argument
stringlengths 201
3.55k
| stance
stringclasses 2
values | id
stringlengths 36
39
|
|---|---|---|
Electronic Music Battle. LOL! ROFLMAO! HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHA OMG!!!!!!!!! xD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't even know what to say... you are entitled to your opinion about mine, I love it but you can think as you like. It wasn't a trance piece, the beat was too strong for trance. By the way I would identify the genre of that as 'jumpstyle techno' not sure if that makes sense.Just for sake of fairness I want to let people know they should vote on song preference alone, not on the comedic quality of it... I just don't think that's a fair method of deducing winner?Now to show you my second favourite song of all time... This is one of the songs that made me 'fall in love' with electronic music, prior to this standard of electronic music I used to think of it as 'cheap' or 'not real music' but something about this music made me really like it. It's just so nice, evokes the right emotions.http://www.youtube.com... | PRO | 7dc69e01-2019-04-18T18:08:22Z-00003-000 |
Humans can't alter their dispositions. Hello once again Firstly I must point out a few flaws in my opponents case; my opponent stated that, "Mother nature plays all the cards," when if mother nature truly controls everything that we do and say and even our destiny then what is the explanation of how different identical twins can end up being. Identical twins are exactly the same in the way of genetics and therefore look exactly the same, but often these people grow up to be completely different people. Through looking at the massive differences between these people who theoretically should act and say the Exact same thing we cannot deny the importance of Nurture in a child"s upbringing. An excellent example of two twins who were nurtured to be completely different is the case of David Reimer. In 1965 the Canadian Reimer family got two new members, identical twins Brian and Bruce were born. Because of both of the twins having urinary difficulties they decided to get them circumcised. During the procedure the power cut out and the laser accidentally burnt off Baby Bruces penis. The family was distraught and they consulted many doctors but none had a solution. It was only one night on telly that they were given hope again, a psychologist Dr. John Money claimed that he could raise a baby boy to think that he was a girl. Pamela Reimer agreed to meet him and they were soon hooked on the idea. Twins Bruce and Brian were the perfect case as Dr. Money could use Brian as the constant variable. So they began and with regular consults with Dr. money baby Bruce(Brenda) grew up a happy young girl. It was only at age 13 that it was finally revealed to Brenda (later to be known as David Reimer) that he was in fact a boy. Despite the case not being completely successful in the end, we cannot deny that the case was relatively successful. It was only because of the emotional distress that Brenda went through while in consult with his psychologist (Dr Money) as he tried to convince him further that he was girl even presenting options like a vagina reconstruction. We cannot overlook how important nurture is in the upbringing of children and David Reimers case proves that nurture can in fact overcome nature even in an area as important as the gender of a person. | CON | bf691256-2019-04-18T16:56:28Z-00003-000 |
JD/MBA will not hurt and may help law firm prospects.'. "Introduction to the JD/MBA Dual Degree." TopLawSchools.com: "And finally – don’t listen to TLS forum users claiming that a JD/MBA joint degree will hurt your chances of landing a job in BigLaw; this is unfounded with supporting evidence that is apocryphal at best. After speaking with numerous graduates of a JD/MBA programs, career services offices, and law/business professors who have worked in corporate law and the business world, I have been told repeatedly that the impact of the MBA on your legal job hunt will unlikely have any negative effect. It may not move your resume to the top of the stack, and is certainly not as important as what law school you went to or what grades you earned, but it will absolutely not hurt and can often be a good story to tell/angle to take during interviews." | PRO | 6963151c-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00061-000 |
The Bible is not absolute and the Bible is not final. The Bible is not a 'WHO' as Con is implying. The Bible is an inanimate object. Only superstition would say that the Bible is a person. Christianity says that there is a Trinity- Father Son Holy Spirit The Second Person of the Holy Trinity was the Word made Flesh. The Bible is not Jesus just like the Bread of Communion here on Earth is not the actual flesh of Christ. It is not what the Roman Catholics say- And the Bible is not what some Protestants, (and others) say that it is. The Bible is a compilations of books that are bound for the fire. The destination of God's Word is our hearts. The destination of the Bible is the fire. (Fire = Hell) | PRO | e39fd920-2019-04-18T15:41:04Z-00001-000 |
We should go to war with isis. Let me say this. I want to see America fight for a change. I am tired of my country getting bullied around. If we stop this damn isis then America could stop worrying about terroristic threat. I am say that we should send troops into isis and end this quickly, I say a year tops. And for those young kids in the army, they knew what they were getting into if they did not want to go to war they would not have joined the army. If we just tried to eliminate this isis threat I say we would destroy them quickly. | PRO | 8a69db4e-2019-04-18T15:02:19Z-00001-000 |
PSBs funding sources give them an unfair advantage in the broadcasting market, harming competition. Public ownership of the media distorts competition, harming private companies in their domestic marketplace and their ability to compete internationally. It does this because the government is funding a service that could be supplied profitably by the private sector - for example, a pop music radio station or the broadcast of sporting events. The market share of private companies inevitably suffers, along with their ability to raise advertising revenue based upon the size of their audience. This means that private broadcasters end up with less money to spend on their programmes and are less well placed to compete internationally. James Murdoch, son of the medal mogul Rupert Murdoch, in his MacTaggart Lecture at the Edinburgh Television Festival in 2009 echoed this opinion stating that the free news output by the BBC “"threatens the provision of news in Britain".[1] [1] The Independent (2009) The BBC’s Unhealthy Dominance. [Accessed 1st June 2011] Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-the-bbcs-unhealthy-dominance-1778976.html | PRO | 86bdda37-2019-04-15T20:24:17Z-00017-000 |
