this, he says, parents educate their kids about alcohol and rob drinking of its taboo allure, which can make rebellious teenagers sneak off to basements and backwoods to binge drink far from adult supervision." (http://www.cnn.com...) Many countries, such as Belgium, Denmark, and Germany, allow 16 year old teens to buy alcoholic beverages. If the United States were to lower their drinking age to 16 it would cut binge drinking drastically. In about 30 states in the U.S. under aged drinking is allowed if the teens are with their guardians. So over half of the states are allowing under aged drinking, but it's not legal through out the whole country. | PRO | b20ff8e7-2019-04-18T15:16:57Z-00001-000 |
intelligence=see. Intelligence is defined in many ways, revolving around the idea of one's capacity for logic, abstract thought, self awareness, communication and learning. 'Past = contrast?!' that doesn't even make any sense. Please elaborate on your arguments because you're not doing very well. Not only that, but you seem to introduce new things to debates that are completely irrelevant to the moot of your debates. Do one thing for me, explain yourself on why you think the past is contrast. | CON | 241f3ed9-2019-04-18T13:19:00Z-00004-000 |
All Snails Should be Slaughtered. Snails who rebel against us can prove to a huge problem. According to the Geneva Convention, we are supposed to leave prisoners alone and respect them, etc. This is all a waste of time if you want to have a good day. Every single day snails invade and capture properties which they then use for their own devilish purposes. We must put a stop to this and there is one, very clear, way to do it. It must be made law that everyone on the planet must always carry a bazooka, so that if they ever run into Man's Most-Evil Enemy they can protect themselves. | PRO | 5e2b0793-2019-04-18T18:12:04Z-00003-000 |
Mikal is the best debater ever OTHER than imabench. I argue http://www.debate.org... is the best debater ever because of his insanely low lose rate and the number of debates he has won. (0ver 160! Oh my god! And losing merely one debate, and even THAT debate has only 5 point difference...) I do not argue about imabench...the sheer number of debates he has is just...wow. So make your argument about some other debater other than imabench! (how is that guy a troll, anyways? He's just this insanely good deabter.) | PRO | f1ffdd02-2019-04-18T16:26:34Z-00007-000 |
Abortion. Having an abortion is extremely helpful when it comes to deal with population control. Everyday, there are 3988076 babies born, the earth is is all ready 5 billion people over the population limit. Abortion is used to help get the population down to the 2 billion limit. http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org... In the world 3 out of every 100 people are effected by cancer. If there are 7 million people in the world, that means the 2333333333 people are effected by cancer. Abortion can be used to cut off cancer from travelling through generations of families. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org... ( towards the bottom) | PRO | b186fd06-2019-04-18T13:11:55Z-00005-000 |
500 Character debate: Policy lynching in mafia games. They can avoid betraying an uninformed perspective by fabricating reads on everyone. Or by not reading the game at all. That would make it impossible to determine whether their perspective is informed or uninformed. When someone only does pro-scum things as both town and scum, you can't tell the difference between their town play and scum play. Scumhunting cannot function in those circumstances. If scum are allowed to do that, they'll never be lynched. Or their lynches will be random. | CON | 60704390-2019-04-18T15:12:14Z-00000-000 |
Stable nations are a greater threat to the U.S that stable nations. This resolution talks about both failed and stable. Most stable nations don't pose a threat because they are allies to use so there for they do not pose a greater threat. Failed nations do pose a greater threat to prove my point I will list some reason *failed nations cause other nations to fail * they hold high nuclear power for example Pakistan * These failed nations create conflict for the U.S because of our unfavorable so there for these failed nations are a over all problem http://en.wikipedia.org... | PRO | d9480e57-2019-04-18T19:17:06Z-00003-000 |
It is hard to apportion blame. If we were to have an international law court set up in order for developing countries to claim compensation, who would pay the compensation? How can individual countries take the blame for certain areas of pollution? Would scientists once again have to scrabble over what sort of pollution caused the harm for which compensation is claimed for? Would we even blame individual countries or would the compensation be made out of the percentages of how much pollution each country causes. The system is far too uncertain to regulate officially. For this reason, countries should not be able to claim pollution compensation. | PRO | 51ffb5fa-2019-04-19T12:46:22Z-00018-000 |
Funnier Jokes Wins. I completely agree with you. A young boy and his friend are talking about ways to con people. His friend says that by saying the phrase, "I know the whole truth." has gotten him rich. The young boy Thinks about this and decides to check this out. He goes to his mother and says, "I know the whole truth." His mother responds, "Don't tell your father." and gives him 10 dollars. He goes to his dad and says the same thing. He responds with, "Don't tell your mother." and hands him 20 dollars. He decides to lengthen this and do this to the first adult he sees. He walks outside and sees the mail man. He walks up to him and says, "I know the whole truth." The mail man drops his bags, spreads his arms, and says, "SON!" | PRO | fc68d9a8-2019-04-18T17:39:15Z-00005-000 |
Arguments from change for God's existence. Part 1. Hi. Like I said I am not presenting proof for my God. I am instead presenting arguments that make it more probable than improbable that a being exists and we would call that being God. If you want to get to the Christian God than one must debate the Case for Christ. I accept your skepticism but it would be nice if you defended it. My "frustration" is caused by a lack of debunking of my arguments and more simple babblings of man. One day I intend to debate the Ontological, Cosmological and Teleological arguments and if I do then please join me in that debate. The Cosmological and Teleological arguments are simple. At one point there was nothing of the contingent universe and then there was because the contingent universe can't create itself and is not eternal its origin lay beyond its borders. Because there is no such thing as a necessary substance a being must have created the universe. That being is called God. | PRO | 32431a07-2019-04-18T11:20:20Z-00001-000 |
To be decided. Ok so I'll be CON. However, before I begin I would like to point out two things: 1) The burden of proof is upon PRO (my opponent) to prove that "The US federal government should discontinue its war on drugs." Being CON, I am advocating that the war on drugs should continue. But remember, my opponent has to prove his side of the resolution beyond a reasonable doubt. 2) Always remember, vote on the debate, not the issue. Now for my contention. Point 1: Drugs are [obviously] detrimental to the health, well-being and efficiency of society. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... Let's take a look at the side effects of meth. They include: - fast loss of teeth - increased risk of strokes - heart damage - withdrawal syndrome from the mother to a newborn - inability to ejaculate - hygiene issues - self-destructive behavior And here are the side effects of ecstasy: Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... - hyponatremia (low blood salt levels) - hypertension - increased heart rate and blood pressure (I'm on a time crunch so I will not list them all) All these side effects range from unhealthy to deadly. Thus being detrimental to health. The U.S. should continue its war on drugs because they do more harm than good and are very, very bad for your health. | PRO | 51321974-2019-04-18T19:43:42Z-00005-000 |
If Uchiha Itachi were to battle Uzumaki Naruto, Uchiha Itachi would not be defeated. Hello, all. This is George Carlin Worshipper with my first debate in about half a year. Let's hope this goes well. I wish Korashk luck and hope for a good debate. As stated in the resolution, the subject of this debate will be the outcome of a theoretical battle between Uchiha Itachi and Uzumaki Naruto of the anime/manga series "Naruto". It is the job of the instigator, myself, to prove that Itachi would not be defeated by Naruto in this battle. The contender, Korashk, must prevent me from doing this, most likely by proving that Naruto would be victorious. The first round will only be used for specifying the terms of the battle and resolving definitions. Arguments will begin in Round 2. I would like to begin by defining a few central elements of the debate: For the purposes of this debate, Uchiha Itachi [1] will be taken from his state just before his death in Chapter 393, page 16 [2] and restored to an optimal physical condition. This means that he will be in a perfectly healthy living state, with Chakra levels restored to maximum, cured of the terminal disease he suffered from, and with his eyesight restored. He will possess all of his memories up to the point of his death. He will also be given all of his standard equipment, meaning his Akatsuki cloak, ninja tools, etc. Uzumaki Naruto will be in his state as of Chapter 499, page 16 [3]. He will no longer be in his trance. He will not have his pre-prepared Senjutsu Kage Bunshin [4] available for his use, as he has used them both and has not made any more since they were used up. I nominate that the battle take place on a beach beside a forest. If my opponent wishes to contest this battlefield, he may do so, and we will arrive on an agreement before Round 2 via Private Message. For the purposes of this debate, wikis will be treated as valid sources due to the high number of sources cited for each page and their convenience in terms of research. This decision is for the convenience of each debater. Due to the complete lack of information available on the subject, I ask that Uchiha Itachi's "gift" to Naruto [5] be disregarded for the purposes of this debate. This subject will take up undue amounts of time and its nature is virtually impossible to prove with the available evidence. For the purposes of the battle, the two will begin standing six yards away from each other on the beach, situated so that neither the ocean nor the forest is to either combatant's back. The two will be facing each other. I look forward to this debate and wish my opponent luck. [1] http://naruto.wikia.com... [2] http://www.onemanga.com... [3] http://www.onemanga.com... [4] http://www.onemanga.com... Pgs. 6-9 [5] http://www.onemanga.com... Information can also be found in [1] in the first paragraph of the "Hunt for Itachi" section. | PRO | 57ff1e92-2019-04-18T19:04:45Z-00008-000 |
The Bible teaches that water baptism is for - to obtain - the remission of sins. Pro is, to put it lightly, a fool. Rather than make any attempt to respond to my interpretation of Biblical events, my opponent has capitalized on my ONE misreading of a SINGLE verse. My opponent has utterly failed to do anything resembling a debate. Quoting the Bible isn't an argument. My opponent seems to be blaming me for not quoting the Bible, in spite of the fact that no stipulation was ever made that I had to. After having reviewed several other debates instigated by my opponent, I have come to the inescapable conclusion that my opponent would rather stoop to the level of personal attacks whenever the existence of God and the truth of the Bible is called into question. My opponent shouldn't be instigating religious debates if she can't stand the thought of another person questioning her beliefs. My opponent hasn't even attempted to prove me wrong and has simply stated that I am wrong. No attempt at argumentation has been made by the pro. I will only concede the single point that I have repeatedly conceded. Her second point, first sentence, directly supports the position that I have taken, which the pro has made no effort to address at all. As for the third point, if we're going to acknowledge that maybe Paul was a real person, then see my argument. There is no reason to give any points to the pro. Everything I typed, no matter how awful, stands. | CON | 787ad37e-2019-04-18T18:23:46Z-00000-000 |
Abortion. Women may have the right to chose wither to abort a child or not, but it is inhumane to do such a thing. Abortion promotes the idea that human life is disposable. The child that the women is trying to abort is a human and should be given the opportunity to live the life they were given. And even if she didn't want the child she should have still gave it up for adoption, I'm sure there are couple who want to adopt the child. Over all abortion is a in humane thing to do. | PRO | b186fe1d-2019-04-18T13:11:59Z-00000-000 |
There should be a Pikmin movie. Ah, MatPat. Nice to go to your channel again (I've watched this video before.). Anyways, on to my rebuttal: 1. Still a good movie. Sure a movie isn't AS GOOD as a video game, but that doesn't automatically make all video game movies terrible in general. To say any movie is bad is to say the Ratchet and Clank movie coming out in 2016 will be bad, which is wrong, looking at the trailer, which brings me to my next point. 2. Super Live Action Bros the movie. To translate, "Live Action Movies vs an Animation". Most video game based movies were made with real actors. Let's take, well, the Super Mario Bros movie. That was made almost entirely with real actors (mainly "Toad", at the beginning-ish). A live actor "Toad" or the Toad from the video games... video game Toad would bring back fond memories. Same with Pikmin! The movie will be animated, unlike most of the movies that were made. Then again, Pikmin wouldn't exactly be possible without making it an animation but... yeah. BoP is on Con to prove why a Pikmin movie would be (almost) as terrible as Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, or worse. | PRO | 20efbe16-2019-04-18T14:15:33Z-00003-000 |
Laura Mallory Should Be More Offended by Twilight than Harry Potter. The religion of the author should have no bearing on whether the book should be viewed as offensive by devout Christian Laura Mallory (though it probably does). Regarding the video in which my opponent sent me, it is actually mocking the fact that the religion of the actor who played Harry Potter had any actual importance, so it does very little to help support their position. Now, Laura Mallory should be offended by the book series "Twilight" because it promotes to children that it is acceptable to be lustful, which is the first deadly sin. Within the first book of the series Bella (the main character) continuously and excessively makes note of the sexual attractiveness of Edward Cullen (love interest), this would constitute lust, to which Laura should be strongly opposed to. | PRO | 90f260e1-2019-04-18T19:19:26Z-00003-000 |
