argument
stringlengths 201
3.55k
| stance
stringclasses 2
values | id
stringlengths 36
39
|
|---|---|---|
resovled: pornography on the internet should be illegal. hello my name is darion Williams and i will be debating the con side of this argument many people want to see women naked but it is wrong. women are human beings to do men just want to see every inappropriate body part of women. it is like saying "i want to look at a women's breasts". we should treat women like humans and not sexy morons. thank you! | CON | 89c80d11-2019-04-18T18:48:08Z-00004-000 |
The phrase "under God" is not uniting people. Many individuals in the United States come from different cultures; therefore they do not share the same religious beliefs. Also atheists find it inequitable to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. By including the phrase “one nation under God” in the pledge, it is forcing people to have a religion. They have no other alternative but to agree with what the pledge has included. It is unconstitutional though, because there has to be a separation between church and state. It is not creating unity, but a division among the people. | PRO | e8528bac-2019-04-19T12:45:07Z-00037-000 |
To stop the usage of fossil fuel is the only way to combat global warming. Let's start the debate. Fossil fuel has some major impacts in our lifes. It usage has resulted in economic development, job opportunities and environmental issues that is industrial revolution. Today, I will be speaking for the topic. The temperatures have been rising steadily but we have to stop it. rising temperatures is turning the life of living organisms. I agree that there are other causes of global warming but fossil fuel is the most important one. It's burning have resulted in cheap and in mass way to produce energy but with the cost of our environment. It produces green house gases which pollutes our environment. It is resulted in shorter human life expectancy. | PRO | bb33e2b7-2019-04-18T18:22:23Z-00009-000 |
war on terrorism. My opponent's forfeiting of this final round, despite the fact that he was online several times since I posted my second round, leads me to believe that he has intentionally given up this debate. That in itself should count this as a win for me; but just for emphasis, I'll point out some key points about this debate: -My opponent was the instigator, yet he didn't offer any of his own points to the debate, or any support for anything he said. -My points were solid, and went mostly un-touched by my opponent. -My opponent used his second round (and his only post of any length at all) to make an appeal to popularity, several straw man arguments, and a reiteration of a non-resolutional point that I'd already conceded (that terrorism is a threat). -My opponent also used personal attacks, including the insinuation that I plagiarized, which I in no way did (and I'm sure you could verify that with a few google searches). -I refuted my opponent's attacks thoroughly, where they came anywhere near my case. I hope everyone votes based on the debate, rather than their knee-jerk reaction to the topic. | CON | 7f23fd38-2019-04-18T19:56:24Z-00000-000 |
Gun control. Second, since you didn't actually state your arguments, I suppose I will just take what are to be understood arguments from your case and negate them. 1 - "we all pretend to feel bad about it and we all pretend that we think mass murders are horrible things" I don't think anybody "pretends" to feel bad about these things, or "pretends" that they think mass murders are horrible things. And if anybody does, certainly not ALL of us would agree. 2 - "So, if you can't even deny someone tenure without the possibility of being shot, we need to make changes. " Many people have been denied tenure without shooting anybody. According to your statement, we only need to make changes if every time somebody is denied tenure, and many people have been denied tenure without being shot. Therefore, we need to make no changes. 3 - "GUNS KILL PEOPLE. " The popular statement, guns kill people. Obviously, people kill people. If a gun was sitting all by itself on the counter, would it have the ability to kill anybody? | CON | e0ccca84-2019-04-18T19:11:07Z-00004-000 |
sonic beats mario. http://www.youtube.com... I assume that this debate is about who would win in a fight: Mario or Sonic. First off, the only special thing about Sonic is that he can run pretty fast. Guess what? Mario actually runs FASTER than Sonic[1]. I guess the sheer awesomeness of Mario’s other qualities is just so awesome that people tend to forget that little thing. So there goes the one advantage Sonic had. Well hey at least Sonic can jump over some spikes and beat some fat@ss ginger robot. Mario on the other hand can: 1. Grow twice his own size and smoosh anyone and anything that gets in his way. [3] 2. Punches bricks for the fun of it. [4] 3. Can shoot fire balls out of his hands [3] 4. Fly [3] 5. Turn completely in metal. [3] 6. Become temporarily invincible. [3] 7. Breath under water for really damn long periods of time. [5] 8. Beat up all kinds of characters from different games [2] 9. Is good at sports such as tennis, golf, ect. [6] 10. Can throw hammers with tremendous velocity [3] 11.Gets a gigantic hammer and pulverizes everything in sight [7] 12. Clone himself [3] 13. Throw ice balls [3] 14. Become gigantic destroying everything in his path [3] 15. Speed up time [3] 16. Slow down time [3] 17. Jump REALLY high. [8] Oh yeah, and he’s just a plumber, not some alien hedgehog thingy. Mario is a f*cking epic plumber with a super hot girlfriend. He rescues the lady he loves, going through countless repetitive and enduring trials. He fights all kind of awesome mutant turtles and angry muffins and eventually some punk rock turtle dragon monster. Isn’t Sonic trying to like protect nature from some dumb ginger? Yeah, I think Mario wins. Sources [1] Refer to video [2] Refer to Super Smash Brothers franchise [3] http://www.mariowiki.com... [4] Refer to any Mario game featuring bricks [5] Refer to any Mario game with underwater levels [6] Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games games [7] Old Donkey Kong games [8] Refer to any Mario game that features Mario jumping | CON | 569ee689-2019-04-18T16:48:10Z-00003-000 |
Jesus Christ was a real person + He was the son of god. It's just there are a lot of internet Atheists who can be very bitter and cruel. Of course I am not making a generalisation or anything. Now you have refuted my arguments. I guess I shall think up new ones instead of trying to recover the previous ones I lost. Here's one. In the time period of BC Jesus is not the only person who claimed to be the Messiah. MANY Israelites did. Many people tried to use the Torah to say that they were the Messiah in order to gain power over others. In fact it is known historically one of the Herods claimed to be the chosen prophet this of course is not a very well known fact. My argument is this. Considering all the Jews who claimed to be the Messiah only ONE is remembered to this day 2000 years later. Jesus Christ. So why is it that the claim of Christ is remembered but all the other people who claimed to be the son of god aren't? For this reason I believe Christ's claim was most certainly special. This cannot be denied by even an Atheist. Christ's claim has been the most sucessful. Plus why did the churches choose Christs claim? Why not choose one of the other people who had claimed to be the son of god and manipulate people with their claims? Of course you can say that they just chose Christ above all the others because if for example the Herod had been chosen by them you would see me saying how come Herod was chosen. But. . Christs claim is remembered 2000 years after he made it. I reckon all the people who had claimed to be the son of god convinced many. There were probably many sort of equilalents to worship places for them. How come only Christ's is remembered 2000 years after? What cannot be denied at the very least is that Jesus's claim is most certainly the most successful. It was certainly special considering all the other claims which have been forgotten within a decade after they were made. So. If Jesus is not the son of god. .. Why is his claim to be remembered 2000 years after? I reckon if this was a false claim just like all the other people who weren't the Messiah it would have been forgotten very very quickly. There were many claims to be the Messiah in those days. Not just Jesus. All the false claims to be the son of god have one thing in common: They were forgotten not too long after they were made. If Jesus's claim was false why wasn't his forgotten like all the other false claims were? | PRO | f2d95a9f-2019-04-18T14:28:28Z-00001-000 |
Hindu's are stupid because they don't eat bacon (Pro) Hinduism is a stupid religion (Con) Its okay. Hindu's are bloody stupid because they don't eat bacon. They are making themselves miss out on one of the best things in life. The social pressure that they would get from other Hindu's would make it hard to escape the cycle without being disowned by everyone you know, even though it would be totally worth it for bacon. Also they miss out on things like ham and cheese croissants and bacon pasta. Hinduism is a dumb religion, as there is also no legitimate reason to not eat pig products. It would not harm them in any way, and I don't care if you think cows are sacred in your country. Maybe if they ate more bacon Vodafone tech support would be a bit better. | PRO | b08445eb-2019-04-18T16:09:29Z-00003-000 |
Turkey joining the EU would help the international fight against terrorism. There are fears that Turkey joining the EU would create the possibility of a ‘single market’ in terrorism. "Turkey will not be admitted to the E.U. It will not be admitted because, at this point, given the behaviour mainly of Arab Muslims (for does anyone doubt that it was the Arab influence that caused some Chechens to embrace not only the idea of Jihad, but all of the current methods being used to further it), Europeans have lost their stomach for parroting phrases about the religion of "peace" and "tolerance." They do not want to admit a country of 70 million Muslims, who would then move freely about Europe. They do not want Turkey admitted because it will be an easy conduit for non-Turkish Muslims to enter Europe, posing as Turks."[1] [1] http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/12/fitzgerald-turkey-will-not-be-admitted-to-the-eu.html ‘Turkey will not be admitted to the EU’ by Hugh Fitzgerald, 6th December 2005 | CON | 4e822ec6-2019-04-15T20:22:22Z-00013-000 |
Under no circumstances should arms be regulated. I wish to open up this debate with two quotes: "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." R32;- Mao Tze Tung, Nov 6, 1938 "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let"s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." -Adolf Hitler at a dinner talk on April 11, 1942 What these two quotes show, is that tyranny most easily comes to power when arms are taken away from the people. By only allowing the state to possess arms, it means that they now have all of the power and the people are powerless. What can people do against such a government if they disagree with it? Liberty can only be defended by arms. When some people are allowed arms and others are not, that puts one group above another in power essentially, for what can the people who are unarmed do against those who are armed? In addition, if the general populace is not allowed to have guns, but some people illegally obtain them and then go shoot at a group of people, that group of people has no means to defend themselves. So not only do guns protect us from the government, but also criminals. The police can only investigate a crime after it has occurred, they can't prevent them from happening, so they can't prevent you from dying from a criminal's gun, but your own gun can. There is no reason whatsoever to regulate guns for the honest law-abiding citizen, and I would even argue that for criminals arms should not be taken away either, since they should still have a right to potentially overthrow a tyrannical government and defend themselves against other criminals. However, if they are a murderer, they would most likely be imprisoned for life anyways so wouldn't be able to use a gun anymore to harm anyone anyways. There are many arguments in favor of gun control that I've heard of before I could address now, but I will wait for my opponent to make those arguments before I address them, otherwise this wouldn't be much of a debate, now would it? I turn this over to my opponent now. | PRO | a796d4dd-2019-04-18T12:41:01Z-00005-000 |
i rule all carrots. carrots are aliens from the planet Zorgulie, which i also lived on for many years. They came to worship me for my absolute beauty and through my saving of there planet, which became extinct in the year 204 B.C. The carrots then migrated to the Earth to live in peace under the protection of there "god" (Me) who then gave them invisible limbs and unheard voices. Carrot King Out | PRO | 9172aae7-2019-04-18T16:49:14Z-00001-000 |
Automatic weapons should be legalized. My opponent's first statment was that if we were to ban cars, baseball bats, knifes, and rocks it would be an inconvienice while banning guns would be fine because they were desighned soley to harm people. However my opponent is wrong. Guns are also used in hunting and recreation. There are still places in America where people really greatly on hunting in order to eat. I argue that banning guns is quite an inconviniece. What are security guards and police officers supposed to use if guns are illegal? But we have gotten off topic with this "Whether or not guns should be made illegal" debate. The resolution is wether automatic weapons should be legalized or not. If criminals have and use automatic weapons "good" citizens should be able to have them for what ever reason. Even if we did allow "good" citizens to have them the crime rate wouldn't go up becuase "good" citizens" wouldn't use them to commit crimes. This brings me to my opponent's second statement: "I don't think I will be robbed anytime soon. " It's impossible to predict future events however it is still possible and even if it does not happen to you specifically it could happen to soemone else and the question would present itself: An armed man eneters your house. Which would you preffer to confront him with? A can of pepper spray or an equally powered weapon, an automatic weapon? | PRO | 4303df1-2019-04-18T19:00:05Z-00003-000 |