Flat Earth (Pro) vs Spherical Earth (Con). "So, the Earth, according to what you said, is the "center of the Galaxy. And look every other planet in the known universe! All of which are spherical. And your "dome atmosphere" would not work because of the sheer size of Earth. And, is there a place that you can look and see into "infinity"? No? That's what I thought too!" So, your argument is, if the Earth is flat, it would be the center of the galaxy and therefore the dome couldn't "fit", and besides, the other planets look round? First off, I never implied that the Earth was the "center of the galaxy". I believe my opponent is getting that interpretation from artwork of the dome with a galaxy. A more accurate representation would be the dome with stars. "You can't possibly beat this 13 year old genius!" I thought you were 23? | PRO | 613153a6-2019-04-18T11:55:32Z-00003-000 |
Newton's second law is false!. Rebuttals: "http://answers.yahoo.com...... is how Big Bang theory is false." Alright. Yes, indeed. According to the laws of physics (Conservation of angular momentum[1], in particular), if something is rotating, and a piece of that falls off, that piece must rotate in the same direction. However, that is not what happens. There was a cataclysmic explosion. Asteroids and mass spread out, and the sound amplifies. At one point, asteroids were to hit against each other, forming stars, etc. How is everything in its position? Well, when the Earth, for instance, orbitted around the Sun, it was compelled to continue doing so at the same distance away from the Sun because of its gravitational pull. It was pulling the Earth towards the center of the Sun. However, because of the Earth's sideways motion, it was resisting. And then radiation happens between the Earth and the Sun, which means that the Sun transfers energy through space to Earth. That solar energy then turns into heat. And so on and so forth. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... | CON | 3e2d22e5-2019-04-18T16:53:25Z-00000-000 |
is Cell better then Frieza (DBZ) pro:Cell con:Frieza. Thanks Pro. In conclusion I would like to draw your attention to the following unaddressed points: Pro doesn't address that Frieza is more successful economically Pro doesn't address that Frieza owns more planets than Cell Pro doesn't address that Frieza creates more jobs than Cell does Pro doesn't address that Frieza clearly has better life objectives than Cell Pro doesn't address that Frieza is quite a capable warrior too Pro doesn't address that Frieza has committed genocide on greater scale, and destroyed many more planets Therefore, we can conclude that on balance, Frieza is substantially better than Cell. The resolution is negated, note Con. | CON | 8f9c92ed-2019-04-18T16:09:20Z-00000-000 |
Evolution is more true than Creationism. First of all, evolution is backed up by many discoveries and scientific papers. Here are two discoveries backing evolution: 1. Fossil Record The fossil record includes numerous fossils showing evolution. From tiktaalik to Australopithecus garhi, it is clear that evolution is a fact. 2. Pseudogenes Pseudogenes are like normal DNA code except that they are deactivated from a mutation. It is much like a spelling error in a book or a misplaced island on a map. If two species have the same pseudogene, it is very strong evidence for common descent, one of the key factors for evolution. Here is one more link that will basically sum up evolution's vast collection of evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org... | PRO | 8001c24c-2019-04-18T15:25:09Z-00006-000 |
Funny Quotes. I will post five quotes like the instigator has allowed. Hope you like them. "Why does Sea World have a seafood restaurant?? I'm halfway through my fish burger and I realize, oh man....I could be eating a slow learner." -Lyndon B. Johnson "When I die, I want to go peacefully like my Grandfather did, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car" -Unknown "I could tell that my parents hated me. My bath toys were a toaster and a radio." -Rodney Dangerfield "The latest new dance craze is called, "The Politician." It's two steps forward, one step backward, and then a sidestep." -Unknown "Once you can accept the universe as matter expanding into nothing that is something, wearing stripes with plaid comes easy." -Albert Einstein Good luck! | PRO | a9768e24-2019-04-18T19:29:35Z-00004-000 |
complet the sentence. Every night, the daughter of the alcoholics watched as both her parents stumbled through the door of their tiny house. She would cower in fear as each one came upstairs, reeking. She sat in bed, hoping they wouldn't come inside. Wishing against all odds that maybe, just maybe, one day, they wouldn't come home drunk. She knew it would never happen, but every night she still wished. As soon as she heard the front door slam shut, she started to hope. That is, until they didn't come home... (I know it's a bit more of a sentence, but it needed a bit of a kick :^) ) | CON | 354b00fe-2019-04-18T16:13:27Z-00008-000 |
The self is an illusion. There's no centralized self in the brain but it's composed of multiple autonomous regions. People think that there is a thinker of thoughts but in reality there is just the thoughts. Different patterns of neurons in the brain compete with each other and if one pattern wins over the other a certain decision has been made. There is no central part in the brain that collects all the information and decides what to do with it. | PRO | 62647e99-2019-04-18T11:16:24Z-00005-000 |
