argument
stringlengths 201
3.55k
| stance
stringclasses 2
values | id
stringlengths 36
39
|
|---|---|---|
Paul and Bloomberg Campaign. So you agree with my principle argument that we should have extra-party candidates. The only thing left to address is your cynical view of the American voter. Paul and Bloomberg could run. There is plenty of time until November and there will be several debates between the candidates in those months. Just because there has been a large frenzy over the nomination doesn't mean that an extra-party candidate wouldn't have time to be heard. "I don't think the american people have what it takes to vote for someone in a third party. A lot of people feel like they would be wasting their vote." This is a recent problem. Perot got a good chunk of the vote just a few years ago. The reason a third party hasn't been prominent is because Nader hasn't campaigned much and has a reputation for being the perpetual vote trash can. If there is a third-party candidate in contention, people will vote for them. Just because there hasn't been one in the past two elections, doesn't mean its impossible. Whether Paul and Bloomberg will run hasn't been my argument. This is simply a debate about whether or not there should be extra-party candidates. You clearly agree with me here, so I don't see the ambiguity. | PRO | 28c63abf-2019-04-18T19:51:44Z-00001-000 |
The world would be better if we were all the same. To summarize my opponent’s arguments, he basically says that wars and conflict happen because people disagree with each other, but he does nothing to refute my arguments on how humanity needs conflict and difference to continue to thrive and evolve. “we should take the same accepting approach to people who think outside the box for social advancement, much like the Rhodesians did during the final years of existence, they managed to still maintain sameness and familiarity and have one of the strongest economies in the world ($1 U.S= $1.40 Rhodesian). This unity strengthened not only their economy but their technology as well.” Okay, so one place thrives because people agree with each other. I understand this, but in a realistic sense humanity never would have gotten to this point if we all agreed with each other. What we have here with the Rhodesians is the product of years of debating, different ideas, politics, conflict, ect. ect. till humans could finally agree on the best possible economy they could make. Humans that always agree, will never progress because humans thrive on different ideas and opinions in order to evolve. You’re example is actually just an example of one good place that could exist if every human agreed on its economics, but what if every human agreed that a dictatorship where people strictly punished for doing the slightest of wrongs was the best economy for the people? Obviously it’s not, but because every agrees on it they will never evolve past it to true happiness and the freedom of being away from an oppressive government. However, once one man says “we want freedom!” and others join in, even though conflict will soon arise, the fact that humans can understand and fight for what they believe in regardless of whether conflict arises is what is important. It allows them to truly know what the pursuit of happiness is. In a world where everyone agrees, humanity simply cannot thrive, for they can never improve. I argue that if every human agreed on the same things then humans never would have evolved scientifically really due to primitive religion and beliefs. Or what about flawed scientific theories? No one can say they’re wrong because everyone agrees that they’re right. IF ONE MAN SAYS THAT 2+2=5 THEN HIS WORD IS LAW, IF IT WASN’T ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT 2+2=4! Do you see my point now? Humanity evolves once one man proves that science is behind those religions and goes against what they believe, humanity improves when one man debunks scientific theory, and for goodness sake humanity improves when one man understands that 2+2=4 and shows the world that that is correct! The only way your arguments would ever work that humanity would be better off if we all agreed and were all the same would be if humanity already had every single piece of knowledge in existence, which is obviously not a viable argument. | CON | adc21ff9-2019-04-18T17:18:32Z-00001-000 |
Resolved: A Minimum Wage Should Exist. This debate is over the minimum wage. Pro may argue from any or multiple lines of reasoning such as fairness, economic growth, living standards, moral standpoint, etc, as may con. There is one definition we need before starting this debate to remove any ambiguity. Minimum Wage- The lowest wage permitted by law [1] Please note that this debate is only over a government enforced minimum wage. This is why I have left out the part of the definition talking about special agreements. Any attempt to argue for a non-government enforced minimum wage is off topic. Also note that the amount of the minimum wage is not in the definition. Pro will argue that some minimum wage should exist (or may argue for a specific amount) and con will argue none should exist. Note that by this setup the BOP is shared. Good luck to pro! Remember the first round is acceptance only and no new arguments may be made in the fourth round. Sources 1- http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... | CON | 4dc41c70-2019-04-18T15:25:20Z-00007-000 |
MBA is no guarantee of advancement or even a job. Many MBAs find that they are not advancing and that, even in some circumstances, that they cannot find a job at all. This can be a very unfortunate situation, and yet it is important to acknowledge as a possibility for anyone going into an MBA program. This is particularly true in a down economy. Quiting your job to get an MBA, therefore, has risks that are important to acknowledge. | PRO | 824a5a69-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00082-000 |
This is an illegitimate violation of national sovereignty. Most human rights abuses are motivated by ideological factors that are not rationally calculated through a "cost-benefit-analysis." Much of the world's human rights abuses are committed along ethnic or religious lines and thus are not open to incentives and disincentives but are rather absolutist obligations they think they have from their religion or ethno-cultural beliefs. Moreover, most interventions are costly, damaging for the intervening forces and are generally unappealing to domestic populations in the states that are intervening. As such, the political will for intervention is usually quite low and not feasible. Most regimes will know this and thus take this "message" from the international community with a grain of salt and therefore have no impact on their actions. improve this | CON | fbd194e0-2019-04-15T20:22:17Z-00015-000 |
Katana ("Pro") vs. Rapier ("Con"). Since Con forfeited, I suppose I'll start. 1) Katana is forged with a proportional amount of high and low carbon steel. This balances the durability and life expectancy of the weapon. While the rapier is made solely from steel, thus more likely to shatter. 2) A Katana will easily deflect any rapier blocks because the katana has more mass. The katana is designed for both offensive and defensive (slashing, thrusting) while the rapier is adapted mainly offensive (thrust). I await my opponent. | PRO | a9baadbf-2019-04-18T18:55:13Z-00003-000 |
Whoopi Goldberg Looks Like a Bitch. YES.Thank God that of all the people who could have accepted this debate, it was imabench. This debate will truly be a grand ol' time.So let's start by establishing some definitions.A. We are debating the one and only Whoopi Goldberg, the comedienne, the star of Sister Act, and one of the hosts of the hit talk show, The View.B. "looks like" will mean "bears some physical resemblence to," as according to Princeton University in 2006.C. A "b!tch" can mean a female dog, a female canine in general, a malicious and unpleasant woman, a person who performs demeaning tasks for another, or a prison sex slave, as accoring to Random House Dictionary in 2013. And Now...The Big PictureAs you can see in the photograph below, Whoopi Goldberg does in fact bear some physical resemblence to that of a b!tch. The "some physical resemblance being, obviously, the curly black locks.Establishing That the Dog is Female This goes without saying, but the breed of dog shown, unlike some breeds of cat, comes in both male and female variations. Since the dog shown has both male and female varieties, whether the dog shown is female or not, there is a female dog like that, that indeed looks like Whoopi Goldberg.Therefore, Whoopi Goldberg Looks Like a Bitch. | PRO | 5aef4343-2019-04-18T17:16:51Z-00005-000 |
There should be no NFL team outside of the USA. Although I see what my opponent is saying behind the statement that they have to deal with travel, it doesn't change the fact that the players will still be at a disadvantage because of it. Even if they can deal with it and not have a problem with it they still can't recover as easily as a team traveling within the USA. This puts the team at a disadvantage with takes away from the game itself. My opponent insists that the word "national" can mean outside of the limits of the United States, however he has not presented a definition that presents this. Thus the definition I presented stands in this round. Again this definition was: National: Of, relating to, or belonging to a nation as an organized whole. Because it is the rebuttle period no definition can be presented and thus this definition stands. My oponent referenced the CNL, however I believe he meant the CFL because the CNL doesn't exist. He states that the NFL is more famous because "it has teams from around the country and diverse players" and he states that the more widely spread a league is the more success it will have. However this is not true, because the NFL is extremely successful within the USA, not outside of it. The CFL proves that the attempts to bring football outside of the USA have failed, and thus we should not bring a team outside of the USA because the foreign countries will not enjoy it. | PRO | 29311a61-2019-04-18T16:49:13Z-00000-000 |
Three Philosophical Topics - 1E. As it is, it would seem that my opponent has a very misconstrued definition of free will that many who do as well. You seem to define free will as merely the freedom to physically act, whereas I would argue free will should be seen as one being the ultimate origin of an act. As others would probably know, I am supporting the Source model. There is a distinction between the Leeway model and the Source model, and I will supply one simple argument for the latter - Frankfurt counterexamples. Henry Frankfurt has shown interesting examples in which even though an agent is not able to choose among any alternatives (which many people associate with moral responsibility), we would intuitively still morally evaluate the agent. It would seem, then, that moral responsibility and free will are not necessarily linked with the ability to choose among alternatives - thus excluding the Leeway model. I will leave it at that, and see how my opponent's argument evolves in response. | PRO | 946609ce-2019-04-18T19:13:42Z-00004-000 |
Resolved: Lord Voldemort is a better villain than The Joker. Before continuing with my argument, I would like to make a quick cross-examination of my opponent's argument:1. You state that Voldemort has been thwarted multiple times by a child and defeated by one in the end. In the other times that Voldemort has been thwarted, was he always at his strongest, and when he was defeated in the end, was it through the efforts of Harry alone or more than one person? 2. You make references to the Joker from the 2008 film The Dark Knight, correct? 3. This will seem like a silly question, but, how do you prove that the Joker actually used that potato peeler?4. You state that Joker prepares all of his materials for destruction. Why does that make him a better villain?5. It takes Batman alone to stop the Joker, right? | PRO | aea5da13-2019-04-18T18:43:13Z-00007-000 |
Flag burning. My opponent says that there are limits to the freedom of speech. This is true considering is example of not being able to yell fire in the movie theater. However, these limits are set if there is something that desturbs the peace. By yelling fire someone is probably going to get get hurt when people stat screaming and running out the theater, on the other hand what is the consequences from burning the national flag? There are none! Burning the flag is a peaceful way to say 'I hate the government' or ' i'm unhappy with it's choices'. Therefore, since it's not hurting anyone then it should be legal. Mr. Rehnquist was wrong when he said this. When something goes wrong or the government is bad or when someone just disagrees with the government. They look at the nation as a whole. Same with other countries when they see the actions of our government they don't blame political parties they see the nation as a whole. What better way to say your unhappy with the way things are going then to burn the symbol of that which is making you unhappy? My point is that even though we can't yell fire in the theater, this is because it has more severe consequences then burning the flag. Since burning the national flag doesn't hurt anybody it should be legal. My opponent says that burnng the flag is not exercising the first amendment rights. This false because it is possible to speak wth one's actions, and if this is denied then the people's freedom of speach is denied. People have a right to protest, and people have a right to voice there distaste for the government. Not everyone loves the government or it's symbol anf they shouldn't be silenced. By outlawing flag burning we are doing just that, we are silencing people in a way. Our founding fathers wouldn't aprove. | PRO | e7db609b-2019-04-18T18:44:31Z-00001-000 |
America's Two Party System. it is in my opinion that the American government's democrat and republican parties is a very good thing in the constitution that sets balance to the American Government. for example, back when the american government was first set up, their were three parties, Democrats, Republicans, and the Whig. if your views were not democratic, or you didn't agree with them, you could go over to the Republican side of the government. Whig is not imporant because they are basicailly neigther party. it balances out the government and help gives something both parties are happy with | PRO | e52b274f-2019-04-18T18:20:17Z-00005-000 |
The cosmologicl argument is false. Quantum Mechanics is still in the Philosophy field and not the Scientific field. This may be for some time. Skeptics think they really have something on Theists with this field of study. They do not. For even Quantum Physics cannot get around the 'cause' problem. So far, The latest cutting edge of this study reveals that it too is bound to the Kalam Cosmology argument. | CON | dea2c4be-2019-04-18T11:21:18Z-00006-000 |
Standardized tests discriminate against minorities. Language will be as much of an issue in understanding in college as it will be for the tests and is likely to be as much of a difficulty in any other method of determining college admissions. Otherwise these are objections to individual questions on the test, and not to the system itself. The very fact they have made have ensured that the same problems have not re-occurred. Indeed the analogies were dropped in 2005 and scores for the poorest students increased as a result showing that SATs can simply be changed when problems are found with the testing.[1] The problems with a purely grade based system are however intrinsic, and much harder for individuals to improve. [1] Cloud, ‘What’s Good about the New SAT Test’, 2006 | CON | 259f65bb-2019-04-15T20:24:15Z-00011-000 |
can a man be raped by another man in his sleep. I never disagreed with that, I personally am not a fan of homosexuality I will let people live there lives but I do not condone it, and rape is one of THE most horrific acts ever, though the question is not is it okay for a man to be raped in his sleep, the answer to that is NO but the question is instead CAN a man be raped in his sleep which he can | PRO | b2c3e032-2019-04-18T12:01:03Z-00002-000 |
