argument
stringlengths 201
3.55k
| stance
stringclasses 2
values | id
stringlengths 36
39
|
|---|---|---|
Ronald McDonalds vs. Burger King. Gee you're smiling like Mr. McGee, me at least I wear make up so I don't look ugly! You're the king of the rats, I rule over raps, your sandwiches don't at all look kingly! Behold, it's the powerful King with a cardboard crown who can't make jokes goofy He once said he forgot to wrap his whopper when he made out with Queen Dairy! Did you hear I, Ronald, killed Burger King in front of Five Guys over at skank Wendy? The funeral is at White Castle, Ima take Dairy Queen cuz there's no way I'm spendy. I"m smart, after all whatdo ya get when you cross a burger with a computer or keys? You get a Big Mac and sliced Apples to top it off, now Im mad that I let you go free Yo, why you writin an' taco-in about tacos when your only product is soda and burgers? Fries come with it but making a taco face in R1 won't help if you're advertising any further [1] The creator of YOU, booger king, is a guy named James McLamore [2] Your rivalry is ME, McDonalds, but maybe your creator is a straight out traitor! (ooooh) I walk into your dirty shop, I smell nothing but fake patties and dirt n' rot Lemme tell you bout my great PlayLand, it's the awesomest lil kiddy spot Why do I get more customers? cuz my food's tasty and yours is not My emps clean peeps' mess snot, wen the inspector comes you be caught! [1] http://img0.joyreactor.com... [2] http://www.google.com... | PRO | 330a8cf6-2019-04-18T15:44:56Z-00003-000 |
Resolved: Supreme Court should overturn "Diaz v. Brewer" (2011). BOP: I'll explain the process of Supreme Court in order to explain why my opponent has a burden of proof and a need to create a case. Supreme Court doesn't just rule a legislation constitutional by stating "the legislation doesn't violate the Constitution." Supreme Court iterates a reason via the document in order to explain why the legislation is constitutionally sound. My opponent argues against my arguments, but provides no argument of his own to explain why overturning Diaz v. Brewer (2011) would have a constitutional basis. My opponent is also looking at the Constitution and the situation at hand too literally because he's saying that the Constitution has not placed any rights in relation to domestic couples. He's looking at this case too narrowly, unlike me, who's also looking at the other angles at which Gov. Brewer's legislation can harm the rights of gays and their couples.9th Amendment: The only thing that my opponent has proven is that the basis of the protection of rights under this amendment is really arbitrary. This means that this part of the debate can go his way or my way. The reason why it goes my way is because not only has my opponent not disputed my basis for the 9th Amendment in the scope of its existence, but I'm utilizing a right that is "current" in the scope of its existence. The rights at which are claimed are protected by the 9th Amendment don't have to be current either. The right to privacy was never spoken as a Constitutional Right protected by this Amendment until Roe v. Wade, and before that, the right to privacy was never considered to be "current." At some point, current rights were considered to be new rights, and these new rights were simply considered to be important. All I really needed to do is prove that in some way, a right has been harmed, and because the non-domination principle sets the basis for the fairness in all the options given to people, it is an important right. 14th Amendment: My opponent misinterprets the 14th Amendment. It's not talking about current law. It's talking about the entire system of the establishment of laws. I've already explained this with the Supreme Court cases based on the 14th Amendment like Brown. | CON | f8a17254-2019-04-18T18:12:51Z-00002-000 |
Feminism is for equality. Hi. I will be arguing that feminism is way past the point of equality. Now don't get me wrong. I believe both men and women deserve equal rights and oppertunities in this world, but I think feminism has gone a little bit too far nowadays. I think the some extreme radical femisists are no longer aiming for equality. They are aiming to eradicate all forms of male power and put women on top which is total hypocrisy. If you're fighting for equality, you would fight to say that men are permitted to keep their power in government and in the workforce as well as women. But on the other hand, I cannot deny that there are feminists who actually do fight for equality. I am not attacking all feminists because I know there are some well meaning ones out there and I appreciate that they are trying to battle the inequalities women AND men nowadays. But I just don't think there is any need for feminism anymore. It started back when women had very little working rights and were only seen as housewives and mothers and obviously they wanted more than just that. But nowadays, women have the choice to stay at home or work. What need is there for feminism?The point is that feminism has gone past the point of acheiving equal rights for men and women. It is now about obtaining female supremacy over men which is totally wrong just as male supremacy over women is totally wrong. We need an egalitarian society- not a matriarchal nor partriarchal! | PRO | 61e4a1ba-2019-04-18T13:15:00Z-00004-000 |
Public schools shouldn't have entrance exams for 1st grade. I don't think that public schools should have entrance exams for 1st grade, because it puts pressure on kids and their parents. Some kids can't handle the stress, and can fail in taken tests. Also, their parents get nervous too, because they're afraid that if their kid doesn't get into a good school as early as in 1st grade, he/she will never be sucessful. So thanks to that, they make their kids insecure. I really just want to see all the reasons you could think of why public schools should have the right to do entrance exams for 1st grade, so please give me all you can. Thank you! | PRO | cca20dbb-2019-04-18T17:36:14Z-00003-000 |
Intelligent Design is the most likely to be true hypothesis for the origin of life. I think it is worth repeating Pros stated premises that appeal to ignorance. .. .. .. .. . ""3. We have no scientific understanding of how functional DNA can arise by natural means. " "4. Therefore it is logical to conclude that an ID explanation for the origin of life is the hypothesis most likely to be true. " You don't get to justify intelligent design because we lack scientific understanding of something. Pro tries to make it sound like their case is based upon what we do know, rather than what we don't, where they say. .. ""2. Codes have only ever been known to be formed either directly or indirectly from a source of intelligence" I suspect that the codes that Pro speaks of here are all human made. So of course they are intelligently designed. But does this fact mean that we can then infer that a "type of code" that is NOT MAN MADE is intelligently designed too ? I think it would also be helpful if Pro told us what they have in mind when they say something is a "type of code". I look forward to Pro's reply. | CON | e845a587-2019-04-18T17:05:49Z-00002-000 |
Pianists are more skilled than guitarists. Beginner songs do tend to look easier than more advanced songs. You can judge a song by how it looks. An advanced piano song looks very different front a beginner piano song. This advanced piano song [1] looks a lot different from a grade one piano song [2]. And yet that simple grade one piano song is more complex than the guitar music sheet my opponent provided. What does that say about the complexity of guitar music? Guitar plays in only one clef. The treble clef, whereas the piano plays in both the treble and bass clef. As for a guitar playing both the melody and voice, did you not see how simple the guitar sounded? I'm pretty sure that was just finger picking and finger picking is quite simple. The strings are conveniently placed for your fingers to pick and your other hand is pressing down strings. Guitars can't even claim the complexity that violins have because guitars have frets to help them find the right note. Going down a fret is going a semitone, and each string is labeled with a note. It's that simple for a guitar. Here is two good examples of a piano playing both the melody and the voice, and you can easily pick out either. [3] [4] You can easily pick out the melody and voice in both songs. Pianos can play by themselves while guitars are usually used as accompaniment. That's a large difference between the two instruments. Pianists have the skill to play both melody and voice better than guitarists. I have addresses plucking and would like to add that even though guitarists may seem skilled, all their usually doing in a solo is playing one note. Whereas when a pianist improvises, they have to play more than one note. Therefore the knowledge of harmony is useful and most pianists have more skill in that than guitarists. Finger plucking may be not that simple but I'd like to see a guitarist play flight of the bumblebee with the same effect and skill that Yuja Wang did. Most guitarist playing that only have to move their fingers down a fret for each note and that is very simple. [1] https://www.google.ca... [2] https://www.google.ca... [3] https://m.youtube.com... [4] https://m.youtube.com... | PRO | 1aa7e7db-2019-04-18T13:00:59Z-00000-000 |
Unilateralism is destabilising; if a country fights wars solely on a domestic whim, unconstrained by... Unilateralism does not entail an absence of consultation and discussion with allies and other interested states. It merely reserves the right, when discussion and consultation has not secured international support, to take action alone. Some acts, like waging a war to defend one’s own nation or free another from oppression, are too important to be discarded just because no other country is willing to share the burden. | CON | 167dccd-2019-04-19T12:47:54Z-00008-000 |
Vdeo gaming a day is good for you. I will be making this brief as I am really not feeling well. The original contention of Con was that Playing video games " Every day" was bad for you. In an earlier round I established that this is not the case, peer reviewed studies show it serves to increase stimulation in the brain. Con made a point about bad posture and drew an abstraction, Because many gamers have poor posture Con summarized that games cause bad posture. This is a logical fallacy, Correlation does not equal causation. Bad posture is bad for you regardless of what your doing-while you do it with bad posture. Next he countered again about video games causing violent tendencies but the article he posted only glossed over it and than stated matter of factually. It is true, Certain types of violence in games can promote violence in the real world but this does not extent to all games or all types of violence in video games, not all or even most video games are considered violent.In short, Cons argument at best proves that video games can be abused and over done but so can hamburgers... There is proven benefits that video games can benefit a person who plays games daily. | PRO | 52065434-2019-04-18T16:31:37Z-00002-000 |
MGS3 is "Da Bomb". 1. By Pro's own standards, MGS3 is only a bomb if you MAKE it a bomb. It's not already a bomb :p 2. Just because the games fall under different genres doesn't mean that they are unfit for comparison. It still doesn't negate my comparisons regarding plot, characters, graphics, controls, game play, etc. all of which still stand regardless of the game's genre. 3. As I said, MGS3's controls may have improved from the previous games; however, they're still awkward and inferior to the controls on GOW2. 4. Who says the plot line is more important than the game itself? Either way, I said it was a matter of preference whether or not the movie sequences were long. 5. I've never played Wind Waker. Moreover, it was never specified which game if any that Con had to choose to battle MGS3. R1 indicates that I could have chosen any game and I did. Still, Pro didn't offer any other options until the last round (which is not allowed). All of my points stand and haven't been refuted: (a) GOW has a superior plot (b) GOW has better ratings from critics and gamers alike (c) GOW has better game play (d) GOW has much better graphics (e) GOW has better and more interesting and unique characters (f) GOW has easier and more functional controls (g) GOW has better action sequences (h) GOW has very few if not any criticisms (i) GOW was the better sequel; it added different elements and the plot and villains weren't so redundant | CON | 88ebfbda-2019-04-18T19:14:55Z-00000-000 |
Sexist. ~H , I apologize for not recognizing what you said in your second debate , I just realized you where talking about the prospects of marriage XD. Also as a homosexual male I don't think you should be scared homosexuals because its a different form of rape . Rape is Rape no matter who does it. I think your argument was entertaining and I apologize for going ape and misinterpreting your comment XD. Ps Don't favor lesbian women over gay men! I would End this debate although i do not know how.... | CON | 3f182d7a-2019-04-18T16:16:42Z-00002-000 |
Airport Security- Profiling should be used to single out passengers for extra security searches. Airport and airline security in this country, or more accurately, the lack of it, has been an open scandal for decades. On September 11, we paid the price. Now it is proposed that airport security personnel should "profile" airline passengers from Moslem and Middle Eastern countries for special scrutiny. To target an entire ethnic group, the overwhelming majority of whom are good, decent, innocent people, because of the crimes committed by a tiny handful of them, is immoral, in most instances illegal and violates fundamental American values. Nevertheless, in the aftermath of September 11, airport security officials are temporarily justified in doing so, for three reasons: First, because since 1993, the perpetrators of every terrorist act committed or attempted by foreigners within the U.S. " the World Trade Center car bomb, September 11 and several unsuccessful conspiracies in between " have been from the Middle East, Algeria or Pakistan. Second, September 11 taught us that failing to prevent terrorists from boarding an airliner can cost thousands of lives and significantly disrupt our way of life. Third, because we do not yet have in place the resources or personnel to properly scrutinize every individual who boards and every package loaded onto a plane, it would be irresponsible not to focus most of our attention on people who fit the "profile" of those most likely to attempt another September 11. This justification is temporary, for two reasons: Permanently profiling any group violates our ideals and values. And the next group of hijackers might not fit the profile. They might be from Somalia or Indonesia (where allegedly there are Al Qaeda cells in each country). Or they could be members of Aum Shinrikyo, the Japanese sect that a few years ago released a deadly chemical in the Tokyo subway. Or they might be "all-American guys" like Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, who blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City. Until adequate security resources are put in place to properly screen everyone, we can only hope that security personnel who "profile" Middle Easterners will act professionally and courteously. Inevitably, though, thousands of innocent, decent people will be singled out unfairly, and many will be harassed and humiliated, but its the price passengers will have to pay to fly safely and prevent terrorist action. In conclusion profiling in airport security is neccassary in order to protect one of our natural right, life. (1)http://photo.pds.org... | PRO | 33f67930-2019-04-18T17:04:37Z-00000-000 |
