argument
stringlengths 201
3.55k
| stance
stringclasses 2
values | id
stringlengths 36
39
|
|---|---|---|
Should school chairs be comfier. I do agree that it would be more costly, but it is better for the human body. If you sit on a hard chair for too long your spine can be injured. You know how grandmas sometimes lecture you on posture. That's because it is important. If you are sitting on a hard chair your spine can be damaged. Also its harder for kids to be comfortable in hard chairs. That being said if they had softer chairs they would be moving around less and be paying attention more. To be honest I think that schools worry way too much on the little things but are too caught up on stuff like weather kids are using the right pencil on tests and don't do stuff about the big things like fights and bullies or the way that students learn | CON | 75f5deb5-2019-04-18T14:05:29Z-00003-000 |
babies are born agonistic, not atheist. This should be pretty easy though, since the definitions are pretty clear. An agnostic holds the belief that nothing is known or can be known about the existence of god. Babies hold no opinions at all on matters such as this, and it is clear that they lack a belief in this area. Babies are incapable of reaching a conclusion to support a belief like this, and are incapable of being agnostic, since it requires the belief of something. Babies cannot believe something this complex at birth. The lack of belief is natural to babies. At birth we don't come out believing in god, certain political ideals, or different economic policies. Babies fit the definition of Atheist. I'll now address my opponent's points:"the definitions prove my point. the second defintionshows that the agnostic doesn't have faith or disbelief in God. babies don't either, nor as tehy grow into awareness. "Actually agnostics believe that nothing can be known about the existence of god. Since babies are incapable of such a belief, babies aren't agnostics. "con's definitio of atheist is a poor one, if hetries to argue that it says 'lacks belief' in God so therefor they are atheist. agnostics lack faith in God too. that doesn't mean they are atheists. atheists reject the notion of God, at least to some degree. for that reaosn, babies growing into awareness are not atheist. "My opponent is misinformed. The majority of atheists lack a belief in god, not make the positive statement that god doesn't exist. The vast majority of atheists define themselves as negative atheists as opposed to positive atheists. Either way, both fall under the category of atheism. "Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist. [1] Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none. "(. http://en.wikipedia.org...) | CON | 55450ddc-2019-04-18T16:02:30Z-00002-000 |
Homework should be banned. You said that students can study at home if homework is banned. But why create another layer of annoyance of obtaining the books? And teachers can hand out extension (harder) homework to suit the needs of specific students. You said that it wastes time. But, you need homework to be able to do that, for example how is the time supposed to help them if they don't know 1+1 ? My opponent has not rebutted the fact that loosening homework will help. Besides, homework helps revise & strengthen material learnt and lets them gain responsibility of their actions Thank you | CON | abf49bd8-2019-04-18T16:32:16Z-00001-000 |
Evolution is true, Creationism is false. No, "merely assuming" does not apply to my argument. Moses was a primary source. Obviously he did not have a "God phone." He prayed and God spoke to him. Anyway, I do not just have the Bible as my only source. Didn't you even read my last argument? At the end, I cited Thomas Aquinas. At other points, I cited certain websites, one of which was pro-evolution.We do not have wars to survive. Many times, we have wars out of greed, conflict or other reasons that only a human could understand. Pollution is pretty much all man-made. There are some natural forms, but it is mostly all man-made. Evolution is supposed to have organisms adapt to problems like these. However, we are not really adapting to said problems. We are barely making it through and many organisms are dying off from it.According to Biblical scholars, the world is only about 6000-8000 years old. Even if God made them in the Pangaea position, the tectonic plates would not have enough time to move. I am not denying that they are not moving, but as Thomas Aquinas said, "As in the case of motion, nothing can cause itself, and an infinite chain of causation is impossible, so there must be a First Cause, called God."https://en.wikipedia.org...God does not take credit for everything. God created gravity, light, atoms and all of those things. Nobody calls those things "God." I don't name everything I create after myself, and I do not know anyone who does that.I now have to go to church to worship my God, who created everything in six days. Thank you for debating. | CON | 29b24cc5-2019-04-18T13:47:13Z-00000-000 |
Willie Mays Was a Better Baseball Player Than Mickey Mantle. Mickey Mantle was indeed a better baseball player than Willie Mays. Mr. Mays was a media darling during his time and his affable personality lead to his favorable media persona. Now Mr. Mays was a great player to be sure, but Mickey Mantle was a better player. 1. Home runs: Mr. Mays has more career home runs 660 for Mays and 536 for Mantle, however Willie Mays played for 22 seasons in the major leagues, while Mantle played only 18 seasons. Willie Mays had a season high for home runs of 52, Mickey Mantle hit 54 home runs in 1961. 2. Health: Mickey Mantle never took care of himself. He drank far too much and this affected his natural talent. His legs were often so bad that they had to be bandaged before every game. Yet, through all this he was still able to peform at a very high level. Mickey Mantle was a very good defensive center fielder, while still being able to put up MVP like offensive numbers. Also, Mickey Mantle won the MVP award three times while Willie Mays only won it twice. Mantle also finished much higher in the MVP voting than Willie Mays did on a year to year basis. http://www.baseball-reference.com... Mickey Mantle walked almost 300 more times in his career than Willlie Mays. Also Mantle led the league in walks several times in his career while Mays only led the league once. Mickey Mantle performed much better in the playoffs than Willie Mays. Mays had only one career post season home run, Mickey Mantle had six. Mantle's career playoff batting average was .257, Mays's was only .247 This leads me to my final point: Mickey Mantle won seven world series titles while Willie Mays won only one. All of this leads us to the conclusion that Mantle was indeed a better ball player than Willie Mays, although both were great players. | CON | 1f2ab848-2019-04-18T19:21:23Z-00004-000 |
Is Psychology Scientific. Alright, can you elaborate more on what sort of experiments were failed and what experiments were able to be reproduced? What types of experiments were done? How accurately were they recreated? As for the example of the happiness test with a remote culture, what does the 5 and 10 represent? Are they scores of how happy they feel? I do feel as though the experiments done to see how people think are always different depending on the people in them, meaning people have different backgrounds and the result of the experiment could be different because the person thinks differently, however this does not mean the experiment isn't valid because they didn't do what the psychologists predicted. It just means it is a new note for how people react and think. Everyone thinks differently, however they are similar to others in which ways of thinking can be grouped together such as political ideology. People associated with the Democratic party may agree on some political topics and disagree about other topics with other people associated in the same party. I don't think anyone can accurately predict the thoughts and actions of someone. I do think people can accurately place people in groups based on their thoughts and actions. The way the psychologists get their results is how psychology becomes scientific. Sometimes it doesn't get reproducing conclusions, but it shouldn't be thrown out that it isn't scientific because the details of the reproduced experiment isn't 100% accurate. | PRO | 485b7d94-2019-04-18T13:29:17Z-00002-000 |
Why are garbage bags still in use? I'm against Trash Bags, you are for keeping Trash Bags. Thanks All I am saying is that until we find i more safe and useful way to get rid of trash without the use if trash bags that we should keep them for as long as anyone needs. Like a rich person might be able to afford a new Eco friendly garbage decomposing machine( or might as well make a hole in the hard and throw organic waste in there) , but a middle class person might not. So let the poor and middle class keep garbage bags and lets see what wi happen in the future, maybe everyone will have the same thing. | PRO | 3099182e-2019-04-18T16:13:09Z-00001-000 |
Bullying and opression should be used more interchangeably. I understand the stretch and I am not denying it. However, If you let the narrative of special rights keep going that's how you once again keep empowering racists, Homophobes and misogynists over and over again Also opression by the logic of it's own could be considered as far ganging up, As that is a very common form of conflict and bullying in school. Ganging up on innocent people happens all the time and it shouldn't be too surprising. I am not saying that opression is the new bullying, I am just saying people should have more freedom to be respected and encouraged without the limitation of today's platforms Because even a website like stopbullying. Gov still only caters to certain demographics and so once again, How does that help? Why romanticize special rights platforming instead of prioritizing all innocent or powerless people at once? Also, This is what I believe the impression of a "care-based" morality is all about. I think the care based morality is what buys people to look into more into heir identity and less into the character. Where as a justice based morality has to do more with advanced claims to freedom, Resources and so forth that are potentially conflicting. Also, Bullying and opression can both harm the person's self esteem and confidence in the long time, So why should they both have a different peripheral then? | PRO | f629edc-2019-04-18T11:08:07Z-00003-000 |
April PFD Topic. Indeed, it is very disappointing that I was so hyper-focused on the rules you set forth that I somehow didn't notice that I was taking the Pro position. On occasion I enjoy taking the devil's advocate position, but I can see no [good] justification for government involvement in organ donation for all the reasons you succinctly listed in Round 2. If you would like to take the Pro position in this debate, that would be fine with me, but it might be better that we started a fresh debate on a new topic. This one is tainted, and I could simply use the arguments you outlined in Round 2 and turn them against you. In either case, it's your call. But I owe you a good debate for the time you spent on this one, your topic of choice. FORFEIT. | PRO | b183cc90-2019-04-18T18:50:51Z-00004-000 |
Gun Control. For guns you do not need a permit issued by the government. You can simpily fill out all the paperwork needed and get your permit at a gun shop. A backround check is needed to buy a gun too. But there is always a way to get a gun. Making gun laws stronger will not and never has made a difference. I am for gun control and always be. Guns protect us if used in the proper way. But if we make laws stronger people will be very angry all across America. People such as gang, hunters, or just people who own them. | PRO | 9c361f83-2019-04-18T17:15:13Z-00004-000 |
Creationism and Evolution are BOTH right. Think of it this way: Yes...there is no proof right now that a higher power of any kind exists. But just because we have not found any evidence yet does not disprove the theory of a higher power entirely. And no matter how far back you trace the energy, it all had to have originated from one source of energy. But that, once again, leaves the question of where the originally energy source that caused everything came from. You claim that a higher power is not likely compared to a pocket of energy. I also find a pocket of energy that magically that just happened to come into existence one day to also be unlikely. I say "suspend Logic" because some things just do not work (both figuratively and literally sometimes) when we think about them (we call it "The Centipede Dilemma"). Logic and Higher Powers don't really fit together...if you apply them both 100% Like I have stated before, my theory is that a higher power started the first ball of energy or big bang or whatever; then let science take over the rest. Science is still at work, animals still evolve, etc. The Higher Power has little to do with most of it. I am just saying that the higher power set the ball in motion. | PRO | 375d7ae8-2019-04-18T13:52:17Z-00002-000 |
There is nothing wrong with incest between consenting adults. I would also like to take some time to define what incest is. Incest is sexual activity between family members and close relatives. In this debate we are talking about incest between consenting adults and I in no way condone rape or paedophilia. I feel the burden of proof is on con to explain what it is, exactly, that is immoral or unethical about incest. I look forward to a good debate. | PRO | d8737d4f-2019-04-18T16:18:06Z-00005-000 |
Is Obama a War Criminal. Well yes we have funded those groups before. But that was due to us wanting to stop. These nations where ruled by dictators, these dictators ruled these nations with a iron fist. They would kill anyone who spoke out against there governments. Gaddafi who was the dictator of Libya has done more war crimes then any USA office has done in recent years. Here is one of his orders he gave his military. "One document shows the commanding general of government forces instructing his units to starve Misrata's population during the four-month siege. The order, from Youssef Ahmed Basheer Abu Hajar, states bluntly: It is absolutely forbidden for supply cars, fuel and other services to enter the city of Misrata from all gates and checkpoints" These rebels groups we where founding where fighting against a government that had done war crimes, and crimes against humanity. So they where in the right to rebel against these governments. Well for one we never sent any troops or weapons to help the people in Ukraine. Russia on the other hand did, they sent there own troops to help the government. The government also opened fired on protesters. The people of Ukraine did not want closer ties with Russia. http://www.theguardian.com... | CON | 57f618ba-2019-04-18T14:30:27Z-00003-000 |