Atheism is the default position. Non-Belief is a Conclusion My opponent claims "Non-belief, therefore, is the rejection of something as true." Nobody has ever seen a baby reject something as true. What my opponent is trying to do is use a logical fallacy by trying to create a false dichotomy: "Either you accept or you reject" The true dichotomy, however, is: "Either you accept or you don't accept." A "don't accept" is not the same as a "reject" A baby doesn't accept God because it has no idea what God is. A baby doesn't reject God, yet doesn't believe in God. Non-Belief is Different from Unawareness My opponent claims "No one is born, for example, with a non-belief in extraterrestrial aliens" Actually, EVERYONE is born not believing in extraterrestrial aliens! You do not have to make a choice to have no belief in something. It's the default position. Inanimate objects don't believe in anything. A pen, is in fact, an Atheist, because it does not believe in Gods. You don't need to comprehend the idea of Atheism in order to be an Atheist. The moment you die, you become an Atheist (if you aren't already one), because you no longer believe in a God. You revert back to the default position! The Problem of Infinite Regression My opponent is trying to claim that "If we follow our lines of reasoning far enough, we will find they rely upon a foundation of assumptions about what is possible and what is not. Once again; Babies don't make assumptions and neither do pens or dead bodies. You don't need any evidence to be an Atheist, but you do need evidence to be a Theist, even if the evidence isn't true. You just need to believe it's true. Atheists don't believe in Gods because of the lack of evidence. The burden of proof is on those who make a positive claim. No claim requires no proof. No belief requires no proof nor any assumptions. All Conclusions are Biased A non belief isn't a conclusion. It's the default position. A sane person only believes something when they can conclude that it's true. It's not logical to just believe in something until it is proved false. If that were the case, you would be born believing in EVERYTHING until it was proved false to you. Conclusion A non-belief in not the "neutral position". It's the default position. You always start off not believing in something before you do believe it. My opponent claims, "Atheism (as evidenced by the suffix "ism") is an ideology." The truth is, Atheism is a NON-"ism" as evidenced by the prefix "a". http://atheism.about.com... | PRO | df01174a-2019-04-18T17:47:52Z-00005-000 |
The US Congress should pass a bill that limits discrimination in us voting polls. I'll take the bait. I don't see this as discrimination and the Federal government should leave it up to the state. Your source is from over a year ago so I'd be interested to see how it panned out. In the article from the NY Times, it states that voters have to show up with ONE of five forms of acceptable ID. I don't see how this can be discriminatory. If you can't prove who you are when given 5 chances, odds may be that you are trying to be deceitful. IF, you don't have one of the five acceptable forms of ID, you have another shot by getting a voter ID certificate. In this case you will have to provide your birth certificate. ONLY if you don't have said birth certificate would you have to obtain one from the records office (at a cost of $22 "in some cases"). Now, you have been given 6 chances to prove you are who you say you are and that you are eligible to vote in a certain election. The people calling discrimination site that this would be difficult for the poor and indignant. If the state waived the $22 fee for a new birth certificate, would this still be discriminatory? The article also mentions that some people may have to go up to 250 miles to obtain their voter ID certificate. I would argue that if they cared enough for their vote, they would gladly make the trek. That said, yes, that may be difficult for the destitute. What if the state had a "travelling Department of Public Safety Office" that came to your county? Would it still be discriminatory? What if the state made it mandatory to give time off to those that need to obtain such a voter ID? These don't seem like Federal issues to me. Also, I challenge your claim that, " these laws allowed polls to turn down any voter even if the id was good, all they needed was a shred of doubt". I did not see that in your source article and seems to be conjecture. Now, let's discuss the rights of the majority of the population. I am a registered voter and vote in every election. I think it's important and it's my right. If it could be proven that an election was swayed by voter fraud and the state could have done something about it, I would be furious. Imagine the outrage that would ensue if the state did try to do something about it but the Federal government put a stop to it. | CON | 39b0a81c-2019-04-18T17:04:10Z-00004-000 |
GMO foods should not be required to be labeled. okie dokie time for my final point as to why gmo containing foods should not be required to be labeled.Lets just assume that gmo's are as harmful as proposed, what are the claimed health effects?the 2 main claims are that glyphosates cause cancer or change our dna. theses are pretty big claims.If these claims were true then surely more action then labeling would be required. I mean a company cannot put arsenic in their baby formula so long as they put a label on it stating so.now you may argue that cigarettes cause cancer and are legal to sell. however they're not a food stuff or medicine. so it's a different scenario. the reason for cigarettes being legal is due to their use for a long part of history and the difficulty in policing their use. gmo foods do not face these issues. If gmo foods were as harmful as claimed such as causing cancer, they're use would be completely discontinued. their cultivation would become illegal. now lets swap it around and assume that gmo's are completely harmless. If so then why label them?. if there is no difference in their nutritional content from organic food stuffs then there is no requirement to label them. it would mean that people who choose not to eat them are doing so due to a personal ideology and philosophy that is flawed and incorrect. Now even though this ideology is wrong, they have every right to exercise it. however as much as it is their right to exercise it, it is also their responsibility to exercise it. if they wish to avoid gmo products due to a personal yet unfounded belief about them then that is not the responsibility of the companies to assist with that. you cannot use the force of the state to help you boycott a product due to your own personal beliefs.so with these two scenarios explored lets put a fork in this debate.if gmo's are indeed as bad as claimed by anti gmo proponents then they would be made illegal rather then labeled.if gmo's are not dangerous then there is no reason to label them. so either way gmo foods should not be labeled. oh and here's a wee picture to finish on | PRO | a8bc125f-2019-04-18T15:51:32Z-00000-000 |
The winner of this debate should replace Stephen on The Colbert Report when he replaces Letterman. Con has brought on good points in his argument. However, he is indeed a "con"man and should not trusted. Here are my Questions for Cross Examination [to be answered in Round 4]: You claim "The Colbert Report was a one-of-a-kind show." Are you aware the show is still going on? Who do you believe would be a fit replacement? If no replacement is hired what will Comedy Central do? Over to you! | PRO | 49fe6c28-2019-04-18T16:21:07Z-00004-000 |
The religious teachings of the bible are scientifically accurate. I see that I get the joy of debating the typical christian. The claim that the bible is correct because it is the bible is circular reasoning. Saying there is no proof against it so it must be real is an argument from ignorance. Crypto offers no logic what-so-ever to defend the bible. Some cases where the bible contridicts science. 1) jesus walking on water. This would not be possible as the surface tension is not great enough to support human weight. jesus would need to have feet the size of boats to accomplish this. I would imagine that if his feet were that big, someone would have noticed and wrote about them. 2) jesus photocopying fish and bread. This is not possible because matter and energy cannot be created or destoryed, only change form. 3) Virgin birth. Many "virgins" have claimed this, it seems that one got away with it. There are many more, but these are just some examples. | CON | 47c0f9ed-2019-04-18T18:39:14Z-00000-000 |
Christianity has had more positive than negative effects on society and the world. Thank you for a good argument. Literacy/Science I already negated your argument about the dark ages. Declaration/Constitution I also negated that argument. Human Rights I can see a lot of misunderstandings on your part. I will list corrections to them below: 1. The Bible does not have to state that something is wrong in order for Christianity to teach that it is wrong. The Bible is not the "book of rules" for Christianity. Christians use the teaching of Jesus to determine what is right or wrong. [1] 2. People are not condemned to hell for sinning. People are condemned to hell for knowing and hating God. Many Christians even believe in Empty Hell Theory. [2] 3. The Old Testament is not considered to be infallible by Christianity. It contains Jewish teachings; Christians only use it as a source for the history of the Israelites, prophecies, Psalms, and some stories with good morals. The books of Exodus and Hosea are not Christian doctrine and are not entirely relevant to Christian beliefs. [3] 4. Two thirds is a lot. Most Americans in 1835 were not Christian ministers, so if most of an organization consists of Christian ministers, Christianity very likely has something to do with it. 5. I never said nor implied that Christianity automatically makes someone a good person, or that a non-Christian can't be good; I actually said that Christianity makes someone more likely to be a good person. 6. Saying that atheists can be good is not relevant to the debate. Christianity and atheism both have positive effects; however, this particular debate is about Christianity. More Evidence Do some research on the following people and you will see how their Christianity influenced them to help society and the world: Mother Teresa, Gregor Mendel, George Mueller, William Wilberforce, William Penn, Boethius, Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Harriet Beecher Stowe, J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis. Those people in addition to the people mentioned in previous arguments (MLK, Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, and Louis Pasteur) make up 16 positive effects. [1] http://www.redletterchristians.org... [2] http://www.patheos.com... [3] http://infidels.org... | PRO | b606e41d-2019-04-18T14:11:09Z-00003-000 |
United Nations peacekeepers should have the power to engage in offensive operations. I'll be focusing today's round into two key voting issues, but first be reminded of the observation I made during the constructive round. Pro doesn't have to use this power in every situation. In fact, I advocate not using it in most situations. The BoP for Pro is to prove that the UN should have the power to do so when it's the appropriate course of action. Pro has fulfilled its BoP by proving both of the following voting issues. 1. The Pro and Con have agreed that when offensive operations are successful, the UN's credibility is increased. The mission in Congo, the first offensive one in about twenty years, was a major success. The M23 rebels have been nearly eradicated, and the Congo has already asked the UN to work with them to fight the next biggest threat, the FDLR rebels. The UN's credibility has been boosted in the DRC, especially in the wake of years of unsuccessful traditional missions (as stated in my constructive). When 3,000 men can do in a year what 19,000 couldn't in over a decade, it boosts UN credibility. My example is about twenty years after the most recent Con example, so it should be preferred. 2. Offensive operations can be successful. I have again proven the success of the FIB in Congo, to the extent where the Congo already wants the UN to intervene again. Again, 3,000 men did in a year what 19,000 couldn't in over a decade. When the most recent implementation was a major success, eliminating the largest threat to the Congo. The fact that the most recent example of an offensive operation has been overwhelmingly successful means that the UN is justified in using offensive ops, therefore should have the capability, and is enough of a reason to affirm. For these reasons I urge the voters to go Pro. Great debate Con, and thanks to both my opponent and the voters! | PRO | 10ac61da-2019-04-18T15:19:13Z-00000-000 |
It is more desirable to vote for me than to vote for my opponent. Now that we've gotten that out of the way...Why I Am More Desirable to Vote For Than My Opponent1. I'm empirically a better debater.It's more likely that I am warranted to win this debate namely because I'm good. Not to toot my own horn, but it's solid fact that I've been warranted to win ninety-five percent of the debate's I've participated in. Currently, my Elo is 4,658--more than twice the average Elo---and I am on the front page of the Debate.org leaderboard[1]. On top of this, my win-loss record is 60-3-3, my three losses only being from unstructured or joke debates, such as-A) a haiku battle, andB) a debate where I defended the position that my opponent would win the debate anyway.Whereas my opponent has failed to participate in a debate thus far, leaving her Elo at an intimidating zero.2. I'm an overall more desirable user.This one is admittedly a bit difficult to prove. What makes a user "desirable," anyway? This question can be best answered on Debate.org by measuring commitment to the site and relations to other users. The only fair way for the voters to decide upon those factors is to be presented with basic statistics:Forum Posts:Pro: 3200 Con: 0Duration of Membership:Pro: One year.Con: Six days.Friends:Pro: 198Con: 2The numbers speak for themselves. My commitment to the site has already proven exceptional, while my opponent's is yet to be proven.For these two reasons, and more which I will present later, it is more desirable to vote for Pro than to vote for my opponent.Source[1] http://www.debate.org...; | PRO | ea97eb90-2019-04-18T16:29:51Z-00005-000 |
Trump. "You think you democrats are smart by letting people that don't belong in this courty. You are going destory America by disarming are people and giving nukes to Iran. If this kepts up we well end up like the soviets under stalins rule. We have to stand with the GOP for the rights of the people" Who exactly "belongs" in this country? Please elaborate. Democrats try to keep the people in this country safe by putting restrictions on guns. Have you even heard about all these awful shootings? You can own a gun, but you have to be screened. And "If this keeps up we *will end up like the soviets under stalin*'s rule." Umm, do you know how to debate? That is obviously a slippery slope. Look it up. I don't think you have properly done your research. Donald Trump, (The point of this debate that you did not address once in your opening argument) is a bully and a racist. (Source: His speeches) I for one do not want somebody with either of those characteristics running my government. How can you? | CON | 4e81215d-2019-04-18T13:29:19Z-00004-000 |
Prison isn't meant to carry out justice. Prison isn't just for retribution or deterrence, it's for rehabilitation so that ex-convicts walk out of prison ready to be law abiding citizens that function in a society. Prison is also meant to be a very structured form of punishment for people prone to chaos and the very opposite to structure and order. If justice and rules are not strictly kept, these individuals will fall back onto what they know best; crime and rule-breaking. | CON | e181fe83-2019-04-18T14:47:29Z-00005-000 |