It is morally wrong to bring children to this cruel and miserable world. Four out of every five children will be born to families whose members survive on less than $10 a day. Around one third of children in developing countries is estimated to be underweight or stunted.* Research suggests that even in the USA, 20% of children live in poverty. And such an extreme plight of the child is only the beginning. Even if a child is born into a relatively well-off family, there are endless devastating situations he has to face during his life: war, death of family members, chronic illness, divorce, crime, and social exclusion. The list can go on and on forever. Having children is the equivalent of forcing innocent people, against their will, to experience the misery of life. Thus, it is inhumane. *Shah 2010, http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats | PRO | 42941c50-2019-04-15T20:24:42Z-00017-000 |
To Be Decided During The Debate. The issue of the debate is "The Bible Should Not Be Considered Holy". While my opponent is arguing this point, I as CON shall argue against my opponent's claims. As my opponent begins his first point by defining the word "Holy", I shall also like to direct the audience's attention to the other definitions of the word "Holy", the first one having been provided by my opponent. Holy: 2: divine 3: devoted entirely to the deity or the work of the deity 4 a: having a divine quality b: venerated as or as if sacred 5—used as an intensive ; often used in combination as a mild oath -From the Merriam-Webster dictionary entry on "Holy" . http://www.merriam-webster.com... And also the entry on "divine" 1 a: of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god b: being a deity c: directed to a deity 2 a: supremely good : superb b: heavenly , godlike -From the Merriam-Webster dictionary entry on "Divine" . http://www.merriam-webster.com... As can be seen from these above definitions of Holy (Including Divine, since it is also one of the definitions of Holy) All but Definition 5 match up perfectly. The Bible is indeed divine in that it relates to God, and it is taken to be God's message to man. In addition, it is obviously devoted to the work of God, and undeniably venerated as if it were sacred. Thus, I disagree with my opponent's contention that the bible must be, as he says, "entirely without fault or defect and must be perfect etc. " However, I accept my opponent's contention that in terms of this debate, the Bible should be shown as "righteous", "good", and "sacred". As for my opponent's second and third contentions, I will address them, but before I do so, I need my opponent to comment on a preliminary argument before I address his points in my second round. The reason why many people are against the notion of flag burning is not that it is a waste of white cloth, wood, and blue/red dye. Similarly, when we are discussing the "Holiness" of the bible, we are not merely referring to a stack of documents. Whether the documents in the bible were written by man or not, it is taken to be inspired work. Thus, I ask that the *validity* of the Bible not be called into question, purely because this debate will turn into a squabble on biblical interpretation or worse, a debate on the existence of God, which is trite, boring, and quite unnecessary. I shall respond to my opponent's points above after he responds to the ones I made in this post. Thank you. | PRO | d449d7aa-2019-04-18T19:37:21Z-00005-000 |
school uniforms. If you thought that requiring all students to wear uniforms can lessen the chances of bullying, you are dead wrong! In fact, it can actually increase the incidence of bullying, especially in school districts where violence rates are soaring. A 1999 study conducted by experts from Texas Southern University showed that bullying incidents increased by as much as 12%, after the implementation of mandatory uniform wearing. Echoing this sentiment is a 2007 study published in the Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice. According to the research, assaults increased by as much as 14 incidences yearly, right after the introduction of school uniforms. A similar finding was discovered by the Office of Education, Evaluation, and Management of the Miami-Dade County. Violence, especially in the middle schools, increased by a hundredfold after the students were required to wear uniforms. | CON | cf8443f0-2019-04-18T12:18:14Z-00001-000 |
Gun Control = Poo. - Criminals will attain guns no matter what. Innocent civilians will be the ones without guns to protect themselves. - The Constitution allows people to carry guns. There is no reason to void the Constitution on this. - Criminals will not register their guns. Making the gun count inaccuarate instead of not having one. - In 2004 66% of murders were convicted by handgun, however, in the same year 51% of murders were convicted by cutting or stabbing. Where are the "Knife Control Laws?" My point is, if some sick, derranged person is going to kill, it will be done reguardless of what weapon he chooses. Why take the guns out of the hands of innocent people only trying to protect themselves? If the government plans to take our guns, make sure they don't forget to take everything that could remotely be used to kill. (knives, guns, rope, anything firm, or hard, pencils, plastic, etc.) | PRO | 460ec069-2019-04-18T19:58:51Z-00004-000 |
What is a more successful form of government-Communism(pro) or Capitalism (con). Since my worthy opponent has forfeited this round, I will continue to state my arguments. In the first round, my opponent stated that "you've never heard of a capitalist political party, because capitalism ins't a form of government..." Well my friend---"The Capitalist Party of Georgia realizes that wealth and freedom go hand in hand. Capitalism is the engine that drives America and freedom is the fuel. As Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman so eloquently put it, "Economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom." That means your freedom to acquire wealth, however you define it, is absolutely necessary if you are to be truly free of government dependence. But sadly, the two major political parties in America don't fully appreciate that simple truth. The Capitalist Party of Georgia wants to offer the people of Georgia an alternative to the two major political parties who are entrenched in such a bureaucratic government mindset, that they can no longer proclaim a credible belief in smaller, less intrusive government, much less implement such an agenda. The Capitalist Party of Georgia can and will implement an agenda that gives you the freedom to succeed by tearing down the political walls that government builds on a daily basis to deny or restrict your economic freedom. We want America to be the best in everything, but that can only occur if you, not government, are empowered with the political freedom to achieve economic freedom and independence."" And also libertarianism is according to various web sites a capitalist party. So really I can argue that capitalism is a "form of government" but, instead I will continue to show communism for what it really is. Their were over 100 million people that died because of communist prisons, camps, soldiers, and government, all because they were ordained "enemy's of the state". Communism puts to much power in the hands of so few people. All the rest of the people have to deal with it. Usually, only 6% of the apartments/barracks/living spaces had more than one room for an entire family. Capitalism is better because it allows people to provide for their families based on their creativity, knowledge, and determination to work. Communism is worse because no matter how hard you work, you will always get the same-unless you are a powerful member of the communist political party. For the citizens of the communist country, this mindset--no matter how hard you work, you will always get the same, unless you are a powerful member of the communist political party--gives them less hope and less determination to work. Capitalism really brings more creativity and ideas to the table. I hope my opponent does not forfeit again! Good luck | CON | fcd254a1-2019-04-18T15:30:25Z-00001-000 |
Using earth derived quantum evidence for cosmic-origin theory. I intend to keep my final response short, as there does not appear to be much to address. Con has again attempted to explain his theory, and continues to simply attempt to use woo. My opponent has failed to present his theory in any way that can be coherently understood, even by someone currently engaged in cosmology projects. "Ying and yang disturbance", "focal anamoly", "first-causal space", "uniform elemental ether", all of these are nonsensical terms without quantative or coherent description. Con also admits to being unable to provide a mathematical formulation in any way for his hypothesis, and admits that we possess no way of "measuring or quantifying etheric phenomena". Based on this, con's theory can safely be dismisses a pseudoscientific notions until a rigorous, testable, understandable hypothesis can be presented. Con also continues to misunderstand modern cosmology by again simply asserting - even after my explanation of how the evidence is gathered and why it is classical in nature - that they use quantum derived data. Con then also fails again to actually support his initial assertion that quantum mechanical observations are only accurate around the planet Earth. Which means that even if con was correct in his idea the modern cosmology is reliant on quantum mechanics (it isn't), he still has no ground to stand on. Finally, con simply asserts that his theory could also explain all the phenomenon that currently vindicates modern cosmology and general relativity. Given tha con has admitted he cannot provide any form of mathematical model which would create any predictions, this is obviously just another unfounded assertion. ConclusionIn short, this has been a disappointing debate. Con has failed to provide a single argument as to why quantum mechanics is not valid outside Earth's gravity well. Con has failed to deal with observational evidence of QM working as predicted over extragalactic distances. Con has failed to point out any problems in modern cosmological models. Con has failed to produce a coherent alternative model to modern cosmology. In short, con has made pages of assertions, and no substantative arguments, and his disagreement with the entire field of scientific experts betrays a lack of any formal education on the issue or understanding of modern cosmology. | PRO | 864043b1-2019-04-18T16:08:33Z-00000-000 |
Localize Education- get rid of the Department of Education and Common Core. Here are the facts: The Department of Education exists within the federal government Common Core is controled by the federal government Although Con says the federal government only controls 12%, and the rest is held by local levels, Common Core sets standards and regulations on those local levels. The federal government can create as much standards as they want, as long as the Department of Education still exists, giving them complete control over the local levels. The federal government is therefore largely involved in Education, going against the Tenth Amendment, which violates states rights. Cutting The Department of Education could save plenty of money for a nation deep in debt. Con mentioned all the local levels of Education, but I think Con has a misunderstanding of what local education really means. Local Education takes the subject of Education out of the federal government entirely Use this as an example to express the TRUE need of state power in Education: I live in New Hampshire. It snows it the winter. Someone has to plow the roads. The state plows plow the state roads. If DC had to come plow my street, the quality of plowing would be far worse. Pro expresses that localization = better quality States get limited benifits from the feds but yet they still have to pay tasks for their departments. Con says the US already has localized Education and education would get worse by getting ride of federal regulations. The truth is it would make education better. This Is because states would be able to go off on these standards, teaching specialized classes and electives instead of sitting in Algebra for the 3rd year in a row. The major problem with federal education is they make rules without seeing how they affect people. Pro = dynamic education Con = static education | PRO | ccfc1c03-2019-04-18T12:48:13Z-00003-000 |
Campaign Financing Should Be Heavily Regulated. Thanks for partaking in this debate, JustinAMoffatt. The overwhelming amount of money in US politics today is having a disastrous effect upon the effectiveness of our democratic system. With more finances pouring into both sides of politics from the wallets of the wealthiest Americans, our political system is becoming less responsive to the people, and more responsive to big business. In order to preserve democracy, whereby every single individual person has an equal amount of influence upon their elected representative, campaign financing must be regulated. It is abundantly clear that federal politicians are directly influenced by the money donated from certain lobbyists, individual donors and corporations. From 2013-2014, Goldman Sachs, Euclidean Capital, American Bankers Assn, Bank of America and various other banking organisations donated in excess of 15 million dollars to both Democrats and Republicans [1] , which has predominantly been used in the fight against the re-introduction of the Glass-Steagall Act, among other bills to regulate Wall St. The people of the United States cannot compete with this sort of money, so both sides of politics ultimately only listen to the side WITH money, and in this case it's the banking sector. Furthermore, most members of the United States Congress received over 40% of their individual campaign funds from the top 1% of the top 1% [2]. No, that's not a typo, the top 1% of the top 1% of Americans accounted for over 40% of the contributions to US politicians in 2012, according to the Sunlight Foundation. And all of this money has had an influence on its recipients, an influence on how they vote. This isn't fair, and to put it frankly is legal bribery.In order to counter this major issue, financing of campaigns must be placed under heavy regulation. Many suggestions have been raised, in order to develop a system of campaign financing which more appropriately aligns with the democratic system. Firstly, it has been suggested that a cap of $150 (or thereabouts) per individual person or organisation, which will dramatically remove any extreme influence of the wealthy upon politicians and force political parties to appeal to the average voter. Public financing is also a credible option, based upon the purchase of tickets by individual Americans, as a basis of what each party and candidate receives. All of this proposals will encourage candidates to appeal to their local constituents and subsequently make more politicians in-touch with reality.Campaign financing must be heavily regulated in order to ensure our democracy is effective.[1] http://www.opensecrets.org...[2] http://www.motherjones.com... | PRO | c17e0a4d-2019-04-18T16:02:36Z-00004-000 |
Prostitution should be legalized. "The fact that it is illegal forces these women to work in a dark alleyway to avoid being caught by the police, while opening them up to violent attack." You are right. Making it illegal does indeed force women to take dangerous paths on their way to "work." However, dark alleys are not the only dangers in prostitution. First off, legal or not, in today's society devoting your body to give men/women sexual pleasure for the sole purpose of getting paid is thought to be degrading. Very few would be open about their lifestyle, and they will end up keeping it a secret. If the prostitute never tells anyone their exact whereabouts, who will find them if they are murdered or kidnapped? "The only thing that prostitution affects is the prostitute, and the person seeking sexual favors. Since it only affects those two why would it be illegal." It does not only affect "those two." Prostitutes realistically may have more than 2 sexual partners a week. Having more than 10 a week may even be the norm. During that time, prostitutes may contract HIV, or other sexually transmitted diseases from their clients. HIV can take from 5 months to 3 years to be detected. Do I even have to do the math for you? The people who have slept with the prostitutes may spread them around, because they do not know they have the disease, making it dangerous to the population. "It only waste money by putting people who aren't a danger to society in jail." As mentioned before, transmitting diseases that are not curable are a danger to the society. http://www.tigweb.org... The link I've provided lists dangers of child prostitution, but adults can also be highly affected. | CON | be3c3d9e-2019-04-18T19:00:02Z-00004-000 |