Batman v/s Spiderman. First of all,Batman can instill fear into anybody he faces.Even those who aren't afraid of the likes of Superman fear Batman. So spiderman will be afraid of batman and secondly, he has abilities that are as powerful as captain america's to the point of are superhumanlike so that he can very easily match spiderman's strength,reflexes,speed,and agility. He has a superhuman force of will and can keep on fighting even after he has been to the edge of death. He is also a master of weapons,martial arts, and stealth.He is also a master detective and strategist.Superman describes Batman as "the most dangerous man on Earth," able to defeat a team of super-powered aliens all by himself in order to rescue his imprisoned teammates.Even without all that,he is able to defeat aliens that had superhuman powers that greatly exceeded his own. http://batman.wikia.com... | CON | 9109c942-2019-04-18T16:50:06Z-00002-000 |
WIFE vs HUSBAND ROUND 1!!!!!. Why am I with you? Cause I'm too kind to divorce you! We both know you can't support yourself! How many jobs have you had in your entire life? Oh that's right, NONE. And no, being a transvestite doesn't count as a job. If it wasn't for me, you'd be out on the streets right now. You came to the rescue? No, I came to the rescue. You have to accommodate with my inexperience? I have to accommodate with your FAT A** holding me back. I could be the CEO or another big wig right now if wasn't for you. You were the one who ruined my life! I could have spent all this time you wasted of mine, writing my novel, talking to my publisher, or just relaxing! Instead, here I am, wasting my time on YOU. You know what you are? You're a steaming pile of TAUNTAUN SH*T. Thinking back, I have wasted my entire life on you, and what have you done? You've burnt through all the money I make never support me. Yeah, I do go to talk to Daisy. At least when she opens her mouth I don't GET AN EAR INFECTION. And do you know where that 40% goes? I bet you do because I don't have a clue! What is it that you tell me again? "Yours is mine and mine is yours." You know what? That's a load of BULL. I know you take my money and you don't tell me what you do with it! I bet it goes into the food at the parties you host with your "friends". I hate your friends. Gladys eats WAY TOO MUCH. Beth? Don't get me started on Beth. You're always holding me back! I don't need to know how to work the dishwasher or cook, that's what you do. It's the only thing you do other than eat and talk to your overweight and ugly friends. You know, maybe if that 40% didn't go into Gladys blubber we would afford a maid. Excuse that, I would afford a maid because you don't work, and yeah, perhaps this maid will look fine. You're here to help? BULL. I'm not running from the past, I'm running from you. Speaking of pasts, what about you? I know what you're running from. I did a little digging and I know about you, EX-CON. Don't make me tell that to your mama, oh right, SHE'S DEAD. What do you have to say about that? | CON | 4941ae30-2019-04-18T18:13:13Z-00004-000 |
Trans people should be slaves. So I have some pretty abnormal views on human rights. I think that black people should still be slaves. I believe that women have no right to deny a man sex. I believe that rape is a victimless crime and should be legalized. But trans people are different. Trans people exist only for their sexual pleasure, so they should be used as sex slaves. Think about it: Trans people are rare, and they don't contribute anything. We could take them from society without consequence and open establishments where people could come and use them as sex slaves. The money provided could go to the government, and we could decrease our debt! Additionally, most trans people aren't white, so we wouldn't be taking out the people that matter. In fact, this would help us to usher back in the slavery of blacks! | PRO | 983a1f77-2019-04-18T15:16:30Z-00001-000 |
should the United States Stanction against irans uranium expenditure. ===Extend my Arguments=== ===Extend my Refutation=== ===Burden of Proof=== My opponent assumes the burden of proof. He has not fulfilled this because he has not refuted my contention. ===Clarification of Rules=== My opponent asks me to abide by his rules as he is the instigator. I would be happy to oblige, except for the fact that no rules were stated. I cannot abide to unwritten rules and do not have to. I took the safer route of refutation in round one so that I wouldn't drop his argument. ===Refutation of his 2nd Contention=== Sanctions are a piece of legislation called resolutions (you can look to the Wikipedia page I provided earlier for this). Resolutions do not involve money or troops. Thus, this point does not stand. I will still address his subpoints 1.) The military does not need to be used in sanctions. Also, if we had more troops, wouldn't that put people to work. So, this point does not stand. But, if it does, then turn it against con because it would increase employment. 2.) He has not proved that sanctioning Iran is a new problem. Thus, his economic stability point does not stand. ===Summary of Debate=== -My opponent assumes the burden of proof, which remains unfulfilled. -A brief summary of refutation on my opponent's case C 1)-He says the U.S. must prioritize. However, he has not proved that sanctions against Iran is not a priority -He says the U.S. cannot take on new problems. He has not proven sanctioning Iran is a new problem -Both of the above points must stand for his contention to stand. Neither do. Thus, this cannot be looked to C 2)-He says sanctioning would require troops. It would not, sanctions are resolutions in legislation. -Even if troops were required, turn this against con. More employment, helping the economy -My opponent provides no warrants. His contentions, especially the first, are not linked to resolution -My opponent did not refute my case. Thus, it still stands =Weighing of Impacts= -Because my opponent has no impacts because his points do not stand, contradiction has no impacts +My impact was clearly established and not challenged. It was increased diplomatic leverage with Iran. This outweighs the con's impacts ===Sample Ballot=== Conduct - Pro - My opponent used ad hominem attacks in the second round. Spelling/Grammar- Pro - My opponent has many spelling and capitalization errors. He even made a spelling error in the title Convincing Arguments- Pro - My point was not refuted. Both of his were Reliable Sources- Pro - Neither of his sources mentioned sanctions at all. Mine were linked directly to sanctions. Normally, I do not want to ask for your vote on every issue. However, with this debate, it happens that I win all of the voting issues. Thank you and happy holidays. | PRO | 1aa9be6c-2019-04-18T18:58:44Z-00000-000 |