Strict foods and nutrition guidelines be enforced in all public schools. I appreciate your enthusiasm Con. Thanks for responding. "To put it in basic terms, if a student like how a food tastes, he or she won't eat it." Con I think you meant to state if a student doesn't like how a food tastes, he or she won't eat it. You then go onto state the negative effects of insufficient calorie intake. I agree about the insufficient calorie intake causing problems. I disagree on the part that if a student doesn't like a food's taste. As you probably know tastes change. This is called your palate. "Our tastes can and do change over time for a variety of reasons. Do you now dislike something you used to love, or vice-versa?" theguardian.com Healthy food doesn't necessarily mean the food tastes bad. In a way your making the argument for me. What your telling me is the school's and parent's of children are doing such a lax job that healthy food is so foreign to them they are rejecting it. If you watch the documentary foodstamped you will see that children who prepare their own food are much more likely to eat it. I know from personal experience that foods that taste bitter often taste good after an adjustment period. I state that school's today nutritional programs are too lax and need to incorporate cooking classes where children learn to cook and prepare their own healthy food. This is even more urgent with children who do not receive bagged lunches. http://www.theguardian.com... http://www.foodstamped.com... | PRO | b09f1711-2019-04-18T14:14:23Z-00001-000 |
Old Spongebob (PRO 1999-2005) is better than New Spongebob (CON 2006-now). I honestly don't care about spongebob. It is a mindless stupid cartoon that depletes brain cells. There is honestly not much of a difference between old and new. It is just a cartoon. A time waster like this argument. I know i am being mean and i am sorry but I don"t care. A spongebob argument can only last one round because there is not enough to put in. | CON | d3768e10-2019-04-18T14:52:58Z-00000-000 |
The Jesus of History Probably Existed - D. Allow me to apologise in advance for the brevity and general inadequacy of my argument this round. Due to family matters, I am currently away from my computer and my home and am writing this from an internet caf� in Dublin. It is a shame that I am not able to provide full attention to this most interesting debate at present and I apologise to my opponent and to readers. Historical value of the gospels: At the risk of repeating myself, the only "historical model" I am using is the basic fact that sacred texts are not generally held to be historical and that texts which describe supernatural events would generally be disregarded by any historian worth the title. As I have shown in previous rounds there is no "uniform consensus" of regarding Jesus as historical. Traditional western academia has grown from within a Christian framework and as mentioned previously, criticising or questioning the Bible would have been regarded as heretical in past centuries. My opponent would do well to provide an example of a non Judeo-Christian sacred text being regarded as a historically accurate document. Tacitus: "It seems my opponents only remaining argument against Tacitus can be phrased thusly, "But some Christian scholars disregard Tacitus as evidence." This is not my only argument, the examples were provided in direct response to my opponent's request for more examples of Christian scholars with this opinion. His work contains errors, omissions and additions and even if accurate his description of the belief of Christians can not be counted as evidence for these beliefs being true. Josephus: "My opponent's reaming [sic] argument now focuses on the "so-called Christ" being a later addition." This has in fact been my (main) argument from the beginning as a re-reading of my 1st round argument will confirm. My opponent claims my source is "amateurish" while his is reliable but hopefully readers will examine both sources rather than taking him at his word. My opponent unsurprisingly favours the study conducted from a Christian perspective. _____________ I'm really sorry but I will have to stop here. My apologies again for compromising this fascinating debate. I will be flying home tomorrow and will be able to present a much more thorough round 5. If my opponent allows me I may respond to some of his other points in the comments section but of course he would be perfectly justified in not permitting this. My thanks and apologies again. Feverish. | CON | acfce99d-2019-04-18T19:17:09Z-00002-000 |
There is no god. The answer to how the universe formed I already answered in the previous round. Same thing applies to the milky way. When you wake up, does god do that? No, it's your body. After it has all of the energy that it needs, it wakes up, because it doesn't need anymore. I'm guessing that you are probably a literalist based on your previous arguments, If so, here is a question for you. During the supposed great flood, The ark was loaded with two of each kind of animal. (two clean and two dirty) So, what happened to all of the fungi, plants, protists, or any of those life forms? They wouldn't survive under all that water. | PRO | 5308a5d7-2019-04-18T17:18:13Z-00002-000 |
Should the U.S. government continue to aid other countries. Americans are of the 1 % when compared to the world. The real questions is can we afford not to give aid?? 1) 1)_What percentage of the U.S. federal budget goes to foreign aid? 2) What percentage should go to foreign aid? 3) If your answer on (2) was "0," is any foreign aid at all worth any expense? Now for the facts on question No. 1 (the other two are opinions): roughly 1.5 percent. There is no missing zero. Most Americans believe foreign aid is close to 10 to 15 percent, but the real answer is 1.5 percent. So, move on to question 2. If you thought the answer was 10 percent, would you agree that 1.5 percent is reasonable? Or is even 1.5 percent too much to give away during a U.S. economic recession and unemployment at 9-plus percent? It is not a question of short-term spending, but of long-term investment and whether security, democracy, human rights and all the values we believe are worth preserving and promoting are worth 1.5 percent of our money. Can we afford not to give foreign aid? » Opinion » NewburyportNews.com, Newburyport, MA | PRO | e417405d-2019-04-18T18:29:08Z-00001-000 |
Young Earth Creationism is wrong about the age of the earth. Young earth creationism being the creationist who believes that the earth is less than 100.000 years old. The debate will be over the age of the earth, the burden of proof will be upon me, and all that con has to do is just to refute my arguments. Meaning, I have to present evidence that show that the earth is older than the given age Con subscribes to, and if con can refute all my arguments, he wins. Evidence and rebuttals must be scientific, meaning, you cannot quote the bible, qu'ran or w/e holy book and claim it as ultimate source and expect a win. 1st round for agreements and definitions. 2-3-4-5th round for arguments and rebuttals. | PRO | 6878098-2019-04-18T18:43:59Z-00005-000 |
People have freedom of expression. . A legal argument can be made for cosmetic surgery. Under the Human Rights Act which enshrines the European Convention on Human Rights, we have the freedom to express ourselves, Article 10 ECHR. If we feel that our body does not reflect who we are as people, then we have the right to change it. If we can dye our hair, change our clothes and have piercings, why should we not be able to express ourselves via cosmetic surgery. Now, this right would not extend to NHS payment for the cosmetic surgery, but if someone can afford to spend money on their own appearance, there is no reason why they should not be able to, and there is a legal reason why they should be able to | PRO | 2b8fa8a1-2019-04-19T12:44:38Z-00003-000 |
DR H PTBTMSiWY WECAO. Boy tf is your wack-ballman talking about you sultry fool. Lemme break it down for you. You are a bussy (definition of bussy: a man who has completed shadow the hedgehog for the nintendo toaster-oven on hard difficulty) who knoweth not the glory of our god rad chad. " And then rad chad spoke out from the mountain saying, " Do not fear the dark my child, for i am a mad lad" (1st lad. 5:16 New living translation) " When you hear this profound wisdom, how still can you claim ignorance to rad chad's light? . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . also yuu suk pp | CON | 3fa4ff3d-2019-04-18T11:42:27Z-00005-000 |
Atheism is true, god is not. I will first define what god actually is before we begin this debate. I will define god in the classical theistic sense. A being who is all powerful, all knowing, all loving, and is the creator of the universe. If my opponent has any problem with this definition I ask him to clarify in a comment so as to not waste rounds on semantics. Atheism can be defined as the belief that the phrase, "There is a god" is false. When mentioning atheism we may refer to strong atheism as opposed to weak atheism as my opponent has flat out said "god is fake".Now I will respond to my opponent's three arguments for why god does not exist. 1. He hasn't appeared in modern daysThis does not actually prove that god does not exist. Proving a negative is logically impossible. Rather, one could say that god is simply waiting for something or is acting on the world in ways which we cannot see yet because of the huge gaps in current human knowledge. If no one hears from me or sees me for a couple of years then it would make sense to believe that I was dead. However, this by itself would not definitely prove that I am dead. I may be living as a hermit in the Sahara desert for all you know. 2. There is no proof that he existsThis fact by itself would definitely support weak atheism, the position of simply non-belief in god or gods, but my opponent has made the bold assertion that "god is fake". My opponent is arguing for strong atheism and as so, hard evidence will be needed, not simply lack of evidence. What this arguments is is simply an argument from ignorance. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 3. It would defy our laws of scienceBy definition, god is above the laws of science as he is the creator of them. God is expected to defy these and he would not be god if he abided by them.The resolution has been negated and thus I urge a Con vote. | CON | 33515d67-2019-04-18T18:50:08Z-00006-000 |
Annabella. Thank you for taking this debate, I'm sure it will be a good one. REBUTTLE: I'd first like to point out that there is no definition of beauty, but ONLY opinions. Sure, you can dictionary. com the word, but they are mere thoughts of what that person thinks the word means. Pretty to you could be thin, blonde, green eyes. But to someone else it could be short, dark hair, and blue eyes. It's only a opinion. Negating my argument is next to impossible; you can't prove there is only one definition. Just a generalization of my contentions: CON 1: I'm better looking then anyone else on Debate. org CON 2: This is my opinion, NO ONE can prove an opinion to be false. After all it is an opinion. Just some values: Value: Ones right to have an opinion Value criteria: Freedom of speech. | PRO | 4f1bf33e-2019-04-18T19:16:57Z-00003-000 |
Diet and exersise!!!. You considered nothing I said: Diet is an expensive thing to maintain in some areas. Over 23 million Americans live in a food desert, meaning an area, usually urban, in which it is difficult to by affordable fresh food. And half of those 23 million people are low-income, so they will not have much time for exercise either. When both those intersect in a food desert, obesity is imminent. You may have bananas in your area for pretty cheap, and it's great that it's not expensive to be healthy where you are, but in some areas it is. I don't deny your facts about obesity and preventable disease, and it is a problem, but why are the people suffering from it being much more criticized instead of the local governments for allowing the food deserts to form and stay. Instead of reactive people like you, people have taken a proactive approach to this, building local community gardens with free fresh for for everybody. There are still many people in areas with well-established food security, and to tackle that problem, we once again we don't attack the people affected by unhealthy eating and bad exercise, instead tackling the problem at the source, whatever it may be. By helping these communities and creating a new cultural attitude instead of demeaning them and expecting them to fix themselves on their own, we can finally eradicate the problem. And before making these claims, understand what causes obesity and how it could realistically be fixed. All caps doesn't make you more dominant or correct in this debate. It is showing your adamance towards the second opinion. Sources: https://www.dosomething.org... | CON | 7b734685-2019-04-18T11:48:24Z-00002-000 |
TV is bad for kids. I find this particular argument interesting as it addresses what children should do and not do; and also bringing up the development of the child later on thanks to the influences that they were exposed to. Therefore, I"ll attempt to put up a decent argument because I"m somewhat both sided on this. The development of the child is important to look into but I doubt its television that plays a huge role in the development but instead it"s the parents that determine the development of the child such as how they"re going to be brought up. Your premise of "TV is bad for kids because it really screws up the brain" is too broad because you"re talking about all types of television including televised programs such as PBS Kids that actually help with the development of children by giving an early introduction to the English language and simple mathematics through examples that appeal to the kids interest at that time. Some television actually teaches kids. Refer to a review (.pdf) in the following link for more supportive information: http://pbskids.org... By definition of kids however, to somewhat narrow down what you mean; we"re talking about kids who are pre-adolescents (a rough estimate of 2 years of age to about 8 years of age) since adolescence varies as early as 11 years but the common age is around 13 years of age. If I am mistaken about this statement here, please correct me and elaborate on what you mean by kids. However, my stance on this arguments remains unchanged. | CON | 1035c32d-2019-04-18T17:47:04Z-00004-000 |
Religion should not be taken out of schools. There are several reasons why we should NOT teach religion in Public Schools. The First: It is public the other people from other Religions pay there taxes too. 2: There is no time for Religion in school. If you think about it which do you think is more important for a child to learn to use in life Religion/ math, social studies, Language arts , or yes Science (Which in my state only teaches physics and chemistry.) 3. You won't change their minds all you will do is piss the other people off. No I do not believe in teaching Religion in school, but yes I do believe in God and I AM a CHRISTIAN. | CON | c50236dc-2019-04-18T16:42:52Z-00004-000 |
Guantanamo detainees are being tortured. "Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Civil and Political Rights. Situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay". United Nations Economic and Social Council. February 15, 2006 - "There are recurrent reports of three contexts in which excessive force was routinely used: during transportation,72 with regard to operations by the “Initial Reaction Forces” (IRF), and by force-feeding during hunger strikes. The last is briefly dealt with in section V on the right to health. According to reports by the defence counsels, some of the methods used to force-feed definitely amounted to torture." | PRO | 22149ea8-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00117-000 |