Russia/USSR has created more devastating weapons than ___________. As mentioned, I will be representing Russia/USSR. 1. Tu-160 (Blackjack)- This is the biggest, heaviest bomber ever produced. (Made in 1989 in USSR). This monster has a load of up to 165,000 kg of explosives, capable of causing unseen destruction. Even with that, it is still quite fast. Let's compare this weight load to other bombers: B2 Spirit- 83,000 kg B1 Lancer- 129,000 kg B-52 Stratofortress- 143,000 kg Tu-160- 165,000 kg http://www.militaryfactory.com... 2. R-36 (Satan) Missile- NATO calls this missile "Satan" for a good reason. It is Soviet technology and was, in fact, recently upgraded. This missile is capable of carrying 10 warheads and 40 penetration aids. A single one of those warheads is over 20 Megatons of TNT. http://en.wikipedia.org...(missile) 3. Tsar Bomb- The most powerful man-made explosive ever made. When this bomb was tested, the subsequent mushroom cloud was 40 miles high. The "cap of the mushroom" had a width of 59 miles, and the base had a width of 25 miles. All buildings in a town located 34 miles away were destroyed. A third degree burn would be inflicted to anyone standing within a 62 mile radius, and a "thermal pulse" was felt by scientists that were 170 miles away. The seismic shock wave from the detonation could be measurable even on its THIRD passage around the Earth. Finally, this bomb was about 2,380 times more powerful than Fat Man, the atomic bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki. http://en.wikipedia.org... I await my opponent's response. | PRO | 639dfb18-2019-04-18T15:53:11Z-00005-000 |
Drugs are not victimless crimes. Second round is opening statements and arguments(no rebuttal of other's arguments) Third round is rebuttal and so on. The burden of proof lies on both individuals to back up their claims. I'd have to prove how they are without a victim, and my fellow debater will need to prove how it causes victims. This is also the same with any other claim made. I'd like to limit the false dichotomy, slippery slope, appeal to authority, and straw man logical fallacies that are most often used in arguing of this topic. This is not required, but would greatly help with what I wish to get out of this debate. Personal accounts will not be used, as that is known as selection bias. You don't want to hear my story, and I don't want to hear your's. I ask that my opponent not start a satirical debate and have it be more of a legit debate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- With that, I wanna thank who ever decides to help challenge me on this idea. It is nice to challenge preconceived ideas every once in a while to see if they still have any value after being being examined. I hope both of us get something out of this. | CON | 1dccbe9c-2019-04-18T14:26:34Z-00005-000 |
The United States federal government should reverse the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law. I suppose the heart of this argument is one's view on the matter of homosexuality. I know of many military leaders and soldiers who are oppposed to GLBT's serving in the military. Living with an openly gay member of the same sex is very awkward and distracting in barracks situations. While I believe that it is not a good idea to repeal the law, and while there are as many military leaders for the law as there are against it, I agree that discrimination cannot be condoned under our constitution. It has to be upheld. I propose that either I will withdraw my contention against said topic, or we redirect the discussion in the remaining rounds to address the heart issue of homosexuality. | CON | 79ec1e40-2019-04-18T19:40:50Z-00001-000 |
The Earth is not 6000 years old. My opponent and I have had multiple debates on my blog about various topics.http://iamchristianiamanatheist.blogspot.kr...However that format is not well suited for debates, as such we want to continue these debates on this platform and let the voters decide.The first contention is whether the Earth is 6000 years old.I hold the position that the earth is not 600 years old, but more in the 4.5 billion years old range.(1)I hope my opponent finds this suitable to debate. Please let me know if this is acceptable and then we can get started.(1) http://www.scientificamerican.com... | PRO | c1368321-2019-04-18T16:51:17Z-00007-000 |
America Is Better Than Every Other Country. Okay, that list and source are flawed. None of those countries guarantee you the freedom of speech, and the freedom to bear and carry a firearm. These are some of the simplest basic rights, every human should have. Okay fine, we're not as "happy". That's probably because we work so hard making the world economy go round, while those Europeans enjoy their month of paid national holidays; and month of paid vacation. Again, they live longer but not healthier. I'd rather die of good health at 75, then be bedridden till 95. SUre, cause those countries don't have to fight off North Korea, and China, and Russia, and the Gaza Strip, and ISIS, and Al Queda, and the whole Middle East, and radicals in Africa, and radical jihadists. Obesity isn't a NATIONAL problem, it's your freaking problem that you're obese, and eat horribly, don't exercise, eat too much, etc. That is your problem. Being obese is like getting your cat stuck in a tree. Troubling, yes. A national issue, no. Again, we have higher college/university costs. But the best higher education. Going to Harvard, and then Yale law school I know this first hand. But guess what, now I have more money then I know what to do with. I didn't say anything about immigrants. I did, however, say something about ILLEGAL immigrants. Your dodging the question. Give me one specific country that is superior to the US. Not a lot of countries. ONE COUNTRY. | PRO | 5ab308a8-2019-04-18T11:22:54Z-00001-000 |
The lowering of the voting age>>>. Where oh where to begin... For starters, this is an insult to those who are 24 and have graduated college. Especially those who have graduated Yale, Harvard, MIT, or any other ivy-league school. I will even go as far as to say some 14 year olds have the brain capacity to vote intelligently, although I'm not saying that we should lower the voting age to 14. You are applying a small statistic to a vast number of people. Your argument is just completely illogical and it's, as I said, an insult to many of the middle-aged voters in the United States. 25 year olds are able to see the ramifications of their actions quite clearly whether it be voting, driving, or anything else. | PRO | dac67b43-2019-04-18T15:27:10Z-00006-000 |
Evolution and science is an oxymoron. Hi I'm Thiest and I believe that evolution and science is an oymoron because science by definition is a study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. and since evolution does none of those things I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. By evolution I am talking about: Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the "big bang" Chemical evolution: all elements "evolved" from hydrogen Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another with the exception of micro evolution which happens. | PRO | f4bdbe10-2019-04-18T12:47:19Z-00003-000 |
$tarbuck$. A big ripoff. In your first rebuttal you have misconstrued my position. I never mentioned a thing about the Starbucks selection. I never mentioned a thing about flavors and variety, but you insist that I have. Read my argument again. The knock in my statement about names of the coffee came from the wacky names they come up with for the coffee. These names confuse the public when generally all people want is a regular cup coffee. In this argument, you come off as being a very misinformed young man. The fact is stocks for the Starbucks enterprise fell through each quarter of the 2007 fiscal year. For evidence read this report and weep for Starbucks. http://www.bloomberg.com... Starbucks is ripping people off, and as you admit they're a big business that does not care about the common folks dollar. For those who chose not to read the article here's an excerpt, "Starbucks raised prices by an average of 9 cents a cup in July, causing U.S. customers who face higher food, fuel and housing expenses to go to McDonald's Corp. and Dunkin' Donuts LLC for cheaper coffee. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is among the few retailers to benefit from shoppers seeking lower-cost alternatives after reducing its prices ahead of the holidays." Things have actually turned to the bad recently so much so that in certain locations Starbucks has even begun to sell coffee for $1, albeit 8oz. cups. Still a ripoff but that's beside the point. Here is another reference for the misinformed, http://biz.yahoo.com... Also, the friendly people at Starbucks don't seem to like their work so much, which pretty much eradicates the notion that Starbucks is the premier location for "human touch" service. Some of these first hand, horrifying experiences of these Starbucks employees will shock the naive type, such as Farooq. http://www.ihatestarbucks.com... Starbucks is such a money mongering business that they had the audacity to deny rescue workers free water near ground zero in the hours and days after 9/11. Despicable! That is just as low as it gets when you think about it. That alone should be enough shut down their corrupt operation. http://www.snopes.com... That small instance is the perfect microcosm for the bloated and greedy ways that company does business. On a friendly note Farooq, it does more positive for you, and the local economies to support local establishments such as the ones in the "Saskatchewan hick town". I worry when I see the next generation of people such as yourself, who do not appreciate the traditional sides of good business. The new generation tends to not see the whole picture due to ignorance. Defending a company like Starbucks in any way, shape or form for any reason is the perfect example. Hopefully this debate may help shine light on the truth about Starbucks. | PRO | 66488a09-2019-04-18T19:53:12Z-00001-000 |
This house would open a kindergarten in geriatric hospitals. Rebuttal1. Pro said that they might get diseases. It is the same thing, if we put a 10 year old child with 100 people with MERS. Right now Pro is saying that they won't get a disease. Also there are some diseases so it will get pasted on.2. This is plain nonsense. Of course they might be happy and energetic, but then they might no remember their memories.Also you did not rebutWhy I should win1. I rebut his points, saying that children can get diseases2. Made good arguments3. Pro did not write a rebuttalVote for Con!!! | CON | e5e1e9c8-2019-04-18T14:27:40Z-00000-000 |
Peter Tosh is better than Bob Marley. The first argument I will make is that Peter Tosh was better musically. During his childhood Peter taught himself guitar by just watching a man on the street play. He can also play keyboard. In the beginning the Wailers were a vocalist group until Peter taught Bob and Bunny how to play guitar. Peter Tosh can also be argued the better songwriter since he wrote lots of The Wailers original music and Bob Marley's best music ( according to Rolling Stone Magazine) were the ones co-written with or written by Peter Tosh ex. Get Up Stand Up. While Peter Tosh didn't have Marley's commercial success he was known worldwide during and after his tour with The Rolling Stones. One more point I would like to make is popularity does not mean quality hence Justin Beiber and Lil Wayne (two musicians considered by many terrible in their gene yet sold millions and receive awards. | PRO | 722588ee-2019-04-18T16:00:46Z-00002-000 |
Beauty Pageants. The pressure on the pageant girls may sometimes lead to psychological issues within the individual. Although the person might look poise, and beautiful on the outside, that person on the inside may be suffering from diseases like anoxeria, or other severe physical or mental diseases. The pressure from parents, coaches, friends, and others may sometimes lead to an unhealthy girl. Psychologically, being under this amount of stress, the individual may become uneasy with herself and become depression and less motivated. The pressure of approval from others also contributes to the stress levels. A person who suffers from unhealthy diseases is not a well rounded role model for others. | CON | 1e4449ce-2019-04-18T17:00:46Z-00003-000 |
I will not contradict myself. Have you already contradicted yourself in this debate? No. Did I mention a substance that can be deemed harmful and usually subject to legal restriction? No. Do you believe that legendary/mythical creatures (i.e.: werewolves, witches, etc.) exist? No. Do you believe that I fooled you in any way throughout this debate? No. Do typical knights use helmets? Yes. Is this question visible to the naked eye? Yes. Do typical knights use horses? Yes. Do typical knights use swords? Yes. Are the three questions stated above factually correct? No. Based on the current situation, are you sure for a certainty that you're really not going to contradict yourself in this debate? Yes. | PRO | 489cc6bf-2019-04-18T18:38:57Z-00003-000 |
Donald Trump is better than Hillary Clinton. 1. Donald Trump is anti-war- Hillary Clinton never advocated for America single-handedly "bombing the hell out of ISIS," and Hillary Clinton never supported sending US troops to Syria, unlike Donald Trump. Donald Trump in 2004 never advocated against the Iraq War- he was building his reality TV show "The Apprentice" instead of thinking about America's security apparatus- as a businessman, he was thinking alike to his other CEO friends, viewing Iraq as a financial interest instead of a security risk. Folks, we cannot repeat what we have done in Iraq in Syria by sending ground troops. Everyone knows this except Donald Trump. My opponent clearly does not understand what people like Roger Stone are for- he's paid to support Donald Trump's reputation in front of the public, while everyone knows that Donald Trump is not the savior for America. Hillary Clinton's support of diplomatic, passive-aggressive treaties to defeat ISIS will be the most effective way possible. My opponent agrees that anti-war policies are now somewhat "archaic," meaning that our pro-war past policies have made America more enemies than friends. Hillary Clinton has learned that our "bombing campaigns" and ground troops can't work in the Middle East. Donald Trump doesn't learn. 2. Donald Trump's economic policies- At least the TPP and NAFTA trade agreements are designed to willingly share capital between America and several other Asian giants, while Donald Trump wants to end these agreements, slap on giant tariffs- to help America become "great"- and less competitive. Not to mention that Trump is unclear on his tax code too. More trade agreements = more economic competition. More tariffs = higher inflation, unemployment, and less capital. It leads to a less advantaged middle-class, which Hillary Clinton is trying to oppose. A more advantaged middle class combined with increasing free trade allows for more economic competitiveness, the key to American success and not American isolation. | CON | 17b0025-2019-04-18T13:14:00Z-00001-000 |
The Confederate Flag, the stars n' bars is offensive and should be disdained. Opponents of the Confederate flag see it as an overt symbol of racism, both for the history of racial slavery in the United States, and the establishment of Jim Crow laws by Southern states following the end of Reconstruction in late 1870s, enforcing racial segregation within state borders for nearly a century until the Civil Rights Movement. Much like the Swastika is illegal in Germany now. "The German (and Austrian) postwar criminal code makes the public showing of the swastika and other Nazi symbols illegal and punishable, except for scholarly reasons." - Wikipedia the confederate flag should also be barred from use and maybe as a suggestion the united states flag or a new southern pride flag be adopted. | PRO | 3ff1133c-2019-04-18T19:41:31Z-00004-000 |
