argument
stringlengths 201
3.55k
| stance
stringclasses 2
values | id
stringlengths 36
39
|
|---|---|---|
Is Dance A Sport. Dance is a sport and I will argue with anyone that is against it. I want all of you haters of dance being a sport to learn one of our competition routines, go to our countless practices, perfect it, and perform it. We make it look easy because we are trained to, and yes we do sweat, we sweat because we are working hard and taking no breaks. Also if you say dance is only for girls and guys are weak if they dance, then go on YouTube and look up videos of guy dancers and you try and do the tricks and stunts they do. Finally if you look me straight in he eye and tell me that dance is weak and not a sport, I will kick you in the face no matter how tall you are. | PRO | 3bad8f8-2019-04-18T14:19:46Z-00005-000 |
EU expansion is right. It is right to extend the economic and political benefits enjoyed by existing EU members to the rest of Europe. States in eastern Europe are still recovering from the “dead hand” of communist rule imposed after deals between the USSR and the USA and Britain at the end of World War II. Many within the boundaries of the former Soviet Union such as Belarus and increasingly Ukraine have reverted to more authoritarian governments. These states should not be abandoned by their western neighbours. Europe has just as much responsibility to those states within Europe that have so far been left out the European Union’s enlargement as it did to those countries of Central and Eastern Europe that were accepted in the most recent enlargements. | PRO | 3ac8582e-2019-04-15T20:22:22Z-00009-000 |
Freedom of choice. Why should we not be free to make nuclear bombs? Why should we not be free to kill another human being if they annoy us? Why? Because some things in life are more important than 'choice'. Why? Because we live in a society where our actions have implications upon everyone else. It would not be fair for some to strive to keep the environment clean whilst those with money show a blatant disregard just because they can afford to. | CON | df04454e-2019-04-19T12:44:37Z-00024-000 |
Risk of executing innocent people undermines death penalty. Since 1973, 123 in 25 US states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence.[10] The Innocence project indicated that more than 150 people have been exonerated on the basis of DNA testing that concluded that they were innocent.[11] This appears to create a likelihood that many individuals have actually been executed that were innocent. This is too many, particularly when the executed are seen as innocent victims of the state. This is harmful to the state and the judicial system, and is sufficient evidence to shut down the practice. | PRO | bea71e7b-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00161-000 |
Big business has demonstrated predisposition to valuing profit over community interests. The legislative framework and historical behaviour governing and guiding the operation of big business is geared towards maximising shareholder returns [1]. This propensity has been demonstrated time and again and might suggest that the GM companies are not modifying the food in the interests of better health, but of better profit. This is reinforced by the nature of many of the GM modifications, including terminator seeds (infertile seed requiring a re-purchase of seed stock each season), various forms of pest and herbicide resistance potentially leading to pests (and weeds) resistant to the current crop of chemical defences. One of the more disturbing manifestations of this is the licensing of genes that are naturally occurring and suing those who dare to grow them, even if they are there because of cross contamination by wind-blown seeds or some other mechanism. One has only to look at the history of corporations under North American and similar corporations law to see the effect of this pressure to perform on behalf of the shareholder. The pollution of water supplies, the continued sale of tobacco, dioxins, asbestos, and the list goes on. Most of those anti-social examples are done with the full knowledge of the corporation involved, e.g. tobacco sales. Incidentally, one effective (though difficult) way to reduce pressure on your national health service or public health system is to stop people, selling, buying and using tobacco. An article by Michael Pollan [2] illustrates this quite starkly: "By ''opening and using this product,'' the card stated, I was now ''licensed'' to grow these potatoes, but only for a single generation; the crop I would water and tend and harvest was mine, yet also not mine. That is, the potatoes I will harvest come August are mine to eat or sell, but their genes remain the intellectual property of Monsanto, protected under numerous United States patents, including Nos. 5,196,525, 5,164,316, 5,322,938 and 5,352,605. Were I to save even one of them to plant next year - something I've routinely done with potatoes in the past - I would be breaking Federal law." [11] Dr Janis Sarra quoted in Bakan, J. The Corporation: The pathological pursuit of profit and power. [12] Michael Pollan (1998-10-25). "Playing God in the Garden", The New York Times Magazine, [online] available at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D03EFD8143DF936A15753C1A96E958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all | PRO | 37c8a072-2019-04-19T12:45:24Z-00011-000 |
The Universe is a Collective Conciousness. First off. This is not a tentative belief of mine, But rather a hypothetical argument. Here are my supporting arguments. P1) Everything that is known has physical properties. P2) Consciousness Exists. C1) Consciousness is a physical property. P3) Nothing known to exist has ever been known not to exist. P4) Consciousness exists. C2) Consciousness always existed. P5) Consciousness is a physical property. P6) All physical properties come from particles. C3) Consciousness must be part of particles. P7) Conscious beings experience a singular consciousness. P8) Conscious beings consists of many particles C4) Particles can share consciousness. P9) Particles can share consciousness P10) The universe is made from particles. C5) The universe is a collective consciousness. | PRO | 82737168-2019-04-18T11:09:29Z-00007-000 |
God's incompetence - 3rd try!. Note: This is a third attempt at this debate - the first two are not yielding strong enough debates. This is only open to religious folk and please directly address whether the actions of God show his incompetence._______________________________________________________________________________________________Believers like to claim that God is perfect and all powerful but his actions belie that claim:1. He is constantly getting humanity wrong. Adam & Eve, The Flood, Babel all show that he clearly has little understanding of what free will means and is constantly having to have do overs.2. The three religions that he created clearly shows that he is poor at communicating his aims properly. From the 10 commandments onwards, he appears to not have his own rules about how he should be worshipped down pat. Even worse, his lack of clarity and his ambiguity has opened the doors to tens of thousands of denominations.3. He also can't even keep his physical creations consistent, having to work around its limitations with special miracles and one-off events that cannot be explained and indeed are contradictory to known science. Surely better planning and more flexible specifications for the universe would have avoided these cheats.In summary, God is incompetent in creating a universe that he doesn't have to bang into place and cheat, mis-managing his creation of humans from free-will to how we're supposed to appropriately worship him.Thoughts? | PRO | 93f528d2-2019-04-18T16:16:27Z-00004-000 |
Human cloning would enable infertile couples to have children. "Human Cloning is Good". Help Me.com - "Many other individual supports believe that with cloning, infertile couples could have children. Despite getting a fair amount of publicity in the news current treatments for infertility, in terms of percentages, are not very successful. One estimate is that current infertility treatments are less than 10 percent successful. Couples go through physically and emotionally painful procedures for a small chance of having children. Many couples run out of time and money without successfully having children." | PRO | 3eb43d6-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00123-000 |
This House Will abolish streaming students into classes of differing academic aptitude. Let me summarize my opponent's position: There exists an educational system in which youths are segregated based on mental acuity/capacity. This system, according to CON, is wrong in that it is a form of discrimination. It is also wrong in indirectly harnessing an egotistic nature in the students who are on the beneficial end of the segregation spectrum; promoting condescension. My opponent's argument is an invariably moral one, attacking the morality of this type of separation. It also calls into question the implications and impact of such potential elites' moral decisions, paving the way to a society of egotistical individuals who aggressively prioritize personal gains/pleasures over that of the proportionally larger number of lesser-developed society. This is purely theoretical: I may patronize my fellow people, but that doesn't mean I have no moral incentive to sustain their survival, happiness, or well-being. Engineer/philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein was known to be one of the most egomaniacal geniuses of his time. He disdained the society of lesser educated people, choosing to mingle with only the more intellectual students. His impossibly high standard to which he subjugated himself and others shaped his life. Under its rigidity, he was able to push himself into spewing original philosophy. He discarded much of his wealth, lived frugally, and frequently worked toward charitable means. Immanuel Kant, although less extreme, was of similar disposition. Kant was also a genius. He was a groundbreaking philosopher who worked tirelessly. Being of very high educational standards, he disliked associated himself with those who are not 'culturally developed'. This bias was so pronounced that he wouldn't even deign to meet his siblings, all of whom he considered unworthy society. He has, nonetheless, given a great portion of his earnings to fund his sisters' livelihoods. This proves that such snobbish people are able to make sacrifices for the greater good of others. My other contention: nothing matters, so this, obviously, doesn't matter either. Nothing is obligatory unless toward a goal. These goals are likewise unimportant. There is no pressing reason for anything at all. I can explain this in further rounds if necessary (just ask, unless you get where I'm coming from, in which case, your resolution is negated), my mother wants her computer. :( | CON | fe75bb1d-2019-04-18T17:41:34Z-00003-000 |
Spiders are vicious. Having been bitten by spiders, I have a different opinion. I was waking up regularly with painful red welts that were bites of some kind. They would grow until they exploded an off white pus. After accumulating more than a few of these bites I decided to thoroughly clean my apartment. While vacuuming I pulled my bed out and a large brown spider fell. It had a huge web on the side same side of my bed I was getting bit on. Another time I was trying to get in my front door past 2 jumping spiders and as I passed they both jumped at me and one bit me. One more, I was cleaning my basement and I a black widow came out. My dog was sleeping and the black widow ran under him, bit him and my dog died. I've had plenty of experiences with feisty and often mean spiders. | PRO | 53433620-2019-04-18T12:22:16Z-00004-000 |
Cameras in classrooms. Honey, how old are you? This world is not the same that it was ten years ago. Things happen in school all the time, just ask teenages (there is your proof). Whenever the teacher is writing on the board, students can always pass pills. The school would not have to worry about money, since Americans will more than likely be paying for it. Seriously, having teachers getting laid off, has nothing to do with this topic. This would be a safer place with cameras and I don't see why you do not agree with me. Would you want you child going to a place with bulling, drugs, etc. going on without cameras or proctection. Whenever I pass this bill in the state of Kentucky, then I will gladly message you and tell you how well everything is going with the cameras being in the classrooms. I have so much more to say, but I'm in a hurry. I will message you more later. | PRO | 5644e973-2019-04-18T18:07:58Z-00001-000 |
Wikipedia is a Fairly Accurate Resource. Wikipedia.org is one of the top ten most visited websites the internet has to offer, but takes a lot of heat for being inaccurate and not reliable. Personally, I've never been allowed to site Wikipedia for any research I've done in school. I find, however, that Wikipedia is almost always flawless, usually only not perfect because of a simple grammar mistake. Wikipedia has an entire network set up to ensure that their articles aren't vandalized or edited by misinformed people. Some say that since anyone can edit Wikipedia, it's not reliable. That's not entirely true, however. There is a complex class system of articles, so that important articles can only be edited by qualified people. For example, the article on George Washington is what is called "semi-protected". In a nutshell, unconfirmed users cannot edit it. But there are many different forms of protection, all of which can be found on Wikipedia's Protection Policy page (Ref. 1). But does this network of article protection work? How hard is it to be a "confirmed" user? Not very difficult, but not worth your time for a simple prank. With 4 days of holding an account and 10 edits, a user can be autoconfirmed, and capable of changing popular data across Wikipedia. However, with over 20 million named accounts on Wikipedia, false data doesn't stand very long. There will always be vandals, but there will always be many, many, MANY more reviewers. Despite this, there are still many people point to other resources like Encyclopedia Britannica as a defense that Wikipedia isn't accurate, with the assumption that Britannica is far more accurate than Wikipedia. How true is that claim? Luckily, there was a study on this very topic. Nature (a science journal) took articles from random topics from both Wikipedia and Britannica, and had experts compare the articles, one from each website on a single topic, side-by-side. The results were fascinating. The number of errors were almost equal. Major errors were equal, minor errors clocked in at 2.92 per article for Britannica, and 3.86 errors for Wikipedia. In conclusion, neither website is better in the grand scheme of things, but for any given article there may be 1 or 2 more misleading sentences or instances of missing information on Wikipedia than you will find on Britannica. Wikipedia is one of the world's favorite sites, and one of the most hated. Someone quickly looking up who won the Battle of Bunker Hill will enthusiastically click on the link to Wikipedia, but school teachers won't have any part of Wikipedia's "false information." It's unfortunate, since it is one of the most accurate resources available on the internet. Encyclopedia Britannica has Wikipedia beat because of a couple better-worded sentences, but you just can't beat the diversity and magnitude of Wikipedia. But best of all, it's free... in more ways than one. References: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org... | PRO | 6a3616b8-2019-04-18T16:53:46Z-00002-000 |
Many symbols are seen as a symbol of oppression on women. Religious symbols are not seen as oppressive by those who choose to wear them. Many Muslim women view the veil as a means to protect their modesty and privacy. Just as we would not force any women to be seen in public in her underwear if she did not feel comfortable doing so, why should a woman be forced to show her hair if she does not want to? Modesty is a personal judgement call; some are comfortable in the smallest bikini while others prefer a lot more clothing. No one but the woman herself should make that decision. In fact, concerning the ban of the veil in Belgium, Muslim women have immediately challenged it and regard the ban as discriminatory.1 1 'Belgian ban on full veils comes into force', BBC News Europe, 23rd July 2011, accessed on 23rd July 2011 | CON | ec207cd7-2019-04-15T20:22:48Z-00009-000 |
