argument
stringlengths 201
3.55k
| stance
stringclasses 2
values | id
stringlengths 36
39
|
|---|---|---|
2nd wave and 3rd wave/modern feminism is harmful and should not exist. I challenged my opponent, because they challenged me to a flawed resolution. I am not against gender equality, I am against modern day feminism and 2nd wave feminism (about 1960's-70's). This round will not be for acceptance. 2nd round opening arguments. 3rd round is new arguments/rebuttals (both,or one). 4th round is for rebuttals. 5th round is for rebuttals and closing statements. | PRO | 219852fa-2019-04-18T16:01:33Z-00009-000 |
Attempting to ban it would only cause further problems. Even if achieving a fully effective ban is impossible, it is the responsibility of the feminist movement to take a stance and not condone practices that harm women in practice and promote dangerous messages. Making it illegal will limit it at least an extent, and due to all the harms pornography causes the smallest improvement is an important goal. It is an exaggeration to claim pornography would have such an effect. The reasons for banning pornography would be the same as for banning prostitution (coercion issues for the participants) and other forms of media that incite to directly offensive acts towards particularly vulnerable people. It is, rather, the actual sexual culture and view of people’s relationships promoted by pornography that leads to higher levels of rape and harassment. | CON | d0d42864-2019-04-15T20:24:40Z-00020-000 |
My mom is a turd. im going to start off by saying,in this world today you could never be too carefull with the rapes,drugs,and violence in our country you could also never be too carefull about who is around.like i siad i agree that your mom is just trying to be protective over her child.and on the subject of your friend chloe,you shouldnt have to clean up after a other persons mistakes,yes she has many problems but you have to faces the facts millions of people have problems and from what i understand you have been trying to help her for over a year with all her drama and she still continues with drugs and other and more problems at a very young age and from what i understand you and her having problems with her right?anyways hopping back to your mother issues,ill admit that there should be some limits on her stubborn ways but until there are some limits you still have to play under her rules.you are only 14,you should go back to that shrink your parents got you......you obvisely still need it | CON | c95daaff-2019-04-18T18:53:42Z-00002-000 |
Ban mandatory subjects from high school. This arguement would be about banning mandatory subjects for high schools. I would be representing the the "Pro/For" side to this debate. This debate would have 3 rounds. The first round would be used to introduce the debators, clarify the rules and definitions. The actual debate would start at round two. Voting period would last 3 days, time to argue would be 48 hours and a maximum of 6,000 characters per arguement.RULES- No use of Profanity (Swearing)- No trolling- Labeling your sources is optional and is only mandatory if your opponent ask for the sourcesDefinitions- Ban: Officially or legally prohibit (e.g. Putting a ban on television)- Mandatory: Required by law or rules (e.g. It is mandatory to wear a seat belt)- High School: Grade 9 to 12Opponent you are obligated to address any info, rules or definitions that I have missed, but you can't change any of the info, rules or definitions that have been said. | PRO | 14469620-2019-04-18T18:09:58Z-00003-000 |
Electronic voting can make the franchise more accessible. Voter apathy cannot be solely attributed to having to walk to your local polling station. It can also be attributed to general disillusionment with the campaigning political parties, and the idea that none of them will perform well in government[1]. Political parties which focus more strongly on national rather than constituency campaigning can also inspire voter apathy[2]. The problems behind voter apathy are far greater than can be solved by trying to change the practical aspect of voting; it is the fact that voters often feel neglected by their government which is a far greater concern[3]. [1] http://otago.ourarchive.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/1456/voter_turnout.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://otago.ourarchive.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/1456/voter_turnout.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.independentliaison.com.au/Independent_values.html, accessed 24/08/11 | CON | 2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00010-000 |
Should under 14 year olds be allowed to have phone. If you are under fourteen and you are hanging around a group of friends at least one of them will have a phone, if not then there should be an adult with the group. it is also possible to use your parents phone if you need to contact friends. Technology (mostly phones) have literally taken over this world. So many people are socially awkward and become addicted to their phones. It is a scientifically proved fact that phones/technology are addictions and people have gained withdrawal symptoms from it. Also the people who have phones usually get depressed easier and the majority of the suicides in the us are caused by social media and Cyber bullies. | CON | 11a0a266-2019-04-18T12:00:48Z-00000-000 |
Parents should have the right to have their male children circumsized. While I agree with you that there may be some negatives associated with circumcision although the benefits largely out weigh them. When a male child is circumcised the risk of contracting a urinary tract infection in later life is much lower, just one of the many health benefits of the medical procedure. Also while the tissue is healthy and functional, in modern society religion and cultural beliefs play a major role, although I am a white Atheist, the practice is common among Jewish communities. Such a practice is traditional and in the Jewish religion, parents believe that circumcising their male child will bring him respect and admiration from God, what gives anyone the right, whether they are of the same religion or not, to tell a family that they cannot carry out a harmless traditional medical procedure on their child? I would agree with you if it caused serious issues for the child later on in life, but it is quite rare that there are complications involved and the procedure is done with care and by a trained professional. My opponent states that there is no concrete evidence to suggest that male circumcision has any medical benefits and while I agree with you on that, has there been any concrete evidence to suggest it is harmful to the child? Maybe just a couple of cases but then again there have been a few cases where it has proved to quite beneficial. In fact there have probably been more cases of it benefiting the child than harming him. | PRO | a1c82cd8-2019-04-18T18:19:05Z-00003-000 |
sportsmen and women are overpaid. I hate to sound trite, but please vote on this debate based on who has put forth the better arguments - not your own personal opinion. That said, for now I will address this round the same way my opponent has: (relatively) short and sweet. "sportsmen and women are vastly overpaid." Opinion. Consider supply and demand. "sports people just entertian" Not true. They (figuratively) put people in the stands. They sell tickets, thus, they make money. Also, outside of a team's franchise, they also promote endorsements and in turn make a whole lot of other people a bunch of money too. "how can we possibly think a football player for example is more deserving of large amounts of money than the emergancy services, or help groups like the samaritans?" I just told you - supply and demand. I mean I'd hate to get into a whole economic discussion here, but I will if I have to. Basically it all comes down to where people are willing to allocate their money. And finally, some contentions of my own: Many people feel that athletes actually earn every dollar they make. They possess a skill, the same way a seamstress or a painter utilizes their skills to make a profit. Also, consider the amount of preparation a doctor undergoes in order to obtain his PhD. Now think about the physical training one endures to become a professional athlete. Sportsmen and women have talent, experience, and not to mention make a lot of sacrifices in order to keep their jobs (traveling, being in the public eye, constant physical improvement, etc.). Remember that athletes can get fired just as easily for poor performance as any other occupation. So, to win on this point alone, Pro would have to prove why an athlete's compensation is undeserved - not just state that it is in comparison with other professionals/institutions. And might I add that not all athletes are millionaires, including the professionals (the resolution doesn't specify amateur or pro, but I won't pull a Logical-Master and manipulate it to "flex my creative muscle" lol). Anyway, your move. Good luck. | CON | 709d140a-2019-04-18T19:44:06Z-00003-000 |
Morality is not Relative. The debate between cultural absolutists, who believe in one universal moral truth, and cultural relativists, who believe that morality is culturally based, is not new. Philosophers contemplated objectivity in ethics since the time of Socrates and have yet to find an answer. The Cultural Differences argument, used to defend cultural relativism, is widely supported as proof that morality is culturally influences. I believe, however, that the logic used in this argument is extremely flawed. In this rebuttal against the notion of relative morality, I will debunk the Cultural Differences argument and attest to the absolute and universal nature of ethics. The Cultural Differences argument, which entails that different cultures have different moral codes and therefore, there is no objective "truth" in morality, is simply unsound. Relativists claim that since right and wrong (morals) are only matters of opinion, and morals vary from culture to culture, morality must be relative to culture. This is not logical because belief does not instantly imply truth. If a culture believes that the earth is flat and another culture believes that it is round, a lack of objective "truth" in geography is not implied. Cultural relativism completely bypasses the fact that one culture could be right while the other is simply mistaken. Furthermore, belief in cultural relativism has vitiating results to society. For example, we would no longer be able to say that one society was morally better than or inferior to the other. This is seemingly harmless until matters of moral dilemma are brought up such as anti-Semitism and slavery. It is common sense that a society that supports Jews and freedom is better than one that doesn"t but cultural relativism deems that observation unjust. Another problem is that we would also be able to distinguish between right and wrong by consulting our society. | PRO | aa9e07cd-2019-04-18T17:27:01Z-00005-000 |
North Korea couldn't win a war against the US. True but actually North Korean nukes are even less powerful as the bomb used on Hiroshima, if they have nukes it is not proved they have the ability to launch them, and if they have it would be for a reach of less than a few hundreds kilometers, And they would be not match against SAM Patriots interceptors, furthermore the atomic striking back would be fatal for NK. | PRO | 19218c5-2019-04-18T17:38:44Z-00001-000 |
Free Will. You are messing with the wrong debater here... I have fate backing me ------>The case against free will begins with understanding insanity and how people with higher sentience than an animal but lower sentience than the average human operate. Whether it's Down's syndrome etc. you will see that the more people are able to access mentally, the 'freer' the will appears to society.It is such that Fate sets you up to make decisions again and again and yes the 'option of chocolate' exists in your perception but in reality to Bob, the option was never a real option at all even if he felt that it was.Pro concedes (so I won't provide proof unless demanded to) that the chemistry of the body and biochemistry of the brain's neurones and physiological interactions of neurones etc. are the entirety (yes entirety) of what leads people like Bob to end up picking vanilla and even to want ice cream in the first place (their memory of ice cream is being triggered in some shape or form by a combination of hunger, perhaps heat or perhaps an urge to feel child-like again). Pro concedes these influence the decision but says they see no reason to think that a person can't still choose between multiple options in how they respond to those thoughts and desires. Well here is where the flaw is:1) The 'response' is part of the result of the desires and thoughts.2) There is no 'responding to one's own response unless Pro means in hindsight. Bob easily could regret choosing vanilla later on and this would in no way at all prove free will but instead encourage us to think Bob was trapped in a limited mindset and body chemistry that made him go for Vanilla on impulse combined with lack of an urge to prevent that impulse.So in other words, Pro is saying that because there are other options I (Con) am denying that the individual responds to the 'choice' and 'chooses' as a response to their thoughts and desires. Where Pro is going wrong is that the very response itself is chained to said thoughts and desires.The remainder of Pro's Round 2 has been annihlated by this fantastic, eloquently written rebuttal. I thank you for thanking me for reading this masterpiece.http://www.youtube.com... | CON | f2408842-2019-04-18T11:26:32Z-00002-000 |
Solipsism is the Only True Philosophy. I graciously accept the challenge set forth by the might individual to determine whether "Solipsism is the Only True (real) Philosophy." I acknowledge that this question has historically vexed philosophers throughout the ages and it proper to address such an issue. Moreover, I tentatively accept the first stipulation "No using "common sense" as an argument" but would ask my opponent to clarify the terms "common sense". I interpret such a term to mean an ad populum appeal. If I misunderstand the intent, I would ask for clarification. Second, I find the second stipulation "No bailing out" rather vague and lacking a historically "clear and distinct" formulation. Is my worthy opponent asking whether I commit to complete the stated rounds of the debate? If so, I readily agree. If I misunderstand the stipulation, I ask for the necessary clarification. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Onwards. First, it must be acknowledge that the issue being forwarded is an assertion that solipsism is the following: 1.True and real 2.A philosophy, proper 3.Singular in excellence (e.g. the "only") Moreover, it is argued, by my opponent, that the warrants for such an assertion are the following: 1.The mind cannot absorb information or observe the world around it 2.Scientists have done experiments on mice, apes, and humans now too to replace and replicate "real" memory. 3.Interactions between people can be false. It must be noted that the aforementioned warrants are rather peculiar. They, by definition, invoke the following: 1.An external world (cf. The mind cannot absorb information or observe "the world around it.") 2.Other individuals & creatures (cf. "Scientists" have done experiments on "mice, apes, and humans"). 3.Relationships (cf. "Interactions" between people). Now, if it is the contention by the mighty individual that "solipsism is the only true & real philosophy, then he is invoking a rather odd set of propositions and warrants to support such a claim. I thank my opponent for taking the historically indefensible position of solipsism (Bravo), but I readily acknowledge that invoking the external world, and all that is in, is a rather strange way of proving that solipsism is "true" and "real." I am flummoxed by the notion that an appeal to the external world is proof of " that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure." Much less, I find such an assertion contrary to the notion that, "The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind." I would ask that my worthy opponent answer this apparent contradiction to forward his assertion that solipsism is 1. true and real 2. a philosophy, proper 3. singular in excellence (e.g. the "only"). | CON | d403f5d4-2019-04-18T16:32:35Z-00003-000 |
The death penalty should be legalized. I have to apologise to my opponent. As a result of the circumstances I mentioned in the first round (emergency travel and very intermittent access to the Internet), I will not be able to research and put up a satisfactory response to my opponent's arguments in time. If my opponent is willing, I would like to hold off on this debate for now, and continue it at a mutually beneficial time. If my opponent does not agree, I am willing to concede this debate at this point. | PRO | 15a94d7c-2019-04-18T15:05:25Z-00004-000 |