The story of Noah's Ark is false. There is no way to get animals from around the world to all collect in 1 location at the same time, without force, AND in male/female pairs. The Ark would not have been nearly large enough to house said animals. You could not have prevented the animals from eating or fighting with each other. There would have been no where to put food, water, or animal feces. There is no sign that a flood of that scale ever took place. How would certain animals (kangaroos, penguins) make the journey to the ark? How did all the plant life on earth survive such a flood? There is no sign of the Ark's remains anywhere. | PRO | 41e1a07-2019-04-18T13:59:44Z-00004-000 |
Favourite music challenge. Thank you.I will start off with this really catchy dubstep song that my friend's friend made. He's really good at this stuff and this is my favourite video from his channel. His channel may not be that popular but I love his songs!I chose this song because when I listen to it, I can't help tapping my foot and moving to the rythm. Catchy and addicting. I found this when a video that my friend made incoportated this song. Afterwards, I was hooked.[Glitch] - Minoru - 187 | PRO | 7e131225-2019-04-18T16:38:12Z-00003-000 |
Should social media be allowed in school. First of all media should be allowed because of many reasons. One reason is to play Fortnite, Fortnite is a online game in which you can play with your friends on a co-op made in Save The World or a Battle Royale version. In the Battle Royale version it is a FFA (Free For All) the last one standing wins the game. There are also three modes in the Battle Royale version, Solo (so you can play on your own), Duo (play with a friend), or Squad (you and up to three players). | CON | 61b22d62-2019-04-18T11:30:43Z-00002-000 |
Capitalism. Thanks for answering my debate challenge :). Well to being with in your list of definitions you mention communism so I guess that's the system you like. Well it's true that capitalism hasn't brought us a perfect system of economy, but however it's a pretty good system, I know there's companies that are pretty cruel and have abuse a lot of the people that's totally a fact and that capitalism hasn't get rid of the caste system in its totality. But if we look at communism it hasn't worked well at all in any of the countries that had it over the years such as Venezuela, Cuba (even tho they say they were socialist they reflected another thing..). Capitalism has worked way better than any other system in the History of mankind and as far as is reflected is way better than communism and socialism, in those 2 systems you can't really grow over someone and you'll always be equal to everyone which I don't think is right. This all I have for this round. | PRO | b50eda4d-2019-04-18T13:13:52Z-00001-000 |
Joke Theft is Wrong. Just because I don't think it should be illegal does not mean I think its moral. Many different things that are immoral are legal and just because I disagree the law should be involved does not mean I agree with them doing it. I am not saying people can't have the same jokes I am saying people specifically and clearly taking others jokes should be looked down on as they did not put effort. And the premise to this argument is misleading your point was that joke theft is not wrong but what you are arguing for is not joke theft you are arguing that the premise of joke theft within itself is flawed because there are a finite amount of jokes making the accidental taking of a joke inevitable however accidentally using a joke that someone else wrote is not joke theft its just an accident. While intentionally taking someones jokes because you cannot be bothered to write your own is joke theft and should be looked down on as you are not putting in the same effort as the person who originally wrote the jokes. | PRO | 89223a16-2019-04-18T11:09:57Z-00004-000 |
Politicians will simply ignore how we vote. Yes politicians will sometimes break their promises or for some reason not be able to fulfil them. When the Liberal Democrats made their manifesto they did not expect to be in coalition with the Conservatives, with two incompatible manifestos some things were going to have to be dropped. Equally sometimes the party in power will find they can’t get through the changes they want. The point of voting when events might overtake a manifesto is that the party’s ideology will tell you how they are likely to react – a libertarian in 10 Downing Street would have let the banks go bust or a communist would have nationalised them. Many could have anticipated that a Labour government would engage in some kind of bail out to save savers and the system. By having voted for the Labour party voters were saying they wanted a slightly left of centre response to events. | CON | 28c76471-2019-04-15T20:22:56Z-00023-000 |
From a debate judging standpoint, LM should win the "Cousins and beer nuts" debate. Logical-Master, It gives me great pleasure to accept this difficult debate. It clearly will be hard for me to support an argument of such odd stature, but I am up for the challenge. I also enjoyed debating you in our "High School Musical" debate, showing that you are a worthy opponent. I will now begin my opening argument. The topic of this argument is that the concept of "Cousins" and "Beer nuts" are "Better" than "colon cancer". mynameisjonas illustrated that his concept was true in the sense that partying with your cousins and eating beer nuts was "better" than colon cancer, and viewed the disease of colon cancer as a negative concept. In your opening argument, you exploited the positives of colon cancer to the reader, showing that fatalities caused by colon cancer keeps the population in check. However, after the chart you displayed, you made the claim that "Since Colon Cancer is beneficial to keeping the population in check, it's good (gotta love Utilitarianism during these debates :D ) outweighs the good which my opponent brought up in his opening argument." In layman's terms, you claim that keeping the overall population in a figurative homeostasis is better than creating memories and experiencing elation with one's relatives. But is it? One can argue this claim, in the views of long-term vs. short-term. While in the long run, keeping the population at a reasonable amount benefits others, in the short run, having