Redistribution of Wealth. I'm unable to tell if your latest argument is sarcasm or genuine regret. A year ago - for that matter, eight months ago - I thought the same as you did. Even when I accepted this debate, I held a passionate distaste for those who possessed more money than they and their children would ever need and yet continued to accumulate more without assisting people who truly needed that money. But no matter how ethically or morally bankrupt I might consider them, I reluctantly acknowledge that they have rights as well. You're obviously very passionate on the subject, and I hope you retain that passion and go on to help make the world a better place. I really do. If more people thought that way, if more people practised philanthropy on their own (though I have demonstrated that some do, and I have demonstrated how US private aid is higher than US governmental aid), the world would certainly be much improved. The remedy, I believe, is more time and knowledge than force. My opponent concedes all my arguments and the debate. | CON | 9ef58e91-2019-04-18T16:53:54Z-00002-000 |
Examinations should be banned. Exams definitely should not be banned. "The affirmative side said that exams are only a snapshot in time, and that if people remember an answer after a test, then that could stop them from getting the results they desired. Clearly, this is incorrect because if they cannot remember an answer during the exam, then they did not study it enough for it to be permanently existent in their minds, and maybe they do not deserve the results they desired. " The affirmative team also said that exams bring extreme levels of stress, which can lead to things as extreme as suicide " but again this is wrong because there are many different outlets in which stress can be erased, whether it is relaxation, seeking help from a teacher or trusted adult, or even channelling the stress into motivation. Without that stress there to push you forward, how many students do you believe will actually study or put effort into their schoolwork? It is almost fair to say that stress is necessary throughout the course of your school years, so why should we ban exams because of that? "The affirmative team also argued that exams do not accurately measure the strengths or weaknesses of students. Does that mean we have to ban them? Of course not " there are many other options other than exams that can lead towards final results. For example, and art student"s major mark will not come from an exam, but from their folio, or their final piece of artwork. Why would we ban exams when they do accurately reflect students" capabilities? Only students that are capable have the exams lead to their final results, and it isn't like we haven"t been taught what we need to know. If students do not pay enough attention during class time to learn the required knowledge, then perhaps they do not deserve to get a high exam result. | CON | 9807d8e3-2019-04-18T12:32:07Z-00001-000 |
This house will legalize the sale of organs. My opponent failed to provide an argument, even though he was given multiple opportunities to do this. He even has admitted that I "won the debate", though he believes I should take a tie since I didn't accept one of his rules when beginning the debate. I'll speak briefly on why this rule is unreasonable and why I was still in the right to accept the debate. First, let's discuss why the rule was unresonable. To be clear, we're discussing his requirement to have a 3,000+ ELO in order to accept the debate. As I have recently explained, the ELO is a bell curve, meaning particularly high ELO's are rare. My opponent points out that 291 people have an ELO of over 3,000, but fails to realize that this site has 29,380 members. This means less that 1% of all people who have made an account on this site have the required ELO. Now many of these users are inactive, while the people at the top are likely to be more active. Despite this, its still reasonable to assume the percentage of 3,000+ ELO debaters who would be online during the time the debate was in the challenge period is quite low. This is important for two reasons. 1. The sheer few potential debaters means the debate likely would not be accepted under the opponent's draconian rule. 2. Given the opponent's relatively low ELO (2,300 as compared to 3,000), it is not likely that a high ELO'er would even consider taking the debate in the first place. Now that we can see how unlikely it is that this debate would have been accepted by someone conforming to rule #2, we must look at why it was still better for me to take this debate. Debates, in the very nature, are designed for intellectual discourse -- a way of discussing and analyzing ideas. Debates in which debating actually occurs are often educational to anyone who reads/watches them and are of particular intellectual benefit to the debaters themselves. By accepting this debate, I made the conscious decision to insure that the debate happened. It would be far less beneficial to the public had this debate simply timed out and never happened. This should have been clear to the opponent, however it seems to have gone unnoticed by him. Despite several offerings that he could still present his argument and depite the fact that my lengthy responses are some indication that am I willing to delve into and explore this topic, my opponent has done nothing but complain. Carry over my arguments from the previous round. | CON | 378eb4f1-2019-04-18T14:21:23Z-00002-000 |
Is Government Necessary. while that is true, people wouldn't even know about a person's "unalienable rights". The government has certain points where it is necessary and helpful. But there are more times where the government is more interested in protecting itself and are more interested in doing what they want to do than the people of the country. Passing obscene laws like the safe act and other gun regulations for starters. Does the government really believe that taking away a persons right to self defense is the right thing to do? If someone wants to use a gun to kill people they are not going to go to a gun store, they are going to buy it illegally. Instead of punishing the American people the government should be allowing people to own self defense weapons. The only thing the government wants is to make as much money as possible while doing what they want whether it is in the nations best interest or not. | CON | 72b95be6-2019-04-18T15:45:49Z-00002-000 |
Are kids being melodramatic. Thank you for this lovely debae. You have also kept an open mind and I agree with some of your points. However, there is something I noticed. It seems you and me have already gotten a grip on our emotions and how to handle them in a calm and fluent matter, and that most kids are just blanking out with this stuff. One thing I have noticed is that maybe they are not depressed at all. I find this interesting that they go to youtube of all places when they could scream at someone who actually tries to comfort tem to go away. Then why go to such a public place like Youtube? The answer is this, and almsot every kid wants it at least some point: Attention. One of the definitions os Melodrama is that someone is, like being overly sad, is being overly dramatic. Having thousands of people sympathize with you while your sad might be an ideal way of cheering someone up instintly, or maybe it is a desperate bid for attention. If I had to decide if it was actual sadness or attention with that "Cut's for Beieber" thing, it would have to be an attention scheme. Even so, kids can still be sad, and they can go cry on the internet or write deep poetry or stuff like that. And its true that every person sees something differently in his or her's individual way, all unique, and I agree with you that everyone is different. There are some people who just can't get a grip. But, that's why we are here. Fellows like you and me who already know how to handle it are here to teach others how to do the same. That way, everybody wins, and everybody is happy. So, back to the main point. Are kids being melodramatic? Well yes, but, they may not know it just yet. That's why we have to point it out so they can fix it before it haunts them for the rest of their lives. And yes, some things are out of their control, like say, a lost relative, but remember, Im just talking about the pointless stuff. We are all different when it comes to dealing with stuff, but that doesn't mean we can't offer help. No sir or madam, we can help the melodrama to become...not melodrama. Also, sorry about your bird. Thanks for making this a nice debate. Good luck with the votes. | PRO | 27365fe5-2019-04-18T17:32:33Z-00001-000 |
US Schools don't teach students important information. It's time schools stop focusing on how egyptians wrapped dead bodies and start focusing on recent history and the furute. It's time for kids to learn things like CPR and how to change a tire. Art and Music should be optional while technology should be manditory. The world is consently devoloping around software and systems like HTML, Java, and other codes that will be absolutely crutial for the poeple of the future. The educational system needs to be reformed and built around sience, technology, engineering, math and english. | PRO | 8b5df99b-2019-04-18T14:31:33Z-00005-000 |
Euthanasia Should Be Legal In America. Well as I said before, Americans are guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. By denying someone euthanasia, you are denying them their rights to life and happiness. By denying a dying patient mercy, you are torturing them and taking away their liberty. How is it right to force someone to do something they do not want to do? | PRO | bdcebe60-2019-04-18T13:07:00Z-00003-000 |
Limerick Rap Battle 2. Look at my man tryna sell records, ya broken stuck, jammed, frozen, ere have a token so you can eat tonight my brother so you can sleep tonight like mother teresa, I'm a SAINT awoken You say ima one, nah I'm the ONE nein for craziness, so dont even fvck wid me son i bring the fire scorching hot burns you just a liar with mental pre-dental concerns bro, you weigh 5 tonne, I'll smack you over the head like pette dunne, nah we ain't done This is just the start mate I wasn't never any good at the wheelcart it's jus too much hassle i got me own fvckin cas'le I'm nero, you zero like guilty midas, you a sell out for a soul n a tart you say I'm bland fam you got my d1ck in hand man talks about dic-tionary he so retarded he brings a chess board to a game of pictionary google sand glass, shattered ya dreams tattered man will score hattricks like mbappe YouTube wadali 'tappe' ya life will change ya style rearrange mans a master, ya gal- disaster BATTERED... | CON | 13c9fb9a-2019-04-18T11:45:33Z-00005-000 |
The God exist. In the last round, I asked my opponent to: 1) Define God 2) Discuss how or why he can know God exists, without relying on scripture 3) What proof he has that God exists Pro has failed to address any of those 3 questions, so again I don't have much to respond to. My opponent has the burden of proof. I can't argue against the evidence that God exists if he doesn't provide any evidence for me to refute. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To respond to the few points Pro makes, he mentions: 1) What makes you think the holy scripture is made by God? Response - I never said that God created holy scripture. 2) He says he agrees that "everything is man made" (which I never suggested), but asks who created the super atom. Response - I have no idea who, if anyone or anything, created the super atom. He has to prove that God did. 3) He asks if the Big Bang is the origin of matter. Response - Science suggests that it is; however, the evidence is not concrete. Still, just because I do not necessarily KNOW the origin of matter (or the origin of everything) doesn't mean that we have to attribute the creation of everything in existence to God, especially if my opponent cannot define or describe God. 4) He asks what makes me think that holy scripture will defend God. Response - Of course, I never said such a thing. 5) Finally, Pro says that the reason for creation or everything in the universe is unknown. Response - I completely agree. Pro has to prove that we should attribute it to God, but I submit that we have no reason to suppose that we should regardless of scripture. | CON | e7581191-2019-04-18T17:15:11Z-00003-000 |
If all member states held a referendum on all EU treaties nothing would get passed. There is a difference between holding a referendum for every decision and holding one for important constitutional changes that will affect a nation's future sovereignty. The logistics and the fear of rejection should not be a reason to not hold a referendum. If anything the current controversy surrounding the war on Iraq and its legality is proof that referendums are fundamental in important issues to ensure that the ruling government still reflects the will of the people. | CON | aad10518-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00015-000 |
It is perfectly acceptable for 4 year-old girls to date adult men and play with them. 4 year-old girls are already mentally developed for a relationship and perfectly capable of dating adult men. It is within their rights to date adult men if they want to. Girls of age 4 should be encouraged to make their own choices about life and be encouraged to spend time with people they like. This sometimes includes spending time with adult men, Which can be a lot of fun and beneficial for both. What if a 4 year-old girl wants to play with a 60 year-old man, But her family disapproves and forbids such a relationship? That family is clearly toxic and bad influence on the 4 year-old girl. 4 year-old girl is perfectly capable of choosing who to play with, And as such should be given the opportunity to explore herself and others in a safe way, The way in benefits both her and the adults she is spending time with. | PRO | d2a5430f-2019-04-18T11:09:33Z-00001-000 |
University should be free. Thankyou for your argument Now I shall start my second argument. Your argument is contradictory because you first agree to my point that universities should be free from the quote: "We need more intelligent people in this world and having a free university would help a lot", but then you argue points for it not to be free, so you agree then disagree. You live in the United states but i live in the United kingdom so we are in different situations. | PRO | 20dc5881-2019-04-18T13:34:41Z-00003-000 |
Wonderking is good!. You're seriously kidding right? Dude, everything on earth is based on comparisons. For example, if there was a guy that had 50 IQ and another with 150 IQ, you would say that the guy with the 50IQ was retarded compare to the other person. If there weren't any people to compare it to, then what would the guy with 50 IQ be called? Same with Wonderking and the other games. Wonderking, I am positive does not have thousands of players, since it has only 2 servers and you probably did not even play it at all. And not just compared to maplestory, but many many other games, they have millions of players. And as for your response to my questioning of Wonderking having a limited choice of leveling, mature party quests? Really? Let's see, in maplestory, there are jump quests, quests where you have to collect certain amounts of items, and even better, party quests, where you can team up with your friends and go through a set maze or dungeon until you reach the boss. Yes and that is very mature right? (sarcasm) Next, you ARE basing your argument only on the fact that Wonderking has thousands of players therefore it must be god which makes no sense whatsoever. How do you know that every single person in that game likes it and finds it fun? Maybe some join it just to chat with their friends? And still others can play it just to try it out? Finally, fine, I won't use WoW nor Guild Wars since apparently you know nothing about any other games that have thousand times the quality of Wonderking's crappy graphics. As an example, you can look at Combat Arms ( don't worry its free). Its quality is more or less the same as Call of Duty, and if not, definitely better than Wonderking. You can also go on gameogre.com to find more games that have better graphics. Furthermore, Wonderking is exactly the same as the horrible graphics that were on gameboy advances years earlier. What's the point of paying a retarded game that looks exactly like an ancient console game when you can play much better graphics? | CON | cb19b839-2019-04-18T19:12:08Z-00001-000 |