Song Debate: Defend your favorite band or artist!. It's really tough picking out Oomph songs, being how diverse their 22 years and 11 albums are. Not only that, they generally maintain a balance, or sway between accessible 'mainstream' songs on the occasion, but the bulk of their work is very unique and unconventional. I can't say what style would appeal the most to my opponent and the users, so I'll simply highlight as much variety as I can. To begin, a very overlooked, but magnificent track from one of their more recent albums. Oomph! - Eine Frau spricht im Schlaf (A woman sleeps in sleep) Album: GlaubeLiebeTod Year: 2005 http://www.youtube.com... English translation of lyrics: ------------------------------------------------------- As he woke up in the middle of the night His heart beat so hard that he got frightened For the woman who lay beside him laughed That it sounded as if it were Judgement Day And he heard her voice elegise And he felt that she was asleep nonetheless Since they were both lying blind in the darkness He only saw the words she called Why don't you kill me faster? She asked and weeped like a child And her weeping came from that cellar Where the dreams are walled in How many years do you still want to hate me? She called and lay uncannily still Don't you want to let me live on Because I don't want to live without you? Her questions stood like ghosts That are frightened of themselves And the night was black and without windows And didn't seem to know what was happening He, the man in the bed, was in no laughing mood Dreams are to be truth-loving But he told himself: "What shall one do?" And decided not to wake up at night again Thereupon he fell asleep consoled -------------------------------------------- Interpretation: These are some of Oomph!'s more poetic lyrics. To me, this about a man whose own conscious haunts him at night, when he lays awake unable to be distracted by what he's done. I'm not sure yet if he murdered her and buried her in his cellar, or if the dreams walled in the cellar is the subconsciousness, where her (and his own) emotional despair dwell. But either way, in the end we learn he simply copes with the struggle by submitting to his inability to find the solution to his woes, thereupon sleeping. In fact, he determines to give up entirely, symbolized by his resolution to not even wake up at night any more. | CON | d3bbf6d9-2019-04-18T17:13:42Z-00004-000 |
it is better to be nice or honest. For now, I will completely ignore the grammar and spelling. I will be arguing that it is always best to be nice to someone (con). As my opponent has not laid any ground rules, I will use all sources available; you are now not allowed to set the "terms and conditions" in the second or third round. It is my opinion, that it is always better to be nice. As my opponent has not stated that this isn't allowed, I will say that I can be both nice and for the most part honest, but mostly nice. You can bend the truth a tiny bit, and it will make the world to some people. Some people just cannot handle the truth. Being nice has advantages too. If you are nice to people and (as per the "rules") mostly honest, a lot of good can come your way. Not only from other people who think of you as a kind person, but it can also greatly improve your mental health. After being kind to someone, a heighten in sense of well being, exhilaration, and euphoria are some of many positive symptoms. Being kind is also known to relieve pain, from headaches to back pain. It can give a small burst of energy, and remove excess stomach acid. Sources: http://apps.cignabehavioral.com... Me I wish Alice-is-always-right good luck!!! P.S. Sorry if I sounded mean about the spelling, but no one is going to take you seriously if you have bad grammar. Have someone check over it, a friend, or parent or even you! -Axelthane | PRO | f6b469cf-2019-04-18T15:09:59Z-00004-000 |
Texting while driving have the same, if not more extreme penalties as drunk driving. 'Drunk driving reduces your reaction time and alertness, while texting and driving puts both of those at their worst because you are completely taking your eyes off the road". 1. Drunk driving also impairs your judgement. This will be shown how dangerous this is. 2. Drunk driving likely has the same reaction time and alertness off texting., because it impairs your judgement. For example, you might see a car break, but decide to step on the gas anyways. '23% of auto accidents involved a cell phone, and 52% of FATAL crashes in 2011 involved a cell phone. Texting and driving is more dangerous than drunk driving and should be treated as such'. 1. We are discussing the effects of DUI and texting while driving, not the results. The reason why there are more deaths by texting than by intoxication is because less people are drinking and driving. The proper way to compare them is to have two equal groups, one drunk and the other one texting.have both drive a car and then we'll see which is worse. Now for something of my own. About the impaired judgement: You will not be able to think straight . Driving for you might turn into a 'see how many people I can run over' game. You won't stop even if you hit something. NOTICE: This argument is based off when someone is heavily drunk, not 'just a little over the limit'. | CON | ea1c81c6-2019-04-18T14:45:49Z-00002-000 |
Should students really have more than 10 subjects? ESF school. I would like to take the last part of this debate to make my last argument and debunk Pros argument. Pro above states, " What I mean is that there should be at least 4 subjects per day. Which then includes in their own timetable, their 10 subjects. People learn more, with 10+ subjects. " I agree with the fact stated that students would have more things to learn with more classes. But a major flaw in this system would be the fact of only four classes a day. This would require class rotations per day, realistically not allowing students to learn as much, and giving them a day in between to loose the taught material. This means that part of the class time would be learned reteaching what was already taught, not learning new material, which would be the point of switching to this schedule in the first place. "To succeed in school and life, children and young adults need ongoing opportunities to learn and practice essential skills" [1] . http://www.summerlearning.org... | CON | b43030a1-2019-04-18T17:09:00Z-00000-000 |
Metalcore Battle. Spelling and grammar do not apply to obscenities, as the site regulates against them. I stood over the virgin womb, spewing puss and smelling of doom I crushed the Fallopian tube, no lube my Fallopian tomb It smelled of $hit and mascara, made me harder than Viagra My Cum of blood sprayed forth, more powerful than falls of Niagra Jesus Christ came down from Heaven, smirking in woman's garb I penetrated the divine virgin and offered genital mutilation to the Lord I DRIVE AN ICE CREAM TRUCK TO ALL THE DAY CARES MAKE THE CHILDREN HELP ME WALK, FOR I AM IMPAIRED THEY RIDE ON MY LAP IN MY WHEELCHAIR I SPEW THE CUM OF BLOOD IT DYES THEIR HAIR Satanic pedophilia, nihilistic from Australia For I come from down under, from the underworld I HOPE YOU GET DIAGNOSED WITH CANCERRRR AND ON THE WAY OUT OF THE CLINICCCCC I'LL IMPREGNATE YOU WITH MY SPERM OF AIDDSSSSSSSS | CON | 1bf17f5f-2019-04-18T16:04:23Z-00004-000 |
Appropriating as your username the full name of a fictional person with whom you obviously disagree. First off maybe I misinterpreted the reason why John Galt abandoned the generator, but as I understood it he gave it up because he didn't want the looters to have it. He wanted to bring them down and it would have taken longer if they had the generator. And I don't think that a law should be passed to not allow people to burn their flags. My own personal view is that burning an American flag is a horrible act, but I don't want to force anyone either way. As far as social security goes, you got me. I was flying through the survey thing and just checked it. I am going to change it right now. With the abortion thing, my own personal belief is that it is wrong. If a woman gets pregnant it is because of her own actions (The only exceptions are rape and incest) and her and her mate have to deal with the consequences. Would you argue the same point if it were a child that was already born, and then the parents decided that they did not want to take care of it anymore? Should that child live for itself? As for my Christian faith, I do not ask others to live for me and I do not live for them. It is my individual choice to believe what I believe, which I do not feel is incompatible with the ideas presented in Atlas Shrugged. I may not be as strictly dedicated to the ideals of Atlas Shrugged as you understand them, but I believe that I should earn my own way, keep what I earn, and use it to make myself happy. As you know in Atlas Shrugged, to sacrifice is a terrible thing. I do not feel that my belief in God, my decision to not burn the American flag, and my and my future spouse's decision to not have an abortion are sacrifices because they are what will satisfy my happiness. I like to view man as a heroic being, and that is why I chose John Galt as my user name. (Also……I just really like the book!) | PRO | 29443ee5-2019-04-18T20:01:36Z-00004-000 |
The US should ban all guns. then how are we to protect ourselves from illegally bought guns large portion of shooting are illegally obtained. if all guns were banned then a shooter could shoot anywhere with out being scared of returned fire. Never mind the fact its a constitutional rights. I do think they could be stricter but not banned entirely if I was a shooter I would go for places that gun free so I would get shoot back | PRO | 9703d87a-2019-04-18T11:37:33Z-00004-000 |
Basketball is a better sport than hockey. To counter your previous point. Every professional sport takes a specific skill of its own, yet the sport of Basketball is still inferior to Hockey. According to ESPN, who is the biggest contributor to Basketball's viewing audience, Ice Hockey is 2nd in degree of difficulty in professional sports, following boxing; Basketball is 4th following Football. http://sports.espn.go.com... If not for major broadcasting stations such as ESPN over-hyping Basketball, it would have a shockingly smaller fan base than it does currently. Hockey does not disregard key rules; in Basketball there is always a person "traveling" yet they never are called on it. Isn't this against NBA rules? Hockey experiences the same problem with "Icing" but it is a lot less frequent that traveling is in Basketball. | CON | 2093606e-2019-04-18T17:30:38Z-00004-000 |
Resolved: The US Federal Government should abolish Capital Punishment. Actually Genesis confirms that when a man is murdered the murder shall be killed. I am not sure what point in your deluded mind you believe I have conceded, but the point is and the point you are avoiding is that capital punishment I just. Thus, federal law should follow God's Law to be just. I understand why those such as yourself wish to avoid this topic, but it is true. Yes, Matt 5:17-19 affirms that all of the Torah is valid and binding in and since the NT. Thus, any differences between the OT and the NT are not legal or moral. You are not too quick on the uptake, are you? Yes, Romans 13:3-4 affirms that it is the God-given duty to the state to bear not the sword in vain, which is to say execute capital criminals according to His Law (verse 2). And no, to call you a reprobate is not the ad hominem fallacy. To commit that fallacy I would have to say your argument is wrong because you are a reprobate. I did not. Rather, you have put your credibility on the line by using yourself as a reference. Notice all of the "I"s in your first two posts. When you rely on your credibility, I can attack your credibility. Surely, you have something more than whining? Your original points are irrelevant in light of the fact that capital punishment is just. And I disagree that I have not carried my burden of proof. Your saying otherwise, notwithstanding. And it is not relevant that there are different interpretations of Scripture. I am giving you the right one. BTW, the fact that the Bible is rejected (i.e., differently interpreted) by fools does not say anything about the Bible. Your argument here is a non-sequitur. | CON | 382537ad-2019-04-18T13:27:20Z-00002-000 |
The rule of "getting your driver's licence at least after you're 16" shouldn't apply to everybody. I think that getting your driver's licence only after you turn sixteen shouldn't apply to everyone. By this, I am mean that some people should be able to get it before their sixteenth birthday, and some should have to wait until after. (This can be determined by tests.) ----- my reasons: 1. Some people, when they turn the age of sixteen, are not ready to get their licence. They get on the road, and dangerous things may happen. They may also not be mature enough to drive, and want to do "crazy" things with their friends while driving. Waiting until they are mature enough to drive, may stop these risks. sixteen year olds have higher crash rates than any other driver. This rate could be lowered. http://www.rmiia.org... 2. It may be helpful to people under the age of sixteen. --example--- say, if a thirteen, fourteen, or fifteen year old had no other way to get to school, or to go places because their parents were not able to take them, or were at work. Yes, there are buses, but buses do not pick up/drop off people everywhere. ----- so if the person had their licence, it would make it that much easier for them. (This is, of course, after they pass some sort of test to show that they can drive) I will post more arguments in the second round. Thank you :) | PRO | e5f8144c-2019-04-18T19:23:48Z-00005-000 |
Roblox is horrible, and is nothing compared to minecraft. Your debate: Roblox is worse than minecraft in (almost) every single way. Minecraft has much better physics, better graphics, more mature people (on average) and has much more to offer. ---- Minecraft is directed at a certain age group, while Roblox isn't. Roblox is directed at many ages. Still, I don't play Roblox that often, but I like it more than Minecraft. Physics? Roblox has a lot of physics, which you probably haven't explored. Definition of Physics: The branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy. The subject matter of physics includes mechanics, heat, light and other radiation, sound, electricity, magnetism, and the structure of atoms. Roblox has mechanics. You cannot feel heat in Minecraft or Roblox so that doesn't count. Roblox has light Roblox has many mini-games, in which can have radiation, Minecraft does not have this unless you install some sort of mod. Sound? Roblox has it, sounds of blocks falling. Electricity? Yeah! The models can have electricity to run them. Magnets? Yeah, but you need to mod Minecraft to do so. Atoms? Well, considering they're not real in games, but yeah, to the characters they are made of atoms. Graphics? Minecraft is 32-bit, Minecraft could be 8-bit if they wanted to. Roblox is free... but what do you expect, it's free, but the games are very fun! Mature? Hah, when I've been on the servers it has been 9 year-old children... with bad grammar. Most of all they swear. No one spams on Roblox unless you use a strange hack, but it's very rare. No, Minecraft has spammers everywhere, spamming, "Come to our shop, selling heads for $5!" or different and rude things. | CON | bb29961a-2019-04-18T14:50:08Z-00003-000 |
The US economy is the biggest in the world and strongly influences global financial currents. Its ec... The US economy is in recession. New low-cost labour is threatening traditional economies. The growing economic strength of Western Europe and the emergence of powerful economies in Asia are threatening the USA's economic dominance. If the country wants benefits it has to negotiate with trading partners and the World Trade Organisation; this is not imperialism but the normal pursuit of economic interests and mutual advantage. In international negotiations, no country does more to promote free trade than the USA. | CON | 33701b5a-2019-04-19T12:46:02Z-00011-000 |
Global Warming. The Union of Concerned Scientists, an internationally recognized authority on global warming and the science behind it, directly states, "The science is clear. Global warming is happening." (http://www.ucsusa.org...) There has been a 1.4 degree increase in global temperature from 1907-present and the past 10 years have been the highest in recorded history. The United States only makes up 2% of the world"s surface, so the claim that the hurricane and weather patterns in the U.S. have showed little change would mean very little in the global sense. The ocean temperature has been consistently rising over the last century, yet another indicator that Global Climate Change is real and happening. In addition, The CO2 composition of the atmosphere has been climbing to unprecedented levels, causing the heat from the sun to stay within our atmosphere rather than flow out. Next I would like to address the concept of "global cooling". While in an observable sense it does seem reasonable that cooler weather could not result from global warming, the actuality of it ties into the ocean and polar ice caps. Water is unique in that it is most dense as a liquid and when it's at 4"C, rather than the typical model of the solid being denser than the liquid. Because the seas surrounding Arctic areas and ice caps are usually just below freezing (the salt lowers the freezing point) the ice caps melt into water that is actually warmer than the sea, which explains both the rise in sea temperature and water level globally. As the resulting shift in ocean currents continues, the effect on temperature on land appears to be cooling; however, the reason for the drop in atmospheric temperature is actually directly tied into the ocean changes caused by melting ice caps. Therefore, the root of this "global cooling" is actually global warming. Perhaps a more apt term, agreeably, would be Global Climate Change, but this does not change the fact that serious change is happening right now and is a serious issue. (http://www.giss.nasa.gov......) | PRO | 4aed909f-2019-04-18T17:04:08Z-00004-000 |