Procrastination. Granted that is possibly true, but delaying something to the day before it is due will only motivate you to focus harder and drive you to get it done in time. Procrastination is the best underutilized tool to prepare high schoolers for jobs who demand a lot in a very short amount of time and you have to "make the grade" in that short period of time or you could get fired. It also prepares you to be under pressure and to be able to handle the pressure with out cracking. | PRO | db0f10b1-2019-04-18T17:00:10Z-00002-000 |
Unconventional oil destroys local communities. Developing unconventional oil requires large amount of land and water – land and water that people use to live off. The environmental hazards translate to severe health risks, like concerns over increased rates of cancer (Unconventional Oil, 2008). Moreover, the ‘boom town development’, where suddenly large groups of oil workers arrive in local communities, disrupts their normal patterns of living. That’s why, for example, Canada’s First Nations have resisted development of oil sands (Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation serves Shell Canada with intent to Sue over tar sands projects, 2011) | PRO | 1058a8c0-2019-04-15T20:22:15Z-00015-000 |
Immigrants. Hello Njqill, let's get this started. There is good reason to have this temporary Muslim ban. Over in Europe, after the countries there started letting Muslim immigrants flow in, it's been causing lots of trouble. Like I'm pretty sure you've been noticing the Muslim terrorists that have been bombing across Europe. And the overflow of immigrants might start economic problems later on. Also, if you look at the Middle Eastern Muslim countries, you'll see that they've been terrible to their own people and have executed many people under Islam's rule. And about Islam itself, basically the Islam version of The Bible, The Koran, actually tells Muslims to use violence against non-Muslims. Finally, those Middle Eastern countries with Muslims are filled with millions and millions of terrorists, so it's likely at least one of those millions of terrorists would attempt to go to the U.S which may cause some problems. | CON | f8a51282-2019-04-18T11:27:19Z-00000-000 |
Wife vs Husband Round 1!! (Rebirth of an old Series) Black Friday Special!. My logic is so logical that it doesn't make any sense. That's the logic to it. I do not care about being a social idiot. I thrive on isolation. I am, in a sense, a vampire who lives in a cold, icy cave. After many, many years of marriage, I desire a life of solitude. I might go away to some cave somewhere. Then you will be left alone with Tommy or whatever his name is, and be forced to cope with isolation yourself. I hope you enjoy, you selfish demon. I might take Harley with me. he could learn quite a bit if he was removed from his environment. No, I won't. You can do whatever you want with him. I have to go. My life is a nightmare and I have to hit the road. I might also shoot it, I'm so angry. I don't want to work hard to support you, you groveling peasant. I work because it provides a reliable outlet for my frustration. You don't work, you never have. I wonder what it would be like if you did. Would you understand the hardships involved with work? Why work? Why not abandon the rules of society and live like a hermit, away from the dystopia that is America? You blithering fool. My body does say cookout and KFC. And I don't mind, I like KFC. I also like cookouts. I am not ashamed of my weight, I love to eat. I could go to some restaurant and buy a delicious hamburger right now, and I would love that hamburger much more than you. Much more. That hamburger would fill my stomach. You refuse to fill my deep longing for communication. My shirt does say cookout and KFC, and I am proud of it, because I don't care about what other people think. I will say it one more time. I don't care about you. I'll say it again. I don't care about you. A third time. I don't care about you. Go ahead and end me like the dog I am. Since I'm not a dog at all, you can't end me. How's THAT for logic, ya half baked rotten tomato? | CON | eb20c25f-2019-04-18T11:58:10Z-00002-000 |
DS's are fun on long debate trips. Our does refer to two people, yes(I'm thinkin Policy Debate sry!) But that isn't abuse. Don't vote on that. 1. If they don't like the song, IGNORE IT! They can play cards, listen to OTHER music, and etc! 2. Yes, I said how they will. They get rich from the DS's sold, and then they take over the world with their money. This is bad because they are a GAMING company, and can't manage the world. They could barely manage hotels when they owned them!(around the 80s, in Japan) 3. The MAJORITY will agree on a song. There is no proof that all will agree on the LIMITED choices of DS games! I am referring to HF. I don't know any other schools that do rotations! 4. We solve for entertainment, and its 100%. More people like Music than games. And, games can be seen as kiddy often. 5. The probability is once again entertainment, and people liking it. DS's aren't fun to everyone, some people like PSP's, and some don't like games PERIOD. More ppl hate games in debate than Ipods. You can have at least 2 people who don't like the game being played! And there aren't enough DS's for anyone to play for more than a substantial time. (Which is needed for Soft Power, and popularity) 6. YOU STATED that people have been bringing MP3's longer, so my timeframe is better! You can't get tired of it, more music comes out each day. DS's are new, but not enough people have them, and WHEN enought have them, we will all die. | CON | 900e6828-2019-04-18T20:03:10Z-00000-000 |
Love is not real. In my opinion, love is simply an emotion created by nature in order to continue the existence of a specie. Based on most humans' perceptions of love, it is something like destiny where you are meant to be together and you feel happy together. This perception is most likely based off of novels, movies and television series that give a false view of love based on the creator's own desires or misconceptions. | PRO | 8790495e-2019-04-18T16:45:21Z-00005-000 |
Things that Donald Trump (the worst president of all time) and god (both are unclean) have in common. First of all, Literally none of your statements are supported by facts that you have shown. This is a dumb way to start a debate, Because it makes you look like a complainer, And a prejudiced, Illogical one at that. I admit that some of your comparisons have merit. Let's Begin. First one I disagree with (and I'll be going out of order, Just hitting the ones that catch my eye) "Both Trump and god don"t care about what is right as long as they win. " Since you have already acknowledged the existence of the God that Christians worship (recap, He's omnipotent, Omniscient, And omnipresent), And you have also acknowledged the occurrence of events as recorded in the Holy Bible, (when you said that God did in fact "pray to [Himself]"). Under these assumptions, That are YOURS, Not mine, We can deduce the following. The God of the Christians, In the already established as proper evidence for this debate, Created the ENTIRE UNIVERSE. He created the laws and morals of men with the Forbidden Fruit. He defined what is right and what is wrong. Therefore, It makes no sense that " god don"t care about what is right as long as they win" He can do no wrong, Being the creator of right and wrong. That would be like telling the inventor of a game that he was cheating. Next: " god do not believe in peace and harmony unless it is under their guidance and rules of thumb" God, As previously established, Controls everything. No matter what, You ARE under his "guidance and rules of thumb". There is no escaping that. So there can LITERALLY be no peace and harmony without him, Because we don't know what an existence without God is like, Or if it's possible. You can not prove that peace can exist without Him, Which means that you can't prove that He's wrong to believe that. Next: " god have no idea, None, As to what true suffering, Pain and horror truly is. " According to the events of the Bible, Which we have established as historical evidence in this debate, Christ the Lord suffered for the sins of the world, Feeling the pain of all men (as a race, Not a gender). He bled from every pore, Then was nailed to a cross and hung there until death. If anyone has an inkling of what true suffering is, It's him. As for Trump, I doubt you have any idea what true suffering is either. I know I don't. I'll let you try to add some logic and facts to your argument. I'm done for now. | CON | 54db2959-2019-04-18T11:13:26Z-00004-000 |
Polygamy!!!. I apologize CON if you were mislead into this debate -my fail! Anyways, although this is the Final Round I guess it would be sensible to change the subject to the Legality of Polygamy. Thus: If we both agree that Polygamy -as properly understood- is an ethically viable practice, that is, no wrong is done by it on normal grounds; then in a contemporary democratic society, polygamy's ethicalness should entail some form of legality. CON seems to object to the legal-acceptability of Polygamy on the following grounds: (1) Polygamous marriage is potentially confusing in the judicial or legal sense, therefore it should not be recognized as actual marriage, in addition; (2) The CURRENT legal situation of marriage does not allow for plural-marriage anyhow: "Legally binding marriage contracts are, by definition, a contract between two persons. Therefore, legal recognition of polygamous marriage is impossible" [CON]. Thus; (3) A possible mediation for Polygamy would be to recognize them only as plural-civil-unions, that is, having several of the legal benefits of marriage but not quite actually being marriage itself - an approximation of marriage: "The only option would be for the parties to enter into a legal contract closely resembling marriage in its terms and conditions, and offering similar protections" [CON] -Firstly it seems fair for me to say that premises (2) & (3) are all consequences of premise (1), that is, they both rest on the acceptance of (1). Thus the question I am faced with is this: Is Polygamous marriage to CONFUSING in a judicial or legal sense as to be considered as a regular form of marriage? It seems intuitive to say that if polygamy is ethically-viable then the fact that some additional bit of scrutiny and paperwork is required to make it work is of a lesser concern and should not discount polygamy as a real form of marriage; after all divorce can be an utterly confusing process but it is legal since it is an ethical nece | PRO | 99243b0c-2019-04-18T19:27:31Z-00001-000 |
You can't jump in the same river twice. Now, my opponent stated that " if someone asks you what river the Thames is you will say the Thames. If they ask you the same question a few seconds later you will give them the same response. You won't say "This is the Thames of now and that was the Thames of five seconds ago. " That is one of the similarities between the river you jumped into first and the river you jumped into the second time but the river isn't the same it has changed a tiny bit. Next my opponent said that" the fish are the fish, the rocks are the rocks, the water is the water". So let' say for example, my personality, my organs, my eyes, my nose all of that is a part of me just like the fish, the rocks and the water it is all part of the river. Finally my opponent stated that " if you break my nose I am still me. I do not become some other person I am still the same person, the river is the same river". You are a different person after you broke your nose but you are not a completely different person so people wouldn't you are a different person because they would think it means a completely different person. I look forward to the rest of the debate. | PRO | 24ae841c-2019-04-18T12:45:44Z-00003-000 |
Man-Made Global Warming Is A Hoax. 1. Actually 10 of the hottest years have occurred in the last 12 years, 2005 being the hottest year on record. 2. We know that the earth is warming because scientists have seen an increase in temperature since the 1800's when we started recording. We can predict that the earth has been warming for longer than that. No matter how long the earth has been around, there is an evident increase in temperature. 3. It is not only driving hybrid cars that will decrease the effect of the increasing temperature of the sun. Simply checking the air in your tire's regularly and keeping them properly inflated will save 250 lbs of carbon dioxide. Replacing your air filter will save 800 lbs. carbon dioxide. Moving your heater down two degrees in winter and up two degrees in summer will save 2000 lbs of carbon dioxide. You can also do things like recycling, buying organic foods, and carpooling to reduce the effects. 4. Since the out break of the supposed ice age, temperatures have increased. 5. NO. I think other countries, after doing adequate research, have decided to do their part to try to save the world from the damages of global warming. They know that global warming is not a made up joke, but rather a serious problem worth addressing. | CON | eff12dad-2019-04-18T20:04:01Z-00001-000 |
gcsd. Con has conceded that pupils should take Mathematics and English. Thus he has conceded the resolution. Just to provide an argument in case he rudely attempts to introduce new arguments in the last round; Purpose of education At a basic level the purpose of education to enhance the mental abilities of all students and thus improve the contribution they can provide to society. English and Mathematics are the most important subjects as they facilitate basic communication skills (which unfortunately my opponent lacks) and basic numeracy, which is useful in everyday life. Con has failed to demonstrate why the subjects of English and Mathematics should not be compulsory. | PRO | 30bb7b71-2019-04-18T18:53:31Z-00002-000 |
Should religion be integrated into schools?. Schools have had religion forced upon them this means certain 'state schools' are becoming closed to the diverse society we now find our dwellings in. Schools are often Christian in Britain, as their is often only one school for a community it shouldn't be allowed to single a religion into its system. Education is indifferent to those who take it up, CON will rebuke that they can opt out and that they re undenominating but should a child face the hummiliation of sitting out in their own school. | CON | e3abf819-2019-04-18T18:08:36Z-00003-000 |
Opinion polls also distort the political decision making process: during elections, polls swing fast... Opinion polls also distort the political decision making process: during elections, polls swing faster then politicians can adapt their strategies. The result: politicians are following every swing of the polls and engaging in “political marketing” instead of really developing a party philosophy and trying to honestly engage the citizens. Also, in between elections, polls ruin the process: the executive launches policy to try and create a better public opinion in stead of real policy. Symbol politics, in stead of real politics, is the result. | PRO | 76ca096e-2019-04-19T12:44:12Z-00017-000 |
Religion/christainity. dude b4 we go any further i want to point out that this is not an agrument i simply want to further understand aitheism im not gonna attack ur beliefs so plz dont attack mine, i am also a girl, lastly tone it done a bit my young mind does not understand ur very big words:( i cant really post my "agrument" until u post one that i can understand | PRO | 21377f3b-2019-04-18T19:18:52Z-00003-000 |
