argument
stringlengths 201
3.55k
| stance
stringclasses 2
values | id
stringlengths 36
39
|
|---|---|---|
A New Way. I find your use of sarcasm both inappropriate and condescending. I ask you to please stop speaking in this manner. Also, I ask that the voters take note of Pro's behavior. I never said that we are the greatest that we can be. However, we have a system that works well. It's not as if we must start over in order to move forward. We can propose laws and constitutional amendments. I believe that the people are still the rulers of this nation, for we are the ones that put politicians into office, and we are the ones who buy the corporations products and use their services. If you want education reform and humane population control (I would also like to point out you have not yet explained how we would go about doing this) then you need to start a movement. If enough people agree with you, you will succeed. There is no reason for you to have "A New Way" at all, no reason for a new nation. Also, as for location, Antarctica wouldn't work because you wouldn't be able to farm or even stay outside for long periods of time. Now, maybe you could deal with that, but most people will not want to deal with it with you. Also, the island you mentioned is still controlled by Japan. You would not be independent, you would still be subject to Japanese law. Also, so the voters know, this is this island- http://desertedplaces.blogspot.com... Now, does that seem like an ideal spot for a utopia? I think not. "we need a new government because the people that own this one would kill you if you tried to change a thing that's wrong with this one" I am sure that everyone realizes that the United States government doesn't kill people who speak up for change in government. Enough said on that. There is a reason that some people have more than others. Its not like people just magically end up with money. And still, everyone in America is doing pretty well as compared to other countries, especially countries with communism and other failing forms of government. Please, be logical. There is no way this can work. Also, I would love to hear how you will prevent anyone from hurting or killing. | CON | 17a401c6-2019-04-18T15:30:09Z-00002-000 |
matter is the balancing point between positive and negative energy. matter is space, and space is time - matter =/= space =/= time [*]. matter is energy, that is my argument, without a balancing point you can have no positive and negative energy, thats like taking the wires of the light bulb, and the light still keep on shinig, not possible without a power source - matter =/= energy [*] balance is positive and negative, but balance is also the opposite of positive and negative, and positive is the opposite of negative - balance can’t be both something & its opposite! the wire is balance, there is a positive and negative wire - &? => Pro’s entire case is incoherent illogical & completely unrelated to the resolution. Thus, Con wins. => Vote Con. [*] Google Dictionary. | CON | c3ec10ad-2019-04-18T14:59:01Z-00004-000 |
All gingers should dye their hair black or blonde. 1. How are Gingers an Abomination?A. My opponent's statistic source is not reliable. It is a joke website meant for humor purposes only, not for actual statistics.For whatever reason, my opponent missed the giantass disclaimer at the bottom of the page:"This site is not intended as a tool for hurting other people because of the color of their hair or skin!" *Actual sizeB. My definition of abomination n. Anything greatly disliked or abhorred. [http://dictionary.reference.com...]This definition should be valued above my opponent's because it come from Random House Dictionary 2013, the most commonly referred to dictionary to date. Also, it's not a subjective definition unlike my opponent's.While suicide may be abhorred, my opponent has not proven that gingers are the main cause of suicide, therefore has not proven that gingers are an abomination.Also, all gingers must commit suicide for all gingers to be an abomination, therefore requiring all gingers to have to dye their hair. 2. How Will Dying Their Hair Change This for the Better?A. Boom, statistics invalid.B. My opponent makes a fairly decent point. He's no trying to implement a law, so what's his plan? If there is no plan, this won't work. If this won't work, we shouldn't do it.Also, he dodges that the only way to prevent bullying through making people look the same is to make all people look the same, A.K.A. fascism.C. i. Attacker's motive not confirmed.ii. I'll allow this one.iii. The attacker was drunk. He's named one definite case. I unfortunately have to call out an "if one then all" fallacy.D. A far easier solution would be to raise awareness of bullying (if it's even that bad) rather than forcing gingers to change their identity.3. Why Not Brown?A. [http://beauty.about.com...] Maybe my opponent likes it, but experts beg to disagree. Jet-black hair will wash a pale person out. It simply looks goth and trashy.B. Blondes feel social pressure for their issues, too. Whether the jokes still exist or not, blondes still feel targeted (try having a blonde girlfriend. No, really, try to go a day without a complaint about being blonde). Bottom line, brown is the safest color, if any, a ginger should have to change to.ConclusionI like being a ginger and I don't want to change, therefore not all gingers will benefit from this, therefore not all gingers should change. There's the only thing I really need to say.No reason, no plan, no proof.Con. | CON | 60d558a7-2019-04-18T17:35:33Z-00004-000 |
Abortion. Although abortion may in fact be the killing of the fetus, there are several reasons why abortion should be an option for wome. Every woman's situation is never the same as the previous one. There may be reasons why a woman cannot have a child because of income issues, as well as not having the father of the child present, in some cases there is a possibility that a woman may have been victim of rape. If a woman who is a rape victim, as a result ends up pregnant, she may already be traumatized with the fact that the she was raped by a stranger or someone who may be close to her family. For a woman to follow through with the pregnancy might not be best for her. The option should always be present. Doctors may also be life savers, and taken oath precicley for that reason, however they cannot force a woman to follow through with a pregnancy she does not want to proceed with. | PRO | b185334a-2019-04-18T18:18:34Z-00007-000 |
Wrestling is the toughest sport there is. (not fake wrestling). MMA requires not only wrestling ability, but also the ability to engage in and defend against a variety of other fighting arts. It is true that MMA fights can end in a matter of seconds. However, wrestling can also end in a matter of seconds if one of the participants is pinned by the other. It does not matter how long the matches go, since those factors can vary depending on the relative skills of the two participants. The issues that matter are the amount of preparation and training that goes into the competition. MMA requires skill and familiarity in numerous different fighting styles, while wrestling only requires one style. Any move or technique that occurs in wrestling could also theoretically occur in MMA. MMA participants must therefore be able to defend against these wrestling techniques and be familiar with how to utilize the techniques themselves. Additionally, MMA fighters must also be able to defend against punches, kicks, grapples, elbows, and so forth. MMA fighters, in addition to dealing with fatigue, must also be able to take physical damage and still compete, whereas wrestlers frequently only need to deal with fatigue. MMA fighters must be versed in a wider range of techniques and skills, of which wrestling is included. MMA fighters must also be able to take physical damage and remain focused, while wrestlers are not permitted to hit each other. | CON | 928f9ee1-2019-04-18T18:02:15Z-00002-000 |
Bank tax counter-acts expansionary effect of bailout. "The Bank Tax." Gregory Mankiw Blog. January 15, 2010: "One thing we have learned over the past couple years is that Washington is not going to let large financial institutions fail. The bailouts of the past will surely lead people to expect bailouts in the future. Bailouts are a specific type of subsidy--a contingent subsidy, but a subsidy nonetheless. [...] In the presence of a government subsidy, firms tend to over-expand beyond the point of economic efficiency. In particular, the expectation of a bailout when things go wrong will lead large financial institutions to grow too much and take on too much risk. [...] we can offset the effects of the subsidy with a tax. If well written, the new tax law would counteract the effects of the implicit subsidies from expected future bailouts." | PRO | 36fa654a-2019-04-17T11:47:28Z-00034-000 |
Mark Sanchez will win a Super Bowl with the New York Jets. Mark Sanchez has come through under pressure in his short three year career. He has six, maybe eight depending on time, fourth quarter drives to win the game. He does make mistakes but all quarterbacks do. In his first season he had to lead his team to wins in his last two games of the season just to make the playoffs. In his first season he led his team to the AFC Championship. In his second season he also led the Jets to the AFC Championship. In that years playoffs Sanchez beat Peyton Manning in the first round playoffs. The jets won by one point and Sanchez led them to a fourth quarter come back win over Peyton Manning. When the pressure is on in games Mark Sanchez does come through for his team. Sanchez will always have a great defense all he has to do is lead his team to the Super Bowl. Mark Sanchez will win a Super Bowl as a New York Jets quarterback. | PRO | f58bd4e0-2019-04-18T18:31:02Z-00005-000 |
Abortion in the embryonic period is not necessarily immoral. I would just like to clarify one point. I do believe that abortions in the case of the mother's life being in immediate danger, and both mother and child cannot be saved (e. g. during ectopic pregnancy), are justified. In this case, it is a matter of triage, not abortion. Two patients are in mortal danger and only one can be saved, the one with the greater chance of survival (the mother) is saved. So I will be arguing that killing humans in the embryonic period of development is immoral in all other cases. As Pro is making the claim that killing human embryos is not necessarily immoral, I will await his opening argument as he bears the burden of proof. | CON | 5a5e6279-2019-04-18T18:25:49Z-00006-000 |
.999 repeating is equal to 1 in reality. No it is not absurd. I am not claiming that we should redo or change our math system. The people who made it are smart and right of including this system of repeating numbers. But they only did that because it would have raised to many questions and confusement of how infinite numbers can be used in our math system. I am merely saying that these ideas of infinity aren't correct in reality. Prove me wrong using logic, not our math system. | CON | ff37321a-2019-04-18T19:57:52Z-00007-000 |
The NRA infringes our democracy. First, I appreciate my contender's civility despite his failure to refute my argument According to my opponent, "Criminals buy illegal handguns and rifles..., so why wouldn't school shooters do the same." Obviously, they will start doing it until certain point, until the black market runs out of illegal guns. When criminals turn to the black market, their chance of being caught by undercover agents will be high; as a result, many will refrain from engaging in such activity, while others will end up in jail and cooperating with law enforcement. Regarding my opponent's claim about using other methods such as propane tanks, it is obvious that it would be much easier for a school clerk to stop someone walking into the school carrying a heavy propane tank than stop someone spreading rounds with an AR-15 or AK-47. Another flaw in con's argument is stating that "the NRA may feel that a ban on assault weapons is unconstitutional." Not even the second amendment mentions assault rifles; it does mention, however, a "well-regulated militia" and not even individual citizens. At that time the founding fathers wrote the Constitution thinking on muskets, not tanks, mortars, granades launchers, or bradleys. Therefore, why should we apply the Constitution to weapons of mass killing? | PRO | 74915a3a-2019-04-18T17:58:28Z-00001-000 |
Spore (the game) might just change the world!. "my opponent sings high praises of the game, explaining how it will be awesome" 1. I really need to clarify this: I NEVER said that spore would be AWESOME, nor have i praised it in anyway. I am not even saying that the game will be good. All that I am saying is that it MIGHT change the way many people see the world. And allow me to emphasise another important point about what i am agruing for. I am not saying that it will definitly change the world, just that there is a chance that it will. It "*might* *just* change the world." As long as there is a chance i win the debate. 2. Re: my opponent's comments on -Not trusting aliens, -Starting new societies, -Running/ collecting rings These issues don't have practical applications on the majority of people's lives. On the other hand teaching/understanding/believing in evolution does as there is a huge uprise of creationsim in america trying to put an end to this understanding. http://www.msnbc.msn.com... 3. Essays, Books, Scrolls, TV, and Video Games are all forms of media. (i.e means of communication, dictionary.com) Any form of media has the potential to change peoples outlook on life. Video games arnt noted for this quality today bc they haven't dealt/taught relevent issues. MGS and other games may deal will some issues like this, in these cases im sure that they do change some people's opinions. Such games however, do not contest the entire world view of a large body of voters. Spore Does! 4. Today our entire society relies on science. The country with the most advanced science is the most powerful. We have been in constant competition to hold this title. Scientific advancement relies on public funding. Science will only be publicly funded if people understand the importance of science. Creationism teaches that science isn't as important as it truly is. If creationism wins out an ecomonic catastrophy is gaurenteed. Spore might help! | PRO | 72309f71-2019-04-18T19:38:30Z-00001-000 |
As the old cliche goes ,"There's no harm in trying". I will not argue the same points over again, as I feel we have had enough of that. I am going to keep the round brief, and to-the-point. My opponent offers several risks of the site. I believe my opponent did not actually go to my source since he is conjuring up false risks. I actually completed the offer to test it, and would encourage my opponent to do the same. His first false risk is the virus risk. This argument is what you would call a non-unique argument. This "risk" (although drastically reduced on trusted sites) is not only available through this site, but throughout the internet. What you must realize here though is that my site is very trustworthy, and has constant inspections going on to ensure this is maintained. Although I personally cannot prove that there are no risks, it is an extremely low chance that there would even be a risk. Given this, there would be no harm for the vast majority, if not all of the people that use the site. Even so, the argument is non-unique. His second argument is basically the same as his first. Viruses steal information and give the computer instructions. Giving out information is almost the same thing. It CAN cause trouble but certainly not on this site. It is sponsored by Google, and is constantly scanned for complete protection. The only reason information is needed is to ship prizes. Once again, I have tested this myself. I have received one conformation e-mail, but no spam whatsoever. The site is tested and secure. My opponent's last assertion is completely false. He claims "there's always a risk in everything we do, and risk, of course, is always HARMFUL." This is an oxymoron. The word risk implies that something COULD be lost, or something COULD be gained. My opponent falsely links risk with harm, which is not in the resolution. We are debating about harm, not risk. On Deal or No Deal, people RISK some money to GAIN more money. They are not harmed by earning less money than they could have, but they are RISKING some money. Basically, risk does not equal harm, as my opponent would have you believe. "Dont you get it? I was telling you to think about what you've lost." I have lost nothing. I have not lost security, identity, or compromised my computer. Contrary to my opponent's assertions, I remain unharmed. As so, I have proven there to be no harm for my efforts. The resolution is affirmed. Thank you. | PRO | 8ab39b71-2019-04-18T19:22:40Z-00000-000 |