Africa prizes sovereignty. In Africa as elsewhere where there has been decolonisation the countries prize their independence. This is entirely understandable, but it makes it unlikely that they will be willing to forgo their sovereignty in the near future. Indeed notwithstanding the goal of integration one of the objectives of the AU is ‘To defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of its Member States’.[1] So long as there are internal conflicts and a need for state building then it is correct that this should come first before integration. As UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has noted, "no amount of aid or trade will make the difference" unless war ends on the continent.[2] Moreover the larger nations in Africa; South Africa, Nigeria, and Kenya need to be on-board if any real union is to be effective. However sovereignty is more important to these states as they have real influence as independent nations and as a result they are the least enthusiastic about integration.[3] [1] ‘African Union in a nutshell’, African Union. [2] Annan, Kofi, ‘Call for Leadership in Africa’, Business Day, 10 July 2001. [3] Soares, Claire, ‘Ambitious plan for a new Africa: Welcome to the U.S.A (that’s the United States of Africa)’, The Independent, 30 June 2007. | PRO | f4699fba-2019-04-15T20:24:17Z-00014-000 |
legalize euthanasia. P1- Euthanasia may be considered a better option or alternative for people who do not want to suffer from pain anymore. When people are in excrutiating pain, they make irrational decisions and one of those are suicide. They take matters into their own hands and wind up harming themselves in the process. Why should we allow people who are already in pain to experience more by killing themelves when we can present them this option which would be less painful? P2- Patients who are kept alive with no chance of getting better are using valuable resources such as medicine and hospital supplies. If the individual no longer wants to be held in the hospital for who knows how long, they should be able to give up their right to live. If it will benefit somebody else who is terribly ill, who has a chance of survival, we should respect the terminally ill person's wished to benefit the next person. P3- By the indiviudual wanting to end their lives, they are not harming anybody. If anybody will suffer from the procedure, it will be them. They should be able to make that choice. C; Euthanasia should be legalized. | PRO | b0c6e7eb-2019-04-18T16:18:35Z-00002-000 |
The God of the Old Testament is Evil. 1. Yes. 2. In meeting your burden of proof, prove that your understanding of "evil" is both objective, non-arbitrary and reflective of reality. Then prove it binds God. Thanks. 3. I deny the premise of your question. 4. What I believe is not relevant. 5. Moral. My turn: 1. Is "evil" an objective or subject notion? 2. How does evil, a non-material concept, exist in the world of atheistic materialism? 3. Is a judge evil for holding a criminal accountable? 4. How do you know your conception of evil is true? 5. Who are you to sit in judgment of God? | CON | 84400ba-2019-04-18T13:43:32Z-00004-000 |
BIRT that students and parents should have the final say for food sold to students in school. My name is Carter Huang, and today I'd like to state why Be it Resolved That students and parents should have the final say for food sold to students in school must fall. Students have been clearly eating more and more junk food over the past few years, and that is obviously an effect caused by influence from the parent council. The parent council as we all know has given the schools their opinions for further advancement to the school's features, activities, utilities, and actions. The students will have an influence to their mother's and father's, therefore posing a greater chance of junk food being bought. Of course most parent's are responsible, and will limit the what the student will eat in their everyday diet, but what I am focusing on is the irresponsible parents who pose an even greater threat the the student's health and well-being. As stated by www.stanford.edu/~dement/rhythmove.html, a disease called Rhythmic movement disorder has caused much frustration among many people, including adults and more importantly, children. This disease results in uncontrolled movement of large muscles such as the head and neck, which is a danger in many cases. While driving, teens the age of 14 that are driving (As stated by Alberta law) may suffer from this disease. This is a form of "OCD" and poses a threat to both the driver and other drivers. The disease is triggered by stress, which directly relates to the diet of the client which suffers this disease. The diet is mainly fat, oils, and sodium, which are all prominent in carbonated drinks, fast food burgers, fries, and other foods you thought were good. The problem with this lies directly in the clients decision, which is influenced by friends, family, and themselves. The schools that offer fast food, junk food, and other unhealthy foods, pose a health risk to all these students which are more than likely to become obese. Obesity is a very common disease in America, and the rate of which people are becoming obese is exponentially rising. This is due also to the person's diet, and lies in mainly kids from this generation as food is becoming more affordable and is becoming more and more tastier with the invention of artificial products. The school districts have a better understanding of these health risks as they teach it in their curriculum, and therefore allow students to have a safer future with the food they consume. The parents may not be as wise, and this is why I believe that Be it Resolved That students and parents should have the final say for food sold to students in school must fall! | CON | 264c3a60-2019-04-18T17:59:58Z-00005-000 |
Resolved: Debate.org should feature a catagory of debate called 'debate.org'. This website is technology. Any piece of software is digital. Anything used to make some action easier is a tool. Debate.org is therefore a digital tool, as my opponent even noted as one of the possible things that could be used to classify it as technology. And it's definitely a product or system, the words used in the original definition. The fact is, debate.org is a piece of technology. My opponent then states that even if debate.org fits this definition of technology, every other definition still proves that it is not technology. This is the most backwards thing I've ever heard. An automatic garlic chopper is not technology by every definition. It only needs to be under one definition to make it technology. Not ONE piece of technology fits all definitions thereof. It should now be obvious that only one definition must hold true for debate.org to fit under "technology." Next, my opponent suggests that looking at debates can help the webmaster weigh the pros and cons of new features, citing DarthGrievous's debate. I can tell you that the webmaster has in fact seen this debate, yet 3.0 is still in the works, with all the said features. Why? Because debate does not always show whether the idea is good or not. Sometimes, people can argue for a side that should not win, yet they will dominate the debate. The voting results do not affect how the people at large feel. As Darth said himself in his opening argument, "I'll remind you that your personal opinions are not the standard of your voting, but which debater proved their point better." The webmaster has already looked at the features and weighed the advantages and disadvantages for the site, and I'm sure he's found the changes to be quite positive. People don't just implement new features without considering why they should or why they should not. As I said, people's votes do not reflect their personal opinions, so it cannot be used as a poll. (Oooh, a poll, that sounds like something we'll have in 3.0) Alright, I admit that it would be very simple to simply add the new category to 3.0. However, it would be nonsensical and inconsistent to do so. All the other categories are big umbrellas. As I said in round 1, "Debate.org" just doesn't fit among big umbrella categories like "Arts" or "Business." Overall, I believe I have provided sufficient reasons why a Debate.org category should not be made. The developers already have superior, more sensible ways to get people's opinions. It is therefore not worth it for them to add a category whose debates already have a place and whose existence among the categories would be inconsistent. A Debate.org debate category should not be added to Debate.org. | CON | 15068eb2-2019-04-18T19:46:49Z-00000-000 |
(History suggests) Muslims have killed more than Christians in the name of their god. Can I assume that's a forfeit by Con? Does Con accept the resolution and all 12,000,000 deaths? I will not add any more kills to the List because I hope to do this debate again. Extend all arguments, Vote Pro. Thank you. >>>Totals<<< Christianity - 1937 (1937) Islam - 0(12,000,000) Based on: Religion ( ) | PRO | 2584048e-2019-04-18T19:06:53Z-00004-000 |
The story of Noah's Ark is factual. I'm going to state this right here: I do not accept the current view of the evolutionary process. While some evolutionist say that evolution can happen really fast, others say it happened very slowly. However, the evolution of creatures cannot be observed today from one species to another because we have obviously not been around long enough to observe.In the "Cambrian Explosion," theoretically, life forms changed from bacteria, algae, and the like into extremely complex vertebrates in "only" 40 million years. If evolution can supposedly change bacteria into complex vertebrates that quickly, I'm sure it can change a lion-like creature into a tiger rather quickly, seeing as the genetic differences are a lot less.So, back to what I was saying...1. Species?If Noah took every species, it would be impossible for the ark to hold all of the animals and provisions. That is why Biblical literalists go for genera.2. Genera!Because micro-evolution can act quickly, it is no surprise that perhaps a lion-like creature can change into a tiger quickly, especially if Noah was to, say, take a pair of creatures from a single genera of different species that could still mate. That would add a lot of information to the genetic code, therefore, micro-evolution would work faster.Also, the evolution Sagan speaks of is when a lesser creature becomes more complex, where as a lion-like creature of more complex DNA could become a lesser canine (such as a house cat) quite quickly by the loss of DNA.Moving on...My contentions have not been touched and are still viable. I extend them here.So far, my opponent has taken the BoP upon himself, given a single contention, and when that one contention was rebuttaled, did not abandon the ship. Yet my contentions still stand.Thank you and good night!Sources: http://animals.about.com... | PRO | 4f3e1898-2019-04-18T17:26:21Z-00003-000 |
Christianity- The ONLY God recognised Belief!. It is called debate.org for a reason. If I was looking for Christianity I would be in a church. Not once have you proved the bible is real or addressed my counter arguments. "There is no obligation upon Christians to DO the LOOKING for you!" - You When did one time did I ask for you to help me seek the truth? I don't believe your truth is my truth. If anyone gives the point to Pro for reliable sources, please understand I would've used some if I needed to. But I didn't. I see you are here to convert people. I got something for you: Don't | CON | 7b99481b-2019-04-18T11:41:05Z-00000-000 |
Kids don't need mobile phones. Thanks pro! Refutations:That story does not prove that kids need their own mobile phones. "A nearby phone" is not their own mobile phone. My opponent makes this claim while failing to comprehend her own resolution. "Kids don't really need phones" This resolution does not imply ownership, it simply restrict complete usage of phones as an pre-pubescent child. My opponents resolution says that Kids don't really need cell phones. So under all circumstances she will need to defend this. If she had not had a cellphone she could have:1. Asked someone else if she could borrow their phone. (This would still necessitate a phone as a child)2. Used the nearest payphone. (This would still necessitate a phone as a child)3. Used a house phone. (This would still necessitate a phone as a child)4. Yelled for help. (If you read the source, you'll see that she was alone with her mother in the house, 2 year olds are naturally prone to cry so it wouldn't even sound suspicious if there's a crying little baby next door)Wait a second... Who said that was her own phone? It was most likely her mothers! (This would still necessitate a phone as a child)5. Gone to any home, resturant, store, etc. and told someone. (As a 2 year old girl, she would have no comprehension of her neighborhood) My opponent accuses me of copy and pasting, I have quoted my source to provide insight into what my argument is. There isn't a person on this website who would consider that copy/pasting your argument. Especially after I just listed the source.My opponent has failed to address my contention properly, and has yet to provide a case for why kids don't need phones. Phones provide easy access to-Emergancy Services -Family and Friends -Text messagingMost smart phones provide access to: -Music -Video (Including movies) -Video Games -Email access So phones provide a useful platform to not only staying safe, but keeping children from boredom. I have presented a case in which a celluar phone was critical to the situation and could have resulted in a tragic accident. I'll ask my opponent to respond to everything I've said and to refrain from accusing me of copy and pasting an argument. The argument is what is said to convince voters, not the actual source materials, that is an ignorant claim. Over to pro, | CON | 6b7ea9e3-2019-04-18T15:51:16Z-00002-000 |
"The longer you learn about the American Civil War you learn that the South was right". "The South left the Union to become a nation of less taxes and goverment." It is ironic how you confederates try to use libertarian ideology to back yourselves up. Freedom does not mean the right to be own others as slaves but the right not to be owned as a slave. And I don't know where you got the idea of less taxes from, the south had more taxes than the north [1]. No that wasn't what the war was about, it was about the economy and the south's economy was based on slave labour. "Northern states like Maryland and Delaware didn't secede but have slave population." Delaware had abolished slavery in all but name by the time the war broke out [2]. Maryland still had slavery, you are correct but the vast majority of slaves were in the south and the south was willing to die for its right to own other human beings as property. [1] http://www.taxhistory.org... [2] Kolchin 1994, pp. 81"82. | CON | bc1b5ac0-2019-04-18T16:25:31Z-00004-000 |
Denmark committed atrocities during the conquest of Greenland. http://upload.wikimedia.org...Look at Greenland from 1754 to 1885 -- notice how in the beginning the presence is Norse and limited to the coast, by 1822 and 1885, the whole island is taken over by Danish conquest. That implies that conquest indeed did happen. Has to. This is common knowledge.Now another thinghttp://en.wikipedia.org...;(Danish atrocities)Also lack of representation. Ruling over an entire island at their expense. That is oppression. It goes against the UN articles. | PRO | 6d9ecc3d-2019-04-18T15:57:58Z-00005-000 |
Taxation is theft. I accept con‘s definition of consent and present my fairly simple syllogistic main argument as follows.P1. Taxes are compulsory (i.e. the governed are forced to pay taxes and are not given the chance to consent. This is backed up with threats of physical force).P2. Forcing someone to hand over their property without their consent is theft (Definition of theft given in opening statement).C. Taxation is theft. Anticipated rebuttalSocial contractA common counterargument to the resolution is to attempt to demonstrate a supposed social contract. Con may try to argue that taxation is justified by this implicit social contract agreed to by the governed, thus refuting premise 1. There are several problems with the social contract theory:1) The governed are not offered any contract. The state does not approach prospective citizens with a contract discussing the pros and cons and persuading them to accept it. 2) The governed have no say in the matter. Since the social contract is implicit, people are simply forced to accept it by virtue of being born in a certain culture or area. A contract where one party coerces the other to accept it, is an invalid contract. I look forward to reading con‘s arguments and rebuttals. | PRO | 55472add-2019-04-18T17:04:04Z-00004-000 |
