argument
stringlengths 201
3.55k
| stance
stringclasses 2
values | id
stringlengths 36
39
|
|---|---|---|
Comedy central shouldn't have censored Mohammed's appearance in southpark's season 14's episode 201. Thanks, PRO, for beginning this debate. In South Park's 201st episode [1], Prophet Muhammad's name and other parts were censored. There has been much controversy, but I believe that Comedy Central made the right decision. Jon Stewart has stated that South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker's lives were in danger, and censoring the episode was a way of protecting their lives [2]. The website RevolutionMuslim.com had written an article threatening violence towards the two creators for showing the Prophet Muhammad in a bear suit during episode 200. The author of the article, Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee, had stated that "We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them." [3] The article contained a reference to Theo Van Gogh [4], who was shot and stabbed to death for simply making a film about Muslim women. In conclusion, it is obvious that the censorship of certain parts in episode 201 was necessary to protect the safety of the South Park creators. Vote CON [1] http://bit.ly... [2] http://www.chicagotribune.com... [3] http://www.nbcnewyork.com... [4] http://bit.ly... | CON | 45f3446b-2019-04-18T19:07:47Z-00004-000 |
Complete Freedom. Every type of organism have their own interpretation of freedom. For fish it is enough water to swim, For bird is a good tree to take off, Land, And build nest. And what about humans? They all have their own interpretation, Again. Kim Joh Un want the world via nukes(power), Lil tay wants money(wealth), And Lincoln longed for human right(morality). Everybody has their own interpretation of freedom, And that is the right to desire. Everything could be granted or denied, And the rear option is not freedom, While the other one is. We could grant our own wish via ourselves, Which could lead to complete freedom. The denial of complete freedom is affected by the international rule of freedom, Which, Through the eyes of elsewhere could mean this is not freedom by all means, We were owned by others. That is the point of other nations, Instead of a giant alliance across the world. We could even start our own nation and declare, Although your own government from the capital city will deny it, But you have your own sense of freedom. That, If matches your definition, Is your point of "freedom". | PRO | 4d0a1b3c-2019-04-18T11:11:50Z-00003-000 |
I am very humble. HOLD IT! (Play the video http://www.youtube.com...)The pro on this page said on round 1, 2nd last paragrapgh and second sentence said THAT "There is no one more humble than I am" BUT THE TOPIC SAYS THAT HE IS "VERY HUMBLE" SHATTERING YOUR ENTIRE CASE! YOU ARE NOT "VERY HUMBLE" BUT BEING THE MOST HUMBLE! YOU ARE WRONG THEREFORE I, THE HAPPY MAN DESTROY YOUR STATEMENT! YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE JUST " VERY HUMBLE" ON THIS TOPICYOU ARE THE NOT "VERY HUMBLE"! YOU ARE THE MOST HUMBLE! THE POWER GOOOORRRRRRD!!!!!! | CON | 18d1669-2019-04-18T16:54:19Z-00004-000 |
Is FoodLion Better than Walmart? (Pro is for FoodLion). 1. Come on guys.... Is money everything in this world? Food Lion only made about 13.7 billion dollars, but what they lack in money they make up for with great atmosphere and FANTASTIC customer service. When I walk into a Food Lion I can feel the friendship in the air. There has been more than one occasion where I have walked into a Wal-Mart and have been overwhelmed with the smell of disinfectant and the witch that inhabits register 2..... just saying.2. Electronics? That's what Best Buy is for! Food Lion has a pretty awesome bakery. Who cares if Wal-Mart's is larger? It's about QUALITY not QUANTITY.3. Who CARES if Wal-Mart has christmas decorations and halloween costumes? Who cares besides middle-aged women and 5 year olds. Everyone knows that Food Lion appeals evenly to all ages. That's all that matters.My opponent has failed to refute my AWESOME LION LOGO argument. Extend that argument. Because lions are F*CKING AWESOME!!!! | PRO | bcbb60f-2019-04-18T18:24:36Z-00001-000 |
terrorism is an unhelpful concept. Thanks! Terrorism is an unhelpful concept because it carries within it the implication that non-state violence is always the same as terror-inducing violence. In reality these are two separate axes. Some non-state acts of violence are aimed at creating civilian terror, and some are not. Equally some state acts of violence of are aimed at creating civilian terror, and some are not. Thinking along these two axes discretely is essential. 'Terrorism' is an unhelpful term as it conflates the two. | PRO | 640cef59-2019-04-18T13:52:29Z-00003-000 |
The Natural Law Party should be the ruling party in America. My opponent is willing to go "pro" for any of the main issues listed on their website. I have chosen the Main Issue of Strengthening Democracy for this debate. More Specifically: Election Reform and the Natural Law Party proposal of Abolishing the Electoral College. The party proposes that people should be elected through direct popular vote. So I propose to my opponent a debate on the Abolishment of the Electoral College which is directly under their guidelines for a solution to Election Reform. If my opponent has any problem with this, my opponent can address this in the comment sections so Round 2 may begin the debate. Do Note: I propose that the debate be entirely on this topic as to not have a scattered debate due to the 8,000 character limit on this website. | CON | 84794f13-2019-04-18T19:33:24Z-00006-000 |
In a democratic society, a felon ought to retain the right to vote. This is the Nov/Dec LD resolved. I have a tounament coming up and I would like to practice. Good Luck. _____________________________________________________________________ First of I would like to define a few key terms I will be using in my debate. Democracy: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections Felon: someone who commits a grave crime declared to be a felony by the common law or by statute regardless of the punishment actually imposed My value is equality of rights My value criteria is individual rights Equality of rights can be defined as: a person and/or community having equal status of rights and privileges. Individual rights can be defined as: every person deserves his/her own right in a community or society. C1: Upholding the equality of rights results in the best course of action for this resolution. Equality of rights is something all men/women must share in order to achieve the best outcome for this resolution. When you place felons below people such as you and I, you devalue equality of rights. Felons have equal rights as stated by the constitution of the united states of america. To take away ones rights is to strip down the very morals this country was founded on. If my opponenet truly values democracy then he must believe that to uphold democracy you must follow the constitutional rights it specifies. This being said he must also value equality of rights being that this is the principle upon which the constitution was founded on. You cannot have democracy without equality of rights, so therefore my value supercedes my opponents. C2: Upholding individual rights is the better criteria for upholding values. I will now tell you a clear mechanism that intertwines my value and my value criteria. Individual rights is the only way equality of rights can be upheld. In order in to uphold equality of rights, or giving each person an equal desicion in the society, you must give each person individual rights. Individual rights is being denied to felons by my oppopnent, which means he is not letting each person have an equal say in the society, which devalues our very constitution. My opponent believes in democracy, and yet does not believe in the prime principle behind democracy - EQUALITY. Democracy was founded on the belief that each INDIVIDUAL will have an EQUAL say in the decisions made in society. Denying the right to vote to felons denies them of the very thing democracy is founded on, you cannot single out a group of people because of things done in the past and deny them a right in the present. My opponent also contradicts himself by making his value democracy and then saying he is denying democracy to a specific group of people. | PRO | cb1a30bc-2019-04-18T19:35:27Z-00005-000 |
LD Sept./Oct. (I've got a big invititational. Value: Okay whatever, they're the same, my case works under both. Criterion: Have you ever had to make this decision? Do you know anyone who has? I think not. This is not a "normal" situation. Contention 1: But you never attacked it as such. Because of that it is flowed across. Furthermore, the resolution doesn't need to define it as such, it is simply fact. This is a circumstance that does not occur normally. Definitions: You're welcome. Ob 1: Okay, I concede this observation. Ob 2: Okay, I concede this observation. My case is not damaged. Ob 3: You're welcome. Ob 4: Yes,but being killed is not a moral crime. It is something outside of one's control, and is therefore not part of morality. The killer may be a guilty man, but as long as the victim is innocent, it doesn't matter. Value: You're welcome. Criterion: You dropped my other attacks. You provided no indication of what moral normalty is. You speak of the categorical imperative now, but that isn't moral normalty. The categorical imperative is but one form. You provided no weighing mechanism, so you drop this criterion. Furthermore, as I said, this isn't a normal situation. Normative ethics are suspended in abnormal circumstances. That's my whole argument. Contention 1: A. You never say what morality is. You need a weighing mechanism. You provided none. The categorical imperative is not the standard for normative morality. Virtue ethics and divine command ethics are both normative systems, yet they don't use the categorical imperative. Virtue ethics uses conformance to virtue, divine command uses the bible. B. You never said that. Even so, deontological ethics can only judge a rational agent. A man is by no means rational in a stressful situation like the one in the resolution. We can't judge a man whom morality cannot apply to. C. Again, you should have made the CI your criterion if that was your intent. You didn't, so you can't use it. D. Prove it. You have no logic or evidence for this. Just because you say so doesn't make it true. Voting Issues. 1. My opponent dropped my first contention. 2. My opponent provided no weighing mechanism. 3. My case fits under moral normalty. Moral normalty does not apply to this situation. 4. My opponent gave no logic to support his claims. As per the agreed upon rules, my opponent will forfeit the last round. | PRO | ac7c3721-2019-04-18T19:36:00Z-00001-000 |
Yo MAMA war. 5 jokes per round Yo mama so fat she looks like she's smuggling a Volkswagon! Yo mama so fat when she jumps up in the air she gets stuck!!! Yo mama so fat when she wears one of those X jackets, helicopters try to land on her back! Yo mama so fat that when whe was born, she gave the hospital stretch marks. Yo mama so fat when she bunje jumps she goes straight to hell! | PRO | ca4cc082-2019-04-18T19:10:39Z-00004-000 |
Iran's military cannot project force in Middle East. Anthony Cordesman of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies said to the USA Today in 2007: "Iran represents 'a force that has to be taken seriously in the defense of its country, but it has very little capacity to project outside the country. Iran cannot seriously engage the U.S. for any length of time. In an asymmetric capacity perhaps, but not in conventional warfare."[8] | PRO | beb00025-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00016-000 |
Best State In America NJ!. 1) My peer has as of yet failed to meet the Burden of Proof. 2) Any claims he has made for why New Jersey is the best stage in the United States have been entirely refuted, and as such they work as offense against New Jersey. On a side note, I am afraid my peer has misunderstood the meaning of elitist and prejudice. Elitist- The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority. I am simply claiming that New Jersey is not the best state, and am adocating for the other 49 states that are offended by such claims of superiority, that New Jersey is the best state in America. Prejudice- opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge As I have shown my peers arguments have been purely based on opinion with no knowledge or factual basis to draw from. His views are therefore prejudicial. My case tho has been based upon facts as well as opinions. He wishes to dwell upon the second contention I made. What he does not understand is as of right now it does not even matter what case i present. Mind you the case he has attempted to present is turned and works in my favor as reasons why New Jersey is not the best. Because his case has been entirely turned he hasnt met BoP and is losing this debate. I also will point out that my peer appears to be becoming frustrated over my lack of case. That is ok, like i have said there is no need for me to even present a case as long as BoP has not been met. Also, as I have said multiple times now what examples he attempted to use as reasons for why New Jersey is best, now work as offense in favor of New Jersey not being the best state in America. Thank you for reading this thus far, and I ask for just a little bit more patience as my peer is sure to astound us all with absolute proof that New Jersey is the best state in America. Viva La USA :D | CON | c5a045a0-2019-04-18T18:24:51Z-00002-000 |
Winter is a Better Season than Summer. As we have seen, a lot of this comes down to personal preference. Unfortunately, I have not found much, if any, support on con's side of his points. Con seems to try to find continual fault with the points that I have made yet does not make any case for why he believes that summer is superior than winter. I think that we can safely acknowledge that cardiovascular exercise is good for your health, no matter the time of year. Winter just provides the benefit of accomplishing a necessary task at the same time as getting exercise. Whether you include holidays that are not commonly celebrated or not in the list of winter holidays, winter still has more celebrations than summer. Personal preference may decide your favorite holiday, the number of holidays is not decided by it. Both winter and summer sports have their downsides, but once again, personal preference will help you to decide your favorites. If you would like to enjoy your favorite warm foods during the winter, Con points out that you can do so in an environment that is temperature controlled. While this is true, the cost of obtaining and maintaining an temperature in which it is comfortable to eat warm foods in the summer will probably outweigh your desire for soup, hot chocolate, etc. Cost of air conditioning and heating depends on your personal temperature preference. There is no denying the fact that travel and summer activities quickly add up in cost. Overall, your preference between winter and summer will come down to personal opinion. I hope that you have been able to see the clear advantages of winter over summer from this debate, and will be able to make an informed choice of your favorite season. | PRO | e3944735-2019-04-18T16:33:26Z-00001-000 |
Israel does not have the Right to Exist. INTRODUCTION If I am not mistaken, my opponent's resolution is that Israel does not have a right to exist. My aim will be to negate this resolution. Because refuting this argument does not mean proving that Israel has a right to exist, that will not be my focus here. Instead, my argument will focus almost entirely on the theoretical and philosophical foundations of what a "right to exist" actually is, how (if it is even possible) it can be justified or negated, and what the practical (that is, real-life) consequences of these conclusions are for Israel and this debate. RIGHT TO EXIST In R1, Con left the concept of a "right to exist" without a clear definition, and I assume he did so because it is such a controversial and undeveloped concept. There have been many important philosophers and public intellectuals who have explored the concept, many who have called it into question, and many others who have made attempts to justify its existence. My argument is simple. I contend that a "right to exist" is ontologically subjective. This means that the concept itself requires subjective experience to exist. It is not an observer independent category or concept; it is socially constructed. As a result, it cannot be proven that Israel "does not have the right to exist." This is all I will say for now. In the coming rounds I will elaborate further depending on how my opponent attempts to refute this argument. I end this round with a quote that drives my point home: "The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a contract with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist" [1]. This is from Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man." What it basically shows, or argues, is that the category of a "right to exist" emerges when people associate with other people and thereby produce a government. It shows how the "right to exist" is ontologically subjective and socially constructed, and as a result, that we can say any government produced by a group of people associating with each other has this "right to exist." And while the main point here is that my opponent cannot prove that Israel does not have the right to exist, Thomas Paine's quote does suggest that Israel, by the mere fact of its existence, has a right to exist. [1] http://en.wikisource.org... | PRO | b8516366-2019-04-18T19:04:48Z-00003-000 |