Socialism. Right leaning socialism or left leaning socialism? Because theres only so much evidence as it's a fairly new concept not that many empires have risen and then fell on it. Left leaning socialism like in the USSR and in Venezuela, yeah no, they're dying right now and I don't want to hear "BUT THAT WASNT REAL SOCIALISM" Because it was about 7 years ago until it started to fail. The USSR collapsed due to lack of money because they couldn't develop with that communism in there trying to make a north korea like state with peoples views. But in situations like Hitlers, right leaning socialism worked out for a bit until it got all warfighting. Also based upon the land taken as the czech land was taken, the north of yugoslavia, mixed with austria. The increase in land obviously boosted the economy | CON | 4e8e912a-2019-04-18T11:25:33Z-00000-000 |
Adoption is a very good thing. Another negative aspect to the adoption agencies is all about the cost. The prices just to adopt a child is outrageous. It can cost a person up to 30 thousand dollars to adopt a child. And some of the best homes may not have that number to purchase and adoption because they would rather spend it on the child not have to give that money over to the agencies. This really throws off a lot of families that want to handle an adopted child and it will make some of the best homes avoid it. | CON | 3dd37fe1-2019-04-18T17:01:22Z-00003-000 |
Beloved classic children's books being made into hollywood movies. Thanks, and good luck to you! I'll get the hang of things eventually, I'm sure :) I don't think children should have a hard time translating what they read into visual (in other words imagining). The imagination of child is an amazing and powerful thing, but it needs to be nurtured, and given exercise. Bored children who don't want to do anything but play video games and watch television are a product of the today's society. It's unhealthy for both their mind's and bodies and it's been a major concern with parents basically since television was invented. Watching a movie is like being spoon-fed. Almost no effort is required from the viewer. No offence but it's a poor excuse to say that movies are just easier to understand than books for children. Crawling is easier than walking for a babies but they have to learn and are better off for it. You made a good point bringing up Shakespeare though, I agree that the great classics have the ability to stand the test of time, even bad movies ;) I'm not really bothered by adult literature being adapted though, more the children's classics. Unfortunately, I think that many of the great children's authors would turn in their graves if they knew how film-industries like hollywood (...actually probably only hollywood) uses their books to create (in most cases) soulless money-making franchises. To augment my point, here is a quote from Christopher Tolkien, the son and custodian of the works of JRR Tolkien, author of Lord of the Rings, the Hobbit and many other amazing children books, regarding Peter Jackson's adaption of Lord of the Rings: "They gutted the book, making an action movie for 15-25 year olds. And it seems that The Hobbit will be of the same ilk." JRR Tolkien himself, while he was still alive, was apparently greatly disturbed about how his books and ideas were being treated by pop culture. If I'm not mistaken, he explicitly did not want any movie or any visual representation to made of his book for the very reason I have stated. He wanted children to use their own imaginations. | CON | 99f86195-2019-04-18T12:50:51Z-00003-000 |
Whether or not Donald Trump should be president. Well, the con speaker has either really forfeited or ran out of time. I would just like to add that it is okay to dislike a candidate. It is okay to support one. I don't like Trump and I like Sanders. But I cannot support going against democracy. If Trump gets the nomination and then the presidency, then he won it. It isn't about should or shouldn't. It happened or it didn't. | PRO | e61e60e2-2019-04-18T13:28:51Z-00000-000 |
Jerusalem should become an independant city state. The motion basically means that the plot of land of Jerusalem becomes a city which has its own laws and does not run by other countries laws. As most of us here are familiar that the current president of USA, Mr. Donald trump, is proposing a new policy and if accepted makes jerusalum the capital of isreal, and then it will act as a fuel in the isreal-palestine conflict. The oppsotion party will make an argument regarding the fact that why we shouldn't support the motion but you should consider that not supporting it is not morally right. I would like to remind you that Jerusalem holds gret significane to the three religions of the world. Both isreal and palistine are fighting for Jerusalem to be their capital and many people have died. SO IS IT MORALLY RIGHT THAT PEOPLE DIE??? I would like to bring it to your good knowlege that on 29th november 1947, the jewish leaders accepted the partion plan which was proposed by the United nations as resolution 181-(ll). The resolution recommended the creation of independant arab and jewish states and a special regime for the city of jerusalum. Even though jews accepted the resolution, the arab league and arab higher committee in palestine rejected it, opposing any creation of independant city state of jerusalum. The next year after the resolutiob was rejected, war started and it was known as the war of 1948. HISTORY HAS SHOWN US WHAT HAPPENED WHEN WE DENIED TBAT JERUSALUM SHOULD BECOME AN INDEPENDANT CITY STATE, IT LEAD TO WAR OF 1948. ONLY BY SUPPORTING THE MOTION, THERE WILL BE PEACE BETWEEN ISREAL AND PALISTINE. If we don't support the motion, war is the only solution. Both isreal and palistine are fighting for jerusalum and only by supporting the motion it will be more likely that the plot of land of Jerusalem will become an independant city state which will promote peace | PRO | 1b240667-2019-04-18T11:47:23Z-00005-000 |
Cannibalism is inherently immoral. Given that you have not defined what it is to be moral or immoral, Pro could advance the claim that Cannibalism is inherently immoral on any number of grounds, cherry-picking from various moral philosophies to find one that fits. Divine command would be the most obvious, but Kant's philosophies could work, and Pro could basically just keep throwing until one stuck. In exchange for not doing that, I would like to amend the resolution a bit (seeing as how we have 5 rounds, I don't think it's unreasonable to sacrifice one to clarify terms). The new resolution would read: "Cannibalism is immoral by Mills' Utilitarianism except in the case of necessity for survival. " If this is acceptable, simply reply to that effect, and we can begin. | PRO | af0dca73-2019-04-18T17:05:46Z-00007-000 |
Education in America is too easy compared to the eastern side of the world. So my opponent says this, "you did not show any evidence that education in America was not easier. As to the eastern side of the world, I am referring to the asian countries. Asian countries are many levels above American education." Hear is my evidence to show that education in America is just as easy as "Asian countries" [imo thats pretty stereotyped]. His only analysis on the subject was that "Asian countries are many levels above American education", I agree to this statement but he mentions nothing about education here. He simply implies that Asians are smarter than Americans. He then provides 4 sources to which he does not even refer to, so those sources cannot be considered. One of my definitions was Education as being the ability to learn. Once again, silence is consent, which means my opponent agrees with this definition. Easy was also accepted as easier. America as United States was conceded. Eastern side of the world, I agree to this definition, as being Asian Countries. So lets re-phrase the resolution (with the newly accepted word) to make it clearer to understand. == The ability to learn in the United States is easier compared to the Asian countries. == To this I strongly disagree. Asians may be smarter than the average American, but every single person has the same ability to learn. Most of the time they have to choice to learn, wether by paying attention or doing their work. I stand in firm Negation of the Resolution. | CON | cac7b922-2019-04-18T19:11:58Z-00002-000 |
Man is basically good. Although the core beliefs of each religion may be slightly different, their set system of morals are often very similar. No murder, no theft, respect others, etc. Not much conflict there. :) Theft did not lead to the downfall of communism. However, if man was naturally good they would be less inclined to act in self-interest and focus on helping others as well. In such a case, communism would probably have potential to succeed. Thank you to my opponent for giving me a short, brief debate. :) I look forward to seeing the results. | CON | 4253fac4-2019-04-18T19:09:02Z-00000-000 |
The ability to prosecute politicians is the ultimate protection against the abuse of power. It is impossible to overstate the power that the threat of prosecution has to stay the hand of anyone, including a politician, from transgressing the laws of the state. In fact, we need more aggressive prosecution of politicians. Not a single person has been prosecuted for approval illegal torture or wiretapping. These are illegal actions actually happening which the populace, with only the blunt instrument of voting for or against a politician on the sum total of their policies, is unable to effectively influence. There is no greater deterrent that could be used against politicians. | PRO | 9dd3f3ac-2019-04-15T20:23:01Z-00021-000 |
Banned from voting.... Ok, now you're just spoonfeeding me nonsense that cannot be translated. By the way, you're getting off topic. This is about you being banned from voting, yet you decide to type this random nonsense. You uphold the Bop, and thus, you need to tell me why you have been banned due to your lack of paying Ivory Tower dues. Now please get back on track with your main argument. | PRO | 70acc403-2019-04-18T14:33:51Z-00006-000 |
JD/MBA fills critical gaps in JD or MBA separately. "Introduction to the JD/MBA Dual Degree." TopLawSchools.com: "law is essentially the mechanism by which business is actually carried out (read: contracts). Law students, however, receive little to no training in business management or in business finances while in law school, while business school students’ educations correspondingly lack training/certifying classes in the mechanisms of contracts. The ultimate solution for those seeking training in both is the JD/MBA joint degree." | PRO | 6963151c-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00080-000 |
Eternal Torment in Fiery Hell is Not Biblical. On the basis that the valley of Hinnom was used as a site of idolatrous worship that included child sacrifice, some believe that Gehenna was used by Jesus as a symbol of eternal torment. Since Jehovah God expressed repugnance to such practice when He said, "a thing that I had not commanded and that had not come up into my heart" (Jeremiah 7:31; 32:35) it seems unlikely that the Son of God would make that idolatrous practice the basis for the symbolic meaning of Gehenna. In the Bible times, the most thorough means of destruction in use was fire. (Deuteronomy 13:16; Joshua 6:24) This is why Jesus often used the term “fire” to, in an illustrative way, denote the complete destruction of the wicked. | PRO | de8bbd15-2019-04-18T14:39:41Z-00001-000 |
British Kill the colonists. The British are the one that started the battle not the colonists who started the fight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | CON | 24cbc6f7-2019-04-18T17:35:49Z-00001-000 |
Best Songs. Round 3: Indie /Alternative I chose Thunder Clatter by Wild Cub I see you hidden in the night I found you I see you separate from the others. Bent crooked in the light around you BathingA279; in the sight of the others. I couldn't say what I was thinking My heart shrinking Two sad sparks blinking in the sun Wait one minute I had to listen for it It was hidden in the fall Hidden in the fall Waiting on love to call Hidden in the fall I met you in the dead of winter I stood stranded in the water Dug deeper than a crooked splinter I turned away from all the others I couldn't say what I was thinking My heart shrinking Two sad sparks blinking in the sun Wait one minute I had to listen for it It was hidden in the fall Hidden in the fall Waiting on love to call Hidden in the fall Sad hopes I'd hidden under Tangled inside of me You spoke like broken thunder DeepA279; into the center of me. I couldn't say what I was thinking My heart shrinking Two sad sparks blinking in the sun Wait one minute I had to listen for it It was hidden in the fall Hidden in the fall Waiting on love to call Hidden in the fall I hear it call in the center of it all You're the love of my life, the love of my life I hear it all in the center of my heart You're the love of my life, the love of my life I hear it call in the center of it all You're the love of my life, the love of my life I hear it all in the center of my heart You're the love of my life, the love of my life Lyrics from: http://songmeanings.com... | PRO | ea213d47-2019-04-18T16:07:39Z-00005-000 |
Teachers should not be allowed to have guns in school. Think about it what if a teacher had a gun. There would be a great chance for a child to actually take the gun and use it in school. Some children might snatch the gun while the teacher isn't looking and how many mass murders have you seen on TV lately ever since the sandy hook shooting? Basically none. School security has improved and it isn't stupid when someone locks the doors in the lunchroom and call it stupid. I had a lockdown once and my teacher covered the door. And when someone tried to open he couldn't open because of the lockdown plan. It is not very stupid indeed Some teachers shouldn't even have a gun because what if a child is unstable and later on he gets on hold of it and causes a rampage. And you cannot always count on the person who has a gun will be a good guy teachers cause crimes also and if teachers cause crime what makes sense to give them a gun. The point of this debate was for me to show you that guns should not be in the hands of teachers and your point is that teachers need to have guns. Here are my extra reasons 1) Teachers are there for learning not to become a police officer defending themselves with gun. 2) There will be probably less children attending the school and children do not perform well if they are nervous taking exams. They will become nervous if a teacher is having a gun in their classroom. The children will be scared if they think the teacher will shoot one of the students and end up becoming scared and nervous. 3) Teachers are not good supervisors. And they aren't because I bet you all of you out there know when your teacher leaves the classroom sometimes she may not leave a teacher watching the students the out come will be a child carrying a gun. Also what if you were at the back of the line next to the teachers desk and the teacher wasn't looking a child would be tempted to grab hold of the gun. Showing all of this concludes that teachers should have no guns in their hands. Your turn | PRO | c6de6870-2019-04-18T16:46:42Z-00001-000 |
The European Union is no longer in a financial position to be taking in new members. The financial crisis and European Union member states’ having to bail each other out means that there will be less money available for any new members. The bailouts have cost the EU more than $500 billion plus financing the European Stability Mechanism with $650 billion.[1] Hence current prospective entrants will not have such auspicious conditions for adoption as there were for all previous entrants into the EU. This means that all the benefits will have to come from the extension of Free Trade, something which could happen without full membership. Joining the EU as full members would at the same time work against these poorer countries’ competitive advantages. European labor regulations will make many workers in these countries less competitive and stringent environmental regulations will impose a cost that countries at their level of development cannot afford. For example Croatia will require an extra 10.5 billion Euros to implement the EU’s environmental regulations.[2] [1] Alessi, Christopher, ‘The Eurozone in Crisis’, Council on Foreign Relations, Backgrounder, 14 February 2012, http://www.cfr.org/eu/eurozone-crisis/p22055 [2] ‘EU environmental regulations will cost Croatia €10.5 Billion’, Macedonian Intl News Agency, 27 December 2011, http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/19954/46/ | PRO | 3ac8582e-2019-04-15T20:22:22Z-00019-000 |