Sneakers are better than high heels. I am representing sneakers. Whoever takes up the challenge will be for high heels. Please commit to this debate and do not forfeit. If you forfeit then i know you are not a serious debater. Sneakers are a soft shoe with a rubber sole worn for sports or casual occasions. Sneakers are also known as Tennis Shoes or Running Shoes. I believe that sneakers are better for many reasons. One of my reasons for believing that sneakers are better is because they are more comfortable. Now, I know that not all high heel have shard pointy toes and they aren't all painful, but more often than not, after a long day, they do hurt your feet. Sneakers however have cushy soles and they don't squish your toes together. You can walk around in sneakers and not have as many sore feet afterward. Another reason that sneakers are better is that they are easier to walk in. Sure, if you're used to wearing high heels than you have better balance, but it's harder to walk on stairs and nearly impossible on uneven or rocky ground. In sneakers, it's about as easy as being barefoot. You can walk and run in them without tripping. A third reason that sneakers are better is that they are far more practical. High heels are not good for running or walking quickly. If you had to get away from someone, say a mugger or something, than you couldn't run away very well in heels. In sneakers you'd be fine. Sneakers are better for hiking, jogging, walking the dog, sports, going to the gym, and even just plain yard work. You're not going to wear you heels with the heels stuck in the dirt while pulling weeds. Overall, sneakers are better than high heels. | PRO | d7f7f234-2019-04-18T13:29:44Z-00005-000 |
Story Time! continue the sentence with one of your own! P.S. This is my 2nd debate. ...until he realized that Mike Huckabee was at the top of the very tree he was climbing. "Wow I'm an idiot" Bill states as he climbs back down the tree. This chain of events led Bill to wave the cab down that was conveniently driving next to the pink tree, and allowed him to give the cab driver his address. "Take me there my good man, I have had an interesting night." Said Bill, in a near-perfect Morgan Freeman voice. The cab driver then turned around... | PRO | e96ff4c6-2019-04-18T16:42:44Z-00003-000 |
Laws. Being that Con has forfeited his turn in Round 2, I will proceed with all four of my supposed arguments. In this case, Con will be forced to respond to whichever specific argument, or all of them, in the 3rd and final round. If Con intends to debate that laws are unnecessary, then I propose that laws are intended to protect the citizens, and without these laws, and the punishments that accompany them, societal groups are subject to anarchy, consisting of hostile activity towards one another. I challenge Con to provide unmistakeable proof of a society which has existed successfully without the implementation of a set of rules, either spoken or unspoken. If con intends to debate that anarchism is a successful model for society, then I respond by suggesting that anarchy in itself is not an acceptable model. Anarchy does not mean that nobody has the power, anarchy means that the power is up for grabs. Even if a society were able to successfully institute an anarchistic model, eventually someone would claim a title of leader. Eventually, there would be a disagreement of some sort, and then there would be a power struggle. There is no circumstance where a leader will not naturally emerge. Anarchists do not seek to do away with authority as a whole, anarchists seek to shift the terms by which authority is defined and attained. So I challenge Con to present any case where an anarchist society has existed and thrived, without any sign of structural collapse. If Con intends to debate that US law is tyrannical, then I suggest they reexamine the definition of tyranny. Tyranny is defined as "cruel and oppressive government rule. " While the United States culture can be argued as cruel or oppressive, this is a loose argument, and far more determined by the societal and economic structure than by the legal structure. The US laws actually protect convicted persons from cruel and unusual treatment. The majority of oppression in the United States is financially based, and the result of our economic design, rather than our government. Therefore, I challenge Con to provide evidence that the US government, specifically, has displayed legal action that proves to be explicitly cruel and oppressive. If you intend to debate that US citizens do not think independently, then I challenge you to provide evidence to support this brazen claim. | PRO | 9948b9ed-2019-04-18T16:04:44Z-00001-000 |
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should establish a Nation Health Care System. Since my opponent, Sophist, has forfeited again, my I don't have a argument. I would like to respond to a comment posted by Squirrel. He said (from memory) that blogspot isn't a creditable resource, because it is a blog. Well, if you click on some of the links (colored phrases or words) they bring you to real articles in U.K.( example: the YOrk Press reported about the lady going blind). | CON | 40cf458e-2019-04-18T20:00:11Z-00002-000 |
brawn is better than brain. brawn gets u lots of women if your a guy and lots of males when your a women depending on your sex brawn gives you the hot body nice looking face when your in town and a fem/mal looks at you they want to see someones beutiful face but when u see someone that is not good looking u want to laugh at their face and most people get bagged for what they look like so brawn is acually a good thing to most people + people with brains might get chicks but are very nerdy and sciency smart people.:( people who have mucles or big boobs might seem to be a show off but they are happier than other not always neccersarily but most of the time also people with brawn get the better easier life | PRO | f5af3975-2019-04-18T19:38:43Z-00003-000 |
Testing on animals is wrong!. Here are just a few reasons why I am against animal testing: Over 100 million animals are burned, crippled, poisoned and abused in U.S. labs every year.Even animals that are protected under the AWA can be abused and tortured. And the law does not require the use of valid alternatives to animals, even if they are available. In tests of potential carcinogens, subjects are given a substance every day for two years. Others tests involve killing pregnant animals and testing their fetuses. | PRO | 638d406b-2019-04-18T16:47:38Z-00003-000 |
The "pro-life" position must necessarily reject sexual reproduction. I hate to say it, but I did make a pretty big mistake and forgot to consider artificial insemination in my first argument. However, artifical insemination does not necessarily guarantee a successful pregnancy. Statiscally, even fewer artificial pregnancies survive than those naturally conceived. While there is no set rate of success for an artificial pregnancy, as there are many contributing factors that affect the success, the mean is only around 25%, while no clinic has been able to boast more than around 60%, which is the same of the rate of natural conceptions. Thus artificial insemination does not serve as a definitely safer alternative. Also, therefore, because the risk is inevitably present, whether artifically or naturally conceived, I believe my first argument is still valid. With regards to your rebuttal, it would not be analagous to the situation of pregnancy unless the doctor treating the child did not create any definite change in his chance of survival, in which case his actions really had no significance. The difference in natural and artifical and natural conception success rates is typically only present when a couple is having significant problems with natural conception, in which case they typically and rightly do turn to artifical means. Of course, some do contest that even artifical insemination is wrong, but I think that would be a separate argument. Now, with regards to the idea of a woman constantly being pregnant. Really, I just addressed this in order to prevent that argument being raised to my own point that deciding not to have a child would be "killing" it more than putting it in risk--I probably put it better in the original argument...see the last paragraph of my first response. In other words, I do not hold it to be valid it any way; I just brought it up to preempt the possibility of that argument being raised against me. My appologies for the lack of clarification in my previous argument, and any potential ones in this. Things tend to always sound better in my head, and I sometimes have a somewhat difficult time deliniating my ideas so that others understand them as well. | CON | 71bfcb55-2019-04-18T20:02:15Z-00002-000 |
The question of the existance of God is the most important question. It's the final round. I'll try not to bring up new arguments, but only reinforce and summarize old ones, and Con will have the final word. We are in agreement that for most purposes, an unanswerable question is pointless, as answerable ones are more pertinent. However, people, reasonable people, come to the conclusion that God does or doesn't exist, and use this as a base for a core life philosophy. i.e. Atheism and Christianity. As this is the basis of so many people's world view, I'd say it is answerable, and pertinent. | PRO | 8fc7af05-2019-04-18T18:13:55Z-00001-000 |
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind. I'm confused by the format of your questions. Next time can you write an understandable paragraph like you do in english class instead of all the extra stuff? I will try. I believe any person that passes a background check should be allowed to own a gun. If guns are banned, There is no way to protect against a tyrannical government and self-defense. Guns should be legal because they save many more lives than take them, And gun bans have proven not effective in reducing murder rates. | PRO | 81403c5b-2019-04-18T11:20:27Z-00000-000 |
Bible is God's Word. This is one of my favorite subjects to debate, and I have actually done this 2 times before, but I didn't really find it fulfilling either time because my opponent either avoided my answering my contentions or responded with a barrage of insults and condemnation. Hopefully this debate will go better. Please go ahead and present your argument first, since you have the burden of proof in this debate. Good luck! P.S. I will be requesting that you do not post any arguments or rebuttals in the 5th round, to ensure that we have the same number of rounds to debate. | CON | f1cb68e8-2019-04-18T16:51:41Z-00006-000 |
Pantheism/Panentheism Is Superior To Atheism. I would like to point out that this not simply a debate about the benefits of labeling the totality of existence as god. Pro has given a "Guarentee" that to not accept pantheism over atheism is the DESIRE to be selfish, the DESIRE to be individualistic, and the DESIRE to be ignorant to a fault. I commend pro for taking such a huge burden. In order to win this debate pro must demonstrate that labeling the totality of existence as god is more beneficial than atheism as well as showing that not labeling the totality of existence as god is based on a desire to be selfish, individualistic, and ignorant. Atheism-lack of belief in a conscious deity or conscious god This distinction needs to be made because the Sun is technically "more powerful" than us, yet every atheists believes in the sun. Labeling a giant meteor that could destroy the planet as god, then saying "atheists don't believe in god, therefore they don't believe in meteors" would be a pure semantic game and this is NOT what the terms are referring to. Hopefully this debate doesn't turn into a semantic exorcise, yet I feel it will be inevitable. I look forward to what will hopefully be a fruitful debate. | CON | a1451b71-2019-04-18T17:31:15Z-00008-000 |
It Is Not Necessary That Ultimately, Everybody Is Even. Pro says "If a person was higher than other people, the other people would be upset and may try to get even. But they could fail in their attempts." . Strawman; I never made such a point; my points were: 1. We ultimately live in what feels normal to us. 2. I challenge pro on why a happy life is important to the present self? My point being a measure of happiness, and therefore fairness, is made on the present and future self. Say I came back from a holiday; I went on the holiday for the then present self, but my present self has negligible benefit from that. In all, whether that be move to a big house, or a loss of a loved one, because every improvement and set back in our life ultimately joins our definition of a normal life; then we ultimately everyday will feel "normal". Whether that be waking up in a million dollar house of in the slums, living through a "normal" day fills us with no feeling of happiness or sadness. Yes, some have more improvements, but "Ultimately" we are even. | CON | 4253bb71-2019-04-18T12:09:33Z-00000-000 |
Barack obama is the president of the United States of America- Troll debate. I never said the abreviation was CUSE, I only said that it was communist, it is still the USA, and it exists on Kepler 69c, a planet roughly 1.6x the size of Earth. It was here Karl Marx and Engel fled to lay the corner stones a new United States of America. After stealing the Millenium Falcon from Han Solo they made the whole journey of 14 trillion light years in two seconds. Whith them they brought seeds and tools, all that would be needed to start a new America. Apon arival Marx tamed the local beasts with the might of his beard, and used them to continue cultivating Kepler. The USA is one of the most powerful country on Keplar, and there anarchist communism gave them the power to become this. I have proven that there is another USA out there and it is communist with no president I present to you my shield of bullet proof logic!!!!! The Communist Manifesto: http://www.marxists.org... Hidden in the sacred text is the story I have just told you, this is undeniable proof that there is another USA out there that does not have a president Named Barack Obama. I await freeko's response. | CON | 4d59b9c5-2019-04-18T17:27:23Z-00000-000 |
I'm Pro-Life, change my mind!. I would agree that life starts at conception, or possibly even earlier. However, this living human is not conscious until around 5 months after birth [1]. Additionally, the parietal lobe and brain stem, which are involved in pain perception [2], develop later on in pregnancy. Also, if something is found wrong with the pregnancy that will cause the mother to die in childbirth, then the mother should be allowed to save herself. In this case, there are two main situations. 1: The mother dies and the baby grows up with only one parent. 2: The child dies and the mother survives. I will elaborate more in my next response, but due to the 1000 character limit imposed by this website, I would be cut short trying to. [1] http://www.sciencemag.org... [2] https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org... | CON | 4e1bba9f-2019-04-18T11:30:41Z-00001-000 |
should teachers be able to bring guns to school. I think that teachers bring guns to school is a bad idea one reason is that school is supposed to be a safe place right? Well would you feel safe if a teacher that could just snap and start shooting kids protect or would you feel safer with a trained police officer that has used a gun before and can be trusted with a gun protect you. answer me this | CON | fc7870ae-2019-04-18T16:55:12Z-00009-000 |
GodSands is wrong when he tells others whether they're Christians or not. My opponent believes that GodSands is wrong when he tells others whether or not they are Christians. However, considering the vast number of people that he has called Christians or non-Christians, he had to be correct at least some of the time. Additionally, he acknowledges that atheists are not Christians. He is correct in doing so. My opponent must prove that GodSands is wrong every time that he tells other people whether or not they are Christians. Good luck. | CON | d784e501-2019-04-18T19:15:56Z-00006-000 |