Boxing Bans. Some people may think that boxing should be outlawed because it is too dangerous. For example, they argue that the main objective in the game is a knockout, and you are purposely injuring your opponent. While they argue that boxing includes a great risk of head trauma, this is only because many professional boxers suffer from it. However, this claim is invalid because there is no goal to hurt your opponent. In boxing you score points by hitting the designated spots on the body, not just trying to knock somebody out. Also, in football the goal is to tackle others, even sometimes injuring them, and yet football is not banned. While people argue that the sport should be outlawed because of its danger, boxing has no goal of hurting anybody. | CON | 1dc32ee2-2019-04-18T13:35:26Z-00001-000 |
Fancy Polite English Gentlemens Rap Battle. So you like fish and chips, and going to the harbor to look at some ships. Which is your favorite, a steamer or a schooner? If we finish eating we can go look at them sooner! I also used to wear powdered whigs Back when my hair was as brittle as twigs But rather then go with whigs, I prefer top hats They make me feel fancy, like I own exotic cats You say you're a Jew, who likes the old lady and the shoe It just so happens my wife loved that story too she is no longer with me, we had a divorce, its because she gained weight and was as fat as a horse! God save the queen, yes indeed Did you hear about her most recent deed? She actually decided to go and visit the Princess of Wales, and she gave her royal diamonds, (they were actually from Zales!) Reminds me of the time I wrote to my nephew in Oxford, top of his class, but he says he's so bored. He actually claims it isn't challenging enough, So I said "Be a woman if you want your life to be tough!" I guess my favorite hobby is gentleman's football, if you want to have a game, just give me a call. I don't like that kind that Americans play, I prefer the other version, Ill play that every day! My family name is bench, its actually Hebrew People tease me about it, but I say "oh you ;D" My lineage is thanks to the third crusade When Europe beat Saladin, boy we made him pay! Do come again, I would love to hear more! Did I tell you how my brother used to hunt wild boar? I would go with him but I don't care much for a hunt, Unless what we were hunting was a defenseless little runt. | PRO | ee01ada0-2019-04-18T17:39:55Z-00003-000 |
Write a story that is dystopian. This isn’t from the exercise book and because I’m not sure exactly what I have in mind here is the prompt: Write a piece that is 10,000 characters or less (I put the settings at the highest allowable) about something that is dystopian in nature. I wanted to keep it broad so that it would appeal to more users. So at its most simplistic what I am saying is writing anything that has element of dystopian fiction in it, this could include anything. As long as that general rule is followed we should not have a problem. How the debate will work: First Round acceptance Second Round is Story BOP is 50/50 (since it is a writing exercise not an argument) Guidance for Voters: Pick based on the prompt as well as skill the person that has managed to create the better story. Good luck to my opponent. --Thanks Emma. | PRO | 8dccf42c-2019-04-18T15:26:04Z-00003-000 |
WW2 would not be won without US support (before and during joining the conflict). Japan had low resources regardless of American intervention China was too hard to tack no matter what. The Italian campaign was pretty easy im sorry to put it bluntly. Briatin destroyed Italy with colonial troops. The German Afrika corps weren't that good either. The Allies only struggled becuase they set another landing in Frnace and Germany went down to help. In 1941 the Germans had suffered their winter defeat and your number is wrong-At the time of the Nazi assault on the Soviet Union in June 1941, The Red Army had 303 divisions and 22 brigades (4. 8 million troops), Including 166 divisions and 9 brigades (2. 9 million troops) stationed in the western military districts. The Britsih would NEVER make peace with Germany, You know Winston Churchill. The British didn't need to invade Norway as the citizens pretty much took it back. Again Britain didn't even had it tough in the war compared to countries even Greece and maybe even Bangledesh had it tougher, Two countries completely left out of the conversation, Yeah the Blitskrieg was tough with 43k dead but German bombings approximately 410, 000 German civilians were killed by Allied air raids. From July 1944 to January 1945, An average of 13, 536 people were killed every month yet they were fine for 6 years without ANY support. The Germans were not going to get Moscow and if they did they would still have a tough job. Thanks for the debate | CON | 187d5df-2019-04-18T11:07:47Z-00000-000 |
Abortion. I do think that abortion should be allowed but for the purposes of a good debate, I shall be playing devil's advocate. Since life begins at conception, abortion is akin to murder as it is the act of taking a human's life. Why should people be given the death penalty in America for just one murder, when doctors are forced to do it as part of their job many times, and are not even put on trial? Round 1. Basic statements Round 2. Main argument Round 3. Rebuttals | CON | b1877184-2019-04-18T12:12:44Z-00005-000 |
Medical concerns. People often wish to change their appearance for cosmetic rather than medical reasons. As with other cosmetic changes, from a new wardrobe to surgery, this can be expensive, and may even have some risks, but it is accepted because we know that it makes people feel better. It's a lifestyle choice and is no more the business of government than choosing a new jacket or deciding to get an earring. | CON | c1ac6b3c-2019-04-15T20:22:59Z-00006-000 |
Nike should be banned from the USA!. ~~~~~~ Rebuttals ~~~~~~ ///Point 1. /// I don't see how overcharging for a product means that Nike should be banned. As a consumer with a brain and free will you can choose to not buy Nike brand items. They are not holding a gun to your head and telling you to fork over your money. ///Point 2. /// This isn't really a point, all it says is that most of the money goes to advertising and that all you are paying for is a name. In society names hold a lot of power. For instance a lawyer that has a Harvard Law degree can pretty much have his pick of any job involving law; an engineer with a degree from MIT can likewise get pretty much any job in that field. Names are status symbols. Does a Rolex watch tell time any better than a working five dollar watch you got from a street vendor, no. His point again fails to supportthe resolution that Nike should be banned. ///Point 3. /// To answer your question; because I both can not hear them and I don't care. Now back to topic. These sweatshops are in countries where there is no minimum wage and therefore these places can pay them this small amount of money. Another factor to consider is that for many of these workers it is either $.16 an hour or nothing. If Nike wasn't buying shoes from these places then they couldn't pay their workers. | CON | a2251c73-2019-04-18T19:10:49Z-00004-000 |
Debt forgiveness is more practical than bailouts. Bailouts rely upon the countries that are providing the bail out to come up with the money with which to bail out the nation that is in need of credit. This will impact upon their national budgets and they may even need to raise taxes as a result. With debt forgiveness there is no need for new money to be provided as debt is simply being cancelled. The debtor would no longer need to repay the money. Neither they nor the creditors will need to find new money. The creditor is losing money but for the most part this is illusionary as they can’t really have been sure that they were going to get the money back when the country is in need of bailouts; Greece's debt is rising from 175% of GDP in 2012 to 183% in 2013 despite bailouts, can creditors keep expecting to get all their money back as debt keeps rising?[1] In this case because of the close links between European states the creditors will benefit as much as the debtors; the debtors would once more be able to buy creditors goods and services so benefiting all parties economies. [1] Panaritis, Elena, ‘Debt Forgiveness In Inevitable and Will Save the Euro’, Huffington Post, 6 December 2012 | PRO | 9e81cfe-2019-04-15T20:24:17Z-00019-000 |
The Christian God is Real. this has been quite enriching, and I would like to close with saying that this is my first debate, and though I feel I am right and just haven't expressed my evidence or views thoroughly enough, I would be proud to concede a loss to such a worthy opponent, in hopes that we can keep up in this spirited debate and perhaps start another, slightly longer debate on god creating the universe and the evidence for and against gods seven day calendar? if you would like to I would gladly send an invite to continue this. cheers! | CON | 9a809efb-2019-04-18T14:32:38Z-00001-000 |
There is nothing that is Universally Good or Bad. I've been trying to explain this to you, but it seems like you may not be understanding what I'm trying to say. In the eyes of the law, yes, bank robbing is bad. But, in the eyes of the robber, bank robbing is good. Neither of those two things alone or together are universal. One thing is not universal, everything is universal. You need to have a unanimous opinion from every possible viewpoint of a given situation for that situation to be universally good or bad. | PRO | f5215a7f-2019-04-18T18:53:48Z-00001-000 |
A Man Who Watches MLP: FIM *Should* Not be Immediately Considered Gay. Fellow debaters, I do not mean any offense to the Con, but I do think that that opening statement could have been a lot better. Anyway, back to the topic at hand. My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic was almost an immediate phenomenon, instantly winning the hearts of thousands and angering others. Many of these "brony-haters" hate on bronies whenever possible, isually with the overused accusation of calling them gay. As a brony, this thing usually happens to me, as an example, please read this statement from my previous argument: Lets say I joined a chat session. The people in the chat are taking turns telling about themselves, and it is eventually my turn. I tell the group right off the bat that I am a brony. Now, lets say that some of these people in the chat are brony-haters, and are immediately calling me gay. I didn't even have the time to explain anything about myself and they are already calling me gay. Please take this as evidence to support my claim and I pass the round over to the Con. | PRO | dac140d2-2019-04-18T18:18:48Z-00001-000 |
Aliens does not exist!. Thank you Cheeto, for setting up this debate. Arguing the contrary, I will show that it is unreasonable and irrational to make the positive claim that aliens do not exist. To be clear, it is not my responsibility to prove that alien life DOES exist, only that one cannot reasonable support the assertion that it does not exist. Seeing as Cheeto has not offered any definitions, I will assume that 'aliens' refers quite simply to 'living organisms originating and residing on planets other than Earth.' Recent studies have concluded, via data collected by NASA's Kepler spacecraft, that as many as 1 in 5 stars observed have an earth-size planet in what is referred to as the 'habitable-zone.' (1) When the above discovery is taken into consideration with the fact that the observable universe is somewhere in the ballpark of 92 billion light years across (2), it becomes evident that any positive claim that alien life does not exist is an unreasonable one. The little bit we know about the universe tells us that the odds are in favor of the potential for alien life. When you add to that the fact that the vast majority of the universe has not yet been explored, it becomes clear that it is irrational to make any claims about what cannot exist. We are not justified in making positive knowledge claims about things we have not yet explored or even observed. The most we can say is that we do not know. To make any claim of knowledge past that point is irrational, unreasonable and unjustified. I look forward to hearing Cheeto's argument and evidence for the claim that alien life does not exist anywhere in our universe. (1) http://www.space.com... (2) http://www.space.com... | CON | 9d49f7d2-2019-04-18T16:34:21Z-00008-000 |
The Detroit Tigers will win the 2012 World Series. The 2012 Detroit Tigers will win the World Series this year. The following reasons are why they wil: 1. Justin Verlander. The returning 2011 AL Cy Young and MVP is the best pitcher, and arguably player in the league right now. His record last year was stellar, and the next closest contender, Sabathia, did not pitch nearly as many innings and pitched in less games than Verlander. Verlander won the AL Pitching Triple Crown, and will likely have another explosive season. 2. The Tigers' hitting. The signing of Prince Fielder was colossal. With the addition of fielder to an already stellar lineup, the 3-4 punch of Cabrera and Fielder will reign hell down upon any pitcher that has to go against those two successively. The Tigers in spring training have averaged 5.7 runs per game in just 27 Spring Training games so far, with high run totals of 18, 13, 11, and 10 all scored in games. They have been doing quite well in Spring Training so far, compiling a record of 15-5, second only to Toronto with a record of 19-4, three more games played than Detroit. 3. Coaching. Jim Leyland is one of the best coaches in the entire MLB, and has turned Detroit around from a laughing stock franchise, now to a perennial World Series contender. I know it's early, but the Tigers are looking good and playing good. Only the season will tell. | PRO | 1d27f859-2019-04-18T18:24:15Z-00005-000 |
Do we live in the matrix. Yes, I also said that my greatest argument was flawed because it didn't disprove anything, which is why I went on on a different track too. But it was also related to the argument which followed it.The basis through which I said that even if we did have an overarching 'creator' above all of those sub-computational worlds, it would still mean that we had no true creator and even above that creator was simply a system with no creator, was through my reasoning on creating said worlds.No, GTA5 does not run on a different physical system to our own. The base physics for the system is the same as our own; it is simply that some of the variables have been changed. So, to use your example about the building, they simply created buildings made of materials with infinite hardness and flawless foundation structure - still the same physical system. To use GTA3 as an example - you know how you could do those super awesome ramps; same physcial system, but gravity and resistance was lowered when the car was in the air, allowing it to travel further than it would realistically travel in our world.So games, or, our current virtual systems, do not disprove my postulation that we are unable to create systems which do not follow the basic physical phenomena of our own world. And so, I also postulated that our overarching creators wouldn't be able to create our system, unless they worked on a system like ours, in which case, they are, going along the same reasoning, just creators who initially belonged to a binary-information universe with no creator; so they aren't true initiators. And no, my postulaion cant be verified (that you require a computational-like mind to create a computational like system), but neither can the existence of the matrix. So the conclusion of this debate will be opinion-based on the part of the voters who will have to decide who's argument sounds more plausible. In reality, neither argument can be proven. | CON | 6df2bfdc-2019-04-18T14:13:16Z-00002-000 |