When in Conflict we should prioritize, Global Poverty Reduction over environmental protection. My opponent brings up a good point about how these people live in "Poor neighborhoods and ghettos are filled disproportionately with minorities" well this is true that won't matter if they are not alive any more because of globe warming and other natural disasters. --- They also say that the environment it always bounced back to anything that has happened, but you have to think about the fact that the earth has never had to deal with the pollution and other technologies that humans have developed. as well as the population rate that its known today. --- My opponent asks where I get my diseases information from, this came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) http://www.cdc.gov... --- | CON | 8495e98-2019-04-18T19:15:13Z-00003-000 |
Path to citizenship encourages illegal immigration. The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), in a Jan. 2007 www.fairus.org section titled "The Costs of Illegal Immigration to New Jerseyites": "The proposal to simply convert illegal alien residents to legal resident status with an amnesty violates a fundamental principle of immigration reform, because that will encourage rather than deter future illegal immigration. A policy that conveys the message that the country or any state or local government will tolerate and reward foreigners who ignore our immigration law invites the world to see illegal immigration as an accepted route to seeking a better life in our country and it will exacerbate the problem."[9] | PRO | 4cf9e3c5-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00045-000 |
Slobodan Milosevic, the leader of Serbia, won several elections. List of possible exceptions to the democratic peace theory - Wikipedia "Slobodan Milosevic, the leader of Serbia, won several elections. The NATO nations participating in Operation Allied Force were democratic. At time of Kosovo War, Milosevic's party was in a coalition with two others, and the Serbian Parliament contained a broader range of political parties than is common in nations such as America, Britain and Japan. The government had invited the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe into Serbia to judge on 1996 election fraud, and had accepted its rulings even though they went against Milosevic's party.Milosevic had made election of Yugoslav president into a ballot by the whole electorate rather than just by the legislature." | PRO | c6691773-2019-04-17T11:47:39Z-00067-000 |
Resolved: Private Businesses Ought to be Able to Deny Service based on Immutable Characteristics. Links annotated. ==Abstract==Private property rights have always been at the forefront of many political struggles in the United States since its founding and until recently courts have come down on an individualistic world view in terms of property, responsibility and so on. Reaching back into history, the ability to deny service was considered a basic of property rights until the civil rights era. The reasons why this changed is all but obvious (1) The abuses of this era cannot be separated easily from the kind of legal institutions that enabled them, one such is the ability of an institution to discriminate against a person(s) based on immutable qualities. == Realism == We wont beat around the bush here, the reality of the right to legally discriminate against a person or persons includes but is not limited to the right to be institutionally racist (2) or any other criteria of bigotry (3). Bluntly put, these kinds of practices are one in the same with the effects those practices produce , legalising the ability to refuse service is a practical reinstatement of segregation. Let's look at a historical example. Practices such as Red lining(5) where in practice until the fair housing act of 1968. During this practices legality, private institutions (namely financial) where able to charge higher interest against minority races, refuse to sell property in certain areas either directly or by making the desired property unreasonable to attain through various manipulations. The result was an unnatural segregation of real estate, as well as a quality of living. The practice of redlining was a way of denying service as well as exploiting service performed purely by private institutions of finance bare in mind. The practice of denying service has been abolished specifically because of these blatant abuses, there is no realistically good way to separate actions from their institutional or legal basis. The Jim Crow days are gone they took blatantly abusive and unjust practices like this with them. You frankly don't have the ability nor the right to be a bigot and expect to be a functional member of society. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://madnews.files.wordpress.com... (3) http://www.israellycool.com... | CON | 284a3601-2019-04-18T16:15:56Z-00006-000 |
Flirting and chatting on online dating websites considered cheating when in a long-term relationship. Now, there is one extremely important term in this debate, and here is a fair definition of it: cheat - to be sexually unfaithful. It is understood that we are talking about someone who creates a profile on a dating website. This profile states that the creator is: a) single, b) LOOKING for short-term/long-term relationships, c) LOOKING for casual sex. Realistically, the creator of the profile is in a long-term relationship of about one to two years. Flirting and chatting with guys/girls on online dating websites is certainly NOT considered cheating. Remember that cheating involves being sexually unfaithful. Obviously, "sexually" refers to physical intercourse. Online flirting and chatting do not involve any type of sex or physical intercourse whatsoever. People in relationships flirt and chat with people at bars, but this in no way proves that someone is cheating because there is NO SEX. | CON | 89ab98ac-2019-04-18T19:00:11Z-00003-000 |
Those Who Take Selfies (Just By Themselves) Are Ego-Maniacs. Is there really a need to take selfies? Selfies are just not the kind of social activity that we should be using to communicate with each other. It seems like they love posting pictures of themselves for everyone to see. In response to my opponent's question, they may not seem self-conceited, but they are sub-consciously self-conceited. Like I said before, we should just talk to each other on the phone rather than text because it is more personal and unique than any text. Facebook may be an easier way to keep connected, but if we really wanted to keep our friends from our past to our adulthood, then we should take the extra mile to do so. | PRO | c1d774ac-2019-04-18T16:13:46Z-00003-000 |
Rap battle (rematch) NDECD1441 vs Cakerman. So you're saying you screwed a b*tch who screwed a b*tch who screwed you Tell me how this logic ain't even through You took my advice and added more rhyme Im thankful too because I died of laughter each and every time. Stop talking bout others, talk about me Not Emilrose, Masterful, or JimShady Because they honestly have got more skill than you And soon you will discover that I do too You wanna know the illusion, thats your life I shoot you with a gun you cut yourself with a knife I don't need a medic, I'm an immortal Blast half the goons away and go through the portal You know the attic in the house is the most filthy I own the living dining bathroom kitchen rhymes so silky When I blast you off the roof things might get a little milky They call me the snow king, my precense itself so chilly You aren't allowed to hold a gun, you would shoot your own foot Now sit by the campfire you little old coot Push you into the fire, hands covered with soot Let me introduce your face to my boot If you forfeit again, I would laugh so hardly Two in a row is a little "retardly" Your bullets indeed pretended, mine are real Because of my power that shjt's surreal I admit i'm not a christian, and I feel great I am the lord in terms between us, Psalm 34:8 In your "thrown" I would throw you off the king Love your life? Pity you should have gave it a ring You inspire? Yeah right to die of f@cking laughter Your legacy of cringe will continue a thousand years after You are obviously a failed experiment b*tch Now at least you recognize your flaws you little snitch Time to end this battle quick and fast But to slaughter you, this would be your last Your body would be wrapped in more than a cast The moment they vote, you would feel the blast. | PRO | 6256d56f-2019-04-18T12:06:31Z-00001-000 |
Should the Government pay the expenses of Space Exploration. It is an ideal that the government should pay for the expenses of Space Exploration and it is crucial for LIFE on Earth. It is crucial to human life as it helps us. The Sun will soon die and future generations of the Homo-sapian sapian species will die out and be extinct. I am talking about all governments in general. The world is expanding and the bigger it gets the faster it will expand. There are many planets like earth out there and they may help in finding a new planet for future generations. | PRO | 3a5fee6b-2019-04-18T16:56:50Z-00004-000 |
The ruling in Williams v. Walker Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams. I find that very difficult to believe that Williams had not been aware that the Walker-Thomas Furniture Company would repossess the rest of her items since she had prior business transactions with them. Like I stated, earlier for each item that she purchased, there was a contract involved. It is not the Furniture Companies fault that she could not fully comprehend the contract. She had more than enough time to request assistance to fully comprehending the guidelines to each contract. In no way was Williams threatened or forced into signing those contracts , if Williams felt that the contract was unconscionable, she had the freedom and choice to not sign those contracts that she did. I am sure that even if the contract may even seemed to be unconscionable, it was not intententional. The Walker-Thomas furniture company is a business, and in no way should they want to deprive their customers of purchasing what they truly desire, the only thing that the Walker-Thomas Company asked is that their customers comply with each guideline of the contract | CON | 8e244dd1-2019-04-18T16:15:26Z-00004-000 |
Is Horseback Riding A Sport. So two interesting things happen in my opponent's last round.The first interesting thing is that he concedes that horseback riding being a sport is a truism. This means he's going to be 100% linking into the harms coming off the theory argument as to how he's harming debate as an activity, and why he should lose because of it.The second interesting thing is that he doesn't respond to a single thing I posted in my argument about why truisms harm debate and why it means he should lose because he tried to debate one. He literally just says "Yeah, it's a truism, but a lot of people still think it's not a sport and it's annoying to try and slap them with a dictionary all the time" before kicking it back over to me.Hold this against him in the debate and extend out my arguments as dropped. Debating truisms make it impossible for debaters to have equal access to argument ground, which harms the fairness of the activity and the educational value of the activity. Because he's harming fairness and education, he ought to lose the debate. Kicking it back over to pro, hoping for any kind of response. | CON | ac54db00-2019-04-18T15:23:43Z-00006-000 |
That people should allowed to have tattoos (visible) in the workplace. I would argue that tattoos are as much a part of a person's identity as eye color, if not more so. Most people who have spent the money (and time) in tattoo parlors have done so because their body art means something to them, and the ones that do not want to hide their tattoos. Here are some tattoo statistics as provided by statisticbrain.com 45 Million Americans have at least one tattoo 17% of those people regret their tattoo(s) and 43% of those believe that personal meaning is the most important factor when getting a tattoo. It is insulting to tell those 45 million Americans to hide their identity simply because of a common stereotype. Also, if a person were to be fired for their tattoo being visible, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act does not protect them. The exception to these is tattoos that cannot be covered due to religious beliefs, but that is because of religion. As a tattooed individual, the stigma against tattoos is simply ridiculous. I am tattooed on both of my wrists, and I am not a delinquent, I am not a rebel, and I do no consider myself above the law. However, I do believe I should not have to cover my tattoos in my workplace. Tattooed people deserve a chance. | PRO | bb8cf2ee-2019-04-18T16:10:20Z-00003-000 |
Disney channel is better then nickelodeon. okay, sorry for the last round, again, I was in the hospital. Anyways. .. yes, you did say they give them great shows and movies that young adults relate to, but in the title, you just simply stated, " Disney channel is better than nickelodeon. " That can mean movies, shows, etc. you stated "as a kid growing up I loved Nickelodeon back then I would say that it was better then Disney, but back then Nick didn't have any movies what so ever. " I'm assuming you were a kid from around the time 1996-1998. some Nickelodeon movies from that time were: 1996- Harriet the spy 1997-Good burger 1998-Rugrats movie So see, you did have movies to watch. Even today Nickelodeon makes movies: 2009- Hotel for dogs 2009- Imagine that These movies relate to people just as much, if not more, than Disney. . http://www.variety.com... This was a good debate. | CON | 51baedca-2019-04-18T19:30:06Z-00000-000 |
the roman catholic church has never contradicted itself. in this debate, i am not counting the issues of limbo, or "no salvation outside the catholic church". you would think if the catholic church were not true, that it would have contradicted itself at some point in two thousand years. the only things that count are statements that are authoritative, things that could be considerted "infallible". the pope, intentionally, teaches, the church, on faith and morals. that is the criteria. it includes many councils and other statements by popes. note: this does not include moral corruption, only official teaching. that means you can't use bad priest, even peodofile priests. it means you can't use the inquisistion where millions were killed by catholics. can't use bad popes. it has to be actual teachings of the church, as said, councils and statements by popes. etc. impeccable v infallble, there's a difference. since we are comparing official statements, id rather not use the bible either. it's usually too open to interpretation to begin with. we are examining the church's consistency on its own anyway... and you'd think even beyond the bible, it'd have contradicted itself within two thousand years. also there's a differnce between widespread belief and doctrine. that so many believed the earth was made in six days, that the earth was flat, that man wasn't from apes etc... only shows they are human. it'd make sense at first impression. this isn't doctrine. you have to cite a quote or citation. | PRO | 187be36f-2019-04-18T17:40:27Z-00003-000 |
free market capitalism. I am arguing against unregulated capitalism, a. k. a. "free market". For the purpose of this debate and to avoid a separate one altogether, we are considering the U. S. economy to be mostly free - market capitalism with an arguably subpar level of regulation (the point of this debate). My resolution is that capitalism must be regulated by a socialist mentality in order for it to possibly work in the best interest of society. Con's bop is the age old claim that free market is better than a regulated one from a socioeconomic standpoint. | CON | e1f11b1-2019-04-18T16:47:11Z-00005-000 |
Polygamy should be legalized in the United States. Polygamy may seem like an appealing option on the surface, but there are a lot of muddy details that make it unfeasible for legal implementation. For one thing, there is the issue of a death in the family. If one spouse is to die, how is it determined which of the other spouses receive their assets if no will is drafted? Additionally, in the case of plural marriages with one man and multiple women, the male often takes a patriarchal role in the relationship in which all of the women are effectively his spouse, but not spouses to each other. If this male figure is to pass away, how is the legal status sorted out of the remaining living spouses? And what if one spouse wants another person to enter into the marriage but the others do not? Would unanimous agreement be required, or would it only take a majority of the spouses to agree? The legal implementation problems alone make polygamy a tough sell. This, however, pales in comparison to the moral outrage that a majority of Americans would exhibit. A mere 14% of Americans consider polygamy to be morally acceptable, according to Gallup. If so few people can stomach the idea of plural marriage being legal in their country, how would they react if it was allowed? The public outcry would be overwhelming. The rage exhibited by the religious right after the Obergfell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide was strong enough; imagine how these same people would react if what they viewed as the "sanctity of marriage" was trampled once more. | CON | 7acf35a4-2019-04-18T13:28:51Z-00004-000 |