You Should Never Believe Anything With Insufficient Evidence. My opponent says I am miss quoting the "two one-dollar bill" quote but if you read carefully[EC]. I never suspend any judgment on the quote itself, simply use it as reference point to make a statement on my own[S]. I never said that James meant to say anything. But i would like to point out, that once again like clockwork my opponent has avoided more issues than ever[Q]. The fact that he is using evidence to base an argument, dropped the doctors analogy, and avoids the ship captain quote brought up by himself[Q]. One can assume that he will attempt to make up for the lack of arguments prided in the last round, but as far as I can see this will only be a move made out of desperation. Therefor it seems to be the case that a fourth round is not needed for us, and we will leave the last round open for our opponents to make a last ditch effort to rescue his argument[RI]. | PRO | 3285483d-2019-04-18T17:59:08Z-00003-000 |
God Is Annoying. God is annoying. For over ten years now, He continuously and constantly keeps me in an upset state of mind. He makes me want things and never gives me them. He makes me look bad publicly, to other people and to my acquaintances. He continuously and constantly makes me suffer. He makes me like people and doesn't make those people like me. Sometimes God even makes a person I am attracted to not be attracted to me, and makes that person and another person who is not I be attracted to each other and be in a physical, mental, and social relationship with each other. God makes some of the people around me do things that mentally provoke me and keeps them agitating, annoying, or bothering me. I know God can do a lot worse to me and I'm thankful to Him that He doesn't. But still, He should just let me be happy in my life. It seems that would be better than what he is doing to me now and has been doing to me for over ten years. | PRO | ab1f7353-2019-04-18T12:09:33Z-00005-000 |
The US Should Leave the International Monetary Fund. As pro, I am arguing FOR the exit of the United States of America (US) from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). I believe the pro side, me, should prove that the IMF is flawed and the United States should not be in it or supporting it. In essence I need to show drawbacks of IMF. The neg case must prove the IMF is good, and has beneficial impacts. The case should be decided on who has proved that the IMF is either more beneficial than harmful or more harmful than beneficial. Thank you, looking forward to a good debate, and my first debate on debate.org. | PRO | 1bb3d12f-2019-04-18T16:07:11Z-00005-000 |
Gun rights. I disagree with my opponent's claim that I have "made a great deal of assertions". I have merely asked for extensive clarification of the frame of this debate and for support towards its foundational presuppositions. This is not empty rhetoric or clever sophistry, but a quest for legitimate truth. When my opponent asserts that a right only exists to citizens of one nation and not another, it is he- not I- who has made an assertion. When my opponent attempts to compare 18th Century weaponry with assault rifles today, it is he- not I- who has grounded his arguments in empty rhetoric. I additionally point out that it is my opponent- not I- who appears to have dodged any question. My opponent has failed to prove anything, and has refused to offer response to my calls for clarification simply because he does not feel to do so is reasonable. However, it is not my duty to have an agreeable foundation to his prior to acceptance of debate. The premise here is labeled- no more or less- "Gun rights". My opponent has offered no support for gun rights in the slightest, unless one who judges this argument comes with a plethora of presupposition, not tabula rasa- as a just judge must. It is for these reasons that you must vote Con and that you cannot objectively vote Pro. Thank you. | CON | 69133b4f-2019-04-18T15:11:31Z-00000-000 |
The Legend of Zelda is a better game series than Mario Bros . All right, let's get to it then.A. The origin of the games.As we all know Super Mario Bros. was Nintendo's first "home-run" of a video game. I'm not going to deny that. It was a great sidescrolling game where you jumped on enemies and through one stage to get to the next. A few years after the release of Super Mario Bros. came the release of the Legend of Zelda. The Legend of Zelda was a revolutionary game from Nintendo. For the first time, you could actually choose where you wanted to go in the game. You could go explore a cave, tackle the next main boss in the storyline, or some sort of sidequest. The Legend of Zelda mixed the qualities or action, adventure, and puzzle solving into one game, and that game turned out to be one of the largest, and most popular, franchises of nintendo history.B. The Nintendo 64 era.I'm relatively positive that we can both agree that when the Nintendo 64 came out, Nintendo made some huge changes to both of the game series. Creating both Super Mario 64 and The Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time, which are the most favored games in both series.(1) The Ocarine of Time still had the action, adventure, and puzzle characteristics in it, but on a much larger scale. Several of the puzzles in the game were actually extremely challenging and required alot of ingenuity to get through them. The most infamous of the temples in the game was the dreaded water temple. It can get rather frustrating at times as well, but that just gives you even more satisfaction when you finally pass that puzzle. (2) The Ocarina of Time also has a great combat system that is always feeling fresh. Beings you get new weapons in every temple you go through, the combat system never really gets stale, not to mention every enemy has a different way to defeat them. You can't just slash every enemy with your sword, you have to utilize every piece of equipment you posess to get through all of the foes.(3) Ocarina of Time also didn't hold back on side quests, to keep you busy for hours. Getting all of the heart pieces is quite a challenge. To get these pieces you have to do all sorts of things, such as catching a large fish at the lake, play all of the different mini games offered throughout the course of the game, explore new regions, or shoot golden skulltulas off of the wall.There are so many different things to do in the game, the gameplay rarely gets stale because of all of these different activities. Super Mario Bros just doesn't have enough diversity in the gameplay, the jist of it is running through course after course. Either jumping on, or throwing fireballs at, all of your enemies. | PRO | ccd9797c-2019-04-18T16:49:26Z-00003-000 |
Gang members joining the United States Armed Forces is bad. I believe that members of 'gangs' should be allowed to join the U.S. Military, because (no ill-feelings) most of them do have experience with a firearm. Although I highly recommend an extensive background check, I do believe that once they've served their country, they'll know better than to use their military-training to terrorize streets. If they do, they should be given a heavy penalty in court. | CON | 540cef83-2019-04-18T17:48:37Z-00000-000 |
It is possible to romantically love more than one person at once. 2) Even if the person is open about having multiple relationships, the nature of the human species biologically is to be monogamous. Ultimately it degrades the quality of all the relationships, whether openly accepted or in secret, to spread the emotional resources of one person between more than one love. This produces a situation where genuine care cannot be attained because this is not in the best interest of the person who is supposed being romantically loved. 3) The argument as stated in 2) also applies. Once again, it is the nature of humans to be monogamous. If there are physical multiple relationships, it may be open between the parties but it is doubtful there is not some emotion involved. This goes to the spreading out of the emotional resources of the parties which does not indicate genuine care, as it is not in the parties' best interests. Therefore, all the criteria for the definition of romantic love have not been met. | CON | fe115d3a-2019-04-18T15:16:32Z-00002-000 |
Congress cannot punish AIG with "laws attainder". Wayne Outten. "Opinion: In Defense Of The AIG Bonuses". CNBC. March 23, 2009 - "As Americans, we must uphold the rule of law even when—and especially when—it’s difficult and challenges our sense of fairness. We are justifiably proud of our Constitution, which protects individuals against abuses of power by the government. Our Constitution prohibits Congress and the states from passing 'bills of attainder' (laws that aim to punish a single person or specific group of people) and from enacting ex post facto laws (laws that criminalize conduct retroactively); the latter prohibition recognizes the fundamental unfairness of punishing someone for doing something that was lawful when they did it." | PRO | 34a77a0a-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00052-000 |
Imabench's 500th debate: Attempted Suicide should be punishable by death. For my historical 500th debate, I shall debate that a person caught attempting suicide or a person who actually attempted suicide and then failed, should be a federal crime with the punishment being the death penalty. Pro is for this resolution, Con believes that suicide or attempted suicide should NOT be a crime punishable by death First round will be for acceptance only 4 rounds, 3000 character limit | PRO | bbeafadd-2019-04-18T16:51:34Z-00007-000 |
I will not break a rule. My opponent has broken Rule #4; he was not allowed to post his first sentence, which was not required before! My opponent has broken Rule #7, which requires that "each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule": while Rule #26 applies Rules #11-13 to me, which means that by Rule #12, I must use one example of epanalepsis in each round, Rule #28 states that I may not use the same word twice in this argument; as epanalepsis requires the repetition of one or more words within a single sentence or clause (http://en.wikipedia.org...), so that the word was used twice, I cannot follow both Rule #12 and Rule #28! This same contradiction falls upon my opponent, which makes him lose by Rule #3, as well. My opponent has broken Rule #12; he has no parallelism! 14. Once per round each debater must use the British spelling of a word not chosen for this rule before; it must be done each round by each debater once! 15. Both debaters must include their favourite food somewhere in their Round 2 argument! 16. Both debaters must use the phrase "macaroni and cheese" each round! | PRO | 4b5cd17-2019-04-18T18:56:25Z-00007-000 |
Christianity is a religion of peace. I just wanna let you know that the definition of war is, a state of armed conflict between different countries/states or different groups within a country. I. War on SinSin is something you cannot touch or kill. Sin is something you have to deal with yourself like Depression. It's something you wanna try and fix so you won't do it anymore. When it says going to war with sin, it kinda means going to war with yourself and by that i mean fighting against the evil within you, fighting the temptation and all the evil thoughts and you think of inside your head. This is the war against sin. It's not something you kill to accomplish.II. Lucifer's/Satan's RebellionThis was hundreds and thousands of years before Christianity was even created.III. The end times battleIs something Christians won't start but i guess will be forced to deal with and by deal with i don't mean to join the war and fight against governments but it's something Christians will be there to witness and probably be killed in.IV. TotaltarianismThis is the effect of people going against god. They start wars and rebellions in seek of power or something else.Totaltariansim in the bible is mis-interpreted alot of times. In our world, Totaltarianism is not having freedom or the power to do what you think is right because Governments would come after you. But God, is a loving god because he gives us free will which is the right to do whatever we want in this world which is why almost everyone is sinning in this world.Will cover everything else in round 3, not enough time.[SOURCES]http://www.gotquestions.org...https://www.jw.org... | PRO | 462077f-2019-04-18T13:03:07Z-00003-000 |
The US is not a hegemon at all, but an imperialist power-an empire. US support for democracy has been at best hugely inconsistent, and at worst criminally apathetic. During the Cold War, the US overthrew various democratic governments (for example Iran and Guatemala in the 1950s) and supported dictatorial regimes. This has continued into the post-Cold War era, as the US support for the coup attempt against President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela in 2002 demonstrated. While the US professes support for democratic forces in the Arab world, it has also continued to give vital assistance to the strategically-important dictatorships of the Gulf, primarily Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, which have been responsible for grave human rights abuses in response to recent peaceful protests[14].The US also continues to support states such as Israel which violate international law, and also routinely flouts international law itself—as seen by wars such as Iraq, the treatment of terrorist suspects and breaches of the Geneva convention [15], the undermining of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the violation of countries’ sovereignty with ‘drone’ attacks. Clinical realpolitik, and not the pursuit of democracy and human rights, determines the use of US power. [14] Goodman, Amy (2011), ‘Barack Obama must speak out on Bahrain bloodshed’, The Guardian: Comment is Free, April 2011. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/13/barack-obama-bahrain-bloodshed, Accessed 14th May 2011.The US is not a hegemon at all, but an imperialist power-an empire. [15] Chatham House, ‘Extraordinary Rendition: A summary of the Chatham House International Law Discussion’. http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/11390_il270308.pdf, Accessed 15th May 2011. | CON | 43446f45-2019-04-15T20:22:44Z-00019-000 |
Resolved: On balance, the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the risks. I'm sorry that Brotherhood was not able to participate in these last two rounds. When you look at the facts presented, this becomes a debate over a certainty of benefits versus only a negligible possibilty for harms, most of which are completely preventable. Nuclear power works from an economic, health, and foreign policy perspective. On balance, the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the risks. The resolution is affirmed. | PRO | b3cf5511-2019-04-18T18:44:32Z-00000-000 |
Civil Rights in businesses does nothing more then mask the problem and should be abolished. watied to long to type this but the civil war and those who died would not have died in vein at all. Slavery was ended, everyone has a right to vote now, and a slew of other good things came about. Ending the segregation in schools. When it come to government there should absolutly be civil rights because the government is everyones but when it come to a buseinss that people choose to go to that is a much different. People do not need to go to these businesses they choose to and when a person makes a choice that mean they must follow the rules of the business, it would be like someone coming into your house and then the government telling you have to be nice to them. It doesn't work, forcing people to be good does nothing but cause more problems. | PRO | 3b921b57-2019-04-18T20:02:36Z-00004-000 |
Africa deserves the opportunity to assert itself as an equal global partner. Africa lacks the resources for international trade. It is no surprise that westernised countries respond to its needs by throwing money in Africa’s direction; as a country in the business world it would simply slow things down. However, if Africa utilised aid payments effectively, there may be some potential for this position in future. Furthermore, Africa’s trade with China is not an example that should be followed. Concerns have been raised as to China’s long-term interests in protecting its income by force. Moyo states this is irrelevant as we are only concerned with progress now. Surely there is no advantage in securing money temporarily for Africa, we need a solution that will last. | CON | ac5ff6f2-2019-04-19T12:45:42Z-00002-000 |