Lucifer is not Satan. As my opponent has not responded to my reasons why Lucifer cannot be Satan, they stand in this debate until as such time as he refutes them. Furthermore, so far, he has only attempted to identify Lucifer with some heavenly body in outer space (Venus), not a spirit person known as Satan. So we await his evidence for Lucider being the Devil, Satan himself. He says he will bring the apocrypha into the debate. Well, the point of this debate is to show that Lucifer (the one mentioned at Isaiah 14:12) is not Satan the Devil. So Con can bring in all the apocrypha he wants, but he has to prove that the Lucifer of Isaiah 14 is indeed Satan the Devil. I will respond to his use of apocrypha when he does use it, for I find that they have varying levels of reliability which would need to be addressed, it all depends on which ones he uses. He also disregards the rule that the 66 books of the Bible are to be trusted as reliable? If that's the case why even engage in the debate at all? Why not just argue that the Bible isn't reliable to tell us who Lucifer is? If they aren't reliable, what makes him think the apocrypha is any different? Coming from an atheist? Come on, Pro! | PRO | 34abb87f-2019-04-18T18:42:22Z-00005-000 |
Catholic Church vs Protestants. I'm not exactly sure what it is we will be debating about but I will explain the validity of the Protestant movement in Europe during the reformation. Seeing as I only have 9 minutes to post my first argument I will save the majority for round two. 1. " why protestants left the church of Christ that he founded himself" - The Roman Catholic Church was founded by Constantine the Great, absolutely not Christ himself. Not only was Christ not involved with the foundation of the church neither were any of the twelve disciples listed in the biblical scriptures. | CON | 66fadcc1-2019-04-18T17:54:17Z-00001-000 |
Space exploration should be banned. Indeed, whats your arguments on this matter? You don't even have a stand and any argument to back up your claim..in this final round, i will start by exposing your weaknesses in this argument..1.you talked of private industry. Now if space exploration has private industry why are they owing the world bank? This shows your claim are fallacious..2.you talked of planets been discovered. My question is this, this planets of what use is it to us? I guess so we can run there is problem arises? Like i earlier said, this space ship cannot carry about 1opeople and do we know the population of the world? Indeed it is waste of energy, resources and it endangers life.. Having rebouted some of your arguments, i move into my own arguments..1.this space exploration exposes us to diseases.do we know that the has which is deposited from the space ship is harmful on human health when mixed with sun? Do we know that there are various chemicals which can expose astronauts to cancer on space? Indeed, it should be banned..2.wastage of resources.i have emphasized on this, this space exploration costs a whole tons of money which we ought to use and develop our nation instead of exploring the space only to discover dead amoeba .truth is bitter, but its bitterness wil not stop it from being told space exploration should be banned..my stand still remains, that space exploration should be banned because it endangers life and it waste a whole lot of resources thank you | PRO | b3f0a47e-2019-04-18T16:46:50Z-00000-000 |
Humans are the friendliest animals. Thank you Con for your great Rebuttal and Points. Rebuttal: 'Animals that we keep as pets don't kill there own kind or humans, humans kill both. ' Animals can kill their own species, like Rottweilers and Pitt bulls kill their own kind and numerous other animals do as well. Yes we kill each other and animals but gold fight for example don't need to eat ( it couldn't eat us if it tried anyway) we are killing them for food to feed our ever growing population, and wouldn't that be cruel if we didn't feed our fellow humans? You seem to compare us with pets, but there is a wild side to animals. Such as the Wild boar, they are known for taking out deer and have a extremely bad temper. These enraged animals often charge at Humans in sight and some incidents have been fatal, you call them unfriendly? Sorry for my quick response, I apologise if you wanted me to add more. | PRO | 29e871e7-2019-04-18T15:34:41Z-00002-000 |
It is probable that God exists. Con said that my proposition does not entail that nothing existed before the Big Bang. I'm not assuming that nothing existed before the big bang. I'm arguing that God existed before the big bang as he is the creator/causer of it. Agency Con argues that the cause of the universe does not have to be an agent, Or personal. This is mistaken. This cause must be personal, An impersonal cause cannot give rise to a temporal effect. As William Lane Craig rightly states, "For the effect of the universe to begin in time the cause must be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time. " [1] By personal I mean something with rationality, Self-consciousness etc, the usual qualities associated with being a person. Occam razor Occam's razor Logic fails by the very fact that if a more “complex” argument does a better job at explaining something and accords better to reason, Then it should be judged the better argument. So this is really just a bad excuse for not dealing with the actual argument and evidence at hand. ----------------- in my second round, I gave valid reasons as to why the cause of the universe is God. Con has mostly argued that there are other possibilities for the cause of the universe, However Con doesn't give any valid reasons for these other hypothetical possibilities being the cause of the universe. The resolution remains affirmed. It is probable that God exists. [1] William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, Page 145. | PRO | 21128b02-2019-04-18T11:17:21Z-00003-000 |
Abortion. You are making claims but provide no reason or evidence to back them up: "I believe it is considered a human being and is given all the rights we have when it leaves the womb" - why? What is it about physically leaving the womb that conveys rights and personhood? Why is abortion ok 1 minute before birth but not 1 minute after? "Abortion is not murder because the baby is not a person yet!" - What is your definition of personhood, and why should we accept it? "Fetus' cannot live without the assistance of their mothers and therefore they are not living, breathing people yet!" - A 2 year old baby also cannot live without assistance, so is it not a living, breathing person? You as Pro must provide evidence for the claims you are making. | CON | b1877906-2019-04-18T12:02:38Z-00002-000 |
Should the U.S. increase exploration and development. I, as the Pro side of this debate believe that the U.S. should increase its development and exploration of the oceans. For my argument I offer the following reasons: 1.) New Resources subpoint a.) Geothermal energy 2.) Underwater Pharmaceuticals 3.) Preservation of Ocean Life ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1: New Resources For years there has been a debate in efforts to move to green alternative energy sources. The ocean offers the U.S. two sources for alternative energy; hydroelectric, and geothermal. For this debate I will focus solely on geothermal energy one of the various types of energy. Subpoint A.) Geothermal Energy Geothermal energy utilizes the heat within the core of the Earth, making this method a reliable source of energy. This wonder of the alternative energy has several benefits, such as that geothermal energy only gives 1/8 of the emission of carbon of coal, one of the leading fossil fuels used within the U.S. currently. Unlike other forms of alternative energy, geothermal energy does not revolve around fluctuations from day to day being that it's a constant energy derived from the heat of the Earth's interior. Lastly, this environmentally friendly fuel source is cost effective. Conservative estimates claim that savings on heating bills range from 30-60%, and cooling ranges from 25-50%. 2.) Underwater Pharmaceuticals Science has searched for alternative medicine from natural sources. It has been found within the oceans surrounding the United States. Various marine plants and organisms have properties that have improved human health. Just to name a few of these organisms: A Caribbean sea sponge's generative compound has been used in medicines such as AZT to treat AIDs and HIV. Skate, a flat fish, has provided clues in advancing poor eye vision. Secosteroid enzymes found in coral are also being used in medicine, and is used to treat arthritis, asthma, and other inflammatory disorders. These are just a few of the many organisms currently being used in modern medicine practices, however this isn't the end as scientific tests are being ran. 3.) Preservation of Wild Life According to the NOAA, 2215 creatures are protected under the ESA. These marine life creatures range from least concern to critically endanger status. However to name a few, lets look at the current population numbers for the top 4 marine mammals on the list. Only 55 Maui dolpjons, 350 northern right whales, and a range of 500- 600 Vaquitas , the rarest dolphin, remain. Without these creatures in existence, food chains would become disrupted and cause an unbalanced diet and cause possible over population. By allowing the United States federal government to explore the earth's oceans , we could find ways to preserve dwindling ocean life. This would include repopulation efforts or even creating regulation to protect them. In order to avoid the disruption of food chains and extinction, we must understand the causes and find ways to prevent further damage to these animals' habitats and their well-being. For these reasons I argue in favor of expanding exploration and development. | PRO | 5bd8cf6b-2019-04-18T15:09:45Z-00003-000 |
Rap Battle Semis. So I can't drink, but why swallow when I can spit You say I cannot think, how can you ignore my wit?! sharp like the sword of Link, you're Zelda, a lame bjtch I'll give your neck a kink, and then give it a slit... Your lyrical "bombs" don't really get you that far You just self-implode like ISIS, "ALLAHU ACKBAR!!!!" You think you're OG like Obie, a low key rap star? Well, you might by LOKI, but I'm Thor from Asgard So hard as hell, I'll crush you with my hammer! to stop your stammer and stop your damn clamor... Then like Bruce Banner, I'll smash all your crude yammer cause your rap is true cancer, your insults are cute banter For you this was show n' tell that didn't go well As for me, I feel so swell like I won the Nobel! Sure, you were noble, you took this blow down your throat well, Suck on that, bjtch! Aint nobody gotta fear Jonelle... | CON | b4bd8402-2019-04-18T12:15:04Z-00000-000 |
Legos are better than Megablox. Let me begin by thanking mcol for starting this debate. It has been a pleasure to correspond with you. *Case Con: Rebuttals* ======== Contention 1: Mega Bloks and Legos are equally as dangerous. ======== Legos may have categories of large blocks, but they are still comparatively much smaller than Mega Bloks. Therefore, they are still much more dangerous. Duplo Lego Blocks: http://upload.wikimedia.org... Mega Bloks: http://www.noahsarktoys2play.com... Even though Legos and Mega Bloks may have pieces that are roughly equivalent in size, Mega Bloks are still on average much larger than Legos. Consequently, they are less likely to represent a choking hazard to small children. ======== Contention 2: Children Prefer Legos. ======== Children may prefer Legos to Mega Blox. However, this assertion is simply irrelevant. It is little more than an appeal to the crowd. [1] The fact that children prefer something does not logically demonstrate that it is better than something else. ======== Contention 3: Legos has better games than Mega Bloks. ======== "I never stated that "Legos has better games than Mega Bloks." I find it interesting that my opponent is twisting my words." Although you never said this directly it can clearly be extrapolated from what you did write. You simply argue that Legos are better than Mega Blox because there are different Lego Games. As I have stated earlier, this argument is simply irrelevant. Video games are not plastic interlocking bricks. Therefore, they cannot be used to establish the inherent goodness of Legos. ======= Conclusion ======= Legos are comparatively more dangerous to small children than Mega blocks because they represent a choking hazard. However, Mega Bloks are large and can safely be enjoyed by children of a much wider age range. At best the only thing mcol has been able to demonstrate in this debate is how Legos and Mega Bloks are equivalent in only one category. Like Legos, Mega Bloks also have many different and interesting interactive sets. Moreover, the rest of my opponents other arguments have clearly been shown to be fallacious. Therefore, the winner of this debate should be obvious. (Vote Con) ---References--- [1] http://www.iep.utm.edu... Good Luck | CON | 8071a6b6-2019-04-18T19:16:31Z-00000-000 |
Man is inherently evil. Closing Remarks "I stated from the being that a person when given the choose between helping him self and helping others he would choose him self every time if he was truly untaught by are society."Assuming Pro meant "beginning" instead of "being" and "our society" instead of "are society," I would like to point out that not only do socities teach their own differently according to culture and tradition, but helping the "self" is not limited to selfishness, as it can be within our self-interest to help "others." For instance, rather than choosing to live in lawlessness like the wild animals, we created a social contract, where we respect one another's rights in exchange for the affirmation of our own rights. Pro also stated that man does not learn from another living thing in earlier rounds. I believe I have disproven that claim as well."I showed that Man when given unchecked power abused it. I also showed that when the necessities of life were threatened people have and will forget there moral code previously used for the purpose of survival meaning morals are not something that can stay true in the darkest of times so man was not born with a moral code."Man abusing power does not making all men inherently evil. Also if Pro cannot adequately defend his own definition of morality, we have no reason to deny the "Man" with "unchecked power" is necessarily abusing his power for evil. As Pro has failed to give a sufficient reasoning behind his moral theory, we have no reason to respect it as valid. If morality can be defined as the "greatest good for the most people" or "survival of the species," then none of Pro's arguments have any substance. Indeed, the problem that remains unaddressed is that Pro forces morality into a cage and asserts that this is the true morality simply on the virtue of it being in a cage that he has made. Morality is not something that simple, and Pro has failed to demonstrate why we should reasonably accept his definition."My opponent Misspelled two words form what I can see in their second argument please do not have this take away from my opponents argument as I'm sure I have misspelled a word or used bad grammar above and I would rather you vote based on the arguments below, please remember that the case must havd been proven without a doubt to win as agreed upon above."I agree on this matter as well."Thank I enjoy this argument with my Opponent, I hope they had fun as well and my the best debater win."Likewise, I thank Pro for this debate. And leave the rest to the voters. | CON | 5dbb54b5-2019-04-18T16:48:35Z-00000-000 |