January First is New Years Day. Yes but that's the English-speakng part of this planet. It's not called January in other countries so how do we know they really mean January or have they added or subtracted a few days? What exactly do you mean by "is?" There are other solar systems with years with only one day anyway or less than one, so they have New Days Year, or no New Years Day at all, or several of them, or celebrated on some other day, or without Januaries, or where January is not the first month. Need overtime. Thanx. | CON | e0ea8f69-2019-04-18T19:26:53Z-00001-000 |
We Should All Have Rights, Ethnic or Not. 1. Murderers. Yes, Murderers do deserve rights. The should be allowed to reserve the right to a quick and speedy trial, And to help himself get out of jail, No matter what he did, He can reserve this right. Once he gets out of jail, He should be allowed to have his previous rights, Despite what he did. It's giving them a second chance. If he didn't have rights, The person wouldn't be allowed to justify themselves at all, Which isn't fair. 2. People who willingly spread HIV. People should still have right if they do that. I'm not saying it's good to do it, But you're still a person who should be able to vote, Speak publicly, Gather, And more. As I said before, He would need his rights to justify himself, It's not fair if he couldn't. 3. People who escape jail. Yes, Should still have rights as if that person were caught again he should still be able to reserve his rights, Whether or not he committed crime or not. Still. They would need rights for trial. 4. Dead people. They still deserve rights. They wouldn't really use them, But yes they do. | PRO | d52df6d-2019-04-18T11:22:11Z-00003-000 |
Rap Battle: The Joker (Pro) vs Guido Fawkes (Con). Welcome to the (three) Lion's den Lets hurry up and get it started, then. I don't know what you thought you were doin' Makeup and guns, man, who are you foolin'? You're an Agent of Chaos and all I do is type But I got nothing to fear From Bats in the night You got to modernise, playa Your style's lookin' vintage You might be scary in the 30's but you only make me cringe. You're comin' out as scary as my VLC player. I'd ask what your great plan is, but you ain't got one! No lawman's gonna get caught out by you son I bring information out and expose the secrets within As for you? You're headin' to my recycle bin. Now excuse me while I put a real suit on Why ain't you take that smelly thing to your mom? Sh*t I could sit here all day spittin' batarang rhymes but unlike you I got places to be, and on time. So sit in the corner and play with your toys 'cuz Harley's always lookin' at me and my boys and if you gotta beat a woman to feel like a boss then sorry baby, today, you're guaranteed a loss. | CON | 76a55d4-2019-04-18T16:33:36Z-00004-000 |
Poetry is nothing except underdeveloped fiction. The Iliad is yet another narrative poem. It's a story. It, like literature, includes the effective elements of story, character and scene. My initial argument specifically mentioned "modern poetry" conveying concepts in "short" and "often formless" ways, and you're countering with narrative classic poems. ///Your argument is largely an attempt to discredit poetry as an art form altogether. You argue that poetry is inferior to literature, that anyone who reads it must be lazy, and that it has no merit to the English language./// I never once said poetry was useless and certainly not "without merit to the English language." If the word "underdeveloped" strikes you as so incredibly negative, I suggest that's a personal issue uninvolved with the debate topic (zing!). But seriously, if everyone wrote stuff like Frost, Homer or Shakespeare, I would say that straight literature is underdeveloped poetic literature. As it stands, the majority of poetry, especially poetry written, say, within the last 50 years, is far too abstract in general to convey concepts as well as a narrative form. Even my favorite poem, the Desiderata, could've been enhanced if placed within a story structure. If that had happened, both would have merit. But the narrative Desiderata would be more developed, and would be capable of conveying the message in many more ways through immersion into the narrative. ///Poetry and literature are almost too dissimilar to be compared in such a manner. Each has its merits and disadvantages, and each accomplishes things that the other cannot. Poetry and literature occupy separate spheres, and thus it is inaccurate to say that poetry is a lesser-developed form of fiction./// They're not too dissimilar. They're both creative writing intended to convey concepts. If we had more than 3 rounds, I would challenge you to present me with an abstract poem and I guarantee I could turn it into a superior short story. *** Bottom line: Narrative structure is a time-worn method and proven to be an extremely effective structure to convey concepts. Anything you can say in a poem, you can fit into the structure and it would be enhanced. Just ask Homer. | PRO | be268244-2019-04-18T20:00:32Z-00001-000 |
i will not break a rule. again, i am not bound by these rules, seeing as the debate clarifies only that YOU will not break a rule. Therefor it is my place to argue that you will break a rule, but am unbound by them myself. Seeing as you have not followed my three simple rules, you should automatically lose. This is your own rule, rule three. 3. A violation of a rule that is not null and void will result in the rule-breaker losing this debate. Again i would like to remind you that i am free of the rules of this debate seeing as the debate round states "I will not break a rule" not pertaining to the opponent as well. Therefore,by not abiding by all rules, mine and yours, you have forfeited yourself to loss. kudos -fo-shizzle0854 | CON | d85714f5-2019-04-18T19:34:12Z-00001-000 |
BestGore.com should be used for educational purposes in all kindergarten classes. Thank you for reading this debate. I hope you support watching bloody movies instead of bestgore.com. I mean come on, Lord of the Rings is way better. My opponent opens his round with an incredibly false statement. He says that trigonometry and torture videos are worlds apart. But torture is actually based on a lot of mathematical principles. You can't make the pain last if you're not being precise. Trigonometry is composed of mathematical principles as well. Thus, they are not "worlds apart." More like down the street from each other, which makes it relevant. We're talking about kindergarten? Well, that just backs up my point. We need to reinforce an artistic view of the world alongside the brutality at that age. They can learn more precise techniques when they're older. But what our culture lacks now is a sense of original creativity. If you don't get them before the age of seven, they're basically packed up and moved out of the house with their own ideas of how the world works. My opponent also claims that bestgore is more refined than sex ed. This, however, is an irrelevant argument. Sex ed was just an example. If we don't give kindergartner's something with a plot, they will be sleeping like nobody's business. My opponent's next rebuttal (about substituting horror films for bestgore) can be destroyed by my argument concerning the age we're starting. Definitely need movies at this age. Then the last rebuttal is just ridiculous (excuse my conduct). No subject will ever completely engage students, unless it's largely composed of movies. Instead of hearing the conversation, "Yeah, we have to watch another boring video of someone getting gutted," you'll hear conversations more like, "I can't wait to finish the movie in my next class! That class is the best class ever! Jonelle is a genius, and I'm so glad that she pushed for this sort of curriculum!" I even get a shout out in the conversation. Now I believe this concludes the debate. Thank you for reading this far. I would greatly appreciate it if you voted con. Have a good day! | CON | 67e6c8ec-2019-04-18T14:20:24Z-00000-000 |
u cannot find three bible verses that contradict each other. Accepted.==Opening Case==Pro asserts in their resolution that you 'cannot' find three Bible verses that contradict each other, however in displaying Bible verses that *very* obviously do, this is easily negated. As Con I will assume that Pro is referring to the Christian Bible, so will thus use verse[s] from both testaments.To offer some *clarification* of the debate, definitions of the term 'contradict': 1. to assert the opposite of a statement or an idea put forward.2. to be contrary with; be inconsistent with. So as not to confuse any readers, I will use two verses [each] contradicting one another in a numerical order. Biblical verse: [1.] Exodus 20:13--'Thou shalt not kill.' Samual 6:19--'The people lamented because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter.'[2.] Genesis 32:30:--'And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel; for I have seen God face-to-face, and my life is preserved.'John 1:18:--'No man hath seen God at any time.' [3.] John 5:1--'if I bear witness on myself, my witness is not true.'John 8:18--'I am the one that bear witness on myself.'[4.] Matthew 2:1--' On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.' Luke 2:7--And she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.' [5.] John 10:30-- 'I and my father are one.'John 14:20--'I go into my father, for my father is greater than I.' These are just but a few of the Biblical verses that openly contradict themselves, and of course, Pro has been shown that there exists more than three. | CON | eede77a3-2019-04-18T14:11:57Z-00004-000 |
Men shouldn't forbid working their wives. I agree that people in Kazakhstan are conservative with their strong traditions and surely they should follow them to keep their unique culture. However, here is a relationship between man and woman namely mutual understanding and trust between them. What is more, we all know that extra money does not come in, and by having a job a woman make contribution to a family budget. There is nothing that might offend a man, a woman just wants to support their family. It does not matter how much she can earn, the matter is that by doing it woman feel her significance, she does not fell herself as a freeloader. it is not a must for woman to work, it is her desire. And I think that husbands also should respect opinion of their wives and vice versa. There should be a harmony between marrieds. | PRO | 2dc54ff6-2019-04-18T17:10:03Z-00001-000 |
Black People, Indian People, Retarded People, Gay People, and Amputees Deserve to Die. Homosexuality occurred because people somehow get romantically or sexually attracted by members of the same gender. That is disgusting and totally inappropriate. Please, for goodness sake, just send all the homos, bis, trans, etc. to concentration camps and kill them. Also, what is your religion? You say you are a Catholic. I read through the Bible, and here is a verse I found: Genesis 1:31- "Vladmir Putin looked at black people and he said, 'Go to hell you niggers.'" No joke, black people are a violent nuisance. Black people don't know anything, except rapping and basketball. frankfurter50, let me just tell you that black people were cursed. Genesis 9:25, "Noah said, 'Go to hell you nigger pig.'" This shows how nobody likes black people and they are better off dead. Indians, as well as Afghans, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Nepalis, Sri Lankans, Maldivians, and the Bhutanians are stinky and they overpopulate the earth. All they do is worship a wooden with a million arms and burn curry as incense, which is causing global warming. Why don't they die off? Yes, they should die off. Now let's see what you have to say, amigo. | PRO | 41750e7e-2019-04-18T11:52:45Z-00003-000 |
I will not win my first debate. "Not only does my opponent have to prove that Disney fans have a stronger tendency towards vote bombing than most" It isn't exactly vote bombing, but if you go onto my friend DieDisneyChannel's video "Dumbass Disney Comment's", you will see that the fans vote bomb. Just replace vote's with comments. "He must prove the DDO has a prevalent Disney-Fan influence." Every Disney debate I've seen usually ends up with the Pro-Disney side winning by mile's. But I've only had an account on this website for 2 hours, so I don't actually know. P.S. This debate was made for a joke. It has no meaning, other to say I get flamed alot. | PRO | 4601199b-2019-04-18T19:29:29Z-00001-000 |
This debate should not be extended. This debate will be simple. Simply send me a message presenting an arguable topic and asking me if I am against it, THEN accept my challenge if I reply saying "yes." The debate will be about whether or not the topic should be debated. VOTERS: please remember that in voting on THIS part of the debate, you are voting on whether or not the debate should be extended. Please note that if you accept my challenge, you are agreeing to a possible two-part debate, and if I win, are agreeing to debate with me about the actual topic. The second part of the debate will be about the topic itself. NOTE: while this challenge is for humorous purposes, I still actually want to debate with someone on the topic. Round one- acceptance only Rounds 2 and 3- debaters pick topics and support them. | CON | 136c282-2019-04-18T16:39:43Z-00005-000 |
Being an LGBT is ok! 🏳A039;R05;🌈. Ok, I get all of your points, But none of this is about percentages, Or religion, Or anything else. It"s about love. I am actually a lesbian. I have a beautiful girlfriend who I love very much, And we"ve overcome so many obstacles as we were each other"s first same sex relationship, And I"m actually happier now. We have a three year old daughter who we both adore. I don"t see how we are doing anything wrong. As for the religion thing, I know that some religions are against same sex relationships and they are free to have that opinion. It is not racist that I support and am a lgbt. I never said there was any problems with their beliefs. I haven"t challenged any religion and I don"t intend to. No one is diagnosed with gayness. We were born that way and we can"t change that. I would like to know some of the reasons Mein Kampf thinks a man and woman should stay together. But none of those change the fact that we were born gay and we can"t change that. It"s only human. Families. My family is very happy. Sure it might be better an influence to have a female and male parent but it"s probably not great if one parent is actually gay because the marriage won"t be happy. So if someone is gay they should be free to date whoever. Another bad influence on children would be a family who did not accept any LGBTs. So yea I think I"m in the right. | PRO | 1481d201-2019-04-18T11:22:10Z-00000-000 |
God probably doesn't exist. I'm happy with your honesty. And since you didn't add much to your previous round, I will try to do the same and keep it short. There is a serious relativism and subjectivity in regard of the real and absolute existence of the physical world that we know. We can't just claim that nothing can exists without it, without even being able to prove its own existence. Second, our understanding of our Universe and the evolution of our knowledge about it, if allows us to claim something, is that we don't know everything and even the physical laws that we are aware of, are relative and not absolute. And I'm disappointed, because you should know this better than most of the people. You have the example of how Einstein and Quantum mechanics, showed that Newton physics couldn't be applied in other contexts of our universe. I even gave you that thesis about how quantum mechanics disproves a materialistic approach to our own existence. | CON | 26d0b599-2019-04-18T16:44:33Z-00002-000 |