Ninjas are Better than Pirates. This debate is for fun, obviously, but I warn you I will argue it seriously. I argue that ninjas are better than pirates in the following ways: Ninjas are more skilled than pirates -They undergo intensive training to master ninjitsu in order to be successful assassins. Ninjitsu is an umbrella term to describe espionage skills, which range from spying and disguise, to poison, explosives, and other stealthy ways to kill. Ninjas followed the same basic lesson plans as samurai, albeit taking a different route. Whole schools are devoted to the teaching of this art, as it is no easy task. Ninjas are more moral than pirates -Although some were assassins for hire, a good number of ninjas were loyal to particular nobleman or clan, or a political cause, and familial groups of ninjas usually protected the village where they lived from from robbers or others. Pirates on the other hand, were rarely loyal to anyone themselves and killed indiscriminately except when fear for impracticality made it illogical. A ninja could kill a pirate before a pirate could kill a ninja. -Pirates were rarely trained at combat (at least formally) and used to direct confrontation, where as ninjas are used to sneaking, and would be able to take a pirate when he least expected it. They are assassins; they're trained to kill. | PRO | 6d9212b0-2019-04-18T19:56:13Z-00003-000 |
Should we legalize the kidney markets in the USA. In the 1980s the US banned the sale of kidneys and other human organs on the premise that it was immoral and should be replaced with a system based on altruism. There are two ways people can get a kidney legally in the US. The first is by convincing someone you know to agree to a kidney transplant. The second is to wait on the long waiting list run by the red cross, but every year only one out of four people on the waiting list actually receive a kidney. This has led to the death of thousands of Americans every year. However if we were to legalize the kidney market than people would be able to sell their kidneys and supply would be able to meet demand and thus save the lives of thousands of people a year. | PRO | 70e6e2e1-2019-04-18T16:32:35Z-00005-000 |
You deserve no credit for 'Finding God'. Arcane Unit: 'These are all the same religion, and they all have the exact same principals, ethics and philosophies. IN none of these religions is there any but one true God.'Good work here Arcane Unit. All I want to do is give you kudos.Just tell me where he is and why I am too stupid to see him.All religions purport to be selling goodness and ethics, etc and they all fail dismally to deliver on their divinely inspired promises. Why is this. There is no visible difference between a billion people using Google and a billion people believing in this one God thing.If you doubt what I say you would have to say that the religious of the US were more 'elevated' than the Chinese. If you continue your course and declare that these people are not 'true believers' and assert that you alone speak truth then you by default place yourself in a long queue of 'one man religions' which is the lonliest place in the world.Let us be blunt. Tomorrow I want to experience this God of yours. If he is hiding from me then you just tell me where and how you found him and I will look there. Tell me what to do and I will be grateful. Be very precise. Thanks | PRO | 5947849d-2019-04-18T14:18:34Z-00004-000 |
Elections and campaigning distracts judges from responsibilities. "Should we elect judges?". Belief Net. June 9, 2009: "there's the issue that election campaigning isn't always the best use of a judge's time. We expect our judges to handle a lot of cases in a given year, and the need, in a hotly-contested race, to make speeches, travel to meet with constituent groups, give access to the media for interviews etc. means a portion, possibly a large one, of the judge's time and attention during an election year are going to be demanded by the campaign itself." | PRO | eb160461-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00075-000 |
Gay's shouldnt be discriminated against and should have there fundemental rights to marrige. Homosexual activists argue that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s. This is false. First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected. Same-sex marriage opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility. Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. | CON | f536bd65-2019-04-18T14:03:16Z-00003-000 |
American Representative Democracy: illusion or reality. As you can see from my user name I do not doubt that America is the greatest country in the world. If we want to keep it that way we can't bathe in complacency and pretend that our system is infallible. While I agree it is the best system on the planet that doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't be improved upon. If we sat back and drooled over our strong military after we won world war two instead of constatnly working to improve and upgrade it, we would be sitting on a bunch of useless military hardware and wondering how the rest of the world surpassed us. Change is needed to keep America the greatest nation on earth. I have identified a few areas of our government that need to be changed, you can't logicaly refute them by simply professing america's greatness. That isn't how debate works. I invite you to refute my points in any way you choose that is compliant with the rules of logic. Thank you | CON | 983fd1d5-2019-04-18T19:51:56Z-00002-000 |
Genetic screening/child selection. I thank my oponent again for his statement, but as I have repeatedly stated, which I feel you clearly misunderstand, I have no problems with abortion. What I do have a problem with is aborting a child based on what DOCTOR's say about it's genetic structure, and to say that mental disability is a reason to abort your child is indirectly implying that people with mental dissabilities are not fit for life. It devalues the already many disabled that re living now, and what you don't realize is that it's more often than ever not being used for the sake of DIAGNOSING, but rather for the sake of ELIMINATING. This is why I gave the cost/benefit analysis- Government excuse for eliminating the 'unfit'. I don't know where you got the idea that I 'want' the government to make the decision for women. I 'want' women to make the decision clearly of their own free will, with out any influence or 'push' from a doctor. However, again, the problem is that women are being pressured to take these tests, and by taking them you are creating a diagnosis, which is great if you are doing it with the intent of saving the child, but thats not the case. The prenatal screening is like 'fishing for the bad seeds', anything that is not of societal standards, or anything that is going to implement the funds and conditions of those standards, and when you put it into comparison with drug abusing mothers there definately seems to be some bias against the disabled, and 'prevention' through elimination is not the 'cure' but rather a step towards a eugenic movement. It might be a suttle movement, but its a movement just the same. Any sorting of a particular race, gender, handicapp you name it is on the verge of eugenics. | CON | 3ce9134c-2019-04-18T19:25:04Z-00001-000 |
9/11 conspiracy theory. 1. I am sorry I meant the second round also no I do not believe you did and what ones you answered I countered. Con has no evidence the government did this making your point no higher than mine. Also I don't believe so if it could be proved than they would die also remember the government isn't just mindless monsters they are people to they have emotions and morals do you think you could kill all of those people in cold blood for no reason but to make a point? 2. We knew terrorist attacks were possible Osama bin Laden had done it before just never on such a large scale we knew they could do it our government wouldn't need to kill 4,000 people to tell us something we all ready know. That is a completely different state of mind no American in their right mind believes that killing thousands of them will help the nation. 3. The true Americans did not take the plane down for anyone who has seen anything on United 93 knows when the plane went down they were fighting the hijackers for control of the cockpit the terrorists pointed the plane at the ground while the Americans were trying to break in they didn't have control yet also the point of me saying this was to explain what the last few minutes of these peoples lives were like and to show that you claim the government that is sworn to protect them knowing what they were doing did that I believe it is wrong C1. I meant in part two C2. a. you answered nothing why would they blame it on Osama bin Laden if they were after oil Osama was in Afghanistan which has no oil? C2. b. i. I guess Pro don't understand how to answer the question. C2. b. ii. How can you be racist against geography all I said is that their would be no point in taking the land because their is no resources I said nothing about the people. C2. c. /C3. Obviously Pro does not know how to respond and is trying to make me seem dumb so he will get the vote as you have seen I have made my point Pro just can't understand. | CON | 77dfbbf4-2019-04-18T18:21:06Z-00001-000 |
The school system is in need of reform. Big time. My opponent accepts the fact that bullying happens at school, and implies that students that are determined to learn and put their knowledge to use in the future will not be deterred by insults from bullies. My opponent suggests that bully can lead to socialization, from the line "boys must be boys, and bullying sometimes can and does happen, be that as it may, socialization is good for students to mingle amongst each other", which he states is good for teens and recommends that there be a period in which teens can mingle amongst each other to discuss what they've learned or other issues. I agree that determined students will not be discouraged from bullies and that socialization is a good thing, yet I disagree with the extra period for teens to mingle. I say this since I am a high school student and from personal experience, I have observed that when teens interact it is mostly about short term things. By short term I mean the latest stories, gossip, telling jokes, or playing games, etc. Rarely have I seen teens discuss what they've learned outside the classroom unless it involves a bad teacher, or homework assignments. When I hear my peers talk about homework, it mainly involves the question "Hey, what did you get for question x?" rather than how to do the question and when the students do ask how to do it, others will tell them how to do that 1 particular problem rather than the general formula for similar questions. I have also noticed that students do not open up to teachers much, as when the teacher asks a question only 1 or 2 will answer after a short pause, also that students go to the teacher for help as a sort of last resort. From what I have observed, students will ask their peers about questions they cannot answer, if the peer cannot answer said question, that is when students head to the teacher for advice, only if the assignment is not due the day the student asks his peers. That being said, I believe that the extra period for mingling would be a bad idea as teens may misuse it, however I would agree to short extensions on breaks up to about 5-10 minutes, I believe that anymore than that would be a hindrance to their education. Again, I would like to stress that this is what I have observed from my school, and I do not know how student to student and student to teacher interactions occur in other schools. | PRO | bdfbbe63-2019-04-18T16:41:16Z-00001-000 |
Accept this debate. Accept this too? xoxo =======>http://www.youtube.com...Pro instigated this debate supporting the acceptance of it and encouraging the opponent to freely accept. He did it so convincingly and brilliantly that Con him/herself accepted and specifically states: "Accepted." and even politely remarks "this is clearly an acceptance round" and that they can't wait for my reasoning.We see that Con concedes that not only have they accepted this debate but they are clearly in support and in anticipation for what can result from the acceptance of it. Con has not only conceded that accepting the debate was the best way to facilitate it to occur but has furthermore displayed positive feelings towards what accepting inevitably will cause to occur.If Con has, through action and words alike, shown agreement to the notion of accepting this debate and conceded that they intended to show it then it leaves us with one major question: What could Con possibly argue?They cannot argue and have 0 debates as proof of this. They are very confused and are a rather inexperienced debater and we should forgive them for the errors of their ways. I have more and accepted many. The definition of reject [http://tinyurl.com...] can be any of the following:1) Dismiss as inadequate, unacceptable, or faulty2) Refuse to agree to (a request)3) Fail to show due affection or concern for (someone)Let's look at 'accept:1) Consent to receive or undertake (something offered)2) Give an affirmative answer to (an offer or proposal); say yes to3) Receive as adequate, valid, or suitableBy accepting alone, they have shown non-rejection and pro-acceptance.Con can say they disagree with this debate but it would be disproven by the fact that the only way they could be arguing that is if they accepted this debate to begin with which they verbally admit to doing in Round 1. | PRO | 9bec3da9-2019-04-18T14:24:28Z-00000-000 |
Evolution. DEFINITION:Evolution Definitions:a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better Case 1: Proving EvolutionFirst, I would like to prove how evolution is real. In a shocking discovery, we share 98.6% of our DNA with an ape. (1) if you click into link, you can barely tell the ape and human chromosome apart! Yet, when you compare it to a mouse's chromosomes, you can clearly see the difference. This proves that the ape and humans are greatly related. This proves evolution. Still not satisfied? Well, we should prove evolution using man's best friend. It is proven we share 5% of our genome sequence with dogs and mouse. (2) this again proves evolution. Even dogs and mice have a scientific similarity! Here you can see the images of the human, mouse, and ape chromosomes. As you can see, this points towards evolution, as you can barely see the difference between the human and ape chromosome, but you can clearly see the difference between the mouse and the human. Here you can see the similarities of our brain. However, you will see our brain is considerably larger. This gives us the power to communicate and give us a sense of right and wrong. Here you may see how the skulls start out with a little similarities, but then has a bigger and bigger resemblance Here you can see the beginnings and current human skulls. When you look at the first one, you see it is very different. It then gradually evolves into the human skull we know today.1.http://www.amnh.org...2.http://news.nationalgeographic.com... | PRO | 1e713927-2019-04-18T15:58:04Z-00005-000 |
Terrorism. We need to be cautious in falling into the ‘terror discourse’. Since 9/11 the cases of hijacking have not risen substantially. The discourse is a key concern among Western states. Terror is a risk, however Western states have implemented open-sky agreements – such as between the US-EU despite such threats. So why should the risk of terror stop Africa implementing open-skies when the Global North has done so? It returns to the relations of power in the global-political economy. The global-political system is key in constructing a discourse of fear and using this to influence how we act, invest, and work. We need to deconstruct the terror discourse first, to understand what really are the risks and whether liberalising air networks will really make a difference either way. Once the specific risks have been analysed those that are concerns can be addressed including any concerns about terrorism. | CON | 89b9f0c2-2019-04-15T20:24:45Z-00015-000 |