God exists and we are without excuse for denying him. I quoted the Bible. I don't think that is considered plagiarism. And I did make logical points. I'm telling you that outside of God you can't account for anything. I'm not going to waste my time disproving other religions because to do that i'd be using logic and rational thinking and even those are dependant on God. You cannot know truth in any area without starting with God first. | PRO | 15b256fc-2019-04-18T16:52:53Z-00003-000 |
Gay Marriage should be protected by the Constitution. Today, gay marriage is legally recognized in 6 states. I believe that the Federal Legislature should amend the Constitution, that it would require all states to acknowledge gay marriage. Arguments against gay marriage are often religion-based or biased, and in a country that purposely does not have a designated religion, I think that it is the duty of our government to work in the best interests of its people, including homosexuals. Prohibition of gay marriage is discrimination just as much as segregation was. I hope that my opponent will be able to logically argue his position. | PRO | eb6bf7d5-2019-04-18T18:38:16Z-00006-000 |
animal testing should be banned. Since my opponent forfeited this round, it will somehow be unfair for me to write a long refutation. I will refute my opponent's argument as brief as I can. . Animals have their own rights. -freedom -life -happiness -protection Animal tests violates these rights.What do you mean in this case? How does the animal testing violate this rights. Please specify. I think my opponent is saying that the environment for the experiment of animals are harmful. However, it is highly regulated so the animal testing is done safely. Also, for the happiness and protection, without any animal testing, it won't be able to cure the diseases of animals, either. So, animal testing will worth more and more animals being cured and protected from diseases, and that will give surely more happiness to the animals. 2. Animal tests are replaceable. -inaccuracy -alternative What does it mean for inaccuracy and being alternative? How are animal testing replaceable. Please clarify this.Living things like humans and animals are too complex that there are not any appropriate things to replace the animals. | CON | fd98a1f9-2019-04-18T16:36:58Z-00002-000 |
Should you step in to monitor a parent talking insultingly to a child. I can personally think that, yes,it should be taken care of. But, no, if the child is being verbally abused, you should not step in to stop it. There has to be a reason for this matter, whether it's a mental illness, or the child has gotten in trouble, you don't know in this situation. You shouldn't report it to anyone, because you don't know if the parent has a mental illness or not. Nor should you step in to stop it, because the child could be in trouble and is being punished. There should be no reason for stepping in to stop it. | CON | d48a4339-2019-04-18T11:44:13Z-00004-000 |
Yasuo is broken. Yasuo is not broken. He is balanced. The only reason to ban him if if you're in low elo and you know your teammates will feed. His win rate is not that great, (only 49%) and is easily focused down if he is the only lane doing well. Hes like Teemo... hes annoying and people don't want to play with or against him, but all in all, he is not that great. | CON | f2773f8c-2019-04-18T12:03:16Z-00001-000 |
It looks like a God exists. It looks like Con wants a troll debate, so here goes. ----- Con: "1+1 doesn't equal 3" Sure it does. 1 three + 1 zero equals 3. 1 two + 1 one equals 3. Prove me wrong Con. ----- Con: "nature is not a construct, constructs are machines or intended, nature is random and nature is the opposite of machine." Oh? Prove it. | PRO | 1786ff8a-2019-04-18T13:01:19Z-00007-000 |
atheism is disbelief, disbelief, is belief to the contrary of the positive theistic assertion. cool, but even if you concede that you dont know, you still admit you go beyond what you dont know and believe i dont have a dog but, am i lying about not having a dog? you can believe in science and christianity as long as they dont contradict to obviusly, i think belief is doubt, so to believe god is false is to doubt god is false, and as a balance i must believe god is true same with theism negating theism imaginary claims goes to future, knowledge is truth, truth can only be in the past, past is the opposite of future the neutral position is i accept i dont know, its the only true positionm therfore, as belief is based on that position, its automaticly false, imaginary doubt is the balancing point between belief and disbelief, and on the opposite side, on the true side, is the i dont know position, doubt being a false position i dont know=certain, as i know i dont know, and know is true do you know i am wearing a hat right now? if i say the cake tastes great, and you say i dont accept that, then i would ask why dont you accept that it dosnt taste great for you to disbelieve my claim that yellow is the best colour, is you believing i am lying about that. unless best isnt oppinion based | PRO | d833f4ed-2019-04-18T15:05:52Z-00005-000 |
Mike Huckabee is the best candidate for the Republicans. I would like to take this opportunity to see what other people think about Mike. Personally he is my choice for several reasons, but that does not necessarily make him the best republican candidate. Mike is a true conservative who's speaking style and charisma is comparable to that of bill Clinton. In the debates he has shown that he can think quickly on his feet while speaking with sincerity. He is also one of the only candidates to share his vision for American rather than to trash the other candidates and truly desecrate the republican name. | PRO | 6f66efa6-2019-04-18T20:00:58Z-00005-000 |
Socialist policies are good for America. I believe that to begin arguing in favor of socialism in the United States, we'd first have to look at history. Our first arguably socialist president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, did in fact pull the United States out of the depression that was engulfing the world. One of the primary things that Roosevelt did was begin using stimulus in the economy, which generally goes against absolute capitalism. He didn't leave jobs to be created by the upper class as many conservatives and even democratic politicians support, he had the government make them. The increased the rights of the worker and allowed more rights for unions. Whether it was one of these things or a combination, you cannot help but concede that socialism rejuvenated our economy. Overseas, we saw Adolf Hitler resurrect the dead German economy. He implemented a form of (national) socialism to stimulate the economy. During this time, the Soviet Union was busy reversing the faults of capitalism and quickly modernized the failed state, turning it into a world power by the end of the second World War. | PRO | fbfe2e1c-2019-04-18T14:42:29Z-00003-000 |
Our society is not male dominated. Yes it is. After I was raped, I was treated like I was asking for it by some people I know. I am a woman, My rapist is a man. His lawyer even said i was asking for it. This is a form of rape culture perpetuated by privileged men. Let me tell you also about Broque Truner who was caught raping a young lady who was drunk. He never got REAL time. Another rapist who happened to be a man was never charged with rape even though their was enough evidence. Women used to be denied justice if they were raped by a spouse, Or date. What we have is men deciding whether women have sex or not, Instead of the actual women deciding. On to other things: Men decide women don't have the right to be paid the same as a man, Men decide what birth control women use, And even if a rape or spousal abuse victim can use force to save her life. Girls are more likely to struggle in school. Hillary won the majority vote and Trump was elected. I am no liberal sissy Mary, But I am tired of being viewed as less human than a man. | CON | 768b87cc-2019-04-18T11:16:08Z-00006-000 |
Certificates are more important than hands-on experience to prove a person's self-worth. Thank you for your reply. Yes, I agree to your point that an unqualified person could never be called in for an interview and it is strictly based on the Curriculum Vitae but however, as stated in the Oxford dictionary, "self-worth" is defined as "self-esteem" and I don't think self esteem could be built up in a short period. Therefore, in my opinion I think a certificate indicate an achievement but does not prove one's self-worth and my statement was not a blatant lie. I don't think self-worth could be proven in a piece of paper as it is something that needs to be experienced at the point in time, also can be seen in http://www.wikihow.com... I fully think that in the long-run, self-worth could only be proven through experience than just a piece of paper. A piece of paper may just be a stepping-stone, and it is unable to prove one's self-worth. I hand over to you. | CON | 96d1f328-2019-04-18T17:12:40Z-00002-000 |
ODT2: All triangles are isosceles. Quick NoteMy opponent must prove that *all* triangles are isosceles. If I can show that even one triangle is isosceles, I win the round because then not *all* triangles are isosceles. Definition of Isosceles Triangle and ImpactAn isosceles triangle is a triangle with at least two sides that are equal. The 3-4-5 right triangle is not an isosceles triangle, so we know that my opponent’s case is flawed from the outset. Opponent’s CaseMy opponent attempts to prove that all triangles are isosceles through an examination of three different cases that center around the intersection of an angle bisector and the perpendicular bisector of the side across from it. It is a given that if the perpendicular bisector and the angle bisector are the same, the triangle will be isosceles, so he needs to prove the three other cases.Scenario 1: The perpendicular bisector and the angle bisector intersect in the middle of the triangle.This one gave me a great deal of trouble, but after staring at the proof for two hours, I noticed that my opponent’s diagram is actually misleading and then did some investigation of my own through drawings on paper. I found that Scenario 1 does not even exist since the perpendicular bisector and the angle bisector will always intersect outside the triangle. This proof hinges on an internal intersection, but that does not happen. Scenario 1 thus turns into Scenario 3. Scenario 2: No intersectionThis scenario doesn’t actually make sense; if you look at my opponent’s drawings, the triangles cannot possibly be congruent because one has larger sides than the other. The flaw in this scenario is that he assumes that the angle bisector will intersect the side at a 90 angle, which is not possible if it is not equal to the perpendicular bisector. In fact, the two subtriangles could not ever be congruent (which requires all sides and angles to be the same) if the angle bisector and perpendicular bisector attached to the side at two different points since the angle bisector would not divide the triangle into equal halves. Scenario 3: External IntersectionThis is where my opponent does not actually prove his case because he does not consider a scenario that actually is part of this scenario. My opponent is correct that lines can be drawn at OB and OC, but he then tells you that he wants to connect O and AC and AB. He assumes that a ray from O will intersect these lines outside of the triangle, but it is possible to have a situation in which E, for example, is between A and B. In this case, OE and OF would not be congruent, and neither would AOE and AOF. This was claim one in his proof, so in this scenario, the triangle is not isosceles and the resolution is negated. | CON | 7ffe3b35-2019-04-18T18:02:36Z-00004-000 |
An individual chooses to be homosexual. Firstly, let me state that I am not against homosexual people. I welcome them; I am tolerant of differences. Secondly, I have befriended those who I have met, and I have treated them as humans should be treated, after all, one sexual orientation doesn't make him/her less of a human. Lastly, I am about equality, hence, I support the recent Supreme Court decision on gay marriage, because I believe in the fair treatment of all. Less hate, more love, that's what we need in this problematic and changing world. In spite of those, the elephant in the room is that an individual chooses to be homosexual. In taking up this debate, my opponent will argue that an individual doesn't chooses to be homosexual, while I on the other hand, will seek to argue that an individual chooses to be homosexual. Definition: Individual: a single person or thingChooses: pick out or select (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives. Homosexual: sexually attracted to people of one's own sex. | PRO | 9537777e-2019-04-18T14:33:25Z-00005-000 |
Anatidaephobia. Anatidaephobia (the fear of somewhere, somehow a duck watching you) The ducks are watching...+48 I mean that's pretty stupid. But when you think about it... It's kind of really scary to have that in your mind all the time. :I+29 The fact I can get it right away with a lot more to come back and I don't think that it was not immediately available to comment on the way I am so excited to be able and willing and able to do it again I have a great way of saying it is not an issue of whether it was not immediately available to comment on the way I am sure you think I can get it right away with the same thing to say it was not a fan since I got to see you soon enough for you and your not going to be the first half of the day before I can be found at a time when you are not going anywhere near me I was in oops the obest ois in my room for a long way toward an amazing voice of reason she is not an easy to play the piano lessons and a few years and years in the morning to all my life and the way to the point where you are the only thing that would have to go back and I don't think that I have a great way of the day after a few weeks and of of it and morythe on a train and a ggreat to say I don't give me some more and ...more | CON | 9873299c-2019-04-18T11:27:50Z-00001-000 |
The involvement of CSOs promotes good governance practices. The idea that CSO’s involvement in political life equals good governance is essentially an oversimplification. In extremely corrupt semi-democracies, there is no guarantee that societal actors will not be co-opted within the system and become corrupted themselves[1]. This would result in a legitimation of the non-democratic powers in the public eye, rather than a promotion of better practices and good governance. We could say that a wider role for civil society is desirable only for those countries that are well ahead in the path of democratisation. The risk is, otherwise, to trigger a counterproductive reaction. [1] Mogalakwe and Sebudubudu (2006) ‘Trends in state-civil society relations in Botswana’, Journal of African Elections, 5:2, pp. 207-224 | CON | a800190f-2019-04-15T20:24:29Z-00010-000 |