Population control MUST be part of climate change/sustainable policies. Optimum population goals should satisfy 1) everybody's BASIC quality of life (clean nutritious food, clean water/air, adequate shelter) 2) Access 2 basic human rights - quality education and healthcare, varied economic opportunity, satisfactory sanitary conditions, freedom from racism, freedom of religion, freedom from sexism 3) provide enough genetic biodiversity and 4) large enough to provide infrastructure and social community to promote creativity intellectually, artistically, and technologically All of these CAN be achieved without driving our planets ecosystems into the ground, other life forms into extinction, and the resources needed for survival dry (freshwater, space, clean air and food) As a population grows it inevitable consumes more and more until it is forceable stopped, either by policy/lifestyle changes or by starvation, rampant disease, war reducing the population down to an acceptable level or worse, down to nothing. This site details optimum population - it uses basic math equations taking into account the goal along with the earths carrying capacity - though it places it at about 2 billion, worst case/stretching resources at 4 billion - and we are already at 7 billion and still growing http://dieoff.org... | PRO | 7f6c271b-2019-04-18T13:55:07Z-00001-000 |
Autumn Is The Best Season. I will first rebut a few of my opponent's reasons for liking autumn, followed by reasons why autumn is not a good season. I will then conclude with reason why some other season is better. "…Autumn is the best season due to the weather. " "Its weather ranges from approximately 50 degrees to 75 degrees. " And that weather range may occur over the course of just one day. It's cold in the morning then it could be hot in the afternoon. It can make it tough to plan for the day as well as making many people uncomfortable. The weather is also dependent on location. In the Midwest Autumn means it could be 70 degrees one moment, and snowing the next. Autumn is a very inconvenient season. "…There are some of the greatest moments and holidays" I'll concede to this point my opponent makes. But it requires that one like holidays and not everyone does. "Jewish people have Yom Kippur" In the 28 years I've been Jewish I have not once heard anyone say they were excited for Yom Kippur. For those who aren't aware, Yom Kippur is ‘a day of atonement'. It's essentially a period of 25 hours where everyone who is able, must fast. Most of the time is spent praying with the understanding that we are being judged for our deeds of the past year. It's a very serious holiday without much celebration. So autumn rather, is NOT one of the best seasons, because of Yom Kippur. [1] "…We have the best scenery to observe" My opponent is correct that autumn brings nice stuff to look at. (Even if not as nice as the stuff during summer, mentioned in my opening round) But underneath all that niceness are reasons that make autumn not a nice month and so I will begin various points why autumn is not a nice season: Spiders and mice begin their mating season. (But not with each other) Leaves are piling up everywhere. Wet leaves get tracked around everywhere and need to be cleaned. Gutters need to be cleaned out. Winter is looming. School is beginning. It's warm then its cold. It's cold, then its warm. Many colors may be offensive to the color blind. Yom Kippur. No Christmas, Hanukah, or Kwanza. Canada geese spread former meals indiscriminately throughout the land. *Summer is the best season because*: I can dress for it to be warm the entire day. I can go to the beach without it likely being 40 degrees by the end of the day. Vacation. People can wear fewer clothes. No Yom Kippur. It's warm. Baseball. Ramadan. There's nice stuff to look at. NFL minicamps begin. The sun provides free tanning. It's rarely icey, or snowing. Gas prices go up. (For the Communists who like that sorta thing) Hobos are more comfortable. Hippies start occupying parks and private property, creating free entertainment for onlookers who can watch them getting tasered and arrested. I'll leave it there for now. | CON | 70011e98-2019-04-18T18:24:43Z-00006-000 |
Charity is bad for the population problem. There is no contradiction from round 1 to 2. In 1 I say that charity is affecting natures efforts to control population and in 2 I say charity is speeding up population growth the same argument from different sides. The human population will climax, of course but charity will make that climax higher and quicker and will have detrimental affects on the planet. I do not want a natural course to climax, rather I feel we need to act now in order to slow the growth, investing funds that keep people alive into making other people's lives better. There is no need to wait for mass starvation and death, it can all start right now. Rather embrace that things will get tough and work towards the greater good now. There is a chance we will buy time and come up with answers to our problems if we do but if we allow the tipping point to come sooner, we have no chance at all. At the moment we are still in control of our own destiny, lets keep it that way. Acting tough is the way forward and changing the way charity is provided currently can be the first of many tough decisions that will be needed to right whats wrong. | PRO | 18bf5ba7-2019-04-18T18:42:34Z-00004-000 |
'Yes or No' questions are fundamentally different to 'True or False' questions. Conditions for eligibilityMust have 8-43 completed debates and must be able to follow rules.Rules of Discourse1. Absolutely no trolling whatsoever, even a slightly sarcastic joke or jest for any other purpose than highlighting a point. (It can be amusing for purposes of letting a point sink in, not to mock the opponent nor their arguments). If you are caught trolling, you will be given a warning and then a full strike will occur the second time. If trolling occurs in last round, even one instance of it results in full strike.2. No profanity at all. Replacing a letter in a rude word is not allowed either. Even if the word is permitted by the DDO filter absolutely no room for profanity of any severity is permitted. Using it results in full strike immediately; zero tolerance.3. No abuse of opponent allowed at all. Cannot attack them personally or mock them in any way. Cannot bring any profile information to sway votes.4. Round 2 must contain 0 rebuttals and only constructive arguments with round 1 being acceptance. Will result in warning if violated (transferable to trolling warning, meaning warning expires if this is committed).5. Accidentally misinterpreting which side one represents results in warning. If one has warning here, trolling warning allowance expires.6. No Wikipedia, or Wiki[anything] links are allowed. The resources on the Wiki page are allowed but not the Wiki page itself.7. Round 1 is up to Pro to offer definitions and full explanation of the debate. If they fail to do so, Con has full rights over these aspects of the debate.Any warning after another warning means strike.Warning = Conduct mark lost.Strike = Debate lost.If opponent has a warning but you have strike, you lose the debate. If both have a warning, conduct is tied (probably). If both have a strike then this is clearly very bad and voters can decide as they please. | CON | 2fc21ae4-2019-04-18T15:40:24Z-00005-000 |
Pennies should not be abolished and are necessary to stabilise the economy. According to http://www.pennies.org... Penny keep high prices in check, not only that but many charities are fueled by the power of the penny. Realistically if the penny was gone companies would not round down to the nearest penny, but up costing the consumers money! Sure it costs about 2.2 pennys to make a penny, but really you would be paying about three cents extra for every time they rounded up when you bought something. We also honor Abraham Lincoln, so in a way its American tradition. The penny has value who honestly never tried to put pennys in a piggy bank you would be surprised! | PRO | c5a30943-2019-04-18T16:06:11Z-00000-000 |
Optimism. Either present different arguments for your position(which could be pessimism or realism) or just offer rebuttals to my argument. Please don't do both, since I am unable to do both since there is just one round of debate. If you do both, voters have reason to vote for me for conduct. My argument:I believe optimism is ideal over realism or pessimism because it enables us to do things we would not normally attempt. It is scientifically sound and factual that we tend to not try things we think we can't do[1] and optimism helps us out in this way. If we were pessimists, we would more often see things as impossible to do, and thus never try them. As a pessimist, you may never try many things you could actually excel at, but as an optimist, you will more likely try these things and you may discover something new you're good at. Even being a realist isn't always beneficial, for the odds might be that you won't accomplish something, so you're being realistic in saying that the chances are that you won't be able to do that feat, but an optimist would attempt to do it anyways, and they may succeed. Optimists are more likely to engage in active coping when negative things arise, whereas pessimists are more likely to use avoidant coping. [1] Active coping is superior because it means you're doing something to get out of the negative problem, whereas avoiding the problem won't make it go away. At least with active coping, there is a possibility you can put an end to the problem, but avoiding it means it definitely won't go away. Now, while there are some negative things about being overly optimistic, such as believing that you achieved success because of yourself, without giving credit to other things such as a friend, luck, or whatever else may have helped you. Additionally, optimists are more likely to use constructive action against problems, but if a problem is unchangeable, then this would all be wasted. This is why I would say it is good to be healthily optimistic but understand there are some situations where optimism won't work and being realistic is necessary. That said, I am not supporting realism, as I believe it should only be used in some instances, but optimism should be the default position for most situations. Source:[1] . https://www.researchgate.net... | PRO | 67f4e4b1-2019-04-18T12:26:48Z-00001-000 |
The Benefits of a Wall with Mexico. As there is no counter-argument to rebuttal. I will continue with this thought. The IRS is sitting on $1 billion dollars of uncollected tax returns for 2012 that expire this year if unclaimed (1). This is an example of funding that could be used towards this wall. With the previous creative ways of paying for this wall mentioned above. The benefits of making the wall not only a wall but making it infrastructure. The estimated earnings from the great wall of china in 2010 were the $2.88 billion (2). That easily offsets the costs of maintenance, and would pay for itself quickly. This is not to mention that the Government collected $2.4 trillion dollars in income taxes (3). That is $0.005 per dollar to fund this at the estimate of $10-12 billion. If the majority of tax payers support which the poll numbers in round 3 suggest. A transparent 0.1% tax over 5 years imposed (to reach 12 billion) is menial. (1) https://www.irs.gov... (2) http://regiosuisse.sswm.info... (3) http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com... | PRO | 71ce0478-2019-04-18T13:38:07Z-00001-000 |
Gay marriage. Marriage is heavily influenced by religion. And according the the bible, it is a sin to lie with another man like one would lie with a woman. There are still many ways to show love between homosexual couples without involving religious ceremonies in this. And where are we to draw the line? Gay marriage is sexually immoral according to the bible, and yet somehow it is still legal. Well, according to the bible, incest is also a sin (another verse in Leviticus, but again, no time to check, sorry). Should we make it legal for a sister to get married with her brother? Well it's equal rights, correct? What one does with their partner, be it a homosexual partner or a heterosexual partner, is of no matter to me. But when they start involving a religious ceremony that is sacred to a religion strongly opposed to gay marriage is a different story. Pro has presented absolutely no argument, except for one opening statement. | CON | 33962001-2019-04-18T15:12:44Z-00000-000 |
Policy Debate as practiced is inherently flawed (pro argues that policy debate is inherently flaw. What's your deal with S&M? haha. Kinda creepy. Anyway, I will admit that there is a difference between policy debate and l-d or this site for that matter. However, the differences don't make one thing better than the other, just different. Policy debate isn't better or worse than any other form of debate, just different. To prove, I will refute and show how most of the disadvantages you point out are actually positives in policy. 1) Again, more policy experience would have shown you that this isn't true in good policy debates. Novices can stomp around and whine about abuse, but rarely win with good judges. This is actually a positive. The time structure of the debate allows us to get to critical issues rather than trudging through 15 min of muck while touching on the real issues. If you fail to answer a critical argument, that just makes you a worse debater. As the 1AR, it was critical for me to pick out which arguments were critical to the debate and make sure that I answered them fully. Not all debates are just weighing which Nuke war is more likely. You would know this if you had spent more time in policy. 2) Again, time limits are a good thing. They encourage you to focus on critical matters rather than whining abuse or wasting everyones time with nonsensical arguments. Time limits make the debate MORE educational. 3) Speed readers make the debate MORE educational. It allows a broader range of topics for the debate. While the everyday person would have a hard time understanding them, other debaters are kind of trained to listen well. So, all of the things you listed are actually GOOD things. While I admit, the depth of the topics cannot be touched, this holds just as true for other forms of debate. It would take extremely lengthy periods focused solely on that issue to get to the heart of it. This impractical and not necessary for this type of debate. Time limits and speed reading allow debaters to touch a broad range of topics and force them to focus on the ciritical elements of the debate. While some who aren't used to it see it as difficult and ridiculous, policy debaters play a different type of game that takes some getting used to. | CON | f84a3387-2019-04-18T19:51:47Z-00000-000 |
Down With BOP. You implied it. I mean, you're seriously arguing people's idiocy as if it's that controversial. I know the prisoner's dilemma - it's a red herring on your part. What I am describing is the nature of BOP that people like you are too stupid to understand as you fail to expand your brain's wing span. Do you know those guys who get caught that are active in business that say "You have no proof", even though their behavioral patterns tell us the story in the first place? That's the system we need in place - not BOP. We need to go back to psychology and philosophy, not politics. Politics has done nothing except turn people into polite ticks that suck out the life of everyone who is against politics. I can say that you have not won by the way you argue via tautologies rather than blunt truth. You toy with debates and you pull cards because you're not legitimate - you're a player. | PRO | 84fe8bf7-2019-04-18T15:51:50Z-00001-000 |
The KJV Bible has no contradictions. Honestly, I thought you were a troll posting this so I didn't put much effort into it. I will make a better attempt in this round. You said "Personally from my life experiences and conversations I've had with people, They can get two different interpretations from;viewing an event unfold to listening to a speech to reading a piece of scripture because of their perspective and or their level of understanding that could be a reason on why are so many different interpretations on the Bible. "Ok, But that doesn't disprove the contradictive interpretations, Which is what I was making reference to. This could be argued that it is not a "contradiction in the KJV Bible", Which I will concede. Nevertheless, It was more intended as a commedial reply. You said "They had 10 horses per chariot if he had 40, 000 stalls for the horses and the chariots he would need 4, 000 stalls for the chariots and horses. "Can you provide the verse number you referenced for this stating there were 10 horses per chariot, Or is this just an assumption to make the math work out? Chariots generally were pulled by 4 horses, Sometimes 2. It could go up to 10, But that was rare and usually only in situations where the cargo was very heavy or other special circumstances. Regardless of your logic, The verses themselves are clearly in contradiction. One verse says one number, The other verse says a different one. That is a contradiction by definition. Here are a few more contradictions. Technically, I only need 1 to win this debate, But here are 5 more. I could spend all day doing this, I didn't even make it out of the first book lol1) Genesis 1:3 - God made light before there were stars2) Genesis 1:16 - Refers to the moon being a star3) Genesis 1:26 - Remnants of polytheism in the useage of "us" and "our" when God is alone (or God has multiple personalities)4) Genesis 1:27 - God made man AND woman, But Genesis 2:22 God made Eve from Adams rib on a different day entirely5) The order of when animals, Plants and man were created is totally different in Genesis 1 and 2I look forward to your rebuttals. :) | CON | 66e440c-2019-04-18T11:10:49Z-00006-000 |