There are only 2 sexes, Male and Female. According to the Oxford Dictionary, I think we can both agree that this is a credible source, Sex is defined as: Sex: 2. Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions. Many people often misuse the terms Gender and Sex as if they are the same word, some confuse it to be opposite of what it actually is Gender is how you identify yourself and how you portray yourself. Sex is purely about your original role in reproduction. I am excluding exceptions to this such as eunuchs, etc. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... | PRO | 1cfdb7cf-2019-04-18T14:15:20Z-00003-000 |
Extend voting rights to minors and non-citizens. An argument for changing the current system of transition from resident to citizen might be made. But for 'guests to vote? No still I say. Might a person who has stayed in a land for 33 years consider it their land and country? Might feel they have skin in the game from 20 years of taxes and business? Perhaps. And the word there is perhaps. It'd be nice if people who deserved to become citizens became citizens. Nice if we changed our laws or situations a bit. A bit. But to allow 'guests a vote? To allow them all the rights of birthright and effort that becomes a citizen? No. Better they become a citizen or not at all. America for the Americans I say. Any country for their own country really. We don't deny others their rights. But hold sacred our own. Minors? Eh, Already addressed my wisdom concern, Now for human rights. 'Anyone who can work you say? People far younger than 16 'can work. But we labor laws were made for such a reason. That minors were oft enough taken advantage of. 'Most minors aren't workers, They're still in that springtime of youth. Does that mean they don't have lemonade stands or paper routes? No, But those are hardly worth mention. Are some, As you say who are 16 and have a bit more regular jobs worth mention? Sure. Skin in the game? Sure. But I'll speak again of wisdom. Can an 16 year old have wisdom or a 60 year old foolishness? Sure. But those are particulars I say. Blanket policies 'may have flaws, But they exist for reasons. By reason of fair and equal treatment to all. By reason to avoid bureaucracy and multitude of laws that overwhelm and destroy their own purpose. It is not the extension of voting to minors and non-citizens that you argue for I say. But rather the extension of voting rights to the deserving. If one is deserving, They ought be a citizen. If a minor is deserving, They ought recognize the need to wait two years. | CON | 721aa3db-2019-04-18T11:07:53Z-00000-000 |
Perfectionism is Bad. If you choose when you shoot for perfection, that's not perfectionism. Perfectionism is the impulse to constantly adjust until you reach a standard of perfect. If you're never perfect, then we have a problem with things being perfect always, then you have a problem, and this was admitted by my opponent. But not being impulsively perfect isn't perfectionism. Being persistently in attempts to be perfect is perfectionism. If you moderately look for perfection, then you are not perfectionism. And my opponent is stating that if you aren't always perfect or something is too important to waste time trying to make it perfect then that is okay. Everyone wants to be perfect at some things. Trying to be perfect all the time at everything is perfectionism. If a so called "perfectionist" makes a handful of exceptions, then they aren't perfectionists. | PRO | a0c72ed7-2019-04-18T16:11:07Z-00000-000 |
Should Abortion Be Outlawed. "I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.... I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life.... I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty...is not a human being. This is human life at every stage."[1] "after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being." "is no longer a matter of taste or opinion," "Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."[2] [1] Dr. Alfred M. Bongiovanni, testimony to the Judiciary Subcommittee [2] Dr. Jerome Lejeune, testimony to the Judiciary Subcommittee I can cite numerous more articles and doctors speaking about the beginning of life. Almost every source I've come across confirms the fact that life begins at conception, and a new human is created. At that moment a set of genes is created unique to ANY other before that. Though I see the logic in your argument that the fetus is not conscious, and "brain-dead", it has the probable potential to gain consciousness. My analogy is someone in a coma, I realize they do have brain activity, but they are not conscious, but we know that it is possible for them to wake up. With a fetus, we know that the baby, except for the case of miscarriage, will sustain brain activity. There is a type of energy called potential energy, is there not. It is still energy. A fetus is potential life. By that logic I can make the assumption that the baby does possess life, but awaits for the full development of his physical body, or in translation, the rope to be cut that is holding the mass creating the potential energy. I'm sure 95% of the mothers that had an abortion would change there mind if they could see their baby's potential to grow up to be something wonderful. | PRO | 5e362a1a-2019-04-18T12:25:03Z-00000-000 |
Divorcees should be allowed to vote against Gay Marriage Issues. < > Not if they're sentenced to death or life in prison. Divorce is a sin that sends both parties to hell, as I understand it. Not being able to vote should be a life-long status after divorce. You should only be married once, as is the intent in all religious doctrines. Multiple marriages is multiple spits on the face of God. In fact, it may be urinating on God at that point. As for unwilling divorcees, they could've saved themselves a one-way ticket to hell had they waited to get married instead of rushing such a serious matter. They used poor judgment and agreed to marry the wrong person. A sin is a sin and hell is hell. | CON | cd2ee3c8-2019-04-18T19:35:55Z-00001-000 |
Work is for slaves and overachievers. You are sitting under the umbrella that the government paid for, The drinks that food stamps bought you. I'm not saying that I wouldn't rather do any of those things. I am saying that sometimes you have to do things you don't want to to live a nice life. And you can have hobbies and different things outside of work, I don't understand that point. I would MUCH rather do all those things, But you talk about teenagers having an education and not wasting their time with different things, How is the government supposed to pay for the teenage labor camps that you suggest when they have to pay for people like you who think that everything should be given to them? | CON | fdc617b-2019-04-18T11:19:33Z-00002-000 |
The Proof of the non-existence of God. Pro said: "But I digress, too much teaching not enough Sophist fighting" Rebuttal: You hardly taught a single measure of understandable material. You have yet to bring forth proof to disprove God. This "thing", that you've presented as evidence, is not revealing the absence of deity. I illuminates your insecurity. It's clear that you'd prefer God not to exist. The burden of proof is still on you. What you've established in your rhetoric, is a formula for possibilities. Vague possibilities. That's not proof. Your summary (the logical portions) are best described as:"God possibly doesn't exist." For the record, I think Pro is quite mad, and I deeply regret having to engage him on this topic. I thought he'd be a little more grounded. By the way, nobody will ever quote your material. Pre-algebra is not a stroke of genius. If you really want to claim intellectual property on those three letters and their "sophisticated" arrangement, feel free. In the next round, bring proof or forfeit. | CON | da5d1bfe-2019-04-18T18:31:23Z-00006-000 |
Metalcore Battle. I'm more metal than Anton Lavey shooing through Columbine with Kurt Cobain's shotgun I PUT KITTENS IN BLENDERS AND EAT THE MOIST REMAINS UPON TORTILLA CHIPSSS Bottling my sperm in mason jars for future consumption THEY CALL ME SPOOGEJARRR TRIPP PANTSSS Raping your Bikini Bottom with a pineapple NOW YOU'VE GOT CRABBBSSS Contrary to what you have said my suicide is not my demise FOR DEATH IS MORE METAL THAN LIFE AND THROUGH IT I GAIN VICTORY I go to the glory hole disguised as a womaannnnn FOR SODOMY IS THE DESTRUCTION OF LIFE- NO PROCREATION MAKES ME METALLL Getting mass bukakes from Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammed WHILE JOSEPH SMITH FILMS AND MASTURBATEESSS THE WORD OF GOD COAGULATES IN MY SPOON RELIGION DRUG IS INJECTING SOON ABORT ME FIRST BEFORE REBIRTH LIVING FOR GOD IS HELL ON EARTH | CON | 1bf17f5f-2019-04-18T16:04:23Z-00002-000 |
Stephen Gough - Chastised or Glorified. I will debate this issue with you. He was arrested several times for his actions, and no person is above the law, so he should be restrained from doing this. The pro side will need to provide reasons that either this man should have special privilege when it comes to public nudity law or that public nudity laws need to be changed to prove his point. To be fair to the Pro side, I won't expand any further this round so that we've both declared our positions and are on equal footing. Good luck Pro! | CON | a6df9857-2019-04-18T14:44:15Z-00002-000 |
Production of Edible Medicine and Vaccines. This is perhaps the most innovative application of GMO. This process involves the modification of animal and plant genes in order to yield edible output with preventive molecules, for example milk, eggs and fruit. Edible vaccines, produced in milk or fruit could ease manufacturing and distribution costs by making it globally accessible to people. Vaccination through injection has many disadvantages, including the need for medically trained staff, high costs, not to mention constant cooling during transportation and storage. Use of needles also increases the risk of infections. In these cases, an edible vaccine comes in handy. In recent years, there have been examples of transgenic plants developed by researchers to help developing countries. Transgenic potatoes which contain cholera toxins have been developed to immunize against diseases. In 2004, the Pharma-Planta Programme was granted 12 million euros to develop genetically modified plants to help grow vaccines against tuberculosis and rabies. | PRO | 5f962438-2019-04-19T12:47:34Z-00007-000 |
Wimbledon stands out as discriminatory given that two other ‘Grand Slam’ tournaments (the US and Aus... It is the tournaments that offer equal prize money that stand out, not those that differentiate. Wimbledon and the French Open both have larger men’s prizes. Only very recently have half of the Grand Slams paid equal money, and in the wider tennis world an imbalance is still normal. In other sports, such as weightlifting, very few joint events pay equal prize money. | CON | 7588f404-2019-04-19T12:44:51Z-00011-000 |
Animals deserve the same basic rights that humans enjoy. Marymoose. "The case against animal testing". Helium - "Animal testing generally occurs as a result of developing a cost-benefit model. Basically, if the benefit of the research (to humans) looks high, then it is seen as being worth the costs (to animals). For instance it is seen that if animal research is likely to save the lives of many humans that it is worthwhile. However, it can be argued that all sentient beings have the same rights, and that costs to animals are as important as costs to humans. There is no moral basis for elevating the interests of one species over another this is specieism." | PRO | e3d235e2-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00102-000 |
the bible may not be against homosexuality. Homosexuality is obviously condemned in the Bible. It doesn't coincide God's created order when He made Adam and Eve, a man and a woman, to carry out His command to fill and subdue the earth (Genesis 1:28). Homosexuality cannot carry out that order. Also, homosexuality undermines the basic family unit of husband and wife which is the God-ordained means of procreation. I can't find anything on what you said about Jonathon and David, Naomi and Ruth, or Daniel and Ashphenaz having a homosexual relationship therefor the bible does not condone homosexuality. But it is against it. Natural function is the word that "natural using" means therefore what is against natural using is against what God who created nature to be which is to be split by male and female. The species you say can change sex weren't created that way in the beginning by God in the same way homosexuality wasn't created in the beginning by God as the bible makes clear. https://www.tms.edu... here is a site that both condemns and condones the use of the word ARSENOKOITAI meaning homosexual. It is the readers choice ultimately. I stand by my belief that homosexuality is against what God created in the bible therefore the bible is against homosexuality. I want to here more about the characters you say committed acts of homosexuality in the bible. Since circular reasoning isn't getting us anywhere lets talk about if the bible condones homosexuality. | CON | 31763c32-2019-04-18T14:04:35Z-00002-000 |
Are blunts better than joint papers. Smoking more weed may not necessary get you more high, if you're a regular user with high tolerance. I've myself experience the "Stoned Wall" where you just smoke and smoke and it just makes you dumb and sleepy, none of the nice affects of highness like giggles and creative thought. Also, getting more high is not necessarily the best experience. A moderate high is how my friends and I have always enjoyed ourselves best. A habit of moderate use will get you higher per toke, that is, it take less weed (and less money, risk, and hassle) to get high if you don't smoke a cigar-sized joint three times a day. Flavoured papers are pretty bad for your health, so that's not necessarily good. But there exist a preponderance of them for weed users, available at all head shops. | CON | d1d7bd91-2019-04-18T16:40:22Z-00000-000 |
Abortion should be legal. Remember that Con said "Remember that I gave three evidences in order to prove that the unborn is a human being. All these three evidences goes completely unanswered and unrefuted by Pro. Thus, I extend them all." I did not refute your past evidences for two reasons -- they were not reputable enough, and they were answered by way of bracketed refutation. The definition of unborn (the bracketed refutation) provided all that needed to be provided to prove you wrong, thus my assertion that your best and most equitable option is to surrender, which you countered by claiming I should do what you should do. Yes, as I have implied by way of my comment that you should surrender, providing the definition of "unborn" does, in fact, prove that the unborn isn't a human being in compliance with philosophy, and in compliance with fact. Not only does the definition prove the fact, but the philosophy contained within the definition thereof does as well. The moment the individual exits the woman's genital, they are human -- not before. To say so is to conquer absurdity. "It is a human being and is alive inside its mother's womb, but it just hasn't been born yet." Exactly. You have now proven yourself wrong. A fetus is not a human until it exits its hosts genital. Not before. It could be anything in the womb. It could be an alien. As absurd as that may sound, and as factually inaccurate as that may be deemed, it is still not as absurd as what you claim. | PRO | 6702411f-2019-04-18T18:02:03Z-00001-000 |
The Christian God VS Everyone else: Morality, Logic & Reason and Epistemology. cont... What I was trying to say about Fuzzy logic is that every thought or proposition can be reduced to a binary statement if we make the definitions more specific. For example. "It's cold." We can make that statement absolute if we define "cold" as 65 degrees Fahrenheit and below. You no longer need fuzzy logic. Also note that we are talking about the laws of logic as the very axiom of our thoughts. We are not talking about engineering and what not. We are talking about epistemology and how we can gain knowledge of reality. This is a discussion about worldviews. An electric fan with 5 fan speed settings is irrelevant. In your worldview where logic and morality is produced by man. An alien race with a different system of logic and morality can simply start killing us, raping us, etc and we really have no reason to say that they are doing something wrong. When we don't even really have a reason why we say it's wrong. We also can't all of sudden adopt a system of logic where, it's not the case that a bunch of aliens are killing and raping everyone.