The Philadelphia Eagles should NOT draft WR DeSean Jackson. < > I don't understand what u mean by your round 2 argument. Are you arguing with yourself when u say "they should not draft him, no they should draft him?" or are you saying the Eagles shouldn't have drafted T.O.? The San Francisco 49ers drafted T.O. not the Eagles, if that's what you meant. Yes T.O. was a threatening receiver but if you know anything about Harold Carmichael, you will agree T.O. wasn't even in the same league as Carmichael. Most Eagles fans will agree with me on that. I really don't know how to argue your stance because you didn't debate the topic. My issue is people overrating a guy like DeSean Jackson and overlooking the other, better possibilities for the Eagles. Someone like Sweed, Kelly, or Hardy would bring a new dimension to the Eagles WRs. DeSean Jackson would bring the same old thing to Philly. We already have speedy receivers (Reggie Brown and Kevin Curtis)...We need a tall, possession receiver. DeSean Jackson reminds me too much of Ted Ginn Jr. The Miami Dolphins had a chance to draft Brady Quinn who would have helped their franchise to not become the WORST in the league. Instead they chose a 2nd round talent. A mediocre receiver with exceptional KR/PR ability. So in essence they used the 9th overall pick to draft a kick returner. If the Eagles draft DeSean Jackson they will be labeled the Miami Dolphins of the 2008 draft. The only difference is that we have the 19th pick, not the 9th. I'm not calling DeSean Jackson 2nd round talent because I truly believe he is better than that. He just isn't the best WR on the board and that is who the Eagles should take, the best WR. | PRO | 25107a44-2019-04-18T19:47:38Z-00001-000 |
Big breasts are better than small breasts. This may get a little dirty, so if you're up for it let's go! :D I want a fun debate. I believe that breast size has been, is, and will always be important. And not in a derogatory sense at all. Not that I have huge boobs, and not that I'm shallow in ANY way. I'm not bisexual or a lesbian. Bigger boobs are just more favorable in every aspect. Not huge balloons. But a proportional, healthy rack is completely desirable for both men and women. | PRO | 83f1cb4-2019-04-18T19:36:29Z-00003-000 |
You should follow Stoic principles. while I do agree with the idea of not trying to control things that are out of our control. I do not agree with the view of apathy. if the world all held this view then it would be a cold place. feeling of pain and pleasure are what makes us human. pain helps us to be able to enjoy pleasure that much more. Caring about loved ones while in pain is another thing that makes us human and see no reason for apathy its part of life. | CON | fc475d1a-2019-04-18T18:08:39Z-00004-000 |
King Kong Deserved to Beat V-Rex. My opponent's defense is basically that King Kong only won because he was the main character. As I stated before, we need to observe what actually happened, not what should've happened. There may be many odds against a certain individual winning, but it could happen. My opponent's arguments are ones that attack a different resolution. Perhaps a more adequate resolution for his attack is "should king kong have won" not one where deserving is what's in play. In order to see whether one is deservant or not, we need to see at what happened, not what could've happened. Whilst one may have their odds against him / her, it may happen. Take for example: Humans vs. Monkeys in soccer. Of course it's expected for the humans to win, but the monkeys COULD pull off a surprise and win. They may have been more deserving as well, having more shots on goal, etc. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that the odds don't have to be in your favor in order for you to be deserving of victory. 2) My opponent claims that the V-Rexes powers were held back by the movie makers. How do you expect a creature to still be fighting when it's hurt! How do you expect a creature that is pinned to the ground to fight back? How do you expect a creature that had it's tongue bitten respond to that? It may have been an unrealistic battle, but that does not take away from King Kong being deserving of victory. 3) Again, my opponent says that it was an unrealistic battle, and that V-Rex, REALISTICALLY would've won. That is a hypothetical once more on his part. He may have had a lot of odds to win, but at the end, anything could happen, you don't just need skill to win, you also need to be intelligent. Now on to my opponent's conclusions. Basically his conclusions are that the battle was cheesy and unrealistic. They will obviously be unrealistic. When have you seen a humongous monkey or a V-rex walking on Earth while humans are walking? NEVER. Therefore, it will be unrealistic, but based on what happened, the deserving of victory was King Kong, because of what I have proven before My opponent has not said, however why King Kong wasn't deserving, all he's said is that V-Rex should have won if there wasn't bias going on. Let's evaluate on what happened, not on what could've happened please. My conclusion: In order to see whether one is deservant, we need to see what happened. What happened was that King kong won because he had v-Rex pinned to the ground. We can't say that V-Rex was deserving. How could he, if he was on the ground and defenseless? For those reasons, I urge you to vote PRO in this debate. ~Rad | PRO | e7214952-2019-04-18T19:09:14Z-00004-000 |
Morality/Right and Wrong. I am not exactly sure what exactly it is that you want to debate but it concerned morality so I accepted. I assume you have made the following claim: There is no moral objectivity (or in other words there is no such thing as a moral fact). In other words, you have claimed that there are no absolute moral axioms. If you agree that this is what you claimed we will debate this if you disagree please say so and then give a more precise claim. | PRO | 16f35f52-2019-04-18T12:43:14Z-00004-000 |
The Death Penalty. My opening thesis: If a person has intent and malice to cause mental and physical harm and gets the sensation of enjoyment out of it, that person should be punished by death. Once you murder someone (and feel enjoyment), rape, and touch a child inappropriately; you should not be seen as a human being in the eyes of the law and deserved to be put down like an animal. The death penalty is justified at this point. Many will argue that killing a human being after he/she killed another human being (with malice and intent, of course) is unjustifiable as it results in the ending of a human life which is illegal and immoral. I, however, (and many more) disagree as that allows that person who ended a human life to still be alive. Many believe that imprisonment is too humane for these people who commit such heinous acts. Now, onto the subject of rape. Rape is as heinous as murder. You have the intent to cause harm, both physically and psychologically. The result of the rape to the victim is as devastating as murder. You have to live with the thought of being raped and not trusting another human being after the act. Now, onto the physical harm of it. The physical harm of rape is terrible. Rape victims have cuts, bruises, vaginal (or anal for both men and women) damage, and (possibly) broken bones. Pedophilia is devastating to a child. That child will not be the same as he or she was before the incident. They have to live WITH the rest of their lives psychologically and emotionally broken. Children are delicate people. As soon as a man or women lay a finger on a child inappropriately; they should be seen as an animal for ruing that CHILD's life. When I say, "animal;" I mean it as you are seen as a barbaric piece of human flesh with a mentally unstable brain. These animals aren't fit for society and should be excluded from it as a result of their heinous actions. Humans are meant to be reasonable and socially fit people. That is where I end my argument. | PRO | abe4e089-2019-04-18T16:17:42Z-00004-000 |
One's native language structure affects one's world view (Linguistic Relativity). I ask my opponent to forfeit because he has completely decided to change his whole position after I already accepted. Changing it to the position I hold. What is worst of all, his change is based on my argument in my second last debate. He read my argument. And decided to change his argument to account for it, I know it because I am a practising philosopher and it’s my theory. Secondly it’s not fair to change the debate like that after somebody accepted. We don’t need this on DDO. We know he is lying because His copy and paste worked fine so he is completely lying. You can check out where his past comes from and see he is phony. http://www.debate.org... So the debate is over I don’t even want to debate with such a person, this is where he copying or should I say plagiarizing, his new position. I am sure he has some link that may be similar, but obviously he didn’t have it before and its directly in my debate that ended yesterday. Please Vote Con by disqualification!!! This the argument I gave Language is a complex set of physical symbols used to communicate our ideas. That is every word is a symbol which presupposes an idea. In order for communication to take place the ideas which the word relates to must be similar in the speaker and interpreters mind. That is language symbolized reality. It could only at best describe reality. But you cannot define anything into reality. To define a word is simply to assign a set of words, to another. (You have only changed symbols around) Unless this set of world symbolized some reality its useless and even harmful, if you take it as reality. That is, just to assign a set of symbols to a symbol is circular if they don’t actually symbolize anything. E.g. I could define my computer as boot, but what was formally called computer remains the very same regardless of my definition. A subjective definition is useless because the purpose of language is to communicate objectively. Most people are not aware of what I am saying right now. This philosophy is as fresh as I speak it, its straight from the hill™. Reality has its own attributes whether we like it, accept it, agree with it, believe in it, assert it, vote for it or not. All we do we can do with language is categories it and describe it. Reality could never be wrong but we could articulate it wrong. I am forfeiting because I am not going to argue against my very own created theory. This is wack!! Pls Vote Con by disqualification!!! | CON | 1e1ebd5-2019-04-18T18:24:36Z-00004-000 |
The New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression. Let the refutations begin. As you all know, this debate is important to the economic history of the nation and it is important to understand if the New Deal was effective or not and if it should be a role model in public policy for today. That is why I did this debate, to prove that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression overall and was a failure. I thank my opponent for taking such a heavy interest in this debate and I am glad to see an already great debate!Both Schools of Thought Concur, that the New Deal was not the Problem but Other Factors Were!This is my opponent's only argument for this debate. As I have stated before, the purpose of this round is to solely refute the opposing argument and not expand or defend on your own case. My opponent's argument here is that the New Deal is popularly supported to have worked. To prove this, he uses a survey conducted by a professor at Wake Forest University. The survery is quoted in Wikipedia, but my opponent never provided a full link to the survey. I cannot give you a link either since the information seems to be not avaliable. However, I downloaded the survery a while back and I am happy to say that I still have it on my iPad. After seeing this survey again, I have several complaints about how it was conducted. These are:1. The data my opponent is using is old from 1995 and the survery is oudated. There should be a more recent one coducted to see where the opinions are today, but until then we have no modern survey or poll to see what the general opinion of economists and historians is. This information is too old.2. Whaples, the professor who did this survey, only selected historians and economists from the 1993 Economics History Association Telecommunications Directory. This was not more broad to different areas and groups, just one. 3. The confidence level for the historians and economists who were polled was not 100%. This means that they did not have full confidence when answering the Great Depression question. Thank you, I await my opponent's refutations.Source: Whaples, Robert. Where is there Consensus Among Americans Economic Historians?. 1995. | PRO | aa7f795c-2019-04-18T16:41:39Z-00003-000 |
There is no empirical evidence to support the assertion that any god exists. I submit that there is no empirical evidence to support the assertion that any god exists. First round is acceptance only, second round is for arguments, third and fourth will be for rebuttal and additional argument with fifth for summary. Any evidence provided must originate in a peer-reviewed study that was NOT done by an organization backed by a religious group of any kind. Definition: Empirical. Obtained by direct or indirect observation, falsifiable, and repeatable. | PRO | 1bef531a-2019-04-18T15:30:46Z-00005-000 |
Jueteng should be eradicated rather than legalized(Philippines). Since he has not laid down any arguments, I'll wait for Round 2 to make mine. Just some quick definitions. Jueteng: . http://en.wikipedia.org... Eradicated: To remove or destroy utterly; extirpate [. http://dictionary.reference.com...] Legalized: To make legal; authorize. [. http://dictionary.reference.com...] I presume by the title of the resolution that my opponent must argue that Jueteng ought to be completley eradicated and no aspect of it should be legalised, and I the opposite. I await my opponents arguments. | CON | 4313af28-2019-04-18T19:01:46Z-00005-000 |
Are Videogames Art. I would like to open up, with the point that I've been hearing that there is a lot of controversy as to the object of video games being a form art. A definition of art can fall into three parts: a. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium. b. The study of these activities. c. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group. Video games are very fine examples of art, because they are usually appealing to our sight and hearing. The creators of the games are, yes trying to give us a game to enjoy, but also they are allowed boundless opportunities to use their creativity and imagination, which sounds like art to me. I would next like to present some examples of gaming "works of art" in terms of graphics and storyline. I saw storyline because a lot of literature is considered art and I see it that a well developed story line of a game is also a key to the game being a true master piece. Here are some examples. - The Final Fantasy Series - Halo Series - The Legend of Zelda Series - Mass Effect - Half-Life 2 - Portal Just to name some, all these game(s) all have stunning graphics [for their time] and a very gripping plot line. I think that when it comes down to it all, things like Halo 3 and the Mona Lisa have the basic thing that makes art, art. That thing is basic human creativity and intuition for beauty. I now leave the floor open to a challenger. | PRO | 5173c0e9-2019-04-18T19:28:01Z-00006-000 |