this person should be tortured. maybe at some point in its infancy as an advancing nation afghanistans will hold a grudge. but for all the reasons in my past post, it's not likely in the long run to mean anything, really. you did cite a shoddy website to prove your grudge point. i appreciate that you think we must treat them as humans as the inherent right thing to do. i guess i just disagree. i dont think what theyd say is probably going to be false. and even if it was in the scenario i devised we keep torturing untill they say what's true, or we think they dont know any more. given theyve shown they almost surely know, it's worth a shot to torture, even if we got nothing. but there's a high probability tht we would get something. if you know something to save others and it'd prevent you from ebing tortured to save them and you, wouldnt you tell? probably most would | PRO | d23a6ca-2019-04-18T17:33:02Z-00001-000 |
Atheism is more rational then Theism. No, you may not post rebuttals R5. I never can reply. I find it cowardly.Here is my opening:Rational [thought]. 1. The quality or condition of being rational. 2. A rational belief or practice. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...Rational. 1. Having or exercising the ability to reason. 2. Of sound mind; sane.http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Con is free to disagree. I'm not going to force you to use these, if you don't agree.Point One. One thing that really gets me on most Theistic arguments is that they can be used to prove any god. So, even you prove that a god exists, which one is really the one? This isn't my point but I want Con to think it over and answer it for me for why he might think the way he does.I truly think that it is impossible to prove God. The guy is pretty much outside of logic and time. Holding faith over something is on par with me thinking that there is someone who lives on Pluto. I don't believe in the man on Pluto because I don't having any evidence for such. Replace the man with a teapot or the FSM for taste. Back to Con. Sorry for the delay. | PRO | c2f9152c-2019-04-18T17:25:15Z-00004-000 |
Titties "ain't all dat". I agree to the fascination aspect. I think the main attraction is that as we grow up, bewbz are seen to be forbidden fruit which we are taught is a "naughty" thing to think of. No other animals show such hormones for the females breasts. My point is that it's just a naughty not-so-easily obtainable thing therefore making it craved for the male. And on top of that, it is part of the female body, which again at a young age, boys are taught not to experience sex at a young age, so going along with the build up of hormones, the breasts just sort of blend in with the sexual experience - therefore making them not so special. | PRO | 1afefdc7-2019-04-18T17:33:45Z-00005-000 |
A virgin birth is impossible. In this debate I will argue that the miracle birth of Jesus is impossible. If a story contains contradictions it can be used as evidence to negate it.A 'virgin birth" contradicts with what we now know about human biology. If Mary was parthenogenesis, Jesus would have been female. All parthenogenesis produces females--biological fact.http://en.wikipedia.org... I will also argue that the concept of a 'virgin birth' was copied from Pagan religions that were prevalant in Rome | PRO | 1b9dbea4-2019-04-18T18:14:02Z-00005-000 |
Tradition demands that this instant replay not be used. One of the beautiful aspects of baseball is how little it has changed over the years. Just as it was a century ago, you have nine players on the field, batters swinging wooden bats, and umpires dressed in dark colors rendering the decisions. Maintaining tradition honors baseball’s long history. It also helps to promote comparability over time; the feats of today can be held side-by-side with those of 80 years ago. Moreover, it protects baseball against fads and other calls for change that might be popular at a particular moment, but could prove to be disastrous if implemented. | PRO | 18fcc26f-2019-04-15T20:22:40Z-00025-000 |
The human race would be better off if everyone decided to be vegetarian. I agree that the population is growing, but eating meat would adapt if the population got " Too " big for the current food market. We would do what humans do whenever they can't make enough of a product for the demand. Improve the different aspects in that products life cycle so it meets the demand. A total meat industry reform is much more sensible than changing not only the way the whole world eats but our culture. I understand you don't mean a change overnight but even if the idea caught on it would harm the economy through job-loss and closing meat production facilities. If somehow the world did change over to vegetarianism it would lead to an over dependence on nutritional supplements. Iron and protein tablets would become like oil. Pharmaceutical companies would become large empires who charge people ridiculous amounts of money for something they need to survive. Does that seem like a better world to you? | CON | b66b3ad1-2019-04-18T17:41:33Z-00002-000 |
aliens exist. Aliens may or may not exist, but there's one thing we can be sure of: There is no evidence that aliens exist. There are no bodies of aliens, no plausible footage of them, no crashed vehicles, no proofs from history. All UFOs are hoaxes, misidentified air-craft or weather phenomena. There is more evidence for Bigfoot than aliens, because we have samples of hair, feetprints and stools, along with eye-witness testimony going back thousand of years. | CON | 1da815e5-2019-04-18T15:41:16Z-00000-000 |
Once and for all, 9/11 was a terrorist attack, not a conspiracy. Lets settle this once and for all.... I will be arguing that the attacks of 9/11/2001 were carried out by a group of Islamic extremist terrorists from the network known as Al-Qaeda and not by the US government He/She who accepts this debate will be arguing why they think that the 9/11 attacks were a conspiracy by the US government 5 rounds, max 8000 character limit, get ready to go all out | PRO | a4067850-2019-04-18T18:38:07Z-00007-000 |
Technology should be completely banned. The first humans emerged around 1.6 million years ago, with the appearance of "homo erectus" who spread "over two continents" [1]. We achieved domination over the world by the "Iron Age", which was roughly 5000 years ago [3].Mankind thrived then and there were plenty of resources for everybody, and richer wildlife and plantlife than today, due to our most modern "advances" [4]. We started poisoning Earth, beginning with mining only 200 years ago [3]. Before that, we lived "in times of prosperity and peace" [3].Electronics are fairly new to the game of destroying our planet [5], but have peaked in the last 30 years, with the mass production of computers in the 1980's. In this time we have turned the tables around:Electronic waste is generated by the tenth of millions of tons each year, and crude recycling sets free toxic pollutants [6].The results are disastrous. Not only do the pollutants like heavy metals poison plantlife and wildlife, they lead to damage to the human DNA, resulting in cancer and the risk of hereditary diseases and mutation [6].We can estimate that we're wasting drinking water by insane amount sufficient to supply a minimum of 6.500.000.000 [7][8]. That's 9.3 times more people than we have.If law contains as one of its aims the human survival, we must act quickly and put a stop to this. This can only be done by banning electronic and digital devices. Only if no one has access to it, there will be a durable and fair solution. [1]: http://humanorigins.si.edu...[2]: http://www.historytoday.com...[3]: http://www.seafriends.org.nz...[4]: http://wwf.panda.org...[5]: http://inventors.about.com...[6]: https://www.iop.org...[7]: http://www.dosomething.org...[8]: http://everylittledrop.com.au... | PRO | 59a41c2-2019-04-18T16:31:55Z-00002-000 |
Uniforms. "Lots of students would get in trouble for not wearing uniforms" Students could also get in trouble for wearing inappropriate clothing like crop-tops, Clothing that shows their belly, Etc. "Uniforms in school violate freedom of expression. " This is untrue. Most schools with uniforms allow students to style their hair any way they want (except, Of course, When it's dyed unnaturally bright colours that are distracting) and wear accessories like bracelets, Lockets and headbands. It's not a complete violation of freedom of expression. "School would be a very boring place if everybody had the same clothes. " Schools are supposed to be fun on special days, Like Christmas, Hannukah, Halloween, Sports Days, Trips, Etc. On these days, Even uniform schools allow costumes and Christmas/Hannukah themed clothing. Schools aren't supposed to be fun on a classic Monday. I still stand my ground that uniforms are the opposite of distracting; in fact, Nobody minds uniforms. People get used to uniforms after wearing them. Imagine being new at school and are nervous. If it was a non-uniform school, One would be worried no one would like their sense of fashion; moreover, You'd want to make a 'first impression'. First impressions are the most unreliable way of judging a person. For example, One at a school might dress in pink clothes and give an impression of being a popular girl. Maybe this person is trying to fit in. This brings us to the fact that it is hard to fit in with a style different from everyone else. Some people fake being popular or fake being one of the bullies to avoid getting bullied- this might lead to an identity crisis. "You can wear one tracksuit for the whole year (very similar to a uniform, Heh). " By the way, Most people get two sets of uniforms and can survive with them. Another point to mention is that this tracksuit can get just as dirty as a uniform can, So you've given me a useless example. (Heh! ) | PRO | df002939-2019-04-18T11:10:56Z-00003-000 |
Resolved: Freedom of Speech Must Include the Right to Offend. I assume that round one is for definitions and acceptance so I'll define a couple words that I think are going to key for this debate. Must- means should http://www.google.com... But if you think that Google isn't a creditable source then here's one that defines should as must http://www.merriam-webster.com... So with that word defined I look forward to a great debate. (also my school is hosting a tourney that I have to monitor, so if I could ask you to please not respond until tomorrow) | CON | f62717f3-2019-04-18T17:41:26Z-00004-000 |
should juveniles be tried as adults. My first contention is that juveniles are not capable of meaningful participation in his or her defense. Even though youths may develop the capacity for understanding rights early in adolescence, it often takes additional time and life experiences before their capacity influences their actual understanding. Knowing the difference between right and wrong is different than understanding long consequences. For many juveniles, past experience with authority provides little reason for them to imagine that an adult in a professional role would take their side against other adults in a legal process. The primary goal of the juvenile system is to rehabilitate and treat, whereas the goal of the criminal system is to give punishment proportional to the crime. Therefor, my second contention is justice is better served by rehabilitation. Putting young offenders in adult prisons only leads to more crime, higher prison costs, and increased violence. | CON | c41228b2-2019-04-18T18:02:53Z-00007-000 |
Normal people should not be forced to subsidise the overweight on scheduled flights. "My opponent claims that asking overweight people to pay their fair share of the fuel costs amounts to discrimination." I'm assuming that this isn't a fact in dispute. It is certainly discrimination to treat any group of people differently than any other. That is the definition of discrimination. Your claim in this case shouldn't be that the different treatment is not discrimination, but rather that the discrimination is morally justified in some way. That being the case, I see only two ways to go about providing a basis for moral discrimination. 1. That it is necessarily the fault of larger people that they are larger, and therefore it is prima facie acceptable to charge them more for their larger girth. 2. That despite the fact that it isn't necessarily the fault of larger people that they take up more weight, it is never the less acceptable to charge them more. Your last post attempted to defend the first of those two possibilities from my contention that it was not necessarily the case. The flaw in your argument is that I was never claiming that there is no correlation between personal choice and size. There is certainly a correlation. I fully admit that it is possible for each person to vary their weight widely. My contention is that while there is that choice, there is also an element that is beyond each persons control. Even in the scenario you described, different people subjected to the same exact regiment of malnutrition that had started at equal weights could still vary widely in their final weight after some time. The consequence of this point is that while I certainly would not argue that there is a correlation between many things and each person's weight, there are still enough factors beyond their control that it is unfair to discriminate on that basis. I need not address the second possible route to a moral basis for discrimination because no argument has been offered other than the idea that each person is completely in control of their weight. | CON | c0029a2e-2019-04-18T19:34:14Z-00001-000 |
The rich not giving away money is acceptable. Of course the rich have to give away their money to be socially acceptable. They must do this in order to survive. Already at this very moment a new revelution is being planned (headed by myself of course) to overturn the rich. The modern form of bourgeois are going to be slaughtered in their thousands unless they share part of their wealth. "Why should they have hand it out to every unproductive homeless person on the street or to charities to be considered a good person? " Because they'll DIE thats why! "By with holding money the rich would be doing a service by elimantating the people on welfare, by forcing them to get a job and contribute to society" Clearly not, their simply making the people on welfare become exceptionally grumpy and they will eventually rise up against the rich and their hard earned cash. They'll riot and the destruction will be devastating. These riots will send America into an even greater depression then the last one. | CON | 1b5e137-2019-04-18T19:43:00Z-00004-000 |
Firearm bans are unconstitutional and not effective. I've sold firearms for almost two years now, in Texas. We started our right to carry option after a massacre at a Luby's restaurant in 1991. Since then we have seen less violence than other states with regard to firearms in "gun free" zones. I find it ludicrous that schools should be "gun free" when that makes them obvious targets to psycho dissidents. On a second note, AR-15 (ArmaLite-15) style rifles are just semi-automatic rifles, no different from any other rifle except cosmetics are demonized. I find this repulsive, as they are used WIDELY in Texas for hog hunting and 3-gun shooting competition, among other shooting sports. They are just like any other gun, and if Adam Lanza couldn't get one, he'd have used the much more powerful Glock 20 (10mm) or Sig Sauer of undefined specs to do the same damage. Why are we bullying the rifle when the handguns are just as capable? Why are we bullying any gun when anybody is capable? If guns are responsible for murder, then forks are responsible for obesity and cars are responsible for accidents, as well as governments are responsible for wars (snap!) | PRO | c4ec034-2019-04-18T17:54:00Z-00007-000 |