There is no such thing as intellectual property, since you cannot own an idea:. Intellectual property rights systems create perverse incentives in firms, leading them to inefficiently allocate resources. One such inefficiency arises from the duplication of effort by firms seeking to develop the same process or product, though only the first to do so may profit from it. This leads to brutal races and excessive expenditure of resources to be first over the line and to monopolize the production, at least for a time. Another serious inefficiency arises in the production of similar products to existing ones, seeking to get around existing intellectual property rights. Such has been the case for years in the pharmaceutical industry, which has succeeded in curing erectile dysfunction dozens of times. An overemphasis on such spinning off of similar products is the result of intellectual property rights perverting incentives1. Furthermore, intellectual property rights create the problem of corporate espionage. Firms seeking to be the first to develop a new product so as to patent it will often seek to steal or sabotage the research of other competing firms so as to be the first to succeed. Without intellectual property rights, such theft would be pointless. Clearly, in the absence of intellectual property, markets and firms will behave more efficiently. 1 Gabb, Sean. 2005. "Market Failure and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Proposal for Reform" improve this | CON | 9f70dcbe-2019-04-15T20:23:00Z-00018-000 |
5 Bible lessons they don't teach you in Sunday School. Fist of all, nice use of insults. Really colorful. I maybe should have check into you a little, because you don't argue, you hate, you slander. I never made any attack on you. Since this is no longer a debate I will say a few things. "Immoral" Religion of any sort, set the standards for that. "Hateful" Read what I have written, I have been civil and honest about what I believe. "Putrid" I have a rather high standard of hygiene, thank you very much. "Dimwitted snot meat sow" Wow, very creative... untrue, but creative. "Teeny Bopper" Well, I certainly am laughing. "Abominable" I am actually held in high regard by my peers and superiors, half of which are secular to atheist. "Inhumane" Interesting, usually that is what anti-hunting people call me. "Diseased" I am perfectly healthy, thanks for asking. "Warped" See previous comment. "Liced" I may actually need to check that, thanks for reminding me. "No right choice of the rapist" That's funny, you say he is permanently bad for his crime, no redemption, no second chance. Funny thing about God is he at least offers that. "Stupid" I held high honor roll all through highs school. Gees, at least make the insult true. "rear end wipe" Descriptive, but not convincing. "Bloated ego" Hey, he can do what no human can. So I really don't think he is at fault for that one. Now that is out of the way. You did not create this debate to the question of whether or not God is a loving one. You created this so that a person like me would come along and try to pop your echo chamber. You will carry on not believing and I will do the opposite. This debate will be for nothing considering it does not exist at all anymore. I will put it this way, watch God's Not Dead 2 if you want to see the quote. Atheism doesn't take away the pain, it takes away the hope. Logically, I would rather be wrong as a Christian than as an Atheist. Because wrong as a Christian is just fading to nothing, wrong as an atheist is hell fire for eternity. We will see who is right when we die. By the way, you are extremely lucky that this site does not take does arguments full of Ad Hominem. You would be out in a heartbeat. I wish you God speed ;) in your endeavors but I will not argue with a person like you. | CON | af65bf4-2019-04-18T11:46:47Z-00000-000 |
The world was created by G-d as oppossed to evolution. Other points include the following:Scientific theories do not explain the begging of the universe, but the faith in G-d does. Who created time and space?Evolution i unable to override the set laws of nature, which work so perfectly together. G-d's presence, which is most obvious through holy men and miracles, show that there is spirituality that goes beyond nature.Following scientific theories there is no purpose to the world. So why can I not kill myself? Why is it wrong to be immoral? And who is even to say what is wrong and right anyway? Man kind needs G-d to stay away from corruption as well as give life purpose. (I am not saying that atheists have no purpose in their personal lives.)Knowledge of G-d has been passed down through the generations for several thousand years, if not forever. During the period of the Enlightenment, a few hundred years ago, philosophers chose to pull the blind on Divine Being and thought up their own theories(, which came about before the major proofs did).I do not doubt evolution but I see faults in the Theory of Evolution. The best way to learn things as this is to only accept facts during your study period and think rationally.Evolution doesn't explain how the Universe was created, because that's not what evolution is about. You still haven't proved your BOP. You are debating a entirely differenet thing. I have nothing to say intil you prove that God created the life in our world then just saying it. Prove it. | CON | e9a9d0db-2019-04-18T17:34:50Z-00004-000 |
tellytubbies is a heap of sexual inuendoes!. My opponent has said that the vaccum cleaner Noo Noo nly to suck up dust. My argument is that why would there be some sort of vaccum cleaner doing a normal job when there are tellytubbies who have 'alien penises' that can be sucked. That is why the created a vaccum cleaner character, as well to clean up the tellytubbies cream they will discharge. My opponent also said 'they are only colourful blobs of love whose only true calling is to provide love and care and bouncy television viewing. ' If it is just to provide love and care why would they have huge penises on their heads? Also there is a naked baby in the clouds which is probablys made to be some sort of nudist God that spys on the NAKED tellytubbies. | PRO | 9c29443a-2019-04-18T19:16:00Z-00002-000 |
People should not have the right to carry, buy, or keep guns. okay, i think i get it now. I do see some things wrong with your bill. Your bill takes away guns from people, as well as lower class police officers,(unless consented from a higher up source grants them)but their have been many cases where a smaller amount of police officers have come across a much bigger amount of thugs. Guns give the police a big advantage, but if you take away the guns, the police lose a lot of protection. And though the bill will create a unit to confinscate guns, their will always be illegal sales of guns. So police will not only be going against unarmed people, but also people armed with guns, while they have close to nothing. For example, around last year uprising in baltimore had a huge problem with riots and uprisings. They called in about 1,000-3,000 police officers to help. Thousands of people were rioting, and some people and police were hospitalized. ~http://www.cnn.com...~ If the police didnt have guns, they would have probably been beaten and killed. Their have also been many terrorist bombings from ISIS and some unknown groups. Police would have a extremely hard time keeping control and diminishing these types if things without guns. The bombings and killings would also become more likely. | CON | 26d1f70e-2019-04-18T14:04:17Z-00001-000 |
Nickleback vs. U2. My song for this round is Vertigo. . http://www.youtube.com... This song hit the top of the charts in the U. S. . And i know why. I grew up on U2 music. When I was much younger my mother, a U2 fan from there foundation, took me to a concert. This was the opening song I heard. I still remember it vividly because of the guitar music performed by Edge (the lead guitarist). This song is light and smooth. Great for the start of a concert. U2 likes to start slow and work towards the grand finally. | CON | d29c9c79-2019-04-18T17:50:18Z-00008-000 |
Same Sex Couples Should Be Able To Marry. I will not accept any irrational arguments such as "gays already have enough rights" to be a valid response. Pro will have to respond with logical reasons as to why "gay" people should not be able to marry. Same sex marriage is becoming a growing issue. Even though this has been legalized in some states, I say it needs to become that way in all states. Allowing the marriage of same sex couples would not hurt anyone. It may offend some people but those people can choose to ignore it rather than having a fit about it. If two human beings love each other, they should be allowed to be married and carry on life just as everyone else is allowed to. Saying that gay couples cannot get married to their significant other is depriving them of their rights. To allow same sex marriage would not mean you have to accept their ways. It simply means that you are treating them as if they are normal human beings, which they are. Being gay, lesbian, bisexual, asexual, transgender etc. does not mean that these people are any less of human beings than you yourself. Same sex couples areal lowed to ride in the car, go out to eat and live in a house together, so why not let them be married? Many gays and lesbians do not feel safe or secure in the world. However, a few "gay" married couples said they felt more protected. Marriage is marriage. Love is love. | PRO | e18fc3f0-2019-04-18T16:00:14Z-00005-000 |
Rhetoric, Unfortunately, Is More Important Than Dialectic. My opponent has taken affirmative defense in terms of a counter-proposal. His argument is based around a manipulation of the word "is" by referring to actual reality rather than the art of persuasion among people within reality. Unfortunately, my opponent still ignores the value of psychology in committing towards investigation. He ignores how personal goals are subject to what people believe in, and how social goals require organization inspired by the morale of what people believe in. Whether in civilian or military life, this even applies to my opponent's argument over constructing a battleship in a war. A battleship requires planning. People don't plan unless they're committed. A rhetorical argument will commit people to investigate how a battleship is planned. A dialectic argument, while possibly technically correct, does not commit people to investigate planning in the first place. My opponent also carries this on to victory in the war itself. One, winning the war itself is a secondary issue. Two, even fighting a war depends on organization and morale themselves which are rhetorical, not dialectical, issues. That is people have to be committed towards fighting the fight in order to win. Lastly, my opponent assumes that survival is intrinsically valuable, but this isn't necessarily the case. A side that wins the war by oppressing its own people has transformed survival into slavery. Yes, it might exist, but that existence no longer has importance. Without rhetoric, the people will not identify with the society they live within. They will feel like they're robots, simply carrying out orders. Thank you for reading. | PRO | 90b1f772-2019-04-18T17:43:33Z-00001-000 |
God Exists. The argument they present is much better organized than most theists I have debated on this issue previously. My opponent begins with a discussion of DNA, which I enjoyed reading, and asserts that DNA contains information. Since DNA contains information, and information requires the intervention of an intelligent agent, DNA must have been created by an intelligent agent. The conclusion that allegedly follows from this is that there is a God with the following properties: they "transcend physical matter, possess a supreme level of intelligence, be singular in nature, and be immensely powerful beyond all measure. " First of all, I think the conclusion clearly does not follow from the premises offered. For example, there could have been an intelligent alien with an advanced knowledge of science who came to earth at the dawn of life and engineered DNA. DNA could have been the result of a team of scientists from another planet; it's a bit of a far fetched scenario, but it's worth considering before appealing to God. Another possibility is that a human scientist with a time machine went back in time and planted organisms with DNA in the primordial soup. The conclusion that the argument warrants, even if all of the premises are granted, is only that an intelligent being created DNA. Clearly, this being does not have to "transcend physical matter, possess a supreme level of intelligence, be singular in nature, and be immensely powerful beyond all measure. " The being could be physical, or possess the intelligence of an ingenious human scientist, or consist of a group of creators rather than being singular, or have some measurable degree of power. None of the attributes my opponent ascribes to God follow from this argument. In addition, my opponent's argument misunderstands how we arrive at the conclusion that a given object was designed. In every uncontroversial case in which we attribute design to an object, we base that attribution on its similarity to objects that we know from experience have been designed by humans, and we attribute a human designer to them. DNA has no real similarity to objects designed by humans, so we cannot draw the conclusion that DNA was designed. Maybe in most cases information is the product of an intelligent agent, but to assume that it was the product of an intelligent agent in the case of DNA is question begging, since the very existence of a creator is what is in question. I conclude that my opponent has not met their burden of proof. Thank you. | CON | e05154ef-2019-04-18T12:13:02Z-00000-000 |
Labeling GMO food. That would actually be a pretty good world, to. Now onto my arguments. Once you start labeling gmo food, people are going to wonder, why did the government label gmo food? Is it bad for us or something? Then they will start avoiding gmo food, which will end up costing them more (specialty (such as gmo-free) food costs more), and will make all the companies that have gmos have bad reputations, and major downfalls in profits. If you just label non-gmo food, people that don't like gmos will know to search for the label, and there will not be any direct downfall for the companies that make gmo food, and everybody will be happy. The end. | CON | 826cec7b-2019-04-18T15:30:20Z-00002-000 |
Flag Desecration Act. Desecration is the act of depriving something of its sacred character -- or the disrespectful or contemptuous treatment of that which is held to be sacred by a group or individual. (widipedia) Granted a pandora's box would be opened if laws were passed making desecration itself a crime. However, a country should have a law against the descration of it's flag or other symbol of nationalism. I am totally for freedom of speech, but must one desecrate a sacred symbol to make a point? It's quite childish actually. Not much different then the child who has no language to express his frustration so instead he bites another or destroys the other kid's toy merely because he didn't get his way. Those that burn the flag on the most part lack adequate language to express their hatred so they feel they must burn something that matters so much to the others. As far as the boy scouts burning the flag, you are correct, it is an act of respect. Burning someone alive is quite different than cremating a dead body. The boy scouts are merely "cremating" a flag that is retired, that can no longer be flown due to being worn or tore. It all comes down to intent. Protestors are burning the flag out of hatred. What about "hate" crimes? If someone hangs a noose it can be classified as a hate crime as it is portraying hatred toward a certain group. The intent is to scare or intimidate those represented by that noose. Should not burning the flag also be considered a threat? Are they trying to intimidate a whole country? I know the military displays the a flag on their uniforms...should they not feel threatened by these flag burners? I know this is an extreme example as the noose is actually more threatening as people in the past were actually killed with them. However, how do we know that some of these flag burners may not psych out and decide to set fire to those who wear them? | PRO | 29e64027-2019-04-18T20:02:58Z-00002-000 |