Abortion. Abortions might cost $500 for a women, but $500 is nothing compared to the amount of money than raising a child requires. On average, it takes $245,000 to raise a kid, that's 490 times the amount of money it takes to have an abortion. Women prefer to pay $500 or $700 and wait until they have enough money to support their child, rather than have a baby that it going to take a lot of money from them plus the time and energy that they need. Abortions are good because they decrease the rate of teenage pregnancy which is basically children taking care of children. Abortions also allow women to make their own choices. About 13,000 women have abortions each year because they were raped or incest. 50% of women who have abortions report that they used some type of birth control before they had sex with their partner because their plan was never to have a baby but things went wrong and the women ended up pregnant. They were well aware that it wasn't the perfect time for them to have a baby. Also, in a survey completed by women who had abortions, most women reported to be stressed out before they had the abortion rather than after they had it so having an abortion was the right thing for them to do because stress can lead to Pain of any kind, Heart disease, Digestive problems, Sleep problems, Depression, Weight problems, Auto immune diseases, Skin conditions, such as eczema, etc. 1) https://rewire.news... 2) http://abortion.procon.org... 3) http://prochoice.org... 4) http://abcnews.go.com... 5) https://www.plannedparenthood.org... 6) http://money.cnn.com... 7) http://www.helpguide.org... | PRO | b186fa1e-2019-04-18T13:11:57Z-00000-000 |
The Sixth Sense is a Superior Film to 12 Angry Men [or other film disagreement]. Please comment before accepting.Today I have reviewed my top 20 in my list of movies: 1. Shawshank Redemption2. Raiders3. Memento4. Toy Story5. Mononoke6. Inside-Out7. Grave of Fireflies8. sixth sense9. 12 Angry men10. Shaolin soccer 11. Fellowship of the rings12. Crouching tiger hidden dragon 13. Nemo14. Aladdin15. Cabinet of Dr. Caligari16. Lion King17. How to Train Dragon18. Kung Fu Hustle19. Holy Grail [Monty Python]20. How to Train Dragon 2 Something looked wrong. Something looked terribly wrong. Was the Sixth Sense really better than 12 Angry Men? Today, fellow debaters, we will discuss which movie is better--the classic courtroom drama that is in only the imdb top 10, located primarily in only one room, yet filled with emotion, development, and tension; versus the incredible horror masterpiece of M. Night, with creepy images that still haunt me after such a long time, along with hints of the two incredible plot twists [although the first, the 6th sense's true nature, is rather expected due to the film title and revealed around the middle].We will debate about what makes a movie superior to another; and what consitutes a film of "good quality". We know it is subjective, but that is exactly what we will debate.First round you will accept the debate.The burden of proof is shared and each of us has to prove our movie better than the other's. I will try to prove 6th sense> 12 angry men; my opponent will try to prove 12 angry men> 6th sense. You may also comment if you disagree with anything else on My top 20 list. Good luck and have fun. | PRO | 97afbd97-2019-04-18T14:37:04Z-00005-000 |
Football is a "better" sport than Basketball. Before we begin, I'd like to make a clarification, that when we say "football" we are referring to American football. I would first like to look at his arguments: 1. My opponent claims that when he watches football, he is "waiting for the big play", as well as "waiting to see a defense or offensive player get hit". Notice that he is constantly "waiting". Basketball, on the other hand, is extremely fast paced, where things are constantly changing- scores can change drastically in short amounts of time, and something exciting can happen anytime. He also claims that football is more competitive. However, the Olympics has an event for basketball and not American football, showing basketball's greater competitiveness. 2. My opponent talks about the NFL's marketing strategies. However, I would like to point out that this debate is not at all regarding which governing sports organization is better, but which sport as a game is better. As Football's marketing is not directly involved in its gameplay, the argument about the NFL's marketing strategies and commercials are irrelevant to this debate. I would now like to add some contentions of my own to this debate: 1. The one thing that really stands out about basketball is that anything can happen at any moment. As compared to football, it is easier to recover from being behind by many points in basketball due to the nature of the game. A good example of this is the Bulls/Celtics Game 6 [1], in which the final nine minutes of the game consisted of many twists and turns for the came, completely changing the outcome of the game. 2. Basketball courts are more common and more public than football stadiums, which means that more people have access to them and can play them more often, therefore making it a more accessible sport and better. I'm out of characters, so I will now turn the debate to my opponent. [1] . http://espn.go.com... | CON | 14c378f4-2019-04-18T18:49:14Z-00004-000 |
Wii will phail in a few years or so. Oh my god I'm so sorry. I devoted my entire weekend to playing with my little siblings. I really wasn't planning on forfeiting but hey, family comes first. Sincerest apologies for forfeiting. Anyway please stop trying to screw around with the definitions. Definition of fail to fall short of success or achievement in something expected, attempted, desired, or approved: . http://dictionary.reference.com... Anyway, a few weeks ago I was watching e3 2009. It seems that the Wii's failure to win this generation is inevitable for 3 reasons: 1) Both microsoft and sony have presented their own motion sensor technology that is smoother and more powerful that wii's 2) Xbox 360 is cheaper than wii 3) Wii's hardware as a weakling as PS3 and Xbox 360's hardware (Graphics card, processor, memory) is a generation ahead of wii's (wii's power is about that of an original Xbox) 4) Xbox 360 and PS3 have it where you can download movies and music right into your living room. 5) Wii has some of the poorest functionality. It cannot play DVD's or music, but both the PS2 as well as the original Xbox can. And what is nintendo's answer to PS3's blu-ray player? 6) Wii was just a fad. A gimmick. It was hype at first but it's not coming out with any good games anymore, whereas PS3 and Xbox 360 are coming out with plenty 7) Wii tried to play the child's play card by making a big part of their games fun for everyone (tots, kids, teens, tweens, old people), but the average gamer is like in their 30's 8) Where are Wii's MMO's? PS3 and Xbox 360 have several MMO's and are coming out with more. That's all I will present for now to assure that I don't forfeit this round. :) I'll give you a chance to present your counter argument before rebutting it and presenting evidence for my case :) Thanks bro. P. S. : I hope you'll make this a gamer friendly debate instead of just a semantical, poke holes in your argument debate. | PRO | 6d37a10-2019-04-18T19:22:44Z-00002-000 |
Smoking cigarettes should be illegal in public places. I wish to offer alternative definitions, but I will leave it to my opponent to make the final decision of to use his definitions or mine (and I will respect whatever set he chooses so long as he announces it at the start of round 2). Smoking - the action of intentionally inhaling the fumes of a burning substance, typically done through the burning of tobacco in the form of a cigarette (though not limited to that). public place - any location which is owned by the government and so, the people. Not privately owned. As for "cigarette" I accept that definition (though suggest that it be expanded to include all smoking tobacco products, like cigars). | CON | 1ee69422-2019-04-18T18:46:38Z-00004-000 |
Anarchy doesn't work. As to definitions of the terms of the resolution, the specific form of anarchy that I will be defending is Anarcho-Capitalism(here-on referred to as AnCap). It is best defined as:The political philosophy and theory that (A)the State is an unnecessary evil and should be abolished, and (B)a free-market private property economic system is morally permissible.[1]Working will be defined as "to function; operate"[2]As per rules, I will not bring an argument this round, but will allow my opponent to begin.[1] http://www.ozarkia.net...[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... | CON | 6e80a358-2019-04-18T18:47:03Z-00004-000 |
Rap Battle *ANYONE EVERYONE STEP RIGHT UP!!*. Yea my opponent right here don't know what he got into He's laughable, I'm inconceivable, Ima rip apart his tutu My pants didn't sh*t, dey jist look so darn dominant! Your bailiwick is gone and my rappin' comes fluent! Dude stop tryna act like your powerful Yo so stuck up you can't feel the gravity pull! I'm more strapping than Vladimir Putin hisself [1] Look at yo body, compared to me you're an elf! So go buy your neigbor's armor, use his sword and shield But nuthins stoppin me, I got my own private force field My army is invisible, it attacks like the Death Angel in Exodus [2] You won't get a word out before I swipe you down, you won't even cuss What's the deal with your ears and face? Yo expression tells me you don't know this place The eyes are gauged and you got no nose You aint got a mouth! I suppose ya don't even have clothes! Ya asss was kicked out the universe by Superman [3] Shiva fought you, he left you without a life or plan! [4] You lost against Clayface, he's my 5th generation grandpa! [5] Now your facing me an' I don't expect a good rhyme or nah! But you might not get a chance to rap, Im already beatin ya up like crap I'm on my 100 and second and still doin it, you workin on yo first lap! There is a big difference between our levels of maturity Ima send you to boot camp but chop off ya feet, it won't be pretty! [1] http://www.businessinsider.com... [2] http://biblehub.com... [3] http://i.kinja-img.com... [4] http://i.kinja-img.com... [5] http://i.kinja-img.com... | CON | 6b439ec9-2019-04-18T15:33:31Z-00002-000 |
Sexual relations with animals should be allowed. Well, Candice - have the lambs stopped screaming? As I stated earlier, I am not arguing in favor of animal abuse. Of course it should not be legal to have sex with animals whose' genitalia is too small to en devour the intercourse. Arguing in favor of such a thing would be utterly absurd. I seem to have convinced you on the subject of our former argument; we can indeed see whether or not some animals desire intercourse. Since you have not presented further arguments against this point, I consider that case as closed. This is a good thing, because that tells me that this is a mature debate; I will listen to, and consider your arguments carefully and you are doing the same. You made a very important point in your argument; how can animals protect themselves from abuse, since they are unable to speak? Raping animals can of course, and will not be tolerated. This issue has to be handled carefully by the respective authorities just like any other social problem. Consider this; Why do we allow people to have children without keeping an eye on them until the child can speak? Parents can, and sometimes do, abuse their children. This is a disgusting problem, and I wish I wouldn't be forced to bring it up, it is, however closely related to the issue you brought up. The answer is trust Cadice. We trust parents because most of them would never harm their children. We trust people to behave in an ethic manner, even when we are not watching. When we find out that people have failed the trust we put in them, we put them behind bars and punish them or try to fix them. The same goes for our debate. A man found guilty of abusing animals in some way should be charged, found guilty, and put behind bars. We must, however, trust, until our trust is broken. The last argument was about whether or not people should be allowed to marry the animals they find themselves to be in love with. This could be good material for another debate, but I will not discuss that issue here, but will only say that I would not allow such a thing. Some people do disagree with me on this subject, but so be it, for now, at least. I have answered all of the concerns you presented in the first two rounds by now. I ask you to consider my arguments carefully, without prejudice. Let me finish by asking you a simple question; what if the animal has the initiative for intercourse? Do we have the right to forbid other people to enjoy that initiative in their own privacy? I think that the answer is no, we do not have the right to meddle in other peoples� business in that manner. What other people do in their own homes is none of my business, as long as it is not hurting anybody. Thank you. | PRO | 23c6cbb8-2019-04-18T20:02:47Z-00000-000 |
Time is an illusion. I assert that time does not exist. It is, in fact, an illusion created by the movement of matter and energy. Let's suppose a greatly simplifed universe which is only composed of 4 atoms labeled A, B, C, and D. In this space exactly large enough to contain these atoms they are created by God and arranged in order ABC and D is the observer. God rearranges them to CAB and D is not changed. God rearranges them back to ABC and D is not changed. Did atom D just go back in "time" or just witness a return to the original configuration of the universe? I thought this would be a cool change of pace so let's see where this goes. | PRO | 1ac9c27e-2019-04-18T19:53:34Z-00005-000 |
Supernaturalism is impossible. I thought that you meant meaningless as in it is impossible to prove, not that it is impossible. All Pro has done is prove that it is impossible to know if a cause was supernatural. How that translates into supernaturalism being impossible is a mystery. In fact, Pro's own reasoning is his own downfall. Since we don't know the cause, we can't rule out supernaturalism. Somehow, we are obliged to still say that naturalism has to be the answer. It may be the likely answer, but without proof either way, it remains a 50-50 chance. | CON | 847f8130-2019-04-18T13:42:54Z-00000-000 |