Donald trump threatening to impose 35% tariff. Thus far, we have seen what happens when jobs are expatriated under Trump’s threat. “While this announcement is good news for many, we recognize it is not good news for everyone,” says a letter sent by Carrier to its employees in the wake of the deal set up by Donald Trump that will prevent them from outsourcing some 800 jobs to Mexico. About 1300 Indiana-based jobs are still heading south of the border, which is a detail that has been lost in the commotion.” (1)I am not sure how much more clear it can be as to what Trumps plans are: self-aggrandizement, no tariff. Trump drew a line in the sand with his tweet(s) and it has been walked past. Blatantly. From the same source, on the matter of Pro’s “jobs will be retained” suggestion, others disagree: “The Wall Street Journal has now joined in, calling what Trump did in Indiana a “shakedown”…. Here’s what they said: Mr. Trump’s Carrier squeeze might even cost more U.S. jobs if it makes CEOs more reluctant to build plants in the U.S. because it would be politically difficult to close them. So, in short, there are still people losing their jobs and more job loss could be on the horizon.” Con does not find that beneficial, but apparently, Con doesn’t understand a lot of things.To sum up: 1) We have seen Trump’s threat ring hollow. 2) We have seen the President Elect shoot from the hip on things he simply is not allowed to do solo, and won’t have much help on from the legislature, if any. 3) We have seen in a matter of weeks a company walk over his line. 4) We have seen Pro clearly recognize what their resolution is about and attempt to change the scope of the debate to a product-rather-than-company tariff, prompting the question: Is Pro simply unaware of The Donald’s tweets? Does Pro know what they are defending? Just to emphasize the absurdity to which Pro maintains their defense: “Con claims that "no tariff has been mentioned" to carrier, except carrier is clearly smart enough to realize that a tariff will be imposed on their products if they leave.”… They have already left! Con has cited this twice now! Con still eagerly awaits the imposing of the tariff on Carrier. The world has seen Trump’s proverbial “Red Line” with Carrier. The world has seen his child like “Cancel it!” mentality with projects he seems unfamiliar with. These types of flailings are not the hallmarks of good leader, and that is incredibly detrimental to the US. In light of the fumblings from Pro, and the ineptitude that the President Elect is showing of the office, and the clear disregard Trump has shown of his own threat and the precedent that sets, Con urges our audience to vote in a direction demonstrating what Pro doesn’t understand: such a threat is not beneficial.(1) http://www.mediaite.com... s://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...; alt="Image result for donald trump political cartoon tariff tweet" width="564" height="400" /> | CON | db96556d-2019-04-18T12:34:17Z-00000-000 |
Israel belongs to the Jews. They aren't converts. The original Ashkenazi Jews were from Israel, they just interbret with converts so now they're about 1% Israelite. Either way since they trace their lineage throuugh the mothers side they cant claim ownership to specific land since this land is passed down through the fathers side. They still have a right to be there. Again, Zionist goveronment is not a fair representation of the Nation of Israel. The Jews have a right to move into Palestine. | PRO | a0fd65f-2019-04-18T12:47:59Z-00001-000 |
We have free will. First of all, you have not addressed any of the reasoning I provided in my opening post. I don't think you have made an argument here, you are just describing what the world would be like if determinism were true. You argue that time is a line stretching into the future laid out before us, and that a time traveler would be able to jump in and out of this line. But that's not an argument, it's just a description of a deterministic universe. A different way of looking at time is as a garden of forking paths, rather than a single line. If we have free will, then this is what time has to be like, since we have the ability to make choices that aren't determined by external factors. To show that this description of time is wrong, you would have to argue that we don't have free will, which you haven't done. Indeed, if free will is an axiom, as I argued in my first post, then time can't be like you describe, since your description of time contradicts an axiom. | PRO | 538344bd-2019-04-18T13:21:14Z-00003-000 |
I won't break a rule!. I've wanted to do this for a long time.0. By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to all the rules already posted.1. Rules created hold power over all rules posted later, and no later rule can contradict an earlier rule.2. Both players should still have the ability to post rules in their turn.3. A violation of a rule that is not null and void will result in the rule-breaker losing this debate. If both players break a rule, the player that breaks a rule first loses.4. With the exception of the Instigator's first round, a player may only do something besides make rules to discuss whether one has broken a rule, or whether a rule is null, unless a future rule requires otherwise.5. Not counting these foundation rules, each player can only create 3 rules per turn.6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit.7. Rules cannot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule, and an opportunity to discuss rule-breakage. Rules may not require players to do anything within specific time periods, nor may they require players to do anything outside of this debate.8. A voter must default all categories to the victor of the debate.9. All rules are assumed to only apply to future actions and rules.10. Each player must document his or her rules using the numbers 11-25 for PRO and 26-40 for CON.*End foundation rules*11. CON cannot use the word "rule" in any of his or her rounds12. CON must have at least one source referring to Wikipedia.org in each of his or her rounds13. CON has to mention God at least 5 times in every single round. | PRO | 431826db-2019-04-18T15:56:27Z-00007-000 |
ticket scalping should be illegal. Thank you for posting this debate. My first argument will be brief. I will list the reasons why ticket scalping should be illegal. 1. Bulk. Lots of people will buy the tickets in bulk, then will sell them for a much higher price. This cause major losses for the company selling the tickets. 2. Cheating the system. Most of the ticket scalping enterprises are run by people who scalp tickets for a living They make a lot of cash from their ticket scalping businesses, and often these practices are illegal on other levels. For instance, the largest ticket scalping busts have involved people who have friends at the box office. 3. Cheat the people. What lots of scalpers like to do is produce fake tickets. If scalping is made illegal, then that mans more people getting scammed. My opponent says, "Why should there be a limit to your freedom of what you want to do with your own item?" One could say the same thing about meth. There has to be point where we must stop. I look forward to my opponents next argument. Sources: (1). http://www.associatedcontent.com... (2.) http://en.wikipedia.org... | PRO | 7e47da55-2019-04-18T19:13:19Z-00004-000 |
Jesus as a historical figure. The closest my opponent comes to an argument for his position in this round is that we celebrate christian holidays (what, america? And this proves what exactly and how so?) and that certain people in the past believed (excuse me, pro says "KNEW") that Jesus existed, yet all of his referenced individuals are not contemporary with the Christ character. They did not 'know' of Jesus' existence (as my opponent tries to beg the question within his own argument) but they very well may have believed. But a personal belief is hardly evidence. My opponent continues to offer no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus (although he seems convinced that his non-sequiturs some how qualify). The fact that Pro (nor anyone else so my contention goes) can not pull an actual case together and bring evidence to bare on this subject is sufficient to suppose that Jesus never existed. My opponent commits a fatal error. He expects me to bring testimony to this debate and I quote "Who cares if you are "only supposed to opposed pro's claims". Let me tell you something. That's sissy talk." This is either a shifting or more likely a base misunderstanding of the burden of proof. If this debate where about the existence of unicorns (which have a basis in fictional literature as does Jesus) would it be reasonable to ask someone to debate about their non-existence? To bring evidence that supports their fictionality? The best one can do is argue from the basis of no evidence, and that is just what I have done here today with Pro's help and will continue to do in the future. Because you can not prove a negative. You can only show it to be more likely than the positive claim. I urge the loss of conduct against Pro for the use of an unwarrented ad hominum attack on my person, but of course, the vote is your own. | CON | 3cbfe65-2019-04-18T16:52:04Z-00001-000 |
Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. Children raised by gay couples will find it more difficult to learn appropriate gender roles in the absence of male and female role-models. Although not an exact match single parents provide a similar case where there has not been someone of the other gender as a role model. Although the evidence is not nearly as conclusive as is often claimed there have been many studies that have shown that two parents from different genders is beneficial to the child in its development. Similarly it is often claimed that boys develop negative attitudes to study because there are very few male teachers in primary schools. Numerous studies have shown that children do best when they are raised by two married, biological parents. In the case of adopted children that is impossible, but a man and a woman is the best approximation of that family. Since that is the best environment to raise children, the government has to encourage and promote these traditional unions, not undermine them. Allowing gay couples to legally become parents, would legally and socially redefine what a family is and society as a whole may suffer. Children who are adopted already face bullying and exclusion in school because of their difference, placing them in same-sex households will double their exclusion and make their lives much harder than if placed in an opposite-sex household. The focus of this debate should not be on gay rights, but on what is in the best interest of the adopted child. The adoption process' goal is to find the most suitable parents for that child, not to resolve other social inequalities and injustices. Being raised in a traditional family, by a mother and father, is the best environment for a child. Studies have shown that children who are raised by homosexual couples can have problems with substance abuse, violence and 'at risk' behaviour. Therefore the state has the obligation to try to provide the child with that environment. | CON | eb85f44e-2019-04-18T15:14:14Z-00003-000 |
Direct Democracy is inherently better and more fair than any other democracy based government. Direct Democracy can be good for a lot of things. For example...1.The people get to write and vote on laws,rather than a republic where represententives make the laws. This means,in a direct democracy,anybody can12s have a chance to vote and create a law and hold daily national refrendum. 2.Direct democracy would help encourage voter turnout as more and more people have a chance to vote in laws. Moreover,the people would know that they would make a difference in voting,thus increasing voter turnout even more.3. In a republic,the people would have to make a risk to trust a politican. Direct democracy would insure more trust towards a politican and is less risky political system.4.The goverment would have to provide information to the people so that they could understand the law. This builds more trsutworthiness in the goverment. | PRO | 6a1246f7-2019-04-18T12:00:14Z-00002-000 |
Who is the better villain: Lex Luthor or Norman Osborn. I will start the final part of this debate NY saying that it was an honor working with pro. I would like to say that although it does say that it was suggested on marvel wiki that it was mark 29, they had reasons such as resemblance, size, and that it was the type that wasn't adjusted to the extremis. I would also like to say that even if lex has superior force fields (which we don't know), zero point energy can also be used as a shield or forcefield. As demonstrated when tony stark created a zero point energy shield for captain america. this would make it easier to defend. Pro also stated that advanced combat doesn't make a good point. I dissagree, for lex has tried to defeat batman and night wing, in which he failed. I am just stating that hand to hand will be used at some point during a battle. Another point is that one thing not mentioned on the marvel wiki is that they took out Jarvis. They kept as much as they could, unless they didn't know how it worked. He also has voice recognition. The interface inside the arm our would be able to find possible weak points, and his reflexes would counter a few of lex's moves. I will now leave it to the public to vote. I hope you choose con May the best man win | CON | 19e351dd-2019-04-18T16:58:00Z-00000-000 |
A EU constitution will foster a “European identity”. There is no consensus for a United States of Europe. Most citizens identify themselves more with their nation-states rather than with the EU.[1] Only 28% of Belgians and 5% of Britons consider themselves equally their national identity and European.[2] It is also by no means clear that eroding national identities is a desirable phenomenon. The EU is an organisation in which twenty five nation-states cooperate with each other. Where necessary, these states pool their sovereignty in order to tackle common problems. The EU is thus an instrument used by nation-states to pursue their own interests in a world that makes it increasingly difficult for states to do this in isolation. The EU is a useful instrument of nation-states rather than a challenger to these states for the patriotism and loyalty of their citizens. [1] Manuel, Paul Christopher, and Royo, Sebastián, ‘Re-conceptualizing economic relations and political citizenship in the new Iberia of the new Europe’ Suffolk University, 4 May 2001, http://webcas.cas.suffolk.edu/royo/eu_spain_portugal.pdf [2] Turmo, Ivan and Bradley, Simon, ‘Poll reveals European mindset among Swiss’, swissinfo.ch, 11 August 2010, http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/foreign_affairs/Poll_reveals_Europe... | CON | 1ad58a7f-2019-04-15T20:22:53Z-00011-000 |
Fast Food. To elaborate on my previous arguments. First, the minimum wages allow more people to be hired and therefore to be productive members of society. These poor wages are enough to scrape by and survive and also help consume ones time, something that could help them stay out of trouble. Those fat cats that you blame for exploiting the employees are the ones who give them jobs in the first place. If they didn't have all those people above them trying to run a profitable business, there would be no jobs at all. "There is also evidence of workers kicking, throwing, stepping on and drop-kicking live chickens. These horrific actions should not be allowed anywhere near live animals...The disgusting process the animals at the...slaughterhouses...should be illegal...Fast food chains are terrible to their animals!" Yes, it is terrible, however this is merely evidence that some people are abusive and these people are a minority. You also make it sound like the fast food companies own the animals, and that is very deceitful. These animals are sold to the companies for slaughter and any prior care is not caused by the fast food company. When these animals are slaughtered, they are killed rapidly and don't feel much of anything. The next part is not for the faint of heart and if you can't stand the meat, stay out of the kitchen. | PRO | c845436d-2019-04-18T17:28:18Z-00001-000 |
Mark Sanchez will win a Super Bowl with the New York Jets. I don't think Mark Sanchez will ever bring the New YORK Jets to the Superbowl. He has not played well at all this season. He cracks under pressure as a quarterback and ends up passing it straight to he other team. Unless he works his passing skills and is quicker on his feet, he will never be a strong player. I believe the best player right now is Eli Manning on the the Giants team. There was discussion on ESPN that Manning could possibly play for the Jets next season. He will do a much better job at leading the New York Jets to victory at a Superbowl. | CON | f58bd4e0-2019-04-18T18:31:02Z-00008-000 |
Mother Nature no longer controls the environment. Since the dawn of time, Mother Nature has been able to develop the Earths environment naturally. However, over the course of the last 100 years, her autonomy in this area has been significantly lessened as a result of man made climate change. Due to increased industrialisation since the turn of the century, and its emission of green house gasses such as Carbon Dioxide, the Earths average temperature has risen drastically in the last 50 years. As a result Sea levels are rising, there has been a change in the amount and pattern of precipitation, there will be an expansion of sub-tropical deserts, and the retreat of perma frost, glaciers and sea ice continues. There are also predictions of an upturn in the intensity of extreme weather, species extinction and a change to farming yields. In the United Kingdom, the ten warmest years on record are as follows: 2006, 2007, 2003, 2004, 2002, 2005, 1990, 1997, 1949 and 1999. This further demonstrates the change in climate, and it is man made phenomena. The Earths environment is increasingly being controlled less and less by Mother Nature, and more and more by us. | PRO | ab4541aa-2019-04-19T12:45:52Z-00024-000 |