How was the world created. I am not against this hypothesis much. To be honest I hadn't read much into it until today however I am against Mautner and Matloffs proposition that we should establish new planetary systems or protoplanetary discs. Why should we? What's the point? These are the questions I propose to you P.S. after this debate would you like to continue it in a new debate? | PRO | 69abd56c-2019-04-18T17:06:22Z-00001-000 |
The Disney Movie "Enchanted" was Overrated. Rebuttal: Enchanted WAS a comedy, and you cannot say that it wasn't. It's main focus was making you laugh, and just because you didn't doesn't mean that others didn't. And yes, It is good to have attention. Because no one likes being bored, and bored people are usually bored because they won't pay attention because there is nothing to keep attention, and a lack of interest is created. With Enchanted, I never felt disinterested, because I like the humor (except the troll. He stinks, and I can't deny that). And I personally, I loved the humor. I suppose I should cite some: Belle Note the Italian restaurant Grumpy the dwarf, little mermaid music at the aquarium, poison apple trope, Tremaine, magic mirror TV, the working song, and the soap opera segment. Notice something? All of them are references. I like referential humor, and it is not all slapstick or stupid. This is one big love letter to classic Disney., The characters are not entirely unlikeable just because they're stupid. I like season 1-4 Patrick in Spongebob because he is a well done, endearing stupid. But this is not the case. We like these characters because they're funny, like in Friends. If the cast of friends wasn't funny, we would hate them all because they're horrible people. If the cast of Enchanted wasn't funny, we would hate them because they're stupid without a point. Yes, the moral is obvious. MORALS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE HIDDEN. That is what a theme is for. And the theme is going against all of Disney's overlooked things because it wants to be snarky towards Disney. Because this is a love letter to Disney. Not everything was slapstick. See list of humor that I liked. And yes, we have seen adult films from Disney. My point was that Disney has made amazing children's movies as well. For example, your profile picture, Aladdin. Conclusion: If you love Disney and pay attention to everything, then the referential humor will make you laugh. The characters can make you laugh, and everything is built to make you laugh. The only parts meant to create suspense were the bits near the end, and I believe that it is unfair to say that the suspense was horrible considering it was a team based around comedy making it. | CON | c41703c1-2019-04-18T14:35:26Z-00000-000 |
What is a fact – there are few circumstances where this would be of significance. The on-going agglomeration of news and opinion is a wider and deeper issue than tackling factual inaccuracies and one that needs to be resolved in other ways. Frequently, that’s the very point to be addressed by the courts – whether a statement is legitimate comment or is being masqueraded as fact[i]. The right of reply is not presented as a cure all for the media as a whole but it is a useful way of getting the basics right before addressing the higher-level concerns that often stem from these fundamental errors. [i] The ‘fact or opinion’ distinction is crucial to cases of defamation it basics are set out here. | CON | 11bf0be8-2019-04-15T20:22:57Z-00012-000 |
Individuals who are released from prison shouldn't be discriminated in getting a job. Even if she is right about drugs and rehab (which she is probably not) what has this Proved in her case THE FACT is that even if drugs are different what about assault? what about sexual harrasment? what about threatning to kill? these things have happened before because they have traits that lead people to these things and those traits can not be changed so they will continue to do it . | CON | b213796f-2019-04-18T14:17:49Z-00000-000 |
Are we destined to destroy ourselfs. SO in a long an complicated way you do agree with me because that barbarisms will be caused by us humans not alien from mars an I m figuratively speaking incase you dnt understand they will not be any outside influence it will be us humans an I m generalizing because they are always going to be those who re innocent but their innocence wont save them from the destruction of what u call barbarisms | PRO | c5b1d69d-2019-04-18T12:39:08Z-00005-000 |
Marijuana should be legalized. Here is just one of my thoughts: If something is currently not legal, then there is good reason for that. I know exactly what you drug legalization enthusiasts think. You think that these drugs could be used for medical reasons. I know some people believe that these drugs could be great help, but I know that there are better options. There are many different medicines that ARE legalized and why can't we just use those? If we already have a solution there is no need to legalize these drugs. Why legalize something that is already being illegally used and sold? If people are already illegally smoking marijuana what is the point? What would stop them anyway? | CON | 59d1fc3b-2019-04-18T17:33:35Z-00006-000 |
Police Profiling. As much as I deplore profiling, because of the world we live in and the dangers that have been forced upon us as a nation we must be prepared for what ever happens. It is sad that a small portion of one type of group and one type of religion has all but declared war upon my nation I and we must be prepared for that outcome. So whether boarding a plane or train or any basic type of public pervance we must be diligent and keep a close eye upon what goes on around us... I don't like having to single out a small minority group but it is better to be careful and on the alert than to have several hundred Americans or maybe even a greater number come into harms way because we were not prepared and as cautious as we should be and have to be. | PRO | bae3dc04-2019-04-18T18:44:45Z-00005-000 |
from an official capacity, the corn flake box has never contradicted itself. This morning, my brother picked up the corn flakes box from the table. He said "There are some contradictions printed on this box!", to which I replied "No, there aren't". He then started wildly waving his arms around, pointing at this and that, but being completely incoherent.http://www.youtube.com... my intelligent view is that from an official capacity, the Corn flake box has never contradicted itself. Not on the ingredients, the mailing address, or the games/puzzles.I think this because not only have I not read any contradictions, but the object itself doesn't contradict anything. Like, it doesn't exist but not exist or anything.Thank you. | PRO | 3d9dacf9-2019-04-18T16:13:40Z-00002-000 |
Resolved: Gay marriage ought be legalized. Rebuttal 1: At the point where my opponent is saying that I failed to correlate the two, it's obvious that my opponent has not looked toward my evidence at all. The correlation is that homophobia is the main cause of these negative statistics in the homosexual community, and by promoting gay marriage through the administration of law, these numbers would decrease. The government is instrumental in ensuring the security and maintenance of the society, and at the point where we have the ideals of social contract theory to stand behind government, this argument is still upheld.Rebuttal 2: My evidence shows that the products bought for gay marriage stimulate the economy. My opponent has not attacked that point whatsoever. Furthermore, we move on to the idea that when we analyze the reasons as to why someone would buy products, there really is no reason nor incentive for homosexuals to spend on these arrangements, as clearly shown by the states who have fewer dollars in their GDP because they do not allow gay marriage. Marriage in general has become something recognized by the government, and at the point where we are bound to a duty not only to protect freedom but also promote economic stability, gay marriage is the way to go. Tax cuts and legal benefits are great for homosexual couples in the idea that it provides them with more spending power.Rebuttal 3: At that point, then the argument about infertile couples getting married also stands or couples who simply do not want to marry also stands to reason because they do not reproduce either, but their marriages are still considered to be acceptable. This is nothing more than a double-standard at this point. Rebuttal 4: This debate does have something to do with civil unions at the point where it is considered to be an alternative to the very thing that we're talking about right now. At the point where civil unions are directly made in order to be considered less than marriage, this is the epitome of what encompasses inequality. | PRO | d32f25a9-2019-04-18T18:31:33Z-00001-000 |
The concept of the environment is a socialist plot to destroy capitalism. I would say the idea of the environment started with Charles Darwin in 1859. "The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits. Changes that allow an organism to better adapt to its environment will help it survive and have more offspring. " [1]"In 1848, Marx and fellow German thinker Friedrich Engels published “The Communist Manifesto,” which introduced their concept of socialism as a natural result of the conflicts inherent in the capitalist system." [2]As you can see the idea of the environment came out after the idea of Karl Marx in 1848. So this idea isn't completely impossible. If the idea of the environment came before Marx was born I could show this as impossible. Instead, I will show how unlikely this idea that the environment is a socialist plot. Now Karl Marx and Darwin had contact, again I can't show impossible, but can show improbable. "Letter from Charles Darwin to Karl MarxOctober, 1873" [3]As you can see Marx and Darwin did not have contact until 1873 which was well after the idea of the environment was developed. Of course it is possible that Marx influenced Darwin to create the theory of evolution as a socialist plot to destroy capitalism, yet I find this absurdly improbable. Sources1. http://www.livescience.com...2. http://www.history.com...3. http://friendsofdarwin.com... | CON | fffb2f76-2019-04-18T12:54:48Z-00000-000 |
Marxism is invariably superior to Capitalism. I think your debate can be pretty much summed up in the words "what are you talking about?". At least, it appears you have either missed or misunderstood most of my points. Please note a may use capitalization not to denote emotion or volume but simply for emphasis Perhaps you missed me mentioning the bourgeois REVOLUTION? For that quite clearly shows, the capitalists took their wealth and power from the aristocracy in much the same way that Marx intended for the proletariat to take it from the bourgeois. So the words " voluntary exchange" are pretty hollow. Also, when they "purchase property from someone else" you mean they "purchase private property" from someone else. Personal property belongs to someone. Private property should not. You also seem to have forgotten that your Utopian free market doesn't exist. Most people don't start out life equally. Inheritance makes this even worse. Therefore, your claim that capitalists are in their place due to hard work and investment doesn't really ring true. The point about "buying the means of production" is moot because there is no right to put them up for sale in the first place. I think it was quite clear I didn't mean the market broke down the front door, walked in with a big market grin on and stole stuff. It was a figure of speech, and your literalist pedantry only serves to prove you have no answer; you accept that the, and I'll be explicit here, CONDITIONS SURROUNDING HAVING A MARKET can cause people to suddenly lose everything through no fault of their own. Your statement "nothing in, nothing out" is also true of Marxism: "From EACH TO HIS ABILITY to each unto his need.". As to your last point, this is true, he has done good work and deserves a fee. What he deserves though is what he NEEDS, and not PROFIT made by EXPLOITING workers. You are completely ignoring my very first debate point; please research the Labour Theory of Value. You have one last chance to disprove my points now that I have (hopefully) made them clear enough for you to understand, unlike what was implied in the first sentence of your previous post. Good luck. Sources same as before. | PRO | 78eb3494-2019-04-18T12:36:03Z-00001-000 |
INSANELY FAST DEBATES 1: Choose Your Topic. Sorry about my forfeit.Price: the Xbox one is more expensive, showing us that it is better. Besides, shopping websites show that on average, PS4 has barely any difference to the Xbox one. See these:https://www.google.com...https://www.google.com...Specs: Well, Xbox one's Kinect can sense motion fairly accurately.Online: this only shows that Xbox live probably has more special abilities and stuff that makes it more expensive.The name: "One" also stands for "only one", meaning it's the best and nothing can be better .Privacy: Uh, I'm pretty sure NSA doesn't use the cameras for spying. I'm sorry I rushed, I didn't have enough time. Perhaps next time I will make the time limit to 10 minutes instead of five.Vote me. | PRO | 20e15273-2019-04-18T16:18:03Z-00001-000 |
The mass extinction of man-kind. So before I began, thank you to whom excepts this debate. Doomsday or 2012 is now a little less than 3 years away and people across the globe are getting ready for whatever comes. Nuclear war, global shift, meteor strikes, hypercanes anything can happen and those of you who don't prepare will be left unsecured. There are many reasons why 2012 doomsday will happen, one being the mayan calendar, how, opponent can someone so civilized mistake the date and why if nothing were to happen did they end there calendar? Recently the swine flu is going around could the mayans have had a pandemic and there society as a hole had fallen, two being the prophecies, why would they all predict the same day same year same month, these people were all across the globe never spoken in there lives, thirdly its happening all around us, the economic crisis, the global warming, the polar shifts the flu pandemic already. Life as we know it can and will be destroyed on 2012. The likelihood of something happening is very high. A list of possibilities: Major changes in human DNA (indigo children), dimensional shifts, massive genetic mutations, super volcano, hyper-canes, unpredictable weather, | PRO | 8322913e-2019-04-18T19:24:39Z-00005-000 |
Religion is not Important. Pro says “You must have missed something when you were reading from God's word. God does not categorize us into religion. People do that. God loves all of us equally, regardless of religion, status, or income. Religion is not important because you will have God's love either way. ” Acts 11:26 “And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. ” James 1:27 “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. ” It seems that the Bible teaches that disciples of Christ are to be called Christians, as well as advocates for “true religion. ” Also pro’s definition of important being “having God’s love” is not from the dictionary, rather it is my opponents own definition. Pro says “Why would you need to be labeled with a religion if you are reading from the Bible that not only tells you how to love God, serve God, or follow God, but how to be like Him as well? ” I am not contending that people need religion… rather that it is important. Conclusion:My opponent has not disputed any of the definitions of important. Therefore, “Having observed all 7 definitions of the word important, it is clear that religion fits all of them. As such, religion is important. The resolution is negated. | CON | c0f6143b-2019-04-18T15:25:50Z-00000-000 |