Epistemology I would falsify other religion's position the same way Im falsifying your worldview, and the same why I told you how to falsify mine, by using it to refute itself. Anything that does not reflect reality can be falsified. By the end of the day only one reality exists and Im here to argue that it's the Christian one. God really exists. You really are a sinner. You really do need a savior. Jesus really died for your sins and resurrected. It's hypothetically easy to refute my worldview if my worldview is indeed wrong. But Im claiming it will be impossible since it's right.
You can demonstrate or falsify the statement "The remake of True Grit is a superior movie" by defining what "superior movie" is. Likewise since I am very specific with my claim of God's existence by telling you which God I am claiming exists, it is falsifiable.
You're still not addressing the fact that if logic is produced by man, then you're epistemology is circular and is actually impossible. | PRO | 3c07d224-2019-04-18T18:57:23Z-00003-000 |
Superdelegates represent party-leadership at national convention. One of the concerns that led to the creation of the superdelegate system was that the party leadership was not effectively represented at the national convention. But, the convention is where the party agenda is traditionally debated and re-established in every election cycle, so the presence of the party leadership is crucial. If superdelegates did not exist, the party leadership would not be adequately involved in the shaping of the party agenda, at great cost to the future of the Democratic party. | PRO | 51355556-2019-04-17T11:47:44Z-00078-000 |
F#CK OFF with your juvenile liberties America. All I ever hear coming out of a sepo's gob is who yanked the chain fluffy? Get with the program, you circle wankers at least try to clean up your own backyard. Don Mclean sang this song how many years ago and has anything changed? NO. Try and prove me wrong and I will but have the biggest laugh that I have had all week. The proof is who you voted in to be your president. We had our turn with our own but he wasn't there long. We Kangawallabies all thank the man with the head for the job, that had no comment. | PRO | 11dd276-2019-04-18T11:31:17Z-00002-000 |
Write a story. Staring down the bullet, Ted drew his compact revolver, and fired at Buon, knocking the gun out of his hand. He quickly fired a round into the man's left leg. Ted quickly ran over, picked up Buon's sawed off shotgun, as well as his Glock 18, grabbed his bag, and ran out of the safehouse. While Buon had been shot before, he had no idea that Ted had his revolvers loaded with .38 Devastator rounds (rounds that explode when they hit something solid, like a bone.), and thus he was seriously wounded. While Buon struggled to remain conscious from blood loss and pain, Ted was running down the street. He was running to Pine, which was about 15 miles away. 15 miles of untamed woods, 15 miles of danger. Once he got to Pine, however, he would be safe for a good year, as he could stay with his friend, "The Serpent". The two were at one point partners. But after a shotgun to Ted's leg killed his career, he retired and moved to a house in Topeka. But now, he was back where it had all started. A member of a biker gamg tried to steal Ted's bag of guns, which now contained the two revolvers, the sawed off shotgun, the Glock 18, and an AK pistol Ted found under the bed of the Payson safehouse. Ted grabbed the revolver that he had used to injure Buon, and fired it at the biker's leg. Ted quickly grabbed the motorcycle and rode to Pine. When he was a 1/9 mile from town, he ditched the bike and took the Rossi Ranchhand inthe side saddle. Ted quickly went to The Serpent's house. When he knocked on the door, The Serpent after a brief reunion, let Ted get the couch. The Serpent decided to add to the already large bag of guns with an AR-15 he had stolen from a cop two years ago. The Serpent and Ted made a blood pact to never tell anyone where the other was, as The Serpent himself was in trouble with the New Mexican law. Ted slept like the dead for 28 hours after. Your Turn. HoneyBadger | CON | 48558721-2019-04-18T17:06:03Z-00003-000 |
This quantum vaccum would state: Math is false. i am one is true, and my body is nature. 1 is defined by everything or something, and 0 is defined by nothing you add the number 1 to a stone and use it in an equation, and now the math will fit based on what we observe in reality, not 2 stones, then I would have to imagine having an extra stone in my hand numbers as they exist are false, but as math is based on reality the answer of math becomes absolute you can never show me 0 bananas, you can show me 1 banana, I know this | CON | 7aa3ee74-2019-04-18T15:33:23Z-00002-000 |
100% Separation of Church and State. Religion should be 100% separated from government. Here is my rationale: 1. There are thousands of religions each with various belief system. The differences in religion start wars, create hate and numerous other crimes against humanity. Since there isn't one religion that all people can believe in, or that wouldn't polarize the country it should not be part of government. Having the words 'In God we Trust' on our currency is offensive to many people in this country. Our currency would work just as well without those words and wouldn't offend anyone. 2. Religious institutions do not pay taxes therefore have no right to any voice in government. 3. Our founding fathers, Jefferson, Madison, Washington, etc...none of them were overly pious. They left a country (England) filled with Religious persecution and wanted their new country to avoid the same mistakes. They purposefully left religion out of government because they knew first hand how poisonous and polarizing it would become. They knew the thirteen colonies would be incapable of agreeing on anything religious in the constitution so they though it best that all things Church and State were kept separate. There is a great book "the moral minority" which backs this up with letters from the founding fathers. 4. It's dangerous to govern by religion because it's a bunch of hogwash. It's make believe like Peter Pan and Winnie the Pooh. We should govern by science and facts. For example, a religious person might say, God will save us from global warming. A rational person might say, we need to do something about global warning. A religious person might say, God told me to invade Iraq. A rational person might say, if we invade Iraq we'll get start a war we can't win and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people, kill and maim thousands of our troops, spend 200 billion dollars which could have been spent on much needed domestic issues such as health care. | PRO | 5313e2de-2019-04-18T19:58:32Z-00003-000 |
Wide university education produces a literate, multi-skilled and widely knowledgeable nation. Quite apart from the fact that the nation also needs to learn more practical skills (which one cannot learn through most university educations), there are many ways in which one can become culturally aware, widely read and more 'artistic' without the long years and large debt of a university education. The British media has improved so much and become so diverse that there are many high quality documentaries that have brought a wider education to those with interest outside university. Libraries, evening classes, and the internet can provide all the education one could want to those with a specific interest but with no real urge for a degree or career in that field. If self-education were promoted more in this manner, and university was kept separate for those who wanted to learn for career advancement rather than education for education's sake, then thousands of young people would be more financially and vocationally secure. | CON | ed52489a-2019-04-19T12:45:22Z-00027-000 |
Democracy. If you don't see how difficult it is to make a good government for the people? If it is a monarchy or dictatorship then it's all about the ruler. If our country is doing so bad how can we find the money to fight all of these wars and terrorist groups? In North Korea, 40% that's almost half of the population starves because not only does the country's land is almost infertile but the leader dammed up the river to get power (electricity) for his country and he still has his country in a shell. Not allowing any trade with other countries. | PRO | 55f43137-2019-04-18T15:32:04Z-00002-000 |
teaching creationism in schools. Unless you have a different definition that you would rather use I believe these should suffice: Teaching: The act of a government certified teacher passing selective knowledge on to a class. Creationism: The belief that God created the world and everything in it. Schools: Government funded education establishments. I assume you are referring to public schools exclusively, because many private schools already teach creationism. I look forward to your arguments in the next round. Good luck! | CON | ca72c25b-2019-04-18T17:36:59Z-00004-000 |
For Religious people there is no Religious argument against homosexuality. I will keep a brief summary of Pros previous comments and my own for fairness. Pro has conceded the debate but admitting that if I accept all sin as worthy of death then I have negated the resolution. "But you have also stated that by simply accepting Christ you would have your sins washed away to me this sounds like you can do most of what you want repent and accept god and it would not matter you can still go to heaven. "Your sins will be washed away but this by no means you can do anything you want. First off, once you have accepted Christ you will naturally want to follow His teachings, we will fail many times, but we will have that desire always. Secondly, there is difference in wanting to live Biblically and failing too, that was what Christ was for, and a whole different story to just keep living sinfully without a burden and call for repentance. I think Pro for a good debate. | CON | b584ce6b-2019-04-18T17:28:06Z-00000-000 |
I won't break a rule!. FINAL. ROUND. Is rules=rule? Yes, rules is a plural form of rule. Just as run = ran, dog = dogs, and cat = cats. We'll let the voters decide though. My opponent failes to realize that the six words things doesn't work, since you're speaking in base 10,000. Is the new rule contradicting to the old rule? Contradictory means "asserting the contrary or opposite; contradicting; inconsistent; logically opposite" as said by . http://dictionary.reference.com.... However, the flashlight rule does not nessesarily assert the opposite, it merely limits down the rules to make sure it works, but only in one condition. It's like saying "You can go to your cousin's house, but you have to do your homework first". Doing your homework is not necessarily the opposite of going to the cousin's house; it is a requirement for going to your cousin's house. Even if my opponent proved that my new rule is contradictory, my base 10,000 system makes it impossible for his rule to take effect, since I used far less than 6,000 words in any round. Your accusation is wrong, I have never said such a word.20. My opponent may make no further rules regarding round 421. My opponent has to say "I concede" somewhere in the final round22. If my opponent commits any logical fallacy in the final round that is spotted by the voters, he will forfeit all 7 points to meFINAL WORDS This debate was fun. It worked out quite well because if my opponent breaks a rule, he loses the debate, and if I don't break any rules, he loses the resolution. I attacked him quite well, and counter-attacked with my brave 10,000-base-system that made his word-limit rules useless, and he was too occupied trying to spot any errors within my argument or if I had broken any rules. Since I haven't broke any rules, I WIN. | PRO | 431826db-2019-04-18T15:56:27Z-00001-000 |
should phones be aloud in schools. students are going to use their phones no matter what. So why cut down on the constant disciplining and wasting time and, just let them be used they can be used a dictionary's, to take notes, and to keep a student organized. As for them being distractions I agree but, with a teacher monitoring than be a very useful to in a students education. | PRO | df3d78f-2019-04-18T16:46:05Z-00001-000 |
This house believes that forgiving is better than revenge. Revenge is what makes the war go on forever. If one want revenge and attacks the other. Them, naturally the other would want to fight back. It'll go back and forth forever. If someone eventually forgives and and forgets than the war would end. You sacrifice so many things in a fight. The opponent might eventually take something you really care about, and the escalate the war. It's better to forgive than to get revenge. | CON | 8f76f0ba-2019-04-18T12:49:03Z-00001-000 |
(Pro) Atheistic evolution vs Christian creationism (con). R2 ArgumentsEvolution is scientific because it meets the following three criteria. Evolution can be falsified, tested, and observed. ""With respect to the fossil record, evolutionary hypotheses are routinely tested as new fossil data are collected and matching that data against hypotheses about evolutionary relationships." [3]"But decades ago, theorists also proposed that a new species could evolve without any such changes, but instead simply as a result of large DNA strands' moving from one chromosome to another within a genome, a change known as a chromosomal rearrangement.While the theory sounded promising, since such rearrangements can be quite common, it eventually waned in popularity, in part because scientists had no way of testing it.Now in a slick feat of molecular maneuvering, a team of researchers has reorganized huge portions of one yeast species' chromosomes, rendering its chromosomal map identical to that of a closely related species, just as it was once, in the distant past. " [3]" "evolution can be observed via natural selection. [4] Evolution can also be observed in the lab. The most notable is drug resistant pathogens becoming dominant via natural selection.[5] ""Consequently any of the following would destroy the theory: If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits. If it could be shown that mutations do not occur. If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations. If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection. If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals. If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species. " [6]Therefore, I have proven that the theory of evolution passes three test of being scientific, can be falsified, observed, and tested. The same cannot be said of Creationism. We cannot observe nor test Creationism."""20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he [is] his money." [7]"“Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;” " [8]"" Jesus Christ cannot be God because he cannot be the source of all moral authority due to condoning slavery and beating of slaves. Therefore, I conclude that Christian Creationism is disproved. Thank you for your time and energy reading this debate. Sources3. http://www2.ljworld.com...4. http://atheism.about.com...5. http://listverse.com...6. http://rationalwiki.org...7. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...8. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org... | PRO | ef566a9d-2019-04-18T12:32:45Z-00002-000 |