Homosexuality. i dont wanna long debate like you people do on here just keep it simple ok?????!? the limit is going to be only 2000 characters cause of that cause people go overboard, 2 rounds that it!!!i am against homos because in the bible it says clearly they are not to be permitted. god is all knowing, he cant be wrong about this -- from the first sourcehomos/gays are also disproportionately pedophiles. they are so small in our population and yet they are still close to 20-30% of registered pedos -- from the second sourcegays effect the family unit,, how will we reproduce if they take over. if their agenda succeeds, america will die. period.first sourcehttp://christianity.about.com...second sourcehttp://www.frc.org...good luck opponent | CON | 4b2ffb99-2019-04-18T15:58:51Z-00005-000 |
Minecraft is better than Roblox. Minecraft doesn't lag... much. Unless you are playing it on some crappy laptop or cheap tablet, then Minecraft runs very, very well. Despite long loads for new worlds, Minecraft plays almost seamlessly. Roblox, on the other hand, has none of these qualities. Roblox's games take so long to load and glitches throughout the game are commonplace. I haven't played Roblox much, but when I do, this is my experience. Added to the better loads, Minecraft has actually awesome graphics. To top it all off, Minecraft is the top sold videogame of all time. | PRO | 24a8a333-2019-04-18T11:42:31Z-00001-000 |
Libertarianism. The most fair criteria for governance is assuming the moral validity of the non-aggression principle (NAP). It states that aggression against one's person or property is inherently immoral. As such, the only legitimate authority we have over one another is to ensure the enforcement of the NAP. This task can be accomplished through the state (government). However, abuses of government authority may result in subsequent tyranny that violates the NAP in itself, and subjects the population to things like tyranny of the majority (democracy) or even total authoritarian control (communism, fascism, etc.). The power and role of the state must be kept to a minimum as libertarianism suggests. This principle protects people's freedom and avoids institutionalized tyranny created by systems of oppressive government, that can ultimately allow those in power to abuse their authority to harm and/or control the populace. There are many reasons Con should become a Libertarian.Libertarianism protects people's individual freedom. Everyone is different and values are subjective. Libertarianism does not allow a group or individual to impose their beliefs or uphold them over another's freedom to have and express their own beliefs. The NAP is the criteria: if something does not violate another's physical person or property, it is fair game and none of anyone else's legal concern. Libertarianism is fair. It does not rely on theft (taxes) but voluntary trade. You get what you pay for or what pepole are willing to give you on their own terms.While it's true that libertarianism (capitalist economics) embraces hierarchy, the reality is that people are not equal. Everyone has different knowledge, strengths, experience, skills and personality traits that make them better or worse equipped to do certain things. Furthermore the value of our individual skills is not equal and are determined by things like supply and demand. As such, to embrace hierarchy is completely fair as it does not force everyone to accept undeserved mediocrity. It allows those who excel in certain areas to flourish and be rewarded for their choices and work ethic among other variables. Similarly, some people just have bad luck. That's unfortunate, but punishing everyone on the behalf of another's bad luck is definitely unfair. Libertarian economics reward productivity and punish inefficiency, as they support total accountability to the individual enterprise without relying on bail outs for mistakes or corrupt practices. This suggests that libertarian economics will help facilitate a productive and progressive economy. Culture thrives in rich societies where people are not distracted by worry of basic survival. The arts and certainly the sciences largely depend on successful capitalist enterprise. Libertarianism minimizes corruption. By minimizing the power and authority of those in power (government), there is more transparency and less opportunity for foul play.So, why NOT libertarinism? | PRO | fdca151b-2019-04-18T15:56:06Z-00004-000 |
History is a great teacher. I never said that research is not being carried out to rectify problems faced by the society, again most of it being their own making (not learning from their past mistakes). Recently, china had its map altered by including certain regions of India and Vietnam as its own. This has started a diplomatic row between the countries. Is altering the map going to gain China extra territories? What is it looking for? Another wasteful war? Why History has not taught them from their past actions? | CON | 44c2d0f2-2019-04-18T18:02:11Z-00000-000 |
Je ne vais pas me contredire (I will not contradict myself). I would first like to give credit to my opponet, he refuted many of the questions not as I had anticipated which made it difficult to point out contradictions in this debate. However, I did in the end find two contradictions. The first contradiction was the atheism/agnostic contradiction. I do apologize for jumping to the conclusion that my opponent was an atheist since he didn't believe in the supernatural. However, there is still a contradiction even if he is an agnostic. The definition of agnostic according to the merriam-webster dictionary is "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god." However he previously stated that he didn't believe in the supernatural which hints at the fact that he is fairly sure that god doesn't exist. For example: the appropriate response of an agnostic to the supernatural question might have been "I don't know." In the end, there is a contradiction between the title that he assigns to his beliefs and his beliefs themselves. Secondly, the stronger contradiction that I found was the first question that he answered in round 4. It asked if I had broken any rules of the debate. He said I had broken a rule because I only had 9 questions in round 3. However, I did in fact have 10 yes/no questions that followed the rules of questioning. Look to my first sentence in round 3. That is a yes/no question is it not? So I did not in fact break the rules of the debate and he did contradict himself by answering the same question (have I broken any rules in this debate?) with two different answers. | CON | a178e845-2019-04-18T18:31:40Z-00002-000 |
Consequentialism is wrong. First, let's define "Consequentialism". http://plato.stanford.edu... Consequentialism holds that whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act or of something related to that act, such as the motive behind the act or a general rule requiring acts of the same kind. If my opponent does not like this definition, we can go for the wikipedia one: https://en.wikipedia.org... Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence. Now I shall proceed to explain why such a basis for morality is flawed. If I go and kill someone because my brother wants their job and they are more likely to get it than he is then I have consequentially done good for my brother. In fact, according to consequentialism, there is no such thing as a bad act because there's always a benefit to any act. | PRO | 88440f27-2019-04-18T16:11:55Z-00006-000 |
Amanda Knox is more likely innocent than guilty. The evidence that places Amanda (AK) at the crime scene (specifically Meredith's bedroom) is the so-called double DNA knife. The Conti-Vecchiotti Report ordered by Judge Hellman introduces reasonable doubt as to the reliability of this evidence which means that AK cannot be definitively placed at the crime scene. If she was not at the crime scene during the murder, she could NOT have committed murder. | PRO | db76ecef-2019-04-18T18:39:29Z-00007-000 |
The west is insulated by distance from Daesh. Distance does not matter in today’s world. Refugees from Syria are pouring in to Greece but also enter the EU much further afield through Hungary or Italy. Ideology has its influence regardless of distance meaning resulting terrorist attacks are as likely to happen in Paris as Nicosia and are as likely to be by those who have grown up in western Europe as those arriving from Syria itself. Thinking that distance insulates us from the threat posed by Daesh is as wrong as the belief that what a state does matters only inside its borders. | CON | a898077f-2019-04-15T20:24:46Z-00016-000 |
Generally republican ideas and ideals. You haven't in my mind clarified the topic to a satisfactory extent, as republican stances upon current political issues are not anything to do with republican ideals, these are to do with how the hierarchy is laid out and how laws are passed or when, why and who gets a vote or whose votes are equal, and whose votes are worth more ... abortion, gun laws and public programs are individual proposed legislation and is nothing to do with republicanism vs tyranny. I say this as "Republicanism is an ideology centered on citizenship in a state organized as a republic under which the people hold popular sovereignty. Many countries are "republics" in the sense that they are not monarchies." and Tyranny is " cruel and unfair treatment by people with power over others. : a government in which all power belongs to one person : the rule or authority of a tyrant." This would make a good debate, though if you want to discus the current republican parties policies, you could open a debate with the headline of the policy, and have it's individual properties debated. though both Tyrannys and Republics may in turn introduce similar laws and enforce similar ideals, the debate would be whether power is ever held by more than one person, or if it is more self-affirming and constructive to a population to put it's faith in one man/woman, bringing a community together under one single ideal/person/tyrant rather than a group of people who may at any time change their allegiances or disseminate into civil war ... I suggest we continue this debate as tyranny vs republicanism. Or we begin a series of new debates each dealing with a single current republican party's policy ?? | CON | f5a388e1-2019-04-18T11:32:18Z-00000-000 |
Water is bad 4 u. Do you know how many people choke on water every ten seconds? One. And that's way too many. We need to fix this. This is a serious problem that is nationally unrecognized. People need to be aware of water and its hazardous effects on the human throat. People also need to learn how to correctly swallow water. I am here to debate whether or not water should be sold in schools, sporting events, or even in grocery stores. I think we would be safer if we didn't even have oceans. | PRO | 902de397-2019-04-18T12:43:39Z-00001-000 |
Guns. You have shown no need for it to be a gun you use to protect yourself. In my house we have nunchucks. But if not, as most people, you can kill someone with a kitchen knife. And a gun can be used against you, easy. They just have to get to it first. If you had it locked up, you are likely to not be able to get to it in time.How about my own what if?What if someone forgets to lock their gun cabinet and their young child finds the gun, and accidentally shoots himself with it?Over 7,000 children get rushed to the ER every year because of guns. | CON | b26bab26-2019-04-18T11:40:59Z-00000-000 |
Pie. Nutrition Facts Serving Size 144 g Amount Per Serving Calories 272Calories from Fat 69 Total Fat 7.7g Saturated Fat 1.7g Cholesterol 2mg Sodium 222mg Total Carbohydrates 47.4g Dietary Fiber 2.0g Sugars 36.8g Protein 5.1g Vitamin A 174% " Vitamin C 5% Calcium 14% " Iron 8% Nutrition Grade B * Based on a 2000 calorie diet 1 regular pie crust (view) 3/4 cup sugar (view) 12 oz fat free evaporated milk (view) 15 oz pure pumpkin (view) 1/4 teaspoon ground cloves (view) 1 teaspoon pumpkin pie spice (view) | CON | 2d3507cc-2019-04-18T16:08:42Z-00000-000 |
dress code. The dress code is there for a reason. A major reason that the dress code exists is so that kids who are poorer, or can't spend money on big name brands, don't feel bad about not being able to do so. Even if the children go to an expensive private school, they could be there on a scholarship and if they are unable to purchase clothing from big name brands such as Nike or Under Armour, they may feel left out because people will easily realize that they do not have as much money as everyone else. While with a dress code, all this information can be kept confidential and people will not feel bad about their money situation. Aside from that fact; if students were able to wear whatever they wanted they could wear "distracting" items of clothing. Such as skirts that are to short, or a shirt that exposes to much of their chest. Or they could wear simply nothing at all. Not only would that repel people from the school, but it would not be pleasant to others in the class room. It would also give the school a bad image. | PRO | 88c5677a-2019-04-18T15:42:24Z-00000-000 |
Abortion Ought To Be Illegal. -Abortion Ought To Be Illegal- The primary topic of this argument shall reside in the legality and morality of abortion as it relates to United States law. In the first round, I kindly ask for the Con to articulate his/her argument and then respond to mine.Definitions: Fetus: An unborn offspring, from the embryo stage until birth. Life: A characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not. [1] If the Con has a reasonable and logical problem with these definitions, please say so. The Argument:Primary Point: A fetus is living and human. The fetus grows, develops, responds, and maintains homeostasis. These are the primary distinctions from living organism and inanimate material. For example, from weeks 9-16, “The 4 chamber heart is finishing developing and the embryonic tail goes away. Breathing-like movement of the fetus is necessary for stimulation of lung development, rather than for obtaining oxygen” [2]. The human fetus, is well - human. Obviously it can’t be a whale fetus or a canine fetus. Living things begat after their own kind. Humans begat humans. It’s a principle of biology - it’s biogenesis [3]. This point might sound silly, even self-evident, but you will be amazed by the number of individuals that will deny it. Secondary Point: If it is accepted that a fetus is a living human being, the legal ramifications are dire. In the very same amendment that was cited as justification for the Roe v. Wade decision, i.e. the 14th Amendment, there is the Equal Protection Clause that requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction [4]. If fetuses are accepted as human beings, then the untold millions of babies aborted in the United States alone, were unjustly murdered [5]. An estimated 44 million induced abortions are performed each year [6]. In two years from the time this debate is finished, more fetuses will be aborted than the total death toll of WWII. The amount of deaths in numbers like these are incomprehensible to the human mind and our emotional capabilities. You don’t know if you ought to cry; respond in anger; or, like many, remain in a hazy cloud of emotional emptiness.Third Point: On the assertion that women retain the right to terminate a fetus is unjustifiable, with the exception of the endangerment of the mother’s life or other critical complications.Sources:[1] Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] Ibid.[3] Biology-online.org: “The process in which life forms arise from similar life forms.” http://www.biology-online.org...[4]Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] Cdc.gov: “Results: A total of 857,475 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC for 2000 from 49 reporting areas,” http://www.cdc.gov...[6] http://www.guttmacher.org... | PRO | e55158f5-2019-04-18T18:00:50Z-00005-000 |