Open carrying does not invite trouble. Garry E. Harvey. "Open Carry vs. Concealed Carry." Pennsylvania Open Carry.: "why would the CRIMINAL want to fight an armed opponent for no reason? The CRIMINAL would have to lack any kind of judgment, have no fear of death and believe he is the fastest shooter on earth, not to mention invincible to bullets. Finally, how exactly is the ARMED CITIZEN the one 'looking for trouble' when the CRIMINAL prompted the confrontation? Was it not the CRIMINAL 'looking for trouble' by targeting the ARMED CITIZEN and pushing him into a self defense situation? This line of thinking is similar to accusing a rape victim of wanting to be raped because she was supposedly dressed provocatively." | PRO | 219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00046-000 |
Food labeling does not change consumer behavior. Food labels may include useful dietary information, but they will not significantly impact actual consumption for two reasons. The first is that people don’t really read or use the labels. A study at WSU shows that only 41% of men actually read the labels. The women did better, but still only 59% of them actually read the labels – which does not mean they actually understood or heeded the advice on them.[1] The second reason concerns the connection between actually getting the information and acting on it. Research on posting calories on restaurant menus shows that customers actually ordered slightly more calories compared to before the information was made available.[2] Thus we see that food labels are not enough to nudge customers towards better and healthier food choices. [1] Warman, S., Reading food labels can help battle obesity, published 9/16/2010, http://www.weightworld.co.uk/health-and-diet-news/reading-food-labels-can-help-battle-obesity-1917.html, accessed 9/15/2011 [2] Hartocollis, A., Calorie Postings Don’t Change Habits, Study Finds, published 10/6/2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/nyregion/06calories.html, accessed 9/15/2011 | PRO | a9dd859d-2019-04-15T20:24:18Z-00013-000 |
Companies focus on profits, so will not voluntarily list calories. Companies never do what is best for the customer voluntarily, unless it increases their profit margins. For most restaurants, that don't cater to the health conscious consumer, calorie counts will hurt their business, because it will give people who are generally uninformed a real look at what they're eating. While this may be best for people, most restaurants have no incentive to do it. | PRO | fdb7b7d4-2019-04-17T11:47:29Z-00096-000 |
Roe Vs Wade is sexist and leans only towards the female's. Hello to my opponent id like you ask you to number points makes it easier to attack and defend for both sides. So since i have to waste letters by doing this do it next time please. My opponents case 1. my opponent's main arguments is that it gives women all the rights and forgets the male rights. Yet, my question to my opponent, is what right does the male have in determining something that belongs to the woman? Objection, one could argue that just because its in her body does not mean it completely belongs to her, it was the males sperm that fertalized it making it also apart of him. To just go out and say oh yeah half its DNA is yours but no its not yours? Thats just bigotry. 2. If a woman chooses to have the baby, that baby requires support from both parents. Therefore, it is logical that the baby recieves support from his/her father. Yes, but in 95% of custody cases the mother wins, meaning men get the shaft and most of the time always have to pay child support. They also calculate mens child support higher than womens. 3. 99% of pregnacies are due to consentual sex. I ask my opponent, what if there was a case where a woman was unemployed and the father was employed. Shouldn't the mother have the right to get support from the father? Thats a hypothical, the thing about those is i can say what if its reverse he has no job, she does? but this is not my arguments the point of this debate is not just child support its why do men have to pay child support and take repsonsiblity but have no say in stopping abortion? 4.It is not a one-sided ruling. The fact of the matter is what belongs to the woman is the woman's right. ................................................. oh im sorry i was kind thinking how sick this statement is, The man's sperm makes that baby without it you wouldn't have it. Its a part of him not 100% female's its a 50/50 why don't we have 50/50 rights? Last time a check females don't asexually reproduce, it does not fully belong to them and to not allow a man the right to stop and abortion is wrong because when it comes to money oh its our responsiblity but when it comes to what happens to that embryo we don't? its hypocritical and sexist. | PRO | 3a7933f2-2019-04-18T18:47:01Z-00003-000 |
students should not be penalizaed for missing classes. When you have shown your ideas about this, I have one thing in mind. You are in developed world, while i am in developing country. The system is very different from each other. The kind system that you have been mentioned is not valid in developing country like mine. Students need to study only 4 hours a day in their state school not a full day, so they have time to work. Many business company are also hired them and pay them money. School doesn't have much money to support the poor students as you said. The school has not much scholarship for more than 100 students per school. In our world, students is responsible for their own problems and things. The school can help some of their things, but not all not the family financial problems, so students still have to find job by their own. Footballer should not be in college? They can't have right to get others education beside their talent to play football??? They may want to learn other subjects in college, but not all. so they still miss some classes. I talk in general, not always in college. Many school want to save money, so they hired some unqualified teachers that paid low salary. Some of these teachers still have in many schools. Anyway, your arguments are not always correct. Kid skip school, so they should be penalized. But it doesn't always mean kid skip school to do bad things, so kids should not be penalized. We can give them advice not penalized them. Costs school tax doesn't affect to the school's destiny. When student enrolled, they have to pay the full course. Even he or she doesn't come to study, but the school get money already. Nothing that Costs school tax will affect the school. I still believe 'Students should not be penalized for missing classes'. Finally, i am very happy and i feel interested with the arguments that we have made in this debate. I thank you again for The_Master that spent time debating with me. I hope we will have more chances discussing about other motions again. | PRO | c7d795d8-2019-04-18T18:01:42Z-00001-000 |
The death of god. "Why not off myself right now? Why continue to live this meaningless life? I pose these questions to hopefully show you that life has a meaning. So tell me, if life as you see it has no meaning, why don't you off yourself right now? Do I want you to commit suicide? No, I believe life has value. Why would life have value if it were meaningless? I am sure you can find a hundred philosophical answers to this question. Therefore, the question stands, does the value of life give meaning to life?" You wish for my rebuttal? Very well. First the reason behind not killing yourself: Because you have the religion escape, as i said in my argument. People turn to god (and yes i use both God and god i am sorry if i was confusing i mean them both as god for all religions) for the escape from no meaning. An afterlife gives us meaning so that we can go on. However the value of life does not, in itself, give meaning to life. I give you more of my afformentiond writer. Nietzche saw that a god-based system was devoid of meaning. He thought that the idea of an all-powerful, all loving, and all knowing being was not a strong enough view for people in the new western scientific world view. The scientific view tell us that Humans are not so great. We are not the center of the universe. We are one planet revolving around one star that is one of billions of others. The overman: a being that trancends the accepted value system and goes on to create his own values. " Let us therefore limit ourselves to the purification of our opinions and valuations and to the creation of our opinions and valuations and to the creation of our own new tables of what is good. We however want to become those we are- human beings who are new, unique, incomparable, who give themselves laws, who created themselves." Nietzsche. These new humans who "give themselves laws" and "create themselves" are Overmen. The Overman is a being who cares only for everything. He hates none, and loves all, he cares for none, but helps all. The overman is the stage at which man becomes god. All caring and all loving. One who lives simply to live and enjoy the wonders of life. A reason to live? None. God and an afterlife is not necessary for an Overman. He simply lives with the knowledge that it has no meaning and that he will continue to love despite that fact. I now GRATEFULLY await your response. Thank you for taking me up on this | PRO | d6e98289-2019-04-18T19:12:10Z-00003-000 |
Holocaust deniers should challenged rather than ignored. Often, I have found many do lack information. True, they hold onto their opinions regardless of true facts but if others see the facts presented, they may not be left to believe in revisionist history. Many did not challenge Hitler, saying he was a ridiculous corporal with silly ideas. Those silly ideas went on to ravage Europe. If we do not stand up and say "you are wrong and here's why"... then we are not standing up for what is right. We need to make our voices counted among those who will not tolerate the memory of those who died....to be forgotten. | PRO | e6e6614d-2019-04-18T14:24:32Z-00002-000 |
National Security is more important than privacy. For this round, I will keep my opening argument short. In today's topic, we are arguing if National Security is more important than ones privacy. The definitions have been defined in the first round, and me and my opponent both agree with the definitions. To begin the argument, I will discuss on how privacy is not really worth it, compared to National Security. Privacy, like defined before, is "The state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people". I admit we need our privacy at times, but the safety of ones country is much more greater. Think about it like this, do you have anything to hide? Are you doing anything illegal? If not, then why worry? Secondly, the National Security did work until Obama enlisted the use of Government Transparency. Government Transparency is defined as: "Government's obligation to share information with citizens". It can be good and bad, depending on how one looks at it; but I will prove on how its bad. Stated under the article "The Truth About Transparency - Why Wikileaks Is Bad for All of Us", it states that the reasoning it is bad, to have Government Transparency, is because of us, the viewers, learning what the Government is doing; and have many disagreements with their actions. In fact, it actually takes away the Governments privacy, which is way more important than an unknown individuals privacy. And the benefits within the privacy of the Government is the allowance to do missions, and accomplish those missions which protects society; with no interference. And well as the fact that the Patriot Act is actually being wanted to be renewed. Stated under the article "Americans Say They Want The Patriot Act Renewed ", it states that 61% of people want the act renewed because of the safety it has promoted within the country. Sources: http://www.shaheen.senate.gov... http://www.dhs.gov... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.npr.org... | PRO | a1f4359c-2019-04-18T14:31:04Z-00005-000 |
should deadbeat parents be punished by law. Definition of deadbeat - "One who does not pay one's debts. A lazy person; a loafer." [1] Since this is applying to parents, I will adjust the definition to, "A parent who does not pay one's debts. A lazy parent." I await to see my opponent's argument that a parent not staying up to date on the loans or is just plain lazy should be prosecuted for child cruelty. [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... | CON | 152fef66-2019-04-18T19:00:26Z-00005-000 |
Non-biological Surrogate Mothers Should Have The Right To Keep The Child. Now an extremely large number of people will see this debate, and think like almost all do that the Con side has the moral high ground and I would agree with that. On legal grounds the surrogate mothers have the right to keep the baby if they would like to, Biological or not. It states in law this, and I will offer a source to this. https://www.gov.uk.... Thank you and good luck. | PRO | a45086aa-2019-04-18T16:36:57Z-00002-000 |
Affirmative Action. True, people are obligated to preserve their rights otherwise they don't have a right to complain that they don't have them, and no one is going to go fill up said morons ditch because its not safe, they would leave that to him. Though if it is something beyond their capability, they should receive help as this would be the case in any other situation, such as someone falling into a ditch not because of himself, but because some other buffoon dug a ditch. And though issue would get fixed by themselves in a free market system, who's going to ensure that the free market remains free? The government ob course, because the government is there to protect the rights of the people, which includes property and liberty, as ell as the pursuit of property, i.e. a free market is a human right, which the government must preserve. | PRO | c69ecef1-2019-04-18T13:20:48Z-00000-000 |
The Ghosts in 'The Turn of the Screw' were Imagined by the Governess. "how can the governess imagine somethign [sic] in a movie or book"Your claims make no sense. The Governess, as a fictional charater, will think whatever the author wants her to think. Many writers over the coarse of history have taken advantage of the fact that their audience perceives the story only through the eyes of an unreliable narrator and as such can have no idea what is objectively taking place in the story. Fight Club is perhaps one of the most famous examples of this. This is what I believe occurs in The Turn of the Screw. As we are told only the version of the story the governess herself remembers, we are told that the ghosts were real, because that is what the governess thought. However, as in the scenes I described above, there is actually no other proof of this. Furthermore the governess' own mental state has been called in to question by many critics and it is often asserted that she was mentally unstable and sexually repressed. Indeed the control she begins to exhibit over the children in many instances feels unnatural and overbearing. She also fantasises over the childrens uncle, becoming noticeably preoccupied with the hope that he will return to the house to sweep her off her feet. Therefore it is fully possible that she, as a finctional character imagines the hauntings that take place at Bly. | PRO | 83f9d0f3-2019-04-18T13:32:52Z-00001-000 |
The Democratic Party and Republican Party are not the same party with different names. I will limit the primary reasons to three points. 1. Different reasoning The Democratic Party tends to lean left. While the Republican Party leans right. The left-right spectrum tends to be viewed as the separation between those who believe in equality and those who do not subscribe to equality. Left is associated with equality while the right is associated with inequality. The difference is not absolute because there are individuals who subscribe to some left wing and some right wing ideas(1). (1)Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction-Bobbio 2. Difference theories about governance The two parties have distinctively different ideas on how the United States should be governed. Here is the two party platforms. Democratic Platform: . http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu... Republican Platform: . http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu... 3. Different in practice Not a single Republican voted for the ACA. | PRO | f35c13cc-2019-04-18T16:52:01Z-00003-000 |