Dr. John Money should have been arrested for crimes against David and Brian Reimer. Thank you Con, I look forward to a good debate. Also please note I may forfeit the next round due to a bad Internet connection. List of crimes ( as alleged by the brothers and as results of his crimes) WARNING-Potentially Explicit! Murder of David Reimer (psychological damage from other crimes prompted suicide) Murder of Brian Reimer (Overdose- psychological damage) Molestation of both brothers Possession of child pornography (alleged by the brothers, same with above) Story of the Brothers On August 22, 1965, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, Brian and Bruce (later Brenda/David) were born. Then, at six months, urination problems were revealed. In a bid to correct the problem, Circumcision was performed on Bruce (Brian was not operated on), but irreparable damage to the penis was done, prompting the family to see John Money, a doctor who worked with sex changes and intersex individuals. Money suggested that Bruce became Brenda. The family agreed, and at the age of 22 months, Bruce died, and became Brenda. The doctor then, according to accounts of the family, (evidence was never found to prove this, as all those involved have since died) the doctor did "genital inspections" on the twins. These included "child sexual play" with Brenda playing the bottom role. The doctor was even said to have photographed this on at least one occasion. These then occurred once a year until the age of 11-15 ( I have not found the exact age), after which Brenda threatened suicide if she had to visit the doctor again. Brian later developed schizophrenia, which has been known to occur as a result of a traumatic event (http://www.nhs.uk...). The family then confessed that Brenda was a male. Brenda then underwent an operation to revert back to a male, naming himself David. Aftermath of the Brothers In 2002, Brian committed suicide by overdosing on antidepressants. David was devastated. He tended the grave until his own suicide by being shot in the head with a sawed-off shotgun in 2004. These two died due to severe mental problems caused by PTSD caused by Doctor Money. Aftermath of Doctor Money Doctor Money died of Parkinson's Disease in 2006. Sources- http://www.nhs.uk... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.findagrave.com... http://www.findagrave.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... Note- My apologies for my overuse of Wikipedia, as it was not the best of sources. It, however, was all I could glean on the subject that would give the full story. With that, I pass it on to Con. | PRO | 702b5f47-2019-04-18T14:37:52Z-00003-000 |
A killing in the act of war is murder. In order to classify killing as murder it needs to violate certain rules of law. While the US may excuse war as an exception to its own law. The people being killed may not view the invading US soldiers as exempt to their own laws. Heck the country being invaded may not even agree on the declaration of war by the US. To illustrate. If an armed assailant breaks into your home what might you do? In the US you have the right to defend your home and you might attempt to do so. But, what happens if the armed assailant prevails over you and kills you? That person could be convicted of 1st or 2nd degree murder. 2nd degree at least since they did come armed and this could constitute an intent to kill. Now the assailant could say he came in to protect your family, but how would your grieving family respond? They would pursue a conviction of murder on the assailant and the maximum punishment. The US may declare war and invade another country under the guise of protection, but how do those in the other country feel? US law may permit it the killing as legal under an act of war, but to the people in the other country their laws should still apply and what they see is an uninvited armed assailant breaking into their home and killing the people potentially trying to protect them. Often times US soldiers kill the people they are supposed to be protecting or liberating. How does that look to those people. Think of the perspectives of both people. The only way you can justify the killing is if you refuse to listen to the voices of the people under attack. In the broader perspective of morality, might does not equal right; killing in war is murder and you can't simply declare otherwise and expect everyone to accept your sense of morality just because you carry the bigger stick, or even win the war. | PRO | 21cad8a3-2019-04-18T11:30:56Z-00002-000 |
Mankind is slowly working its way toward Utopia. I have to admit that we have come to a point where we can agree on some things and that some truths are already in place, and as we both know now, many things will have to change, the part about what I said that we would have to transcend from a finite state to infinite (as we would need to fully learn new ways that the human body is unable to process naturally) as we both know, a human only uses around 10 to 15% of the brain capacity at any given time, if it does go above that it's definitely not above 20%. That is why I said that we would need to transcend the limitations of the Human Body which we are bound by, I will always stand by that. On that let's learn to Agree to disagree that some things are out of our control. As in wise of robots taking over from us, I will never cross that line, as I feel technology will mean the end of the Human Race as we know it today, and that compromises must be made that AI should never take over from man and that robots stick to what we alre, as you know with films like I Robot and Terminator, you can not rule out the possibility AI will turn against us, and as I have noticed with automation on too many occasions, that automation fails very frequently, and if automation is failing now, this gives the possibility of robots doing the same in the future, hence, why I say in our current state like you said utopia is around the corner, it can never be until we learn to use 100% of the brain, meaning no matter how hard you try, utopia will forever be around the corner (An Impossible Dream), now maybe you can understand why I said we would need to transcend from finite to infinite possibilities . Maybe in the distant future man will finally be able to use 100% of their brain, that is IF what is being said about a Red Dwarf hurtling towards Planet Earth is true, Then our finite existence will come to a grinding halt anyway, so, either way, you look at it the possibilty of man reaching utopia is an improbability, the way I see things man could end up killing itself before any red dwarf, meteorite or comet will hit planet earth. Online I did notice somewhere saying is MAN the greatest virus on Planet Earth. Oh, Just found out what I said before Oh is on this site under the Heading "Are Humans The Super Virus That Will Destroy Earth?". I will rest my case there. | CON | 3a358a7-2019-04-18T11:55:28Z-00004-000 |
We should drug test all people on the benefit. Presumably you are talking about welfare and those peoples on it. Keep in mind I am playing Devil's Advocate, just something I enjoy doing. What is the point of this? It's just a pure waste of time. These people are trying to better themselves with money from the government, to be able to make a living in this disgusting capitalistic country and you are going to do them a disservice by tri-monthly making the government spend more money on testing these people? Why would they buy drugs with the money given to them? No one wants to stay in poverty forever and by buying drugs that is what these people would be doing. They would feel untrustworthy if we came in and made them test, ruining their ego and respect for themselves. | CON | 1e525626-2019-04-18T12:30:58Z-00002-000 |
Yugo is the worst modern car ever sold in america !!!. I thank you for making this debate. Rebuttal ----- I do not like direct quotes but the Yugo is not the worst car ever sold in America. You will see worse cars in my argument Argument----- Worst definition: bad or ill in the highest, greatest, or most extreme degree So bad is a very vague term. So cars can be bad looking. Badly operating, have bad reliability, and bad in pretty much every aspect of a car. Here are some cars that have "bad" aspects. Ford Pinto- Tended to explode when in a rear-end collision. At least the Yugo did not explode .Pinto is a "bad" name. The car also lacks "good" style. 1957 Waterman Aerobile- A car with wings. That should be all I have to say about this car but I will continue in my explaining. A high-wing monoplane with tricycle wheels. The wings weighed the car down and it did a "bad" job at flying. Turning was worse then a Yugo. Speed was worse then a Yugo. Acceleration was worse then a Yugo. An needless to say it was worse looking then a Yugo. Also unreliable, even less reliable then the Yugo(when it comes to flying) and probably driving. Also if you were to crash in the "contraption" you would surely die. And yes this car was sold in America. Plymouth Prowler- One of the ugliest cars I have ever seen in my life. Its just that simple it is "bad" looking. Much uglier then the Yugo. The list could go on.... References Discover here http://dsc.discovery.com... http://www.time.com... | CON | 53a77b8d-2019-04-18T19:03:51Z-00004-000 |
Palestine Should be Free, the Israeli Foundation and Occupation are Unjust. We're almost at a stalemate, not dissimilar to Israel & Palestine. The Palestinians think that the Jews have no right to the land making their presence unjust. The Jews think they do have a right to the making their presence just. In both their eyes, they both believe that they are valid and just. While my opponent feels I haven't disproved the resolution, he hasn't proven it. Our personal opinions and preferences are irrelevant. | CON | 6cca92f3-2019-04-18T19:16:36Z-00002-000 |
In addition to our fifth argument: Decriminalising drugs will make them safer. Once again, it was not possible to enter text as a response to the previous argument. We suspect that it might have something to do with the length of the links and would like to ask the organisers of WODC to deal with this technical issue. To the previous argument: (1) We do not really believe that legalising one activity of these cartels (producing/selling drugs) will somehow help to deal with the other activities they are engaged in (blackmail, kidnapping etc.). The government has not really provided any reason why governmental control over one part of the business will result in control over others. We would like to point out, quite on the contrary, most legal gambling companies in Eastern Europe are controlled by criminal gangs. However, that does not mean that there has been a decrease in their other, illegal activities. (2) We believe that the proposition has misunderstood our response about Netherlands. They believe we have told that there is no correlation between the legal status of drugs and the usage of them. We would like to point out we didn’t. In one counterargument we stated that the proposition should interpret statistical data more carefully, since just showing us statistics on the usage of drugs for the US and the Netherlands won’t do anything good. We told that the higher rate of drug use in the US could be because of other reasons, not the illegal status of drugs. Thus they should present different kind of statistics if they want to support this argument. For example the rates of the usage of drugs in the Netherlands before the legalization of drugs and after it. Also it is worth noting here that not all drugs are legal in the Netherlands. On April 25, 2008 Dutch government has passed the bill banning hallucinogenic “magic mushrooms” after several incidents of deaths under the influence. [[Dutch Cabinet bans sale of hallucinogenic mushrooms in new retreat from liberal policies, Herald Tribune, October 12, 2007]] From 1 December 2008 these drugs are banned, leaving only cannabis to be legal. Since we debate about all drugs, the Netherlands example doesn’t work at all. (3) Even if this plan would eliminate most of the black market, we still believe that the harm of drugs is too big to pass this motion. More on the harms in our final argument. To this argument: Please see our final argument for a direct response. We believe that, even in a legal, perfectly controlled market, huge problems will arise. | CON | 9ba29485-2019-04-19T12:44:59Z-00031-000 |
Song-Writing Contest. You can post a song on here; I will be checking lyrics, so please don't plagiarize. Here is mine. War All these tears Are from All these years Of Trying to be headstrong All that time Never Really knowing Why People act that way at all When it stops, it starts again The war war won't stop until we end it When there's a battle raging all around Pick up your sword And strike it down There's a war Let's win the war There's a war Let's win the war When the dark Seems to Hide the light I will Find a way to shine I will show That I'm not scared And I'm willing to fight When it stops it starts again The war won't stop until we end it When there's battle raging all around Pick up your sword and strike it down There's a war Let's win the war There's a war Let's win the war When it stops It starts again Yeah, the war won't stop until we end it | PRO | 6483cc93-2019-04-18T12:01:22Z-00001-000 |
Morality is not Relative. Following up on the topic of "morality" and based on the readings that we covered in class, I will use author W.T. Stace"s essay to establish my argument that "morality is not relative". First, I will define "morality-; in class we identified morality as a set of rules that prohibits or dictates what individuals can or cannot do in term of harm. If morality is not relative, then it means that it is not changing. Therefore, it is absolute. By absolute I mean to say that it does not matter what the conditions are because there is an universal moral standard that applies to all. 1.Only one true and valid moral code exist (94.2) 2.That means only one morality exist for all men (94.2.11) 3.Those who believe that morality is relative cannot use the word "standard-(96.4-5) 4.Because "standard- used by an absolutist means only "one" and if used by a relativist it means more than just "one-(96.4-6) 5.If we argue that there is more than just one moral standard then how can we determine which "one "is the best.(93.1) 6. We cannot because we live on a planet that has an undefined number of existing societies. 7.Therefore, morality is not relative because if it were we would not be able to define its limits. (93.1) By using W.T. Stace"s essay I have concluded my argument that morality is not relative because morality is not something that changes from one day to another instead it remains unchanged for all because all existing civilizations have one universal moral code they share in common. | PRO | aa9e078f-2019-04-18T17:26:54Z-00007-000 |
Abortion situation. Abortions should not be legal because it is harmful for the fetus if it is beyond 10 weeks. "Bernard N. Nathanson, MD, the late abortion doctor who renounced his earlier work and became a pro-life activist, stated that when an abortion is performed on a 12-week-old fetus, "We see [in an ultrasound image] the child"s mouth open in a silent scream... This is the silent scream of a child threatened imminently with extinction." Scientists say during abortions the fetus flinches and is experiencing some type of pain. According to the Victims of Violence which was "to protect unborn children from assault and murder" anyone trying to intentionally kill an unborn child should be punished. "38 states have passed similar fetal homicide laws" this shows that the states care about giving the unborn child a chance at life. http://abortion.procon.org...; | CON | 36869af5-2019-04-18T13:11:47Z-00009-000 |
Sunglasses are superior to baseball hats on a sunny day. Welcome to the site, Pro. And good luck to you too. As you stated that this is a casual debate, and I am feeling kind of lazy, I am fine without using any sources for this one. I feel that baseball hats are superior to sunglasses for three reasons: -Baseball hats are generally cheaper -One can express him/herself more with baseball hats -Baseball hats provide protection to the whole face, rather than to only the eyes Sunglasses can cost up to $150, while the more expensive baseball hats are around $30. That means that baseball hats will be superior for someone who cannot afford more expensive sunglasses. One can put express themselves with baseball hats more easily than with sunglasses. I can make it easier to show people I am a St. Louis Cardinals fan by wearing a Cardinals baseball hat than by wearing red sunglasses. As a person with fair skin, I get sunburned really easily and I hate putting on sunscreen every hour (I burn that easily). So, in order to have one fewer place to put on sunscreen, I wear a baseball hat to protect my whole face from the sun. Yes, while sunglasses protect the eyes very well, they fail to protect the rest of the face, which could cause some serious skin cancer, which is the most prevalent type of cancer, and is preventable, by wearing baseball hats. Baseball hats are indeed hot, but isn't it worth being hot for a couple of hours to protect yourself from the dangers of skin cancer and eye damage? Also, one wearing a baseball hat can take it off for a minute to wipe off any sweat on his/her face and can take it off to fan his/her head. If one has a handbag or backpack, a baseball hat is no problem to transport. If transporting a baseball hat was such a problem, why do so many people wear them? In conclusion, baseball hats are superior for the reasons shown. Thank you for debating this topic. Good luck with your next speech. | CON | 81e89c7a-2019-04-18T13:02:19Z-00001-000 |