A serious look at Proposition’s logic. Refuting our first argument team Opp stated: Opposition Prop itself hints at an alternative way around bloc voting, stating that there's "absence of an objectively determined criteria when defining HR violation", but this is certainly no reason to put an end to this important council. Rather, a criteria can be set by the same body that erected the UNHRC and elects its members - the General Assembly. Now they changed their strategy, claiming that such criteria cannot exist in a UN body. In this argument they agree with us that the criteria would in fact mean abolition, and that POLITICS come before HR in the UNHRC. UNHRC is comprised of 47 rotating members. Compared to GA’s 193 we see a clear limitation of the “politization” and participation of “all nations worldwide”. The absolute veto power of members of the Security Council is another example. Different bodies have different needs; partially limiting the politicization in order to achieve effectiveness is not a new concept in the UN, and there is no reason why it shouldn’t be used if it brings sufficient benefits. Replacing the political approach with criteria (when determining if HR violation occurred)will not undermine the intergovernmental structure of the body,nor decrease cooperation. It is only natural that the members of the body will AGREE upon the criteria as they AGREE on the statute when a new body is created. As we stated earlier, the members will still vote on actions, strategies, recommendations etc. When a body needs a decade to react on a genocide, (in spite of massive pleas for help from the citizens) there is obviously a malfunction in that body. In our previous arguments we showed how the mechanisms present in the status quo are unable to stop bloc voting, allow major HR violators to become members and avoid prosecution, and allow obvious violations to be ignored. If partially limiting the politization solves these problems it is reasonable to do so. | CON | f815af4e-2019-04-19T12:45:02Z-00035-000 |
Terrorists use our own media to terrify our people and create a climate of fear. Attempting to prevent your public ever having to deal with the terrifying realities of events in the international world is doomed to failure. People always manage to find out about some aspect of terrorist attacks one way or the other, and fear is spread, not contained, when the public don’t feel the government is telling them the truth. In reality, people rarely change their behaviour as a result of fear generated by terrorism – use of the London underground revived rapidly after the July 7th Bombings, and use of air travel soon recovered from the impact of 9/11. | CON | 79069cc9-2019-04-19T12:47:36Z-00022-000 |
Rap Battle. Yo rappa with the skin color brown. With this rap, you may frown And while frownin you may drown. This is not a debate, its mere bait. Bait for debate. Wait. This is just a rookie performance. This beating of you is all for my convenience. You should give up before your mom puts you on clearance. When I'm done with this rap, everyone will go boom baby. I will win, not too shabby. | CON | cda674ee-2019-04-18T19:14:38Z-00004-000 |
US Hegemony is bad. - Youre assuming the US is going to aggrivate backlash. A good hegemon and any hegemon are two different things. The US has sustained its placment as a hegemon and used that to get the UN and its related bodies to promote US interest. - Countries will see the US as an enemy no matter what. unless you suggest we purposley down grade our selves as to not be powerful enough for anyone to care, we will always have the threat of opposistion. US hegemony only places us in a better position to deal with it. - actually, since the end of the Sp.-Am. war over 100 years ago, weve been the forefront of world politics. We established the league of nations, we established NATO, our envolvment ended WWII and started Vietnam, we have been consistantly upholding the TR corallary in our hemisphere and have front runners for the war on drugs/arms. Soviet Russia was known for paying little attention to organizations like the LON or UN. - i agree that we have become multi-polar and that nuclear prolif. is a threat. But i cant agree that US hegemony has any logical tie nor that a lack of it will solve the problem. | CON | ffe04106-2019-04-18T19:51:12Z-00002-000 |
The Reverend Wright scandal with Barack Obama will prevent him from having a chance to become prez. To conclude this debate you did not do a very decent job at adressing the points raised. Your attepmts were...entertaining to say the least, but they fell short of an actual response to my points. You said: This proves my point, he has been his priest for 23 years and has never heard any of these remarks before. His judgement is hurt severely. But Obama says: Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely... You failed to prove anything, Obama said he realizes that his Former pastor has made comments like these in the past. You say that Barack claims to never of heard anything like this before. You say: If I had a uncle who called certain people with passion, that they are n@#$%^ or other hateful speech, I would not be friends with them. so you would disown a family member like an uncle due to some racy statements? The whole speech that Barack made was about unity amoung race. How we should accept all even those who hate and show them we are better than that, and we are willing to come together and remove our differeneces. You say Obama still did not tackle the issue head on about race and Rev. Wright. Did you even read the speech? (or whatch it?) I gave segements of it here, and every display I provided, was very straight forward and honest. As far as national polls go, USA Today/Gallup polls show Obama leading McCain by three points. Newsweek shows Obama 1 point ahead of McCain, nationally, as well as a CNN poll. The polls aren't what matters. You must remember McCain has a high poll # because he is the only republican choice, on the other side the split between Clinton and Obama is getting more and more difficult for undecided voters and democrat voters every day. And by the way this speech added an extra 2 point lead against Hilliary, so I guess the Rev.Wright issue didn't affect as many voters as you think. Thank you for the debate, it was stimulating and enjoyable. I hope to debate you again sometime. | CON | b757528-2019-04-18T19:47:49Z-00000-000 |
Putin's Russia is not democratic. First of I would like to point out that I am not really a Putin fan. Although lots of his economic polcies have helped his country retain some of its majesty he has many things wrong with him. For one his country's UN delegates have been supporting Iran and Sudan and put their own interest above human rights or international secuirty (though the CIA say that Iran's not as dangerous as was previosuly believed). In addition his country still lacks basic freedoms (like press), but this does not mean it is not democratic. Most election observers agree that electoral fraud was minimal at worst and one can most certainly not refute that he has the support of the Russian populace behind him, with popularity ratings about double Bush's. And isn't that the defintion of democracy? To have elections that accuratly point the people's choice of leadership? Certainly Russia's values are the same as free liberal-democratic states and their constutution differs from ours and they aren't really a free country but that does not mean they are not a democracy. | CON | 928b6a81-2019-04-18T19:57:25Z-00005-000 |
Abortion before the third trimester. Point A: We are in agreement Point B: Just because we disagree on the matter doesn't refute my position that the basis for laws lie in societal morality. As for your statistics citing the beliefs of many to believe abortion is immoral, I first say that those statistics are actually those who believe in God, and you assume that they are against abortion. That means by no means that they are against abortion, and even those who are probably aren't against abortions as we are defining them in this context as before the third trimester. If THAT isn't enough, people's ideals fluctuate all the time, so until you prove that the general populace was always against abortion, then your argument doesn't refute my own. My position is that the basis of laws lies in societal morality because the people who made our countries put what they believed to be right in our Constitution so that those values would be protected. Just because your views or my views, or even the majority of society's views that abortions are immoral in the context of religion or personal belief doesn't mean that, when put in the context of society, should be illegalized because the fact of the matter is that it IS protected by the Constitution that was made for the greater good of our society, and so to violate that protection by illegalizing abortion before the third trimester would be like spitting on our forefathers. Point C: Once again, the Supreme Court doesn't just randomly suggest some definition from nowhere; it is determined by political realities as well as how they believe the founding fathers would have thought. Who are you to say that they just randomly pick a definition, especially when you don't provide a better one? As I do recall, you cited Websters, and also didn't disagree with me on my point that the highest authority on constitutional matters, the Supreme Court, has probably the most viable definition seeing as it is their job to decide such matters. | PRO | cbde2446-2019-04-18T20:01:18Z-00001-000 |
Implementing this measure is perfectly possible, although the details of its application will vary f... This measure is highly impractical and heavy-handed, as well as being discriminatory. Some religions have clear and organised hierarchies with full-time qualified and salaried priests or ministers; others rely upon part-time prayer leaders, religious teachers, preachers and pastors. Can we always tell whether someone is a minister of religion who should be banned, or merely a person whose deep faith involves them in spiritual and community leadership, but who relies upon other employment to make a living and so should be eligible for election? Should we ban everyone who has ever taught a Sunday school class or led a Bible study group? | CON | f1cb4ca1-2019-04-19T12:46:35Z-00016-000 |
EU has the will to defend the Euro. "Statement following the meeting of the Heads of States and Government of the Euro Area Brussels". José Manuel Durão Barroso. May 2010 "The important point common to all these agreed elements today is that we will defend the euro whatever it takes. We have several instruments at our disposal and we will use them. The European Institutions – Council, Commission, European Central Bank and of course the Euro area Member States. This was the clear decision unanimously taken today." | PRO | 57a3df7d-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00060-000 |
Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and all the countries that end with "istan"should make their own continent. To start off, i wanted to put all those middle eastern countries in the title but my debate title only allowed 100 characters so i had to state th main ones. it is not one of the worst ideas you have ever heard because it makes sense if you think about it for all of those who are gonna vote, just think about it when you consider asia, you think of all the eastern countries, most people would not be able to place these countries in a continent. Since they practice similar religions, it wouldn't be that hard -- who said a continent had to be made up of countries with indetical beliefs anyway tarzan you made a good point but you are not answering the debate, we would not be violating it wtf this new continent would bring them unity your last sentence:"If the people that live there want their own continent, let them make that decision." thats is exactly what i said, should THEY not us but THEY making it THEIR decision you read this debate completly wrong | PRO | 3148fb8a-2019-04-18T19:51:32Z-00003-000 |
I'm Pro-Gun: Change my Mind. Ok now i almost understand your point of view. So i ask you frankly if you think assault weapon shouldn't be banned, then are you against the movement of March for our lives ? Then you would think this movement is quite stupid right ? But we all agree and you should strongly agree with us that we should have background check on all guns sales. Nobody should oppose this. Background check is meant to keep guns out of dangerous people. Anyone who argue that background check does not work is really retarded. 99 % of experts agree that background check is the best approach to end gun violence. Background check has nothing to do with infringe the right to bear arms. It doesn't violate 2n amendment. terrorist,criminals,domestic abusers and mental ill are not well regulated militia. How about if we do like this . Let's make gun regulation like in Germany. Germany has fourth highest gun ownership but the lowest gun death. How did they achieve that ? Germany has strong background check Germany has safety storage on guns Germany has gun registry and gun license Germany banned fully automatic weapon and also semi atuomatic weapon that cannot be used for hunting and sports. And Lastly most important point is Germany does not guaranteed the right to self defense. It's illegal in Germany to use guns for self defense. Concealed carry permit is forbidden. Look i want to send important message to Hunters and Sportsmen. ' I AM NOT GOING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS. IF YOU WANT TO USE GUNS FOR HUNTING I FULLY SUPPORT IT. I AM NOT GOING TO TAKE YOUR RIGHT AWAY. MY GRANDFATHER ALSO LIKE TO ENJOY HUNTING. BESIDES THERE IS NO NEED TO PROTECT YOURSELVE FROM TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT AND YES I TRUST TRUMP AND THE GOVERNMENT. THEY ARE NOT DANGEROUS AT ALL. WE ARE IN THE 21TH CENTURY. AMERICA IS AN INDEPENDENT DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY. THERE ARE NO SLAVERY AND COLONIES ANYMORE. | CON | 1cf18f29-2019-04-18T11:23:52Z-00001-000 |
My opponent has just lost the game. I look forward to having a rigorous philosophical debate! =) My opponent has not posted all the rules of "the game". Therefore I will do so now. In this link [1] you will find all the rules of the game. Contention 1:I did not just lose the game. I actually lost "the game" before I took this debate. If you look at the rules of the game, after you lose the game you have 30 minutes in which you cannot lose the game. So you do not lose the game every time you think about it. You lose the game after you have not been thinking about it for 30 minutes. Since I was thinking about the game before I was even sent this challenge I did not lose the game at the time of accepting this debate. Nor did I lose the game at the time of reading the debate prior to accepting it. Now It is probable that most people here don't know about these rules and have only just been enlightened. But this is the same game that my opponent is talking about, and the same game that is constantly being brought up in discussion on this website (and who knows where else). Therefore according to the rules I did not just lose the game. My opponent needs to prove that at the time I accepted this debate I lost the game. I have proven otherwise. Contention 2: The game does not hold any power. It is completely made up like my opponent says, it is a mind game. I could just as easily make up another game with the following rules: 1. I am always playing this game no matter what unless I wish to stop playing it. 2. While I am playing "this game" I cannot lose "the game". The game that I made up has just as much power as "the game" and therefore by it's rules I cannot lose "the game". "The game" is completely made up, my game is completely made up as well. They are just the same only with different rules. I do not see why I would not be allowed to make up a mind game like this one, when someone else makes up a game very similar to it. I have given 2 reasons as too why I did not just lose the game. Therefore vote con. [1] http://www.funnycorner.net... | CON | c153ff82-2019-04-18T18:45:27Z-00004-000 |
Catholicism is NOT real Christianity. My responses to my opponents rebuttals: 1) It is true that the Catholics believe in the existence of God and Jesus. However, according to the Bible, Satan knows they exist as well: "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." (James 2:19). The difference is that Christians believe, and show their belief by obeying God's Word. Satan as well as Catholics acknowledge the existence of God, but they disobey Him. The fact that the Catholic canon contains 12 more books than Christians is irrelevant; these apocryphal books are set in the Old Testament. The validity of these extra books is for another debate. My opponent fails to quote from the "Catholic Bible" where it says to pray to dead saints as a mediator. It must be remembered that in II Timothy 2:5 it is said that the only mediator between God and man is Christ and Christ alone. 2) The Bible says nothing about democracy because the Bible is not a political essay. The Bible does, however, speak of human rights, quite extensively. Please read: http://www.gotquestions.org... The fact that democracy is not specifically mentioned (though government is spoken about quite a bit), is very different than the Bible talking about church. Obviously the Bible will speak more of church than of politics. What does it say about the church and its leader? "And he [Jesus] is the head of the body, the church..." (Colossians 1:18a) 3) Romans 3:4: "God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged." It does not matter if they think they are only honoring her. If they were really Christian they would read their Bibles and see that this is idolatry. 4) It is true that the Bible never says to celebrate Christmas. It was a pagan celebration, proving my point. When the Romans were still pagans, they celebrated "Christmas", e.i., December 25. When the Romans founded the Catholic religion, they simply changed the names of characters in their old religion to "fit" with Christianity. The celebration of Christmas is due to the Catholic religion, proving that they have pagan roots. 5) How can false Christian doctrine be Christian? | PRO | 469ff763-2019-04-18T18:43:45Z-00005-000 |