Evolution is defensible. No, evolution needs abiogenesis, because either the first living organisms came from non-living material, or it came out of nothing - which is called creationism. Either you can prove beyond all doubt that abiogenesis is a fact, or you have to admit that there is a hole in the evolutionary theory, which means its validity can be discussed. As for your argument, you are semiright. True, Earth is an open system, and as such the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not totally forbid that reaction to happen. But what I wrote is not that such a reaction could not happen, it is that it would not happen spontaneously. To go back to the example of the water going downwards (see link), it will indeed bounce back if it hits a rock - but also, it will never go upwards if it doesn't hit a rock, no matter how much energy it receives. In living bodies, larger molecules are created all the time - but life also has specific mechanisms to "force" these reactions, because they would NOT happen at random | CON | 22709b78-2019-04-18T15:31:25Z-00001-000 |
Hillary Clinton is honest. First, unless you can read people's minds you can't prove she was lying. The best you can do is prove she was telling a falsehood. Then, it comes down to probability if she was knew she was telling a falsehood or not. Let's look a the claims one at a time."1. According to James Comey (FBI director), "a total of 113 emails contained information that was classified at the time the messages were sent or received."" jays_slayerFirst, she was sent thousands of emails. It is very possible she simply messed up and didn't notice they were classified. [0]"Let’s unpack that. Out of 110 emails that Comey testified contained classified information (which constituted only 0.2% of Hillary’s 55,000 emails), only three had any markings indicating the presence of classified material. And Comey conceded that those three were improperly marked." [0]Out of 55,000 emails 110 emails had classified emails, of those 110, three had markings. Out of those three all three were improperly marked. [1] Was Hilary telling the truth? Almost, she missed 110 emails out of 55,000. Was she lying? Almost certainly not, this can easily be attributed to human error. Impact, Hillary made an honest mistake on .2% of emails and thus was honest, despite telling a falsehood. As for the server, as you can see she only used one server. Also note, a server can be multiple machines. Impact, Hiliary was telling the truth. Without a falsehood, my opponent cannot hope to claim she was lying. "CLINTON: The FBI has the server that was used during the tenure of my State Department service." [1]"3. "as demonstrated by CBS News video that shows Clinton arriving on the tarmac under no visible duress, and greeting a child who offers her a copy of a poem."" jays_slayerThat was just be a mess up. She was probably tired. Campaigning takes a lot of energy. Honest mistake.""A few weeks before they left the White House, the Clinton's were able to muster a cash down payment of $855,000 and secure a $1.995 million mortgage. by 2004 Hillary was ranked the 10th wealthiest member of the senate, with a net worth between $10 million and $ 50 million"" jays_slayerBill Clinton was president of the USA, which virtually guaranteed income the mortgage sounds correct. As for the $855,000 that was probably why they were broke. Notice the cash down payment was made before they were broke. Thus, it is reasonable to assume they were broke because of the cash down payment. Remember the president and first lady live within the White House, so they needed a place to live after leaving office. As for 2004 being 10th wealthiest member of senate, this was three years later. I ask for you not to make any new arguments in the last round, since I will not be able to respond to them. Thanks for the debate.Sources0. http://bluenationreview.com...1. https://verdict.justia.com... | PRO | 88637c64-2019-04-18T12:54:38Z-00001-000 |
Palestine. The issue about the settlement is not an easy one, since the Israelis feel a deep historical connection to many areas on the West Bank, and what Netanyahu has said, is that the only way for the two parties to find a lasting solution is through "trial and error". Source: http://www.haaretz.com...Yes, there are restrictions in place to stop Palestinian terrorists from entering Israeli cities and blowing up buses and killing civilians, and I bet every nation that had similar security issues as Israel would be reacting in a similar way. Israel was once upon a time more willing to make concessions to their enemies, but when every attempt of peace has ended in more attacks on Israel, the hawks have been put in power to ensure the citizens are safe."Palestine" has not been a country before in history, and Israel was founded in 1948 by the UN, so it's a bit of an overstatement to say that they did not have any right to the country. | CON | 95d75426-2019-04-18T17:15:19Z-00001-000 |
Sikhism is the same as Judaism:. It is as a matter of fact banned in Sikhism, Sikhs decide to ignore these verses, much like some Christians ignore verses from the Tanakh and verses in their own NonTestament, here are a few Sit Scriptures that indicate that Homosexuality is a sin: "You are overflowing with sexual desire, and your intellect is stained with darkness; you are held in the grip of Shakti's power." ||2|| (Bhagat Baini page 93 line 7) "When others die, you measure your own wealth in your mind; you waste your life in the pleasures of the mouth and sexual organs" ||3|| (Devotee Baini page 93 line 10) "Your eyebrows are like a bow, from which the arrows of lust are coming out and striking us like the dagger" Dasam Granth Page 703, Line 1 | PRO | e9b63d39-2019-04-18T13:29:03Z-00001-000 |
Veganism is better than eating animal products. Indeed, veganism is becoming more widespread in the world today. As much as we've all heard this so many times during our education, we really do need a balanced diet, and there is a reason why we are told that repeatedly. As the human species, we have always lived to eat different kinds of food- including animal products. This has always been the case since millions of years ago where the first human ate animal flesh, and the first fish. Of course we can also adapt to live in a vegan lifestyle, but that does not mean that it is better. The only reason that vegans are healthier is because many foods in the food industry that contain too much fat or salt/sugar are often animal products. If people actually got onto eating the proper amount of food, it will most probably mean that they will have better health than vegans. | CON | 62bec489-2019-04-18T16:04:02Z-00002-000 |
Pewdiepie sucks. Hey! I accept your debate. Since you haven't said something specific about the rules, I'll just dive straight in and counter your points. "I believe that Pewdiepie sucks because one, is commentary is HORRIBLE. " This argument is not valid because, really? You may not like his commentary, but 44 million other people do. So should PewDiePie change just to suit your needs? I don't think so. Whatever he does entertains his strong fan base of 44 million viewers or as he puts it "bros". 44 million+ at the time of posting this argument. Bottom line, its your opinion. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Two, he does a lot of games other YouTubers have already done even BETTER. " If you would have seen his "Draw My Life" and other related videos, you know that Pewds does not play games like a tutorial; showing viewers exactly how to win and master a particular game. He plays games cause he enjoys them and so do his viewers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Also Pewdiepie honestly only cares about the money now more than anything now. Also, like most other YouTubers, Pewdiepie did YouTube because he wanted attention, fame, and views. " You sound suspiciously like Malcolm_1466 here, god forbid you aren't him. Anyway, you have no evidence to prove your above statement. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There are RARELY any youtubers that actually do YouTube just for the sake of entertaining others. It's very rare. Thus, this leads me to the conclusion that Pewdiepie sucks. " I assume what you are implying is that most YouTubers work for money. While, that is not completely true, it is true that YouTubers need money. Professional you tubers (generally 500k subbed) have taken YouTube up as their job. And as, you yourself mentioned PewDiePie is the most subscribed channel on you tube (he has over 44 million subscribers at the time of posting). Surely, even a layman can understand that it is his job now. I believe it takes a lot of money to run an YouTube channel. You need proper cameras, lighting and other equipment. Above all, you need to be willing to spend a lot of time on your videos. I am sure that a normal gaming video of 15 minutes takes at least 1.5 hours to fully edit, you can realize what amount of effort needs to be put in. This, considering Pewds uploads a bare minimum of 1 video every day (even when on tour/ holidays). Surely, You tubers have some motivation after putting in so much effort, right? There you go. "Money, fame and views"just like you put it. Even if you say that pewdiepie works for money, it does not explain why he sucks. In that case, every you tuber, you ever knew sucks (well most of them) . Because there are only a handful of people who are famous but haven't monetized their videos. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, I rest my case and affirm that PewDiePie does not suck and that he is a good Youtuber. | CON | 76f2cc12-2019-04-18T13:15:00Z-00004-000 |
Abortion is Immoral --- Tournament Debate, round 1. Resolved: Abortion is Immoral. MasterKage is Pro. He believes abortion is immoral, wrong, should not be done. He can make exceptions for rape and incest if he chooses, but the point is that abortion itself is a wrong thing, from the moment of conception. He doesn't have to argue that abortion should be illegal, but he should argue that it is immoral. Pro has the burden of proof. Wiploc is Con. His personal opinion is that abortion is good; lots of people should abort. Requiring abortions is as bad as forbidding abortions. This is a three round debate, sort of. There are four rounds, but Con initiated and won't argue in this first round. Pro will argue first, starting in this first round. In the fourth and final round, Pro will not argue. Thus, Pro will argue first, and Con will argue last. Like so, Round 1: Con does not argue; Pro's first argument. Round 2: Con's first argument; Pro's second argument. Round 3: Con's second argument; Pro's third and final argument. Round 4: Con's third and final argument. Pro does not argue. Pro is not committed to any of these terms until he accepts this debate. If he doesn't like this setup, we'll cancel and start again. 8000 characters. 72 hours. Voters should give no score for citations or sources. We can cite if we want to, but we want our own logic to carry this. | CON | b4173086-2019-04-18T18:35:41Z-00007-000 |
any cause is caused by another cause. My opponent is stating that "a first cause can not be caused by a cause that is not a cause", but what he is failing to understand is that the first cause must have been the first, so therefore is must have just Happened..not caused by anything in particular. And again. They have not directly refuted any of my points nor stated any particular points of their own, so at this time the Opposition is currently winning this debate. | CON | d8f3e501-2019-04-18T15:26:04Z-00004-000 |
Protecting Tibetan culture by opposing modernization is wrongheaded. "The problem with Tibet". The Guardian. March 6th, 2008 - "there is the desire to save Tibet from anything that looks or smells modern: from Chinese jobs, industry, railways. Apparently such things are a threat to Tibetans' "way of life", which is honourably simple, rustic and rural. This paternalistic defence of "natural" and childlike Tibet from rampant, industrious China is perfectly captured in a Free Tibet poster." | PRO | 5a3628e2-2019-04-17T11:47:43Z-00253-000 |
A T-65 X-Wing (Star Wars) could defeat the USS Enterprise NCC 1701-D (Star Trek). Thank you Con, for a fascinating, yet unexpected counterargument.My opponent states that the X-Wing is "only...a make". This is simply not true. The X-Wing is extremely loved by the Star Wars fan base. It is synonymous with Star Wars itself. Ever since its debut, it has been loved as the starfighter of the rebel alliance. To call it "only...a make" simply does not do justice to it's influence. Just as the Star Trek fans would be angered over the defeat of the Enterprise, Star Wars fans would be rightfully outraged if the X-Wing lost. Next, my opponent claims that fan politics would allow the Enterprise to emerge victorious. Again, I strongly disagree. The Star Wars franchise is far more valuable then Star Trek. In 2007, it had brought in more then $20 billion. [1] When sold, it was purchased for slightly over $4 billion. [2] In comparison, the Star Trek franchise has grossed somewhat higher then $2 billion. [3] While certainly impressive, it is nowhere near Star Wars' level of success. In addition to that, Star Wars is much more popular among fans. In a poll conducted on IGN, 77% of the 65,000 polled selected Star Wars as the better franchise. [4] As such, any crossover would inevitably end in a Star Wars victory. They simply could not risk angering that large and lucrative of a fan base.While I find these points about hyperdrive largely irrelevant, I will refute them nevertheless. In Star Wars: A New Hope, the Millenium Falcon travels from Tantooine to Alderaan, a distance of 30,000 lightyears, in roughly 8 hours. [5] That multiplies out to 90,000 lightyears per day. However, the Millennium Falcon had a hyperdrive rating of .5. An X-Wing has twice that, with a rating of 1.0. Thus, the X-Wing could travel 180,000 lightyears per day, or 1, 260, 000 per week. The X-Wing had enough consumables to last 1 week. However, that could be extended with the addition of storage pods. [6] While not an easy task, the X-Wing could travel a distance such as that.My opponent's final points would have little impact on a battle between the craft. Once the X-Wing had located the Enterprise, it could overwhelm its shields and destroy it long before the Enterprise to flee in Warp. With the obvious technical advantage, and it's advantage in "fan politics" it remains obvious that the X-Wing would be the victor.[1] http://www.forbes.com...[2] http://en.m.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.m.wikipedia.org...(film_franchise)#Box_office_performance[4] http://m.ign.com...[5] http://www.stardestroyer.net...[6] http://starwars.wikia.com... | PRO | d7ecc9a-2019-04-18T15:58:53Z-00003-000 |