Rights to self-determination not limited to aboriginal peoples. There is nothing in international law or in any UN resolution that limits the rights of self-determination to territories with aboriginal peoples. In fact several territories that are or were on the UN's list of Non Self-Governing Territories do not have aboriginal populations: Currently on the list: Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena (inc Tristan da Cunha), Turks and Caicos Islands, US Virgin Islands. Formerly on the list: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Cabo Verde, Cocos Islands, Guadaloupe, Jamaica, Martinique, Mauritius, Réunion, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Seychelles | PRO | 72e845b6-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00116-000 |
when in conflict the us should prioritze global poverty reduction over enviromental protection. Ok let me say this then since you believe that we depend on third world countries and that they depend on there economie's agricultural society than why did the united states loose 600 million eggs due to a salamonella out break. why you ask it is because of all the disease that comes from oh let me think homelss people whom live in poverty. Where is the number one cause of AIDS and HIV'S and again this comes from malnutrition and poverty levels that are so extreme that no amount of money can help it. So tell me this why is it that you would rather let people suffer from hunger and no water and focus more on the enviroment. The enviroment changes naturally and goes through constant changes so what we are going through is just a natural cause. | PRO | c967db47-2019-04-18T19:02:51Z-00003-000 |
First Amendment. Before I begin, I have to tell you: because this will be my first debate on the site (debate.org), I ask that my theoretical antagonist refrain from using any of the site's formalities, its procedural norms and practices, as a site of argument or debate. Put simply, I do not know the norms, and even if I did know them and still chose to establish my own procedural system, it would not change the substantive claims of the arguments I made. My Position: That First Amendment mechanisms do not, as is often claimed, neutralize power by giving everyone an equal chance to speak. On the contrary, First Amendment law is always politically inflected, and often used to maintain the status quo and to disempower those already marginalized and silenced. Finally, I argue that current First Amendment doctrine is logically incoherent, a doctrine that regulates in the name of nonregulation, and recognizes so many exceptions to the rule that it finally is, as a set of universal principles, anything but. | PRO | 454e1fcc-2019-04-18T18:29:54Z-00004-000 |
iPhone5s is better than SamsungS4. The reason I'm not posting an opening argument at this point, but rather only my acceptance, is because Con has not laid out any rules, nor has he posted his own argument. In fact, everything he has posted above has been plagiarized from several different websites, listed below: . http://www.techradar.com... . http://blog.topapps.info... . http://www.techradar.com... . http://www.extremetech.com... . http://www.iphoneinformer.com... . http://www.extremetech.com... And, well, you get the gist of it. Basically, you can take virtually any part of his argument, copy and paste it into Google, and find a source where it has been taken from identically. My opponent has done absolutely no research of his own, nor is he presenting his own work. I highly advise that voters take this into account when considering conduct points. At this point, I will pass this back to my opponent so that we can, hopefully, have a further debate from this point. | PRO | 52002d29-2019-04-18T16:11:41Z-00002-000 |
The eighth amendment. The eighth amendment in my opinion, Is a great amendment because if you kill somebody then you will get what you deserve. If you kill somebody then either you meant to do that or it was an accident. If there is evidence that there was a accident, Than i would see that you could get a light sentence, You probably feel very bad about it and will regret it the rest of your life so you have to live with that feeling. If you kill because your crazy or have a grudge against that person that i can see that you can get the death penalty because you are a very bad person. Cruel and unusual punishment is a good thing because it keeps us from going crazy on things like stealing a lolipop or getting a parking ticket. | PRO | 81aa1aa9-2019-04-18T11:12:17Z-00003-000 |
Energy demands are increasing. Despite increasing demand the amount of that electricity being generated by nuclear is projected to fall not rise. The share of nuclear energy will decrease from 30% to between 25% and 26% in electricity generation and from 14% to between 12% and 14% in total primary energy demand by 2020. According to current projections, the nuclear generation capacity in the EU would fall by as much as 33 GW by 2020. This fall would mostly have to be met by dirty power plants using gas, or particularly coal.[[ Update of the nuclear illustrative programme in the context of the second strategic energy review, 13th November 2008, Brussels, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0776:FIN:EN:HTML%5D%5D | CON | ae9120ad-2019-04-19T12:45:22Z-00007-000 |
End Is More Important Than Means. Why not ? I can copy or paste any material from anywhere.I copied because these points matched my views. . Con plagiarized. > Who told I am plagiarized.Please ask Puck not to poke his nose in our debate.This debate is meant for both of us. Moreover I wanted to tell you that if you are writing your board exam and you copy,then the means to get to the final result is by copying.Is it acceptable? I feel it is not the correct means.It is you who is going to suffer in the future. | CON | 27de9d8a-2019-04-18T19:19:52Z-00004-000 |
Rap Battle. In the name of the father, son, and Holly Spirit, You want me in a rap battle then so be it. Saving souls like a Crusifix. Damin' you like my number is six-six-six. Let me give you a Reading from Revalations, It shows the winner of this battle with no hesitations. It shows my opponent getting Sodomized and Gingy gettin' Gamora. [1] Unleshing my wrath like Pandora. [2] Shockin' the audience like like Zeus. [3] Your murder will be on the frontline news. Call me Legion, cuz your defeats are many. Here to end your Satanic Tryanny. Your about to be put back on the shelf, Do like Robin Williams and hang yourself. Handing you a loss of every selection. Your bars are gayer than 1 Direction.Gingy ain't got skill, all I hear is your croak. Be like your grandpa and die from a stroke. You're a disgrace and killed all your friends with your villigente, [4] Another win for the mafia, Dente. You stole a story, bet your raps are plagerized too! So funny we should lock you in a zoo. Better turn that smile upside down. Cuz it's time for Rev to recieve his Freshmen beatdown. From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, I can school both yo a$$es from Africa to Hawaii, You think this is poker, I'm about to raise the stakes, This is Seek and Destroy, Marines do whatever it takes. I'm gonna leave you hanging like we did Sadam. Droppin' the bombs, just like we did in Vietnam. [5] Your in too deep now, you took the bate. Damn, I guess you should have had a V8. You apparently didn't expect this last twist. Why I enjoy pain and agony as I am a masochist. [6] So I'll cut myself and watch myself bleed, And enjoy the pleasure as you concede. 1. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) 2. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) 3. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) 4. (http://wiki.mafiascum.net...) 5. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) 6. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) | PRO | e7378b56-2019-04-18T15:17:41Z-00003-000 |
Racisim. Really. While I applaud your clear statement of your POSITION over and over again, you do lack supporting evidence in all your 'arguments'. Yes, I do get that you believe racism is logical, if it is incapable of being realized or defined, and racism is illogical, if capable of being realized or defined (whatever that means). My point is that I REALIZE that you BELIEVE this. However, stating the same argument over and over again without acknowledging any of MY arguments is not debating. It's the very definition of insanity. So, taking out the tangible part, you say racism is illogical, for example; torturing someone because he his race, or having racially segregated areas. I agree with this. Racism is illogical. And THEN you go on to say it IS logical; for example, fearing a race because most of them commit crimes. AS I KEEP ON SAYING, yes, more African Americans than Caucasians go to jail, but fearing an individual simply because of the color of their skin and stereotyping a friend with other people they may disapprove of as much as you is racist, discriminatory, and just plain 'ole RUDE. And actually pretty idiotic. You should first look at a person's appearance, who they hang out around, etc., and make an educated guess on whether or not they are a threat to you. I mean, who would you be more afraid of if you were a teenage girl; a drunk, unkempt creep who just happens to be Caucasian, or a well dressed, polite African American going to work on a Monday morning? Well, I'm sorry we didn't get into any real debating, and the rounds are up. Good luck in the voting period! And, thank YOU for responding. | CON | d89acbd9-2019-04-18T15:18:29Z-00001-000 |
insaf. My opponent has still yet to negate the resolution, meaning that he/she is yet to show that he/she should be part of Insaf. I will now construct a positive argument as to why Insaf would be better off without my opponent.Affirmative CaseA1: My opponent's atrocious grammarMy opponent's opening round showcased some terrible grammar. Here are instances of it and why it matters.Firstly, my opponent repeatedly fails to capitalise "insaf", the name of the organisation he/she wishes to represent. My opponent even fails to capitalise this in the resolution. I am sure that Insaf would be highly embarrassed to have a candidate that cannot even correctly capitalise the name of the organisation he/she represents.Secondly, my opponent has incorrectly formatted a would-be letter:"dear juje and my majestyi request to take side of imran khan and i will try to make a top level for him he always try and win"According to Wikihow, my opponent has left out some crucial aspects in his/her would-be letter, of which include the date of the letter and the signature of the letter-writer [1]. In politics, it is absolutely crucial that politicians present themselves well, and politicians will be, at some stage, be required to present themselves well through written letters [2].Lastly, there are numerous instances of non-capitalised words that should be capitalised ("dear", "today", imran" etc.). Such complete disregard for he beautiful English language is not compatible with representing people as a politician, as politicians must present well and be able to express themselves well. References[1] http://www.wikihow.com...[2] http://www.youthcentral.vic.gov.au... | PRO | fc498b09-2019-04-18T15:15:04Z-00001-000 |
create a better story than me in 12 hours. "Show us your passport and a license to fly a turbo powered sleigh," states Rosy with non-stop tapping of her hand. "I... I don"t have it with me. Please, you can"t arrest me! I"m an idol! A child"s dream!" states Santa, as a desperate attempt to avoid his inevitable arrest. "Sir, please get in the car!" exclaims Velma. "Look, how can you do this? Look into your Grinch infested heart and show me some Christmas spirit!",cries Santa. "Sir, the true Christmas spirit is when you follow the Constitution and travel the U.S.A as a legal immigrant, delivering items with a proper license," Velma explains to Santa, trying reach a compromise. Santa smiles at Velma, and with hands clenched tightly around his bag, he refuses to be cuffed. His rosy cheeks darken bright red when he overhears that the FBI is going to need more than one handcuff to cuff his obese size. "Sir, we are going to have to check what is in there. It seems like you have delivered 300 presents already, and according to your call to the North Pole...you are going to deliver all of these presents. We need to know what you are transporting," prevails Velma with a hopeful attempt. "This is my property! I refuse to let this go. My bag, my rights," states Santa, in a strict tone. Unfortunately, the FBI succeeded in an enduring attempt to snatch his bag. Receiving a rather psychotic thrill from this experience, Santa smiles a Grinch like smile. " Velma!" calls out Rosy "Santa delivers more than just toys and goodies. There is meth in some of the edible items, and hallucinogens that you can inhale in all the toys we have tested so far!" "I try my best to make a child happy," calls out Santa. Letting out a slight sob and sociopathic laugh, Velma notices an empty syringe titled "100 mg of Oxycodone" and a poke in her skin. This was my personal Essay and I used it for other occasions. This belongs to me. Should I extend my story or create a new one? The main idea of this story is that Santa is an illegal immigrant. Hope you enjoy. | CON | 3c13ebd2-2019-04-18T15:16:59Z-00001-000 |
Private cables are not US policy as WikiLeaks claims. Cameron Munter, U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan. "Wikileaks - the U.S.-Pakistan Relationship." US Embassy in Pakistan. November 29th, 2010: "I do believe that people of good faith recognize that diplomats' internal reports do not represent a government's official foreign policy. In the United States, they are one element out of many that shape our policies, which are ultimately set by the President and the Secretary of State. And those policies are a matter of public record, the subject of thousands of pages of speeches, statements, white papers, and other documents that the State Department makes freely available online and elsewhere." | PRO | 25b973f6-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00052-000 |
Good chance Seattle tunnel will go over budget. Laura Kaliebe. "Bore, Baby, Bore? Sightline Report Compares Cost Overruns of Seattle-Area Tunnels." Northwest Hub: A new report from Sightline Institute, a Seattle-based, nonprofit think tank, could dig the debate a little deeper. The report, titled “Cost Overruns for Seattle-Area Tunnel Projects,” compares high-profile tunnels recently constructed in the area [...] A cost overrun of $100 million, which is just 2.4 percent of the project’s total cost, could cost a Seattle family of four almost $700, the report notes. A larger cost overrun of 25 percent could create more than $1 billion of new tax liability for Seattle taxpayers. Cost overruns for tunnel projects are common: The downtown Seattle bus tunnel experienced a cost overrun of more than 56 percent, Sound Transit’s Beacon Hill tunnel exceeded expected costs by 30 percent, and King County’s bored tunnels for the Brightwater Sewage Plant are already over budget (the final overrun is currently unknown). Overruns such as these aren’t unique to Seattle. Oxford University professor Bent Flyvbjerg surveyed 258 megaprojects from around the world, and found that 90 percent experienced cost overruns, with the average cost overrun at nearly 30 percent." | PRO | 656580a0-2019-04-17T11:47:22Z-00042-000 |