fun outweights any situation around one. Let's say you're in an ice cream parlor with a group of friends, sharing stories and slurping frappes. I'd bet my soul you're not thinking about global warming right then and there. No, you're much too preoccupied hanging out, relaxing, and getting to know each other better. Now, eventually dies. Everyone takes their part in keeping the population in check. It's inevitable. Making happy memories is something one must go out and do on their own, and once they've made them, they have them for the rest of their life. Lamenting over death wont prevent you from dying, and lamenting over a lack of friends wont raise your social status. The only difference is that you can change the latter, and your efforts to change that will provide you with a special skid mark in the road of life after you die. Everyone dies, but not everyone has happy memories. In a battle of importance, the commonness of death vs. the less common, effort-necessary concept of having friends gives edge to the latter in its uniqueness, therefore it is better. Since you simply stated that your side was superior, I believe that you do not have enough evidence to prove that point, and that your debate is incomplete. Therefore, LM should not win. I await your rebuttal. | CON | d5070a92-2019-04-18T19:43:21Z-00004-000 |
The Roman Republic and Empire were ultimately beneficial to the peoples of the world. Round #1 will be for acceptance of the debate. No new points may be introduced on the final round, as usual. Beneficial - conferring benefit; advantageous; helpful: the beneficial effect of sunshine. Said advantage/benefit may be monetary, in terms of liberty, in terms of order, or any other term with which "advantageous" is associated in modern English. I think that's all the clarifying I can do, other than to say that "ultimately" shall act in both a short and long term sense, i.e. the Romans burned this city to the ground, the Romans introduced this structure to this part of the world, etc. I'm actually not sure on this point, but I'll play the devil's advocate against my former pro - Roman self. | CON | ebf3eb47-2019-04-18T18:12:36Z-00004-000 |
The Eagles won the Super Bowl fair and square. Firstly, I do think that the Eagles are a fair team and they play very well. One of the best. I just want to bring up the fact that many many people were complaining that the NFL was getting boring since the Patriots went the Superbowl 6 times in a row. The views were going down and they were losing money. What if it was on purpose they lost? Again not putting down the Eagles, they are a really good team as well and it was a good game. Just examine this idea and think about it. It makes a lot of sense. If they were losing money they needed to give the viewers what they wanted. Mix it up. While yes, why would they fake it now is the question. Seems suspicious. Every year for example there is a scandal involving the NFL or a team. Also, players like Aaron Rodgers gets hurt somehow every year when the team is doing okay. If the NFL is hiding something I think a debate should made to determine that. What is the next scandal? | CON | 9cf6fb04-2019-04-18T11:45:52Z-00000-000 |
is the belief in a God/Creator more logical than the belief of scientific theory. Can you clarify the other possibilities where something exists/ has existed without having a beginning of some sorts. Also although I am a believer in God my argument is not to prove Gods existence as this is impossible to "prove" its rather to prove that the God theory is the more logical theory of the two and that scientific theory is in turn more irrational, to believe something began is logical, its common sense, a theory that space, matter, atoms or anything else created themselves from nothing is surely more unrealistic than the belief that something created them, atheists tend to base there arguments againsts Gods existence on religious scripture rather than the actual fundamental belief in a creator of the universe. | PRO | 22deeb64-2019-04-18T15:35:51Z-00005-000 |
Consciousness (Human, animal, etc) Can Exist Without a Brain. The topic of the debate is consciousness, the premise is that it can exist outside of the brain but we just don't have a machine capable of running it.Suppose that we understood all of the laws of nature that enable life to exist. Then suppose hypothetically that you could simulate all the models of chemistry/physics/quantum physics necessary, either in a virtual world, or in reality in some sort of "brain machine". I think that you could have an independently thinking consciousness in either the supercomputer program, or the machine that is equivalent to the brain in all aspects.. As for what "ROM" and "operating system" that would be needed to be loaded initially, that is a difficult matter and could be a topic of debate should you so choose.4 rounds, 5000 characters. You have the burden of proof on any claim that you make, as do I; anything not refuted will be considered true until refuted. You can state in the first round, an overview of why you think that a human brain and a human mind need each other plus the spark of life, in order to create a consciousness, and why the lack of any of these 3 things will not cause the "flame" of consciousness to keep burning. I will be debating that none of these 3 things are required.This debate is not intended to be taken overly seriously. You can make the "extraordinary claims" without the "extraordinary evidence" part, as long as it's not "extraneous claims with inane evidence". | PRO | cf984e96-2019-04-18T16:04:56Z-00007-000 |