Theistic evolution is a better way to explain humans and animals then regular creationalism. Despite her best effort, he could not refute this to her best ability. Skulls show the evolution process. (1) as you can see from the link, you can easily see evolution of the human skull. Again, huge similarities. I have provided DNA proof of evolution. He also do not know what god planned. We deal with mutations every day. Mutations is how evolution started. For example, an increased number of people are being born with two sets of DNA. This may be the next step in human evolution! (2) see how you something as simple as this can alter humans this much. This shows how easy evolution can start. Now, just like regular evolution, it may take a lot of years for all humans to be like this. This proves evolution again. Simple mutations an trigger evolution. As you can see, the evolution of the human skull keeps changing until it looks like the skulls we have today. "How does something "evolve" into being though?"Mutations of the DNA and selective breeding."You might as well say that there is no God if you are going to imply of evolvementation."How so? God would have to make the universe, elements, and cells." Either God created the chicken or He did not? Or Evolution is correct. It simply cannot be both"God created the chicken's ancestor. Then it evolved into the chicken.Case 3:For creationism to be correct would mean we would all have to be related. In the bible, the two humans are Adam and Eve. If they were the only humans, then we are all related. The bible also says that you should not go date your relative. This is a conflict of interest!1. http://www.infovisual.info...2. http://santacruz.hubpages.com... | PRO | 783829e1-2019-04-18T16:42:32Z-00003-000 |
Spanking children. First of all we have to clarify the differences between spanking your children and physically abusing them. Of course abusing your children can and will probably have the psychological and social effects you mentioned above but that's an another story, in this debate we talk about spanking. From my point of view and from personal experience some children need to be physically stimulated in order to understand something , you cannot just say to them "NO" and they will stop doing the thing that you find inappropriate, I can tell you that because I was on of this children and believe me I never felt abused or damaged because of those 1 or 2 times my mother had to spank me and certainly after some sessions with a psychologist (due to dyslexia) he figured that I was a mentally stable individual. On the other hand scientists tell you not to spank your childern because this can cause them serious mental problems but I believe that they themsleves are talking more about abusing them than spanking them once or twice in there lives, because yes if you spank them for every little thing that they do wrong you will certainly cause some psychological damage to them. Lets not forget the ancient greek proverb "\4;^1;`4;`1;_9;_7; ^0;`1;_3;`3;`4;_9;_7;" meaning everything should be done in moderation. | PRO | 5b9411d1-2019-04-18T11:45:12Z-00000-000 |
God probably doesn't exist. ...Are you saying that extremism in religion is bad and it causes suffering?Yes. But this is not the point. Is God obligated to save those who doesn’t believe in him? Does God have an obligation to us? When we don’t believe in him, why would you think he would believe in us?An all-loving god would. It is a douche-move to deny someone into Heaven/Paradise just because of his/her atheism. That person could be a citizen who works at a soup kitchen and loves all types of people. But since he is an atheist, I guess he won't go to Heaven. What I am getting at that since God (partly) caused evil, he should fix it. God created us with free will. Adam and Eve were human, thus they had free will. God has a plan for us, and he gives us the path to salvation, but we have to choose to walk it. God doesn’t force us. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. This is unrelated to the debate. True, I reposted the KCA as it seemed that you had a lack of knowledge in how the universe is matter.Stop strawmaning me. I know the Universe is filled with matter. In fact, you didn't touch off of why 'ex nilho' is wrong. I ask the voters to take my arguments as dropped.Yes, to create us and lead us to salvation.What is that cause? If he created himself out of nothing, then you just proved that the KCA can and was refuted. This has no prove and I ask of you to bring it. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived. The idea of God exists in the mind. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God. Therefore, God exists. This is the Ontological argument. Note how it has a clever way of hiding the fact it is begging the question(The premise is basically the same as the conclusion). A famous example of this argument is a watch. If you find a watch on the ground, you don’t know who made the watch. But you do know that SOMEBODY created the watch. What created DNA? What created the Big Bang? What created us, the way our bodies work? Certainly we are the greatest creation of all? Science has not yet found an answer to some of these questions, so the logical answer would then be God. He created everything. | PRO | b3457e71-2019-04-18T18:11:08Z-00003-000 |
Origin of Government. Con: "information is represented in matter, otherwise, we will not be here. It takes matter and energy to generate and transmit information. Therefore, information is a manifestation of matter and energy, there is nothing “metaphysical” about it!"This is completely wrong. Information is not a manifestation of matter and energy. Information can use matter or energy to convey a message. But, suppose we were in a different universe, where matter and energy were non-existent, but some other physical forms existed. The ways that those forms were arranged could be used to convey information. This is why information is beyond matter and energy, because it uses them, but does not require them. Therefore, information is metaphysical. Because my opponent completely misunderstood my metaphysical argument, the rest of his argument is fundamentally flawed. He attempts to say that physical laws cause moral guidelines, which goes against the law of causality.Con gave an example of sacrificing as a moral necessity, but that is still only a subjective opinion. Others would not agree the sacrifice is good. This can't be justified to an objective level.Con stated, "if all cultures requires a language to begin with, logic dictates all cultures will have the same language." This argument is demonstrably false. Languages change over time. One group of people could start with the same language, and over many generations and with people moving to separate parts of the world, the language would eventually change into different types.Con showed that different cultures will have different views on morals, like with abortion, but he still hasn't really shown the difference between that and what the universal moral thread is.Barbarous and civil are only relative terms if one does not agree that there is an objective moral standard with which society should be based off of. My argument is that, how did that first society learn to become civil all on their own? We do not see societies nowadays becoming more civil unless there is an external influence. Therefore, there must have been an external influence with the first society. | PRO | 37cdb73e-2019-04-18T15:40:47Z-00001-000 |
Euthanasia. Ok so maybe i offer it up. But what is the point? What do i achieve by doing that? Nothing. Is it cowardly to want to avoid pain? If my loved ones REALLY loved me they wouldn't want me to suffer they would want me to be happy and peaceful, and if they really loved me they would support my decision to be Euthanized. | PRO | 9386eb09-2019-04-18T15:39:31Z-00002-000 |
The christian god Yahweh is malevolent. Upon the forfeit of my opponent I have little else to say. The only argument I have failed to disprove is his case that god works "in mysterious ways." As you will shortlysee that argument fits about as much as it does for a serial killer.In the king james bible, which religion places as infallible, the lord yahweh is a mighty and jealous god. He issues commands that would be inexcusable today. The stoning of gays is hardly kosher today despite that fact it would be un kosher not to do so. The bible by the way, was always untill recently, a moral guide specifically for jews by jews. Love thy neighbor, if translated literrayl would read "Love thy fellow jew." Heathans were free to be killed and they were by the bucketload. It is a sacrilege for instance to marry a canaanite or several fancy names for arab and moses died, not of old age, but for not circumcizing his sons.Finally the god, Yahweh is malevolent for the main reason that he kills people. Lots of people. Plague, stillbirthing, lightning strikes, fires, floods, cities destroyed on the basis that everyone was a rapist (apparently including dogs, women, children and babies) and god waited 6 billion years to give anyone the slughtest chance of not burning in hell. Yahweh is evil, by far more evil than satan. | PRO | 725587a8-2019-04-18T18:45:33Z-00000-000 |
Churches Should be Taxed. The separation of church and state would not be as severly violated as it has been in the past. Kentucky has given out Bibles in public schools, a family of Jewish children was repeatedly harassed after complaining about the promotion of Christian beliefs in their school. One of the students was forced to write an essay on "Why Jesus Loves Me." The taxation of churches and other religious institutions would not be as severe as forcing the beliefs of Christianity onto Jews or Muslims. As I said, it would only be .5% taxation. Then they could go on their merry way and do whatever they want with the rest. It's no secret churches have abusing extra money and such. I'm not saying all churches are, just some. Also, the government is not intruding on the ceremonies of the religious, just collecting money. We're not shutting the churches down, we're just taxing them very little.Source: http://archive.adl.org... | PRO | c5ba2ffc-2019-04-18T16:06:55Z-00004-000 |
fun 90's song lyrics debate. OH HO HO! What do we have here? I see how my opponent plays now! Nice and dirty and POPULAR! Well if we are going with the more well known lyrics of the 90's that our voters are surely going to love, then I present you with this gem! And I say, dear sir, can YOU dig it?? HAHA! Whoomp! (There It Is), Tag Team 1993 source: http://www.lyricsondemand.com... 'Party people Yeah Tag Team music comin' straight atacha That's me DC the Brain Supreme And my man Steve Roll'n We're kicking the flow we're kickin' And it goes a little somethin' like this Tag Team back again check it top Wreck it - let's begin Party people let me hear some noise DC's in the house jump jump and rejoice There's a party over here a party over there Wave your hands in the air Shake the deriere These three words mean you're gettin' busy Whoomp there it is whoomp there it is Upside down and inside out I'm about to show all you folks What's it's all about Now it's time to get on the mic And make this party hype I'm talking it back to the old school 'Cause I'm an old fool who's so cool If you want to get down I'm gonna show you the way whoomp there it is Let me hear you say whoomp there it is Whoomp chak a laka chack a laka chak a laka chak a Point blank gin and juice I drank Gettin' bent and bent and as I puff on a dankt Rock the mic uh oh I see rave skin Rip skit find a honeydip to dip it in Slam dunk it stick it flip it and ride That is double O D D Y oh my Ooh that it come on come on Whoomp there it is I'm done "Hey some say I'm crazy 'Cause I'm pushin' up daises The underground sound that you have found Amazing outstanding demanding Commanding you people dancin' That's a breath taker I produce AKA the undertaker You want to come down to the underground Old school - here's a shovel can dig it fol Can you dig it we can dig it Can y'll dig it we can dig it Why double omp as I flow To the fly from the school of old Hardcore kick the folk lore wreck Three to the two and one mic-check Mad skill flow ill on the mesh of steel That's the grill of the microphone I just killed Party people it's your party Tag Team is through Whoomp there it is I thought you knew Whoomp there it is Yeha Tag Team comin' straight atcha That's me DC the brain supreme And my man Steve Roll'n Bring it back ya'll bring it back ya'll bring it back Here we go Whoomp there it is' | PRO | e73908ed-2019-04-18T17:18:45Z-00005-000 |
Undertale is an incredible game. Firstly, I don't believe it's an incredible game because, when you're told not to kill all the monsters at the beginning of the game... yet all the monsters actually go out of their way to end your life. Yet with all these monsters actively trying to kill you, you can't defend yourself, otherwise you're an evil monster. The game is essentially forcing you take the pacifist path, because apparently, you're a genocidal maniac if you defend yourself from a monster that is going to kill you. Secondly, some of the characters are really bland, and do nothing to advance the plot in game whatsoever. Like for example, there's Mad Dummy, who is just a boss you encounter at random and is never heard from again. And then there's Napstablook, a ghost you fight also, and is also never heard from again. Some of these characters do absolutely nothing and are never heard from again. Thirdly, the game doesn't become so original, when all it takes to implement the same system where you don't needlessly kill, all anyone needs to do to make a game like that is to add a karma meter to their game, where if you do bad things, bad things happen to you, and if you do good, good things happen. That's exactly how Undertale's ending system works. | CON | da3ea5fe-2019-04-18T13:10:04Z-00002-000 |
"Having Sex" Is Rational; "Making Love" Is Not. I"m sorry, but your argument is incoherent and you didn"t reject my counter. My counter still disproves your position on this issue and you need to disarm it if you want to be able to prove your point. You keep dancing around it and talk about feelings and this vague understanding of I wasn"t saying that rationality isn"t an elegant idea, I"m saying that I think your definition of rationality is wrong because it isn"t elegant. Rationality doesn"t include a cost-benefit analysis of risk calculation...logical thought does, but rationality and logical are not always the same thing. For something to be rational it is to be in accord with logic or reason, but not necessarily the same thing. Your third paragraph is really ambiguous because you are trying to imply that "Having Sex" involves risk balancing. You haven"t made that argument. In fact, I, for all intensive purposes, can argue that, because it is a subconscious desire, we cannot call all instances of "Having Sex" based in rationality because the possibility exists that the level of rationality involved is equal to that of someone "Making Love." If "Making Love" is irrational, so is "Having Sex" and if it is not, neither or either. Your fourth paragraph is all over the pace. I used my mathematical example to illustrate rationality. You are using ambiguity in your argument again. You argue that my example is "thoughtful, but not all forms of thought are rational" but I never argued that all forms of thought are rational. You brought Kant into this to bolster your argument, but your statement is unrelated to our debate here. You argue that love goes beyond biology, but the side you are taking in this debate is that of ""Having Sex" is rational; "Making Love" is Not" however you just conceded that biology can be rational. Your final "point" is that "Making Love" goes beyond biology, but rationality doesn"t stem from biology it stems from a line of thought or a process being in accord with logic. You haven"t argued that "Making Love" must be irrational. | CON | b106ebe8-2019-04-18T17:16:58Z-00006-000 |