We Should Abandon Nuclear Power. I am sorry for not answering you question directly. I shall attempt to now I think our definitions of ""we"" differ you define ""we"" as the population of the USA, however I live in the UK so the word ""we"" in your context will not affect me. In the context I am using the word ""we"" I refer to ""we"" as the human-race. In this context if we abandoned nuclear power, in effect ""if we as a human-race abandoned all forms of nuclear power"" then no country on earth would have access to such dangerous weapons. Also in this context of use of the word we ""other so-called Nuclear Countries are still researching, not throwing away their nukes"" would also abandon their nuclear program. This would make the world a much safer place. Yes the argument can be made that nuclear weapons saved lives in ww2 however there was no threat of Japan sending a nuclear bomb the other way. With more and more countries researching ""the bomb"" the risk of one coming the other way is increasing. Also you make the point ""In the event nukes are coming at us what do we do?"" I suppose you say your last goodbyes it does not matter if you have nukes to fire back or not. if you have nukes coming towards you are dead. what defence will it make to you? Yes countries may be deterred from sending them at you in the first place. However if we as a human race don"t have any nukes because we as a human-race have abandoned them. They won"t have any to send at you To conclude the world is a much safer place if NO ONE has access to such weapons. | PRO | f4786631-2019-04-18T17:44:04Z-00003-000 |
Religion is a force for Good!. Most people involved in "religion" Christianity more directly are usually there to help others, offer their time to lend an ear and what have you.. It's good to have because of the faith in Christ and the promise of eternal life ... But one can just come to know God without knowing their sinfulness and knowing where tey stand under Gods eyes.. Totally depraved and sinful deserving of nothing but condemnation (speaking 100% to myself too).. In all basic, Christianity is good because we have assurance as to where were going and have the privileged obligation to preach to the world the Gospel.. Being there and caring.. I truly believe if the world were Christians not just by name but life the world would be a way better place because people would know God, be reverential to Him and worship Him for who He is.. And be thankful for the saved life! :) Do you think that the Christianity/ religion is bad or not beneficial for the world? If so, why? | PRO | ee0de548-2019-04-18T17:26:43Z-00006-000 |
Is socialism a half measure and thus unequal to the challenge of freeing the poltrariut. If people want moderation then you would be the ideological norm, but what people want and what they get are different, people want less government involvement (because the feds have gotten more into the world's problems [refugees] then the nation's economy, thus are selfish gits) and more national economic programs. But I want to give people what they need if they work, if you've a hobo you will eat until there is a shortage. Money is the cause of all crime, all poverty, and the worsening of all famines since the development of the global economy. Thus it should be destroyed, to put this in metaphorical terms all people should understand, think of the myth of St.George and the dragon, the princess is the proletariat, we communists are st George and the dragon is the bourgeois. | PRO | 44cda481-2019-04-18T12:33:37Z-00007-000 |
patriotisms should be taught in schools. Patriotism is an important part of our American way of life. Yes America has made mistakes and we need to admit to those (another great lesson for children to learn). But America has many great accomplishments as well. we have a stable government. We have an economy that has done relatively well. Why should we not teach our children to be proud of the country they live in. | PRO | 339cfb1-2019-04-18T19:43:06Z-00004-000 |
there should be more gun regulation. you did repeat. i posted points about people just finding alternative ways to kill and getting guns on the black market, and you just ignored the responses i gave and reiterated those argument i responded to. con says people will just get guns illegally. if more guns means more homicide, doesn't that mean some would be criminals are not getting guns illegally? cause homicide would be the same if what con said was true. but back to teh resolution. background checks for all, would be more regulation. do 100% of would be criminals just go get one on the black market? checks would have zero percent effect, not stopping one person? this by common sense standards is absurd. those kinds of all or nothign statements are usually bunk. it's like saying crime laws have no effect, and 100% of would be criminals will just commit crimes anyway. at least if he admitted that some would be swayed, it'd have a better sensibility to it, but then that might make him need to concede the debate. but even if he admitted it stopped some, this would be like saying we shouldn't have crime law because some people will commit crime. please address these crime analogies. and state for the record, if you think it, that 100% of would be criminals just go get one on the black market. id think actually making the statement would give one pause. | PRO | 5b342d86-2019-04-18T14:39:19Z-00000-000 |
The Christian god is unmerciful compared to the Jewish G-d. In regards to predestination: Most major Christian denominations either reject predestination either completely, or they reject that God predestines people to hell. http://www.religionfacts.com... This means that Christians reject the idea that God chooses who goes to heaven or who goes to hell. Most Christians, excluding Puritans, some Calvinists, and probably some others, fully accept free will. I concede that Christians view the God of the Old Testament as the same God of the New Testament. However, the way that God interacts with humanity in the Old Testament is very different from the way God acts in the New Testament, in spite of the numerous amount of scriptures that say that God is unchanging. Overlooking these scriptures and viewing the two as distinct, in regards to their actions (the afterlife not included), I still contend that that G-d is unmerciful in comparison to God. I will also concede that most Jews do not believe in "hell" as a place of eternal punishment, while many Christians do (although there is a growing number of Christians who are annihilationists, and believe that instead of being sent to hell after death, a sinner merely ceases to exist - here is one such example/argument for it: http://reknew.org...) In addition to this, many Christians interpret Old Testament to support the existence of hell. Jews reject this interpretation, yes, but that means that the only difference between the Christian God of the Old Testament and the Jewish G-d is one's interpretation of scripture. This interpretation is entirely subjective and dependant upon one's preconceived notions of god. Since it is impossible for a living human to know what happens after death, to definitively prove which of these interpretations is more correct is also impossible. So: If Jews are right and the Old Testament does not support the existence of hell, then the Christian God is less merciful. If Christians are right and the Old Testament does support the existence of hell, then there are two more options: If you view the God of the Old Testament as distinct from the God of the Old Testament, then based off of their actions, the God of the New Testament is more merciful. If you view them as the same God, then being the same unchanging God, they are equally merciful. | CON | 25c5f1b6-2019-04-18T13:44:02Z-00002-000 |
Reality TV. In your previous statement you stated that reality tv has real people and other shows just have actors. Well I have a question for you. When were Oompa Loompas reality tv???? Also there are other alternatives to reality tv for older people for example my grandpa loves The Big Bang Theory, and that is not a reality tv show it's a sitcom.the nursing home my great grandma lives at has have tv's and I have yet to see a reality tv show on once out of the many times I've been there. The older people at the nursing home prefer to watch Two and a Half Men, and they also like to watch the Cubs game. So with that I think older people have alternatives to reality tv that are not cartoons. | CON | 7cfcba5f-2019-04-18T17:36:25Z-00002-000 |
Spiderman could kill Batman in a gladiator fight. 1. Hold on a sec, what you say doesn't make much sense. If I can lift 10 tons, then that means the muscles in my arms have developed much more than someone who can only lift 1000 pounds. If my 10 ton muscles are more developed then the 1000 lbs. guy, then It's self explanatory that the guy who can lift 10 tons can hit 20 times harder because his muscles are 20 times more developed. On the subject of training, Spiderman has developed his own martial art known as the way of the spider which combines elements from his training with Captain America and other martial arts from Shang-Chi. It also utilises his spider sense to counter any blow from an attacker whilst allowing him for the perfect counter strike. ( E ) I highly doubt Batman's armour can protect him from the sheer weight of a skyscraper collapsing on him. 2. I'm not sure you completely understand spider sense. Let try to explain it a little more simply, spider sense gives spider man omnipotent awareness of his surroundings, so unless your name is Venom or Carnage, it is Impossible to sneak up on spiderman. 3. Again, The way of the spider and his spider sense pretty much renders stealth and the majority of conventional martial arts useless. E. http://marvel.wikia.com... | PRO | 39c32c71-2019-04-18T16:58:31Z-00001-000 |
You have to be more undatable than me!. I like to pick dog s*** up and eat it. Every time I go on holiday I have to go by train, because on a plane everyone jumped out at 30, 000 feet to commit suicide because the smell of me was so bad. I smell bad because I have never had a shower and find the smell of sh*t lovely and constantly s*** myself cause I'm too lazy to go to the toilet. I always find farms to go in skips full of horse s***, and I roll around in it, and eat it. Its so delicious. I must admit though, your are not undateable. Because you are so dirty and disgusting, some women find that a big turn on. I also have erectile dysfunction and my p**** is always small, floppy and soft. I can't get an erection. I have an infected p**** and mouth too, and smelly green and yellow puss leaks from them constantly. You've heard of my smegma? If you think d*** cheese is bad, then wait till you hear this. I have IBS, and sh*t liquid out 5 times a day and I never even clean my a**. I'm too lazy. People call me "the *shi* demon from hell" because I smell so bad and people run away. I can't go shopping because everywhere I go people vomit because of the smell. One time I decided to steal from a shop because I couldn't buy anything from fear of approaching the shop keeper. I stole from the shop and a police officer approached me to arrest me. He got a whiff and said "WHATS THAT SMELL. AHHH NNNOOOO" and he decided to shoot himself in the head. Anyway, anyone want a date with me? | PRO | bb1c6e16-2019-04-18T11:56:05Z-00001-000 |
SHOULD THE LOSS OF THE TEST IN AHMEDABAD BE BLAMED ON THE PITCH. NO the loss of the test in ahmedabad shoud'nt be blamed on the pitch as india were completely out done and outplayed in the test which lasted only three days becuase of the poor batting performance by our first-class international team.And india being ranked 2nd in the ICC test rankings such a performance should'nt have been displayed .Its a shame on India,especially the indian top order batsmen being ruttled out for a cheap 76 runs and then never using the conditionsand the new ball and let the 4th ranked south africans take the advantage and let them amass a huge total of 494 runs and sure enough that amount was to make the them sure that it was enough for the fellow visitors to smell victory as the south african bowlers utilized the conditions and the pitch to the right limit and won the game by an innings and 90 runs. Now comes the question that why couldnt the indian team bat so well compared to the south african team and why could'nt our high class bowlers restrict the proteas to a low target!!!!!! | CON | 670cba89-2019-04-18T19:46:44Z-00001-000 |
Legalize narcotics. In general, most people accept that narcotics are bad for you. Heroin kills you, marijuana makes you lazy, etc, etc. So it would seem logical to say that drugs should be against the law. But there are two major, major flaws in this argument. The first is the issue of feasibility. Look at the current state of the drug war. Countless billions spent investigating crime, countless MORE billions spent incarcerating nonviolent persons on minor drug charges, with no end in sight. Has drug use declined in recent years? What all has the drug war accomplished? The old joke is that if money would win the war on drugs, we would have already won. Every statistic, even those put out by the DEA, indicate that drug-related offenses have been increasing steadily since the drug war's inception. By what logic does one claim that MORE money, or MORE freedom sacrificed will finally eradicate drug use? Even assuming the government has unlimited funds to spend on crusading against drugs (as opposed to the $9 trillion dollar debt it currently holds to its name), exactly how WOULD a war on drugs be won? More importantly, COULD it be won? Already in America and many other countries we have seen massive scalings back on personal liberty in the name of security. Cameras in almost every conceivable public location; law enforcement being granted (unconstitutional) secret warrants to search the homes of those SUSPECTED of drug offenses; US law enforcement agents invading sovereign nations to pursue drug traffickers....Where does it end? What reasonable, legal, effective means could be invoked to win a war on drugs? If one is willing to make the massive stretch of the imagination needed to accept that a war on drugs ever could be won, the question still exists: should it be won? Does the government have the right to tell a person what they can and cannot do to their own body? The Constitution makes no mention of the government having any authority over what a person puts in there body. There are already amendments that prohibit the government from circumscribing alcohol use; what makes drugs any different? In short, a person's body is their own property, and by no means can the government tell them what to do with it. | PRO | edf7419f-2019-04-18T20:01:23Z-00004-000 |
Religion's Immunity. It seems my opponent has forfeited the final round and so I will reiterate the main point that I have been trying to make all along. That God's law is above man-made law. God's law says that abortion is wrong. The United States law says that abortion is okay. I believe theists will accept the penalties imposed by human law if they choose to do something crazy as say bomb an abortion clinic. Their actions are wrong, yes, and they are not immune to the penalties of our legal system. To say that they are is completely false. So while I don't think that they should be immune, I feel as though Pro should recognize and understand why religious groups sometimes fight for immunity it not all but CERTAIN situations. For instance a religious Jew might choose to not show up to work if he is scheduled to show up on a Saturday, his day of religious observance. That is wrong (he is disrupting his business) but he should be immune from punishment because he had religious reasoning for hiss less than dangerous action. Thus religion should give immunity to people SOMETIMES, but not always. | CON | a923e77a-2019-04-18T19:47:15Z-00000-000 |
Does America have the duty and the right to preserve itself.... The Government is not the USA. The USA is the people. The People have no Duty to preserve the boundaries or legal dispositions that are placed over and around them. The People have no right, to put others less than equal to them, because they are external to those borders, based on homeland, language, culture or beliefs. - an amendment*** America, does not have divine authority to Own the USA, nor does any individual of that nation of an excuse to Preserve THE United States of America. It is not their Right nor Duty to do any such thing. (*and you brought my character into the debate, let me remind you. And you failed to desist: in regards to that remark, and your debate, Which YOU proceeded to prove me right: with the mention of said amendment.) As a note: Happiness and Satisfaction are not the same thing. And the pursuit of happiness or satisfaction as an ESSENCE, is not relative to any isolated individual's personal desires. America. Does not have the right or duty to exalt itself nor it's population [specifically,* a population; of non renewable resource grass cutters; monolinguals; drug addicts; perverts; and Bigots], They have the right to defend their population from oppression, the World from desolation, the children from corruption or Delusion, and the citizens from social instability. I feel that all of these rights are what you are actually fighting for. and as I had stated in the comments, after my first post: Of course America can reject unwarranted immigrants on account of creating economic strife, *which scientifically leads to criminal behaviour internationally, regarding drugs, violence, theft, prostitution, abuse, neglect, bigotry (a social crime), and desolation. But that is a reference to Illegal immigration, or uncontrolled immigrants. | CON | 1017ef4a-2019-04-18T12:33:47Z-00000-000 |