Banning collisions would give unfair advantage to runner/catcher. Ricky Doyle. "Buster Posey's Injury Unfortunate, But Home-Plate Collisions Still Have Place in Baseball." NESN. May 29th, 2011: "Collisions at home plate aren't always necessary, and should be occur sparingly, but to regulate them would inevitably hand either the baserunner or the catcher an unnecessary advantage in close-play situations. If Major League Baseball was to employ a rule stating that runners must avoid contact with the catcher -- similar to the 'slide or avoid' rule employed in amateur baseball -- it would give the advantage to the catcher. The catcher would have the benefit of dictating the course of action that a baserunner must take, and would -- perhaps more importantly -- have peace of mind knowing that there is no chance of an ensuing collision. If Major League Baseball was to make a rule stating that the catcher cannot block the plate, the advantage would certainly go to the baserunner, who would enjoy the luxury of a straight path to the most sacred ground on a baseball diamond." | PRO | 7ef85aba-2019-04-17T11:47:21Z-00048-000 |
Gay Is Okay. The U.S. recently passed the law allowing gay couples to get married, but some how, people decide it's still worth protesting against. I still don't understand why. Gay just means that two people of the same gender fall in love. There is no harm in loving someone. According to society and the media, relationships are in, so why is a relationship with two guys or girls bad? Twaimz (Issa) once made a video on YouTube called 'You're Gay' in which he protested against haters and stood up for the people who just wanted to love. "Why hate someone because they love someone? Like, they're not hating you." Being gay myself, I know that it can be hard with the haters. It's especially hard when you are a homosexual AND go to a Christian church. With my religion, I'm told that God says homosexuality is bad. Sure, God created a man and woman and people will protest with the common phrase, "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" This is true, but if God created Adam and Steve, there would be quite a lot heterophobic people or no females at all! How would you females feel? Not so great huh? What about straight (or bi, pan, etc.) people didn't get who you loved? Homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, and any other sexuality that is with one gender liking the same gender (even the slightest bit) has all the rights to be as equally accepted as heterosexuality. | PRO | 2aa6011-2019-04-18T14:34:39Z-00004-000 |
Global Warming is Bad and Should be Stopped. "I dont think that webbed feet are normal in humans" Webbed feet are not normal in humans... Yet... "It is predicted that the ice sheets are supposed to change" We know that... "golbal warming will happen 1.5 feet over the next thousand years," That makes no sense... Let's pull up the full quote, shall we? "It is predicted that the ice sheets are supposed to change and golbal warming will happen 1.5 feet over the next thousand years, in a time where neither of us will be alive." Okay, how could "golbal warming" happen 1.5 feet over the next thousand years? I think what you were trying to say was: "It is predicted global warming will change the ice sheets by shrinking them 1.5 feet over the next thousand years." And of course, that really doesn't matter anyway. 1.5 feet isn't bad, and once again, humans are adapting! Okay, let me expand on my idea that humans are adapting: Humans are animals, animals adapt and evolve on their own, mostly without the evolving animal knowing it. "global warming needs to be stopped in out lifetime so that it doesnt transfer the responsibility to our younger generations." First of all, we will figure out a way to fight it, or at least temporarily stop it's effects, we're that smart. Secondly, like I've stated before, humans are adapting and evolving, and they've never stopped. Global warming is just one more thing to adapt to. Prove me wrong... | CON | 8b81f966-2019-04-18T19:51:47Z-00001-000 |
I am God. Alright, ill give. If you are God, the creator of the universe and everything in it than surely you will be able to answer a few simple questions about your creations. All numbers must refer and be answered in the human (American) numerical system. All names of any objects, animals, etc must be answered in the American given names. 1. How many hairs are currently on my head? 2. What are my 4 pets, and what are the breeds/species of said pets? 3. What kind of flowers are currently planted in my back yard, and how many petals are there on all the plants combined? 4. How many blades of grass are currently in my yard? 5. How many blades of grass did i just pull up from my yard? 6. How many freckles are on my face? 7. How many teeth do i have in my mouth? If you are truly the creator of the universe and everything in it, the all knowing God, than these are easy questions for you, if you cannot answer them correctly than you are not the All powerful all knowing God, creator of the Universe, and the resolution fails. | CON | 2600849f-2019-04-18T19:21:09Z-00002-000 |
US Citizens Should Be Required To Carry Guns Vs US Citizens Should Not Be Allowed Guns. I will be arguing that law abiding citizens should be REQUIRED to carry guns on them in public and would make the United States safer against gun related crimes. My opponent will be arguing that law abiding citizens should not be allowed to carry guns at all, that guns should be illegal for law abiding citizens to have in the United States, and that making guns illegal for law abiding citizens in the United States will make the US safer. I believe that if law abiding US citizens were required to have guns on them in public, the crime rate in the US would go down but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. In order for my opponent to win, I have to be convinced that making guns illegal for law abiding United States citizens would make the United States safer instead of my way of thinking and I have to tell my opponent that I'm convinced in the final round. I'm going to be honest on whether or not my opponent convinced me as well as I sincerely want to see my opponent's perspective. My opponent will also have the burden of proof and will have to refute my points as well as make points of their own. I will start: 1) Some criminals are not likely to give up their guns just because it's illegal. 2) Some criminals can get guns from the black market. 3) Switzerland's crime rate is lower compared to the United States. There are more law abiding citizens in Switzerland who carry guns compared to law abiding citizens in the United States that carry guns. Sources: http://www.nationmaster.com... http://www.nationalreview.com... https://nypost.com... http://www.politifact.com... | PRO | f5c75f6e-2019-04-18T11:54:23Z-00001-000 |
AND/OR is an abomination of the English language. Everywhere I go (papers, Books, Articles, Even the spoken word! ) I am accosted with the term AND/OR. It must stop! I will stipulate that in legal documents there is some place for this contraction. However, There are almost zero other times when AND/OR is better than (or even as good as) the two real-English options ("and" and "or"). Use of AND/OR is evidence of mental laziness. 'Gee, I don't want to make the effort to decide whether I should use "and" or "or. " Instead, I'll cover all the bases and use AND/OR. ' In many cases, The use of AND/OR adds confusion. The definition of the term is not the sum of "and" and "or. " ~if you were watching, You noticed that I have always chosen "and" or "or" instead of the abomination~ | PRO | 55ac2ae4-2019-04-18T11:15:00Z-00005-000 |
Resolved: Affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions. Here go the rebuttals. I still maintain each of my arguments from Round 1 as well. "Affirmative action is merely discrimination in reverse. There is the case of Barbara Grutter, who was turned down from the University of Michigan despite being more qualified than the minority groups who were admitted due to a quota. " Not necessarily. Given that minorities are often underrepresented at college institutions, as well as the fact that many people of different ethnicities ARE indeed qualified, more racially and gender-oriented accuracy in college institutions would only be for the better. This is not to say that less qualified candidates would be admitted. Rather, diversity would be used a tiebreaker during the college admissions process. That is how affirmative action SHOULD be used (see debate resolution). And thus, the example provided by my opponent fails. "Affirmative action tends to only benefit the high-standing, wealthy members of the minority group who are being "benefited. "" Please supply some evidence to verify that claim. The more qualified candidates would be the ones benefited, by the definition of affirmative action. "There may be potential for more cultural diversity, but it rarely surfaces. Minorities are usually resented for being there. They are seen as being given a handout, without earning it. Resent gets rid of any possibility of cultural enrichment. " Again, please supply some evidence of that. And because only the equally qualified or more qualified candidates would be entitled to affirmative action as described, there is no "not-deserving" factor. "How often are there extremely similar candidates with the same GPA, equally active in the community, went out for the same sports and were just as good at them, got the same scores on the ACT and the SAT? " How often an event may occur is irrelevant, as long as it remains possible. Given that it is possible for two or more extremely similar candidates to apply to college, the argument still stands. Granted, this is statistically more probable at larger state universities, for example because of the larger yield of students applying for spots. "Not to mention it is unconstitutional. " Firstly, how is it unconstitutional? Secondly, I would like to point out that whether or not it is "constitutional" or not is also largely a red herring. A debate with the word "should" in the resolution as used in this debate directly implies change the possibility for change of the current system, depending on the outcome of the debate. Affirmative action leads to higher levels of diversity in colleges, more equal opportunity for people of minority-status and women, and ensures less discrimination in the college admissions arena. I look forward to the remaining debate. | PRO | fe4e6745-2019-04-18T19:28:58Z-00003-000 |
Shulk is Really Feeling It. Sir, you won me my debate. Thank you. "Many other fictional characters in video games, books, or other forms of media in the physical world can each DISPLAY feelings or emotions." Display is the keyword. No actual fictional character can feel, since what is actually happening is a description of what a person could feel given the same situation. However the character themselves are not actually feeling, since of course they do not actually have a conscious. Therefore they cannot make conscious decisions, therefore they cannot feel anything due to not have a response system. You can't have feelings without a response system. Check and Mate, my good sir. I have very much enjoyed debating with you. *tips le fedora* | CON | f773f477-2019-04-18T15:22:10Z-00002-000 |
Jesus was a Socialist. Despite many exploitative, decadent, highly capitalist societies use jesus and religion as propaganda, as well as an excuse to marginalize the majority of the workers, I believe the facts as well as his teachings prove that Jesus was a Socialist, here is why. He clearly disapproved of wealth inequality, one of his quotes was "Assuredly, I say to you it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." Jesus clearly had an understanding of the corruption and inequality that comes from aristocratic wealth. As well as the unfairness of the whole feudal Imperialist system that was going on in his time. He strove for equality and harmony between the classes. Ever heard of the story of the rich young man came to jesus and asked what he could to to enter into heaven, Jesus responded by saying "If you want to be perfect, give what is not needed to the poor, and there will be treasure in heaven." This is a sign that jesus was an advocate for equal distribution of wealth and resources, a belief that sounds very similar to...hmmm....marxism perhaps? Also Jesus was a firm believer in sharing, and always having enough for everyone, a very socialist belief. Ever heard the bible story when Jesus was delivering a sermon in front of thousands of people and managing to feed them all with five loaves of bread and two fish? This type of equal distribution seems very socialist to me. As well as his belief of Loving your neighbor, and caring for the poor, the sick, and the oppressed. Jesus appears to me like the original marxist. | PRO | 405348e6-2019-04-18T12:29:59Z-00003-000 |
Donald Trump's 35% tariff against US companies. Mr. Executive officer Elect Number # 45 wants to run a Republic as if a Religious Monarchy, like both England and parliament once had. OK. But we should understand that tariff is not a new strategy, a strategy of negotiation with any number of new possible, with new outcomes that may emerge. Basically Mr. E.O. #45 is going into the retail business, and not Presidential responsibilities of defending the U.S. Constitution, not work on behalf of the American people in regulations dealing with the issues of the United States Court system. If the products turn out to be of a comparative quality, at a better price, it is illegally to singled out for retail mark-up by a Federal government, with a written responsibility to provide basic non-biased separation as its primary responsibility as an agent of taxation. The people may losing out or be hurt in other ways than just jobs, the losses will far exceed any measurement of 35% as there are things lost that simply are not weight by scales of that type economic calibration. 1.Taxation in the form of tariff is simply admitting as a negotiator the United States will never be competitive in free trade. And, does not know the obligation of its own contract with the taxpayer. 2.The cost in manufacturing does not simply rotate around labor wages. A 35% mark as a negotiation tool may simple just demonstrate how out of touch the negotiation is, or has become. 3.How does anyone seriously plan for a future for themselves or for other, which requires an extensive plan and commitment that limits a person"s mobility, to design industry. When faced with a threat from some-one who is supposed to have represented a non-biased representation and opportunity in the largest economy in the world. 4.35% of from the # 1 mathematically is still easier to take with the 50% of the other 9. It"s not just about the direct cost of labor any-more. The selling point doesn"t matter if the product the negotiator was try to sell has been lost by abuse. | CON | 2ad9a7ab-2019-04-18T12:35:09Z-00004-000 |
Money as “symbolic expression”. Not only is money instrumental to effective political communication, the expenditure of money in support of a campaign or cause is also, in itself, a form of political expression. The gesture of donating money expresses one’s allegiance to and endorsement of a candidate’s or organization’s stance on the issues that form the political discourse of the society we live in. It is a basic way of political engagement. It is also one which is most readily available to any citizen. Therefore, donating money is a speech act which needs to be protected, in the same way burning a flag is considered to be a gesture of “symbolic expression” which is protected by the First Amendment[1]. [1] Eugene Voloch, “Flag Buring and Free Speech”, Wall Street Journal 2009. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124657642816289111.html | PRO | d78c0803-2019-04-15T20:24:32Z-00009-000 |