Resolved: Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices. I. Adolescents don't have as good a knowledge of what is best for the family as do their parents/guardians.In this argument, my opponent says that adolescents may not have the best knowledge when it comes to the finances of the family. However, I'd like to ask my opponent which is more important: possibly saving an innocent life (or doing what's in their best interests) or the money involved? Most would agree that life trumps finances in almost any situation. My opponent then claims that the definition of medical can be made to relate to unnecessary procedures such as tattoos, piercings, and cosmetic surgery. However, this isn't quite true. Here's the definition again:Medical - of or relating to the science of medicine, or to the treatment of illness and injuries.;of or relating to conditions requiring medical but not surgical treatment. [1]Tattoos, piercings, and cosmetic surgery are purely for appearance and don't follow this definition. II. Not all teens have the brain capacity to make good choices, so they would be best off if adults made choices for them.My opponent says that the brains of adolescents aren't as developed as adults. However, I already explained this in my own arguments. Because of this, I'll repeat most of that argument here. It’s a common argument that adolescents simply can’t and shouldn’t make important decisions on their well-being because of their age. However, this is simply false. It’s been found that adolescents as young as fourteen can make their own decisions with competence. “These studies… suggest that adolescents, aged 14 and older, possess the cognitive capability to reason, understand, appreciate, and articulate decisions comparable to young adults. Perhaps more significantly, there is a paucity of scientific or social science study that supports the present legal view of adolescent incapacity. Despite the statistical and scientific evidence, which merits serious consideration by policy makers, the principle of decisional incapacity is the raison d' etre for law and the lack of a coherent legal approach for accommodating adolescent issues.” [2] Another study found that, when comparing people of the age of nine, fourteen, eighteen, and twenty-one, the groups of fourteen-year-olds acted similarly to their adult counterparts when making decisions. [3] In other words, they can indeed make competent decisions when it comes to their health, despite their age. Though their brains may not be as developed as their adult counterparts, that doesn't mean that they can't make their own decisions, as proven above. Conclusion In short, I've refuted both my opponent's contentions regarding finances and decision making. Thank you. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals of my arguments. Best of luck. So long and goodnight. Citations[1]http://tinyurl.com...[2]http://tinyurl.com...[3]Adolescent Autonomy: Clarifying an Ageless Conundrum" Hastings Law Journal 51 Hastings L.G. 1256. Rhonda Gay, J.D., Ph.D. August 2000. | PRO | 61d2ef59-2019-04-18T12:57:49Z-00001-000 |
Eternal Punishment in Hell for thought crimes is unjust. I do not mean to be rude, and I thank you for trying to debate with me here. However, in order to avoid being a person with double-standards, I will have to use the same harsh tone with you as I would with any other opponent who does not read my posts carefully. 1) I clearly stated that I am specifically talking about the Islamic Hell. I don't care if Muslims believe 'the first part of Christianity' (whatever that means), there are significant differences between the Islamic and Christian ideas of justice and salvation and I do not want to discuss Christianity here. 2) Your incoherent argument demonstrates that you did not watch the video because it just restates the ridiculous points that are refuted in the video. God gets mad because of something his weak and feeble creations 'think'? And this is supposed to be a Wise being? Get real! 3) You say that god is 'under control' and I think that you meant to say that God is 'in control', which further suggests to me that this is going to be less of a debate and more of me trying to understand what your verbal diarrhoea could possibly mean. | PRO | 180be3b6-2019-04-18T17:01:39Z-00004-000 |
God DOES exits, but not in the way you think it does. There is a variety of contexts where I can disprove the existence if God, each coming from a different cosmological scenario. If I start with Mainstream Science and then progress towards different concepts of reality then from the source, religion, I can end with how God being contradicts itself. Now, there is an idea within the scientific community called Intelligent Design. If your concept of God is limited to a Creator then we are not arguing for the other properties of God, such as Benevolence, Actions of God (being sent to the afterlife etc). Afterlife will not be included in the argument against mainstream science and intelligent design. So in this scenario I will argue against there being a Creator. The intricacies of science suggest to the simple minded that all the calculations of physics and logic were known, thus designed. Is an intelligence the only method to how the calculations could manifest as reality. Has nobody considered an automatic, deterministic way. Even computers work this way. So now I have dismissed Choice in the idea of intelligent design. Something as deterministic as a physical force can lead to the idea of logical contructs in reality. When something is impossible, it will not happen. If planets can not orbit in a square, they won't. Why is this so intelligent, it's only the impossible not occurring. | CON | b264bd8b-2019-04-18T12:07:31Z-00004-000 |
Metallica is better than rap. None of the lyrics make sense. I don't care if there is cussing in any music but rap is just a bunch of meaningless words put together to rhyme. Showing me lyrics and a video isn't evidence that rap isn't trash you showed me a video and lyrics. The song One is about a soldier who has been wounded in war and the lyrics make sense, it actually tells a story. Here is a link to the song for you and lyrics down below I can't remember anything Can't tell if this is true or dream Deep down inside, I feel the scream This terrible silence stops with me Now that the war is through with me I'm waking up, I cannot see That there's not much left to me Nothing is real but pain now Hold my breath as I wish for death Oh, please God, wake me Back in the womb, it's much to real In pumps life that I must feel But can't look forward to reveal Look to the time when I lived Fed through the tube that sticks in me Just like a war time novelty Tied to machines that make me be Cut this shiit off from me Hold my breath as I wish for death Oh, please God, wake me Please God, wake me Now the world is gone, I'm just one Oh, God, help me Hold my breath as I wish for death Oh, please God, help me, help me Darkness imprisoning me All that I see absolute horror I cannot live, I cannot die Trapped in myself Body, my holding cell Land mine has taken my sight Taken my speech, taken my hearing Taken my arms, taken my legs Taken my soul Leaving me with a life in Hell Oh, please God, help me Help me Metallica has great guitar and has lyrics that make sense unlike rap. Sad to think that quality music like this is not very well known in younger generations today. | PRO | 1d683944-2019-04-18T11:49:55Z-00003-000 |