Corruption is neccasity. Seeing as my opponent has forfeited his round, I suppose this means he has no rebuttals. I'd like to take this opportunity to refute his opening statement then."Why corruption has been started it is just because of our lackness, non fulfill of requirements of statutes, whenever somebody ask for our total income then we describe less income for avoidance of Taxes and give bribe to Income tax officer, whenever we not follow the traffic rules then we give bribe to Policemen to hide our mistake, Even sometimes our all documents are complete then we also give bribery, Do you know why because of Lack of knowledge , we don't want to give proper fees to consultant, Whenever we think corruption then it begin from us at end upon us and we always want a true leader just like Arvind Kejriwal to fight with corruption"Alright. I wanted to break this down into sentences but uh... this seems to be one large run-on sentence, seeing as there is no period to be found anywhere. I also, quite honestly, cannot make enough sense out of it to properly refute the arguments. I sincerely hope my opponent returns so that he may elaborate upon his arguments so I might be able to refute them. My apologies go out to the voters for the lack of action in this round.I suppose I extend my previous arguments, seeing as there doesn't need to be anything else that I must contribute in this round. | PRO | 94712848-2019-04-18T16:31:44Z-00001-000 |
US President has sole discretion on enhanced interrogations. US Department of Justice Memo, March 14, 2003, justifying enhanced interrogation techniques - "In wartime, it is for the President alone to decide what methods to use to best prevail against the enemy. ... One of the core functions of the Commander in Chief is that of capturing, detaining, and interrogating members ofthe enemy. ... It is well settled that the President may seize and detain enemy combatants, at least for the duration of the conflict, and the laws ofwar make clear that prisoners may be interrogated for information concerning the enemy, its strength, and its plans." | PRO | 7dc30001-2019-04-17T11:47:32Z-00092-000 |
Affirmative action to promote equal opportunity in the United States is justifed. All except for the last paragraph is a direct quote from this source [3]. None of this evidence supports the position that affirmative action promotes equal opportunity, only that it increases educational end employment opportunities for minority groups, which is true but it does this through reverse discrimination. It does not end discrimination. Since my opponent refuted none of my arguments and provided none that support the resolution I conclude the debate and urge a Con vote. [3] http://clinton2.nara.gov... | CON | 6fc3afba-2019-04-18T19:10:19Z-00000-000 |
The right to bear arms. I will attack my opponents case then move on to crystallize my own. Ok, he begins with a bunch of definitions; however one of the biggest ideas is a militia the military and what he brings up also is a sub-section of the military. Militia was the group of men called upon to help defend against British Attacks. These were ordinary citizens. Take Midnight Ride of Paul Revere. He calls upon the people to GRAB THEIR WEAPONS and help defend. The people is the militia. Then he brings up that the guns were from Britain and were only supposed to be used for hunting. Lol, he is essentially saying that the colonists had no right to fight Britain. Extension: HE FAILED TO ADDRESS MY MAIN POINT IN CONTENTION 1. ONLY IF THE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO GUNS CAN WE EVER DEFEND OURSELVES AGAINST A TYRANT. JUST LIKE THE COLONISTS VS BRITAIN. THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION KNEW THIS. READ CONTENTION 1, AND IT'S A SURE REDEYE WIN. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is an extension or definition of the first subject of the amendment, "A well-regulated militia". It is explaining what a "well-regulated militia" has/is." No its not. It is clearly saying that the people have the right to bear arms. Either for protection or hunting. "Automobile deaths would be much less common if there was not drunk driving, road rage, etc. Many accidents are at the fault of the driver. Likewise, guns do not kill people. People with guns kill people. However, it can only take the slightest aggravation for the trigger to go off. Guns are much more dangerous than cars, regardless of which one actually kills more people. A gun is also available to more people than a car is. You see little children playing with guns on the news, but you don't see them hijacking cars. A gun is too dangerous to be available to pretty much any individual." My Response: The point of the contention is, if the government truly wanted to protect against death, ban automobiles not guns. And your point about guns being more available. First, I want to see where you got this. However more importantly, there are so many protections against getting a gun. U need to take a physical, and psychological test beforehand. Cars are 50x more available then guns. =============================================================================== Voting Issues: 1) To truly uphold the security of a free state, we as the people and true leaders of America, have the right to fight for our own freedom if it ever gets infringed on. 2) We all have right to self-defense, guns aid in protection of ourselves. It should be allowed if someone wishes to have one. 3) The clause clearly states militia and people, both referring outside of the formed military. The Framers knew this, and it's our job to keep our protected right. This is a clear RedEye ballet | CON | b60eb499-2019-04-18T19:42:17Z-00002-000 |
The Catholics have the ideas about Mary wrong. 1) Praying to Mary and the Saints I'll have to repeat myself on the Revelations verse. We really don't have any evidence of what the prayers are so why should we make a doctrine of it? The verse does not imply that the elders or the creatures interceded between God and man or opened the scroll. Again, the verse in 1 Timothy 2:5 say ONLY Jesus is the mediator. That leaves no room for anyone else. Making a doctrine out of something so obscure is wrong. 2) Icons Of Mary Whether they consider Mary a God or not, she should not be the focus of prayer or mediation. It is a sin to bow down to Mary like the other nations mentioned in this article: http://carm.org... 3) Mary being Holy and Sinless Yes, Mary was a great person. She was fully human, which we can deduce that she did sin. Those words don't make her sinless. (Romans 3:23) http://www.biblegateway.com... Abraham was justified by seeing the Gospel but he sinned. (Galations 3:6) http://biblehub.com... 4) Jesus having siblings The verse mentioned that Jesus belonged to his mother and father, Joseph and Mary in addition to his brothers. This means that they were also his sons and her sons. The prophecy in Psalms proves that Jesus had brothers. http://carm.org... 5) Mary's virginity When it means until it means the condition of virginity ended. It is the context because they wanted to consummate the marriage after Jesus was born. http://carm.org... | PRO | e5ccf4e-2019-04-18T17:29:46Z-00001-000 |
Same sex unions are the equivalent of Heterosexual unions. This is my first debate on Debate.org, and I hope to improve my debating skills during my time on here. In this debate, I would like to use the first round to define the terms of the debate. Arguments will begin in the second round. Objective of this debate: To determine whether or not homosexual sexual unions are the equivalent of heterosexual sexual unions, thus determining whether or not gay unions deserve legal recognition equal to that of heterosexual unions. Burden of Proof rests equally on the debaters. Pro must prove that homosexual unions are equal to heterosexual unions. Con must prove that the two unions are not equal. Gay adoption and IVF are not being discussed here, the discussion is limited to the unions themselves. | CON | e930ef3-2019-04-18T18:46:46Z-00009-000 |
In a relationship people shouldn't be judged . In a relationship people shouldn't be judged by their sexuality , race , background. Weight , hight or any physical. Who has ever heard "she's to fat , and he's so skinny " Or " she's to ugly to be with him " . What about "she's Hispanic / white / ect. And he's black / Indian / ect. Like people need to stop judging . In a relationship " is between 2 " not 3 or 4 or 5 ! | PRO | 86e27a3b-2019-04-18T16:14:18Z-00005-000 |
Muhammad was a prophet of God. I may be, but I am not Christian, so I am allowed to. However, I apologise if that is the case. Your implication that a religion is wrong, however, is a fallacy on an objective level as it utilizes a subjective argument and does not consider the religion itself, or the culture which follows it. In addition, you have not considered the points I have previously made or the debate itself. I await a rebuttal. | PRO | 9686d0a3-2019-04-18T16:56:55Z-00001-000 |
Do you Think Bullying Is Being Dealt With Appropriately At Schools. First of my opponent continues to believe that there is a problem with anti-bullying programs. Anti-bullying programs have provided help for certain programs. There is always the few people who don't learn much from anti-bullying programs or anti-drug programs, but the purpose of anti-bullying programs is to show kids the problems with bullying. Also adding on to the argument is the fact that School's do properly punish students, and if they don't legal action is usually taken and the heads of the school are fired and the cycle continues. So schools make sure that they take care of the problems by alerting their teachers to keep an eye on certain groups. | PRO | 677c5fcb-2019-04-18T12:40:21Z-00000-000 |
MBA is equalizer; disadvantaged can excel after undergrad. Professor Anthony Hopwood, dean of the Said Business School, Oxford University, said to the Independent: "It's an equaliser. If someone is born and bred in North Dakota and doesn't comes from a rich family, that person is generally going to go to the University of North Dakota for their first degree. However, the person can then move onto a major business school for an MBA."[9] | PRO | 824a5a69-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00142-000 |
The War on Drugs has failed and there needs to be a new dialogue to decide on the course forward. Presidents are meant to lead not simply open up national discussions and follow whatever the public wants. While discussion is always welcome it is unlikely to actually provide any answers except telling us what the public wants – most people may consider the war on drugs a failure but that does not mean that they have any idea of what policies they want to replace it. A dialogue also simply kicks the problem down the road; how long is a national discussion going to take? If it is comprehensive this is likely to delay any decisions until after the next election. | CON | 9166718f-2019-04-15T20:22:35Z-00004-000 |
The American Empire should expand to include the middle eastern opec nations. I think the American people should expand their empire to include the middle eastern opec nations for these reasons 1. The Americans could take better care of them. The American empire could take these nations like Iran Iraq Saudi Arabia Kuwait Jordan Syria ect. and it would benefit both sides because after the war when the Americans rebuilt they would rebuild it with western architecture and western culture giving more variety to the people there then also the Americans would have a steady non threatened oil supply. 2. It would make the middle east more peaceful Iraq hates Iran the Arabs hate the Jews the Persians hate Arabs the Taliban don't like anyone and no one likes the Jews in the middle east its basically a giant Mexican stand off they all have their pistols pointing at each other but if some one were to get in on this little stand off with lets say a cannon then things wouldn't be as tense if the mighty American military system took out the Taliban and conquered some of the Arabic and Persian nations with oil then many hostilities would end because for one group to get to their enemies they would have to get through the Americans on what is now America giving the US forces a distinct advantage over the invading enemy. 3. It would raise the world economy. America is allies with many of the down economy nations like the Europeans if America took control of the oil supplies in the middle east with their European allies they could profit off from exporting oil to the east raising their economy. I think these are good reasons to why America should take over the middle east. | PRO | 60aca2f1-2019-04-18T18:20:34Z-00009-000 |
Hydrogen vehicles will arrive too late to help climate change. A National Research Council report that pegs 2020 for the arrival of the mass-market fuel cell vehicle. According to USA Today, "That's the best case scenario, of course, assuming technology, government, industry and the public all cooperate on bringing hydrogen cars to the nation's highways."[1] Yet, the IPCC says that steps must be taken immediately to stop global warming. This means that hydrogen fuel cell technology is out of sink with the immediacy of global warming. | PRO | 2e721803-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00064-000 |
The law should be codified to one, easy to understand law: "Do not do bad things". I am against this proposition. - Law may be complex for the average lay person, but given the nuanced moral dispositions of every individual, it would be difficult to abide by. What one person considers a bad act, another would not. - It leaves the too much open to interpretation for the judges; creating a risk of unjust precedents being established (in common law jurisdictions) | CON | e58dedcb-2019-04-18T16:23:34Z-00004-000 |
Cyber Bullying Should Be a Criminal Offense. Why are people making such a big deal on cyber bullying. I would like to debate about this in preparation on my NFL debate coming up soon. First of all, education is a much better way to solve this. Second, it is not a big threat. Third, criminalizing it doesn't stop cyber bullying. Contention One- Programs work! They are very effective. Anti bullying programs work-According to Newsday, "Statistics from the state Department of Education show a nearly 11 percent decline on the Island in incidents reported as intimidation or bullying from 2006-2007 to 2008-2009. Cyber bullying should be dealt in schools, not courts. Schools can have no bullying programs to stop cyber bulling. It is very effective. The government is not meant to protect from life. You can't make it illegal because someone is being to another person. Contention Two- It is NOT a big threat at all! The person can delete the text message, close the window, and chooses not to look at it. Cyber bullying also doesn't have to be taken so seriously especially if it's just a joke and sarcastic comment. Plus, you can report the abuse. Over the internet and text messages, it can be hard to decide the person is being sarcastic or not. Contention Three- How in the world does criminalizing cyber bullying work? You see thieves rob banks even though it's a illegal. Making cyber bullying illegal doesn't stop it from occurring. It will overwhelm the courts as well. This violates the first amendment because of freedom of speech. Bullying over the internet is not a big threat. We shouldn't need laws Thanks and hope you vote for me. | CON | 5acbd923-2019-04-18T18:59:21Z-00005-000 |