America is a struggling country. well, in order to struggle, you need to be able to compare to a country who is not struggling in order to know what struggle looks like. In our world, the United States is actually doing very well in comparison to the many 3rd world countries. Our healthcare and education is decent. We are a global SUPERPOWER I'd argue to say that the USA is getting along just fine | CON | 4fb38109-2019-04-18T14:56:48Z-00003-000 |
All drugs should be legalised, change my mind. As I see you are a libertarian, I hope to at the very least offer you a different perspective on this topic. It may be worth mentioning I have known people that have taken drugs, dealt drugs, and been around them. Personally however, I admit I have never ran into them. So what is a drug? The word is a broad term. It could range from anything as trivial as caffeine, to something as detrimental as meth. However for the sake of this debate I will assume you mean detrimental drugs, as those are the ones kept illegal. Secondly, why do people take drugs? Well, typically, the way these addictions start off is due to people looking for escapism or a release, as they are dissatisfied with life. One they have taken these substances however, they easily become addicted, and find it hard to stop. Drug addiction is typically more widespread in poorer areas, thus it would be harder for the addicted individuals to find help to stop, or have people to reach out to. This leads onto my first point: keeping them illegal protects people from themselves. Now I do not believe in a nanny state; if someone"s stupid enough to leap off of a cliff, well, that"s natural selection; I don"t think we need signs telling people that it"s dangerous to jump off cliffs. But with drugs, it is often one mistake, and then a violent addiction is born out of it. Parents, teachers, officers of the law, they will all become a shadow of their former selves, as their life begins to revolve around one thing: getting high. Also, the addiction rate would, as you said, go up. But the people mostly at risk if they were to become legal would be adolescents. Teenagers are teenagers; we"re impulsive, and we like breaking rules and societal norms. So if drugs become legal, it won"t take much for teens to start doing them, thinking they"re the cool thing to do, or a way to rebel. Teenagers are already smoking and drinking underage, and while yes, they"re age restricted products, it"s much easier to get someone older to buy you a product than have anyone get a restricted, black market product. I think an omen for what would become is legal highs; they"re only an inch of the kick of a real drug, and yet they"re already ruining lives. You could make the argument that some drugs are near harmless; the elephant in the room, cannabis. And you know, I don"t think it should be in the same class as ketamine or codeine. However it"s not fully harmless; while it doesn"t have any health risks, it makes people lazy and unproductive, and is tied to gang culture/thug culture. Through that, it can easily become a gateway drug. I eagerly await your response. | CON | 8c1650c4-2019-04-18T11:36:35Z-00003-000 |
Ultimate Team War- Ender's Game. I will now rebutte my opponents two key points. The first point I would like to rebutte is hat Orochimaru would have a chance to summon the gates. Gallbatorixs' paralyzation of the opposing team would be instantaneous. For all intents and purposes exactly if not more so than Shikamarus shadow possession jutsu. Earlier in the debate my opponent claimed that the shadow possesion jutsu would take place fast enough that Gallbatorix would not be able to activate one of his hearts. I rebutted that but the point I am trying to make with that is the speed in which the paralyzation takes place would not allow Orochimaru the opportunity to summon the gates. The second point I will now rebute is that Ben and Gallbatorix would be impaled by shadow. So I will list why this would work for neither of them. Ben as XLR8 is moving at 500 mph on the surface of the battle room. While Ben is XLR8 he also has the reflexes needed to move at 500mph. Using these reflexes Ben would easily be able to dodge the shadow spears. Now Gallbatorix would have an even easier time with the spears. Currently Gallbatorix would only be using some of his hearts. It would be easy for him if he needed to be overcarful and use all of him remaining hearts to put up a barrier around himself that would protect him from the shadow spears. He could also if needed do the same for Ben with all of his remaining hearts. With my two rebuttals I believe that I have broken my opponents argument that his team would win. | CON | 6ede76e0-2019-04-18T19:09:24Z-00000-000 |
Referenda devalue role of legislative bodies. ("Teach Yourself: Politics", Peter Joyce): "In some countries (such as France) they were deliberately introduced to weaken the power of parliament. Although they can be reconciled with the concept of parliamentary sovereignty when they are consultative and do not require the legislature to undertake a particular course of action, it is difficult to ignore the outcome of a popular vote when it does not theoretically tie the hands of public policy makers." | PRO | 281ab12-2019-04-17T11:47:28Z-00067-000 |
Percy Jackson is better than Harry Potter. I am with the motion. Percy Jackson, with his amazing water skills, is much better than Harry Potter's magical skills. Also, the book is based on the mortal world where we are living in. The author really tried to connect the book and the real world, but Harry Potter is a totally different magical world. Therefore, I stand with the motion. | PRO | d1b26e4-2019-04-18T12:01:38Z-00001-000 |
This house believes "Video Games Be Considered a Sport". Hi guys! Today we will be debating the topic, should games be considered sports? I am taking the PRO stance in this debate whereas whoever else accepts it takes the CON stance for this. Here is the breakup of how the rounds will work: ROUND ONE : Is simply acceptance, no arguments to be posted ROUND TWO-FOUR : Is arguments/counter arguments ROUND FIVE : Is arguments/counter arguments as well as why you took up this stance in the first place. RULES:- - There will be no swearing - Please answer in all rounds - Cite your sources either gradually or all at the end. - Please use fact rather than opinion in your debate as this a fact based debate. REMINDER: Don't forget to use the six hats! | PRO | 19e9442f-2019-04-18T12:16:01Z-00005-000 |
The United States should not grant citizenship to immigrants if they cannot speak English. "When I visit a person house I do not demand that they switch their furniture around to suit me. That is what is happening in America to day. And the coward businesses are falling in lockstep with the immigration pimps, the democrats, and posting dual language signs in their store. Why don't we just give them California. Of course we would have to build fences on that border as well when they destroy its economy as they did in Mexico. Although the democrats are already doing a good job of that." -cheyennebodie That right there is what i'm getting at. I don't mean children or immigrants needing immediate support or help I mean people seeking permanent refuge in the United States, people who will have an influence on our economy, our education, our children, and our technology. I mean no offense to those who seek shelter the country, or those who are to young (They will attend school as part of the law so of course they will learn English). I mean those who are older. Deaf people would not be considered to learn English as there is no need for them to learn the language. As long as they have some form of communication or understanding (sign language) then they should be accepted as citizens, assuming they meet the correct requirements. This would be by no means to discriminate or make it difficult for those who urgently need a home. As I stated earlier they would not be traumatizing and they would be given a period of time to learn the language, supplied by school systems. Night classes would be open for those who do not wish to pay for a private tutor. The level of English they will be required to speak would be at a minimal level, just enough to understand and get by. I think that is a reasonable requirment if you wish to live in a country where the main language is English, where signs and politics take places. If you have the right to vote you should understand who you are voting for, if you are signing up for a job you should understand the main language of the country. Learning the English language is something that is necessary if they wish to succeed in a new country. It's not for the benefit of those already living in the country already it's to help those who have just moved to the country have a better understanding of their abilities a better understanding of what they are capable of, it's to help them understand that when they are given citizenship they are given a choice and a control over what happens in their new country, a limit on stereo types that come along with only speaking one language, and a whole new understanding of the culture in general allowing them to avoid scams, bullies, and other negativities that come along without understanding a language. | PRO | f17d1307-2019-04-18T15:47:50Z-00006-000 |
Ban All Forms of Abortion. First, I believe that even though he will have an extra round, it is only fair that my opponent should give his closing arguments during Round 5. Response to Argument A: My opponent has pointed out two situations in which (as he claims) abortion is appropriate. a) Pregnancy Complications - Perhaps it is moral in this instance to use abortion. I apologize if I have spoken too quickly. I do believe that abortion would be necessary in this instance, but only if neither the mother nor the baby would be able to survive these complications. b) Unwanted Pregnancy - As a Christian, I believe that pregnancy resulting from rape is merely what God has intended. Besides, without the abortion, both the baby and the woman would survive. Besides, which is worse: a woman suffering from pregnancy and childbirth or an innocent baby dying merely for having been conceived by a rapist? We always exploit all the other members of the animal kingdom, sometimes for mere pleasure. We hunt, we eat meat, we keep them has pets, and we even make money off of them by putting them in cages and having them do tricks so people can pay to see them. But we do not exploit humans in this way. For instance, everybody leaves their pet dog all by himself, but nobody would dare leave a human baby by himself/herself for a minute. So why should we sacrifice another human simply to avoid suffering pregnancy. How is a fetus any different from a newborn baby? And how would it be possible to tell if a woman was actually raped or if she is just inventing the story to get herself an abortion? How can we allow a rape victim to get an abortion without letting everybody else get abortions just because they "feel like it"? Response to Argument B: While some people may support abortion, others may not approve of it. The conservative Christians feel under-represented in government and would accept a ban on abortion. By not banning abortion, we transgress God's commandments. The Bible says' "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." (James 2:10 NIV). In allowing abortion, we openly support murder and therefore anger God. We must not allow the murder of innocent babies. Response to Argument C: My opponent has stated that it is wrong to accuse a rape victim of murder if she gets an abortion. Pregnancy from rape is God's plan. God either intends to punish us for our sins or wants to test our faith. It is a terrible sin to go against God's plan. Those who transgress against Him and do not repent will never reach heaven but will instead burn in hell for the rest of eternity. I believe that both the woman and the individual performing the operation must be charged with second-degree murder. | PRO | 8fb67476-2019-04-18T16:08:00Z-00003-000 |
A disembodied afterlife would involve more downsides for the consciousness than biological life. The consciousness would lose abilities it once had as part of a body: 1. Without a body there would be no reproductive organs, or any organs at all. This means no penis, no testicles, no vagina, no breasts, nothing. Without these biological functions working there can be no sexual reproduction, a consciousness without sex would surely be considered a downside. Why would this be a downside? Because there are nerves in you genitalia which give the feeling of pleasure just like being massaged. When this happens endorphins are released in the brain which give a feeling of happiness or comfort. A lack of happiness and comfort certainly would be a loss for the conscious experience. 2. Without a body there would be no taste buds. Taste buds contain the receptors for taste. They are located around the small structures on the upper surface of the tongue, soft palate, upper esophagus and epiglottis, which are called papillae. Have you ever had a steak? The stuff is delicious, since your taste buds are responsible this and taste buds are a biological factor, then this sensation logically cannot be experienced in a disembodied afterlife. 3. Blood flows to regions in the brain involved in dopamine release when people listen to music, which is the reason people enjoy it. So logically without dopamine release, enjoyment of music would not take place. Have you ever enjoyed a great album? You won't anymore in a disembodied afterlife. There is no evidence that sex, tasting great food, and enjoying music can take place after death to a disembodied consciousness, therefore there are 3 downsides I have mentioned in the first round. What evidence is there that there are upsides to a disembodied afterlife? None that I can name, but I'll leave it up to my opponent to try and present a case. Conclusion: Unless my opponent can discredit my 3 assertions (which as based on facts regarding the biological processes which fuel certain things we enjoy), and replace them with 3 assertions which are based on facts which credit the notion that a disembodied afterlife wouldn't involve more downsides than biological life, then I have the upper hand in this debate. Sources: http://goaskalice.columbia.edu... http://kidshealth.org... http://news.discovery.com... | PRO | 6a2514c4-2019-04-18T18:29:10Z-00003-000 |
Death Penalty. The "majority" count for a lot, actually. The instigator claims it is irrelevant, whereas the whole judicial system is based on majority decision, in the form of a jury. It is the public perception of justice that needs to be tackled, however I am willing to concede, that, with certain strict stipulations, the rehabilitative model can be combined with an "Arpaio model" of sorts. That is to say, cost will be at a minimum, inmates will something productive/produce something to be SOLD for a profit (thus covering the prison's fees for educating them), with the inmates working long day, doing hard manual labour. I truly believe this combines the aspect of punishment the public require, along with the rehabilitation that education and routine of work will provide for the inmate, whilst also benefiting society at large by their contribution of products. However, there are, as the instigator has mentioned, certain individuals by which rehabilitation would be ineffective. I put to the instigator: What do we do with those by which rehabilitation will be ineffective? I hope that adds line thought to the death penalty aspect. I believe we have reached a consensus that the death penalty can be morally opposable, and I am willing to concede to the points listed above about human rights. There is still the aspect of "Murderer takes away other human rights, so his should be diminished." I understand that point has been answered, but it still does not sit well. I believe it is morally opposable that someone convicted of a financial crime receives a longer sentence than one that has commited a social crime, but what kind of rehabilitation should be made available to people such as Rupert Murdoch, technically a criminal, yet obviously of sound mind? | PRO | a490c840-2019-04-18T19:06:51Z-00001-000 |