Term Limits. Hello Yoon, and thanks for accepting my challenge. First of all just because there is a term limit, doesn't mean that the presidency would be more competitive. It also could be the other way. Like if one person is a president for more than 2 years, and the other people have not tried it, than the other people would work much harder to get elected because they want to be a president too. You also said that this system was created to stop dictatorships right? Well, like I said in my last argument, to a dictator, a constitution is just a piece of paper if he has his army and his power to modify the constitution. What good is term limits, if they can't stop a dictator? My second point is that this term limit that is supposed to prevent dictators from ruling forever, is preventing good leaders from being elected more than twice. This is not a very good system. By using this term limit system, it would block a good leader from running the nation one more time to make a better nation. Why do we have to stop the people from choosing a leader more than a second time, when they want that leader? My third point is that in some national crisis, a strong leader could help the nation more effectively. Imagine that we have a election and suddenly some nation like Iraq attack us? We cannot wait until we elected a new leader. It would be more effective, if one leader leads the country throughout a national crisis without blockage. For example, if FDR(Franklin Delano Roosevelt) haven't been elected more that 2 times, and couldn't execute "New Deal" how could this country have survived from the Great Depression? So, my conclusion is that term limit system is ineffective and useless and therefore, there should not be term limit any more. Thank you for listening | CON | 733662bd-2019-04-18T19:51:50Z-00001-000 |
Marriage isn't a civil right. I will be arguing that, with an anthropological perspective on marriage, marriage is a civil right. This debate will focus on American law. I have the most burden of proof, and must argue my case, however my opponent must also argue theirs. The first round will be used to agree and to put forward any needed definitions or clarifications. The second and third round will be used to debate. Civil rights are defined as: "Civil rights are the rights of individuals to receive equal treatment (and to be free from unfair treatment or "discrimination") in a number of settings -- including education, employment, housing, and more -- and based on certain legally-protected characteristics." [1] The same thing but in more words and with more legalese: "A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Statutes have been enacted to prevent discrimination based on a person's race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin, and in some instances sexual preference." [2] Excessive semantics are not welcome, this is not a semantical debate. Finally, let me end with this: marriage is a civil right, but my resolution is not that there can't be overriding factors which allow for such rights to be denied. Rights to the pursuit of happiness is considered a basic right in American society, for example, but there are countless reasons such rights might be denied, most notably that the person has committed a crime. Whether civil rights should be granted in a specific case, whether a specific characteristic should be legally protected and whether civil rights should even exist are not the topic of this debate. SOURCES 1. http://goo.gl... 2. http://goo.gl... | CON | e573c040-2019-04-18T19:03:57Z-00005-000 |
ham or turkey for lunch. Today is the day I am eating my lunch, I have brought a ham sandwich due to the fact that thanksgiving is approximately 1 and a half months away the turkeys are young now and they may not be the right size by the time thanksgiving comes around, the farmers will give the turkeys steroids so that they will be a large enough size for the fat American families to eat. we don't want to feed the already fat Americans meats that have been tempered with steroids. it will make them even more unhealthy and ultimately put their lives at risk. George Taggart, the renowned health enthusiast says " ham is better than turkey". I have actual quotes where as you have been providing your opinions to fight your side of the argument. | PRO | 25c51504-2019-04-18T14:19:23Z-00000-000 |
Individual Rights Take Precedence Over Government's Monopoly on Education. Schools do benefit public health. Disturbingly, some parents homeschool children only because they believe the state should not mandate vaccinations for students. In August 2008, the number of children with measles doubled to 131; homeschooled children accounted for 25 of 30 in an outbreak in Chicago in May and for 11 of 19 cases in Grant County, Washington[[http://tinyurl.com/6yp4lk]]. Of the infected, 91% were unvaccinated, for the same "philosophical or religious beliefs” that keep 83% of homeschooled kids away from school. It is a government's duty to protect its citizens, particularly those who are not old enough to oppose parents. Opposition asks us to institute an obligatory vaccination; we have, in the only place we can enforce it - school. Parents' rights are important, but states often intervene for collective benefit. Laws protect children from their parents’ physical abuse. Laws require all children to be educated. We support freedom of choice and religion – we believe, though, that a child, not the parent, has the right to choose these, after s/he has had exposure to other ideas at school. We definitely don’t endorse parents pulling children out of school because they disagree with a taught concept; homeschooling in the US took a jump soon after public schools began teaching evolution. When a parent disagrees, s/he should work towards solving the problem with the school rather than losing hope. Finally, the idea that a ban on homeschooling would result in the creation of totalitarian regimes like Nazi Germany is ludicrous in today’s world. Public discussion occurs whenever school curricula are changed; the democratic processes that exist to vote on such changes(communities elect school boards) ensures that the indoctrination of children that occurred in Nazi Germany won’t occur. For example, opposition’s citation is from MSNBC, a liberal voice in public discourse, and the article is an example of the debate following Texas' change. | CON | ea60501e-2019-04-19T12:44:44Z-00043-000 |
these bible verses contradict each other. "Ascend" means to rise, in a way, yes, but not in the way that you're thinking. 'Ascend' means to "go up", but it means to "go up on your own". Also, notice how this word isn't used in the second and third verses. "it is only those trying to make the verses make sense that cause one to say there must be more to ascend than is plain to us." I'm not 'trying' to make the verses make sense at all, because that's not within my ability. These verses are stated in a certain context, and that context can be found clear if you look a bit harder. In actuality, these verses compliment each other rather than contradict each other. | CON | eff52f70-2019-04-18T14:17:42Z-00001-000 |
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound. Maybe this will be fun." P1: Everything that begins to exist has a causeP2: The universe began to existC: Therefore, the universe has a cause" Your logical structure is simply not immune to people using it to draw consquences from it that can be used against it. This is a standard way of analyzing the merit of philisopical arguments or claims. Very standard. Your premises and conclusion must be viable to the face of inferences that can be drawn from it if they are not to be illogical. If these inferences cannot be drawn, you must reasonably state why they cannot be so.You have failed to do this in regards to the nonexistant causing the existant, or why a cause does not simply mean another cause causesd it. Since this is a clearly a philosphical question, a metaphysical one at that, you must be aware in metaphysics words must be taken at their literal implications and everything that dervies from those implications? "My opponent is attacking an argument that nobody is making, this is called a straw-man logical fallacy"Not at all, your arguement is stating as fact that the universe has a cause. Nothing in this states the cause cannot have a cause, you merely avoid the possibility by saying something that exists has a cause and cannot exist itself. Or rather than saying that, you refuse to see the relvance of such a point. By attacking this point I can challegne the conclusion, which all I am obligated to do. Whether it plays by your rules is irrelvent, in philosophy the rules of logic dictate. And if you refuse to entertain this point you must explain why it illogical, and not merely say it is not what you said, when your conclusion DEPENDS on this being implict.I quote you:"Whatever caused the universe might not have began to exist, meaning, it wouldn't necessarily require a cause as far as the argument is concerned. "In metaphyscus 'might not' does not suffice, either exists or it does not. Since it only 'might not' that does not preclude anyone from sticking the question to you, does it or does it not exist? From there the infite regress allegation follows. 'Either way, he concedes the debate, as he has been arguing for the wrong side."Technically this isn't a debate since we don't diagree, but it is becoming a debate over the implications of your words. You are asking me to ignore logical questions that naturally result from your premises and conclusion, and instead of facing them you deny they exist. Clearly denying somethings existance requires rationalizatin you have no provided. I sense defensiveness becoming someone who feels threatend. Have I stolen your debate from you? | PRO | 11298fe0-2019-04-18T16:24:50Z-00002-000 |
Common agricultural policy of Europe see many tones of food go to waste. Whilst we may see food go to waste currently, in the future this may not be the case. The world’s population is increasing rapidly, and the predictions by the Royal Society show that the food supply we currently have cannot cater for the population boom that will occur in the future. By investing in GM crops research, something which there has not been enough of to say definitively whether GM foods are safe or not, we can hold the technology for future use. Whether we decide in the future that we need it, or that we do not need it is an issue for the future. The least we can do now is to invest in future technology so that a solution is there should we need it in the future. Leaving such research until there is not enough food everyone is not good enough; the research needs to be done before the problem occurs and the time is now. | CON | 8d064d0e-2019-04-19T12:46:54Z-00003-000 |
Torture. 1.Torture is to inflict severe pain on some non-consenting defenseless, but the purpose does not need to be, breaking their will, and the torture does not necessarily have to be mental or physical. 2.The level of morality within the torture is irrelevant because torture is not moral to begin with. 3.Torture cannot be justified as minimally, morally acceptable by saying it is "needed". 4.Yes, emergency cases that "call" for torture are for the better of the greater good, but once again that does not justify torture being minimally, or morally acceptable. Non-controversial: Premise 3 and 4 are not controversial because there is no way prove that some cases of torture are minimally, morally acceptable. Controversial: Premise 1 and 2 are controversial because what defines torture can be argued; there are various definitions. | CON | 5ff307fb-2019-04-18T15:28:31Z-00000-000 |
Blacks are equal to whites. Everyone seems to think that us white people are better than blacks. They say they are savages. A different species. They don"t belong. Why? Because they are more tanned than we are? That"s a load of crap. They never did anything to us. They never hurt us. If they did it"s becuase we deserved it. I wanted to see if anyone has the nerve to challenge this. Anyone idiotic enough to think that blacks are the worthless, Ugly, Savage creatures all the stupid whites make them out to be. They really aren"t, But maybe someone disagrees? | PRO | c71e090d-2019-04-18T11:21:57Z-00005-000 |
The US is responsible for the majority of death amongst Native Americans. While a rather interesting perspective, I will agree to the argument presented to me and rebut it. Before my main argument I will state this. My opponent makes a case by saying that "Native Americans should be considered as people who are born on US soil". While I am fine with the statement because it is his belief, I must mention something. Would a person born in the soon-to-be US be native American? It brings another question forward of mine. If those people aren't Native Americans, then are all the ones born during or after 1776 in the US Native Americans? To start my main argument, my opponent, based on his beliefs, is stating my question as "Are Native Americans responsible for the majority of death amongst itself? in essence. But what about people coming from Europe? The are the people I put guilt on. They can't be considered Native Americans because they weren't born in North America. Many sources say that 90% of death amongst Native Americans were caused by disease (earlyamerica.com) brought over by Europeans, who can't be considered Native Americans. By the time the Euro is out and the US is in, the Native American population is already low. One interesting fact I found was before Euro contact and 1900, the Native population dropped >10 million people to 530,000. (earlyamerica.com) To finish out my rebuttal, I will put in words what I believe my opponent comprehends as my question. Are people born in Europe or in the US more responsible for the death of people born before and after Native Americans with European descent? There would be two answers to that question. The first one would be Europeans. They would be more responsible with it before Native Americans with their descent. The second would be the US (i.e NA with Euro s). This is directly because their were no Europeans at the time and the wars the US had internally. In this case though, if I would put into context my belief here's how it would go. Are Native Americans with euro descent (US) or Europeans responsible for the most deaths of NON-EURO Native Americans. The obvious answer would be Europeans as they put 90% of them off the map by 1875 roughly through disease. Final statement: My final statement is through my opponents view, it would be both sides. Before, Europe, After, the US. But in my belief it is a clear answer as they are responsible with 90% of death amongst non-euro NA (which far outnumbered in death the US caused), it is Europe. I will accept my opponent's argument and await response. source: http://www.earlyamerica.com... | CON | b59f53f3-2019-04-18T14:17:57Z-00001-000 |
Catholic Christianity's beliefs are false. I don't really think definitions are necessary. A couple of arguments to start off with: 1. Catholic beliefs are absurd. For example, the concept of believing a man was born of a virgin is unrealistic. 2. Pretty much every Catholic response to an Atheist argument as as well questionable. For example, "evil in the world comes from Satan from when evil triumphed over good." To that I'd say prove it. 3. I don't believe in your god for the same reasons you don't believe in other religion's gods (I'll elaborate in response). 4. Overwhelming evidence that Jesus didn't exist (tell me why you think he exists...). 5. It's unfair to say that every time the Bible doesn't make sense it's allegorical and every time it does make sense it's true. That is like saying the Bibld ix the word of god except when it's not. 6. Nobody deserves to go to hell for eternity (not even Hitler), especially for making human mistakes... because we are only human beings. 7. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... which of course there isn't any of. 8. Christians can't prove the Bible is allegorical, but just take it as that because literally it doesn't make sense. 9. You can't disprove anything there isn't proof of. So don't say you can't disprove god... you also can't disprove invisible smurfs but I souldn't believe in it. 10. There is evil in the world (tell me where evil came from). 11. All these beliefs come from a book that's history is very questionable. I'll consider your responses and reply honestly. | PRO | 664557c2-2019-04-18T18:01:49Z-00005-000 |