Do you agree with Venezuela offering deeply discounted heating oil for low income families in the US. I'm glad you know who Citgo is. At least that way you can voice your concerns the way it SHOULD be, by not using their services. Most people have no clue that Citgo, Inc. is owned by Venezuela and worse, don't care. No, when I say there is nothing our Government can do about Chavez offering cut price or, in some cases, free heating oil I am spot on. The Government CAN'T stop such from happening when it is companies legally operating in the U.S. that are extending this. You keep talking about the strategic oil reserves as if this has ANYTHING to do with Chavez making a political PR move. It doesn't. The purpose of the reserves isn't to fight off jokers like Chavez, it's to support American needs in times of crisis such as depression or war. High heating oil prices in Vermont doesn't fit the crisis model. Absolutely I put forth that the administration can NOT exert pressure on ANY industry, particularly the oil industry (which is MOSTLY foreign owned), to make them "do the right thing". It is not the place of the administration to dictate how private companies operate and never should be if we actually value free enterprise. OUR oil companies? The majority of oil companies are foreign owned. Even the ones with majority American ownership have a large contingent of foreign ownership. Corporations don't operate at the whim of any political force. You also have to understand that the majority of the oil being imported by "our" oil companies ALSO comes from Venezuela. This isn't a matter of President Bush saying "we don't want or need your stinkin' oil, we'll help our own". Even opening the strategic reserves doesn't counteract what Chavez is doing, it's simply responding to it. Bad idea. No way we want to let some dictator determine energy policy in this country. "You have not made a cogent argument for your position." This baffled me. My initial argument was extremely cogent and provided many revelations your original statement didn't seem to address "The defense of any argument is proportional to the truth contained therein." Was this a concession? I mean everything I wrote was 100% truthful. | PRO | a54de2ec-2019-04-18T19:55:29Z-00002-000 |
Socialism is better then Capitalism. I would expect there would be many to challenge this argument. The reason for that is because of the carrot on the stick dangling in front of your faces. A Capitalist Society gives off the belief that we can "get a piece of the pie" This keeps us blinded on what is right for our people and our country.The wealth of the earth belongs to all men or to none. Under capitalism, property is concentrated into the hands of relatively few well-off people, leaving the many with nothing and at the mercy of the rich for work, charity, etc. This leads to gross inequality, exploitation and misery. Nor is it economically efficient, as the rich have so much already they have no incentive to use their land productively. Socialism seeks to redistribute wealth and to ensure that the means of production are at the service of the whole of society, so that all can benefit and none will go without.Many could be motivated to work by a wish to aid their fellow man. Over time, as the benefits of this better way of life become obvious, all will. The impulse to share wealth and material amongst the community, to support all, leaving none behind, is one of the purest mankind can experience. It is not merely possible – it is a demonstration of the progress of our species to a finer, more humane state of being.I will leave much out to give anyone a chance to respond... | PRO | b1534522-2019-04-18T18:48:27Z-00007-000 |
school uniforms. Before refuting my opponent"s single line of argumentation, in this round I'll do the following: Offer Background information: -Explain what school uniforms are -Explain what school uniforms do Explore the rationale behind school Uniforms: -Suggest why school uniforms are useful -Examine why school uniforms are in the best interest of students and the schools they attend (1) Background School uniforms are standardized outfits worn by students, the composition of which is dictated by the educational institution which students attend. A typical school uniform may include a blazer, some form of khaki or navy pants, an oxford shirt and a repp tie for male and female students, or may include a skirt for female students. School uniforms are typically very conservative, non-revealing and non-discriminating. Because school uniforms preclude students from dressing as they would like if given the choice, school uniforms prevent brand-driven consumerism in academic settings, minimize differences among the student body, foster a sense of common identity among a student body and reinforce student"s focus on their education rather than their outward appearance. (2) The Rationale Behind School Uniforms School uniforms are useful because of the fact that they not only restrict students" clothing options, but they prevent the problems that come from "individualized" dress. For example, bullying because of appearances is minimized in both sexes because all dress in the same fashion. Because school uniforms are conservative (though still, at least ostensibly "preppy") students retain a sense of style without being judged for their inability to afford brand names, or dress provocatively. Students"s purpose in attending school is not to dress provocatively, to be "fashionable" or to dress in a way that does anything other than reinforce their being educated. On a more practical level, school uniforms solve the problem of "What am I going to wear?" that adolescents face when preparing to attend school. By requiring that students dress in a certain way, the challenge of choosing apparel is preempted and thereby prevented from being a problem. In this way, dress code violations are likewise addressed before they can even occur. My opponent, however, asserts that she thinks that school uniforms should have never been invented. I can only assume that this is because she has never considered the practicality or utility of school uniforms, which I have outlined above. I"ll await her rebuttal. Here are some examples of school uniforms: http://www.solidcolorneckties.com... http://2.bp.blogspot.com... Did I mention, that they wear school uniforms at Hogwarts? http://mugglemeetswizard.files.wordpress.com... http://www.freewebs.com... Oh, and some numbers too: "As of 2009 in the United States, there are 21 states with public school systems requiring their students to wear uniforms. A case study from 1999 conducted in Long Beach, California showed that instituting a uniform policy greatly reduced violence and other issues in the school. Crimes, suspensions and sex offenses were all reduced by at least 90 percent and vandalism dropped by almost 70 percent." Source: http://www.ehow.com... Peace out, YYW | PRO | cf842d4b-2019-04-18T17:29:27Z-00002-000 |
Darwinian evolution can not account for the bacterial flagellum. Now, to begin with, I would like to state my argument. The argument goes like this. The bacterial flagellum is a molecular machine attached to bacteria -- their function is to propel the bacteria through the micro world. These machines consist of approximately 50 components. These components, I argue, could not have come about step by step naturally, they had to have been assembled by an intelligent mind in order to perform the function. Now, before you answer my challenge, there is one thing you should absolutely not forget. You can not use your intelligence to assemble the machine, you have to propose a fully natural explanation through natural selection. | PRO | 3fa55cc8-2019-04-18T14:28:28Z-00009-000 |
Gaming Consoles. the controller you say is better for the X-box 360, but you fail to realize you can upgrade your ps3 controller too. also the Ps3 isn't very big or bulky, and can fit into even the narrow of spaces, but i got a ps3 slim, so i can't say for sure. in my opinion the ps3 is better in every way a x-box 360 is, but better. | CON | 678b3da2-2019-04-18T18:18:44Z-00000-000 |
Democracy vs Autocracy. Democracy gives the freedom of speech to every individual to raise their voice against the wrongs.Also,they have the right to choose their own government whereas autocracy takes away this right from the people. Secondly,in autocracy decision is been taken by an individual while in democracy decision is been taken by group of people elected by the citizen of the country. Also,leadership is taken over from generation to generation whereas in democracy it is not so.There are chances that the government in autocracy can cheat people as there is no opposition party whereas this risk reduces in democracy. | PRO | b04624bf-2019-04-18T14:22:22Z-00005-000 |
Mindless rap battle. Uuuum, you called your self a power puff girl and your calling ME gay? while I could laugh at that all day, Id like to writing a big boy rap ok? Id like to wish my opponent, the absolute best of luck. you know, before I drop these rhymes on he's as$ and he's f*cked! Definition: battle rap: not your piece of Sh*t. Definition: winning: not what your doing with it. All your cheap shot remarks, are those suppose to scare me? Sh*t, you got those lines from a rhyming dictionary! May I remind my opponent that this doesn't have to be, that drawn out, but not thought out, form of sh*tty poetry. But just do what you do, and think what you like, but no one wants to read that long a$s sh*t, am I right? Bitch I got the light bulb going off in my head, while this motherf*cker resorts to weed instead. I don't know if he knows that sh*t'll make him brain dead! Quick and to the point, thats all I do and I won. But I bet you 10 bucks, this motherf*cker aint done. He'll come back without even responding to this, like the pu$$y he is. You say I'm a pu$$y but thats cuz I am what I eat. But your a f*cking pu$$y cuz you can't take this heat! | CON | 679ae0d5-2019-04-18T17:58:00Z-00004-000 |
Free market vs. government sponsered healthcare in the US. In this debate we must draw a distinction between who delivers the care and who pays for it. When you control the money that flows into an industry, you control the industry. There should be no other person that decides what is best for the patient other than the patient and their doctor. Government insurance brings on government regulations which increase the cost of delivering services to patients which increases the cost of doing business. Having insurance doesn't mean you have care. It just means you have a means of paying for it that is acceptable to some physicians. Doctors do pay attention to how good of health insurance you have and they do practice medicine in a way so they get paid. The only determinant that should be present in deciding the level of care the patient receives is the patient and the doctor. No one else. | PRO | 37f23c40-2019-04-18T16:23:44Z-00002-000 |
Killing 2009 health bill would delay reform for years. David Brooks. "The Hardest Call." New York Times. December 17, 2009: "The fourth reason to support the bill is that if this fails, it will take a long time to get back to health reform. Clinton failed. Obama will have failed. No one will touch this. Meanwhile, health costs will continue their inexorable march upward, strangling the nation." | PRO | 1d99ec20-2019-04-17T11:47:28Z-00046-000 |
Vaccines have severe side effects. Some of the used vaccines may have severe side effects, therefore we should let every individual asses the risk and make choices on his/her own. Besides introducing foreign proteins and even live viruses into the bloodstream, each vaccine has its own preservative, neutralizer and carrying agent, none of which are indigenous to the body. For instance, the triple antigen, DPT, which includes Diphtheria, Pertussis, Tetanus vaccine, contains the following poisons: Formaldehyde, Mercury, and aluminum phosphate, and that's from the Physician's Desk Reference, 1980. The packet insert accompanying the vaccine, lists the following poisons: aluminum potassium sulfate, a mercury derivative called Thimersol and sodium phosphate. The packet insert for the polio vaccine lists monkey kidney cell culture, lactalbumin hydrozylate, antibiotics and calf serum. The packet insert for the MMR vaccine produced by Merck Sharp and Dhome which is for measles, mumps and rubella lists chick embryo and neomycin, which is a mixture of antibiotics.[1] Evidence also suggests that immunizations damage the immune system itself. By focusing exclusively on increased antibody production, which is only one aspect of the immune process, immunizations isolate dysfunction and allow it to substitute for the entire immune response, because vaccines trick the body so that it will no longer initiate a generalized response. They accomplished what the entire immune system seems to have been evolved to prevent. That is, they place the virus directly into the blood and give it access to the major immune organs and tissues without any obvious way of getting rid of it. The long-term persistence of viruses and other foreign proteins within the cells of the immune system has been implicated in a number of chronic and degenerative diseases. In 1976 Dr. Robert Simpson of Rutgers university addressed science writers at a seminar of the American Cancer Society, and pointed out the following. "Immunization programs against flu, measles, mumps, polio and so forth may actually be seeding humans with RNA to form latent pro viruses in cells throughout the body. These latent pro viruses could be molecules in search of diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Parkinson's disease, and perhaps cancer."[2] Vaccines may cause a child who is genetically predisposed to have autism. If the trend of increased Thimerosal in vaccinations correlates so well with the trend of increased autistic diagnoses, there is a link. Thimerosal in vaccinations (which means 'contains mercury') causes autism. Too many times has a child been completely healthy, and then a vaccine containing Thimerosal is injected into the child. The child becomes ill, stops responding visually and verbally, and is then diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. [1] Roger R. Gervais. Understanding the Vaccine Controversy. Natural MAgainse May/June 1996. http://www.naturallifemagazine.com/naturalparenting/vaccines.htm [2] Alex Loglia, Global healing center, http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/vaccinations-the-hour-of-the-time.html, accessed 28/05/2011 | PRO | d77612cc-2019-04-15T20:24:10Z-00017-000 |
rap battle. b*tch please your raps sound like you found them off of a website tryna flex I'm just gonna take flight on this text, you say your raps are rad but they're really suicidal sad, why you callin me an old lad I'm just tryna be your dad, you can't possibly be happy with your raps they don't even sound mad just talkin a couple lines girl you aint bad, i aint even tryin lettin the flow come off my tongue get the f*ck out dis pad something you wish you had! | PRO | bf3b4298-2019-04-18T13:10:12Z-00001-000 |
did Hitler have it right. The debate title seems to be in favor of Hitler, but your argument is much more for eugenics in general. In fact, you even point out that Hitler did not have it right, in that apparently Jews aren't the right people we need to kill. You seem to ignore the fact that not only were Jews murdered, but Romanians, Homosexuals, and any political opponent. Hitler's mass murder wasn't for the betterment of mankind, especially if his vison of mankind is only a select few racial, ethnic, sexual, and political groups, which are further narrowed down in that a person must meet all of these characteristics to be deemed worthy. I would say that Hitler was doing his murder for the good of his German motherland, but the same objection above still applies. I have to wander why genetic defects, disease, and crime are all listed as if they are equal. How would eugenics stop crime? If anything, the very existence of a wide spread mass holocaust would be the worst example of a crime ever done by the human race. Crime is influenced by social factors and economic factors, which I don't think would go away, even if the number of humans were drastically reduced. And disease? If anything, this would hurt our ability to deal with disease. It is our genetic diversity that allows us to adapt to changes, and, just as a reference, breeding the golden retriever lost 35% of their original genetic diversity. "i'm not bias to who I cleanse from the planets surface."Right, you may be a mass murder approving, neo nazi scum f*ck, but you aren't biased on who you disgustingly murder.(Something of a side note, I'm not allowed to say f*ck on this website, but we can say murder the unwanted?)Lastly you talk about the Purge, but I find this pretty ironic. You seem to think that 1. the purge is eugenics (the Purge is class warfare), and that 2. the writers were remotely in favor of it. You... do know what a dystopia is, right? 1984 was a story about a tyrannical, totalitarian government, but Orwell wasn't giving it a thumbs up. The Purge is clearly a horrific human rights violation, and this point is made even clearer in the second movie. Can you propose any actual arguments for this horrendous trash? Oh, and please make it more readible than Mein Kampf next time. | CON | 70620ff8-2019-04-18T14:18:44Z-00002-000 |