fast food is good or not. Saves the time time but makes us fat and thus unable to do as much with our fat bodies in a given amount of time.If, however, I'm advocating it's good then clealry convenience is the main factor and yes it brilliantly saves time on a particularly busy day.The fact that the 'con' has gone against fast food confuses me as to which side I am on. | PRO | 6039428a-2019-04-18T17:52:14Z-00003-000 |
Better than Deserved. To clarify my position: AS human beings we all often are better than deserved. We are all alive; living and breathing. We also have been given a chance to seek God. Sorry I was not able to prepare my argment, so this is going against my own rules. :/ My apologies. I have been a bit busy today. However, in simpler terms... Being better than deserved is to point directly to the Gospel of Christ. God is Holy and thus- because He is holy makes Him just, righteous, perfect and good. Whereas the depravity of man-kind is the total opposite because we all fall short of God's glory (Romans 3:23)... we have broken God's law (Exodus 20:3-17) which in right, we are deserving nothing more than God's wrath in hell. But John 3:16 addresses that because of God's love for the world we can be saved through the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. With this Gospel, in my personal belief, humility is a main reason to stand on the belief of being better than deserved. If I or anyone were to say that they deserve to be saved or live a good life or be blessed than that is arrogant and cruelly stealing glory from God. The glory and point of direction should be based solely and only on God. Its not to say that God doesn't see me or anyone else deserving, because if He didn't then there would be no salvation of hope for any of us, but to stay humble this is the best way to approach when acknowledging the good things God has granted to us as believers and even non-believers. Therefore, better than deserved is good to use for the sake of the understanding the Gospel and remaining humble. :) (sorry its short, hope this answers everyone's questions though... And best wishes to my opponent!) | PRO | 1c57c1d9-2019-04-18T16:04:00Z-00005-000 |
Gay's should be able to marry. Burden of Proof is on PRO, but I will bring up sufficient evidence for my arguments. I debate that gay people should not and are not able to marry people of the same sex (according to the definitions given below). Marry: Join in marriage. (1) Marriage: The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife. (2) #1 . https://www.google.com... (The first definition) #2 . https://www.google.com.... (The first definition) Vote CON! ! | CON | fdc7da1-2019-04-18T17:04:10Z-00006-000 |
Most Important Battles. Battle of ViennaThis battle is somewhat like the famous battle of Tours (732), but in this case, the less famous battle of Vienna was far more close. Once again the Muslims were on the move in 1683 to claim all of Europe under the flag of the Ottoman Empire. Intially, the Ottomans were trying to siege Vienna, but this actually turned into a battle as things went on. Why? The Ottomans kept dallying and waited to long and an epic battle took place. Basically their commander, Mustafa Pasha, had a force of over 130,000 Ottoman troops. Vienna was protected by 15,000 Germans. Pasha lost his window to attack and now fought on the defensive when a relief force arrived of 100,000 Germans and Poles. What this battle proves is that you should not waste time like Pasha did. Had he attacked, Vienna would had no doubt fallen and he would have had stronghold for the Ottomans to gain reinforcements. The Ottomans lost 20,000 men while the Europeans lost 4,500. For more watch this:http://www.youtube.com... | PRO | 45180298-2019-04-18T18:15:22Z-00005-000 |
Resolved: It is more rational to worship the stars than the Judeo-Christian God. Before I even begin with definitions, do not take this debate if you are Calvin_Cambridge, Kohai, ScarletGhost, Samian96, or Darknes. Definitions: Stars: Massive, luminous ball of plasma held together by gravity. Rational: Agreeable with reason. Burden of Proof: The BoP will be shared. Con cannot win just by poking holes in my vase, he must build his own that worshipped God is both better and more rational. Think of it as a tug of war: Con must build his own case and argue effectively for the win rather than the entire burden being on me. | PRO | 39de5374-2019-04-18T18:40:05Z-00004-000 |
Women have a more important and useful role in society than men. So you have forfeited your last round also. So as i have said i am using this round for concluding my points. So as i have said above it is proved that each and every person has equal role in society. Every job has its own dignity and nothing is greater than other. So i am not saying that men are greater than women but i am not supporting the fact that women are greater than men. They have equal status and equal roles to play in the society. So i hope that my pro understand what i am saying and also negative sides of the statement. So in this debate i have opposed all the points made by the pro but he has not opposed mine. So i think that the result of this debate goes favourable to the con side. .. .. .. .. . Here i would like to post some sites that supports my argument,. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://europa.eu... . http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca... . http://www.globalprosperity.org... . http://www.unfpa.org... . http://www.gender.go.jp... From these sites we can see that women only have equal role in society and nothing more than it. So i hope all should be in the con side of this debate. | CON | 5e0f20fc-2019-04-18T16:55:54Z-00000-000 |
Only important subjects should be mandatory and choice of subjects should be at maximum. Your education system would be a bit too broad. While it is certainly good to have more freedom when it comes to courses, here are some courses that are minimum: Mathematics Science Language Reading Comprehension Basically, the core subjects. Also, to ensure that students get a broad view of all different aspects of education, here are courses that should be required for at least one semester: Art Music PE | CON | c63c6afe-2019-04-18T12:06:18Z-00008-000 |
let the red states secede. 1. None of these points constitute actual communism or socialism of any kind. There is no command economy. Even the most cursory understanding of what communism or socialism actually are will easily elucidate the fact that the "blue" states have not established and do not seek to establish either of these systems. 2. This point shows such ignorance of the very concept of power that I don't know how to begin to address it. The government would not be allegedly exercising power by "changing" the definition of marriage. The "definition" of anything is not determined linguistically by the State. Instead, the government is exercising power by forcing people to conform to a certain definition. My opponent asserts "the traditional definition of marriage by definition is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife." Who creates that definition? Is it the right of a "small government" to uphold that definition? No, conservatives have no interest in small government. Authoritarianism (and that is what social conservationism is) is inherently incompatible with small government. The phrase "small government" is just being twisted to mean anything. I don't see how anyone can seriously argue that the government is overstepping its power by ALLOWING people to do something. 3. My opponent is dodging the main root of this argument, which is that it is impossible for states to switch between two countries effectively. Many of the states are not clearly "red" or "blue" and would have nowhere to go. There would be no long term stability because many states would keep seceding and seceding back constantly or they would have nowhere to go. 4. Dodging the point about the fact that "blue state" universities offer an objectively better education and better pre-professional training. I am not talking about public education at all. I am talking about private, post-secondary education. The "red states" clearly suffer as a result of this. | CON | 8a128026-2019-04-18T19:08:18Z-00002-000 |
Children should receive vaccinations. To begin, I will remind my opponent that his/her next round will be their concluding round, in which they may not present any new information. This means that he/she can only weigh and crystallize arguments. My conclusion will be the first part of round 5, directly after my opponent's. My Arguments:My arguments have all been dropped by my opponent. This means that all my arguments have been accepted to be true. Refutations:Since my arguments have been accepted to be true, my opponent's incorrect and unproven assertions that vaccines are untrustworthy and harmful have been disproven by my arguments. I have proven that government-approved vaccinations work reliably, or as reliably as you can expect anything to. You can risk the slight risk of your child having an allergy and then have compensation from the government and protection from herd immunity. [1] This is obviously different from drinking orange juice from the grocery store, risk the slight chance of getting orange juice that is past expiration date, and then return it, get compensation from the grocery store, and get better orange juice. (Please infer sarcasm). | PRO | 79f05a51-2019-04-18T14:20:37Z-00001-000 |
The Avengers can destroy the Justice League. My argument is that the Avengers from Earth 616 can abolish the Justice league from Earth one. The Avengers team will consist of the following: Iron Man Captain America Hulk Thor Hawkeye Scarlet Witch Black Widow Justice League: Batman Superman Flash Cyborg Aqua Man Wonder Women Green Arrow Rules for the debate are to include reliable sources or else the argument will be considered invalid. Use proper spelling and Grammar. No name calling. | PRO | 8d96ae9f-2019-04-18T12:25:44Z-00009-000 |
Lowering the taboo. A lot of people who are allowed alcohol when they are younger still find the urge to go out and party and get really ill because the alcohol is in moderation. I do not think that it matters whether they are given alcohol at an early age or not because when they hit the age of 18 the teenager would experience a whole new world where alcohol is available legally and a lot more of it. | CON | 1232aa13-2019-04-19T12:46:45Z-00002-000 |
Semi to intelligent life exists on other planets. It is very unfortunate that Pro could not conclude his arguments, I have really enjoyed this debate. Anyway, in this last round I will only present my conclusion. In the first round it was agreed that it cannot be said that "Semi to intelligent life exists on other planets", what, from my point of view, was a victory for my side. But for the rest of the debate, we focused on the question of whether it was possible to say that it is at least even odds of life existing or not in other planets. Although Pro has given solid numbers stating that there are an enormous number of planets in the universe, when you compare this numbers to the equally astonishing small odds of life succeeding in each of this planets, those previous numbers don't look so impressive. I do like to believe that we are not alone on the universe. But I realize this belief is based mostly on faith, because as I demonstrated, the odds of that being true are negligible, and the odds of another civilization making contact with us are much smaller. | CON | baf107a7-2019-04-18T17:21:57Z-00000-000 |
The Christian God is more likely than other gods. False Gods "False gods are gods that are not real, but invented by men or inspired by demons. The purpose of which is to deceive people so they do not believe in the true and living God. Some of the false gods listed in the Bible are Adrammelech and Anammelech (2 Kings 17:31), Asherah (1 Kings 15:13;18:19), Ashtoreth (1 Kings 11:5,33), Baal (Judges 2:13; 1 Kings 16:31), Baalzebub (2 Kings 1:1-16; Luke 11:19-23), Dagon (Judges 16:23-30), Molech/Moloch (Lev. 18:21; 20:1-5), Rimmon (2 Kings 5:18), and Tammuz (Ezekiel 8:14). http://carm.org... "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... My question to you at this point is: If Jesus did not die for our sins then how will you obtain salvation? Do you just expect God to forgive you with no punishment? Do you hope to be a good enough person from now on that God will forgive your past transgressions? The bible teaches in John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" | PRO | 86eac5f1-2019-04-18T17:51:49Z-00007-000 |
Jesus decides who will be thrown in hell and who will be saved as per the Christian Bible. Jesus may sit on the judgement seat but god has already decided before creation. Ephesians 1:4-5 "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love predestined us for adoption to son ship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will" And Jesus does nothing of his own accord but simply is the one caring out the judgment in which god has already decided long ago. John 5:30 "I can do nothing on My own initiative as I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. | CON | db374093-2019-04-18T13:45:05Z-00002-000 |
Patients will be better informed than under the status quo. Advertising prescription drugs enables patients to learn, and to request innovation faster in order to benefit from the new drugs that health personnel still have not gotten used to. Advertising increases consumer awareness of drugs, which makes consumers more likely to take appropriate medication. The drugs market is complex and so advertising can help explain the differences between treatments, for example between contraceptive pills intended to reduce period pain, period flow and those simply to prevent pregnancy. Advertising under current rules is used to inform patients of new drugs which may be appropriate for conditions which they suffer from (such as recent asthma drugs which reduce the frequency of attacks), but which their doctor might overlook or not have the time to crosscheck against her list of patients.[1] 56% of AMA general practitioners believed that direct-to-consumer advertising had prompted some of their patients to seek treatment for a condition which would have otherwise been neglected.[2] If a patient has taken the time to actively consider a particular drug and then visits their doctor, whether they are prescribed it or not, they are building up a positive relationship with their doctor and are more likely to continue to take an active interest in their health. Further on, in states where there is no direct to consumer advertising but there is advertising to doctors, patients are disadvantaged because it is in the interest for private medical insurance firms or national health services to keep information about expensive new drugs from patients. In the UK it was because of cost that the Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) refused to allow the prescription of Herceptin, a drug which US studies have shown reduces the damage done by breast cancer. Ultimately pressure from Roche, the drug’s manufacturer and from patients resulted in the drug being authorized for use, but the process was much faster in the US where Roche could run advertisements alerting consumers to the potential benefits of Herceptin, and thereby immediately giving patients access to a similar level of information as their doctors and allowing them to push for its authorization. [1] Patient View – for improving patient care, Information on prescription medicines: the views of EU-based patient groups, http://www.patient-view.com/projects4.htm, accessed 08/07/2011 [2] Lyles A., Direct Marketing of Pharmaceuticals to Consumers, Annual Review of Public Health, published May 2002, http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.100901.140537, accessed 08/08/2011 | PRO | 8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00010-000 |