Collective punishment is unjust. Under this policy the victim is punished for the crimes of coach. This seems unfair, why should someone have their professional dream denied to them because somebody else did something wrong? Banning an entire nation from a sporting competition expands this, individuals with no or little attachment to cases of abuse will also be punished and suffer, when they have taken no steps that deserve punishment. Punishments should fit the crime and this means punishing those who are responsible not innocents. It is right that the punishment should be harsh as it needs to deter coaches but this deterrent should be through steep penalties for the coach not for others. | PRO | 698c4d0e-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00020-000 |
Abortion is O.K in the very worst case scenario. My opponent says he does not care if I refute in the fourth round. So I will refute one of his arguments. --Diseases-- In the first section of his rebuttals, he points out that the baby has a limited chance of acquiring Tay-Sachs disease. Again, yes. Once again, I was just putting some diseases out there. There are many other diseases out there that the baby can get.My opponent also states that in this scenario, there is an 0.01% chance that the baby will acquire birth defects. I said there is a 100% chance the baby will acquire serious birth defects. Notice I said seriousin the scenario. Also note that I said many. If you want to, go back and check.Many: A large indefinite number (1).Serious: dangerous possible result (2).This may provide the single most important argument/rebuttal in this debate. Many is usually thought to be higher than some and half, correct? In this case, I will say that out of ten diseases (I'll go easy on you) the baby will acquire four. Say the baby acquires four of the lesser serious birth defects (like not Tay-Sachs) (3):1. Thalidomide2. Anencephaly 3. Back of brain Encephalocele4. Coarctation of the AortaSo now, the baby:1. Will have serious limitations in physical activities, such as walking, and emotional problems. 40% mortality rate. (4)2. Missing parts of skull and brain, most die soon after birth. 99% mortality rate (5).3. Will have serious seizures, will have unusually small and sometimes fatal head, complete loss of strength in key muscles, and problems with the five senses (such as vision.) 55% mortality rate (6).4. Narrow Aorta due to not developing correctly. 87% (untreated) mortality rate. (7).That is only for some of the less serious birth defects. Acquire one of the more serious ones and you're done. All together, the mortality rate on all of these diseases is 100%, as no baby has EVER survived all four of these. So the baby will die 1,000 out of 1,000 times, thus meaning that the con and pro side have the same chances of life.So I ask you, why not abort this baby? It is going to die 100% of the time shortly after birth anyway, and aborting it means that you don't get the consequences.(1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...(2) http://www.merriam-webster.com...(3) http://www.cdc.gov... (4) http://www.thalidomide.ca...(5) http://my.clevelandclinic.org...(6) http://www.mommypage.com...(7) http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... With my arguments done, I pass the last round onto con. Thanks to the voters, MyDinosaurHands, and TUF for making this debate possible. | PRO | b4a545e9-2019-04-18T16:50:52Z-00001-000 |
Lebron is better than Kobe Bryant. No offense dude, but get your facts straight and look it up. Shaq was on the team until the 04-05 season, in which his last season with that Lakers losing to the Pistons in the Finals and then got traded to the Heat. Look it up. Also your incorrect again, look it up (and to anyone voting on this, if you don't believe either side, just look up the facts first, and I assure you mine are correct) Here are Kobe's career numbers. 25 PPG 4.7 APG 5.3 RPG .838 FT% .336 3P% .453 FG% 1.5 SPG and .05 BPG and here are LeBron's 27.6 PPG 6.9 APG 7.2 RPG .747 FT% .336 3P% .489 FG% 1.9 SPG and 1.9 BPG (all stats provided from ESPN.com) The fact of the matter is in the 04-05 season, Kobe got handed the Team, Shaq had left to go play with Miami and it was Kobes time. The first season they went 34-48 and missed the playoffs completely, and the next two seasons going 45-37(7th seed) and 42-40(7th seed). Not records a supposed "top 5 player of all time" should be getting leading a team. Now I will give you that Lebrons first 2 seasons he did not lead the Cavs to the Playoffs, but the next 5 years he took to 5 straight ECF with his not that great off a team around him. Over all Lebron is a better basketball player. Facts speak for its self. Yes as of right now, legacy goes to Kobe Bryant. But he also has 7 years on Lebron, and lets face it, Lebron will always be the Batman role on a championship team. Not be a Robin in which Kobe was for his first 3. And one MVP in 17 years, vs 3 going on 4 in 10 also speaks volume. That alone will make it to where LeBron will only need to win 3 or 4 to surpass Kobes legacy, because he would then surpass him with finals MVPS as well. | PRO | cdec6b85-2019-04-18T17:48:25Z-00001-000 |
The Sale of Cigarettes and Tobacco Products Should be Banned- Speed debate. It's not just the smokers affected, 53,800 people die every year from secondhand smoke, that is more than people die from guns a year. 11,385 people died on average annually in firearm incidents in the US between 2001 and 2011. These are murders. - Secondhand Smoke - no-smoke.org - Council on Foreign Affairs The way to stop this is to target the dealers, not the smokers themselves that need help. | PRO | 1cde3561-2019-04-18T12:03:01Z-00003-000 |
The Christian God doesn't exist. You bring up some excellent points, But in doing so, You have referred to biblical scripture and if what is written in the Christian Bible isn't true, Then why did you make a reference to it? Also, The slave trade was, Admittedly, A horrible thing, But maybe, It was part of God's divine plan to bring us together because God is love and you cannot deny the existence of love. | CON | b1f51938-2019-04-18T11:19:18Z-00004-000 |
It is a preferable environment for a mermaid to be under the sea rather than a human on land. 1. Animal Toxins are more deadly Underwater[1]Due to anmals existing longer underwater they have generally adapted more deadly defense systems than land animals have and also sea creatures more commonly have venemous defense systems. This leads to a much more deadly environment to live in and a much harder to protect environment to live in.2. Pressure DifficultiesIn order to live in different zones of the Ocean mermaids would need to develop technology. Due the vastly varied and badly lit floor of the oceanmermaids would have to sustain pressures only developmenal by expensive and hard to develop technology due to diffiulties in metaalurgy under the sea.3. Difficulties in MetalurgyThe nature of living under water, and especially salt water, provides difficulties in the production and the upkeep of metal implements. Rarer products such as copper, tin, gold, etc. would have to be utilized instead of much more common products like iron due to corrosive properties underwater. This ignores the fact of how you would manage to obtain the proper conditions whilst underwater to develop metal implements.4. Mass Prodution of Food[2]In order to produce food in large quantities it would most likely require farming or animal husbandry. This would be much more resource consuming in the production of such resources than producinn food on land. This is one of the reasons why only 4% of our food is produced in salt water.[3]Without sustainable means of food or infrastructure mermaid life would find it very difficult to develop as land life has done, either follwing it to extinction or leaving mermaid lives as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."[1]http://www.who.int...;[2]http://12.000.scripts.mit.edu...;[3]http://ieeexplore.ieee.org...; | CON | d9a9f10b-2019-04-18T15:57:06Z-00003-000 |
we should concentrate on the skills that we obtain. But certain universities have certain features which make it easier to obtain such grades! [[http://www.oxbridgeessays.com/blog/top-10-uk-universities-625/]] This shows how universities are assessed. The better research score of a university the better educated the lecturers are in that university. They will have undertaken more research and so will have a greater level of expertise in a particular subject area. All this means that the University you attend does make a difference to the education that you receive. This is a good topic to choose because it rises up many other topics. As a whole each and every one needs to concentrate on their skills. This is because skills are important for each and every job. At some colleges and universities a student can go to a huge lecture hall and learn from a teacher. But, other colleges teach in the classroom with smaller classes. Some students prefer the big lecture halls. This way it makes it easier to lose attention in class. But, in the classroom with smaller classes the student has a better chance of getting to learn a lot more about the subject. This is because the student has the ability to talk and work with the teacher. This would be almost impossible in other colleges and universities with big lecture halls. But, in colleges and universities with small classrooms this makes it a lot easier to learn. | CON | 147b910f-2019-04-19T12:46:30Z-00002-000 |
Public Education: Communism in America and the reason why America is falling. To address your point about Charles Darwin, you take his comment about the human eye out of context. Darwin said: "That the human eye could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false." The reason for declining SAT scores is that more students, including minority students and lower-performing students and not just college-bound students, are taking the test. The majority of Nobel Prize, Math/Science Olympiad and Intel Science Fair winners come from public high schools, particularly from magnet schools such as Bronx High School for Science, which has turned out five Nobel Prize Winners, and Lowell High School, which has turned out four Nobel Prize Winners. In my area, private school students are considered wealthy but below-par, and have not once in the past 20 years placed in the top 3 in Regional Debate, Quiz Bowl, or Math Olympiad Competitions. The unemployment, currently falling, spiked because of the recession, which was actually milder than the 1982, and has no bearing on public education. The crime rate peaked in the 1990s and has fallen ever since. The budget of the Department of Education is $12 billion, which makes up about 0.33% of the $3.83 trillion National Budget, so it doesn"t contribute that much to our debt. Now, to address your comments about past Biblical institutions and our founding fathers: let"s look at that time period. The Puritans in Massachusetts essentially ran a public education system, as they mandated education through the Church. Students learned to read and write in these schools. As the Church ran Puritan Society, and as public schools are defined as schools supported by community funds, we can say that Massachusetts did have a primitive public school system. This was the best educated area of the country. John Adams and Benjamin Franklin attended such schools. Now, let"s look at the south. The south had no form of mandated school system. As a result, the literacy rates of the south were estimated to be much lower than that of the north. To address your point about Christian-based schools: Schools solely dedicated to religious studies, such as Harvard, didn"t have detailed study of science, math, or English until they developed into full universities. As these core subjects increased in importance and our country became more secular, the Bible was limited to the Church. Also, governments are not trying to make citizens attend their public schools. In addition, there are new movements for "school choice," where students can get vouchers to attend private schools or get home-schooled. Of course, in most places where this has been tried, namely in Milwaukee, the test scores for the children on vouchers in Private schools were lower than those of students from similar demographic groups in public schools, but that's a debate for another day | CON | 344d3aec-2019-04-18T17:47:29Z-00001-000 |
Water boarding for interrogation is Constitutional. Hello First off let me say that this debate will only be about if water boarding for interrogation is Constitutional, not weather its right. Water boarding for interrogation is Constitutional, because there is nothing in the Constitution that says anything about interrogation. Its says- "Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."(http://www.whitehouse.gov...) THis is the only part that says something remotely close to water boarding or interrogation. First, water boarding isn't cruel or unusual. We aren't going to let the prisoners die, because we want the information that they know. Water boarding will not let them die. Second, it isn't a punishment. Punishment is 1. the act of punishing. 2. the fact of being punished, as for an offense or fault. 3. a penalty inflicted for an offense, fault, etc. 4. severe handling or treatment. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) We are not punishing the solders. The punishment will come later, if they go to court or revive orders from being apart of a terrorist group. | PRO | 9dcaadfa-2019-04-18T19:42:44Z-00005-000 |
"market inefficiency" is an incoherent phrase. First off I will begin with a few clarifying terms, some of which conflict with my opponent's understanding of them: Market - the world of commercial activity where goods and services are bought and sold. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... Efficient - being effective without wasting time or effort or expense; or the most effective way. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... Effective - able to accomplish a purpose. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... Securities - a tranferable financial instrument entitling the owner to specified types of financial benefits. It may take the form of shares of corporate stock or mutual funds, bonds issued by corporations or governmental agencies, stock options or other options to buy and sell, and other kinds of formal investment instruments. http://www.financingwaterforall.org... ~ Using these terms I would contend that the goal of the market is to get products into the hands of customers in a way that would allow the producer/seller to continue to sell their products. This goal is undermined when the market is performing inefficiently. Market efficiency is a term that basically means that the value of a company's securities accurately describes the price of those securities. The inverse of this, market inefficiency, occurs when the price of securities does not accurately reflect the value of those securities. A great example of an inefficient market would be that of America during the years directly preceding the Great Depression. During this time many speculators were purchasing the stock of various companies which drove their prices high while their values remained almost universally lower than than this price [1, 2]. Therefore market efficiency does not refer to the actions of those involved in the market, but the prices of securities effectively representing their value. ~ I conclude my opening argument with the contention that 'market inefficiency' is a completely coherent term and await his response. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.gusmorino.com... | CON | f8360028-2019-04-18T19:08:48Z-00005-000 |