The voting age should be reduced to 14. Con says kids are too ignorant and immature. I did not confirm that, I said that ignorance and maturity is not determined by age. That was the last line of my previous round. It's a shame that Con does not know how to read. Perhaps Con should not be able to vote even though he is 47. If he cannot grasp basic comprehension then he should definitely not be casting a ballot. But the government does not weed out the ignorant and immature. They only weed out by age which I explained is unfair, does not make sense and is contradictory with other values (like no taxation without representation). | PRO | c0b1c40c-2019-04-18T13:10:29Z-00001-000 |
Should english be the main language in america. so basically my opponent is agreeing with me when I said English should be the primary language you said simple English should be taught but English is English if you know a little bit of English you can say hey I know English whether you know a little bit or a lot you can say I know English so basically you can say by opponent is agreeing with me when he says English should be the main spoken language in America whether it me simple English or advance English | PRO | e352df08-2019-04-18T19:03:59Z-00003-000 |
Term limits undermine value of experience in governance. Ezra Klein. "The folly of term limits." Washington Post. January 4th, 2010: "California already has term limits. And they're a disaster. Virtually everyone I interviewed for that piece named term limits as a contributor to California's fiscal crisis. Imagine, for instance, that you elect a well-liked local physician's assistant to the state Assembly. Doesn't matter the party. Our hypothetical legislator might know a lot about medical care. But she probably knows nothing about the budget. This stuff takes awhile to learn, after all. And remember, she's not studying budget politics full time: She's raising money and dealing with constituent service and reading up on other bills and traveling back-and-forth from her district. So how long till our doctor-legislator really gets the budget, understands the legislative process, and matures into the sort of seasoned assemblywoman we'd want responding to a devastating fiscal crisis? Eight years? Twelve years? More? Too bad. Six years and she's out." | PRO | 9860f93c-2019-04-17T11:47:22Z-00058-000 |
Obama is Worse than George Bush. Obama is evil because he pulled the trops out of the evil Iraq and Afghanistan. Howver, Bush invaded the terrorists, so he must be a lot better. Obama created the evil Obamacare: now taxes on the poor have been increased greatly. Also, Bush cut the taxes on the rihc, whereas Obama has broght them to an all-time high. Obama is a Muslim, so he must be with Osama. There's a reason we of the Tea Party Patriots call him "Barack HUSSEIN OSAMA. " | PRO | 887aebb9-2019-04-18T16:30:18Z-00001-000 |
Bernie Sanders is a Socialist. Democratic Socialism is not the same thing as socialism. Completely different viewpoints. From this, I can tell that the OP is simply misinformed and therefore their judgement is invalid. Moving on, I will still justify my views. Socialism is basically the opposite of capitalism. The government controls ALL means of production (think, Communism) and authoritarianism. Democratic socialism works within a multi-party, CAPITALIST, Country. Most Democratic socialist advocate for more access to healthcare and education for the general population. For example, They believe that you should not have to spend your entire life's savings within 2 years of your cancer treatments, Or be in debt for a decade because you wanted to better your education. Basically wanting to improve the security of the working-class. They plan on obtaining this money through taxes on the rich. We're not talking rich as in, A surgeon who spent a decade getting to where he is now and now he's only making 30% of his income. We're talking, Amazon made $11. 8 billion in profit in 2018 and didn't pay a single dime in taxes. So, By definition and moral understanding, Bernie is in no way a socialist. Democratic socialism has socialist tendencies, But it is not affiliated in that sense. | CON | 558d9e91-2019-04-18T11:10:39Z-00002-000 |
stupidity=doubting myself. Let's look at my opponent's arguments. "seeing all, i only run into a fence on purpose" This rebuttal has NOTHING to do with this resolution due to the fact that it is stupidity, but however, it has nothing to do with doubting oneself. My opponent is trying to say that, just because you run into a fence on purpose, that someone doubted his/her self? Of course not. One person would have to be confident if he/she was going to do a certain action, thus not doubting his/her self due to the fact one person can't doubt a stupid actions. Actions occur when someone wants to do it, thus it is not doubting oneself, it is just being confident in oneself. Thus, my opponents 1st argument is void and useless. Next rebuttal "the definitions are one and the same" Ok. Since I have reliably sourced my definitions, and my opponents haven't, my definitions still stand today, which I will repost: Subpoint A: Definition of stupidity Merriam Webster defines this as: "a stupid idea or act" Thus, stupidity cannot mean doubting myself, as explained Subpoint B: Definition of Doubting Merriam Webster defines this as, "to lack confidence in" and thus stupidity does not equal to doubting myself because a stupid idea or act does not equal to lacking confidence Next point "maybe it's stupid to drink alcohol in the first place" Again, not relevant. Just because someone is stupid to drink alcohol in the first place, does it mean the person is doubting his/herself? Of course not.One person would have to be confident if he/she was going to do a certain action, thus not doubting his/her self due to the fact one person can't doubt a stupid actions. Actions occur when someone wants to do it, thus it is not doubting oneself, it is just being confident in oneself. Thus, my opponents 1st argument is void and useless. My opponents haven't hit my second contention, so flow that on to the negative. Today, their rebuttals and contentions have been refuted, thus they have no ground. However, they have never hit a single contention at all of mine, thus my case stands, thus I win. I urge a ballot in the Con side in today's debate. `TheResistance | CON | 8888672-2019-04-18T13:58:23Z-00000-000 |
Marriage is bad. The right person is not always easy to find. 10% of people are 100% straight and only 10% of people are 100% gay about 80% of the population are somewhere in-between. This makes the perfect person very hard to find, you may only have one shot and getting with the perfect person and at the time where you briefly meet your perfect match you may already be married. When you are married it makes splitting up harder and emotionally worse, if you were only in a boyfriend-girlfriend situation then splitting up far easier therefore finding your perfect match much easier to get with. The way society is going a quarter of deaths will be suicide. Society is making things far easier to break promises, and marriage is a promise. Marriage isn't the soul cause of suicide though it is a prime factor in the suicide rates. Society is currently breaking, with half of the east on verge of war, do you really think if things kick off over there we will have time for petty promises like marriage? You are thirteen, you shouldn't be worrying about your sex life just yet... Anyway I'm sure you realize that sex isn't everything and most of the time the happiest people don't have a very busy sex life. Not to say those who do aren't happy, you gave the statistics for singles and married people, people who are in non-married relationships with others have the busiest sex lives of all, if you're really that worried! | PRO | d7001af5-2019-04-18T17:02:47Z-00001-000 |
Islam is a religion of peace. Your first claim is that the majority of terrorist are not Muslim and you proved this by saying "In Europe, more than 98% of terrorist attacks are by non-Muslims and in America, 94%. And compared to the entire Muslim population, that is 0.00009% of Muslims." First of all, you picked two places where the Muslim population is small. In Europe, the Muslim population is 6% and in the USA its only 1%. at - https://www.thereligionofpeace.com... The source I linked says "Even by the FBI"s curious standard, the sort of truly violent terrorism that most concerns Americans is extremely rare in the United States. Only 29 attacks on their list of incidents between 1980 and 2005 resulted in actual death. Of these 29 attacks, Islamic extremists were responsible for 24%, accounting for 2,981 kills (civilians only), while the non-Muslim attack body count is 196." You also said that the bible is more violent but that is only because the Bible has way more verses then the Quran. You showed me this verse "Do not transgress, for God does not love the transgressors." The problem with this is that the word translates to "someone who has broken a particular rule or law or has done something that is generally considered unacceptable" law = sharia law. the problem with is verse - "Saving One Life Is As If Saving Whole Of Humanity" is that after this verse it says "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides." so your peaceful verse is followed by a hateful verse. | CON | 5e96ec4d-2019-04-18T11:47:46Z-00003-000 |
Naturalism Assumes that Humans are Supernatural. Fun quick debate:I will be arguing that Naturalism assumes that humans are supernatural and is therefore self defeating. "Naturalism is "the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world; (occas.) the idea or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world." Adherents of naturalism (i.e., naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws" 4 Rounds 4000 char 24 Hours to respond Best of luck to my opponent. | PRO | bce6ec1b-2019-04-18T16:32:00Z-00007-000 |
mayor term should be extend up to 6 years. My opponent has not added anything to her argument. She only states that 2 extra years are not slight and doesn't prove to me that they are not (so my statement stands.) Again, I must point out to my opponent: If the people like the mayor, they can re elect him. Adding another 2 years (the population might have to endure a bad candidate for 2 extra years at some point...) doesn't seem necessary. | CON | 75778164-2019-04-18T19:47:40Z-00001-000 |
Religion in public schools. Sorry about that I thought I did post the title. It was a Harry Potter book oddly enough. My son didn't indicate any type of religious belief, it was 100% assumption on his teacher's part. I do not want my children taught about religion of any kind until they have reached an age of reason. When they are able to understand and research religious beliefs is when I will discuss options with them. I am now forced to have that discussion with my son. Public schools are solely for educating, not for discussing personal religious beliefs. If a parent wants their child to be exposed to religion in school then they should enroll their child in a private non secular school. Children from all types of different backgrounds attend public school and parents shouldn't have to wonder if they are being exposed to any type of religious belief. I should be the one who will discuss religion with my son when he is old enough to make an educated decision. I never pretended Santa brought presents or the tooth fairy left money under their pillow. My children knew at a young age that those fairy tales weren't true, but with the way religion is revered in today's society any young child will be inclined to believe it. I know that the school wouldn't allow a teacher to tell one of the students there is no God, the parents would have a fit if that happened. Why should I have to be okay with this man implying that there is a god. If religion is allowed in schools then you would have to include all religions and atheism. No parent would be okay with a teacher telling their students that satanism is the one true religion (unless the parent was a satanist). So no, I wasn't being sarcastic at all. If one religion is allowed in public schools then all must be. Religion is a personal belief and there is no need of it in public schools. I don't have a choice but to send my children to a public school because I cannot afford a private one. Public schools only purpose is to educate out children, not implicate the existence of a god. | CON | 3c839676-2019-04-18T16:41:42Z-00005-000 |
Harry Styles is the best member of One Direction. First of all, you have to be kidding! How can you compare their hair? Hair isn't a reason of why Harry is the best member. That would go to something like if you were trying to prove that Harry is 1D's "best looking" member, and even then I would disagree. So since you started talking about heir, then I will talk about Harry's hair. His hair always looks messy, it maybe natural, but it looks gross. At least Zayn actually takes care of himself. I don't see how hair is a good reason to why Harry is the best member, so your argument is invalid :) | CON | dfa58ad1-2019-04-18T18:06:13Z-00002-000 |
The Playstation 3 is a better console than the Xbox 360. first my opponent claims that the xbox is 4GB, Mine came with a hard drive that has 60 GB and i payed 10 extra. This is what i meant and i wasnt clear. This debate is about better console. My opponent is mentioning other things like hardware for the console. Now yes i know the definition of a console and i have to say my opponent is not speaking about the gaming efforts of this system. I thank my opponent before i start my counters and opening statement. "Counter ("You failed to. .. ")- I did not bring up sales of games because the source you gave included only top games, in which I might add; that the ratio is only 13:9 in favor of the Xbox, not a very big spread when all the rest went to Nintendo. " The source i gave was clear on the top games. This is Ps3 vs Xbox but it also matters which one does better in sales which you wont denie Xbox wins. Blue ray is a great addition i agree but these consoles were detemined to be game consoles. If you think this isnt true then look at Ps2 which was mainly for gaming and nothing else really. Same for original xbox. Yes you do pay for xbox but you get exclusives on some games and a better community. A better community can be defined as-more players, more people online. You can argue it isnt but it is the biggest community. You can argue ps3 lets you surf web. Xbox does now to but this is irrlevant. Like i said its a gaming system mainly not a computer. People do buy it to play games if they didnt theyd stick with their computer. My xbox has a 60 gb hard drive. In the last three years i still have Gb's left so i dont need extra room. You could argue the ps3 games dont break easy. Xbox has a feature where you install games so if they do get scratched you can play anyway. Xbox wins in things like Bigger community, kids friendly due to parent locks, sales and more Reasons i beleive Xbox is better: -you pay for a better expeicene and some times get things earlier -It was infact voted ebst online community and sorry i dont have a source -beats ps3 in sales and game version ratio of 13:9 -Great tech support,proven as glitches have lasted longer on ps3 then xbox. Feel free to read forums -Kinect makes a big diffrence and has the top selling game as of jan 25 -You can surf web -You can create an avatar -Its really user friendl yin a creative sense -high tech security system and hasnt crashed in a while as ps3 had a crash about 3 months ago -Dashboard very polished since update -Addons,Demos,game content upload quick and updates -Xbox live parties were there before ps3 and xbox had it first. :) | CON | 850a7184-2019-04-18T18:30:50Z-00000-000 |
Resolved: Abortion, the removing of a fetus (3 months or earlier), should be banned in the U.S. I would like to argue that abortion in the US should be banned (with possible exception to cases of rape or in where the mothers life would be harmed). 1.Part of making good decisions is knowing the consequences for ones own actions and by allowing abortion to exist, outside of aforementioned terms, we advocate poor choices since we remove the effects of an important life decision, and worse, we do so at the cost of a life. 2. If it is illegal and abhorrent after 24 weeks then it should be illegal before that, as most of the things that are present and determine that ruling, such as the heart, brain, and several other vital organs, are already forming or have formed within the first trimester. There are many things to mention, but what it all comes down to is life and that it is unhealthy for all involved to allow the practice of abortion to continue. | PRO | 66f0eea2-2019-04-18T12:02:52Z-00002-000 |