Last Universal Ancestor/Common Descent of ALL species. This is meant to be a casual debate over the course of several days. The idea is to have time to research your arguments and find supporting evidence (not to mention, having a life). You can use as much of the 3 days as you want-- I work and go to school, so my schedule requires this flexibility. What we have here are five rounds: The first round is for introductions and presenting main points, the second and third rounds are for counter-arguments and substantiation or refutation of main points. The fourth round will be final counter arguments and any additional supporting evidence you wish to share. The fifth round is for summarizing your argument and counterargument (if you so desire), and any closing remarks. I do not disagree that species evolve, or that certain species likely share common ancestry. I am challenging the notion that all species evolved from one common ancestor, commonly called the "Last Universal Ancestor". This is not a debate on origins or creationism; it is a debate specifically about the idea that all life on Earth descended from one life form. The points I will be arguing are as follow: Literally billions of years are required for this type of evolutionary branching to reach such diversity. I will be challenging the notion that the earth has existed for billions of years, as well as the dating methods and genetic "discoveries" which are often cited as evidence of common descent and old-earth theory. Species evolve through adaptation, but they don't evolve into entirely separate species. I will be supporting this argument using research from biology and also using inductive reasoning. Many species are comprised of irreducible complexities. We can debate this I am sure, because it poses a serious problem for evolutionary theory that often provokes dismissiveness and some rather absurd hypothesizing as far as counter-arguments go. If species have been evolving for billions of years from a common ancestor, why are we the only one amongst MILLIONS of species to develop advanced civilization, communication, and engineering. If our species evolved from a primitive monkey/man hybrid (which in turn descended from the LCA), why are there still monkeys, and why is humanity pretty much the most self-destructive species on this planet? Why are we the only species that has both instinct and the free will to choose against our own best interests? If all species shared one ancestor, there would be many different chains and stages of evolution, and the fossil record would reflect this. The truth it, it does not. Furthermore, between our last ice age, the global flood, and whatever cataclysms caused the gulf of Mexico and the breaking up of the continents, our entire geological record is skewed by variables which scientists willfully ignore. | CON | 2e823dde-2019-04-18T16:47:20Z-00007-000 |
Gangsta rap is socially corrosive because it affirms negative stereotypes. Much gangsta rap revolve... Gangsta rap does not employ negative stereotypes more than is reasonable. Mostly it is a form of social realism which simply tells hard truths that many policymakers would rather pretend did not exist, not least because in part they reflect those policymakers’ own failures. Even where such affirmation is concentrated in such a way as to make it an unrealistic representation of everyday life, this is no worse than the same phenomenon in other forms of popular culture e.g. soap operas. | CON | be2512c3-2019-04-19T12:46:58Z-00009-000 |
Was operation Barbarossa the turning point of WWII. In order for Pro to win he will have to prove that "Axis was winning the war before operation Barbarosa and started losing right after it." Con's Argument is -Operation Barbarosa caused USSR to join the Allies -The USSR was detrimental for the axis defeat -Therefore Operation Barbarossa was the turning point This argument has 2 flaws Flaw 1 The fact that USSR is important for the allied cannot prove that the axis started losing the war right after operation Barbarossa. Pro tried to claim that axis was losing the war just after Barbarossa by referencing events that happened 3 years after. It does not make much sense really. Flaw 2 The same argument can be used to prove that pearl harbor is the turning point -Pearl Harbor caused the US to join the Allies -The US was detrimental for the axis defeat. -Therefore Pearl Harbor was the turning point of the war. I have now dismantled pro's argument. Operation Barbarossa is not the turning point of the war | CON | 6d3cd0da-2019-04-18T16:16:50Z-00001-000 |
Videos for people is an insanely good Youtube channel. In my last argument, I did NOT insult Pamtri. I simply compared him to Videos For people, because both of them use low quality animation to add appeal to their stuff. Pamtri's stuff is actually quite good and entertaining, but I claim that Videos for people is actually better. Pamtri uses violence and low quality humor. Videos for people, on the other hand, does not resort to shock value, and uses light, satirical humor. In addition, Pamtri's work is far removed from reality, and gives a surreal feeling, but Videos for people always seems to be rooted in reality. they're both fine, of course, but in different ways, and if I had to choose, I would pick Videos for people. Now, as to what you said- "There is no voice"- I ask you: does there really NEED to be a voice? Videos for people seems to function fine without it. The strange lack of dialogue also increases the mystery and anonymity of the whole thing. If he did use his real voice, then the mystery would be broken, and everything would be ruined. that's one of the fun things about his channel. Also, for heaven's sake, there doesn't need to be any voice. Humans can communicate just as well in written words as they can with spoken words. And, finally, you said that it isn't funny. That's dead wrong. This channel and nearly everything on it is as funny as hell. It's a unique type of humor, and you may take some time to adjust to it, but once it settles in, you can get used to it. Look, for instance, at his recent video on the Stanford prison experiment. We can see from this video that the creator has a high intellect, to know about this look into the duality of man. The characters are funny. They talk, they dance around, and the way he does facial expressions is really something zany. Everything about this channel is funny. The music always fits well with the situation given. He is just one huge hilarity after the next. He is very funny. Please, voters, vote for me. I've made longer, better arguments, and my opponent refuses to write over 100 words. I hope that you make the right choice. Consider well, and good luck. Tell WHY you voted as you did, please. As for you, sir, I await your final argument. | PRO | 8fb468ed-2019-04-18T12:01:51Z-00001-000 |
Objectively, the most terrifying pre-K/T extinction land animal was the Tyrannosaurus Rex. The part of source which you quoted about the Spinosaurus was actually an incorrect earlier estimate. The source clearly says that the Spinosaurus approached 59 feet in length. An undisputable fact is that Spinosaurus is larger than T-rex, as it is without doubt the largest living land carnivore. Thus, Pro's assertion that T-rex is "much bigger" is absolutely false. While Quetzlcoatlus did fly, it was also considered a land animal since it spent a large portion of its time on the ground. In fact, its eating, breeding, and roosting habits were all performed mostly on the ground. Therefore, it can still be considered a land animal. I fail to see what was false about my Carcharodontosaurus facts, as they agree with what you quoted from the source. It is true that Tyrannosaurus rex had mmense bite force, larger than any of the animals I proposed. However, this apparent advantage is contrasted with a lack of maneuverability and smaller size as compared to Carcharadontosaurus and Spinosaurus, as well as less mobility overall as compared to Quetzlcoatlus. While Tyrannosaurus was good at biting, she could not catch you as easily as any of the three animals I described. Megalodon is a prehistoric shark. I fail to see why that is relevant to this discussion, especially considering the fact that T-rex couldn't even swim! Tyrannosaurus might be able to crush Spinosaurus, Carcharodontosaurus, or Quetzlcoatlus, but that is on the off chance that she gets the opportunity! With the maneuverability and size advantages my animals have over Tyrannosaurus, T-rex would be ripped to shreds before he got the chance to clamp his jaws around them! | CON | 5edecdb3-2019-04-18T16:23:45Z-00001-000 |
Quickfire debate on welfare. I disagree but comply nonetheless.' RESOLVED:Welfare should not be eliminate R1: I believe if we were to eliminate welfare it would be no better than murder. It is unjust to let people starve due to their economic status. It goes against our foundation as a nation to have the oppurtunity of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". If we eliminate welfare it would go against all three of these notions. It would eliminate the freedom to live because some people couldn't afford food. It would eliminate our liberty because people's voices wouldn't be heard due to economic status. Finally it would eliminate the pursuit of happiness because people could not pursue their dreams due th constraints on income. R2: The average welfare family barely gets by, with only money for food water and shelter. People on welfare aren't rich, They get by on the bare minimum. It is so small compared to us. The financial truth is that welfare barely registers on our national budget. R3: People on welfare aren't necessarily slackers. I will admit, some are, but when you look at the psycological aspect of this, is facing the social ridicule of needing to be helped by the government worth the extra money. And the other people who are on welfare don't always search for a job as they need to focus on surviving. I will stop now as I am running short on time. Note: I will add sources later | PRO | ec09440c-2019-04-18T19:34:51Z-00003-000 |
It doesn’t solve the problem of protecting countries outside of Europe from losing players. In practice this plan will do nothing for football in countries outside Europe. Already many overseas players have dual nationality (which is especially easy to obtain for South American players wanting to play in Spain or Portugal). Other players are from countries (e.g. South Africa, Caribbean states) with labour agreements with the EU and can work freely in European countries. Both groups would be able to claim that they didn’t count as overseas players under the FIFA plan, so little would change. One danger is that many good players will completely switch nationality in order to play overseas, and so not be qualified for their original country at all in future. And what FIFA plans to do about the many Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish footballers playing for English teams is very unclear. Would they be banned from playing in their own country? | PRO | 2559ba26-2019-04-15T20:22:39Z-00023-000 |
Plastic surgery is not worth it. I do believe plastic surgery is worth it. Saying that, there a a large amount of variables that present itself when asking this question, making the answer different, relative to the person you are asking, and as well as the person getting the plastic surgery. If you where to buy a bike for a couple grand, and you don't even ride bikes, it was would not be worth it. For me, said bike would be, since I would use it frequently and would've benefit from the higher quality of the bike. Same way of thinking can be applied to the question you are asking. From person to person, a certain thing they buy is worth it or not worth it. For plastic surgery, maybe you think it is a waste of money, others might not. For people who want to improve their looks, or sexual organs and are willing to spend money on doing such things, it might be worth it. I will refute your other claims later on, for I don't want to spend all my Ammo in one argument. | CON | e15ecc5a-2019-04-18T12:15:36Z-00000-000 |
Forza is the best racing simulator series ever. 1) Scores of all Mario Kart games vs Forza gamesSuper Mario Kart (1992) =...................................... GameRankings = 93.60%http://en.wikipedia.org...Mario Kart 64 (1996) = ........................................... GameRankings = 87.01%, Metacritic = 83/100http://en.wikipedia.org...Mario Kart: Super Circuit (2001) = ....................... GameRankings = 91.54%, Metacritic = 93 of 100http://en.wikipedia.org...Mario Kart: Double DashR52; (2003) = ................ GameRankings = 87.20%, Metacritic = 87 out of 100http://en.wikipedia.org...Mario Kart DS (2005) = ........................................................................................... Metacritic = 91 out of 100http://en.wikipedia.org...Mario Kart Wii (2008) = ............................................ GameRankings = 82.07%, Metacritic = 82 out of 100http://en.wikipedia.org...Mario Kart 7 (2011) = ............................................... GameRankings = 85.17%, Metacritic = 85 out of 100http://en.wikipedia.org...Mario Kart 8 (2014) =................................................ GameRankings = 88.52%, Metacritic = 88/100http://en.wikipedia.org...Average score = 87.87% from Game Rankings, 87 from MetacriticNow lets examine Forza. http://en.wikipedia.org...Forza Motorsport (2005) = Game Rankings = 93.05%, Metacritic = 92Forza Motorsport 2 (2007) = Game Rankings = 89..98%, Metacritic = 90Forza Motorsport 3 (2009) = Game Rankings = 92.26%, Metacritic = 92Forza Motorsport 4 (2011) = Game Rankings = 90.66%, Metacritic = 91Forza Horizon (2012) = Game Rankings = 86.19%, Metacritic = 85Forza Motorsport 5 (2013) = Game Rankings = 79.49%, Metacritic = 79Forza Horizon 2 (2014) = Game Rankings = 87.47%, Metacritic = 86Average score = 88.44% from Game Rankings, 87.57 from MetacriticSO TO RECAPMario Kart Series = 87.87% from Game Rankings, 87 from MetacriticForza Series = 88.44% from Game Rankings, 87.57 from MetacriticWait a second....Ah f*ck me, I guess Forza actually is better than Mario Kart Vote most points to Pro, but at least give me source points because I just went through a LOT of research just to figure out that I'm wrong and I deserve credit for at least that >.> | CON | 1b08354b-2019-04-18T15:25:00Z-00002-000 |
GODS EXSISTENCE. I am getting really tired of repeating myself. You can't ask me why I believe in something and then when I answer say that that's not what I believe. You can contend my opinion but you can't say that my opinion is not my opinion. Yes, that is exactly what I wrote in the previous round because you asked me the same question. You keep asking me to say why I don't believe in God, and I'm telling you that my beliefs aren't as straight forward as that and then explaining why. I didn't come here to prove God doesn't exist, I came here to prove that you can't prove it. You say that I "wouldn't believe anything that ridiculous without any proof". I believe the thing your referring to is agnosticism because if its atheism then I've already explained that I'm not an atheist. Yes, I can believe it because the proof is that there is no proof. I have never seen truly concrete evidence as to whether God exists or not, and therefore I can't logically take a side. "did you just come to disprove the things that I said" Yes. That's what I've been saying and doing this whole time. "I would HONESTLY like to here from you why you belive there is no God and Im sure everyone els would. As well." As I have explained above, and in the previous round, and in the one before that, I do not believe necessarily that there is no God, just that you can't prove it and that your argument is flawed. I'm sure everyone else is actually getting the point I'm making, since I've made it so many times by now. Please do not ask me to tell you "why God doesn't exist" because I've already given you my answer and instead of debating the topic you seem intent on debating what my beliefs are for me. | CON | 177ec991-2019-04-18T19:55:47Z-00002-000 |
Rap Battle Time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. So NPH, you want me to name your flaws in my reply So I will; I'll spill; but you might cry Here's one- you're rap was so bad you must have been high! Don't say that's a lie ‘cause you're profile says otherwise * I'll go put on my shades ‘cause I'm ready to roll Hope ya'll are hearing me out ‘cause I'm rapping from the soul I'm the troll; pay my toll You're rap ain't even worth a penny; this flamingo's out of control I got rhymes all a plenty Bet ya hardly got any This pink bird's got many many many! * You think my identity's a lie That conclusions as flimsy as a French fry Where's your proof; you're evidence- I mean this is a debate site! If your gonna say something, put up a fight! Stomp out that cigarette and let's call this round to me I'm better than you; you're rapping skill sucks-this I decree! * I bet I'm making you shake in your shoes ‘cause you're gonna lose You're like a bruise Nothing but ooze * You might as well call mercy right now I'm the lions roar and you're the cat's meow I'm the dog and you're my chow * Typing up this rap With my two wings There on fire My skills should be admired All this heats making me perspire Seyenara weed-snorter It's your turn under the spotlight Does anyone have a quarter? I need to call the lighting crew on this stage- that's one dam hot light! ========================================================================…..Sorry I practically fell asleep on my wing there for a moment. *Yawns* Good Luck! | PRO | 94200306-2019-04-18T19:13:19Z-00003-000 |
We would be better off without Obama. These guys would be messiahs if they saved all of mankind. And if they did save all of mankind, they would have to all die as a symbol of them saving mankind. Therefore my opponent's argument is invalid and it only furthers the notion that we Obama should die in some way. And about Obama being black and awesome. Did anyone happen to hear about his latest bout of insecurity? Apparently, Bammy decided to pull a Michael Jackson to match his political position. How sad! Look here at how this fool tries so desperately to change himself to match his status in society and politics! There's a name for people like this, and it's called REVERSE OREO Look, he's just like an Oreo Cookie, except in reverse. White on the outside, but still black and evil on the inside. Personallly, I think he'd be a terrible tasting Oreo. Thinking that a reverse Oreo would taste bad is not racist. We would need to get rid of them, right? Why? Because it's just wrong. Therefore, I am clearly right and we would be better off without this Oreo perversion lingering around. | PRO | f6f49b49-2019-04-18T16:24:41Z-00003-000 |