Is God real, Is the bible real. I was making the point that instead of using the premise against God, I was using it as evidence, Because if finite beings can describe the God of an infinite universe, Then God is not infinite, And therefore is illogical that the God I believe was God. But God is infinite, A God who created every atom and cell. That, Is logical for the God to be above human Logic. How does explaining an infinite result the idea in question not being infinite? That does not logically follow. B your logic explaining Trump as the president makes him not the president. Our finite life can point infinities like numbers, Even numbers, Prime numbers etc doesn't mean they somehow become finite. You can tell if he people who saw him were unbelievers, They crucified him on the cross. The same people that followed Jesus and his miracles were the same people that killed him. What believer what kill his savior? Does not prove Bible is real or God is real so irrelevant. You can always say that it might have been allusion, That people were just seeing things, The reality is, If 500 people is not enough, And more people seeing God doing thousands of the supernatural, If that's not enough evidence, Then I cannot help you, And were not talking logically. Can 500 people be wrong? Yes do we have anything else to go by? No. Therefore it is a belief since we cannot verify it to be true. If testimonies are wrong are they still testimonies? Yes. If evidence is wrong is it still evidence? No. Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. https://www. Bethinking. Org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sourcesLooked at the source. I specifically want current scientists who can verify the texts to be true. More specifically a Christian scientist, Religious scientist that does not follow Christianity and an atheist/agnostic scientist. My arguments would still be the same for past famous people. It is still testimonies no other form of evidence can be found. What does it mean for the"bible as a whole to be repeatable"Lets take one example. The virgin Mary. Can a women give birth without being fertilized? No therefore this cannot be repeatable. If a miracle happens once and only once then it is not repeatable therefore under my 3 criteria The Bible is not evidence which does not prove the existence of God. | CON | 9f45721-2019-04-18T11:15:02Z-00004-000 |
Providing money directly works. All the evidence is that providing money directly to those who need it works much better than providing a mishmash of subsidies and credits decided by government. Providing money directly has been working with limited programs around the world, most prominently with Brazil’s Bolsa Familia which has meant millions of children get primary education because of a small cash incentive.[1] In India the state already spends a huge amount on inefficient poverty reduction programs. If all the money that is spent on these programs was transferred to providing for the direct cash payments equally among the 70million households below the poverty line then it would provide a monthly transfer of 2,140 Rs; more than the poverty line income for rural households.[2] [1] Economist, ‘Give the poor money’, 29 July 2010 [2] Kapur, Devesh, et al., ‘More for the Poor and Less for and by the State: The Case for Direct Cash Transfers’, Economic and Political Weekly, 12 April 2008, p.3 | PRO | 3141f83f-2019-04-15T20:23:02Z-00014-000 |
Democracy is the best ruling system. Democracy has so long been being stated the best ruling system. I have no problem confessing that. But in the context of today's instable era, democracy has started to leak many flaws. Its case can be compared to a building, having many stories and also, many flaws. Democracy is quite entirely irrelevant in this century. Democracy leads us to something which we should not be led to. The debate here is to state whether democracy is the best system or not. My opponent will go in favour of democracy while I will go against the topic. So, I would like to have the pleasure to invite each and everybody to this open debate, no specific regulations. I hope one interested friend will accept my challenge to do this with me. *#Disclaimer, I am not telling the military powers to force a cue and take us the power, I mean I am not in favour of dictatorship. | CON | e002ec4b-2019-04-18T15:06:16Z-00006-000 |
Apart from the moral reason, there is also a simple societal reason why it is wrong to download musi... It’s true that musicians have to eat, too, but it’s not true that downloading cuts their income. Most of the money spent on music goes to record companies, not to artists. Those record companies have been keeping musicians on a leash for decades, paying them less than they could. They paid them enough to make sure they would remain fulltime musicians, but not so much that they didn’t bother to create new albums. So if downloading music files means record companies miss out on some income, we shouldn’t feel bad about it. | CON | d79ed912-2019-04-19T12:47:47Z-00011-000 |
Ford Vs Chevy. I think Fords are better because they have been the #1 truck in the US for 33 years. Also they are the only American company that's not relying on the government to support them. They have stronger frames therefore higher crash test ratings, smooth quiet ride, Multiple cab and bed configurations, and an attractive cab. They have the lowest Hp rated motors of the domestic trucks but also better gas mileage. Chevy has large turning radius, mediocre interior storage, and many other flaws. | PRO | 99c25a57-2019-04-18T19:06:55Z-00003-000 |