I'm the biggest Tolkien fanatic!. I am willing to assume that I am the most fanatical about John Ronald Ruel Tolkien's mythopia on this website. I believe I know more about it than anyone else (with the exception of being able to speak any of his languages). I would love to see someone beat me so I know I am not a loner on this subject. In the first round you must state 1. approximately how long you have been a fan. 2. what books you have read and how many times. 3. what nationality you are. I have been a fan from a young age 6 years, 1month, 21 days, and 16 hours since I finished the Trilogy. I have read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings 6 times, The Silmarillion 2, The Complete History of Middle Earth 1 1/2. The Unfinished Tales 1, The Children of Hurin 2, and The Tales from the Perilous Realm 1. I am an American born on the west coast but now lives on the east coast. I now leave it to whomever tries to outdo me. jrrjacques at you service. | PRO | a7902b66-2019-04-18T16:25:47Z-00009-000 |
All math-being-everywhere please regard 0 to be a #. We have yet to establish a resolution and my opponent has yet to say anything coherent. He maintains his burden of proof, yet has not said anything of rhetorical weight yet. "All math-being-everywhere please regard 0 to be a #. "This is a supplication to an imaginary "math-being" for a request that could be fulfilled through human means, all it requires is a swtiching of two symbols. "In particular, for a mathematician who is for gay marriage and all that jazz my question is: why does said mathematician regard zero as insufficient in-itself to be dubbed a number? "0 is both a number and the numerical digit used to represent that number in numerals. [1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...(number)] "Zero is clearly an element of the set of Real Numbers, it's the "additive identity" -- the number that, when added to any other number x, doesn't change the value of x. (Similarly, 1 is the multiplicative identity -- the number that, when multiplied by any other number x, doesn't change the value of x. ) Thus, zero is a number, just as any other element of the set of Real Numbers is a number. "[2. . http://www.straightdope.com...;Furthermore, mathematics functions completely independentally of sexual orientation. "The bronze of a statue or the silver of a cup, or the classes which contain these? "Nonsensical question. "Please Hold. "Pick a resolution please. "DMX: "I just love when a nigga bring his whole crew it's just a bigga piece of cake for me to chew a hole through. "What does DMX's Bring Your Whole Crew have to do with this "debate? | CON | af0aca94-2019-04-18T18:11:43Z-00006-000 |
Abortion should be legal. 1.You contradict yourself, you say it's is there body and therefore their choice, but in the next you refer to it as "the baby". The baby has a separate blood type and DNA than the mother, it a different being than its mother, it is not HER body. Not because something is in inside of you means it IS you. If you're in a car, you are not the car. 2.There are many adoption foundation(example "Heart by heart" who offer to completely cover the medical and other bills. 3. That doesn't matter. Another living human should not have to suffer consequences because you messed up. Someone convicted of a crime and is innocent should not be charged just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. | CON | 6702cc23-2019-04-18T11:24:19Z-00004-000 |
Stop using Splenda. I'll pollute my body if I want and I'll put splenda in my coffee too!(Your sources were broken, only two of them seemed to work so I didn't get to assess fully)Your side-effects of splenda have no source and are only referenced as an ancedote in one of your sourcesLong-term exposure to splenda has been tested on humans:There is no indication that you can get adverse side effect from exposure to sucralose at the maximum anticipated levels of intake!http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...The effects of splenda on rats in the study by duke university (mind you was funded by The Sugar Association which is a chief competitor to splenda! ???) have not been observed in humans.http://www.nytimes.com...Sucrose is a 1= PRACTICALLY NONTOXICSucrose and Chlorine are "Not classifiable as a human carcinogen."so you are wrong that chlorine is considered a carcinogen.http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov...http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov...My other sources: http://ezinearticles.com...More:http://www.foodnavigator.com...http://www.gpo.gov...;http://www.gpo.gov...;vote me if you want... | CON | 5af7bf1d-2019-04-18T18:07:19Z-00000-000 |
The Christian god exists and rules over the universe - read rules!. My opponent must be a Christian that believes in every word of the bible. They must construct one strong evidence-based argument that proves the existence of their god. If my opponent or I disagree with one another (which we most likely will) we must post a refute/defence. I will not post any points as to why being an atheist is best as we do not have the burden of proof. If my opponent agrees with me I win, if I agree with them they win, if we disagree the voters are suggested to look for any violations of my rules and/or see if his argument holds up to my refutes. Terms All terms and definitions are influenced by or excerpted from the Oxford Dictionary. Rules 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling or deconstruction semantics 6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution) 7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolution definitions 8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate 9. The BOP is shared 10. The first round is for acceptance only 11. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss Structure R1. my rules, your argument R2. my refute, your defence R3. my summary and refute, your summary and defence | CON | 16db684d-2019-04-18T14:00:31Z-00005-000 |
Liberals' DDO Tournament: NSA Surveillance. This debate is a Semi-Final round in the Liberals' DDO Tournament between myself and Henry (who is replacing Magic after he was forced to drop out due to extenuating circumstances.)Topic:The NSA should not have engaged in surveillance of EU leaders and their staffs.Structure:R1: AcceptanceR2: Cases (no rebuttals)R3: RebuttalsR4: RebuttalsR5: Rebuttals/Crystallization (no new arguments or responses)Thanks:I thank Henry for agreeing to fill in--without his acquiesence, this round would not have been possible; I would also like to thank the judges and all my fellow competitors for making this a great tournament. May the best debater prevail. | CON | 5a3d12c5-2019-04-18T16:53:27Z-00009-000 |
Maternity and Paternity Leave Are Not Yet Equal. Most corporations, in almost every country on the earth will not even offer their male employees something close to paternity.[1] But, most countries mandate by law, that women get a set amount of maternity leave. The truth is that, the lack of any kind of paternity leave for the male, indicates that there is a "glass ceiling" hovering over fathers heads, and is preventing them from being good parents. It would benefit every family, if fathers were allowed to spend time with their new borns, like women can. This is not a battle for the feminist cause. [1] http://www.opm.gov/oca/leave/html/ParentalReport.htm | CON | 5c02dbdc-2019-04-15T20:22:33Z-00010-000 |
Resolution: Allowing deep water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the United States. Unfortunately we got thrown pretty far off schedule. For now I will rebut my opponent's case. Good luck. ============================= Contention 1 - Reliance on foreign assets ============================= I have three main responses. - Achieving energy independence is feasible without drilling offshore. America is sitting on top of a massive 200 billion barrel Oil Field that could potentially make America Energy Independent and until now has largely gone unnoticed. Thanks to new technology the Bakken Formation in North Dakota could boost America's Oil reserves by an incredible 10 times, giving western economies the trump card against OPEC's short squeeze on oil supply and making Iranian and Venezuelan threats of disrupted supply irrelevant. [1] - Reliance on oil does not encourage "clean" energy development. The more oil we have, the longer we can survive without alternative energy sources. (electric, hydro, geothermal, etc.) The longer we can survive without clean energy, the smaller the sense of urgency about developing new, cleaner technologies becomes. This leads to the US falling behind on new forms of energy development, and does nothing to improve our oil problems or help the environment. - Competition is inherently good for the (US) economy My opponent says that increasing our offshore drilling would lower competition with other countries such as China as far as gas prices go. Last time I checked, competition was what has driven the US economy since, well, THE BIRTH OF THE US. Capitalism has certainly been in ths US's best interests so far, and has been one of the main reasons we are so prosperous. Why would my opponent want to throw that away. More competition means lower gas prices. Isn't this what he is arguing for? His argument about competition is self-defeating. ======================== Contention 2 - Increases oil supply ======================== As of recently, said extra supplies of oil have been dumped into the Gulf of Mexico. I have already addressed this with safer, on-shore methods. Again, reference my argument about alternative energy. =================== Contention 3 - Employment =================== There are many things in this world that could provide jobs for people who have no work, and help the economy. Some are worthwhile endeavors, and some are not. What about employing people to make iPods? Are iPods harmful to the public when used responsibly? No. Are they hurting the environment? Nope. Are they creating any lasting negative impacts on humanity? Negatory. Should we employ people to make them as long as there is a demand for them? Sure. It stimulates the economy and helps the jobless, just like my opponent said. Now, consider offshore drilling. Has offshore drilling harmed the public? Yes. Has offshore drilling hurt the environment? Certainly. Has offshore drilling created any lasting negative impacts on humanity? Arguably. Layers of oil now coat beaches, ocean floors, and fumes have been released into the air. Could we help some jobless people by employing them to help in the offorts of offshore drilling? It is possible. Should we? I'll let the voters decide. [1] http://www.nextenergynews.com... | CON | bb480ce7-2019-04-18T19:03:16Z-00002-000 |
Cigarette Smoking Should Be Banned Everywhere. Contentions:Contention 1: Banning Cigarettes would be similar to banning cars. Let me explain; vehicles in the modern era mostly use Fuel to run their engines. After the combustion of that fuel, it turns into a very toxic gas called Carbon Monoxide. This gas can cause many, MANY, health problems including cancer. Health Problems of Carbon Monoxide:- Respiratory ailments, Asthma, Headache, Runny eyes & nose, and Nausea- Increased risk of lung cancer- Increased rate of mutations - Over Exposure can cause death. Not to mention the fact that 60,000 premature deaths each year, are a result of burning natural gas in vehicles. The effects of inhaling exhaust is similar to that of smoking a cigarette, however, the inhalation of exhaust is involuntary. Very similar to second hand smoking. In order to stop so many people from being effected, the federal air standards, called the NAAQS (The National Ambient Air Quality Standards) have tried to stop so much pollution by passing the 1970 Clean Air Act (that is designed to protect public health). As it is quite apparent, they are beginning to fix a problem, without banning Fuel burning vehicles for good. Such conditions are happening with cigarettes as well. Summary:As you can see, Carbon Monoxide is produced after burning Fuel, this is used to run cars. Under the pretense of getting rid of something bad because it could harm the people around you, would mean we have to get rid of all fuel burning vehicles. So getting rid of cigarettes because of the danger people are in around you, would mean we would have to do it to everything that causes such an event to occur. My second contention will be in the next Round. .. Maybe. .. Contention 1: . http://www.fumeavent.com... Thank You,Godridden95 | CON | c81986ed-2019-04-18T15:29:36Z-00006-000 |
Other countries are even younger – in America only 16!. Just because other countries have it, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is right. The statistics on road deaths in the US reflect those of the UK. America is also considering its stance on minimum driving age at this time. The following chart specifies the age at which one may be fully privileged to drive in a particular American state. Alabama 17 yrs. Alaska 16 yrs. & 6 mos. Arizona 16 yrs. & 6 mos. Arkansas 18 yrs. California 18 yrs., provisional from 16 to 18 Colorado 17 yrs. Connecticut 17 yrs. & 4 mos. (w/ passengers); 18 yrs. @ night Delaware 17 yrs. Florida 18 yrs. Georgia 18 yrs. Hawaii 17 yrs. Idaho 16 yrs. (night); 15 yrs. & 6 mos. (w/ passenger) Illinois 18 yrs. (night); 17 yrs. (w/ passenger) Indiana 17 yrs. Iowa 17 yrs. Kansas 16 yrs. & 6 mos. Kentucky 17 yrs. Louisiana 17 yrs. Maine 16 yrs. & 6 mos. Maryland 17 yrs. & 9 mos. (night); 16 yrs. & 11 mos. ( w/ passenger) Massachusetts 18 yrs. (night); 17 yrs. (w/ passenger) Michigan 17 yrs. Minnesota 16 yrs. & 6 mos. (night); 17 yrs. (w/ passenger) Mississippi 16 yrs. & 6 mos. Missouri 17 yrs. & 11 mos. Montana 16 yrs. Nebraska 17 yrs. (night); 16 yrs. & 6 mos. (w/ passenger) Nevada 16 yrs. & 6 mos. New Hampshire 17 yrs. & 1 mos. (night); 16 yrs. & 6 mos. (w/ passenger) New Jersey 18 yrs., provisional at 17 yrs. New Mexico 16 yrs. & 6 mos. New York 17 yrs. w/ drivers ed; 18 yrs. w/o drivers ed North Carolina 16 yrs. & 6 mos. North Dakota 14 yrs. & 6 mos. Ohio 18 yrs. (night); 17 yrs. (w/passenger) Oklahoma 16 yrs. & 6 mos. w/ drivers ed; 17 yrs. w/o drivers ed Oregon 17 yrs. Pennsylvania 17 yrs. (if crash & conviction free); 18 yrs. otherwise Rhode Island 17 yrs. & 6 mos. South Carolina 16 yrs. & 6 mos. South Dakota 16 yrs. Tennessee 17 yrs. Texas 16 yrs. & 6 mos. Utah 17 yrs. (night); 16 yrs. & 6 mos. (w/ passneger) Vermont 16 yrs. & 6 mos. Virginia 18 yrs. Washington 18 yrs. West Virginia 17 yrs. Wisconsin 16 yrs. & 9 mos. Wyoming 16 yrs. & 6 mos. w/ drivers ed; 17 yrs. w/o drivers ed Washington DC 18 yrs. http://dmvanswers.com/questions/257/What-is-the-legal-driving-age-in-my-state | CON | ad015253-2019-04-19T12:45:12Z-00060-000 |
freedom is'nt free. In R2, my opponent said, "war is usually what we use to preserve our freedom. it cost lives and the monetary investments in war are monstrous." However, as pointed out, the revolutionary war was not needed to achieve "freedom" (I pointed to Canada's non-violent achieval of independence). My opponent had no counter for that. I also point to the many wars we've had since and said that not one of them was about our freedom. My opponent had no counter to that and even said, "vietnam was not an intervention it was instagated by our U.S. Army, to prove some masculinity reason." My opponent actually then goes on to claim that we do not have freedom, which contridicts his entire notion that we use war to preserve our freedom. My opponent gives the example that you can't take a piss on someone else's block of cheese and claiming that proves you don't have freedom. This is where my original argument of "freedom is an idea or concept" comes into play. Because it is an idea and concept, it is unique to each and every individual person. Everyone has their own ideas on what freedom really is and what rights and liberties are. Since my opponent has not been able to defend a single case of buying or paying for freedom, his cases falls. Thank you, | CON | 76ca50ca-2019-04-18T18:36:37Z-00000-000 |