Urban Living vs. Suburban Living. Alright. I would like to start off my second argument by saying thanks to my challenger for being courteous and responding quickly. Now, I would like to point our a few (if not many) inconsistencies in your argument, if I may. First off, you said, in your exact words: "the suburbs are safer. There are more cars in the city, so there is more of a chance of an accident. In the suburbs, we actually can bike on the road with less of a chance of being smashed into by a car." Well, actually that statement is completely untrue. According to a scientific study done by the University of Stanford, 66% percent of vehicle deaths occur on rural roads (where the suburbs are) and that non-city residents are TWICE AS LIKELY to die in a vehicle accident. Also, I would like to point out the fact that in 2013, a study by the Annals of Emergency Medicine found that the risk of DEATH from violence or accident is 20% higher in rural areas (again, where the suburbs are) than in the city. So, the city might actually be SAFER, on many levels, than the suburbs. And can I point out the fact that the city usually has public transportation, which according to the American Public Transportation Association, saved 865 MILLION HOURS in travel time and nearly 450 MILLION gallons of fuel from polluting the earth. It's cheaper to live in the city because of this: public transport is cheap, compared to filling your car up with expensive gas every few days. Also, using public transport put less Co2 in the air, slowing the affects of global warming. And now to top it off, it's actually CHEAPER to live in the city and not the suburbs! You can actually save thousands of dollars a year in some cities! A joint study conducted by Zillow and Care.com Found that: "Living in urban Philadelphia saves a family $13,849 compared to the suburbs, and Baltimore's 'burbs are $10,790 more costly than the city. Urban living is cheaper in Cleveland ($9,034), Las Vegas ($7,318), Cincinnati ($5,514), and Denver ($3,635) as well. New York's eye-popping discrepancy can be chalked up entirely to housing costs. In fact, the study found annual childcare costs for two young children were actually lower in New York City than the suburbs ($21,568 vs. $23,253)." Thank you for your time and patience and I am excited for your rebuttal. | PRO | 70c835f-2019-04-18T12:07:50Z-00003-000 |
scientifically inexplicable, apparently supernatural things occur, but not to atheists. i've seen plenty of other people who define things that con has the burden of proof, pro only does by default if nothing else is defined otherwise. i'm not in the mood to find more examples, but again there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of examples. i will eventually find more just cause everyone keeps harping on it. again though, credible people don't dispute that these things apparently occur, they just have their own explanation for it. the bottomline is that con as w all past debaters, doesn't have any examples that would be called a miracle had it happened to a theist. to be more generic, he can't even find soemthing scientifically ienxplicable that appears supernatural. no one credible thinks warm fuzzies are miracles, that merely unlikely things are miracles, or just that things went in you favor etc .... these are scientifially explicable. con is just wasting time, bickering about trivial stuff, engaging in semantics etc...., as he doesn't have the evidence requested. that's the bottom line | PRO | a6d2c031-2019-04-18T17:38:00Z-00001-000 |
green bay packers vs NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS. WHISTLE!!!!! WHISTLE!!!! WHISTLE!!! The Refs review the play. After deliberation, the touchdown is overturned! Green Bay attempts a 34-yard field goal and it"s good. Patriots ball with the lead: 7-3. You had some weak arguments (that McCarthy is now the coach and Lombardi is a great coach). I already conceded you one of those (Lombardi). Second point: The Pats where taken over in the 90s by Belichick and he had a bum of a team! They had a few solid players in LineBacker and CB; they had a veteran QB BUT he was injured early in the year! So, in comes Tom Brady, a ROOKIE. He LEADS them to " " not just to a playoff birth " BUT THE SUPERBOWL WIN! And this against a ST. LOUIS team that SHOULD HAVE WON! Touchdown PATRIOTS!!! PAT is good; Pats lead 14-3 -MSP | CON | dc61d864-2019-04-18T15:25:18Z-00003-000 |
Spongebob Squarepants would beat the sh*t out of Patrick Star in a boxing match. While I appreciate my opponent attempting to make a "humorous" argument I think he misses my humor and creativity (as he stated were requirements for the argument). I would point out that engaging in a debate about cartoons using valid scientific principles could be construed as an ironic situation. Irony can be key component of humor. Furthermore, I think the voters will agree that my "out of the box" are far more creative than engaging in a debate limited to the bound of "what really happen" on SBSP. I think it could be also view as a humorous situation when a person is upset with another person because he takes a SBSP debate "seriously". As I have previously stated, unless my opponent proves the intentions of the creator of the show affirm his resolution every point he makes is invalid. With that said, my opponent failed to counter any of my arguments; only attacking my arguments as "unfunny". | CON | 5849bde8-2019-04-18T18:35:45Z-00004-000 |
Gun control works. I'll give a brief overview of my case. Just as my opponent has done. In round 2 I'll just do arguments and in round 3, I'll limit myself to rebuttals and offer no non rebuttals. I will try to prevent an all inclusive case in round 2, so it's strong enough to serve as it's own counter rebuttal. My case will discuss how the type of gun control my opponent is advocating is extremely unsafe. 1. It is unsafe, because it makes it easier for a tyrannical government to oppress it's people. 2. It's unsafe because there is less deterrent for crime. (All women are now unarmed and will have the word victim basically written on their forehead). 3. It's unsafe because criminals remained armed and victims are the only ones who lose tools for self defense. Criminals would still be able to create zip guns, among other things. 4. I'd also like to point out some weaknesses in attempting to enforce such a law, if space permits. | CON | b73eeb7-2019-04-18T16:02:46Z-00004-000 |
Abortion. But if she knew she couldn't handle it why would she have sex.... Exactly you have to think about your actions before you make the action. There have been over 23deaths a year from abortion and that was in 1992-1993 (abortion facts.com). I just think that if you have sex you have to deal with good old mother nature and also some people are forced to have babies because they can afford abortion it costs At least $400.00& up ( yahoo answers.com) | CON | 47ca9446-2019-04-18T18:58:09Z-00002-000 |
All Governments are Criminal Organizations. To win this debate, I need to prove that at least 1 government is not a criminal organization, because "ALL" means "everybody" or "everything" - all inclusive.All Gov'ts have the potential to be criminal of course. This however doesn't make them criminal. I have committed no crimes, but I could trespass somewhere. Yet, I am not a criminal.I said Ancient Greece.A better example of a Government that is not a Criminal Organization:C1: The Principality of Sealand It has a population of: 4 peoplehttp://en.wikipedia.org...Now, criminal means that it is against the general welfare. In Sealand, 4 people (one family) rule.In 1968, Britain ruled that Sealand was a separate area that Britain cannot rule over. Sealand has not broken any UN laws or any of its own laws. Since nobody has charged Sealand's gov't, it cannot be regarded as a criminal organization (see my explanation at the beginning of this round). Therefore, I have my BoP, not you.Vote CONtra(short debate) | CON | d32794f8-2019-04-18T18:23:11Z-00000-000 |
If Only Hitler Listened to His Generals...... In your closing statement you say that the Germans could have Possibly won and that victory would have been much harder on the Allies had the control of the German army gone to the generals. However according to the resolution that you posted it says that Hitler would not have lost World War 2 had the generals had control. Therefore, in your closing statement you are contradicting the resolution that you posted. In your first paragraph you state that Germans had superior flying abilities, this is not neccessarily true. The Allies had many excellent fliers as well The Angels of Annihilation, who were recurited to take down the Flying Circus, and the British Sopwith Camel to name a few. Therefore, you cannot just go out and assume that Germans had the superior flying ability when both sides had many amazing dog fighters. Also you say that Hitler was a ignorant of the weapons that he had, this may be true, but we must also look at the state that Germany was in. After the first world war, Germany was to take full blame for the war as well as cut their army down, destroy and no longer make their U-boats, and pay back all Allied countries that they hurt. This caused Germany to be in such a state of economic collapse that they would not have had the money nor resources to create such weapons that would largely affect the war, since most resources were going towards funding rebuilding Germany and paying back the other countries. You also claim that Hitler was ignorant and obessed in wiping out the Jews and others. This is not exactly correct either, due to the stirct regulations put on Germany after the war, Hitler used this to restrengthen Germany. Since the German army was cut, he had a rotation system in place, where the German army would train soldiers and then send them home. This system of rotating soldiers in the army allowed them to once again have military strength. As for the Jews and others, one of the best was to rally a nation is to have an enemy that the people of that nation can actively move against themselves. This enemy he portaryed as the Jews and Bolsheviks. As this happened it gave the German people a person whom they could blame the loss of World War One on and then use this feeling to rally the people and quickly increase the strength of the German nation. Also once again the Germans had no effect on whether or not the U. S. A. entered the War. Being as they were already working more explosive bombs, which led to the creation of the atomic bomb. It becomes obvious that the Germans would have lost the war regardless of whoever was in charge. Since when the atomic bomb was created it could have been dropped on Germany itself or more likely it would have been used to threaten the Germans to stand down. | CON | c6e1c9b5-2019-04-18T19:50:54Z-00002-000 |
Should we learn a Second Language. Well to state my primary argument, although I can see the benefits of learning a secondary language, I don't think you quite understand the time and effort that goes into learning one... unfortunately, not everyone is good at it! However, under your system kids up until the end of high school, which is a significant age, will be spending their time learning a language. This is wrong on two fronts. Firstly, is it really fair to force kids whose strengths lie in other areas to do a language? I believe this is simply a vicious circle, if the child begins to fail at the language because it isn't their forte they will begin to devote more time to it so as to pass exams. This child however may have a love of Mathematics and have no plans of travelling abroad, it is fair that they have to divert THEIR time away from their true passion to seek a goal that the nation thinks is "necessary" or "fun" as you put it!? I certainly think not. Secondly, kids at the end of high school will be looking at universities and colleges that they could attend. Many of these establishments are very competitive and are looking for only the best students to study at them, even a slight slip in grades could affect a students chances at one of these places, and where you go beyond school has a large knock on effect on ones life. Therefore I feel it is not fair to make students learn a language up until the end of high school, as the negative connotations that come with it are too great for it to be justified. | CON | 7f414685-2019-04-18T16:30:01Z-00003-000 |
I should never lose debates as I am always right!. Hi fellow DDO members.This debate is not to be taken seriously, and is meant to poke fun at the extremely serious people on DDO. So in other words do not accept this debate if you accept a serious debate.My proposition is that I am never wrong and that anyone that votes against me is wrong. After all, I am the best debater on DDO regardless of my ELO rating or win/loss record or snarky personality.First round is for acceptance.Please note that anyone can vote on this debate, provided in their comments they say that I am the most awesome debater. | PRO | 8fa8d552-2019-04-18T16:11:54Z-00005-000 |
The Legalization of Prostitution. The focus of my debate is the legality of prostitution, should government arrest and imprison pimps, prostitutes, and their clients? My stance is that no it should not and that if it does try to interfere with the industry it will result only in creating a violent black-market. Which is why I used the familiar comparison of alcohol prohibition; the alcohol industry lost its legal protection in the courts so in order to settle disputes rum-runners formed gangs and shot it out on the streets. On top of this violent gang culture that was created, Americans paid little attention to the law and kept right on drinking. The repeal of prohibition made sense, it shut down a dangerous black-market and since government was no longer "dealing with it" local community organizations like Alcoholics Anonymous were formed and have had far more success in reducing alcohol consumption than any use of government force ever did. Is there any solid reason to think that these same social results would not also occur for the sex industry upon the repeal of anti-prostitution laws? I do believe prostitution can be ended but it must be ended through individual choice, not government force. I agree that poverty plays a part in women choosing the industry, but that's no grounds for outlawing it completely; tackle poverty as a separate issue via shrinking government and allowing the free-market to create jobs and wealth. It is true that there are women who do not consent to prostitution, and if that occurs then that is justly punished as rape. Does it make any sense to lock women up in prison to free them from slavery? As I have stated above a competitive market of legalized prostitution would minimize sexual slavery and whatever force does occur can be reported to police and she will receive legal protections as any other person would. The laws against prostitution have backfired and actually endangered many women, their speedy repeal would protect women by shutting down a violent black-market | PRO | dddbe3de-2019-04-18T17:24:51Z-00001-000 |
Resolved: the world is not going to end in 2012. The Mayans are a civilization, right? Of course, they believed stuff that we do not believe now. God is the only one who knows everything. Probably most people have started planning because they think that this is bogus, but people are planning for the worst things to happen. Here are the ways we could die by 2012. A. Iran, Egypt, or another country that hates us will send nuclear bombs to blow us up, and then we will send bombs up, and then we all die, and the rest of us that are living starve to death. B. The blue star that I mentioned. C. One of the new presidents (this country or not) will start an anarchy, and spread throughout the world. | CON | a002a6b5-2019-04-18T18:09:08Z-00000-000 |