Abstinence-only rightly teaches saving sex for marriage. Letter from Congressman Lee Terry requesting support for Title V funding (and the congressmen who signed it). 21 June 2007 - "Abstinence education is a public health strategy focused on risk avoidance that aims to help young people avoid exposure to harm. These programs have been shown to effectively reduce the risks of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases by teaching teenagers that saving sex for marriage and remaining faithful afterward is the best choice for health and happiness." | PRO | 641065db-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00079-000 |
Modern Video games have little to no sexism Change My mind. Hey. I've been a gamer for around 10 years- started with the PS2 and haven't looked back since. I play pretty much every genre imaginable, And I gotta say, Sexism is something I come across a lot. I get what you're saying when you mention how the GTA Strip Club just emulates real world events- it's unfortunate that sexism exists in the real world, But it's good you acknowledge this. However, This does not make it not sexism- prostitution is exploitative and objectifies women, Putting it in a game does not suddenly make it okay- GTA quite simply displays sexism. Small things like this, Exposing people to things like prostitution normalises it in some way; it makes it seem more acceptable, Disconnects people from the harsh reality of desperate women involved in prostitution. I also disagree with your implied notion that the prostitution portrayed in GTA is realistic- the BBC created a few interesting videos on YouTube regarding the lives of female UK University students forced into prostitution to make ends meet. One in particular struck me- a story about a student abused by a client. Making prostitution appear as it does in GTA detracts from the real life issue- however, I went off on a tangent here. I do agree with you that overt sexism, Like what is shown above has decreased in recent years- and I even take my hat off to some games, For example, The Call Of Duty franchise who are adding female characters in modern games. I don't consider the "damsel in distress" convention as serious, However, It is a part of the underlying sexism of most video games. You'd never see the princess saving Mario, Eh? As you say, This is through obvious means, But it doesn't make it not sexist. Let's take FIFA as an example, There is a very limited female gamemode available, That allows the user to play with female players, However, It does not offer nearly as many features as it's male counterpart- now- you could say that this represents the clear gap in popularity between male and female football, HOWEVER, In my opinion, A fully fledged female game option could encourage many young gamers into looking into supporting real female football. Now- something I want to tackle, Is online and multiplayer modes. Now, Sexism on these modes is obviously community driven and not something the game developer can easily solve- short of banning sexist users, However, It is important to tackle. There are plenty of articles regarding the abuse received by female gamers, And many mentions of serious harassment (! ) and sexual comments. This is not to say that male gamers don't receive abuse as well, However, The abuse hurled at female gamers is often targeted and singles them out based on gender. Thanks- I doubt I'll change your mind, But I look forward to your response. Especially regarding the multiplayer thing. | CON | 4bc8e970-2019-04-18T11:16:36Z-00005-000 |
Video games are not bad. Video games do not always contribute to obesity. Playing for about 2 hours a day isn't going to make you obese. Also, in the Wii's case, you actually move. Video games don't trigger a psychopath. They are actually used as a way for friends to communicate, and share time together. They also raise hand-eye co-ordination. To extend that, here is an example. I have a cousin in California I rarely see. We both have Xbox 360's, and Halo 3. Just recently, we have often played together. Halo is fun for the both of us, and is a common hobby. Along with that, Xbox Live allows us to talk, just as we are next to each other. We ask each other how things are going, how school is, and even almost plan a trip for him to see me! This communication creates fun, and linking, while not having to pay for the long distance phone bills. Now, to answer the second argument, it IS a needed simulation. Many things in video games are impossible, or very hard to do in real life. SO, this allows you to do those things! Also, for those things simple to do, such as ride a bike, or play baseball, video games can be used to do those things, while it is winter, or you are sick. As I stated in my first speech, the Wii is used in Rehab. This helps people get the feeling of being free, and relieves pain. Also, the probability of someone going out, and killing someone just because they play Halo, or another shooter is very low. Millions play Halo every day, minute, heck every SECOND, and they aren't killers. We would all be dead if every gamer was a killer! | PRO | e20430a8-2019-04-18T20:03:17Z-00003-000 |
White people. For my rebuttal, I'd like to say that people's opinions matter and should be accepted. Also, I want to say that black people are better than white people. God made white people for a reason and they messed it up. Good going white people. Only white people seem to mess up the world and the economy and all that. This concludes my argument. #HolocaustRound2 | CON | 7c41b00b-2019-04-18T15:21:14Z-00001-000 |
Income tax is the price we pay for living in an equitable society. Why should childless people pay for educating the children of others? Why should people who take care of their health pay for those who drink and smoke and eat to excess? We should pay for the resources we consume (with a safety net provided for those who cannot, through no fault of their own, pay for these goods themselves). Direct tax is much less fair and provides no incentive for people to use less of society’s resources. The response fails to understand that the debate is about how tax should be collected, rather than how much tax should be collected. Contrary to the arguments in the response, it would be possible to fund the NHS, run public transport etc through indirect taxation; the amount of revenue lost by abolishing direct taxation could be replaced simply by increasing indirect taxation | CON | 2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00040-000 |
The few, the brave, the "we are entitled"! LOL!. You have not replied with a valid argument, nor have you refuted any of my claims. You have stated your opinion and you have not offered any evidence to back it up. Because of this you are calling into effect Hitchens's Razor. Hitchens's Razor states that, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." It also states that the burden of proof is with the instigator (you). Here is my refutation of your round two arguments: You have offered a substitution fallacy. Because you move to intensional statements that I "wish for equality while condemning any human based on race or sex," your argument is invalid. The same is true for the argument that I "desire a coalition of darker skinned folks, and women, and children to follow [my] lead, and to improve [my] condition." Would you please offer a valid argument that either furthers your claim or refutes my argument? Your next round should have evidence that can be verified without requiring a specific point of view or requiring any preexisting beliefs. | PRO | 7a271b49-2019-04-18T15:44:04Z-00002-000 |
The English in the Northern US are descendants of the Normans, whereas in the South -- Anglo-Saxons. Gore, oh Gore, wherefore art thou Gore. Would a politician by another name be less corrupt? Names can be meaningless. An example, my username is my real last name, Weiler. Weiler is a German name. My ancestry is more British and Irish than German. My opponent claims there is evidence in support of this resolution. I would love to hear it. | CON | 64bae8e-2019-04-18T17:07:37Z-00002-000 |
Is Classical Education better than Public School Education. OK, I define public school as the new school method. I don't know what they do in school, but I define classical education as the same as Classical Conversations. 10 student max., 1 tutor. Meeting every week. 6 strands: Debate/Rhetoric/Grammar/Research/Exposition & Composition/Logic Public school is like 50 students in 1 class and the teacher doesn't teach concepts, only demonstrates problems. IDK how public school works, so thats why I say you defend P.S. | PRO | 25746392-2019-04-18T12:35:40Z-00000-000 |
Abortion is Murder. "She could also give an early term birth, Therefore, Giving the baby a chance to survive. "Ok"Abort - verb"Ok"Ending the life of an innocent entity. "Ending the lifeTermination of pregnancyLifePotential lifeIt could be argued that aborting a fetus over 2-3 months would be considered ending of a life since the baby is forming. But it isn't a being yet, It has not survived. This is like saying a person's brain does not exist simply because it is inside their head. Good point. Difference would be that if the brain is removed from the head, It would die since it doesn't have anything to work on. Once the baby is born (out of the mother), It does not die, It fully exists and it lives. Severe scoliosis. They are a person. A person is a being that has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, Morality, Consciousness or self-consciousness. That includes people with disabilities and conditions. "Maybe they couldn't support the baby. . . " - This is another situation in which adoption would be a great solution. "Agreed. "So do you believe that there is no thought put into ending a baby's life? "Yes there's thought, But it isn't with malicious intent or premeditation. I'm sure there's doctors who feel sorry for aborting a baby instead of feeling satisfied thinking "Yes! I killed it. " after all, It's the mother's decision. Unborn fetus = potential babyA mother is still a mother even if the fetus isn't existing since fetuses grow and there's a process, From embryo/fetus and to a baby. "Does that mean abortion clinics are committing homicide? " - Yes. Wonder why they aren't punished then. The determinate of whether the baby is alive or not is whether the mother wants the baby. What does that mean? Is this in reference toward unborn baby or a born baby. Can't a baby be alive even if the mother doesn't want the baby? Or did I take your point the wrong way. "If want is necessary for a life to be valuable, Then it would be okay for someone to kill their 2 year old child because they do not want he/she? "No. | CON | cb76d280-2019-04-18T11:12:38Z-00002-000 |
I would like to get the ball rolling on this most provocative of topics, national health care. I believe that a national health care system would cause Americans to become even more apathetic to their own health and or well being. This would thus fall, as if a yolk, on the back of all of the bourgeois and cause taxes to increase significantly. Please understand that this argument is based on American society, I am more interested in your opinion than just enforcing my own. Also realize that I have sympathy for the insurance industry and thus would like our current system to promulgate. Fire away. | CON | 10decb6b-2019-04-18T19:53:02Z-00004-000 |
Is King Dedede One of the Best Characters in Super Smash Bros for Wiiu/3DS? Reissue. Thank you for accepting the challenge. I make 4 points. Prima Games is the source for all of these. 1) King Dedede is the 3rd heaviest character. This is good because then it is harder for opponents to launch him. 2) Despite being a heavyweight, King Dedede has multiple jumps, allowing him a better recovery and aerial mobility. 3) King Dedede's attacks have good range, good knockback, and do massive damage. His side smash, though it has long startup, has incredible range and can do up to 24% damage! Even his dash attack can KO lighter opponents with under 100% damage! King Dedede's throws also have good range. 4) King Dedede is great at edge-guarding. Since he has a good recovery, he can jump off the stage, suck opponents in, spit them out, and still be able to recover. If this doesn't work, or if King Dedede wants to stay on the stage, he can just through a gordo at the opponent. Gordos are interesting when it comes to edge-guarding. So as you can see, King Dedede has many strengths that prove that he is a good character in Super Smash Bros. | PRO | f4efba92-2019-04-18T14:17:25Z-00003-000 |
The Keystone XL Pipeline Should Be Built. I. Job CreationWell, I'd like to say that I could go and look at their donors, but they keep their donor identities secret, so that would be pretty damn difficult, wouldn't it[1]?II. GDPI do have sources to back up that your sources have no sources--your sources. I suggest that those reading this debate read them.TransCanada is making a sales pitch. They aren't paid to give unattractive estimates of the results of building the pipeline, they won't want to believe that the pipeline would do harm, and they're fighting a PR battle to get it built so they can make money off it. That's their interest: money.So they aren't going to give out facts that make people less willing to support it, and they're probably going to give the most optimistic value possible for the benefits, rather than the most realistic one. Conflicts of interest like these are why we independent surveyors and evaluators. And the only independent study that has been cited here (as opposed to simply stated as existing without so much as a title or group) doesn't give the pipe much ammunition.III. Midwest Oil PipelinesThe problem is that supply will decrease in the Midwest. That is what I have been arguing all along, and my opponent seems to have missed this.V. Long-Term ContributionsWell, then, I refuted the source! I prevented an independent study that disagreed with it, and we actually know what that study is, as opposed to your link, which just claims that an independent study said it without any back-up at all!And I'm not saying it's bad, just that it isn't energy independence.C1. Environmental DamagesHere are some instances of renewable energy sectors growing: Texas oilman Pickens came up with a plan to supply 20% of the nation's power through wind[2] Wind power grew by 45% in a single year[3] Wind power in general is pretty much growing along an exponential curve[4] Despite setbacks, solar power has continued to grow, and is providing more and more power[5] C2. Improper Oversight Pro is basically arguing that we should resign ourselves to corruption, that we should simply say 'Oh, well, at least we get a few jobs out of it'. I say that we should fight it wherever it manifests. 1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 2. www.pickensplan.com/wind/3. http://www.worldwatch.org...4. http://www.gwec.net...5. http://www.cleanedge.com... | CON | d502758d-2019-04-18T17:36:17Z-00000-000 |