Evolution is scientifically proven. Con claims that Trilobites disprove evolution by their shells, when in reality, leaves out other body parts such as the eyes, body structure, and ekoskeleton which confirm evolution (1) I refute the claim that evolution is not happening by giving evidence. It's noted "there is a correlation between age at a woman's first menstrual cycle and age at first birth. That said, it's possible that the "inference" of the trend as a genetic trait was "contaminated" somewhat by "any element of culture " such as education, wealth or religion " that varied among families," It's noted "human populations are still evolving" (2). Sources: 1. http://blog.theleagueofreason.co.uk... 2. http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com... | PRO | 98ee391-2019-04-18T15:50:38Z-00003-000 |
The U.S. should eliminate all restictions on a woman's right to an abortion. I accept that I have the burden of proof for this argument, as most debaters advocating for a specific change should do. Beyond the "shadow of doubt" does not necessarily apply here however. This is not a trial: rather is it a arbitration, which in the courts, required one side to have above a 50% likelihood that their side is the best. I do not need to win ALL six points in my constructive to win this speech, this is completely abusive and was not agreed upon before the debate. 1. Advocating that the government remove legal restrictions on a medical procedure is the very thing that prevents the unfortunate back-alley and home abortions. Women who resort to these unfortunate choices often due so because of legal restrictions placed upon them. They would not be legally prosecuted, but treated medically if they need to. Removing restrictions on the right to have one's appendix removed could very well lead to home procedures or back-alley procedures. So called "partial-birth" abortions, not even recognized by the American Medical Association as proper terminology. This procedure is called intact dilation and extraction is rarely necessary to preserve the life of a woman in later term. 2. Advocating ignorance is what my opponent supports by continuing to confuse women with convoluted informed consent laws which ultimately attempt to deny them their rights to an abortion. Also, pregnancy can be emotionally your physically stressful, but this is not a universal fact for all women. I would request that my opponent refrain from unscientific, emotionalizing language such as "unborn baby" when in fact we are talking about an nonviable fetus. 3. Abortion is an extremely personal decision. Why should you or anyone else have the right to tell another woman what she can or cannot do with her own boy? ! A man did indeed help to create a fetus, and has only join rights in many cases, with the child, not the fetus. A fetus is a part of tissue inside a woman that has. My opponent fails to answer my argument that spouses can be abusive or hard to contact and can have undue influence over their woman's right to an abortion. Women have full rights to their own bodies. 4. The woman's level of mental development is irrelevant in determining her right to an abortion. Her parents could be abusive or even threaten her life if they knew she were pregnant. Proper counseling is available at the vast majority of Planned Parenthood clinics. Younger women are encourage to seek counself from their parents but should not be quired to inform them or thave them to consent to a procedure. 5. My opponent is non-responsive to my arugments here. Extend my arguments from Round 2. 6. Again, my opponent avoids the arugments here. The government has no busiess regulating morally in relation to personal health. | PRO | 89388d7-2019-04-18T18:53:24Z-00001-000 |
Atheism is more reasonable and positive than Deism. I thank you for further setting up the debate in a more orderly fashion. I will tackle the first statement that atheism is more reasonable than deism in this round. Now, the concept of gods were invented by ancient, scared and ignorant people who knew nearly nothing about the world, and gods were used to fill in the gaps in their knowledge. Why would we today impose an ancient, primitive concept onto our knowledge we have now? You might as well say fairies created the universe. If you want to say, 'a supernatural,' rather than, 'god,' because the latter is outdated then fine. The deistic god by definition is not a falsifiable claim, just like invisible unicorns or fairies that only appear when no one's looking.You can neither prove nor disprove it's existence. This doesn't mean you blindly uphold a belief in it! I would argue that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Unless you have evidence or good reason to believe in something, you should not believe it. Deism is such a broad and ambiguous belief; what from nature draws you to the conclusion that only one god did it? For all we know there could be many gods, and you couldn't prove otherwise. For all we know, these gods are magical gingerbread men. We don't know; we can't know because it's a man-made, imagined concept to begin with. You can keep adding and adding to it because it is our own creation. I would say that just because we do not know something doesn't make assuming the supernatural any viable. We don't know how the pyramids were built; there are theories, yes. Saying that gods helped build them or aliens helped without any reason is absurd. You may argue that the creation is evidence enough to suggest at least a deistic god, however, I would further argue that gods in the first place are the products of a primitive people creating mythology and fiction to explain what they didn't know. When you say god must have done it because we simply would not know otherwise, you're doing the same thing our ancestors did when they created the gods. Until we have any good reason to believe in the supernatural, don't believe in it. Atheism is a lack of belief in all gods, because gods are an ancient superstition and should be left in the past, not legitimately pondered here in the present. With each new scientific find, the need for gods dwindles. We know how earthquakes happen and we know they're not caused by the gods anymore. We may never know exactly where everything came from, but saying god created it, then packed his/her/its bags and left is not reasonable, and it's better to say, "We don't know. We may never know." | PRO | e72b3f4a-2019-04-18T16:01:27Z-00002-000 |
The ban is necessary to confront the growing problem of obesity in NYC. Although rising obesity levels in the city have been a major issue in New York City recently, any measures already enacted have failed to curb the growing numbers of obese New Yorkers. The Bronx has the largest percentage of overweight adults, a staggering 70 percent; the other four boroughs also have seen increases in the past decade. Sixty-two percent of Staten Island adults are overweight; followed by Brooklyn, at 60 percent; Queens, at 57 percent; and Manhattan, at 47 percent, according to city health data.[1] The New York City Department of Health has enacted several programs promoting healthier living such as health fares in low-income areas and the Adopt A Bodega initiative, through which local bodegas or small delis and groceries agree to sell produce from family-owned, local farms, providing healthier foods to New Yorkers for reasonable prices. But the results, or rather lack of them, show that education and access are not enough.[2] As Mayor Bloomberg has argued, the ban will have an effect because it follows the principle that if some people have smaller portions given to them, they will consequently drink less. The Mayor doesn’t hope to prevent all people from drinking soda. In fact he emphasizes that this ban wouldn’t come close to restricting personal freedoms because people would still be free to order however much soda they would like. The customers would simply have to be served multiple containers.[3] This is not going to eradicate excessive sugar-intake, however a study by Dr. Brian Elbel, an assistant professor of population health and health policy at NYU Langone School of Medicine in New York City, determined that 62% of drinks bought at restaurants were over the size limit and the result would be that the average consumer would take in 63 fewer calories per trip to a fast-food restaurant[4]. [1] Hu, Winnie, ‘Obesity Ills That Won’t Budge Fuel Soda Battle by Bloomberg’, The New York Times, 11 June 2012. [2] ’New York City Healthy Bodegas Initiative 2010 Report’, NYC Department of Health & Mental Hygiene and NYC Center for Economic Opportunity. [3] Briggs, Bill, and Flam, Lisa, ‘Bloomberg defends soda ban plan: We’re not taking away your freedoms’, Health on Today, 1 July 2012. [4] Jaslow, Ryan, ‘Research finds NYC soda ban would cut 63 calories per fast food trip: Would that have any impact?’, CBS News, 24 July 2012. | PRO | 433e0122-2019-04-15T20:22:40Z-00009-000 |
Is Vladimir Putin a bad leader for Russia. Well first of all, Putin shouldn't invade Ukraine because Ukraine deserves to be a free nation. If he invades again, there could possibly be another war. If Putin is so great, how come he is causing instability in Ukraine. He even supports terrorism and the Palestinians that attack Israel when Israel is trying to be peaceful! He is the reason for instability! he is harming his own people! he only wants more land because his oil and gas are in sharp decline and his economy isn't the best anymore. | PRO | 37a708aa-2019-04-18T15:35:51Z-00001-000 |
Repubican policy is affected more by Darwin that democratic policy is. First of all I'd like to say that the point of this debate is not to prove that Al Gore wastes energy. That has nothing to do with the topic of this debate. Second of all this debate is on the collective general policy of the republican party. On that note I will get into why republican policy reflects darwin's ideas. To start off I will try and sumarize the current republican stand point. What is said to happen is that if the rich are let to themesleves that through their own generosity the money will some how trickle down to the poor. What should be changed is the minimum wage. It has not gone up at the same rate as the CEO's have. In 1978 the average CEO made 35 times the average worker. In 2005 the CEO made 262 times what the average worker made. Why do you defend these people who make so much? I'm not saying take all of their money, just don't give them breaks. Warren Buffet, the third richest man in the world, said he was taxed only 17%. His secretary who made $60,000 paid 30%. A progressive tax law is essential to our nation. A half of a percent tax increase on the top 1% would be enough to pay for universal health care. This cannot happen though, because the 'fittest' of our country feel that the poor are where they belong. You stated that not all of the richest people are republicans, and that is true, but republican policy helps the rich and hurts the poor. I would have to say that the majority of those in poverty work their tails off. They do the jobs now one else wants to do and they are an essential part of our country. It is time for all of our citizens to be lifted out of poverty. A high minimum wage would allow all citizens the ability to truly obtain financial freedom. | PRO | fcce1a7a-2019-04-18T19:55:35Z-00000-000 |
It is not moral to end the patient's life because he has the right to live longer. Coma patients are not 'living until their natural end' because modern medicine has developed so we can support them artificially. Perhaps it was God's will that they die, and we are interefering in this plan by treating them? This point should be erased. The debate specifically says "Do you agree or disagree with euthanasia or mercy killing?". What is being advocated is the right of an individual to make a decision, not to have a say or coerce an individual to make the decision to want to die. Although in some cases, involuntary euthanasia has a dark region (grey area). | CON | c54d13cd-2019-04-19T12:44:35Z-00021-000 |
Because of its huge resources, only the federal government can help regions recover from massive dis... Because of its huge resources, only the federal government can help regions recover from massive disasters quickly and efficiently. States simply do not have the financial reserves to rebuild, especially as a natural disaster will damage the state economy and so reduce their tax take. Nor do individual states have the expertise to coordinate a massive reconstruction campaign. States must rely on federal entities like the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that have experience in dealing with overwhelming and continuing crises. | PRO | 98c603ae-2019-04-19T12:44:06Z-00010-000 |
It is more reasonable to believe in the Christian God than not to. Unfortunately, Pro has forfeited his final round. Bible2000 has implicitly acknowledged evidence should be expected for the selected Bible stories, and lack of evidence is evidence of absence in these cases. Pro was unable to provide any evidence of these events. The stories I picked involved the direct interactions of the Christian God with humans. If these stories did not occur, then it stands to reason God was not involved. Since these stories and others from the Bible are used as evidence for the Christian god, then illustrating they likely didn't happen is problematic for reasonable belief in the Christian god. In addition to this, Pro has failed to provide a desperately needed refutation of my challenges to his arguments. | CON | c83fdd1-2019-04-18T15:05:53Z-00000-000 |
Assurance that we have for real messed up the next origination of Americans. I accept the challenge. As this debate is has no debatable topic, I shall use this round to make one. 'The Parents of America have messed up the lives of their children.' Definitions: Parent: a father or a mother. [1] America: USA messed up: ruined. [2] Children: The parents offspring. [3] I look forward to my opponents opening arguments. [1]http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://www.urbandictionary.com... [3]http://dictionary.reference.com... | CON | 28e749be-2019-04-18T18:09:39Z-00002-000 |
Wastage. Because so many people either only have to pay the prescription charge, or in many cases no charge at all for their drugs, the NHS wastes £100m each year on drugs that go in the bin. Doctors should only prescribe drugs when people have serious ailments and the prescription charges should actually be much higher for single treatments meaning people who have chronic conditions can pay less. Basically we're dishing out a whole bunch of subsidised analgesics and anti-histamines that end up in the bin while people cannot get live-saving/prolonging treatments for their cancer. | PRO | 6c503906-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00017-000 |
A Brutal Research Made On Fungi. Well, you see, there was once a man named Domr, that could not win a debate with me because one day I decided to do something clever; I argued the term "debate", by debating against it, as the term "debate" means "two-sided argument", in which I contested thoroughly, somewhat profoundly, as I knew very well that we lived in an omni-directional sea of cosmos, where "here" is no other than space, as all things directional are merely distinctions, much like the term "debate", which resorts to logical fallacies by reducing the world and ideas to a "war between two people", even though everything is universal, affected at some point, in some manner, due to the butterfly effect, therefore I have thus proven that the term "debate" was an inaccurate distinction, especially when compared to the entirety of this realm we live in, because life is not about wars or "two-way streets", it's omni-free, and anybody, anything, can go anywhere it goes provided the conditions meet them, rather than having other life forms make up standards of conditions for them. | PRO | 7915625c-2019-04-18T15:57:25Z-00007-000 |
Abortion is NOT murder!. "When you say the fetus is not a human then what is it? A dog or cat?"I never said this. I am saying abortion is not murder. Read the argument!"A fetus is one of the stages of development before a human being is born. Much like a person has stages of life after being born; child, teenager, young adult, adult. In other words, no matter what stage the individual is at, it is always a person but at different stages of life. This is very similar to the stages the human being goes through inside the stomach of the mother. Firstly, it all begins at conception and at four weeks the baby or human has a brain and a spinal cord. In this stage it is known as the embryo. Then at eight weeks the baby starts to form body parts and a steady heartbeat has formed. At this point the baby is known as the fetus and is looking more like a human being. This is important because the fetus goes through stages and at what point can we agree that it become a human?"Not on point. Abortion is not murder!"Every single time fertilization occurs the result of it is always a human being ,right? or am I completely wrong...."Still not on point. Abortion is not murder!"Murder is the killing of a human being and if the fetus is not a human being then what is it?"Finally, somthing on point. To be murder it must be unlawful. That is the entire point. Abortion is not illegal, it is not murder.In conclusion, the pro-choice community should stop using this term. It is without a doubt the wrong word. Bad rhetoric. | PRO | 3c57b38d-2019-04-18T15:17:04Z-00000-000 |