Did the U.S achieve its goals in Vietnam. Forgive me for any mistakes made during this debate as this is my first ever debate on debate.org My opinion on the topic is this, people need to remember what the overall goals of the Vietnam war were. U.S involvement in Vietnam was to prevent the spread of communism into south Vietnam and the rest of south east Asia. The goal was not to capture north Vietnam or kill every communist in the area, but rather too preserve south and keep it a republic. We all know that today there is only one Vietnam, and it is a communist run country, but did the U.S technically lose ? People to often seem to forget about the Paris peace accords. In 1973, the Paris peace accords were signed which called for a immediate cease fire between the U.S and south Vietnam and its enemies the north Vietnamese and the Vietcong. Once the ceasefire was signed the north and south were no longer at war for a short period of time. After the accords were signed, the remaining U.S combat troops were removed from Vietnam and at this point in time there was still a north and south Vietnam left in much the same state that current day north and south Korea are in today. However, in 1975, once the remaining U.S troops had left the north reneged on there agreement and launched a massive offensive against the south. Meanwhile, in the U.S, Nixon had left office and the democratic party had taken control of the Whitehouse. With U.S public support for the war at an all time low, no support was sent to south Vietnam to help them fight off the attack. On April 25, 1975, the last helicopter left Saigon and the country was in communist hands. keep in mind this was three years after U.S forces left Vietnam. So did the U.S achieve its goals in Vietnam, I would have to say yes. Seeing as how in 1973 a peace treaty had been signed and when the last U.S combat troops pulled out there was still a democratic south Vietnam that was at peace with the north. | PRO | 7d98bac3-2019-04-18T17:18:36Z-00003-000 |
What is commonly referred to as 'Gay Marriage' should be illegal. Married heterosexual couples which are infertile are unable to procreate because of the circumstances. This is different then 2 people of the same sex marrying, where not only is procreation incidentally impossible, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE IN PRINCIPLE! To separate marriage from the role of procreation would be to render the entire institution of marriage pointless in the first place. Laws are written based on definitions; without them, a law is pointless and can be interpreted according to the whim of any individual. Marriage is between a man and a woman; that is how it has always been. To make a law stating that gays can marry displays a lack of understanding of the definition of marriage itself. If 2 gays were to swear an oath between themselves and government that they will live together until death, that could not be called marriage. It would be something else entirely. | PRO | 1bc1d743-2019-04-18T17:56:28Z-00001-000 |
Guns should not be banned. 1) Pro did not directly respond to my questioning. Nonetheless all the people responsible for gun deaths are people with guns. 2) I refer you to the response I gave earlier. Similarly, A zone where there are shootings is by definition not a gun free zone. 3) Pro's spoon reference is down right stupid. 4) The more guns there are, The higher the potential for gun use. It's a pretty obvious and self evidential statement. 5) We're discussing guns, Not cars. Once again Pro's response is down right stupid. 6) Cars again? And I was referring to what is known as the "Weapons Effect". Research shows that the mere presence of weapons increases aggression. 7) Highly likely. I refer you to point 6. Also, Unlikely and doesn't are a direct contradiction to each other. 8) Pro 's comments are somewhat counter-intuitive to say the least. Pro uses mass shootings as evidence of the benefits of gun ownership. Bad guys shooting good guys shooting bad guys. Gun chaos if you ask me! 9) We're not discussing criminals. We're discussing every Tom Dick or Harry being allowed to run around with a gun. It's the job of security organisations to prevent crime and not the job of Tom Dick and Harry. 10) How is suicide in Lithuania and Japan related to U. S. Gun law? If Mexico has the strictest gun control laws, How come there were 11, 309 gun murders in Mexico in 2012? Does Pro think that if all Mexicans were armed, Then the Mexican gun murder rate would decrease? And Pro finally adopts a disturbing tone, With their obvious racist and white supremacist suggestions. 11) And what about the 4 billion reasons? | CON | f5effb8b-2019-04-18T11:10:10Z-00004-000 |
Polygamy should be illegal and same-sex marriage should be legal. I will restate my opinion: Polygamy should be illegal and same-sex marriage should be legal. Here is my argument: Polygamy Polygamy is the practice of a man marrying multiple wives or a woman marrying multiple men. I will now inform you why I am opposed to this practice: Polygamy shows a man's or woman's desire for sex and greed for pleasure. Love is meant to be between two individuals, not multiple ones. Love is a matter between two, not five or ten or fifteen. I am not a Christian, but I share a common belief with most theists: Polygamy is wrong. A man marrying multiple wives was normal a great many centuries ago. However, in this modern age, one of logic and justice, polygamy is not to be tolerated. Polygamy is not only a moral issue, but it is also a health issue. Having multiple wives promotes the spreading of STDs. Polygamy encourages an increase in sexual acts, such as sexual assault, prostitution, pornography, etc. Same-sex marriage I understand that homosexual relationships, interactions, and marriages are an issue that most Christians are opposed to. However, there is no logical reason why same-sex couples shouldn't have the right to marry each other. I am aware that the Bible doesn't speak positively of same-sex marriage, but that is no excuse to deny individuals their fundamental right to love whoever they wish and to interact with the person they love. Same-sex marriage also encourages a change in overpopulation. If every human were heterosexual and had a child, that would automatically create billions of children. But, with homosexual people included, there are less children produced. Before you make a child, why not adopt a child in need? Why not adopt a child who is suffering? Many theists argue that homosexuals cannot care for a child. That is completely untrue. There is no difference between the parenting capabilities of a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple. The Truth You are better than this. We are better than this. Humanity needs to cease listening to a voice that isn't real. Humanity must start listening to fact and logic. Just because "God" says so or just because a two thousand year-old book states it, does that automatically make it all true? I am a proud Atheist. I am independent of lies and I will not listen to tales of God and Jesus. I will only believe FACTS, which Christians and all other theists surely lack. | PRO | a273598a-2019-04-18T16:36:21Z-00006-000 |
Emphasis In The Word "Bagel" Should Be Placed On The "A". Another fallacy in his last argument. The noticeable error is his last sentence: "The larger a language and the larger the vocabularies of the people who speak it, the smarter the people are as a whole." First, I must ask Sir P. Andrew where this information came from. If this is truly a piece of linguistic neuroscience, then why is there no source? I believe this is a personal opinion and, therefore, logically unsound. Aside from attacking my opponent's argumentative construction, I would also like to point out that the un-unified dialects are only hindering human progress and society. The soul of this argument isn't just about "baggel" and "baygel," rather the underlying existential philosophy of accents. Some are correct and some are incorrect. Just as books don't have spelling or syntactical errors, thanks to reference guilds like MLA, CMS, and APA, our speech must also have a correct and incorrect styles. Lastly, I'd like to point out SirPrinceAndrewIII's political ideology. According to his profile page (as of 4:02 PM EST), he is an anarchist. This can also be seen in his opinion on bagels. In his last round he pointed out, "it's good to go against the grain and against those sacred [documents that keep humanity from collapsing into chaos]." Anarchists can be dangerous and harmful to society. As Thomas Paine once wrote, "society in every state is a blessing [and] government... is... necessary." Thank you and remember: think of bagels not as "baggels," but rather "liberty baygels." BLESS AMERICA AND ITS SWEET MORNING BAKED GOODS!!! -nor87 | PRO | 6fb902f5-2019-04-18T14:54:46Z-00003-000 |
Should it be okay to treat people with ugly faces like crap. My opponent has forfeited. I extend my arguments to the final round. VOTE grammar/spelling: tie Proper spelling and grammar on both sides. conduct: con Pro proposed an offensive resolution. And rather than explicitly conceding, she just gave up and forfeited. arguments: con I refuted all of Pro's arguments, and she ingored all of mine, and forfeited. sources: tie My opponent used reliable sources but they were irrelevant to the debate. I did not require sources. 4 points to me for each vote. 0 points to my opponent. | CON | 5fe9af6-2019-04-18T18:04:23Z-00000-000 |
Lebron is better than Kobe Bryant. You are correct about when Shaq left. My mistake. But your facts are all messed up. You were incorrect about the 3fg%. You just posted yourself, .336 for both of them. And James did not take them to 5 straight Eastern Conference Finals. In 07-08 and in 09-10 he lost to the Celtics in the 2nd round. So he went to 3 ECF not 5. When he did go to the finals against the Spurs his ppg dropped 3 points in the series, his rebounds dropped by 1 a game and assists went down by 2. How is that clutch? He did the same thing against the Mavs in the finals. He disappeared. He finally got his championship in a lockout shortened injury riddled season with another top 10 player on his team. Lebron shot .188 from behind the arc and shot less than 50% from the field in that series by the way. Clutch? Batman? You say his legacy will pass Kobe's (which you admit Kobe's legacy is better now) if he wins three or four more championships. That's a big if. Let's ask Dominique Wilkins, Patrick Ewing, Reggie Miller, John Stockton, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Pete Maravich, Artis Gilmore and Elgin Baylor how easy it is to win a title. To sum up, Kobe has 5 rings. Lebron has one. | CON | cdec6b85-2019-04-18T17:48:25Z-00000-000 |
J.D.'s can work in industries surrounding lawyers. Hindi Greenberg. "So What Else Can You Do with Your Law Degree?" American Bar Association. July/August 2005: "they can explore the industries that serve law firms or produce products for use by lawyers, or even set up their own businesses providing consultations to other lawyers in areas of self-developed expertise. Businesses that provide services and products to lawyers are expanding rapidly—computer consulting, legal product development and design, law book sales, practice management, office design, jury consulting, and legal software development, to name just a few. Look at the display ads in various legal publications to get an idea about the varied businesses that cater to law firms, many of which hire former lawyers to service those firms." | PRO | 50689d14-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00123-000 |
Religion~ The Christian God is not real. To ask for a difinitive answer would be inpossible to give. if we could have positive answers we would know for sure that God exists or does not exist. But we cannot create anything from nothing nor thing without a brain mind or body. How can God exist then if we cannot create something from nothing out of nothing when there is only nothing and nobody to create? how did God come to be and if he is god why would he not have given signs of shown himself to us so that we would beleive and be beleivers and live by his rules and if there is god then why dosnt he fix some of the bead things if he is the merciful caring almighty god the bible makes him out to be why dosnt he help us out? The ten Comandments are: 1-you may not love anyone or anything more than you love god 2-you may not worship anything other than god 3-you may not swear 4-you should have a sabbath 5-honor your parents 6-you may not hate 7-keep thoughs and actions pure 8-You cannot steal 9-cannot lie 10-cannot want Do theese rules not look like osmething your parents would say to keep you out of trouble? it seems more like a bedtime story. " Remember Jhonny...... Or You will go to hell where all the bad boys and girls are. Sleep tight" | PRO | d1dc7f80-2019-04-18T19:05:51Z-00003-000 |
Progressive taxation should increase the total tax take. This means that increased funds are availa... Progressive taxation is an inefficient way to increase the tax take. Because of resentment, increased evasion, reduced incentive to work and administrative complexities, a progressive tax rate can actually lessen rather than increase the total tax take. This is in nobody’s fiscal interest regardless of whether they favour small or large amounts of taxpayer-funded spending, since it equates to a more demanding system producing less agreeable results. | CON | 3a4e4366-2019-04-19T12:44:06Z-00011-000 |
Computers can replace teachers. Pro forfeited that round, So I'm not going to make too many points. One, Group projects can be monitored by teachers, But it's very hard for a computer to realize what parts of a group are failing. Two, You don't know how to handle different types of people. We've all had bad and good teachers and knowing how to handle many different types is a very important life skill. You don't get that with computers. That's all for now. Hopefully pro doesn't forfeit next round. | CON | 6fe337c2-2019-04-18T11:12:42Z-00000-000 |
42 is the answer to life the universe and everything. To follow my opponent's format, I will also give one reason each round as to why 1 is the Answer. 1. All other numbers are encompassed by 1. If 1 did not exist, there could be no other numbers, as every other number except 0 is really just a compilation of 1's. Therefore, if indeed a number is the answer to life, the universe, and everything, it would have to be 1. I will make a comparison to a god. For something to be a god, it must be the very first thing created and nothing must come before it. Likewise, for something to be the ultimate answer to life, etc, it must be the first one and not rely on any other number to exist. The only thing that fits this description is 1, as it is a prerequisite to all other numbers. I await my opponent's response. | CON | 2fd46647-2019-04-18T18:59:25Z-00004-000 |
Science is based on faith. My opponent"s augment is that since he does not know if the world is real or not, our experiments (science) are based on faith. The problem with this assumption is that premise A (science is based on faith) and premise B (world might be fake) does not equal premise C (science is reliant on the world being real). This is a philosophical fallacy. For example people buy ice-cream more in summer (premise A). People get heat stokes in the summer (premise B). Ice-cream is reliant on heat strokes (premise C). Just because A leads to B and B leads to C does not mean A equals C. Ice-cream does not cause heatstroke"s, or defined by heat strokes. While the debate shows I strong support the world being real. The world being real (or not real) is irrelevant. The reason is there should still remain constants (physics for example). These constants are considered to be laws or in some cases facts. Therefor science even in a "false" world would not rely on faith but constants within the fake world. I have provided examples of the brain mind issue with Phineas, which my opponent failed to disputed. I do not need to prove anything about the world; just that science is based on anything but faith. I argue that science is based on empirical evidence which is reliant on constants within this world (for example the speed of light). In conclusion the debate was on whether or not science is based on faith. Science is not based on faith, but the empirical evidence we get from the constants in the world. The constants in the world still remain whether or not the world is real, which defeats the point of discussing whether the world is real or not. If my opponent wishes to argue the reality of the world, I argue him to create a debate on the issue, instead of trying to trick his opponent. | CON | 8928d4d4-2019-04-18T16:38:32Z-00000-000 |