This house believes: We need animals in bio-medical research. Sorry to hurt animals lovers and advocates out there. But...This house believes: We need animals in bio-medical research for the advancement and the well-being of humans.For the purpose of this debate, these definitions are as stated:Need: require (something) because it is essential or very importantAnimals: a living organism other than a human beingBio-medical Research: is the broad area of science that involves the investigation of the biological process and the causes of disease through careful experimentation, observation, laboratory work, analysis, and testing.Advancement: development or improvement.Well-Being: the state of being comfortable, healthy, or happyHumans: Mankind; the human race; humanity.All definitions herein are as stated; other definition propose is contrary, and shall not be accepted.I, YoungLawyer, taking the pro side in this heated case, shall defend for the research, the advancement of, and the well-being of humans through bio-medical research on animals, and others points that shall come up throughout the debate; while rebutting to statements that my opponent may use.Round 1: Acceptance only, with a brief opening.Round 2: Presenting points (max: 10) and defending them (my opponent shall make no rebuttals) Round 3: Arguments/Rebuttal Round 4: Arguments/RebuttalRound 5: Final Arguments/Rebuttals/Closing statements. | PRO | dd5367d8-2019-04-18T15:51:23Z-00009-000 |
Shakespeare was a FRAUD. - Regarding your first point I will concede on the point that Shakespeare wasn't educated at all and I am sorry for my mistake. However as that article points out, There is no official record for Shakespeare attending a school. Even if he did attend a grammar school, It is unlikely he would be able too write at that high level of vocabulary that he writes in when he only attended a grammar school. To give you some perspective Shakespeare's plays includes almost 29, 000 words which is more than we use today. - Now regarding your second point, I have not found a single article or study proving that Shakespeare had editors whom edited his plays while he was still alive. Even if he did it is a bit suspicious that a man whom had that high level of vocabulary had poor hand writing and poor spelling. - Your 3rd point isn't true as Shakespeare father was a glove maker. On that note neither of Shakespeare parents knew how to write as evidenced by this article. Http://www. Shakespeare-online. Com/biography/shakespeareparents. Html - While it could be reasonable that he found his unfinished plays to be embarrassing, If he found his unfinished plays that embarrassing than he would instead ask that his unfinished plays be destroyed. Even if he was embarrassed and didn't ask for them to be destroyed, It is however suspicious that Shakespeare didn't write anywhere in his will anything about his unfinished plays or his actual plays. | PRO | 57acc863-2019-04-18T11:12:36Z-00003-000 |
The Federal Reserve should be dissolved out of existence for tyrannical Interest and Inflation. Lets be clear here. Changing money creation from Banksters hands to the Governments hands is dissolving the Federal Reserve. You can call your new system under the Government the Federal Reserve but it simply isn't. It is the one who controls the money creation who has the power. If you are simply just going to change owners from the Fraudulent Banksters to the Fraudulent Government how does that solve the problem for average Joe? Your plan does not address the issues of Fiat currency and it's worthlessness overtime. Since 1913 the Value of the Dollar has gone down 98% and the Debt the Federal Government owes has gone up over 5000 times. Yes you read that correctly. 98% and 5000 times. A Millionaire meant being wealthy not to long ago. Now in certain places you'd be hard pressed to find a 1500 sq foot shanty for a million dollars. You can't print yourself Silver and Gold. They have intrinsic value while paper or digital money does not. My solution is to do away with Fiat currency and it's inevitable collapse through Inflation/Hyperinflation. The average life span of a Fiat currency is 26 years. You don't get that with Silver and Gold. An ounce of Gold 100 years ago would buy yourself a nice tailored suit. Just as it would today (current value ~1300 USD). Returning to a Gold backed currency is one step but I do include Silver coins as well just for more stability. I would also like to implement that the money creator owners and employees be regulated to unparalleled highly transparent auditing and oversight. I mean that making the peoples tax records public, assets public and even an open to the public free tour of the Mint and Paper making areas. Transparency is king and secrecy is corrupt. You can't print Silver and Gold. Return to real money that has value. | PRO | 3145538-2019-04-18T13:03:42Z-00001-000 |
Censorship in general is stupid. I am sorry for the forfeiture. My grandma had two mini-strokes in under a week. One was on Friday, and we (my brother, mom, and dad) stayed in Toledo until Saturday when she was released from the hospital, so we left to go to my parents' house in Akron. On Saturday afternoon there was another TIA (mini-stroke/transient ischemic attack) and we immediately headed back to Toledo. We only just got home today. My grandma is doing well, she is home and my uncle and his wife and four kids are there. So is my grandpa. Again, sorry for the crappy debate. | CON | 1093c368-2019-04-18T15:57:17Z-00002-000 |
Should spanking be outlawed. It was one week ago when I accepted this debate, knowing that my opponent was a fool who thought that they could win with something out of a fifth-grader's argumentative essay. Now, with all exept the first round being forfeited by my foe, I realize just how misguided tmy opponent was. I am against abuse to children, along with everyone else, but physical discipline is completely different. There is a line between discipline and abuse, and this line is determined by why violence is being put into action. For every action there is a consequence, this truth can only be ignored by fools. | CON | 9fcb430-2019-04-18T16:17:27Z-00000-000 |
This House Believes that the Social Contract is a viable political theory. Many thanks to Stephen for what I'm sure will be another interesting exercise, and of course, l accept. While I'm sure that PRO doesn't expect a perfectly sufficient exposition of social contract theory in such a limited space (especially where even a Ph.D. dissertation could hardly accomplish that task), I'll seek to outline in this round -more or less sketchily- the basics of what social contract theory is. In political philosophy, social contract theory accounts for society's origins as well as power relations between individuals and society. Social contract arguments posit that the legitimacy of society's exercising power over the individual stems from individual's tacit or explicit consent "to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights." (1) Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and later Rawls are among the best known proponents of social contract theory. (2) I'll await Stephen's outlining his framework for what constitutes "viability" as it applies to political philosophy in the next round, as well as his arguments against social contract theory as such. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://www.iep.utm.edu... | PRO | cbd321eb-2019-04-18T16:17:15Z-00004-000 |
That throwing inanimate objects at other inanimate objects is the best way to relieve anger/stress. Basically, I'm going to say to everybody who reads this that my opponent said it doesn't make sense. I never said you would hit your wife, I said you'd throw something at her. That point stands still strong. As for his example about the clown, throwing that big of a tantrum over a cupcake-shaped balloon? That's worse than hitting somebody for saying hi to you. Also, throwing a unicycle at somebody's car will get the cops called on you, that will cause you more stress, because it's vandalism. My points stand, my opponent's points drop. VOTE NEG! | CON | e1cf194f-2019-04-18T19:37:50Z-00000-000 |
Based on the available evidence, God probably doesn't exist. There is no published model regarding God. No evidence can be acquired that will prove or disprove God's existence. We are merely dealing with how probable it is, not proving it beyond reasonable doubt. Occam's Razor is therefore highly appropriate. Acceptable Evidence: - Experimental evidence is always acceptable. - Testimony is acceptable ONLY if it is first-hand and doesn't contradict experimental evidence, and it can ONLY detail the facts of what happened. So "the preacher touched my leg and it was healed" is okay, but "the preacher touched my leg and God healed it" is not. The witness doesn't know God healed them, they are just assuming. Anything from the Bible is invalid, because those people are dead and cannot testify. If somebody claims they saw a chair levitate, we must be able to gather evidence and then apply Occam's Razor (which usually shows that the person is delusional). - Documentary evidence is acceptable ONLY if the facts within can be verified by testimony and/or physical evidence. Which means the Bible is not a valid source, as it can be verified by neither. Points: - The appendix is still vestigial because it no longer serves one of its original functions, yet it still has the machinery to perform that function. - Here: http://www.nature.com... http://www.evolutionnews.org... https://www.google.co.nz... - Aside from the fact that the rest of the Bible tells us sex is immoral and shameful, your argument regarding male nipples simply doesn't work. If God gave men nipples for sexual pleasure, why didn't he stuff them with 8,000 nerve endings like he did with the clitoris? Either God made male nipples to get us off and he did a poor job, or Evolution made nipples for women and couldn't be stuffed making them gender-specific. The existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity who is obsessed with whether hairless primates are virgins on their wedding nights is a FAR bigger assumption to make than the assumption that Natural Selection sometimes gives organisms traits that they don't need purely because it has no reason not to. - Random, unguided mutation is, by definition, random and unguided. This is in direct conflict with the idea of Intelligent Design, which states that God GUIDED the process of Evolution. - This is the last round I can argue and I have no idea what you consider to be adequate proof. Just refute my points and we'll let the voters decide if I made enough effort. Chances are they'll vote based on personal beliefs rather than how well we debated, but oh well. | PRO | f5f575b0-2019-04-18T17:19:45Z-00001-000 |
Hell is not what you think it is. Pro hell. No rebuttals for your verses because my belief is in line with your presented case, except for the fact that God does Not purposely send them to hell, some verses you listed refer to a specific group of people when he says send, but ultimately because they chose to be wicked they ultimately sent them self "Would you say that your opening statement is focused around the fact that Hell is not used as a scare tactic, rather than focusing around the resolution?" yes, this is my first debate on this site, and I am unfamiliar with proper presentation of what I was actually trying to convey, I am little green in debating in general so I wasn't clear and probably inaccurately started off my debate in the direction I wanted to go. But yes My Opening argument objectively hints at the fact I was arguing that Hell is Not a fear tactic, and Pro for the the fact that it is not, being aware that it can be used that way, but advocate that, it is not the way it is to be used or the proper use for it. "Would you say Sinners don't neccesarily go to Hell?" Sinners do go there according to my belief, but everyone can be saved, but have to make the choice, but in the end my answer also furthers your point if I cant refute that hell is NOT what you thought it was, which was i line with mine, then I inevitably lose, based on that being the argument I was ACTUALLY trying to covey, But based on my Opening, it is argued for the fact that hell is not a fear tactic, I don't Know if I'm allowed to present this argument as the main one. When I said in my title, Hell is not what you think it is, I did not intend that to be my argument, but as a title and my argument was displayed after clicking on it and looking further. At this point not sure where this debate will Go. Go ahead and answer my first 2 questions and I ask you 1 new one. What benefit does a Christian family member get by continuing to hold on to the belief of hell knowing what it entails and telling non saved family members | PRO | c34e005b-2019-04-18T18:14:56Z-00006-000 |
Freedom and Sovereignty. It is misleading on the oppositions part to argue that the UN does not possess jurisdiction over matters relating to nuclear power , when under the NPT, 194 out of the UN's 198 members, have their nuclear installations placed under IAEA regulations and checks. Indeed there is complete agreement over the fact that the spread of nuclear technology does, as the opposition terms it, constitute a "clear threat to other nations" which is why under the NPT the use of civilian nuclear power is monopolized to only those countries who sign the NPT and comply with its regulations. And those 4 countries that refuse to sign the NPT and exercise the right to a civilian nuclear program as a domestic matter are subject to intense UN sanctions. Thus the opposition’s argument about how civilian nuclear power is a "domestic" matter is opposite to how the international community understands this matter and the UN's official position on it. Furthermore the NPT was created so that countries could develop civilian nuclear programs without the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology or know how, the NPT however, has failed to do this. North Korea's case is an excellent example whereby it imported nuclear technology from other countries under the NPT for a civilian nuclear withdrew from the NPT and became a declared nuclear weapon state. Moreover the oppositions own statistics say that 10 out of the 30 countries that have nuclear programs have developed nuclear weapons, up from the original 5 NPT nuclear weapons states, shows that the only 5 countries that had reason for the development of nuclear weapons were able to develop them. | CON | 7729e8b4-2019-04-19T12:45:07Z-00023-000 |