Goats are better than Donkeys. I urge viewers to watch it should viewers need a laugh. Take note however, this resolution isn't about humour, but about how Goats are better than donkeys. How goats are more beneficial than donkeys. Pro's ConcessionI am shocked by his concession. Instead of disapproving my stance, he agreed with it that donkeys serve a crucial role for society, as he states "Walmart sells donkey meat. Donkeys are known well for making precious milk or cheese. . http://worldnews.nbcnews.com...... . http://www.milkingredients.ca...... ". I'd like to thank Pro for bolstering my argument and for providing sources for me. Pro's goat kicking theoryPro claimed that Goats have kicking abilities by looking at a few pictures on google. Pro argued without evidence. As Christopher Hitchen says“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. ” Even I can argue that donkeys have kicking abilities by looking at their pictures and intrepreting it the way I like. Without a proper scientific source, his argument is nullified. Better yet, I can say that since donkeys have the same role as horses, and as horses have kicking abilities(1) as explained by the accidental horseman "When in a herd and as part of their natural pecking order, horses will bite or kick at their mates". I can argue that donkeys inherit the same ability. He asserts his argument without evidence. His theory holds no empirical value. EVIDENCE should precede argument, NOT ARGUMENT precede EVIDENCE. (Not my quote, I rephrased it from Ed Miliband's speech in House of Commons during the debate on Intervention in Syria)Deadly DonkeysPro argued that donkeys are dangerous and ruthless but he did not argue how this was linked to "Goats better than donkey" argument. As with sharks, they are also dangerous. what is pro trying to suggest? that we should kill ruthless animals for being aggressive? . That is for another debate with a proper resolution, not this debate that warrants that goats to be better than donkeys. Benefits of GoatsPro cites without proper evidence to back his opinion on "cut grass for free because of their want for grass". He should have at least linked it to their diet, but he didn't. The resolution is nullifiedPro lack of RebuttalsMy Contention was offered and he did not refute any of my arguments. Therefore, I ask that my argument be extended to future rounds. I'd like to thank Pro for making me laugh. This is very funny but I must suggests that he sticks with the current resolution as what was AGREED. Till then, I await his next argumentSource(1). http://hglanham.tripod.com... | CON | b5ca5261-2019-04-18T16:33:19Z-00002-000 |
Would our founding fathers of America approve of current government. Hello, happy to be debating this round. My position, for this resolution, will be that the Founding Fathers of the United States, that is, people like George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, would approve of the current government of the United States writ large, as viewed through the lens of American Constitutional law. I cannot defend every possible objection, of course, but I think through this round I will demonstrate that, on the macro level, the Founding Fathers would accept the current system of governance. I look forward very much to this debate and to Con's arguments. Let the debate begin! | PRO | 140b6a2c-2019-04-18T16:12:40Z-00004-000 |
Scandinavia is better than the U.S.A. 1. The Norwegian's pay an astronomical amount for taxes. It is at 39 percent. http://www.tradingeconomics.com... 2. I never said they were happy. I'm saying we are much more patriotic than any Scandinavian countries. http://www.borgenmagazine.com... 6. None of your countries are the richest countries the world. Qatar is. Norway is the closest at #6. Like YOU mentioned before America has one of the biggest populations in the world, so therefore we're first in a lot of things. 7.Your article mentions how America gives the most money to charity. I don't really care about percentages, there are two countries bigger than us in population. So it still matters. 8. Exactly, Scandinavia is a lot more limited than America. That is another benefit of ours. 10. Natural geography? It isn't even a competition, America has much better environmental feats. We have the Grand Canyon, Niagra Falls, Mt. McKinley, which happens to be the third largest mountain in the world. 11. Canada does not have a queen. 13. It doesn't matter if you have a smaller population, the point is it wouldn't be a competition if we went to war. Even if we went on a percentage basis, the patriotism argument comes to play. America is THE MOST patriotic country in the world. We would fight the hardest to protect our country and it's freedom. 14. http://geography.about.com... Although the link is from 2011, Wikipedia has the same positions, but the numbers are increased. All I have time for. | CON | 18a698b-2019-04-18T14:20:39Z-00002-000 |
Rap battle. niggas aint got s%$# cuz biiches on my d%^@niggas aint got biichescuz i got s%#$ on my d#$@ (ferreal)ye aint got 20 inch rimsye aint got dem manly limbsgugan's the nigga's nameand he got no biiches (shame)call me cherrytree i chop yo asss down.makin gugan look like he's a f$#%in' clown.dis battle was over b4 it begun, son,i shoot down fake niggas like im strappin a gun (BRAP BRAP BRAP) over | CON | 56d5325a-2019-04-18T16:49:06Z-00002-000 |
Their is evidence for Creation. You are saying that there is evidence for creation. The burden is on you to present the evidence. If you can not present evidence, your argument is little more than a baseless assertion. If you do present what you consider to be evidence, it would be my job to point out how the evidence you present does not necessarily imply a supreme being. Random is defined as "Proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern". One could argue that nothing is truly random, and random is an illusion created by our own inability to account for all variables. Aim is defined as "To intend or direct for a particular effect or purpose". If there is an aim, we are not aware of it. Reason is defined as "A basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc". Matter seems to be consistent in that it operates under cause and effect. You could call that reason. Pattern is defined as "A combination of qualities, acts, tendencies, etc., forming a consistent or characteristic arrangement". Patterns are apparent in just about everything once enough information is gathered. Things that once appeared to be random are shown to work under the same cause and effect laws as everything else. If something appears to be random, it is due to ignorance of these variables unaccounted for. I doubt anything is truly random. It would be a bit of a stretch to say that DNA is proof of creation. (All definitions once again pulled from Dictionary.com) | CON | c7bdd857-2019-04-18T18:54:26Z-00002-000 |
3 divided by 0 is 3. I have 3 real sodas, I divide them between no one, so no times, shared by none, so I have not done anything, so its true to say 0 division happened but I have 3 sodas 3/1=3 3/0=3 why is 3 divided with 1, 3 when there is no division going on? the outcome of dividing with 0 is the same as dividing with 1 everything is 1, everything is something, and nothing is 0, matter and information, physical and mental | PRO | 4303ca35-2019-04-18T15:34:17Z-00003-000 |
The State should be separated from the Church or churches. In displaying a faith’s text it is effectively endorsing it. The state is secular: government schools may teach religion, but not preach it. It is clear that displaying the Commandments is intended not merely to inform students of their existence and meaning, but rather to instruct them in and promote Christian belief. Schools should be teaching children to think critically and form their own worldview rather than being forced to conform to a religion so early in life. | PRO | e5cb277d-2019-04-19T12:46:50Z-00008-000 |
Gambling for Muslims in Vea. I just noticed something that I for some reason failed to notice before and would like to amend at this time. The argument: ///If the government were to make a law that prohibited only Muslims from entering casinos they would in effect be violating this amendment by making a law that only applies to Muslims./// is now If the government were to make a law that prohibited only Muslims from entering or specifically allowed Muslims entrance to casinos they would in effect be violating this amendment by making a law that only applies to Muslims. | CON | 68034be7-2019-04-18T19:10:36Z-00002-000 |
Should Minecraft be allowed in schools. This is my final post. hope you like it. http://www.dogonews.com... Sweden has to be one of the coolest places for a kid to grow up in - First, they introduced the concept of schools with no grades or classrooms, then came Monstrum's amazing playgrounds and now, the coolest idea of all - 'Forcing' 13-year-olds to play Minecraft as part of the classroom curriculum. The seed for this rather radical idea was planted when the government of Sweden organized a national school competition called 'Future City' for which classrooms were asked to submit their ideas about the kind of structures they envisioned in the Sweden of the future. It was such a success that educators at Stockholm's Viktor Rydberg school decided to continue this 'out of the box' thinking by incorporating Minecraft into the class curriculum for 13-year-students. According to the teachers, the game which challenges kids to use their imagination by building virtual worlds complete with electricity grids, water supply pumps and anything else they would like to see in their future, allows students to think beyond the classroom frontiers. This they believe, will help them make better decisions as adults, especially about things like the environmental impact of their actions. And while it may sound radical to most people they liken it to teaching a woodcraft class - except in this case, all the construction is being conducted in a virtual world. So far, 180, 13-year girls and boys, have participated in this mandatory unit, which not surprisingly has been such a huge hit that the school is planning to make it a permanent addition to their curriculum. It of course augments, not replaces, core subjects like math and science. The educators say that even parents who were a little apprehensive about their kids playing video games at school, are now on board and fully support this decision. We wonder if any school in the US would even consider such a drastic curriculum addition - And how parents would react. | PRO | e97ec190-2019-04-18T16:13:41Z-00000-000 |
I automatically win. automatically= occurring spontaneously, reflexively. burden of proof = the duty of proving a disputed charge [1] Untrue. Contention 1: Credibility Debates are decided largely on the basis of credibility. Pretend you say nothing. You do not reply to this argument. You fail to post an argument in all subsequent rounds. Does this fulfill the burden of proof? No. So it is an action the affirmative is trying to defend. Yet if a person says nothing, there is nothing to sway the mind of others toward their side. Contention 2: See-saw. In a normal debate, each person has arguments to prove a resolution. Yet suppose one side does not make any new arguments, but only reply to those of their opponent. You are not fulfilling the burden of proof for your side. You are not advancing your case. You may still win if you fully defeat all my arguments, but if I have even one argument left standing, then I win the debate. To win, you must tip the see-saw of opinion toward your side, or at least make it balanced. Yet if I have anything left on one side, I still win. Thank you to the voters, to mom, to dad, and to America and the global economy as a whole. Goodnight ladies and gentlemen. [1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... | CON | 11327d4e-2019-04-18T18:58:48Z-00003-000 |
The South was justified in leaving the Union prior to the Civil War. The resolution stands.The supreme court ruled that secession was illegal. The supreme court is the ultimate proof, right by the Constitution, of what is and is not legal in the United States. If the Supreme Court rules that an action is illegal, then by its Constitutional authority, that action IS illegal. Therefore, the south was not legally justified. The resolution stands. The south seceded to keep slavery. Slavery is immoral. The South was not morally justified. Given that southern secession was not justified in either faction of the concept of "justification," I urge that the South was not justified at all in seceding. Vote CON. Thankyou for reading. | CON | a4a05840-2019-04-18T18:43:43Z-00000-000 |
Donald Trump is sensationalised in countries other than the USA. Memes, hate club pages and phony news articles cover the internet and advocate the ideas of Donald Trump in a hateful way. This has imposed a general dislike for the politician within our population. Is this deserved? For many people in countries other than the USA, the true motives of the politician are sometimes questioned. America is a large world power and honest interpretations of the president seem to be essential in the smooth running of a fragile world. | PRO | cf793477-2019-04-18T13:28:54Z-00004-000 |
Sasquatch does not exist. My opponent says, "the amount of evidence required to convince skeptics is huge". Who cares what skeptics think? The only people that need to be convinced that Bigfoot exists are the scientists that can determine whether they exist or not. The skeptics decision can then be made on their own by viewing the conclusiveness of the evidence determined by the scientists. The amount of evidence needed to prove a species existence is as small as a strand of hair. Even though hairs are small, and only a small amount are needed, the evidence that can be drawn from them can be huge. Still, no hair has been found to convince scientists or skeptics. I don't know why the FBI's most wanted keeps popping up in this debate. All I want to say to this is that my opponent has misinterpreted me TWICE on this subject. I clearly said, "In America we have the technology, skill, and intelligence to track down 'a' person hiding anywhere in the country", yet somehow my opponent thinks this means that we can track down "anyone" in the country. Even though similar, 'a' and 'anyone' are not identical in meaning. My opponent argues that there is no physical evidence of Bigfoot because an average person would not assume hair or bones that they found would belong to Bigfoot, which makes sense. But imagine this: You are walking in the woods when in the distance you spot a creature that you believe to be Bigfoot. This creature walks out of sight or runs away before you have time to get a picture or take a video. What would you do? Would you go back home and report your eye witness account that has almost zero credibility? Hopefully not, because the smart thing to do would be to go to the location where you spotted the creature, find its footprints, and then try to find either a sample of hair or skin from the area and bring that with you in the hopes that you have managed to find DNA proof of Bigfoot. Heck, you could even chase after it! My point is that finding physical evidence is very possible, but nobody out of the thousands of reported witnesses have done it. Sounds fishy to me. So think about it. Which side of this debate is easier or more likely to believe? The argument that Bigfoot does exist is only held afloat by faulty eye witness accounts, photos, videos, and footprints that can all be very easily faked. There is no real evidence that Bigfoot exists. On the other hand, you have the argument that Bigfoot does not exist. This side of the argument is supported by logic, facts, and science. So which side is easier to believe? Hopefully I don't need to answer that for you, because the conclusion is obvious. Thank you Rainbowdash52 for debating this topic with me. | PRO | bf2b4ba9-2019-04-18T16:04:59Z-00001-000 |