USA Vs Any Country you choose (War). The whole point was a surprise attack. The strategy was simply to harness the power of USSR which has battle hardened and battle ready soldiers. Ontop of thus the USSR had the most nuclear weapons that any country, as a matter of fact, Russia still to this day has a bigger arsenal of nukes than any country. The US on the other hand has taken drastic measures to reduce its arsenal since the 'end' of the cold war, giving USSR the advantage. Also we shouldnt be able to use the allies of the countries we pit against each other because then it isnt even a war between those countries it is a war between many countries. Even if you count the US's allies the USSR still wins the war between the US and USSR because they still destroy America before it can respond. Thank you. | CON | 9a9ca85e-2019-04-18T15:09:12Z-00000-000 |
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Industrial Hemp. The Federal Government has the power to legalize the industrial use of hemp. Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution is known as the "Necessary and Proper Clause." It gives Congress the power to make all laws that are necessary and proper for carrying out the duties of the legislative branch. It is also known as the "elastic clause" because it stretches the power of Congress. My opponent continues to say that the United States Federal Government does not have the power to do this, but this is completely untrue. The necessary and proper clause can undermine federalism. So the states have no say. When the congress uses the necessary and proper clause to stretch its powers the states have no choice, but to abide by it. My opponent says that I have shown no express power, but not only does the congress not need an express power for the necessary and proper clause (because the clause stretches its power) but there are express powers that legalization of hemp can fit under. The first express power that hemp can fit under is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." By making hemp legal we are giving researches and scientist time to discover thing that hemp could be used for such as alternative energies. Second express power that hemp can fit under is "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." As I have said before we import hemp from other counties. Congress can regulate this, we can easily grow this in America but instead we depend on other counties to grow the hemp for use. So even though for the clause I pointed doesn't need this express power because it stretches the powers of congress, but I just pointed two ways we can pass this plan under the express powers. My opponent has says nothing against hemp other than my resolution is failed. As I have shown the Federal Government does have the power to do this. | PRO | 82c01e72-2019-04-18T19:35:26Z-00003-000 |
Riddle battle. Damn it, your good! Yes, you are correct, it is water (I'll have to make it harder next time). I believe the answer is that fell to their death/died from impact. They were on vacation (flying to destination), in a cabin (the part of an airplane in which the passengers sit) http://www.merriam-webster.com..., and the fire in the plane/engine, is why they crashed. Now my riddle, a bit harder than before: Infinity won, and 5 circlets. Two hands we were gifted. The Book of the Earth, Fire, Water, Air. TherE are Many strategieS in Many liFestyles. To that am I referring too? Good Luck | PRO | fbb82d26-2019-04-18T15:20:23Z-00004-000 |
Governor Northam should resign. This is not an argument of partisanism as you state, But an argument of committing a crime. Hypocrisy is still not committing a crime. Your claim that Governor Northam is inciting violence by authorizing abortions is also invalid. Federal Law states that abortion is legal and can not be prohibited until viability has passed. The controversial abortion bill in question would allow abortions up to the day of birth is still legal according to Federal Law because a baby only gains rights when it is born. Furthermore, Governor Northam is still protected by the First Amendment when he endorses after birth infanticide. Something like that would never pass and if so, The courts would strike it down. But this hasn't happened yet so it can't be used as evidence for why he should resign. Another point that I forgot to mention is that Governor Northam is an elected official. He was elected to serve as Governor of Virginia. Resigning from an office that is elective should only occur under extreme circumstances. A photograph that the Chicago Tribune deems as possible obliviousness instead of racism that was taken 35 years ago when Governor Northam was 25 years old is not an extreme circumstance. Endorsement of after birth infanticide, Which has not been enforced, Is still not an extreme circumstance. Furthermore, If Governor Northam did resign, He would be replaced by Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax who is currently being accused of sexual assault, An actual crime. | CON | 3f902c87-2019-04-18T11:12:19Z-00000-000 |
Balanced Budget Amendment. Resolved: The US Should Adopt a Balanced Budget Amendment Definitions:1) Balanced Budget Amendment - A BBA requires congress to pass a balanced budget for each fiscal year. Currently, there is debate going on in the House and Senate between different versions of the amendment. There is very little difference between the two, however for sake of the debate, I will use the Senate's version found at . http://tinyurl.com.........; Also important to note, the BBA gives exception in times of war in relationship to defense spending.2) Balanced Budget - The overall amount of spending within a budget is equal to or less than the revenue brought in. 3) Should - Ought, is proper4) Adopt - Put into placeRounds1) Acceptance2) Opening Statements (ONLY)3) Rebuttals 4) Rebuttals/Closing StatmentsRules1) If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. 2) No forfeiting or plagarism is acceptable. 3) Please structure and format your arguments in a way that is easy to follow.4) No trolling - debaters should have adaquet debating experience.5) Failure to abide by any points above will result in an automatic loss | PRO | 8529968f-2019-04-18T17:38:17Z-00009-000 |
Declarations of war should be passed by the military, and only proposed by government, if necessary. In my opponents rebuttal, he negated all of my points. However, I feel that he took them differently than I had meant. I am going to revamp my ideals and post them more specifically. I said that a military declaration of war would benefit the american people, while my opponent said otherwise since they were going to be the fighting the war. My point was to be that the military accepted the fight and possibility of death for the bettering of the country. Besides, they'd be the ones fighting it anyway, so saying it won't benefit them is false. It is a benefit by putting the choice in there hands. To unessesarily quote a game I once played, " Now is the time to choose. Die and live free of consequence, or live and fight your sorrow". FFX. This example may be a little bit out there, but I suppose it meets my point. They can choose, instead of having rich men who won't have to fight choosing for them. They have to fight either way, and we might as well give them the choice. Also, how I said that congress benefits from war, I meant with strengthened relations with foreign governments, not money for themselves. The everyday american has to pay for the war in taxes. If the cause is needed enough, they can make the sacrifice themselves. I also included in my explanation that this would help end wars just for the sake of politics. Lets look at Vietnam. We had no direct threat from them, but we chose to fight to help France and South Vietnam. Now lets look at WW2. We were attacked by Japan and then threatened by Germany. War should only be used to defend ourselves, not to help others. With the military deciding, they know what will come so they can make a clear choice when Congress can be biased. My last point was that this act would put war in the hands of the people. My opponent stated that this was absurd on the basis of such a small percentage of US citizens in the military. However, the military is not a tight group of people with the same thought frame, but a group formed by several people of different views. My brother for example is a navy seal. He is an everyday american. Congress, however, are an extremely small elite group of rich people that don't see the opinions of the american often, and when they do they take them differently it seems like. I have restated my points, I hope they are clearer. Peace, B***HES | PRO | 4f3b3945-2019-04-18T19:04:09Z-00003-000 |
Should you be allowed to bring your phone to school. I think that they should allow phones in school for educational purposes like for research. Also so that in case of an emergency you know that someone in the school/class has there phone on them so they can call whatever they need to do. I also think that you need a phone especially for LA because there are now Ebooks that you can read the book on your phone. I think that phones in school can be very helpful for education in schools world wide. | PRO | 27983569-2019-04-18T13:47:16Z-00005-000 |
A UN standing army would be ideally suited to respond to contemporary crises. Impartiality is not defined by the constitution of the forces, but the decision-making process which determine their use. A UN standing army would not alter the injustice of the UN Security Council and its veto system, which institutionalizes self-interest in the decisions of the body. As the recent proposal for an independent UN force indicates, the force could move swiftly to avert catastrophe but only specifically ‘after UN authorization’1. Therefore whilst a UN standing army would ostensibly be neutral, the uses for which it would be deployed would still have the same, underlying self-interested motives on the part of the UN Security Council. The problem is therefore not resolved, but pushed further up the line. “We have to walk a fine line in order to build support in the U.S. and in developing countries. This sort of thing creates suspicion that Western countries want to use this for political purposes.” 2 On speed of deployment, the UN’s ability to respond more quickly is not a serious problem. Many of the UN’s most embarrassing incidents occurred when its troops were very much on the ground already. The three oft-quoted examples are Srebrenica, Somalia, Rwanda; in the 1990s all three states played host to UN peacekeeping forces, and in each case further bloodshed ensued. At Srebrenica, Serbian troops marched the Bosnian Muslim men out of a UN-declared ‘safe area’ 3; the fault for their massacre does not rest with speed of deployment or troop cohesion. As Morrison states, ‘until U.N. member states devote as much attention to solving the underlying political causes of national and international disputes as they have to the creation of a U.N. permanent military force, true solutions will remain elusive’4. The UN needs to be able to respond more effectively, not necessarily more quickly. 1 .Johansen, R. C. (2006). A United Nations Emergency Peace Service to Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. p22 2. Perelman, M. (2007, September 5). Calls Grow for Creation of Standing U.N. Army. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from Forward: http://www.forward.com/articles/11552/ 3. Canturk, L. (2007, October 25). Anatomy of a Peacekeeping Mission: Srebrenica Revisited. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from Worldpress: http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/2975.cfm 4. Morrison, A. (1994). Fiction of a U.N. Standing Army. Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, 83-96 improve this | CON | 1b72bce-2019-04-15T20:22:45Z-00010-000 |
Adolf Hitler, as evil than you think he was, does not deserve all of the hate he had received. Hello! Welcome to this debate. I am not very strict with rules, but please stay on topic. This debate could wander into almost anything political, so please Con, you are arguing why he does deserve all the hatred he receives. And also no ad hominem. This is quite a sensitive subject, so I would appreciate that there is consideration of Pro's points, and I will appreciate your points. Also please, if possible, please cite sources and I wish for a stimulating debate! The first Con round is acceptance of the rules. Yes, I know how controversial this is, but I do not think Hitler's actions were right and justifies. I am not a Nazi or anywhere near, and I despise what he did, but for too long we've been looking at things with blind fury and ignorance, and this debate is one that needs to be discussed. Because as I will expand on, Hitler's actions weren't as bad as events before and since, yet we turn a blind eye to them. Before we can tackle the big issues with genocide and war, we need to open our eyes to the truth. | PRO | 46842876-2019-04-18T16:47:36Z-00004-000 |
The Non-existence of God. Well, the DNA argument would be a good one- if humans were physically perfect in every way. But we're not. There are many examples of this. The appendix serves no purpose, and is dangerous, because it risks becoming infected. The fact that we eat through the same hole that we breath is dangerous too. It can easily lead to choking. No omnipotent creator would design us that way, with glaring mistakes. Now, you may be wondering, "This also disproves evolution!" It doesn't. Evolution helps species evolve to threats that they face at present, not threats that they encounter in the future. Unfortunately, this leads to defects. Millions of years ago, the appendix probably served a purpose. Now, it is a "design flaw". Evolution doesn't fix the mistakes that it makes, so we will always have appendixes. That is my response, happy? Also, in the future I would encourage you not to declare "I win" after making a point. You've done this twice already. It's a serious breach of etiquette and will result in you being looked down on by others. | PRO | 829cacb1-2019-04-18T13:19:08Z-00001-000 |
western museums should agree to requests to repatriate cultural artefacts. If you want to get better at debating you have to try and do more than one round. Debating is about rebuttal and defending your arguments which cannot be done in one round. I'll explain how this will work before I give any definitions. The second round will be for presenting your arguments and the third round will be for rebuttal and a short case summation. In the third round I would urge you not to bring in new evidence or points. museum: a building in which objects of historical, scientific, artistic, or cultural interest are stored and exhibited. repatriate:send something back to it's country of origin. artefacts:an object made by a human being, typically an item of cultural or historical interest. If you chose to accept this debate, which I hope you will, and I haven't explained anything properly put it in the comments section and I'll adjust it. F | CON | 75ce0aa7-2019-04-18T18:32:57Z-00005-000 |
Hillary Clinton is a better choice for president of the United Staes than Donald Trump. Please provide the sources for all the information you listed. Immigration: Our country is built on the idea of *legal* immigration, not people storming the borders and getting free benefits that our own people lack, benefits that illegal rapists get, but not the men who fought and were wounded for our country. We need strict regulations because we can't just let anyone walk into our country. Hillary supports Black Lives Matter, a terrorist group that beats up white people because they're not black. Black Lives Matter also destroys property and is a poor excuse for a movement, MLK wouldn't be proud. Minorities: You say that 10 years doesn't matter, but 10 years ago, Hillary had a much different stance than the one she currently holds. Another point, Hillary has said many worse things about people. Black Lives Matter is a terrorist organization and no person should ever support them, they beat up whites, destroy property, and are a general nuisance for all people. Donald is correct in stating that we need more law and order, people have begun to run rampant in the streets, and that limits productivity, which is what America needs. Gay marriage is an immoral and wrong thing, as the country has many references to God. He didn't say all Mexicans are rapists, but many of the ones spewing through the border are rapists. Taxes: Donald proposed massive tax cuts that worked with Reagan, and Reagan was noted as being one of the best presidents of all time. Hillary's running mate wants to increase taxes on the middle class, which would certainly bring down America' s economy. Hillary wants to let in refugees and illegal immigrants, as well as open up jobs to other countries. This will result in millions of Americans losing their jobs because the countries want cheaper labor. Donald's plan is to keep jobs in America, which will stimulate the economy. Sources: http://www.nationalreview.com... http://www.realclearpolitics.com... http://www.infowars.com... | CON | cdc788e5-2019-04-18T12:44:29Z-00004-000 |