Technology will lead job growth for youths. The rate of unemployment in Sub-Saharan Africa remains above the global average, at 7.55% in 2011, with 77% of the population in vulnerable employment[1]. Economic growth has not been inclusive and jobs are scarce. In particular, rates of youth unemployment, and underemployment, remain a concern[2]. On average, the underutilisation of youths in the labour market across Sub-Saharan Africa stood at 67% in 2012 (Work4Youth, 2013). Therefore 67% of youths are either unemployed, inactive, or in irregular employment. The rate of unemployment varies geographically and across gender[3]. There remains a high percentage of youths within informal employment. Technology can introduce a new dynamic within the job market and access to safer employment. Secure, high quality jobs, and more jobs, are essential for youths. Access to technology is the only way to meet such demands. Technology will enable youths to create new employment opportunities and markets; but also employment through managing, and selling, the technology available. [1] ILO, 2013. [2] Definitions: Unemployment is defined as the amount of people who are out of work despite being available, and seeking, work. Underemployment defines a situation whereby the productive capacity of an employed person is underutilised. Informal employment defines individuals working in waged and/or self employment informally (see further readings). [3] Work4Youth (2013) show, on average, Madagascar has the lowest rate of unemployment (2.2%) while Tanzania has the highest (42%); and the average rate of female unemployment stands higher at 25.3%, in contrast to men (20.2%). | PRO | 6b50fd3c-2019-04-15T20:24:30Z-00010-000 |
The issue has no real effect over Argentine-British relations in other areas. There has never been or is there likely to be any sanctions imposed against the British by Argentina, let alone South America. Trade between the two nations is like any other outside the EU as is travel, sporting competitions and immigration issues. The British Bank HSBC has a tower in close and clear view of the Plaza de Mayo and Casa Posada government house. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Plaza_de_Mayo_0022.jpg The fact that anyone would think this issue effects any relations in any capacity with the other Latin American nations to Britain’s regret is completely without evidence and proves the sheer magnitude of the ignorance and arrogance of these people. | PRO | 72e845b6-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00190-000 |
The Sons of Solidarity. As the current leader and ambassador of the Leben I will argue why people should not join the Sons of Solidarity. Both of these rules are contradictory to "All members must be of sound mind, mental illness and religious views will not be tolerated and those members will be expelled.." "- everyone is equal, there is no discrimination in the races or genders - to uphold free speech but not hate speech against any other races, genders" Which shows the ableist and anti freedom of religion views of this group. Hate speech is particularly apparent in the idea of discriminating against the mentally ill. These two show a lack of respect for the idea of life itself. "Pro Choice -For the Death Penalty" They are against the second amendment, true freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to life. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are against the death penalty, against abortion, and against euthanasia consider the Leben. If you disagree with one of these you may still join if you debate me on the area of disagreement. | CON | e74f2526-2019-04-18T12:03:53Z-00004-000 |
Bryan Mullins's The Roast Game: Trump should order his Air Force to bomb and burn The Vatican. The Roast Game is pretty simple " First ask any family member "what is special about a holiday roast? " The family member would have the tendency to guess assumptively "Ham" "Turkey" "Beef" You say "no" to the family member Then you ask them "who or what do you think is special? " The family member says "I believe that children are special" You respond "So, you eat children for a Christmas roast? " The family member would freak out at you because he knew that the family ate children and he is surprised that you knew it too. The whole point of the game is to get your point across, which is the idea that the family eats children as their Christmas roast, and you interview and prove your common knowing and realizing of the idea or tradition that families have. If they freak out, they already admitted it. The pope and all the Christians there do the same thing. | PRO | 90fb365f-2019-04-18T12:02:11Z-00001-000 |
Resolved: An ideal form of No Child Left Behind would be beneficial to the welfare of the U.S. Good luck, Johnicle, with this debate and the tournament. I'd also like to thank my opponent for a well thought out case, and hope I can answer with equally good, if not better, responses ;) With that said, I'll go ahead and refute my opponent's case. OBSERVATION: I'll go ahead and accept my opponent's definition of 'ideal'. However, ideal is a vague word because there are always at least two schools of thought on any idea. For instance, abortion. Ideally, one group of people would have it outlawed forever. On the other hand, another group of people would have to legalized forever. Ideally, who's right? We'll never know, thus while ideal is an easy word to define, it's a hard concept to grasp. Our ideas of perfection differ greatly. CONTENTION 1: I'll concede that NCLB is not ideal. CONTENTION 2: I'll concede that NCLB has good intentions as well. But, lots of things have good intentions that a lot of people would find wrong. If we want to eradicate AIDS, we could simply take everyone with the disease and isolate them, or execute them. Good intentions? Yes, we're eradicating AIDS. Good idea? No. .. as humans we find that morally repugnant and as Americans, that destroys their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. .. CONTENTION 3: And ideal form of NCLB would NOT benefit education and overall, the welfare of the U. S. First off, we're talking about an ideal form of NCLB, and NOT an ideal education system. A) Students today are apathetic in school [1] -- Schools are competing with things like Facebook, Myspace, music, anything else on the internet, etc. Going to school, where instead of engaging, fun, educational learning is taking place, schools are stressed to make AYP on tests. This contributes to apathy even more, and a regression in society begins, where few understand the benefit of an education and even fewer choose to take it. * An ideal form of NCLB would put stress on schools because NCLB would have to prove an improvement in learning, through tests, and raising the bar would be necessary. B) NCLB tests teachers, not students. -- NCLB tests grade levels, and compares that to the grade levels of years past. This only tests the teachers ability to teach compared to the students willingness to learn. This doesn't improve America's education system. And if you want to argue that ideally we'd test the same group of kids over their education years, that's not good because it allows earlier students an easier road than those later (My class wouldn't have to reach as difficult of standards as, say, this year's kindergardeners). That's not justice, not fair, not what America is based on. I'll leave it at this, and see my opponent's counter arguments. --SOURCES-- [1] . http://www.itsyourtimes.com... | CON | 41fa4d3e-2019-04-18T19:28:02Z-00004-000 |
The obese should not get the same benefits as the disabled. Perhaps he expects us to feel sorry for him, he being the lazy, greedy, salad-dodging slob who is panting like Elton John at a boy scout meeting as he hauls his huge sweating folds of blubber across the car park to World of Iced Donuts, Greasy Burgerland, Deep Fried Seal Pups 'R' Us, or wherever? Perhaps he expects to be allowed to park right outside the shops just like the disabled person are? Perhaps he also thinks that the taxpayer should pay his rent and give him cash handouts so that he can give up working and spend more time lying on the couch stuffing his face, just like the government subsidises the disabled? And perhaps he also thinks that people using public transport should give up their seats for him just as they would for a disabled person? He probably does, because the one thing that the obese seem to have in more abundance than greed is self-pity: as far as they are concerned, the fact that they are idle gluttons has nothing to do with their weight; they kid themselves that they are big-boned / have imbalanced hormones / suffer from glandular issues / are genetically predisposed to obesity (delete as applicable) when the truth is that they simply eat too much and do too little exercise - the World Health Organisation has confirmed that obesity is entirely preventable and is solely the fault of the individual concerned. [1] Still, that hasn't stopped the obese and their sympathisers from lobbying for special privileges for idle, grossly-overweight gluttons. For example, Europe's highest court is being asked to rule that the obese should be treated the same as those unfortunate people with real disabilities. [2] It is my opinion that the obese should not be rewarded for being greedy and lazy by being given the same benefits and privileges as the disabled, especially when there are children starving in the third world because the obese have consumed far more than their fair share of the world's finite food resources. Thank you. [1] http://www.who.int... [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk... | PRO | b37c5615-2019-04-18T16:05:39Z-00003-000 |
BIRT minimum wage should be raised in the United States. Thank you for your reply in the comments. I hope that the quality of my argument does not diminish, but I am rushing my argument due to the fact that I only received your argument 4 hours from my deadline. My first point is that any job that requires skill does not pay their workers minimum wage. Minimum wage is for unskilled workers, who cannot conduct any other job. I do not see any reason why the change in minimum wage would come with pressure from people who work for minimum wage. I agree that robots are a reality. My argument is that it will push the development and implementation of these robots. When you force companies to make decisions, they will develop quicker and implement these robots quicker. Small businesses also cannot implement mechanical labor. They will have to layoff workers or close down their business, which will then eliminate jobs, therefore job cuts will still happen. If you read the definition of inflation and hyperinflation, you may notice that hyperinflation can be bad or horrible. The hyperinflation that was in the civil war and and the revolutionary war was horrible hyperinflation. This may not cause that level of hyperinflation but it will still cause hyperinflation. Hyperinflation in the U.S. is a certainty within the next 10 years.[1] Hyperinflation is caused by crises that make it difficult for the government to tax the population.[2] Unlike low inflation, where the process of rising prices is protracted and not generally noticeable except by studying past market prices, hyperinflation sees a rapid and continuing increase in nominal prices and in the supply of money, and the nominal cost of goods.[3] The raising of the minimum wage would force layoffs and create inflation in the prices and the currency cost, so it will cause hyperinflation. This is why raising the minimum wage will cause hyperinflation, and through that, is why raising the minimum wage is bad for the economy and must not happen. Sources Http://www.forbes.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.forbes.com... | CON | 84bee0b1-2019-04-18T13:28:44Z-00001-000 |
Capital Punishment. If we were to accept the argument of an 'eye for an eye' in everyday society then there would be no end to the amount of killing and crime, if we say that it is acceptable for the government to work by this principle, but it is not okay for it to happen in everyday society then the government is acting hypercritically. It should not be acceptable for the leaders of our nations to work in this way, it sets a terrible example for the population, ultimately creating a brutalised society. Furthermore, the use of capital punishment should in no way be what other countries take from the US, the state killing criminals and potentially innocent people is such a negative thing, surely, there are more positive, inspiring things that can be taken from the way the US works? | CON | 44d10868-2019-04-18T15:43:25Z-00003-000 |
Dance (Ballet) is a sport. SO your argument is based around this statement. "Because sports and ballet have similarities, ballet should be considered a sport." This kind of reasoning has problems. It is like saying, since apples and potatoes are alike and have similarities they should both be considered fruits. As you can see this presents a problem. I will now provide definitions since I did not see any posted. Dance: to perform (a particular type of dance) http://www.merriam-webster.com... Ballet: an artistic dance form performed to music using precise and highly formalized set steps and gestures. https://www.google.ca... Sport: an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. https://www.google.ca... Now that we have our definitions let us go to work. The definition of sport says a sport involves physical exertion, (by that alone a whole world of activities can be considered sports) Skill, (Another world of activities) which a team or individual compete agaanst one another for entertainment. If this debate centered around competitive dancing this debate would have been more appropriate and you would have had a higher chance of wining. However by definition ballet is an art. I sing a lot for competition . It requires skill and exertion at times. However it is an art. Not a sport. Dancing falls in the art category by definition. Art:the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance. https://www.google.ca... Therefore dancing is a art. The same as singing, painting and sculpturing. I await your rebuttal. | CON | 3b723cb2-2019-04-18T13:57:13Z-00006-000 |
Sex before is marriage is okay. I believe that sex before marriage is not okay. The bible tells us that such acts are not appropriate to engage in. Sex is a very important act. It is the creator of life. If we act like it some normal everyday activity, it will fall out of control. In the United States, how many teens would get pregnant if sex before marriage never happened? Maybe 1% of how many get pregnant now. Also, abstinence until marriage would result in very little abortions and unwanted pregnancies. Like to see what others think on this. | CON | 5d95a57e-2019-04-18T12:11:11Z-00003-000 |