Global warming exists. Thank you for the response Pro, I will now go against the evidences you have presented. Firstly, you have said that the glaciers are melting, and yes this is very true, but is this because of global warming? According to NPR (National Public Radio) which is based in USA, explains that human pollution might have caused the rapid decline in the glaciers. Another source, engineeringnews, proves why glacier melting is not caused by the global warming. Scientists have proved, or established a fact, that the total global warming over the past century has been less than 1'C. As you know, water freezes at 0'C and to melt it, the temperature has to go above 0'C. So let's say the air temperature around the glaciers is -10'C. Just because of a 1'C change in the so called global warming, the glaciers won't melt. You have also mentioned the greenhouse effect. "humans are enhancing the greenhouse effect and warming Earth." It is true, deforestation, burning of fossil fuels, electrical appliances and population growth increase the greenhouse gases, but does the greenhouse effect really affect the global warming? The answer to that, I think, is no. After the Second World War, there was a huge increase in CO2 emission, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after that. This disapproves the greenhouse effect theory that is used to prove that global warming exists. I will present you now with one more evidence that global warming doesn't exist, as there are 5 rounds in total. One more reason that global warming is unreal is because that global warming alarmists have been caught in one lie after another since the 1980's. Some of the examples follow:An inconvenient truth is a movie made by Al Gore (45th Vice President of America) under President Bill Clinton. His movie was about the polar bears drowning, ice caps melting which I have already proved wrong. Another example is the ClimateGate affair exposed the utter corruption of the Warmist community with their exposed emails speaking of how they intended to “hide the decline” and how to manipulate data and the peer-review process in their favor.And to conclude, I would like to point out that global warming and climate change is completely different things. Global warming, as defined, is the process of earth receiving more energy than it loses and climate change describes the effects the heating has on the earth such as changes in precipitation, droughts, floods, and etc. I look forward to your next argument. Sources: http://www.npr.org... http://www.engineeringnews.co.za... http://lifestyle.iloveindia.com... http://www.dailymail.co.uk... http://answers.yahoo.com... http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org... | CON | b0e43e88-2019-04-18T17:06:21Z-00005-000 |
Artists often rely on copyright protection to support dependents and family after, including after they are dead. Artists may rely on their creative output to support themselves. This is certainly no crime, and existing copyright laws recognize this fact. Artists rarely have pensions of the sort that people in other professions have as they are rarely employed by anyone for more than a short period.[1] As a result artists who depend on their creations for their wherewithal look to their art and copyright as a guaranteed pension, a financial protection they can rely on even if they are too old to continue artistic or other productive work for their upkeep. They also recognize the need of artists to be able to support their dependents, many of whom too rely on the artist’s output. In the same way financial assets like stocks can be bequeathed to people for them to profit, so too must copyright be. Copyright is a very real asset and financial protection that should be sustained for the sake of artists’ financial wellbeing and that of their loved ones. [1] The Economist, “Art for money’s sake”, 27 May 2004, http://www.economist.com/node/2714114 | PRO | a50e7f1-2019-04-15T20:24:14Z-00021-000 |
abortion. I'll start back with the rape case. Why should the one person least involved be punished. It's still a human being that is given no such choice in the matter or life or death. The three inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property here are not being protected as promised by the us government. Existence is always more favored than non-existence. A baby who let's say does have a disease upon birth or has to face the burden of growing up without a mother or father is always better off than a person never even given a chance in the first place. As for the financial situations that may cause one to get an abortion, adoptive services are always available for these types of reasons. There is always an alternative than killing the baby. | CON | 81e76103-2019-04-18T14:03:25Z-00007-000 |
IVF Debate. In conclusion, IVF should be a last term resort due to its highly costs and risks that go around using this process. However some may argue that the life of their own child outweighs any other possible risk or financial of the couple not being able to have a baby. Since 1981, 200,000 babies have been born by this or a similar type of way. This just shows that although there may be problems revolving this type of procedure people are easily willing to take that chance to have a baby that they wouldn't be able to have if it wasn't for this procedure. Many women are infertile however this procedure allows for the women to become pregnant in just a few short steps. The first step being that the women is given FSH for around 10 days through injections. Her eggs are then harvested via surgery and then her eggs are mixed with sperm in a container. Finally healthy embryos are put into her uterus usually ranging from 2-3, maybe 4. Although there are different types of IVF this is the usual one that is carried out. Consequently, if a couple values the life of their unborn child so much they may want to carry out this procedure no matter the ethical issues or risks that may factor into this in vitro fertilization. http://www.webmd.com... | PRO | 667446b1-2019-04-18T14:59:30Z-00001-000 |
justification. the Oxford dictionary states that the definition of justification is, the action of showing something to be right or reasonable. So it is not if the situation is justified or not, it is the action of you showing something to be justified which means no matter how much of an absurd reason you give to justify something you have justified it. going into it being morally justified would be a different story but just sticking to the definition you can clearly justify anything. encase you still don't understand, I shall give you an example. I can justify someone sexually abusing another person by stating that they were also sexually abused and might still be traumatised by the events. it is scientifically proven that people who have been abused are more likely to abuse. the reason something like this would never work in court, i hope. Is because people have more common sense than that, which also means that justification is totally unreliable. and that anything can be justified. | PRO | bc90f14a-2019-04-18T15:16:31Z-00001-000 |
The Marvel character Sentinel should be removed from Marvel Vs Capcom 3: Fate of Two Worlds. There's not really much for me to say in this concluding round of the debate. My main contention was that Sentinel should be nerfed instead of removed from the game. This will allow those that like using Sentinel to keep using the character, those that hate Sentinel to hate him less, and open more strategy options when using the character. All I have left is to respond to some things in my opponents lastest response. /// Just take a look at what professional gamer Justin Wong said about Sentinel (1). Clearly, if the pros have such gripes about a single character, then that character should probably cease to exist. /// I don't see why. Professional gaming leagues typically have their own rules when it comes to play. For instance the MLG rules for Super Smash Brothers Melee [1]. If Sentinel truly is an unfair element then the leagues should have no problem banning him from play. Plus, that is one person complaining about something he obviously doesn't like. Hardly justification for its removal. ~ /// My source (3) in debate 2 was a list of all popular marvel characters according to marvel (Its at the bottom of the page, titled popular character index). Despite all the mentions of extremely obscure hero's and villains, Sentinel fails to be on the list. This leads me to believe that Sentinel isn't popular (even by Marvels generous standards on who is a popular character). /// A few things about that list: 1.) I can only see the first page of it. When I try to view other pages it just takes me to the top of the page 2.) The list is clearly in alphabetical order, not ranked. For all I know Sentinel is on one of the other pages that I can't view. 3.) Even if Sentinel isn't on that list, so what? That isn't a popularity chart for characters in Marvel vs. Capcom 3. That's a popularity list for all characters in the Marvel comics multiverse. A character's relative popularity there would not be comparable to the character's in-game popularity. This is mainly because the popularity of a character in a fighting game is determined by more than simply liking a character. Other aspects come into play such as speed, power, etc. ~ Sources: [1] http://allisbrawl.com... | CON | 6cc4a144-2019-04-18T18:49:36Z-00000-000 |
is debate/ GD really important. avinash as you have stated in round 1 that a person works in team almost in all the stages in his life and to interact with other members he needs good communication skills (doesn't matter the place where he works) and now in round 3 you are saying it depends for the post he is applying. I would like to advice to make your stand clear. you are saying that IIM's don't focus on communication skills too much then why in CAT exam the 2nd section is of VERBAL ABILITY given so much importance. IIM's are producing world class management students and most of them join at high post and they need to interact globally and you are saying communication skills is not important for them. In our college i have seen that most of the companies don't have GD round .they are having written and interview rounds only. | CON | e2d84305-2019-04-18T16:46:17Z-00002-000 |
Electric vehicles should replace traditional gas vehicles. I agree that electric engines cannot be used in military use but the electric engines are commonly used in private cars on the street. And although electric engines are more expensive than gas engines, the recharge fee is much cheaper. A research in 2013 said that transportation contributed more than half of the carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides, and almost a quarter of the hydrocarbons emitted into our air. This air pollution carries significant risks for human health and the environment. Through clean vehicle and fuel technologies, we can significantly reduce air pollution from our cars and trucks by using electric engines, while cutting projected U.S. oil use in half within the next 20 years. This is the end of my debate. Hope you like this debate as I am. | PRO | 8b012d3e-2019-04-18T13:26:54Z-00001-000 |
is internet useful. EXPAND REACHABLE MARKETS Okay, I will agree to this stance. INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION Sometimes it is not a great idea to do this because what if someone tries to steal your ideas/work and make claim to themselves for it? VALUE ADDED SERVICE This may be nice to do, but only simple based things ought to mentioned for safety reasons. USER INFORMATION REQUEST Not sure what this is meaning? Could you elaborate a bit please? EASY LOCATION OF DATA Unless it is for business purposes, this is not the safest way to approach anyone’s interest. CONSISTENT MARKETING Do you have evidence for this one? SAVE MAILING COSTS If everything is done through the Internet for the sake of saving mailing costs, no point because there are times when mail is lost and all data/information can be lost and no way to be accessible. SO even if it takes not using the Internet for this purpose only, it would be reliably exceptional. CHANGING CONTENT IS EASY Okay. Acceptable. UTILIZE EXISTING NETWORKS Why would someone want to do this though? PROJECT AND WORK SHARING How can a person/ user be certain that it is surely protected? | CON | 6bdc149f-2019-04-18T16:42:41Z-00002-000 |
What came first the chicken or the egg. Umm... well to be honest I was going for an evolution vs creationism debate, but I failed to specify. I also failed to reply in time so the following will be my one and only argument. Also since my opponent wants to take words out of contexts I will do the same. In the debate of a chicken producing semen (cumming) versus the existence of an egg in the world (came) the earliest egg was came to existence when the evolving creatures first used sexual reproduction involving sperm and an egg long before the existence of chickens. I should remind my opponent I did not specify chicken egg. | CON | df3ff6d9-2019-04-18T15:04:50Z-00001-000 |
From and Entertainment Perspective, My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is a Good Animated Show. I accept. Although you seem to be a bit misguided. While I am totally against the MLP:FiM fan base aka bronies; I am not (at least totally) against those outside the target audience who also watch the show. I am mostly against those outside the target audience that don't realize that the show they are watching isn't anything special. If you are a 10 year old little boy or a 40 year old man I am fine with you watching the show for whatever reason you have (bordem, entertainment,whatever). If you are one of those and you watch the show thinking "OMG THIS IS THE BEST THING EVER BECAUSE IT HAS EVERYTHING A GOOD SHOW NEEDS TO HAVE TO BE A GOOD SHOW etc,etc,etc..." then those are the type of "outside target audience" I am against. The ones that delude themselves into thinking the show is something more than it actually is. | CON | 74e8d024-2019-04-18T16:14:22Z-00006-000 |
The Ontological Argument For God's Existence Is Sound. I think my opponent and I are on the same page when it comes to that which constitutes what is modally possible. I was in error to conflate logical possibility with metaphysical possibility. It was not my intention to confuse matters but exactly the opposite. I was hoping to keep the language from getting overly confusing and burdensome to the readers. I meant the term to be generally inclusive rather than exclusive, so there was no attempt on my part to avoid metaphysical possibility.It is Possible That God ExistsThe proof that this first premise constitutes a metaphysical possibility is found in the notion of a maximally great being. If such a being exists, it exists necessarily in a metaphysical sense. This is what it means to be maximally great. If I say God is an epistemic possibility, i.e., it is possible God exists or possible he doesn't exist, then I have just described a contingent being that would clearly be less than maximally great. To say it another way, metaphysical possibility is a greater quality than epistemic possibility.We are left with the concept of a being that is either possible or impossible. The only way to determine possibility at this point is to rule out impossibility, but falsifying this premise is not the job of Pro. I did not come to argue against myself. That's why I initially opened the door for refutation in my opening round. I know of many objections against the coherence of a maximally great being, but I do not see why I must anticipate all of them.As it stands, the coherence of a maximally great being is not disputed and therefore a maximally great being is not impossible. Thus, it is metaphysically possible and the first premise stands.ConclusionMy opponent's only objection thus far was that I did not substantiate the first premise. I had assumed the concept of a maximally great being made it self-evident that I was working within the purview of metaphysical possibility. I think I have now satisfied this burden and look forward to a refutation from my opponent.With the first premise defended and the validity of the ontological argument no longer in dispute, it seems reasonable thus far to view the resolution as affirmed. | PRO | 5bc33149-2019-04-18T17:04:34Z-00004-000 |