Ethics classes are a good alternative to Special Religious education in Primary Schools. In order to conduct my final statement, I would like to refute several basic assertions the con has made Firstly, that ethics classes will lead children into a single set of morals, governed by their teacher. Here he is showing a miss-understanding of the concept of ethics class, and the definition to which he agreed. Ethics classes are discussion based class. The instructor has very little input into the responses of the children, rather they merely question the children's motivation, without being prejudiced one way or another. They allow children to explore their own decision making, without the instructors own being imposed upon it. I would also like to point out that all the risks he delineated about ethics, teachers disagreeing with curriculum and prejudicing students, are possible in Special Religious education as well, with teachers having the opportunity to highlight negative aspects of certain religions, to preference others. Secondly that we are not moving towards a more secular society. This obviously depends on the society in which you live, certainly in my country(Australia) there has been a marked decline in religious following over the past 30 years1 and Europe is very rapidly becoming a highly secularized society. However I believe that I also emphasized that I was terming secularism in terms of the law and government. I would also question the validity of his source, adherents.com is likely to be biased towards Religious traditions. Thirdly he argues that 'Special Religious Education' offers everything that Ethics classes do. Religious Education is being instructed in the varying models of morals employed by traditions, there is no element in that definition of exploring a child's personal response to those morals. This is what is offered by ethics classes and why they are such good alternative. Finally I will address his academic point. Most of what my opponent has spoken about makes perfect sense, children should be educated in Religious studies, however I would contend that Primary school isn't the place to be doing this, high school is the place for the academic study of religion, where as ethics classes would provide a solid base to allow children to respect all ways of deriving meaning. I'll leave it there for this debate, thanks to my opponent for the deb and I look forward to reading his final argument. 1: ABS | PRO | 1d872f22-2019-04-18T19:00:07Z-00001-000 |
The policy is counter productive. The reason athletes don’t report the abuses is because they don’t think the abuse is worse than losing their place on the team. This policy changes that by sending a strong message out. Athletes will attach the gravity of the punishment to the crime and might finally begin to understand that this kind of treatment is utterly unacceptable. It’s also fairly easy to get around the worry of being blamed for the repercussions by having anonymous tip-offs or witness protection. The IAAF can compensate for lack of earnings too, but ultimately actually this potential makes abuse less likely to happen. If everyone knows what a risk using harsh methods is, then that’s a good thing. Athletes will be less likely to take it and allow it to continue, and coaches won’t want to risk using them. Currently it’s worth everyone’s while to shut up and let abuse continue, these changes would mean the risk is too high to let that happen. | CON | 698c4d0e-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00017-000 |
Rap Battle 12. The twelfth rap battle, I'm starting this one a bit sooner because I think the last one might not be completed. Anyways, the same rules apply to this rap battle, which is no copy and pasting and fight hard. Be sure that if you accept this challenge, you can finish it, because I hate when someone forfeits a round and the debate freezes. Also I want my opponent to go first, unless he/she is scared... | PRO | fc42f0d2-2019-04-18T12:21:58Z-00007-000 |
Political Parties only spoil the life of the nation. Con. has given the example of that part of the world whose population is not even 23.2 million but there is a corner of the world where the people's count is more than 1.25 billion and is suffering from numerous problems. The biggest example is that of the Prime Minister. He has killed hundreds of muslims. Being an illitrate person, What the hell can he know about handling a nation. Taking another example of Kashmir issue, above hundred people have been killed by indian foces (following the orders of higher athorities) in kashmir region and above 15,000 have lost their eyes because of pellets and many of them are badly injured. So, how can anybody even think of these people as their friends. Now I request con. to go back to WIKIPEDIA and search a better arguement for the next round. | PRO | ceb2c7b8-2019-04-18T12:30:49Z-00003-000 |
gun bans wont work (creating new laws to ban ALL guns). I know and understand that the government is not trying to put a full stop on guns. Now how would these laws work? Say we ban guns in general. Who's that going to affect? Good people follow laws, bad people don't follow laws. Banning guns would be a law (any type of gun). You would be taking guns out of good people's hands while it would have no effect on the criminals who don't follow laws. And you can't say we would be able to take guns away from criminals. It's not possible. There are way to many guns out there for the government to take away, (any gun). Chicago for example has very strict gun control yet has one of the biggest gun murder rates in America. So many guns used by criminals are obtained illegally, how would gun laws help this? How is the government doing background checks going to stop a man from selling a gun to someone in a dark ally? (You know what I mean) My point is, they wouldn't work to stop criminals only to keep actual law abiding citizens from owning guns. Criminals don't follow laws and there is nothing they can do to take away their guns. They can't track millions of illegal immigrants and there's a chance they can track any guns? Making stricter gun laws would only be a burden on the law abiding citizens. | PRO | ca6169b3-2019-04-18T17:46:41Z-00003-000 |
Your choice on the topic. Thank you for participating with me in this debate. I want to start off with the fact that you don't know who's(what's) behind that computer screen. On the internet, you can be completely anonymous and get away with doing something or in this case, being something. I want to ask my fellow voters, do you really think that pillow would say he is not a pillow on the internet? Con probably goes to Youtube and writes in the comments "As a human being...."(I have no source for this but think about if you were a pillow, you would probably write something like that.) Remember voters, he is completely anonymous. That means he can cover up the fact that he is a pillow. Let's say Con isn't a pillow, he probably wouldn't post this argument if he was human. Pillows are sensitive to the fact that they are pillows. They want evidence to confirm that they are indeed a pillow, so they call people like me to give evidence on why Con is a pillow. In conclusion, Con is most definitely a pillow who is pretending to be human because of anonymity of the internet. Thank you. | PRO | 40a76e47-2019-04-18T12:27:04Z-00001-000 |
Barack Obama has Violated the US Constitution and Should be Impeached. First AmendmentYes con is correct I should have said FBI instead of CIA but other than that my point still stands. You ask: "But, the question of 'what first amendment rights were violated' and 'whose rights were violated', PRO leaves unanswered.". As I stated in my opening argument protesters around the country were dispersed by police in coordinated action and this is not disputed by any news organisation (or any right wing nut job propaganda mills as I have included fox news) [1] [2] [3] [4] this directly violates the freedom of speech of those involve and to claim that a midnight raid of peaceful protesters by police does not violate the right to freedom of speech enshrined in the first amendment is shear ignorance.Yes the FBI is a distinct entity but is ultimately under the control of the Obama administration and as such Obama carries at least some responsibility and as I said last time if Obama was ignorant of a nation wide police operation then he is ineffectual and needs to be impeached (even if not necessarily legal although politicians can more or less decide the criteria for impeachment at will).Fourth Amendment It seems that con has accepted Obama knew about the NSA spying and has decided to argue that Obama lacked the power to NSA policy. This is obviously incoherent as it is way within the bounds of an executive order to do so.The Sixth AmendmentFirst I would like to explain why I sited [5] was because there is a US citizen on that list but regardless I don't see the importance of those held without trial being US citizens, from my limited knowledge of the constitution I don't remember anywhere it stating that the rights enshrined in the bill of rights only applying to US citizens and the US government even admits itself that there are people held without trial or charge [6].[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk...[2] http://edition.cnn.com... [3] http://www.foxnews.com... [4] http://usnews.nbcnews.com... [5] http://www.dod.mil... [6] https://www.aclu.org... | PRO | 506a69cb-2019-04-18T16:18:00Z-00003-000 |
In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults. I read and reread what my opponent wrote many times but there's a good chance that I will make at least on trivial mistake ; I hope my opponent and readers can forgive me, see the accidental nature of it and above all focus on the arguments themselves. Nevertheless, I hope to make no mistakes and enjoy this debate. ::Definitions:: Juvenile: 1.1."Not fully grown or developed; young." http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 1.2."Generally this refers to people between the ages of 14 and 17. They lose their juvenile status on their 18th birthday." http://www.fair-debt-collection.com... Felony: "an offense, as murder or burglary, of graver character than those called misdemeanors, esp. those commonly punished in the U.S. by imprisonment for more than a year." http://dictionary.reference.com... ::Observation:: We are talking about USA and not Europe or Asia or the world. Now the USA has very violent juveniles: "There are currently about seventy million Americans under the age of 18, or a quarter of the total US population. Juvenile crime statistics report that 2.3 million juveniles were arrested in 2002. This accounts for 17 percent of all arrests and 15 to 25 percent of all violent crimes. According to juvenile crime statistics, murder accounted for five percent of violent crimes committed by juveniles, 12 percent for rape, 14 percent for robbery, and 12 percent for aggravated assault." http://www.onlinelawyersource.com... This may come in handy but at the moment I won't elaborate. ::Argument 1 :: Cause and effect. Every action has a consequence and while a 5 year old may not know that, a 14 year old will. Yes, I am aware that a 14 year old isn't as mature as an adult but we're talking about a very serious violent crime ! Surely, you can't say that a 14 year old wouldn't know that its wrong or that he thought it was no different from stealing a candy from the local shop. ::Argument 2:: Is a violent attack especially a felonious violent act the doing of a juvenile ? No. Obviously the child isn't pretending to be under 18, however, he is acting like an adult. To steal candy, to insult someone, even to bully someone is encompassed by the mind of a child but to commit such crime one must start to think like an adult. That is to say ones innocence disappears with the act. That would be all | PRO | 4cdaf5e9-2019-04-18T18:57:51Z-00002-000 |
Parody Election. "I'm very fluent with politics, I infact was governor of Washington in 195- Nevermind when, but I was."First off, this man has never been Governor..... He has been a live for hundreds and hundreds of years and instead of using his knowledge for politics all he has ever done was hang out in High schools over and over while trying to seduce an 18 year old girl..... As soon as this man enters office (If he enters office) it is highly likely that all of the girls he seduced will come forward and completely destabilize his administration. He will be the laughing stock of the world if Manti Teo doesnt end up dating someone else who doesnt exist....."He and millions of others he's befriended, have enslaved strange creatures known as, Pokemon. They capture them by force, than force them to brawl each other in devastating battles."First off, its not my fault that a grown man gave me a fire-breathing animal and then I was allowed to travel all over the world when I was just 12...... Dont blame me for that, I just grew up around awesome parents. Also I cant force my Charziard to do sh*t... Every time I need him in battle he just lays on his a** the whole time, I cant force him to do anything... Pokemon arent forced to fight, they willingly do so by receiving orders frm their bosses.In other words I dont own slaves, I train soldiers.In other words, I have extensive military experience..... "If I'm elected President, I will increase funding for the music program." Geez dude you already sparkle in the sunlight and have really pale skin, you dont have to act even gayer then you already are.....Now that I think about it I doubt youre even human! You have pale white and Ice Cold skin.....Beady Black eyes.....You speak like youre from a different time......You never eat or drink anything.......You dont like the sunlight.......I KNOW WHAT YOU ARE..............................YOURE A SNOWMAN | CON | 62943939-2019-04-18T17:46:25Z-00005-000 |
An entire generation has been turned against the West and fundamentalist clerics have gained enormously in influence. Iraq now has a professionally trained army and police force accountable to a democratically elected government and, through them, to the people. Unusually among Arab nations the security forces should now act as upholders of the law rather than the personal armies of local and national strong men used to settle grudges and silence dissent. The torture chambers are closed and the courts are functioning. There is, of course, work still to be done in terms of creating jobs but at least those jobs will go to people on the basis of ability rather than political loyalty. Iraq still faces problems but is better equipped to deal with them than it has been in a century and more. | CON | f9294c83-2019-04-15T20:22:37Z-00014-000 |
It is not possible to meaningfully consent to sadomasochistic sex. Sadomasochism need not be rendered completely free of risk. It is sufficient that each participant is aware of the hazards and consents to them. Moreover, no government can legislate for the most reckless of its citizens. If an individual is so disturbed as to place a plastic bag over his head for the purpose of sexual stimulation, the contrary opinion of the law will not be a great deterrent.[i] Nevertheless, Sadomasochism can be rendered relatively free of physical risk for its participants. ‘Safe words’ can be agreed in advance, and then announced to end an S&M session immediately. Where participants are restrained or prevented from speaking, movement signals or the dropping of a marble held in the hand can be used to indicate withdrawal of consent. This simple device ensures that participants continue to agree to the terms on which their encounters take place. It is patronizing to assume that participants in S&M scenarios have not considered the possibility that expressions of pain and reluctance will be a regular occurrence during such activity. Deliberately quixotic ‘safe words’ and stop signals are used in order to avoid inadvertent abuses of consent. [i] Annette Houlihan, ‘When “No” means “Yes” and “Yes” means Harm: Gender, Sexuality and Sadomasochism Criminality’ (2011) 20 Tulane Journal of Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Legal Issues 31 | CON | b1f382a5-2019-04-15T20:22:18Z-00018-000 |
$700 billion bailout plan is too little too late. "Proposed $700 Billion Bailout Is Too Little, Too Late to End the Debt Crisis; Too Much, Too Soon for the U.S. Bond Market". Weiss Research Inc. 25 Sept. 2008 - "New data and analysis demonstrate that the proposal before Congress for a $700 billion financial industry bailout is too little, too late to end the massive U.S. debt crisis...There should be no illusion that the $700 billion estimate proposed by the Administration will be enough to end the debt crisis. It could very well be just a drop in the bucket." | PRO | b004ca79-2019-04-17T11:47:36Z-00056-000 |