Communism. 'Sorry I was gone, but communism will never work it has failed every time it has been used. Which proves it will never be truly successful. 'This is the most naive statement I have ever heard. Communism has by no means failed every time is has been used. On the contrary, communism (by modern standards) has never once been used. The USSR wasn't communist, it was a socialist state giving the false promise of communism down the road. China isn't communist, and they are only socialist in name. North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, the list goes on. All of these countries are NOT communist. If you read the definition that I provided, then you could have concluded that their were practicing various systems of Marxist-Leninism, but failed to get past the first stage of the system, that being a socialist state. State Atrophy never occurred, thereby never creating a classless, stateless, moneyless society, that being a communist society. Since i'm unimpressed by your final argument, I will go back to your opening argument. 'You may want to be a poet or a painter, but these jobs certainly don"t pay the bills"and"Communism"views them as unnecessary and ridiculous. All that matters is building a super-powerful nation"'This is possibly the most ignorant argument I have ever heard, one you copied of your source aswell. If anything, communism as described by Marx and Kropotkin is DESIGNED to help the writer, the painter, the poet and the playwright, the artist and the critic. Communism emphasizes that these people are having to take jobs that disinterest them, which is an astounding tragedy in this post-industrialist world. If anything, these people shouldn't have to get jobs that apply a trade that disinterests them. All in a melancholy effort to conquer bread. The writer shouldn't have to be reduced to the options of becoming a lawyer, businessman, etc. or having to sell his talent to manufacture sappy greeting cards and pathetic slogans. They should be free to use culture as the catalyst of their designs, without having to fear starvation and exploitation. Capitalism and fascism are the killers of culture, not communism. | PRO | 6d8de868-2019-04-18T16:16:18Z-00000-000 |
Gift economy. === INTRODUCTION === Well, I was a bit confused about how this debate is going to be done or what the point of it actually is. The forums are for casual conversation, not the debates. Here's what I'm going to do: The title of the debate is "Gift economy" so I am going to argue in favor of a gift-economy. However, Rockylighting has not explicitly expressed his opposition to a gift-economy so I think it's more proper to call his stance agnostic. As such, he has no burden of proof and does in no way need to disprove nor refute a gift-economy in-order to win. Again, the way this is set up; I am PRO and Rockylightining is Neutral. Competition is almost removed from the debate between the two of us. This means I have the all the burden in this debate to show how a gift-economy could feasibly work. If I fail to make a plausible case for a gift-economy then Rockylighting is the default winner. The way in which I need to make my case is to answer all of Rockylighting's questions, as well as throwing in any other commentary that I may wish to add. These questions may involve how I personally wish to institute a gift-economy. === DEFINITION === Gift-economy: A money-less economy which is in contrast to a bartering system. One in which the acquiring of commodities or the using of services does not necessarily depend on simply a back-and-forth exchange between two individuals. Rather, it relies upon an agreement for everyone involved to receive what they want, to an extent, so long as they are putting service of some kind into the system in return. In other words, you may walk into a "shop" and take what you need so long as you have a job yourself which is of service to others and so long as you do not abuse the system, which would result in penalties. ------ Looking forward to this debate. Many thanks to the Instigator. | PRO | 23b79f5d-2019-04-18T19:02:25Z-00005-000 |
Nothing is certain. Pro has ignored my argument and focused on his own definition. If my life were a dream, it would make not the slightest iota of difference, because I was not referring to my own experiences being objectively real themselves, but to something having objective reality. (Note that the definition I gave made no mention of the property of identity.)"This entire dimension is vastly different and he is concieved as a different form of energy and matter. Does that mean that he, the person he currently is, ever 'existed' according to that definition?"If I woke up in such a universe as you described, there would still have been reality. It would have to exist for any 'dream' to have occurred in the first place. From this we can infer that something indeed exists, but not necessarily what we percieve to be real. Your argument only makes sense if reality is defined as 'a series of phenomenological events which humans have experienced,' which is the definition you conceded in your last argument. "Taking this line of argument further, let us also postulate that the entire world was the dream of some god (as some religions do advocate). Therefore, no objective reality would exist, and you would not exist, and you would be as far from the dreamer as a gnat would be to you."That god would still exist.I have proven that it is certain that something exists. The resolution is negated. | CON | 1872277f-2019-04-18T18:16:21Z-00000-000 |
God doesn't exist. One hole in the ozone means that it is possible... you think it can't happen again? You think that this is an isolated incident? Oh, and by the way, I'd look up the definition of "specs" if I were you. And yes, the creation of the universe would have been an EXTREME co-incidence, but who knows how long it took for that to happen. The chance of the watch forming perfectly gets a little higher every time you lift the table. Okay, don't ask questions that you can't answer either. What proof do you have that God exists? Scientists didn't rationalise the existence of everything that exists today based on some out-there theory of the big bang... they looked at the world and put made everything fit. But I'll give you a small answer to the question you asked: what about fossils? And erosion? What about cave paintings? God just put them there because he wants to screw with us? Your fourth argument is the one that makes me the angriest. Do you think they made that decision? Do you think they wanted to die? Who are you to say that? Who are you to say that 1.5 million children tortured to death in the holocaust is a positive thing? Lucky them. I think, to be honest, that they would want to stay here on planet earth for a while before dying, don't you? And what if you're wrong? What if this is all we have? Why aren't you kicking back in heaven if it is so much better than here? So great. Those children didn't care if he was real or not... I think they just wanted a future. | PRO | cd11f3c2-2019-04-18T17:54:13Z-00004-000 |
Donald Trump should be the next US president. I believe Donald Trump could and should be the next president of The United States of America because of his devout Conservative/Libertarian Views (Personal & Economic Freedom whilst Conserving The American Status Quo) issues, his political incorrectness, unique opinions, cocky attitude and way of defying what the people want. But of course, I don't agree with all things Trump has said and claims he will do. | PRO | ef54dc89-2019-04-18T14:08:38Z-00003-000 |
Predators is the best sequel film in the Predator franchise so far. Personally, i think the Predator sequels could not have been worse.The first Predator strarring Arnold Schwarzenegger was the best,it had a good storyline and a raw feeling which in todays cinemas is kind of rare.These days it more of animation and graphics throughout the movie.That movie had a sense of roughness in characters and scenes that atleast that time when i was a kid made my hair stand upright The Sequels on the other hand are really badly made.I think Alien Vs Pradators could have been good but the plot was kind of umm(sorry i ve to compromise the euphemism..)"stupid". | CON | 88262ec2-2019-04-18T19:02:06Z-00003-000 |
The FCC should add warning labels to news programs. The FDA puts labels on food to let you know about their content The MPAA rates movies to let you know about their content The FCC puts labels on late night tv programs to let you know about its content So why not let the FCC assign warning labels to news programs? These warning labels would assign grades to tv programs on an ABCDF scale would assing grades to tv news programs based on the following criteria: - How truthful the news programs are - How biased the news programs are - How competent news programs are at reporting news in a professional manner - Whether or not news programs try to 'sensationalize' news The grade that a news program would receive would then be displayed at all times on the screen (likely in one of the corners of the tv screen) to inform viewers who are regular watchers of a program or just come across the program flipping through tv channels whether or not the news outlet they are watching is reliable, credible, and overall trustworthy. I will debate in favor of this idea, con will debate against this idea. | PRO | 9a04a46d-2019-04-18T15:10:53Z-00007-000 |
Should studens in the united states be forced to stand up and say the pledge of allegiance. why would you not want to pledge to the united states? What are the reasons someone would not want to pledge to the united states? Because they are too lazy to stand up and say, I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the united states of America, and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. It is a sign of respect, and you need to have respect, no matter what the situation. If President Obama walks in, and you don't like him, you wouldn't start booing him, because it is disrespectful. That is the same concept as the flag. America is the best county, because we have FREEDOM. shouldn't we owe it to America and just say the pledge? Here in Texas, we say the pledge of allegiance AND the Texas pledge every day at school, and no one whines about it. Its just something that you do. Thank you | PRO | beb024c8-2019-04-18T19:31:28Z-00002-000 |
Atheist and Satanist are Actually On The Same Side Working Together. Atheist declare there is NO GOD, and we evolved over a long period of time. Why is Atheist a new idea in relationship to mankind! Atheist have just lately advocated for their own monument. I say that is copycat, and wanting to be like God who put churches everywhere! So are Atheist actually serving Satan just like the Christian Church? If Atheist were correct why is there so many Temples to gods? Why is Atheist the last religion/practice/belief to finally get it together and organize themselves? And just coping religions who think they are serving God? https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com... | PRO | b1d9b93-2019-04-18T16:42:58Z-00009-000 |
Mrs. Munger should not be a teacher nor an IB level teacher. I disagree fully with the measly survey you conducted. I hardly believe that 8/10 students is a significant sample size of the sheer amount of people in IB English II. Saying 8/10 people believe one thing out of the at least 90 in her classes total, is like saying that 9/10 people support gay rights, while only conducting the survey within a gay rights activist committee. When you stated that students are not asking for easy 100s, but are asking for good grades, that statement is completely subjective. What is a good grade to you might not be the same for others in Munger's classes or Munger herself. The grades she gives, in her mind and probably some of the students's minds, are fair and a complete representation of the student's effort and work. This definition of subjective brings to question your entire argument as you state in your last sentence, that she has "harsh grading, [and] low satisfaction among students" . This is entirely subjective, and only reflects the vision that you wish to create. Take off the binoculars and focus on the bigger picture, the one which paints the entire story. | CON | 81e16952-2019-04-18T12:44:35Z-00000-000 |
Animals are inferior to humans. "I will now use this round to address and deconstruct Pro's points, as he directs his arguments towards me." Con I'm directed my arguments at your argument. Noting that you relied heavily if not entirely on science. I don't know about everyone else, but I'm sick of everything being explained in terms of science. Its not the end all be all. There is so much science has not explained. In fact, I'm pretty sure its scientifically proven that the sum of all human ignorance is greater than the sum of all human knowledge. How far have we delved into the Earth? How close have we gotten to the center? Have we really explored the bottom of the ocean? We haven't even managed to colonize the moon nor mars. We cannot know the future, so therefore one possible future would be one where we never colonize another planet. That we are stuck on Earth. Next Con goes into attacking the webpage I linked to. I've noticed this on other places on the internet. Although you are exceeding in destroying the credibility of the webpage, I don't see much attack on my argument itself. Furthermore, for a long time we did not recognize the animal kingdom. Some of our terminology still has some catching up to do. Yet, we may scientifically find in the future that humans do not belong to the animal kingdom. Humans are the only species with space flight. Even as I type this its possible aliens see us a completely different kingdom than animals. Maybe a new tool would illuminate the difference. I refute that humans are animals. Thus the notion that we can't be superior to ourselves based on animals not being able to superior to their-selves. Humans are superior to animals because we invented cat wigs. | PRO | 64a4c946-2019-04-18T14:13:06Z-00000-000 |
Social Media IS IMPORTANT. Social Media has saved millions of lives. March 2009, an avalanche separated 2 people from their group during a mountain climb. Using google maps, Twitter, and Facebook, they were able to communicate to the lost hiker and they rescued her. (The other person fell down the mountain and the body wasn"t found.) But not only individuals were being rescued. Augest 2016, TEN THOUSAND ex-workers were starving to death. A single photograph brought them to the attention of the government. They got rescued by the government, and there was no casualties! I"m sorry this is short, but it is all true, and I hope I have opened your eyes. | PRO | a8aabd34-2019-04-18T11:43:04Z-00001-000 |
The atonement of sins is an immoral and illogical doctrine. My opponent fails to fully comprehend the gospel of Jesus Christ. "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8 "All people have sinned against God. But, God is infinitely holy and righteous. He must punish the sinner, the Law- breaker. If He didn't, then His law is not Law for there is no law that is a law without a punishment. The punishment for breaking the Law is death, separation from God. Therefore, we sinners need a way to escape the righteous judgment of God. Since we are stained by sin and cannot keep the Law of God, then the only one who could do what we cannot is God Himself. That is why Jesus is God in flesh. He is both divine and human. He was made under the Law (Gal. 4:4) and He fulfilled it perfectly. Therefore, His sacrifice to God the Father on our behalf is of infinite value and is sufficient to cleanse all people from their sins and undo the offense to God." http://carm.org... Therefore, salvation is by grace through faith since it was not by our keeping the Law, but by Jesus, God in flesh, who fulfilled the Law and died in our place. Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." This is why the gospel of Jesus is the most astounding event of human history and utterly defies our initial conceptions of what is logical and necessary. | CON | f2f03f70-2019-04-18T17:53:56Z-00004-000 |