Using human embryos for stem cell research. First off, a fetus isn't a human being. It is a group of cells and tissue thats just part of the mother. It is also a parasite, since it obtains its nutrients from the host. Since the mother is getting an abortion to help the research it can also be considered donating. Since the fetus is tissue from the mother and its being given to help research its donating. Stem cell research isnt learning about cells. These cells are vital to humans. Over time they die and researching in them will help find transplant methods, increase life spans, and have so many other benifits. Its going to open doors to new parts of the medical field, creating jobs and more scientific discoveries. Thanks for excepting this debat. Make your next arguments as long or short as you want. I usually make round one short. | PRO | df85bc67-2019-04-18T17:20:10Z-00003-000 |
There is a clearly defined boundary between "natural" and "artificial", Round Two!. I'm glad that we can find agreement in my arguments surrounding the idea that the words natural and artificial are definable concepts that we can use as tools to communicate ideas and expressions. Seeing as the debate we are having currently is about definitions, and as we both agreed, definitions are practical tools, therefore you cannot then begin to say 'I do not believe that natural and artificial can be defined.'It is clearly defined. We all agree to the meanings of the words and that the meanings of words can change. No one here is suggesting that these words possess some kind of divine inspiration that surpasses everything. Words change definitions throughout time depending on the people and culture using them. The words 'clearly' 'defined' and 'boundary' are all things we can understand within context. I illustrated an example of this context in the last round as finding a pair of pliers in the middle of the woods. If you find some pliers in the woods, then you know with little doubt that a human who bought them or made them has been in the area previously.The air around me can be thought of as an extension of myself. My skin is a bridge not a barrier. Yet it is a barrier. It can be thought of as either depending on the context. Light can be a wave or a particle depending on the context. A pair of pliers can be thought of as natural or artificial depending on the context. There are boundaries in life, but they are all arbitrary. Does that mean there are no boundaries? No, I just said that there are boundaries. The boundaries are arbitrary, but there are boundaries. The word artifical isn't a statement about ultimate reality. Its a tool that we humans use to communicate and express things to other humans. Can you see how these things have clear definitions and boundaries? It depends on what you want to communicate to me. | PRO | eec43f3f-2019-04-18T16:31:05Z-00004-000 |
Sould children be able to play rated M?Pegi 18 games. The debate is not about whether or not the children will be harmed, it is about if the parents should purchase the game for the kids. By using your criteria the children should be playing chess and using multiplication flash cards all day. Also, some children are more mature than their age really shows. A child could be 16 but have that maturity of a 20 year old. In this case, would the parents get fined. Currently it is not illegal for a child to play a rated M game but to purchase one. | PRO | 324d2538-2019-04-18T15:59:33Z-00003-000 |
Money is property. Money is a fungible resource and can fulfil different roles depending on the context in which it is used. It can be exchanged for almost anything and should be treated differently according to the circumstances in which it is used. It can be exchanged food, housing, weapons, medicine, services, hired hands. More conventional examples of property, such as real estate, or a car, have no equally fungible characteristic. When it is used to advance political debate, money becomes inherent to political speech. Therefore, in the context of campaign contributions and expenditures money deserves the protections of the First Amendment. | CON | d78c0803-2019-04-15T20:24:32Z-00012-000 |
A creator of the universe does exist. When you say I have to give the burden of proof, please realize that I believe I am giving proof that a creator of the universe exists. I am not arguing or at least not trying to argue on the basis of "you cannot prove a creator does not exist and therefore he/she/it does". I am stating that DNA PROVES a creator's existence because of the information contained within it. Now onto refuting your claims... This statement is pretty silly to me: YOU - "Logic isn't something that "exists", rather it is a tool created by us intelligent beings to help us make sense of things. How about this: every time you say "logic" replace it with "math"" How would one deny that logic exists? Would you say that your feelings do not exist? Would you say pain does not exist? Just because things are not seen, does not mean they don't exist (Perhaps another debatable topic). Also, logic is used appropriately grammatically in my arguments. I guess it matters what definition of Logic we're using. YOU - "You see, just like math, logic is but a tool DEVELOPED by intelligent beings to help them understand their environment. Just like math, or science, or literature, logic is not a physical thing that exists in our environment, rather something that intellectual beings developed to UNDERSTAND their environment." I agree with you only about math, science, literature, and logic not being physical things. Of course I believe they do "exist". Math, logic, and all intelligent information, came before matter and this is why they cannot be a mere tool made by intelligent beings to understand their environment. You BELIEVE matter came before logic and therefore you might conclude otherwise. Now on to the proposed questions you gave me: 1) I only stated that "A creator of the universe does exist" not a "creator of a creator" 2) See above 3) No, there is no information available to support this. DNA supports and proves an intelligent creator. 4) You could argue that the creator of the universe created the computer because the universe encapsulates the computer object. You cannot logically go in reverse and argue that something which was created, created it's creator. I would like to thank my opponent for taking the debate. Religion is always an interesting topic and although I disagree with him wholeheartedly, I respect his opinion. Please understand that although I am a Christian by faith, my argument was only that A creator of the universe does exist. I leave you with this quote: John O'Keefe - NASA astronomer: "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." | PRO | ef7c77b4-2019-04-18T19:24:24Z-00001-000 |
Speed Debate: Communism. A Few Misconceptions DebunkedCommunism is not what most people think it is. Communism was not enacted under the USSR and no attempt to enact it was made after 1921 when the only community to have ever achieved communism (other than Catalonia in 1936) in a modern industrial society was destroyed by the USSR.Communism does not mean a totalitarian state quite the contrary in fact the communism envisioned by Marx is a stateless anarchist society, this is why no state can claim to be communism because if that state was communist it would not exist.Many people claim that communism can never work, the simple response to this is that it has, it has worked in Catalonia in the 1930s and it has worked in Ukraine from 1918 to 1921. Communism is also shown in almost every hunter-gather people, the best examples of this are found in the polar regions of Canada, Scandinavia and Russia.What Communism IsCommunism is an economic system in which the participants of the community own the means of production and each worker works not for the benefit of themselves but of the community as a whole. In communism the resources are allocated through workplace democracy (in the anarchist tradition I follow this democracy works through consensus democracy though other traditions do this differently).Productivity BenefitUnder collective governance the output of the workers is increased, this is a fairly moderate but still existent.Efficiency Under communism resources can be more efficiently allocated as unlike with other systems wealth does not get squirreled away and placed in off shore bank accounts. There is also no reason to take longer with projects for financial gain and it has been shown that in a self managed workplace creativity in solution creation increases also increasing productivity.Wage Slavery*Under practically any other system wealth is extracted from the workers via a surplus. This means that the worker spends a certain amount of time working when they do not receive the benefits from that work. In other words under a non-communist system if you do not own the means of production then you must spend time working while not being paid. People are also forced into waged jobs because under any other system (except some non-communist socialist ones) you have no other option.*Disclaimer: Because I used the word slavery does not mean I am comparing capitalism to slavery. | PRO | 56cceab6-2019-04-18T15:14:35Z-00006-000 |
Gardasil vaccination encourages sexual promiscuity. Unfortunately all my opponent achieves in his rebuttal is two definitions and a horrific generalization on the psychology of vaccinations. The 20 or so vaccinations a child receives from birth to 6 years old are entirely non consensual and lack any form of free will. Furthermore, gardasil is recommended to be given to girls as young as seven - a practice obscenely devoid of consent. With confidence one may assert these 7-13 year olds are not actively seeking out std vaccinations. As well, with regards to sexual knowledge/plan b - to actively get vaccinated for std prevention there is a preconceived awareness that hpv can be contracted without condoms, and if one is protecting themselves from an infection contracted by unsafe sexual practices they are doing so with the intent to engage in unsafe encounters with the knowledge they will not get hpv. Thus exposing themselves to other sti's and pregnancy. Space is short, but that's a good start. | PRO | f3a5cd4c-2019-04-18T18:52:37Z-00000-000 |
God is everywhere!. "The Russian's proposal that God belief was established as a form of delusional 'comforting' is a very weak argument." My opponent calls my argument weak, but I didn't really see any effective counters to it. He says that modern religions are clearly wrong, and I'm not contesting that. But it's clear that religion/belief in God plays a role of giving people comfort in regards to death and giving them stimulus to live moral lives. Another delusion that we've "sustained and perpetuated" in human societies is the belief in Free Will. If my opponent would like, I will briefly explain why I'm convinced that we indeed don't have Free Will, but our society (all societies) depends massively on this concept. My opponent then presents his views on the existence of time. I'm a little confused as to what the relevance of this is to the debate, but it's not really evidence of any sort. Once again, he merely presents his opinion. Time is something we use as a tool in our every day lives, and it is something that is used by scientists (particularly physicists, for example) to make ACCURATE calculations. Point being, time is used, it's practical, it's effectively real. None of those things can be said about God. Yes, we are "lost within God", which is why people believe. There are still so many things that we don't know (especially having to do with death and the afterlife) which is why the belief in God is still very much alive. But this is the "God-of-the-gaps" arguments, and these gaps grow smaller and smaller. God becomes weaker and weaker, effectively. We used to think that God healed the sick, but no it's our own cells. We used to think that God sent down rain and lightning from the heavens, but no, it's a naturally occurring, explainable phenomenon. My opponent has provided no real arguments. He has presented his opinion and that people have always believed in God. This is not evidence. It's like saying that most ancient cultures believed in a Flat Earth, and we see the flatness of the Earth from the ground, then the Earth is Flat. (Analogous to my opponent saying that people always believed in God and he himself "sees"/"feels" God everywhere). | CON | 6d60f5dd-2019-04-18T13:26:17Z-00002-000 |
Morality: Herd Instinct in the Individual (2). First, you argue that everyone acting like this would lead to societal chaos. How do you get here? I don't advocate everyone acting like this. Myself, as one person, acting as a rational egoist, wouldn't cause everyone to act as I do. I would be one person acting outside the construct of external moral prescriptions. Thats not the world I would like to live in, which is why I don't advocate it. Next, you argue that religion makes people act selflessly. This may be true. But, my framework indicates that I act within my own INTERESTS, not necessarily selfishly. So, if I value a religion, it would serve my interests to honor it and reap the benefits of being religiously just. But, say that isn't the case with me personally. Why do I have reason to honor its rules if I don't believe in it? You feed the voters and myself all of these terrible scenarios of rapists and murderers. Again, this would not be the case. I would be ONE person acting this way. Furthermore, rapists and murderers get caught by the law. My framework assumes that I can get away with whatever immoral action I am performing in my own interest. If I can't get away with it, punishment and prison time isn't in my interests and therefore I wouldn't do it. Your pedantic interpretation of my argument is hardly accurate or concise. Let me clear things up for you, as I don't advocate a society with no laws or me getting away with everything or anything else similar to that. First, I think my actions should serve my own interests. This can include helping others and other charitable acts if that is what I value. So, don't confuse persuing self-interest with acting selfishly. Second, moral actions are sometimes serving those interest and sometimes impeding them. Punishment is generally not in my self-interest as I do not want to be punished. Therefore, I shouldn't follow moral prescriptions if they impede my self-interest and I can get away with it. I can't really provide facts that pertain to moral framework. Reasonable people should actually see the opposite. That these moral prescriptions are simply an impedance on my self-interest. Frankly, personal interest should be pursued. While this debate is soley about me, as one person, your arguments for society collapsing don't really hold relevance. But, if you would like to debate me on that scale I will send you a challenge sometime. If you can provide me some reason that I should follow moral rules when they interfere with my interest and I don't have to worry about negative consequences, because I won't get caught, than please do. But, please don't turn this into another "well this is stupid" type of debate. Thanks. | PRO | a0fd8269-2019-04-18T19:52:32Z-00005-000 |
gay marriage should be legalized in the US. Thanks to Pro for posting the debate. Definitions: State: A government body either at the federal, state or local level There are many types of social relationships that two individuals might enter into. Some examples are: an acquaintance, friendship, enemies, girlfriend/boyfriend, courtship, engagement and marriage. In the examples provided, the state only regulates one type of relationship; that of marriage. All other relationships are left up to the individual. The question then arises as to why the state involves itself in this type relationship? Typically state involvement at any level is to insure some type of benefit to the citizenry. The state regulates traffic laws to keep citizens safe on the road. The state regulates contracts so that people are not unfairly treated. You get the picture. So what is so special about marriage? I propose that state involvement is due to the fact that in a traditional marriage (husband/wife) a natural product of that relationship is children. The state seeks to foster the best environment for the children. Several studies have shown that children raised in a home with both biological parents have a lower rate of behavioral problems (1). Children with less behavioral problems grow to be more productive citizens and a benefit to the state. The state is not concerned with the intent or ability of potential married couples to have children. Their only concern is that if a married couple happens to naturally produce children, the state wants to support children raised by biological parent. Since same-sex marriage will never result in children being raised by biological parents, same-sex marriage should not be legalized. Over to you Pro" References (1) http://marri.us... | CON | 256d07e2-2019-04-18T15:51:34Z-00004-000 |