Ronald Reagan was the best president in the 20th Century. 1. Something had to be done about a 70% tax rate. Nobody today believes that is fair. 2. The Soviet economy couldn't operate because they had to spend so much more money on defense. We can debate how much he affected the Soviet downfall, but I do not believe it is debatable as to whether or not he had any effect at all. 3. Most of point three was my argument. No one could know that we would be attacked by the mujahideen. 4. I do not believe it is right to say that someone is corrupt without evidence. We have been doing this dance for 5 rounds now. DO YOU HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF A "RICH FRIEND" REAGAN DID FAVORS FOR??? If not, concede the point. 5. AIDS wasn't discovered by the CDC until June 5, 1981. The term wasn't coined until 1982. What do you expect Reagan to do? Do you expect that the first time the CDC brings it up he say, "start putting billions of dollars in research to a disease that we know nothing about." You cannot expect the government to pump money into research the second they discover a disease. Also, this is only 6 months into his Presidency. He wasn't expecting such a revelation. To combat the point you will try to make, it is not the government's responsibility to do research to prevent diseases. 6. The air traffic controllers violated the terms of their contract. It was the responsible thing to do. He gave them a 48 hour warning as well. 7. 30% raise in household income is not enough. Can you cite a specific source (that is reliable such as a government statistic) that shows that the created jobs were low paying and barely helped people make ends meet. 8. I spoke about it in round 3. You didn't respond. Please show me a reliable source that shows that the immigration reform had a adverse effect on the country. DO NOT SHOW ME AN ARTICLE OR A FORUM OR A BLOG. PLEASE SHOW ME AN ACCURATE SOURCE SUCH AS A GOVERNMENT STATISTIC. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... | PRO | 7cc368f7-2019-04-18T17:32:43Z-00001-000 |
The death of god. First to start i offer the idea of nihilism. The idea that life has no meaning. "A man finds himself, to his great astonishment, suddenly existing, after thousands and thousands of years of non-existence. He lives for a little while and then again comes an equally long period when he must exist no more" From Arthur Schopenhauer. This is just one of the many examples of the way Schopenhauer's writing can put things in perspective. Like a fickle flam, our existence is small and insignificant in the eyes of the universe. A bit hash, I know, but it's a good way to understand Nihilism. There are many ways to respond to nihilism religion is one of them. Friedrich Nietzsche saw nihilism as a stage that could be overcome. He thought that a god-based value system was, at its foundation, devoid of meaning. He introduced the "death of god" which is the Idea of god. Nietzsche was deeply aware of the implications of the human predicament. One way to respond would be religion. However Nietzche believed that people taking this route would are only clinging to to an idea that has lost force. "Before God! But now this God has died. You higher men, this god was your greatest danger. It is only since he lies in his tomb that you have been resurrected. Only now the great noon comes; only now the higher man becomes lord. God Died, now we want the Overman to live. " Now i present the steps to become overman. 1. Realize that life is meaningless. 2. Enter a "magic circle" 3. Dissovle said circle. 4. Continue bieng in said circle create your self as Art. 5. Appreciate the analogy between The circle and Life. Now make yourself in everday life Art. What I am saying is that the idea of God is dead in a modern society today. It has no matter anymore. Howver peolle who realise this and continue with regular life become an overman because they blieve that they are still happy and without the need for such things. I believe this is true can you argue? I hope so. I want to enjoy this debate. | PRO | d6e98289-2019-04-18T19:12:10Z-00005-000 |
Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential election. You say that the electoral college gives hardly any say to the little states but with direct popular vote the little states would have very little say. California has a population of 37,253,956 (http://quickfacts.census.gov...) with Wyoming having 563,626 (http://quickfacts.census.gov...) So then all of the candidates would be fighting for the 37 million instead of that half a million. Where with the electoral college, the votes will be more equal. From my calculations the electoral college is 18 times different amount of votes and direct popular vote is 66 times different amount of votes. With electoral college the votes in smaller states are still important unlike with direct popular vote. So this proves your first rebuttal wrong. Bush vs Gore was one time out of 200 elections. A.K.A it means it is VERY rare. For these reasons i urge you to vote con. Even my opponent said to! | CON | f02204e9-2019-04-18T18:35:58Z-00002-000 |
Blondes Are Dumber Than Brunettes. I intend to prove that blondes are dumber than brunettes. Con will post his argument as to why this statement is false in the first round. In the second round I intend to point out the flaws in his argument and make an argument of my own. He will have the last say in round 2 and then the debate will end. So, what is your argument Con? | PRO | b9b73fa1-2019-04-18T18:39:45Z-00002-000 |
A state has NO RIGHT to peaceably secede from America. Since this is the 5th round, con and I cannot introduce any new points to the debate. So, I will use this round to summarize and explain why I have won this debate. Part One1. It was the burden of con to prove that "A" state had "SOME" right to secession whether it is a legal right or moral right.2. He attempted to prove a legal right by asserting that I agreed to a legal right to secession when I did not. That was his ONLY support for why secession is legal. He stated: "My opponent concedes that a legal right exists for States to secede. Even if certain circumstances must be met, the right exists nonetheless. "3. I proceeded to PROVE secession illegal through the implications of an excerpt from the Constitution:"1. THEREFORE, the land of the states by geography are subject to regulation and authority by the federal government through CONSTITUTIONAL DECREE. 2. Secession would lift this authority3. Lifting of said authority is illegal4. Secession is Illegal. "* My opponent forfeited round 4, so has therefore failed to refute the above conclusion, and thus has failed to prove a legal right to secession. Part Two5. He attempted to prove a moral right by referring to the 1st round where I wrote that "The Constitution and Declaration of Independence do allude to THE PEOPLES right to revolution" But I outlined the difference between "THE PEOPLE" and "THE STATE" The state is political and an extention of government, the people are not. 6. Con defended that the state is a proxy for the people. I countered that the state is a conduit not a proxy. Very Unsynonymous words. " 1. Hence, if the state is not a proxy to the people, then the state cannot hold the same rights as the people. 2. If the states do not hold the same rights as the people, then the "peoples right to revolution" cannot be justly asserted for the state, as the state is not the people3. Therefore, the argument that natural law gives a state the moral right to secession is moot. "7. My opponent forfeited the 4th round and hence failed to refute the above resolution. Therefore he has failed to prove a moral right to secession. RESOLUTION8. Since my opponent failed to prove a legal or moral right to secession for "A" state, I urge that he has lost the debate. Therefore I strongly encourage a PRO vote. | PRO | 53240a32-2019-04-18T18:44:12Z-00001-000 |
Debate.org version 3 will more likely than not be up and running by the time this debate concludes. It is within my belief that debate.org version 3 will be up and running by the time this debate concludes. To define what I mean by this, I'm saying that the chances of debate.org version 3 being accessible before or at the time this debate concludes are at least 51%. Just to insure that this won't be a wait fest, I'll go ahead and provide a contention. For now, my one and only contention shall be that the webmaster stated that version 3 would be up by the end of July. Given that it is long past the end of July, I'd say this serves to show either something unexpected came up or that the webmaster is simply doing some extra insignificant tweaks. It is reasonable for us to assume that debate.org version 3 should be functioning any day now. And it further serves as being evidence since the webmaster has not posted a note to the right of the main page as he usually does to inform us of a massive delay. And given the fact that it has been under development since last year, I'd say any more massive delays are very much unlikely. Given that I intend to use the time limit of this debate to my advantage, at the very least, this debate shall take 12 days to complete (with my four additional rounds combined with the 3 day time limit, that makes 12). I also have a suspicion that there will also be more to add on to the time limit, but I shall elaborate moreso in the next round. Oh and I'd disadvise my future opponent resorting to tactics which are devised to get out of having to argue the intended debate. That is all for now. Some of this may need to be elaborated on | PRO | f12e6f40-2019-04-18T19:37:48Z-00009-000 |
Education is the key to our counties future. I need to clairify that Pros BOT is to prove that education will serve the future better than any other institution today, I will prove that it is not, that many other institutions are more essential. Rebuttal: Children are the Workers of Tommorow: Regardless of education, if National Debt and Unemployment rate are not fixed there will be no jobs for the children of tommorow, even if they all have shiny Harvard Certificates. A strong Economy, and the abolishment of national debt is the key to the future; education is not even possible if these things aren't met. Even today, with a population of competent educated adults we see that there are still enourmos problems, this goes to show that education does not fix the Nations Economic problems. A stron g Economy does not depend on mass education. A few smart educated people are needed. Only about 5% of every child needs an education for the well being of a country, the rest depends on what that small percent does with it. Education is not the key to the future, a strong economy run by a few intelligent people is. We will not be able to Compete with other Countries: Even though the US has a much lower rate of Education, why is it still much more prosperous than Japan or China? That is because the educated from other countries come here after they complete university to start a family and have a better life. Education is not needed in America, it can be imported from other countries. My only point: America has never done too well on the global scale for education, but the educated still flock to America so it will always be prosporous no matter what. Albert Einstein came to America from Germany, most of our sceintists are from Asia. Education is not the key to the future, America does not need to put educating its youth before all else, investments in Economy and Military have much larger weight on our future than education. You don't have to be smart to be a soldier, and that can be the job of the future American Youth, while our scientists come from other countires (this is already how it is today) Education is not the key to the future. -Vlad | CON | 4899874d-2019-04-18T18:25:22Z-00002-000 |
Betty Boop should be shown on TV in modern day America. I thank my amazing opponent for choosing to accept this round. Well, I don't suppose we can say much about Boise since we don't live there. However, in one of the most influential states in America which I visit for long periods of time quite frequently (California) she is very well recognized. I would once again like to point out that Betty Boop was colorized after the 30s. Even her originals were put into color. Betty Boop has great potential to be popular with younger audiences, since it is music based and because kids love cute characters. Many teenagers would love her for her quirkiness. Also, adults would more than likely support her since her episodes dealing with more difficult issues are presented in a comical and non-threatening manner. The episode you mentioned: the intent of these actions is not made obvious and is for the most part only understood by older audiences. She is more moral than MTV even if her dress is a little short. And while you did state that these would not be "enjoyable" this is strictly a matter of opinion. Also, she was the only sucessful human, flapper based character of her time. This makes her very unique. Her sound may have been based on a singer of that time, but her personality was totally original. She would be a unique character today to because be honest with yourselves, how many cartoons do we have now a days starring flapper girls in the 1920s? As far as I know, none. People strive for the unique. The story line and character of Betty Boop is totally unique. Novel, if you will. If brought back today, her novelty appeal would draw in quite a large audience. So in closing, Betty Boop should be put back on television because she was very unique in her time and still would be today, she was popular in her time, her products are popular now, and her novelty appeal would draw in audiences of all ages and genders. Thank you for giving a fun, productive, challenging debate. <3 | PRO | 433190b4-2019-04-18T19:31:55Z-00001-000 |
Fights to the death similar to those once held in the Colloseum in Rome should be allowed. "I still see no factual evidence that this would serve a purpose." I cannot provide factual evidence, only logic. My logic is that those who have nothing to lose might consider taking part in these fights rather than turning to crime. Why would someone become a criminal hitman and have to dodge the law all the time when he could do the exact same thing legally. "who can take the most heroin you ask? At what point does killing become a better example than that?" People who take heroin are only harming themselves. Killers harm others. This way killers would be killing killers and both would have agreed to fight in the first place. This is obviously preferable to killers killing innocent people. "I believe that instead of sending them against each other to kill we should be helping them." We don't know who they are until they have already killed and even then we have to have caught them. This way they would expose themselves to us and we could keep a close eye on them. "As in today's society, children model themselves after what their parents do and the things that they grow up around. If we tell them it is okay to fight in an arena to kill then they will no longer strive for excellence by going to school." That may be the case with some, but thats the same with every sport. Also high risk jobs tend to be the highest paid. The reason for this is because nobody wants to do them. It can't get much riskier than this. If the kid was bright he'd study. If hes not? Well, we'd just be allowing natural selection to take place again, which would be for the good of our species. "Today, we also have parents who will do anything to make their children succeed." In most case they just want their children to live well. I doubt these parents would think that sending them to their possible deaths would be a good way to guarantee this. And these fights would obviously only be legal for those that are over the age of responsibility. "Imagine a parent pushing their children to fight, to become ruthless, to kill, JUST FOR SPORT." The child would not legally be able to fight until he was over the age of responsibility. It is possible that in some cases the parents could have the child prepared for the time that he reaches this age, but these parents would obviously be crazy and murderous anyway and as you said "children model themselves after what their parents do". "Then what type of society would we be living in?" A society where killings occur in stadiums among killers and where those outside the stadiums need not live in fear. | PRO | 8fd0a899-2019-04-18T19:13:12Z-00001-000 |