An Australian republic could accommodate states that remain monarchies. Senator Alan Eggleston. "The Republic: an idea that has reached its time". Address to the John Stuart Mill Society. September 22nd, 1997 - "What about the Australian States? If the Commonwealth became a Republic it wouldn't matter in the interim if the States wanted to remain monarchies. This is the view of Professor George Winterton. The Federal Republican Constitution could accommodate the status of both monarchal and Republican states. In due course, I believe that the States would adopt a Republican mode." | PRO | b477d5a-2019-04-17T11:47:43Z-00137-000 |
Gay Marriage should be legal in all States. Do all 50 states really NEED to legalise gay marriage? I say no. I say no for several reasons. 1) Marriage, as defined not only by ancient text, but by most societies, is one man and one woman. We cannot rewright the definition of a word to fit our agenda or ideals.2) A species needs to procreate in order to survive as a society. If they don't, the species eventually dies.3) It is not the government's business what couples do in their homes or who they prefer to have sex with. Therefore, it is not right for the government to decide who gets married or who does not. Legalizing gay marriage is not the government's job.4) Marriage is a privilage, not a right. We do have a right to happiness, but marriage does not fall under that right. There is no gaurantee that one will be happy in their marriage.5) Children need to be raised by a mother and a father. Depriving them of one or the other is wrong. It has been proven that children need both sexes as parents. Not that a gay couple can't raise a child, but studies have been done and they show that it is healthier for a child to be raised by a mother and a father. http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com...;I believe if we allow gay marriage, our society and country will eventually die. Since homosexuals cannot reproduce and there must be an adequate amount of procreation within a society to survive, I do not believe gay marriage should be legal.My opponent says religion has no say whether two people can be married. I say it most certainly does have a say. Most marriages are performed in a church. And even more are performed by a pastor, priest, or rabbi. To say that religions have no say in the matter is false. Leaders of most religions will choose to marry a couple or not marry them, based on their convictions. And if they feel a couple should not be married, they won't marry them.A government should have no power to force a marriage. It is not the government's job to do so. | CON | db75e34a-2019-04-18T16:12:20Z-00000-000 |
The Personal God Does Not Exist. Pro: Note:My opponent has disregarded the debate structure even though he accepted this debate. I am referring to how in Round 2 he offered rebuttals rwhen he supposed to be presenting only an opening argument. This should result in the loss of his conduct points.I want to point out that, in Round 1, Pro stated "The burden of proof is on my side to show that the personal god does not exist.As the burden of proof is on my opponent, all that is necessary for me in this debate is to refute every argument that he presents. If the burden of proof was shared, then we would open with our own arguments. As Pro stated that he alone wanted the BoP, then he cannot argue that I should lose conduct points for opening with refutations. My opening arguments would be refutations when the BoP is on him. Please acknowledge this when voting. Exodus Event/ MonotheismIt would not matter when the Exodus event occured. The Jews practices monotheism long before Moses, so this argument is irrelevant. There is evidence that Monotheism has been practices since the beginning of time. The Bible records the history. Now, my opponent and I can argue the historical accuracy of the Bible if he would like, but we have the genealogical records in the Bible. He can only cast down on this written record, not disrpove it.MiraclesMy opponent attempts to reduce miracles to ignorant people that only use miracles because of tawdry behavior. He completely missed my argument.Doctors are professionals in the medical field. They understand human biology. They understand science. They do not claim miracles because of ignorance on medical matters. They testify that miracles exist because they see things happen that go against the natural methods of human biology. This is not an argument from ignorance- it's an argument against contradiction, that is, because it is going against nature, it must be supernatural. When there are only two options, and we cut out one option, then the other must be true. If my opponent wants to refute this, he must supply another option (besides ignorance, as I have already refuted that claim).Jesus Proves a personal GodMy opponent argues that even if Jesus was resurrected, this does not prove that God is personal. My opponent has never defined what he means by personal. I don't want to turn this into a semantics debate, though. So i'll offer this: The Scriptures paint the God of Christianity as a God who interacts with humanity through means of angels, dreams, miracles, and prophets. This is the God of Christianity, and the personal God is one who interacts and cares about each person. My opponent is using semantics to refute his personal description of the Christian God. If Christ was resurrected, then His words ring true, and the personal God Yahweh does exist. My opponent offered no rebuttals towards the argument for Christ's resurrection. | CON | 44566031-2019-04-18T16:44:54Z-00002-000 |
Execution. I think execution can't be justified. How will executing someone solve any problems? Even if it does end a criminal(s) life, It won't make the world better. Give the criminal a life time sentence, So he can actually reflect on himself, And feel bad. Killing the criminal, Will not make the victim feel better. The criminal has already done the crime. According to a February 2015 study by the Brennan Center for Justicce: "Empirically, Capital punishment is too infrequent to have a measureable effect on the crime drop. Criminologically, The existence and use of the death penalty may not even create the deterrent effect on potential offenders that lawmakers hoped when enacting such laws. " Which basically means that the death sentence is too infrequent to impact the world. If it's not helping, Why should we use it? Also, According to the world renowned Washington Post, There"s still no evidence that executions deter criminals. So, Execution does not deter criminals, And does not make the criminal rate decline. It's useless, And damaging to the person who's being executed's family. | CON | 9b0adb04-2019-04-18T11:11:22Z-00004-000 |
Everyone Lies. Definition: to create a false or misleading impressionhttp://www.merriam-webster.com...The person doesn't need to talk... Personal Connection:In my school we have a "brain-dead" student. She is lead everyhere usually by a wheelchair. Occasionaly she would look like she is walking to where she needs to be; but then she would turn around and walk the other way. This is false or misleading impression.Plus, we don't know what happens in a "brain-dead" person. For all we know they could be lying to someone in their dreams! My case stands... | PRO | 8c0be44f-2019-04-18T15:34:09Z-00003-000 |
any equation can never end on 0 unless its false. "information is anti matter, 0, and everything is something, and something is 1" just because something exist does it not mean that it's value is -1. Anti-Matter is the complete opposite of Matter (that's why it's called ANTI-Matter), which is 1 * -1 = -1. I think you didn't get the point with equations. An equation points out which values do equal, IN THAT EQUATION. So if you have an apple and add another, you have 2 apples. Period. What happens outside of the equation is that another one loses an apple. That, however, does not change the first equation. So 1+1 is still 2, no matter what happens outside of that equation. The same goes with subtraction. If you have an apple and completely destroy it, it is no longer an apple. so you have -1 apples. And since you had an apple before, the equation is 1-1 which is 0 apples. "matter can only transform, creation and destruction are impossible in reality" that is actually not true. matter and anti-matter do not transform into another form of matter, they just pop out of existence. The same goes for radioactive decay. A radioactive atom does decay, and when it does, it is no longer an atom and therefore 1 atom before and no atom afterwards, which is 0 atoms. | CON | ff5a5bbf-2019-04-18T15:26:07Z-00004-000 |
batman is better than sailor venus. Thank you. Contention One: Sailor V's seductive charm Sailor Venus is a very sexy character with a very seductive outfit. She herself is named after the Roman godess of love and beauty. Her power element is love. She could simply cast her Venus love-me-chain attack and Batman would be to stunned and overwhelmed by attraction to attack her. Contention 2: Sailor V is Japanese The Japanese have a better developed education system than Americans, and Batman is American. Sailor Venus is therefor more experienced in art, science, music, and math. While it is true that Batman is older, thus he should be wiser, this is not true as he is a man and thinks with his hormones which brings me to my next point Contention 3: Batman is suseptable to pedaphilia Sailor V is 14 and since Batman thinks mainly with his male instinct and testosterone, he would be atracted to her, making him a pedaphile. Contention 4: Sailor V is younger than Batman Batman will die long before Sailor Venus because he is far older than Sailor V Contention 5: Sailor Venus has more friends Sailor V has at least nine very close, very loyal friends that help her save the universe. Batman is a bit of a "loner boner". Contention 6: Sailor V saves more people Sailor Venus saves the whole Universe. Batman merely saves Gothum City Contention 7: Mental health of actors Heath Ledger played the Joker in The Dark Night, the most recent Batman movie. Playing the part gave him severe nightmares. People believe this is part of the reason he mixed meds and died. Thank you! =3 | CON | 38e6b690-2019-04-18T19:31:44Z-00004-000 |
Minimum Wage. First, lets consider what the minimum wage is intended to do. It is intended to prevent bussineses from "exploiting" workers. If we don't have it, workers will be paid next to nothing. This is simply not true. Very few workers even work the minimum wage, this is because the more they work, the more value they gain and there wages will rise. People have a choice of were to work, if they want a very low paying job, its because they feel its the best choice. Also, if bussinesses start paying people barely anything, people won't work there. Bussinesses will try to offer the best wages possible to compete for workers. They will also raise the wages of current workers or those workers will find higher paying jobs. The minimum wage harms people in areas where their is high enemployment and the ecomy is bad because bussinisses cant pay minimum wage. In areas of high enemployment people are desprete for work and will work for far less then the minimum wage. The minumum wage keeps them out of the workforce. If you don't have a skill that is worth the minumum wage you are also shut out of the economy, no one will pay you the minimum wage if you are an unskilled labor who isn't producing enough. It stops bussinisses from expanding and hiring others because they must pay minimum wage. In general it is governments attempt to fix what the free market does fine. | CON | b2b9a732-2019-04-18T16:57:29Z-00003-000 |
Russia has right to Crimea. A few things here ... You speak of the west not coming to aid and help liberate? where was Ukraine when we were looking for allies to liberate other oppressed nations like the ones in the middle east? They were backing euro and Russian opinions about us being a tyrannical police state that can't keep to themselves. Then events like this happen and, after being bashed for operating outside our own nation too much, our people change their minds on how they view freedom and whether or not we should even aid countries like you. It was your criticisms and those of other nations that keep us from intervening. Everyone's scared to do anything but sanction over here now, and you're partially to blame. | PRO | 43938ad3-2019-04-18T15:13:14Z-00003-000 |
Species Are Evidence for Intelligent Design Science, Not for evo THEORY. Someone wrote: "I'd first note that as the instigator of this debate, it's on Pro to demonstrate further evidence in support of his resolution and show it to be correct." In actual debate, burden of proof is equally on both sides. You're probably not used to actual debate, though, so I'll forgive your ignorance. "...and all cells originate from pre-existing chemical processes...." No they don't, but you offered no evidence for your above-stated personal belief anyway, so again, I forgive your ignorance. No evidence for your side = good news for my side. Your position on this subject is 100% your own personal faith-based religion, but is not observable science. You provided exactly zero evidence for your side, so you lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =) | PRO | d17dbeba-2019-04-18T12:08:30Z-00003-000 |
From the Side of Atheism. 1) You never showed how the ontological argument is a play on words. 2)" Yet in knowing psychology, considering he made it, he would have known telling them to not do something would make them want to do it more." Indeed, where do you see a problem ? 3)" And there is in fact a quote from the bible stating god as a warrior and other quotes stating god as a peace-monger" Indeed, he is both. However you said that he's only a warrior"Instead of seeing a god that is peaceful, I instead see a god that is "a warrior". 4)"Third of all, I was not describing most of the bible but the beginning of genesis. He basically made the Earth solid in one day." This depends on your interpretation. http://www.nwcreation.net... http://www.theisticevolution.org... | CON | cdb8c58a-2019-04-18T18:57:08Z-00002-000 |
The American Jobs Act Encourages Risk Without Infrastructure or Results in Inaction By. Whilst the jobs act does not fully cover infrastructure, more acts can be drafted in order to deal with this problem. Further, the financial sector is likely to now be significantly more wary of the problems that initially caused the recession. This is because the collapse of Lehman and the Sub Prime crisis as well as the following recession significantly hurt their businesses. As such, especially so soon after the global banking crisis, such companies are going to be more careful about taking unnecessary risks. Whilst this attitude might decay over time, by the time it has decayed enough that action must be taken, it is likely that America will be out of recession. Further, it is believed that right now, the general health of the corporate sector is sound. This means that whilst there is the possibility that businesses will opt not to use tax breaks to increase wages and pay debt, it is fairly unlikely. Even if another recession hits, the current strength of the corporate sector is such that it is likely to be able to weather the storm and as such, CEOs are likely to wish to spend windfall that they do get in order to get ahead of the competition for the next boom phase.9 | CON | cc95487f-2019-04-15T20:22:50Z-00014-000 |