the iran deal is a mistake. Okay I will be breaking each of my arguments into separate parts 1. The Deal is unprecedented in its search allowances In the deal the US has 24/7 surveillance on all of Iran's major nuclear facilities and they can search anywhere in the country within 24 days. This is unprecedented for a treaty with a country that was not defeated in military conflict 2. Iran's uranium production and stockpile is crippled Iran's nuclear stockpile is reduced by 98% making it impossible for Iran to rush a bomb out and it bans Iran's advances centrifuges which lengthens bomb breakout time to over one year 3.Impossible to hide nuclear activity in 24 days Any radioactive elements leave behind a signature behind that can easily bee detected. This theory was tested in Syria when a nuclear site was demolished by the Syrian government but inspectors were still able to find traces of radioactive materials. http://www.politifact.com... | CON | acff1929-2019-04-18T14:33:51Z-00002-000 |
Women could not compete in the vast majority of male dominated sports. Before anyone starts arguing about this issue, you must understand I'm referring to popular American sports such as football, basketball, baseball, hockey, soccer, etc. If you're going to argue "sports" like figure skating or gymnastics, don't waste your time. I created this debate because this is a popular issue that many people do not agree with me on. I'd like for someone to attempt to defend the opposing viewpoint, but I firmly believe men and women's sports should, for many obvious reasons, remain separated. | PRO | 9fcd8a9f-2019-04-18T13:30:20Z-00005-000 |
Global Warming is Real. Ok well if you really want to start this. 1. "There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man." You must not read a lot! There are a MILLION scientific facts about global warming. 2. "Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012." There, right there, you literally just proved my point that global warming is real. Arctic ice has been up to 50% when it should be up to 100%, but there, it's not. 3. Climate models may have been wrong over and over, but they have also been right over and over. Nothing you have said has disproved the giant hole in the ozone above the arctic. 4. "Predictions about the impact of global warming have already been proven wrong" What predictions! There's been A LOT of predictions, some wrong, some right! Oh right, this "Sorry, I couldn't hear what you were saying. I think you were saying something about how climate change exists" Yeah, you probably couldn't hear what I was saying, because you didn't disprove anything! | PRO | eb9023f6-2019-04-18T11:23:32Z-00001-000 |
Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are NO MLK and are racist!. For years, Al Sharpton and the Jesse Jackson have called themselves Revs of god and yet they never utter more than two words on the subject! These are individuals that take any situation involving a black individual and spin it in the opposition of the other person within the situation. In other words, they intensify a situation in order for their own political and economical gain; and lets not forget....PUBLICITY. If you even try to argue with these individuals they use double talk and rabble rousing to their advantage in order to side step from the comment or point stated to them! There are many situations including the 1988-1989 Tawanna Brawley case in which Al Sharpton used race baiting techniques to back up a black girl who claimed white men raped her. She was badly beat but no evidence or forensic analysis proved it was the men who did it, however, more pointed out she had it done to herself! The point is, AL Sharpton and Jesse jackson are for blacks ONLY! | PRO | 44720158-2019-04-18T18:16:46Z-00005-000 |
Transgender Bathroom Rights. Transgender people like all other people deserve rights. They do not deserve extra rights. This puts young women at risk, being that over 82% of rape is male on female. There have been hundreds of reports of hours of footage being recording by "transgender" people, that are just perverts. Sexual assault risk will increase, especially if a full grown man is in the same bathroom with a little girl all by herself. Also, if you do this, then there are no bathrooms anymore for specific people. Everyone can identify as the opposite gender. By doing this you are literally saying it's a free ticket to use whatever bathroom you want, and Female and Male bathrooms are no longer a valid concept. This also has an impact on our society. I'm up for tolerance, but there is such a thing as too much tolerance. I want to keep conservative values. By the way, go back to the 40's and 50's, and look around. You didn't see any of this, because everyone had their own gender and stuck to it. Sorry not sorry.. | CON | ccc99269-2019-04-18T13:14:10Z-00004-000 |
15 is a better age of sexual consent than 18. I am not impressed with the response. The point #2 is contradictive of my policy. My policy made it so that pregnancy till high school is over shouldn't be legal. So... It's not a real point to raise.I shall now rebut my opponent and reinforce my proposed policy plan.That age of majority concept is firstly irrelevant and secondly isn't a well established fact since maturity is, somewhat, subjective as much as it is objective so cannot be used as the full backing for an entire contradiction to the age of consent being 15. The fact of human life is that at 13, most boys begin puberty[1] and at 10, most girls[1]. Thus, by 15 the body is pretty much ready to have sex especially for females but socially they would be unready to be pregnant for school purposes so that's just an illogical argument for con.The fact I think I simply want to state (which counters almost all points raised by con) is that it is possible to have an age of consent for sex that is different to the age when one becomes an 'adult'. the reason is that sex is merely a pleasurable experience that can be very safe and enjoyable for both parties (or more parties, but let's not get sidetracked). An adult is, I would say, a human that has reached a stage f maturity whereby they are fully capable of being independent and responsible in society. However, despite a 15 year old having not quite reached this stage of maturity, they are entering the world of 'higher education' where, in most countries, external examinations occur for the individual. They already begin building the reputation, via school reports and commendations, for their future success in university and the working world. They clearly have a reasonable level to decide and use their bodies in a sensible manner (hence most universities analysing students' success form this age onwards). However, they are not fully finished on their journey into adulthood but have reached what I would call an 'intermediate stage of maturity' whereby they are mature enough to consent to sex but not mature enough to independently make decisions in all sectors of life.Yes, this is safe sex, I don't understand how you can think a 15 year old should have unsafe sex... I didn't quite understand that argument you put at the end.Sources:[1] http://kidshealth.org... | PRO | 25eae6a0-2019-04-18T18:08:05Z-00004-000 |
Golf is not a sport. Jlconservative, I see your theory of backing up your belief that golf is a sport with a few snappy dictionary definitions, although, based on your username, I dont see your theory that i'm assuming you follow that "the free market will prevail". Mind if i quote your closing statement? "I think that we can all agree Golf is a game of rules and skill therefore it is a sport." Ok, so therefore, all games and activities which have rules and skill are sports. Take darts; this game requires the skill of throwing a pointed arrow up against a board (which i do enjoy very much), while following a set of rules: Dont throw 2 darts at once, only throw three per round, etc. Is this a sport? Take poker; this game requires the skill of, in the words of the great Kenny Rogers, "knowing when to hold 'em and knowing when to fold 'em", the witty intellect of knowing how much to bet at what time, keeping a poker face, and knowledge of rules and regulations of the cards and table settings. Is this a sport? Take checkers, take chess; these game also requires high intellect, planning out your next move, how to dethrone your opposition. Rules to follow are also present; where you can or cannot place your playing piece, whose turn goes in who's order, etc. Is this a sport? Take Scrabble; the skill of word-building is present, one must have a knack for piecing the english language together. Rules: they must be legitimate words. Is this a sport? Take Beer Pong; a game for the ages, in which one requires the skill of throwing a tiny plastic ball into a plastic cup filled with booze, the skill of being able to chug down incessant amounts of alcohol, the rules to be abided by of the proper conduct on defense, offense, shooting, rollbacking, recracking, etc. Is this a sport? You see, Jlconservative, these, along with golf, are not classified as sports, but merely hobbies. One thing they do have in common, however, is that they burn the same amount of calories as golf. | PRO | bb04abe6-2019-04-18T19:54:49Z-00003-000 |
Gun Control. Who said it was about the right to shoot up schools and churches? I'm not advocating for that, But the existence of those shootings doesn't mean that the 2nd amendment doesn't protect the guns that school shooters choose to use. You can kill people in a church or school with a musket too and they still wrote the 2nd amendment, While being well aware that guns can be used to kill people. But if the government has advanced weaponry, And the 2nd amendment is about fighting corrupt government (which it is), Than obviously the founding fathers wouldn't say we should only use black powder guns (or whatever guns liberals arbitrarily decide can be legal). My point with the rpg's was that other people obviously agree with me as well, Nor is Pakistan a 3rd world country because rpg's are legal for some people, Nor does it make Pakistan a worse country. The reason Pakistan is so bad is for political and racial reasons, Problems that wouldn't exist in a white country if you gave rpg's to white people. Whites are the reason why America is a stable developed country, And this won't change if we have access to the full range of arms protected under the 2nd amendment, Which includes explosives, Which existed back then too. Background checks infringe on someone's liberty because the government, That the 2nd amendment exists so people can violently resist when it gets corrupt, Gets to decide who can own guns. Is this not obvious to you? I already explained this so I have to assume you're just choosing to ignore it. But on top of that there is also a fee to do it, And a fee in order to have a basic right is unconstitutional by itself and disadvantages the poor. Which is why poll taxes were banned. There are lots of normal aspects of society which aren't right, Nor does the 2nd amendment say "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, Unless someone feels restrictions are a normal part of society", This only became a normal aspect of society because someone decided to infringe on the 2nd amendment in the 90s, It wasn't a normal aspect of society before this, And to justify an infringement because it's been around for a couple decades does not change what the 2nd amendment says. | CON | ea8c6909-2019-04-18T11:17:03Z-00000-000 |
Greatest Battles Challenge!. Battle of Yorktown The battle of Yorktown lasted from 28th September to 19th October 1781, between French and American forces against the British. With Washington leading the Americans and Rochambeau leading the French, they assaulted a position in which British commander Cornwallis had taken up after his losses in the Carolinas. With the arrival of the French fleet under al De Grasse, Washington was able to march south from New York to meet up with the French forces to march to York town. The siege began on 30th September. Cornwallis decided to defend Yorktown convinced that general Clinton would sail from the North and reinforce his army. However the French fleet fought a pitched battle against the British fleet and ultimately turned back the British fleet. News of Clinton's defeat did not reach Cornwallis, thus he was determined to hold out until reinforcements arrived. The French and Americans continued their their siege, and finally on October 19th, Cornwallis surrendered after running low on ammo and food. This battle resulted in the peace treaty which recognized the independence of America and the withdraw of British forces form America. | CON | 88e4b821-2019-04-18T18:35:14Z-00000-000 |
Flogging harms offenders less than imprisonment. he criminologist Peter Moskos[i] observes that most of us, if given the choice, would opt to receive ten lashes rather than spend five years in prison. Paradoxically, a significant number of us would condemn corporal punishment as barbaric and inhumane. If imprisonment is a more rational response to criminal behaviour, why would so many rational individuals opt to receive corporal punishment? Contemporary prisons are the result of a failed utopian experiment. They serve no useful rehabilitative purpose, and exist only to fulfil a common desire to punish deviant behaviour and to segregate criminals from the public at large. Prisons harm inmates and obstruct attempts to reintegrate them into society. It may be necessary to incarcerate certain compulsive and habitually violent criminals, but for a majority of offenders, prison only serves exacerbate underlying social, economic and psychological problems that lead to criminality. Using corporal punishment to reduce or replace custodial sentences would provide an effective way to fulfil the social need to punish criminals, while removing the harmful externalities of mass incarceration. Strictly supervised whipping or caning can adequately and proportionately express society’s anger with the criminal, while avoiding the dangers of long-term incarceration and reinvigorating the use of rehabilitation. In the United States, the UK and many European countries, prison populations have increased dramatically, but reductions in rates of offending have been minimal or non existent. In the absence of funding, or coherent, centrally administered rehabilitation strategies, prisons have become places devoid of productive activity. Prisoners are not encouraged to address the causes of their offending, or to acquire skills that will help them to live independently in society following their release. Boredom, overcrowding and under-staffing have led to the emergence of gang- and drug-cultures in many prisons. Inmates incarcerated for minor offences quickly become complicit in gang violence, or fall prey to alcoholism and drug addiction. Gang associations and chemical dependencies carry over into inmates’ lives once they are released. The prison system serves only to breed criminality, not to cure it. The cost of incarcerating the average offender in the United Kingdom is estimated to be £45000 a year[ii]. Reduced spending on incarceration can be used to fuel an increase in spending on detoxification, rehabilitation and restorative justice schemes. Moreover damaging effects of prison will not cancel out the positive effects of rehabilitation. The physical injuries resulting from whipping, although painful, are less severe than the subtler damage wrought on inmates by imprisonment. [i] “In Defense of Flogging”, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 24 April 2011, http://chronicle.com/article/In-Defense-of-Flogging/127208/ [ii] “Tough on Crime, Tough on Criminals”, The economist, 23 June 2011, http://www.economist.com/node/18867740 | PRO | 28e619e4-2019-04-15T20:22:47Z-00008-000 |
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound. Everything that exists has a beginning except that which is not part of the formation of creation. Consciousness have always been the Living Word in which manifested the things that are seen with naked eye as matters or else. The one thing one should note is that consciousness does not require a beginning. Or you could also assert that Consciousness is the "I AM" that always were before "BE" came to be. Here is an example from the Gospel of John Ch. 1: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with G-D and the Word was G-D." This illustrates the Consciousness and 'Total Knowledge" because the Word was G-D. Furthermore that same Word is described been made flesh and dwelt among mankind. So here we have the "Word" and that same "Word" being made flesh and blood. For this simple fact, Consciousness is certainly not in need of a creator because it's existence does not evolve with time. Instead it created time for what were created from the beginning. Therefore my argument is that G-D is the source of eternity and maker of time to decorate this eternal space. Certainly if anyone take their time to read scriptures that Word will be revealed in them as well. | PRO | 75e3b44-2019-04-18T16:58:49Z-00003-000 |