King James Bible (Con) versus Holman Christian Standard Bible (Pro). I believe the HCSB is a better translation. I will now present several reasons why this is so. Contention 1: It Was Created for Better Reasons The KJB was made because a king wanted an official translation.[1] There were several other translations equally good or better at the time including the Geneva Bible, (Created by the reformers)[2] and the Coverdale Bible, (Myles Coverdale).[3] There was no need for a new Bible, except for the fact that King James wanted a Bible that spoke better of the government, and changed certain words to accommodate English beliefs on pre-destination and the like.[4] Contention 2: Inaccurate or Archaic Translation The translation is archaic, and therefore does not apply the same today. The Greek word, "diafthora" is best translated, "to destroy", however the KJB translates it, "corrupt" in Matthew 6:19. Modern translations say, "destroy", and this is the case in the HCSB. The people at the "Christian Courier" present another fallibility. "(1) When the King James translators rendered Acts 2:47 with the words, "such as should be saved," they ignored the Greek present tense form, "are being saved." The KJV thus yields a sense that accommodates the denominational notion of predestination." Contention 3: Archaic Language The language is old and nearly un-relatable to the modern Christian. With all the, "thees" and "thous" as well as lines we would not understand as fully as the original readers would. The HCSB uses modern dialect which today's audience can easily understand. Conclusion: For these reasons, I believe the HCSB is a better translation than the KJB. Thank you for reading and have a great day! [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4][5] https://www.christiancourier.com... | PRO | e41030a8-2019-04-18T16:05:54Z-00003-000 |
Overall Les Claypool is a better bassist the Flea. I'm glad you answered the way you did. The fact that we are debating on is best overall BASSIST!!! I don't care if he can play the trumpet. You say that Claypool isn't lively, he is probably one of the funniest to watch on stage. He dances while playing. You also say the flea sings, Les is the lead singer of his band. Another point I forgot to mentioned is how Claypool never sold-out with any of his bands. He still tours to local venues and tickets are not riduculously priced. Claypool knows the average man and he is the pretty much the bassist for the working man, he proves that all you need is raw talent to perform the best. Also, if you are going to bring nicknames into this debate I might as well talk about Les's basses. He has an arsenal of basses including his most famous 4,5,6 string Rainbow Basses, his Fender Jazz Basses, and his double basses. If we are going to fight about with who he works with the Les still wins. If you played bass or knew anything about bass playing with a great guitarist isn't the most important thing(Larry LaLonde is also a better guitarist than Frusciante), but it's about the drummer you play with. Les has been able two lock in with multiple drummers in his various bands, all those drummers very skillful too. This shows how compatible Les is with other people. It still stands that Les is a greater bassist. | PRO | 21430b1b-2019-04-18T20:00:09Z-00003-000 |
I will not contradict myself. 11. Are all male humans men? 12. "A barber cuts only hair of all men who do not cut their own hair. Does the barber cut his own hair?" Does such a scenario involve a sign in any way? 13. Is Rush Limbaugh usually politically conservative? 14. Is Barack Obama usually politically conservative? 15. In a question in which no sign is mentioned at all, and even if there were a sign, the sign could not have an impact on the answer to the question, is it possible that what is written on the unreferenced, unimportant sign will impact the answer to the question? 16. If a barber cuts only the hair of all men who do not cut their own hair, must he be bald? 17. Is is possible for a child to cut the hair of all men who do not cut their own hair? 18. Is the killing of innocent life wrong without consent from that life wrong? 19. Do you support burning flags? 20. Is it justified for the political rights of a man to be determined by the opinions of the majority of all adults within an arbitrarily drawn boundary? | CON | 4468a30d-2019-04-18T19:04:57Z-00006-000 |
Feminism is Wrong. "The power to be paid like men are" - Women do get paid like men get paid. The wage gap is a myth. Men make more overall because of the jobs they choose. Women choose lower paying and more comfortable jobs while men do more dangerous and higher paying jobs. If women got paid less for doing the same exact job, everyone would hire women! "the power not to be judged by the fact that we are WOMEN doing MANLY things" - People get judged for everything they are and everything they do. It is human nature to evaluate people. I never heard of this being a problem for women. Seeing a woman do some major welding on the frame of a classic car is unusual but most men would enjoy seeing it. I have no idea what you think the problem is. "Women are treated like they are only good enough to take care of their husband (boyfriend or lover as well) for their sexual needs and their hunger" - Who does that? What is this, the 1950s? I am calling BS! In modern western society women are not viewed this way. There are some dummies who do but that is rare and our society as a whole looks at them like they are fools. "Then, on top of that women are paid WAY less than men." - Are you sure about that or are you just stating random figures that compare men's and women's earnings overall? "I looked on this site www.iwpr.org it says " Women, in 2015 were paid 80 cents for every dollar made by men ."" - Yeah, you are comparing overall figures. Men are not "paid" more. Men "earn" more. Men go into higher paying and more dangerous jobs. That means they get paid more. It is only natural for oil miners to be paid more than a middle school teacher. Women tend to be teachers while men go off and risk their lives on an oil rig. 2 of your points are identical and flat out wrong. If you truly believe this then you are fighting AGAINST the woman's right to decide for herself what she wants to do. You are saying women should go for jobs where they can earn more money instead of jobs they truly want. You think women get paid less for the same identical job but that is flat out wrong and illegal. I think we have a feminist paradox where feminism is saying women should have less rights! | PRO | a1a1a313-2019-04-18T12:51:06Z-00003-000 |
Soulja Boy sucks! Plain and simple. My opponent has forfeited his final round. His closing argumentatism. His "big she bang", his "secret sanctum" his "forbidden weenis". Therefore, I, George "Dubya" Bush-I mean mynameisjonas-should win this debate, because Soulja Boy does not suck! Plain and simple. Damn right. Hey if A squared plus B squared=C squared, wouldn't a monkey riding a camel be considered for the NCAAP Awards? | CON | 3b508943-2019-04-18T19:41:42Z-00000-000 |
Religion as a form of worship should be banned. Religion: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. Foundation of religionReligion has existed for some 30000 years[1]. At the start it was most likely a way for people to answer questions such as: who are we? Where did we come from? What is death? What is this planet? Etc. But, importantly, it was creative. We know they produced art[2] for example and this art illustrated the stories that they must have told. We also see this in the bible, the Koran and the Torah. They have beautifully illustrated chapters and imaginative proverbs and moral tales. That is why I specifically stated that it should be banned as a form of worship. I'm all for creativity. DogmaHeb 11:1 (NEB) "Faith. .. makes us certain of realities we do not see"[3]. In other words you are told to believe something that has not been proved. Now what does that remind you of? "As Minister of Enlightenment, Goebbels had two main tasks: to ensure nobody in Germany could read or see anything that was hostile or damaging to the Nazi Party and to ensure that the views of the Nazis were put across in the most persuasive manner possible"[4]. Yes; we all know how well that worked out for Hitler. The way to combat events like that is for people to think logically, and not have 'faith'. So; can the church ( unlike Hitler ) be trusted? Well; the catholic church in Ireland greatly took advantage of their power in Ireland over the last century. Up until just thirty years ago, I. E. 1980, It was illegal to sell or import contraception in Ireland[5], such was the strangle-hold the church had on the state. Even ten years ago there was only one shop in the country that sold condoms. You may say that something like that would not happen again but the fact is, while people take the church's word for everything, it can happen again. I can only come to the same conclusion that I came to under the last heading, which was: people must look at fact, not at ancient texts. An external view pointImagine an alien looking at our planet. What would they think? Why do those people congregate en masse to sing chants and light candles in stone buildings? They would be concerned for our sanity! What I'm saying is; it's OK to hypothesise and try to imagine how our universe came into existence, but we must also use maths and logic to explain to ourselves who we are, where we came from, what death is and what our universe is. References[1] . http://wiki.answers.com...[2] . http://www.artlex.com...[3] . http://www.acts17-11.com...[4] . http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...[5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...I | PRO | 873e6b61-2019-04-18T18:41:18Z-00006-000 |
A military divided into separate branches is better for the Republic than a more consolidated model. Keeping the branches of the US military separate is better for the Republic than consolidating them. Republic: The United States of America under the Constitution of the United States. Military: The US military, in all it's branches Military branch: an individual uniformed service of the United States under the DOD, which includes: Army Marines Navy Air Force (The Coast Guard is now part of the DHS. Sorry Coast Guardsmen.) | PRO | 2ee32b4-2019-04-18T17:46:08Z-00004-000 |
The Democratc party is the party of racism. I am generalizing here. However, I am say in general Democrats and the democratic party are, and have been the party that implemented racist policies. I will start with the basics. Comparing the two founders of the parties Andrew Jackson was a slave owner, while Abraham Lincoln was the man who brought an end to slavery. It is reactively cut and dry to see which one was racist. Moving on to the civil war. At the time of the civil war and since there was not one republican that owned a slave. While the Democratic party was largely based in the south. Now some might say that was a long time ago thing have changed. For a large part they have. But when it come to slavery and racism they have not. The biggest argument for the republican party being racist is the myth of the big switch. This is thought to have happened around the civil rights era in the 1960's. The flaw in it is it did not happen. In the 1960's the republican were the one who for a large part passed the civil rights act. It was the democrats that filibustered it in congress and voted against it. The only person that switched was Strom Thurmond. During this time period only one in hundreds of thousands of racist dixiecrats switched parties. It was not until the 1980's until southerners started to vote republican. It has to be noted at this time racism in the south was on the decline. There is a correlation between this, that as racism in the south fell more and more southerners started to vote republican. I have not mentioned many other examples of the blatant racism of the democratic party but these are the key facts. Now that it has been established that the big switch is a myth. It has to be said that the Ku Klux Klan developed out of the democratic south. As racism was on the fall Woodrow Wilson revitalized it by showing a Klan movie in the white house. To this day that was the first movie ever screened in the white house. In the next round I will show modern examples of racism that have developed. | PRO | efb068cd-2019-04-18T12:50:24Z-00003-000 |
That the economic-stimulus act of 2008 will sucessfully mitigate economic slowdowns over this year. Ok then starting off I would Present new arguements then attacking my oppenents. First our product here in US has increase dramatically. According to USITC Interactive Tariff and Trade DataWeb The majority of products we have our from other place such as, Footwear is 92% import, audio and video equiment is about 90%, computer equipment is 79% and apparel is about 75%. so we can clearly see that the products we mostly use are not even made here in which will make no difference to the US economy. Why are we going to waste money on products made in other places? Also According to Al Norman, editor of the monthly Sprawl-Busters Alert, Wal-Mart makes about $819,976 in sales every minute during the fourth quarter of its 2007 fiscal year. What does that mean? Well it means Wal-Mart will be wasting every single person with their rebate checks going to their store. why is this a major problem? Also accroding to Norman, Wal-Mart is estimated to was about $9 billion worth of imports from China this year, not including its indirect imports. so we can clearly see if we waste this money or not the majority of the will not go to the economy but to other countries. Now also this also effect the US deficit with china increased. also to attack the 2001 stimulus act...it didnt help at all..stated by Eugene from daily Kos. the stimulus act before didnt work either people didnt get that much money...and aswell payed of bills...people arent going to put it in the bank they ar going to pay of the bank mortgages and such...debt..so in saying this....the people are only going to do what they did in the past pay off debt and bills....it is not going to help the economy and it wont make jobs for many in the US.... | CON | d7afda0e-2019-04-18T19:46:01Z-00003-000 |
The Christian Religion is a Below Average Religion Morally. This will be a debate regarding the merits of Christianity as a moral system. Pro (me) will have to show that Christianity is a bad (or below average) religion in terms of the moral direction it gives. Con then needs to prove that Christianity is a good moral system when compared relatively to other religions. Please don't accept if you're not going to finish the debate. | PRO | 61448203-2019-04-18T12:12:20Z-00003-000 |
Term Limits. Hey, bill, "Your reason for liking is totally wrong. Ronald Regan was 78 when his term was up. This would make him 82 when his next term was up. Don't you think at that age, you can catch a cold easy out "campaigning". When you are 82 or 78, a cold can leave you in a hospital for weeks or if it is bad enough, you can die. With the term limits, you would get a new, healthy president every 4 or 8 years. You would not have to worry about his health." That is why I would still like to allow the people to vote every 4 years, and it would be taken into account that Reagan would be old so if the peole wanted take a chance with a old but quality president then let them...I would...But if the people believe he is to old and he might get sick don't let them...but don't make a man who could still be a great president retire vjust because he was there for 8 years. "If you really thought that statement over, wouldn't you think that the White House has a better chance of becoming a Dictatorship or monarchy if it stayed 1 president for 16 years?" I did think this over and I don't think it really would end in a dictarorship nor a monarchy. I still think that if we allow a vote every 4 years then the people will get away from a president that starts to get power hungry and chose a new fresh president to lead this country right. Well, I just noticed that this is the last round so I would like to just say this...Term limits are good for a country that likes change...for the better or worse...but in the position we are in right now with foreign policies in bad shape how bad would it be if we have a president negotiating with these foreign countries and he gets along with these foreign countries leaders, but he has to retire b/c of term limits...we have to rebuild that connection our leaders and there's had had because we had to get rid of this president who got along with foreign leaders and rebuild those connections. This potentionally can be bad for our country and our Homeland security. Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night | CON | 73366260-2019-04-18T20:01:28Z-00000-000 |