Sunglasses do more harm than good. My opponent's two main arguments are that sunglasses can be used immorally and that they damage our economy because the majority of designer sunglasses are manufactured in Italy by one company. These two situations are both not so important. Pretty much anything can be used immorally. Water can be poisoned and given to people on the streets. Baskets can contain illegal drugs. You can put a cheat sheet inside a pen cap to cheat on a test (a video of this strategy can be found on YouTube). One cannot blame sunglasses for being used immorally, as everything has been used immorally at least once. The great thing about our economy is that sunglasses aren't the only thing that can be sold. There are many more products to sell than sunglasses. Just because a few jobs are taken away, doesn't mean people can't look for new ones. Also, most countries have their own largest national export. Many products come to the U.S. from China already. For Italy, sunglasses are one of them. For Canada, maple syrup. Again, any product can take away jobs in the U.S. That is how economy works. | CON | 31c53bc5-2019-04-18T18:45:06Z-00001-000 |
because of healthcare, on balance obama as president was a good thing. i wish con would have started into his arguments more that the free market would properly take care of healthcare, so that we can delve into it all sooner than later. cause you can count me as prime skeptical. free markets leads to people not having health care, and thus they get sick or die. it's pretty simple really. if con wants to argue the free market is cheapest, i might not disagree. but it comes at hte cost of thousands of lives and isn't really a health plan. as to the medicaid expansion saving lives. harvard studies show that more than two thousand florida citizens will die if that state doesn't take medicaid expansion. and i'm sure that i could find more stats on a national scale, which i think might actually be in that study. http://www.sun-sentinel.com...in general, the lack of healthcare at least before obamacare was enacted was well established to be over forty thousand a year. again based on harvard studies and lots of other studes. http://obamacarefacts.com...to be sure, there are plans that are similar to other industrialized nations use for healthcare that is cheaper than obamacare. they range from single payer to private insurance that is tightly regualted. and a firmly established number is that they spend ten percent of their GDP on healthcare and we spend seventeen percent. that represents a big number, a trillion dollars. bottomline. if they can do it, we can do it. insurance for everyone, while cheaper. but again this is all getting beside the point. the point is that obama made the issue of healthcare front and center. if a republcan says he wants to repeal it, he has to say with what. or not one takes him seriously. it might be expensive, but at least people have health care in the mean time too until we find a better solution. | PRO | 38fd421-2019-04-18T14:22:49Z-00003-000 |
You should be a law to have to vist the docter at least once a year for free. I negate, on two levels. 1. I do not feel I should be a law because I feel I have more potential than a law would. If there is actually substantial need for such a law then I would offer the alternative that perhaps we should make the law without turning me into a law. 2. Such a law inhibit freedom of expression etc... While I think free health care is a marvelous idea actually mandating that I go to get my free health care sounds like government controlling yet another portion of my life. Government should not have control in issues such as this as mandated by the constitution. I would instead offer the alternative that free health care be offered once per year but not mandated. I now stand open for my opponents rebuttal. | CON | 8083d5b1-2019-04-18T19:49:15Z-00002-000 |
Dog fightning should be legalized in the USA. Dog Fighting is illegal in the US because it is a inhumane treatment of a domestic animal. Most dogmen treat their dogs horribly to get them angry. The dogs don't get fed on a regular basis so they are angered to kill anything that stands in their way of food. Dogmen also treat their dogs that have lost even worse because they are loosing money and fame to the dog fighting scene. | CON | ec5896db-2019-04-18T13:46:28Z-00003-000 |
Monster Legends is superior to Dragon City. As I can clearly see that my knowledge of both of these games is limited, I'm not going to attempt to argue this on a gameplay mechanic. As I will continue to state in my rebuttals, Pro has failed to do two things. -Pro has failed to define superior. I will now define 'superior' as containing more dragons. . http://www.debate.org...As you can see, a quick Google search turned up this. Monster Legends contains fewer dragons than Dragon City - Dragon City contains 276 dragons. [1]Meanwhile, according to the page of Monster Legends, it only contains 'over 100 monsters'. This means that it cannot have more dragons. Therefore, Dragon City is superior to Monster Legends. But let's assume that superior did not mean more dragons. It is impossible, by the nature of superiority, to prove that any game is objectively superior to another. I can say that Ocarina of Time is worse than Big Rigs- and to me, Big Rigs is superior. Therefore, this debate is an autowin for Con on both counts. Thank you, and please vote Con.1. ) . https://www.quora.com... | CON | eb320d78-2019-04-18T13:56:07Z-00002-000 |
Golden Dawn are not a party, they are thugs and criminals. Golden Dawn does not behave as most political parties and their MPs do not behave like politicians. This is because they are not what we would describe as politicians: they are thugs. Emboldened by their MP’s privilege of immunity from prosecution Golden Dawn MP’s have on multiple occasions been involved in public acts of violence. MP Dimitris Koukoutsis is being investigated for an assault in parliament on SYRIZA (leftist) MP Vasiliki Katrivanou [1], while party spokesman Ilias Kasidiaris assaulted two other MP’s on a chat show broadcasted live on TV [2]. Worse still, many of Golden Dawn’s MP’s and members face criminal charges, including Ilias Kasidiaris who is accused of ‘accessory to robbery, bodily harm and illegal gun possession’ [3], although his trial has been postponed on multiple occasions because of his MP’s privileges. Not only does Golden Dawn dislike democratic values, they actively abuse their MP’s privileges and behave unacceptably in a highly public manner towards fellow members of parliament. Party leader and MP Nikos Mihaloliakos has publicly declared that Golden Dawn feel uncomfortable and disgusted in parliament and called upon party members to rally behind them and violently take the struggle out of parliament and onto the streets of Athens. [3] We cannot allow such open criminality and violence to exist in politics and inside the Greek Parliament. They totally lack respect for other politicians and do not participate in an orderly manner expected of Members of Parliament and many of them have committed acts of criminality before even being elected into parliament. These people are not fit to take part in government and provide a horrific example for society. They make a mockery of the political system and disgrace Greek politics and Greece as a whole. They must be banned. [1] Kathimerini: “Panel to probe Parliament attack by Golden Dawn MP”, 29 August 2012, E-Kathimerini, http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_wsite1_1_29/08/2012_458853 [2] Baboulias, Yiannis: “Greece’s Golden Dawn isn’t a political party – it’s more like a criminal gang”, 4 September 2012, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/04/greece-golden-dawn-not-political-party [3] ibid | PRO | 72ae84f9-2019-04-15T20:24:17Z-00011-000 |
no rules debate. I think Con is missing the mark (so to speak). The question is not one of accuracy. I agree if one is inaccurate, one must clean up after one's self. However, assuming that a guy lifts the seat before firing, and assuming that any errantly aimed "junk" is promptly cleaned up, I don't see why the seat has to be put back down. It is simply in inefficient waste of time and energy after using energy in generating waste. Let us imagine for a moment a household of one man (M), one woman (W) and one bathroom. Let us assume that both parties frequent the toilet equally. I realize this is far from reality since women spend so much time in the bathroom, but it is for the sake of the argument. Since "going #1" is done at a greater rate than #2, let us also assume that both parties go #1 (P) six times a day and go #2 (S) two times a day (PM=6, SM=2, PW=6, SW=2). The total number of bathroom visits is 16. Now, if one leaves the seat in the position of last use, it will result in a higher number of instances that the seat is left down. The seat is left up only six times (PM) compared to the 10 instances where the seat is left down (SM+PW+SW). The seat is left down an overwhelming 62.5% of the time compared to a paltry 37.5 % when it is left up. Based on these statistics, one wonders why seat position has become such an emotionally charged issue with women. | CON | c1162bc9-2019-04-18T16:25:09Z-00003-000 |
Homosexuals should be alowed to adopt. Thankyou, you too. One point is that Homosexuals are like any other parent, right? The only difference is that both of the parents are of the same sex. If a man and woman are having a child, should that be considered wrong if a woman/ woman or man/man have a child/adopting is wrong? No. Neither are wrong. It is natural both ways. For example, I have an aunt who is homosexual, she is partnered with this amazing, beautiful woman. They would both make such good parents. Maybe even better than a woman who has had a baby she actually wanted. | PRO | 54bb0e3c-2019-04-18T13:41:33Z-00004-000 |
Resolved: On balance, violence is a just response to political oppression. The very nature of political oppression means that any non-violent means of the oppressed gaining the upper hand over the oppressor has been shut down. Thus, the only two options left for the oppressed are to physically overthrow the oppressor (which insinuates violence) or to accept the oppression and make peace with the oppressor. The question is if, on balance, violence is a just response to political oppression and I am yet to see a reason why it wouldn't be. | PRO | 200c85a6-2019-04-18T16:10:34Z-00004-000 |
Andy will cave in and have sex with me even if I wear a Three Moon & Jesus t-shirt. Well if you've already seen what cannot be unseen, then what is the difference? If anything, wearing it on a shirt presents you with options. Option A: More Three Moon Jesus Option B: More Bencakes. This could be seen as exposure therapy: http://en.wikipedia.org... You can get over your fear and embrace sexiness instead. And ableism? Stereotype? http://www.lotustalk.com... | PRO | 3c9c6b84-2019-04-18T18:45:58Z-00003-000 |
There should be mental health regulations rather than gun regulations. And from what it says, there should be no gun regulations but only mental health regulations. (I won't do any rebuttal for now. ) For the first round, let me define two terms (make it as part of my intro. )Gun laws (regulations) - Gun politics describes a category of politics involving and/or addressing firearms that fall into the category of small arms. Generally the topic addresses safety issues and ideologies related to firearms through criminal and non criminal use. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...)Mental health law- the area of the law that applies to persons with a diagnosis or possible diagnosis of mental illness, and to those involved in managing or treating such people. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...)Intro:We can't deny the fact that guns are severely dangerous and useful at the same time. But in this debate PRO is suggesting that the usage of gun is due to a person's mental state or choice (which goes back to the mental state). As the cons of this debate I will stand to my point that there should be gun regulations and mental health regulations but to be fair with pro I will fight for the point that these should be more gun regulations than mental health regulations. In other words, my point here is, gun regulations outweigh mental health regulations and that society should focus more on gun regulations. (let the debate commence) | CON | 56b3b699-2019-04-18T16:17:56Z-00006-000 |
Pop music is hurting the American youth. Dear Red, I do not Believe Pop Music is Hurting American Youth. Firstly, Pop Music is Technically not a Genre of Music. It is Short for Popular. This Means that Pop music can be and Is any Music that is Popular. For Instance, if Classical Music was as Popular as, say, Thunder by Imagine Dragons. It could very well be Considered Pop. Pop music comes in Many Genres, each with a unique Psychological Effect. If Pop is Multiple Genres of Music and each have a Unique Effect, how can it Hurt America's Youth? | CON | bc99bd21-2019-04-18T11:38:03Z-00001-000 |
Patriotism: Con V Pro (Short Debate). Ok here is my argument. First off i'd like to state that your reasoning is tainted, the opposite of patriotism is not dislike or hatred, but merely indifference and an open mind. So here is my reasoning as to why one should not patriotic, especially considering braggarts like your average stereotypical US sports fan. To be patriotic means to defend your country right or wrong no matter what. In the case of America for instance, why would you back a nation plagued with a dastardly past and present (slavery, mass genocides, oil theft in Afghanistan etc). Patriots typically back their country because it gives them a sense of strong identity, proclaiming how their army and economy is one of the greatest. But this demonstrates ignorance, just because one is dominant does not make them moral. It feels like patriotism is an excuse to hide behind personal struggles, thus creating bias and self defence mechanisms. To expand, here's a quick quote from Quora; "I think that people who support their country's policies, no matter whether they are right or wrong, usually do so because they don't know much about other people in other countries", Exactly could not agree anymore, I highly doubt patriotic stereotypes spend time studying and learning about other cultures and societies. I believe the best way forward is to demonstrate understanding and knowledge of your countries policies, but don't use it as an ego boost, and definitely don't back it w/out research, otherwise peoples will come at you with brains and teach you a lesson. | CON | 7803fbef-2019-04-18T11:48:27Z-00000-000 |
Dope is a funnier word than lame. On the contrary, Mr. Chubby, I'm in crazy buttcheecks fo-mation. Mandood, i am in da zone homie. I be like open. im in no denial yo. So wutzup foo. im in all out woopee faze dood. i be like bumblin like my-fricans homie and dey be so troo too! Imma quote sum dopeiness to the world from legitimate movies: Psych: "Man everything is so dope today." Adventure Time: "DOPE" THANK YOU. I LIVE IN AMERICA. HOME OF AMERICANS. | PRO | a59e02c-2019-04-18T17:15:22Z-00001-000 |
To be religious is to also have a mental disorder. I created this debate in response to your comment on a other debate of similar talking points.I will be arguing that to be a follower of any religion does not mean that person also has a mental disorder. For round one please state your position and any definitions you wish to establish.Definitions:Mental disorder: "A mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual's cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental functioning." https://www.psychologytoday.com... | CON | bff98b90-2019-04-18T12:50:26Z-00007-000 |