Homosexuality is not a Sin in The Bible. "Admittedly, the original Hebrew and Greek are great sources for the original meaning in any Biblical passage. However, I wonder why every Bible translator for the past 2,000 years, save the modern day pro-gay translators (i.e. Queen James Version), have translated everything into the words "Homosexual", "Sexually Perverse", and "Sodomites". Interestingly enough, some words in the Hebrew actually mean more than one thing. I looked up that word online, it can be translated both ways. So God was actually condemning two things at the same time!" Again who cares what translators translate, we have The Original Language all we need is proper word study and grammar and where did YHWH condemn what 2 things at the same time? "As for Sodom and Gomorrah, God killed every person, save Lot and his family, because they were inhospitable? What? Plus, God condemned Sodom long before the incident with the angels." There you go, you admit it wasn't because of Homosexuality as you say they were already condemned. " Also, so what if it was simply for the purposes of violation" Because that was the purpose... The text never says it was due to Homosexuality nor does the text imply that they had Homosexual desires, they just wanted to violate, they could have had sex with Lot, arguing anything else is due to plain bigotry as I have already proven Sodom and Gomorrah was not condemned because of Homosexuality. "The translators and Hebrew are clear, homosexuality is a sin. " Prove it, all you have done is prove you are blind in this matter. "However, if you want to believe something God didn't say, you will find every way to take or add to the Bible." 1, Prove this, and 2, This is what you have done, which makes you hypocritical. Overall my opponent instead of refuting and providing any proof for Homosexuality, makes assertions based on emotion, which is not up for debate. If this person does not provide proof of Homosexuality being a sin, then goes on to take it as a sin, He adds to YHWH(The Father, and The Son, and The Holy Spirit)'s Word, anything added to YHWH's word is secular and therefore this person holds to a Secular "atheistic" doctrine against YHWH's Word. | PRO | db51e9b0-2019-04-18T17:41:21Z-00005-000 |
the usfg should abolish all forms of phycopolotics in the U.S. Ladies and Gentlement of the audience, my opponent has given no clear resolution, nor defined any terms, nor given any logical or factual information backing his non-existent resolution. I have asked my opponent to present a clear case in which to debate, however he has forfeited, not apologized for the forfeit, and proceeded to waste two rounds with things that could have been discussed in the comments if there was any issue on the clarity of my R1 statement. My opponent has the burden of proof, he has made no logical or factual argument nor presented a clear resolution. | CON | 97b06c76-2019-04-18T19:14:39Z-00000-000 |
Roblox is not better then Mine craft. Minecraft : Making this post shows your utter stupidity, one game in different categorizes cannot be compared. I indeed play both of these game and enjoy it - so let me start out by saying this. An audience of users does not stand for anything. That's like saying a car is better than another because it's bigger, to a family of 3. Did you know, the bigger the audience, the more immature and stupid it becomes. Robloxians are rather lucky. You can be equally creative in ROBLOX as Minecraft - you can even program on both games. You do not need ROBLOX's membership to make a game on ROBLOX! Obviously, since both are different games, your point on the modes are null and void. You can play multiplayer on ROBLOX, as it is much easier. You do not need to pay for server hosting, which makes your point about Minecraft being 30$ and you can enjoy it forever, also null and void. Minecraft and ROBLOX are both games to have fun, if you didn't know. ROBLOX : How old do you think Minecraft players are on average? That age exceeds 18 maybe even higher than 25. The thing about Minecraft - they do not censor bad things, unlike ROBLOX. I was once on a server with my 7 year old brother, playing Minecraft. One player started talking sexually and everyone was naked. About copying games, since when did the terrain look like Minecraft's? As I never noticed, they may LOOK like Minecraft bricks, but what Minecraft bricks (besides bricks) have you seen so far. ROBLOX even makes building easier by letting you expand blocks around. Do you really think Notch or Jeb cares about you? Of course not, but they both make updates beneficial to the users - us. Minecraft is all about the money, if you didn't seem to know, how else could both companies even add a new update if they didn't run ads or sell BC. Shedletsky even said, the amount of people who pay them is so low, ROBLOX wouldn't last another year, without ads. Like I said, you don't need BC to play or make games. Some developers think ROBLOX is a good idea, and they can cancel it and stop paying anytime they wanted, never forget how you pay front up not once a month. You seriously made so many unconvincing points, I fear for your outcome. | CON | 5ecc02c5-2019-04-18T17:02:07Z-00002-000 |
Resolved: The largest cause of violence in America is Cadbury Creme Egg deprivation during childhood. I applaud Pro for her well constructed argument. However, everything she told you is a lie. How do I know? Well, let me show you the decevery at the heart of the corrupt Cadbury organization.Let us start with exhibit one.Exhibit 1: What is the "creme?"Many state it is pure sugar. Some state that they don't know, but it just tastes good. These are appeals to ignorance. Instead, when we anyalize the contents of this "creme," we find a small dose of a chemical called "PX-41."This chemical turns purple when in sunlight for too long, which is probably why the Cadbury organization covers it with a chocolate shell. Here is a photograph of this chemical in a safety vial: This chemical is known to make animals mutate in certain doses. An example: Our researcher in this photo was never seen again after this rabbit was exposed to 15 mL of PX-41. These mutated animals become hyper-aggressive, attacking everything and everyone they can. For now, the only antidote we have discovered is old man piss (1).https://docs.google.com...From this, we can safely conclude that the underlying "flavor" is nothing other than PX-41, a highly unstable and dangerous chemical.Exhibit 2: PX-41's effects on humansIn an isolated experiment conducted in the depths of the Cadbury organization's laboratory, leaked by Snowden, the effects of PX-41 were tested on small, strangely-cylindrically shaped children (2). The results were terrifying. https://docs.google.com...As you can tell by this photograph, the children's appearance was drastically altered. Their teeth began to push out of their jaws, their arms grew to drastic proportions and their elbows praticaly disappeared. There are more differences, but those are the ones I'll point out for now. Remember, the chemical that caused these children to mutate is present in every single Cadbury creme egg! That means the more Cadbury creme eggs (CCE's) that the child eats, the stronger the dose of PX-41. If we are to follow Pro's plan and give more CCE's to each child, we would increase the dose of this mutation serum in our own children, and the corrupt Cadbury organization would ultimately control us all.Conclusion:Thus, we can flip Pro's case on it's head.P1) Child maltreatment causes violence.I agree with this premise.P2) CCE deprivation is a form of child maltreatment.False. CCE's that are given to kids will turn them in to psychopathic killers (see above), and therefore, is a form of child maltreatment.C) CCE deprivation during childhood causes violence.Quite the opposite. As we have seen, children are probably the most succeptable to this chemical, and thus, would become killers. As killing is violence, we can essentially flip this entire conclusion on its head.We are then left with the only valid syllogism we can come to:P1) Every CCE contains PX-41.P2) PX-41 turns children into mutated killers.C) Therefore, CCE's turn children into mutated killers.Do not believe their lies. Fight back against the Cadbury organization. It is time to wake up.#nocadburyformeplzI turn the argument to Pro.Sources:(1) www.iamgru.com(2) www.cadburrypx41exp.com/snowden | CON | 6c858b14-2019-04-18T12:53:02Z-00001-000 |
the death penalty is wrong. Unfortunately I cannot translate the term when'd around, but I would like to rebut the point where you said 'would you be prepared to watch another human take there (sic) life?' To be perfectly honest I would be very happy. Do you think that the soldier who killed Osama bin Laden thought for one second that he might have been taking somebody's life who had a family? No, it was a celebratory moment because he'd stopped a terrorist in his tracks. | CON | 4d75f258-2019-04-18T14:56:35Z-00002-000 |
Obama administration consulted with Congress on Libya. Obama Administration letter to Congress justifying Libya engagement, June 15th, 2011: "The Administration has consulted extensively with Congress about U.S. engagement in Libya. Since March 1, the Administration has: testified at over 10 hearings that included a substantial discussion of Libya; participated in over 30 Member and/or staff briefings, including the March 18 Presidential meeting with Congressional Leadership, Committee Chairs and Ranking Members; all three requested 'All Members Briefings' (two requested by the Senate, one by the House); and all requested 'All Staff Briefings;' conducted dozens of calls with individual Members; and provided 32 status updates via e-mail to over 1,600 Congressional staff." | PRO | c557d1d-2019-04-17T11:47:21Z-00100-000 |
Wind energy provides for price stability in the long-term, wind will be with us for the duration. The critical, and increasing, issue of a reliance on fossil fuels is that the price is not only increasing but is doing so in an unpredictable manner. Oil and gas in particular are subject to the political whim of some of the world’s most unpredictable regimes. Wind, by contrast, is produced domestically or, where it is exported, is produced in stable European nations. Given the choice between negotiating with Chavez’s Venezuela or Putin’s Russia for oil and gas or with Belgium or Germany for wind energy is really not a difficult choice. Critically, in addition, any form of mineral-dependent energy is based on a resource that will deplete – be that coal or uranium. Wind, by contrast, is the ultimate sustainable resource. | PRO | 7ae7b591-2019-04-15T20:22:23Z-00011-000 |
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal In The United States. I know lots of gays actually. I have three gay cousins. Can you please tell me how or why gay sex is not natural? Animals do it all the time. It's not our business anyway to tell someone you don't even know that they cannot marry, nor is it our business to say that they don't love that person because you aren't that person, you don't know what emotions that person is having. How can you say it's not love? How is it not love? Do you really think they can choose who they love? I don't think so. Some are born with it. It's love rather it's with the same sex or not. There is a difference between killing someone and not allowing same sex marriages to marry. You can't even compare those two. They are completely different. In the US Constitution it says that there should be equal rights for ALL citizens. Do you mean to tell me that gays are not citizens of the United States? Of course they are! So, why are people going against the Constitution? It's not equal, nor is it right, that gays cannot marry. We will not be a free country, nor will we be an equal country, if gays cannot marry. How do you know if gay sex feels unnatural? It's not bothering you if two people of the same sex get married. You're never going to see them again most likely. There is no reason why someone shouldn't be granted the right to get married to someone! If you don't like it, who cares, you don't have to marry the same sex! There are a lot of things that rebel against nature, and gay sex is not one of them. Also, who said they were going to have gay sex just because they get married? They might have a sex free life! And just because they're allowed to marry doesn't mean they are going to have less or more sex. Marriage and sex have nothing to do with each other whatsoever. By not allowing gay marriage, you're not reducing the amount of gays because they can't help who they fall in love with or who their type is. | PRO | fc305b97-2019-04-18T18:43:58Z-00003-000 |
Open primaries increase Independents' participation in general election. The open primary could be seen as good for voter participation. First, the open primary allows nonpartisan or independent voters to participate in the nominating process. If these voters are allowed to help select the nominees then they may be more likely to vote in the general election, since one of the candidates could be someone the non-partisan voter voted for. Also, a moderate member of one party may agree more with a candidate for the nomination of another party. This voter will have more of an incentive to participate in the general election if there is a nominee whom he or she agrees with. | PRO | 8f6f694e-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00061-000 |
Open primaries lend cred to third-party candidates. Susan Nielsen. "Open Oregon's primaries." Oregonian. October 13, 2008: "Opponents also say the top-two system will hurt minor parties. It is true that minor parties will lose their easy route to the general election. However, they may also gain a better chance to compete. For example, a liberal district might find itself with a Democrat and a Green Party member as the top two. The Green candidate would be elevated as a serious contender, rather than a token name, in the general." | PRO | 8f6f694e-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00068-000 |
English does not require the learning of new symbols. The English language is one that is very easy to learn. Unlike the most spoken language in the world, Chinese, it does not require most people around the world to learn new numerals. We find other languages also require the learning of new symbols. This is true in German with the eszett (double SS sound but looks like a B) and French with their accents. English as a language does not have these. This means that the language is easily accessible to the many. If we wish to communicate effectively we need all people to be able to communicate in it; even those who have difficulty in learning languages. Therefore having a global language which requires no learning of characters is important. | PRO | 55b0c1f5-2019-04-19T12:44:44Z-00003-000 |
God is an idealised human authority figure. It is true, we cannot fully understand or even partly understand the capabilites and characteristics of God. Humans can only envision things from examples of other things they have seen before. God is really nothing like us, but in order to interact with humans, He has to act and talk partly like us. This is why phrases like 'God's Hand' 'God's Nose (anger)' appear in the bible. Yes, God is the perfect figure, being all-mighty, but why does that mean he can't exist? | CON | 9afc614f-2019-04-19T12:47:37Z-00002-000 |
The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished. Although Con did defy my rules, Con messaged me in a friend request his/her apologies. Voters, please do not take off points as long as Con does not do it again. Con, if you would, please repost your arguments when it is your turn. I don't care if you copy and paste what you had written, as long as you stay with the format. Anyway, onto my arguments. I have two main arguments for my case, both of which are comprised of smaller points. My first main argument is that U.S. pennies are just a drag on not only the economy, but all of us in general. My first proof is that pennies just aren't worth the time to earn them. The average hourly wage for workers was $22.33 in 2013 (Source: http://www.bls.gov...). That means more than a cent every two seconds, and five cents every ten seconds. Even if you use the median wage, the calculations are still very close. It takes such a little time to earn pennies that it wouldn't affect finances if it was removed. As further proof that pennies aren't worth the time, look to the grocery store. In the U.S., unlike other countries, the tax isn't included on the price tag. The vast majority of people just can't do the math in their head without a calculator, and most just wait until the checkout to find the true price. This means it takes time to count out the pennies, wasting time. It may not seem very important, but it could make a huge difference if pennies were removed. As a matter of fact, there's relatively little that pennies are used for now. No modern vending machine accepts pennies. The only one that does is Coinstar, which is a machine that takes your coins and gives you them back, with a slight amount taken away. Essentially, it is an ATM for solely coins. Lastly, it would benefit the U.S. economy to get rid of pennies. Pennies cost more to make than their face value (no pun intended) (Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com...). There is potential of saving money by getting rid of the penny. Con, if you would, please re-post your arguments. I will even allow you to add new ones as long as they are not rebuttals. | PRO | 953ebf14-2019-04-18T15:12:14Z-00004-000 |
Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States. Ok to start off I do believe that the amount of deaths isn't even close to the amount of deaths that we face because of other alternatives. People are killed everyday because of guns, should we ban guns. People in schools commit suicide every day, so should we ban talking in schools. Just because there is an exchange of words on this website don't mean it doesn't happen in other places. The only point that I have seen been state is the emotional harm, emotional harm can be found anywhere. We can't just ban something because it is supposedly bad. You stated tha6t mothers have had to bury their children, but mothers have other reasons to bury their children. People say things at school, should mothers home school their kids. So why are we going to deprive the children that are responsible and have self esteem enough to not use these websites. Why ban something that is replicated more in other places. Thank you Now here is my question. Without this form of communication we are entering the future. these websites are the future so why run from the future? Also many children and teenagers are able to express themselves clearly so why is it that you take away their only form of expressing themselves? | PRO | 58177ad2-2019-04-18T19:34:18Z-00002-000 |
LOL is better than DOTA by most of the publics consensus. Resoultion - LOL is better than dota by most public consensus. That means the mass majority of people consider LOL to be better. How do we gauge this, by activity. People actively play LOL because they like it better 27 million play LOL daily - http://www.forbes.com... only around 800k play Dota daily - http://steamcharts.com... By majority, the vast amount of people prefer LOL | PRO | 7dff0541-2019-04-18T15:23:45Z-00003-000 |
Minecraft is better that roblox. 1. So you would make profound textures in Minecraft? Weird, I don't see any at all in planet minecraft or any other sites. Why would you even make one? It would just be confusing and you wouldn't know what is where. No one uses profound textures, and Minecraft only uses 8-bit textures, while Roblox gives you a choice of both HD, and textures that you can upload yourself. So, I think that Roblox has better textures, don't you?2. I used to be a frequent minecraft player, and I tried many times to set up a server, however I couldn't find out how. I used hamachi, I tried port forwarding, and other methods. None of them worked. It's very hard to set up a server, those were my arguments from before, however what does this have to do with white-listing one? Obviously it's easy if you already have one, but that's the problem.3. I see no obvious reasons why Minecraft is better, Isn't that why we are debating? Roblox has even better performance, such as HD textures, customizable blocks, and many others. Minecraft also costs 30 dollars. Unlike that, Roblox is free. You don't need to pay for anything, only if you want to. The benefits of the in-game membership are not needed to have a good playing style. Minecraft is almost 30 dollars, and you can try a demo for 100 minutes. 4. You can earn money off RobloxUsing DevEx, you can cash out ingame Robux for real life money. You can exchange for a maximum of $20,000. This is really good for any aspiring builder, as they can show off their creativity to the world, and get money in return. Minecraft, however, does not allow you to do this as it counts as "selling part of their game," and it violates their terms of service. You can turn Roblox into a fun job that rewards you for your creativity.Your arguments have lots of holes in them, two poorly constructed arguments does not make your point proven. | CON | 2a92b300-2019-04-18T15:41:28Z-00002-000 |
tablets vs textbooks. Tablets should be used in schools over textbooks because tablets are more savvy and they contribute a more active learning base for students. If students are granted the opportunity to use tablets in class they will not only learn more, they will also learn computer tips that will impact them positively for their future. Textbooks are becoming less used in todays society and as our world becomes more and more technologically advanced, schools should as well. | PRO | cc210c11-2019-04-18T15:27:23Z-00000-000 |
"Where there's a will, there's a way" is factually incorrect. The example Pro offered holds no contradictions on my case. It's just that Hitler obviously didn't have a strong enough will, even though it may appear so, for had he had a strong enough will he would of succeeded, by figuring out some way, some how. Hitler just didn't have enough will, had he had enough, there would of been a way. My case is upheld. The resolution remains negated. | CON | af29b5b5-2019-04-18T14:40:09Z-00000-000 |
Receive much greater interest from Taiwan. There are benefits to being one of only twenty-two countries that recognise another country; you are lavished with attention. The President of the RoC visited São Tomé in January 2014,[1] he was last intending to visit only two years before but cancelled as President Manuel Pinto da Costa was overseas.[2] Visits also regularly go the other way; in a four month period from October 2010 São Tomé’s President, Minister of Finance, and Prime Minister all made separate trips to Taiwan.[3] The PRC being recognised by many more countries could never provide the same level of attention. As one of the poorest countries in the world without the question of recognition the PRC would have practically no interest in such a small African state. [1] ‘Ma vows to strengthen ROC-Sao Tome relations’, Taiwan Today, 27 January 2014, http://www.taiwantoday.tw/ct.asp?xItem=213957&ctNode=420 [2] Hsiu-chuan, Shih, ‘Ma’s trip canceled due to scheduling conflict: Sao Tome’, Taipei Times, 5 April 2012, http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2012/04/05/2003529559 [3] Martins, Vasco, ‘Aid for legitimacy: São Tomé and Principe hand in hand with Taiwan’, IPRIS Viewpoints, February 2011, http://www.ipris.org/php/download.php?fid=376 | PRO | 5cd45e7a-2019-04-15T20:24:39Z-00020-000 |
Wierdman's Debate Tournament-The Occupy Wall Street Movement will/has had an affect on the world. In today's debate I will be advocating that the Occupy Wall Street Movement will/has had an affect on our world. This debate is not about whether the movements are just but will it have a positive or negative affect. For clarity here are some definitions:affect-make a difference toworld-all of the people, societies, and institutions on the earthOccupy Wall Street Movement-movement by any individual advocating against social economic inequality that claims to support the movement or joins in on the actual marchesIn order to win the debate I as Pro must prove that the Occupy Wall Street Movement will most likely or has had an affect on anywhere in the world. Con must argue as to why it will not/why it has not. | PRO | 39477d8-2019-04-18T18:35:02Z-00007-000 |
Same-sex Marriage. I've heard the "gay people only raise gay people" argument before. Because, you know, straight people only raise straight people. And no, it's not natural, I'll give you that. Even I think about that sometimes. But it's no reason to ban it. Since when do we ban something due to it being unnatural? Because I can list a bunch of things that are unnatural -Flipping a switch and a room becomes illuminated in light. -One species controlling an entire planet. -A black box that if we click it, we can communicate to other humans globally. -A stick that if you click it, a tiny ball of metal will come out and KILL whatever it's pointed at. Most art forms are unnatural. Do we ban them? No! Being gay is no more unnatural than taking down a tree to process materials for paper so that a student can write an essay on the environment. | PRO | 38921629-2019-04-18T17:29:49Z-00001-000 |
I Am Better Than You -Provideoman123. Hello to all, I am known as provideoman123, Master Debater. I am always cordial and respectful. I am a professional debater who is well respected on this site. I have a superior intelligence and I am a proven expert in many fields due to my high intelligence and extensive knowledge. My opinions are always factual and correct. So voters, you know who is the strongest(me). I assure you, I am always cordial and respectful, especially to my fellow debaters. It is them who are wrong. Reasons why I am better than you: -I am ALWAYS cordial and respectful - People who forfeit debates are weak pathetic children who cannot even back up their own claims with facts and proof like I do. ^^ - Excluding me because my superior intelligence is infallible and never weak. I am better than you simply because of my superior brain that is never wrong. -I am better than you. That is just a fact you low-lifes just have to accept. You weak minded idiots can't keep up with my powerful intellect even if you tried. -If you disagree with me, you are wrong. If you agree with me, you are partly right but you will never be fully right because it takes a brain of my caliber (which is unmatched in the world because I am the best) to even comprehend the inner workings of my arguments. -I am humble and show self restraint. My fellow debaters love engaging in a friendly discussion with me because I am so open minded and nice. If you understand that I have good intentions, you may be not as stupid as I automatically assume everyone else except for me is. - Pro scientists around the world have proven me to be the smartest man on earth so do not try to disprove these "smart" men(obviously they are not as smart as me but they are smart enough to recognize me as the smartest) because I have scientific proof. - I am always cordial and respectful Rules to this debate: Round 1: Cordial greetings and I will provide you time to read my argument. Round 2: Discussion and you can present your weak claims Round 3: Discussion where I smash your weak claims Round 4: Friendly conclusion and reflection Voters, you know who is the winner. Please do not be corrupt and deny me the victory I deserve, just like every single other debate I have participated in. Please be cordial and respectful as I will be throughout this entire debate. | PRO | 97902e9c-2019-04-18T13:45:48Z-00006-000 |
existentialism is the preferred philosophy of life. "existentialism wouldn't allow you to deny your own nature" Yes, that's exactly what existentialism is. Again, as Sartre said, "existence precedes essence." Existentialist would agree with nihilists that we are just a bunch of meaningless irrational fragments, but that is okay since we can make our own meaning. It's not word games we are playing; it's just that you haven't explored the history of existentialism deep enough. | CON | 479c1d67-2019-04-18T19:48:32Z-00000-000 |
Universities cut across class and social divides in a unique way. University is a great equaliser. One positive side-effect of people going through university is that they are virtually guaranteed to interact with people who are different from them in all sorts of ways – including ethnicity, where minority groups are sometimes better represented than they are in the general population,[1] and international students account for 17% of the university population.[2] The more this mixing happens, the easier it is for people to be tolerant and sensitive to other people. While this isn’t necessarily a problem everywhere, there are still places where these divides cause tension and violence, so the fact that our policy helps to tackle this makes it good. Vocational courses are rather less likely to be mixed. Certain careers are associated with certain groups, and people studying for that specific career will be drawn largely from that group. For example, the clients of an accountancy course and a construction course are not likely to overlap very much, if at all. Despite whatever merits vocational education may have, government policy is not just about education: it should take into account the wider social good, and so we should be on the side which produces a more tolerant society. [1] Sellgren, Katherine’, ‘Rise in ethnic minority students at UK universities’, BBC News, 3 February 2010 [2] ‘International students in UK higher education: key statistics’, UK Council for International Student Affairs, 2011-12 | PRO | 1d8d4ff1-2019-04-15T20:24:16Z-00021-000 |
The origin of the universe being complete impossible to prove. In one sense of course you are right. All of our perceptions could be false. If by making this argument you are meaning that it is impossible to prove anything than yes are right. But as this wasn't the argument that you made I assume that you mean that we can't prove the origin of the universe to the same degree to as other things which we are certain enough of to use the word proved. As a Buddhist I would argue that both the Big Bang and the it is all a dream argument are proved to a degree of certainty on par with any other concern of humanity. The evidence for the big bang is overwhelming. Everything in the Universe is moving away from a central point of origin. The data supporting this is massive and has only become more certain as we make further innovations in technology an mathematics. Similarly Buddhism is one of the most scientific of religions. In its purest form you simply sit for long periods of time maintaining mindfulness by such methods of counting breaths and Chanting. The descriptions of enlightenment by Buddhist monks are incredibly consistent. There have been many disputes in Buddhism, but as far as I know none of these disputes have revolved around the nature of enlightenment. Further investigations of blood flow in the brains of Buddhist brains show an incredible similarity. They all show a reduced blood flow to orientation area of the brain. This strongly suggests that it is possible to a reach a point where ones individuality is no longer confined to their physical body. Monks who achieve this state agree that the realization that reality is an illusion is the realist feeling experience they have ever experienced. The evidence for intelligent design is less evident. A study of biology makes it clear that the animal species are neither set and unchanging nor to the evolve in a consistent direction of what an outside observer would call improvement. There is a massive amount evidence that the species were not designed by a creator and remained that way to this day. Not only is the fossil evidence for evolution overwhelming, but DNA studies are much more compelling still. The strongest evidence for a creator is that because no light comes from before the Big Bang. One could think hey something must have caused the big bang. But this assumes that lack of something is a more natural state than existence of something. However, there is no real evidence either way on this matter. So we are as sure as we can be that the Big Bang actually occurred. If religion has taught us anything about the real world, then it is the truth of realization as experienced by Buddhist monks. I submit that it has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the universe is an illusion and that part of that illusion is the Big Bang. | CON | 33e1c95f-2019-04-18T19:56:33Z-00003-000 |