The Las Vegas shooting was a hoax. I accept your challenge and thank you for the opportunity to debate. The events of October 1st were truly tragic, with a breathtaking loss of life. After such events, most people have trouble finding the words to describe such event. But there is at least one word that should not, and cannot be used to summarize the bloodshed; a hoax. The truth of this massacre is so undeniable that to say the contrary is to delve to the level of lunatics and psychopaths. Some of us do indeed wish that the shooting never took place. However, we don't indulge in wishful thinking and pretend that it was a hoax. To win this debate, the affirmative must prove that the shooting was, in fact, a hoax. They can not merely assert it, for whatever is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. More specifically, they can not merely say we have reason to doubt, since the resolution is not, "The Las Vegas Shooting MIGHT have been a hoax" The burden of proof is on them as the affirmative, and they need to provide evidence for their claims. With that out of the way, it is now the affirmative turn to speak. I hope for a good debate. Thank you. | CON | 3783e2f2-2019-04-18T12:02:59Z-00000-000 |
Knowledge is better than brute strength. I will admit that strength does have a certain charm to it. However amazing brute strength is knowledge is still superior. First in regards to what you said about Stephen Hawking how often do people go around using strength to injure disabled people. Next brute strength implies that you have strength to an amazing point. It means you have strength in a force greater than normal. So would you rather be incredibly intelligent or have amazing strength. If you can't have both which would be better. The ability to think for yourself and know things and do things that other can't because your smart or to be able to lift things. Both have the ability to deteriorate, but if you are left without your strength but with your knowledge would you be able to survive. The answer is most likely but if you are left without a mind and without proper thought and knowledge what would happen then. You would have some trouble. Knowledge is a power and strength in its own right. So what would people rather be that's the question. People often wish they were stronger. How do you become stronger. You know your not as strong as you want to be and you know that you can do better. The fact that you know those things. That's knowledge. Also there are machines that can literally do the heavy lifting and all I have to do is be smart enough to know how to use them. Once again knowledge is superior. | PRO | bdf32661-2019-04-18T16:50:18Z-00002-000 |
Jesus is homoousios with the Father before creation. Pro has not satisfied his burden of proof nor refuted my knockdown argument in a reasonable/effective manner but raised objections I can easily address here. I remain unconvinced that Jesus is homoousios with the Father.'Having an another from united with yours doesn't require any alteration or process of change because just as said the form only got united not mixed with another form.'This could be translated to, 'having an alteration in your form such a union so that your whole form encompasses another doesn't mean that you had an alteration.' The refutation of this objection is simply the law of non-contradiction. I'm refuting my opponent solely based on a law of thought. A is Not A doesn't work in logic. My opponent can probably use this argument in the white house or the theological school of the yellow mellow but not here in DDO.'The distinction, traits and reality of the two forms remains.It didn't mix up so as to produce what my opponent calls "change.'One of those traits as agreed by both is immutability. Incarnation is not even possible to occur if the being himself is changeless/unalterable/immutable like God is. To speak about the union is logically falicious in the first place. I have no clue why my opponent repeats that after I show him how this is a textbook example of begging the question. Due to nature of the debate, I win by only showing one contradiction. And I think I did more than enough to satisfy my burden of proof. Voting is your choice, though if I voted I'd give conduct and arguments to me after the personal insults and weak argumentation my opponent provided, after he realized that he was defeated in this debate.'I already won the debate. My opponent's so called trump-card, the immutability argument, is refuted biblically and logically.'After I refuted the so-called biblical objection, my opponent simply ignored the refutation and took on the logical side. As you can see, he violated the law of non-contradiction and commited a begging the question fallacy in his 'logical' response. If that is a refuation of an argument, everything is.You know yourself who to vote to. | CON | 120f2775-2019-04-18T17:16:14Z-00000-000 |
DDO Tier Tournament Take Two: A Liberal Social Democracy is Preferable to Anarchy. As Con stated, we PM'd and agreed to skip this pair of rounds.As such, I won't make any new arguments, rebut any points, or bring up new evidence.However, as it's the last round for me, I wanted to give a short summary.---Summary:I've proven that Utilitarianism is the preferred value in this debate, because it maximizes potential value, which Con has not significantly rebutted.I've proven that LSD best leads to economic growth and to assisting equality and thus positively impacts Utilitarianism.I've proven that anarchy leads to crime and large-scale societal collapse and thus negatively impacts Utilitarianism.I've proven that anarchy inevitable collapses into an unpredictable form of government, which makes any Con impacts short-term and potentially negative, as a terrible government may arise and do the opposite of Veganarchy, while LSDs are long-lived.I've proven that deep ecology is flawed, and that humans are more valuable than animals.I've proven that otherization is somewhat inherent and that veganarchy promotes otherization more than LSDs do.I've proven that LSDs reduce war, and that anarchies reduce war only from lack of a healthy, large enough populace to fight them.These are big impacts for LSD and against veganarchy in terms of Utilitarianism.Vote Pro.--- Again, thanks to all readers, to our judges, and to my opponent. ---Good luck to Con! :D | PRO | e9553e1e-2019-04-18T16:04:10Z-00001-000 |
Situational ethics is superior to absolute ethics. Introduction When I refer to absolute ethics as opposed to situational ethics, I'm referring to the code of ethics given to us by nature. The only way to judge if situational or absolute ethics were superior would be to apply the absolute ethics that is inherent in all of us. My opponent even justifies situational ethics with the use of the unconscious code of ethics he isn't even aware he is using. What is Absolute Ethics This is ethics based on some sort of absolute rule or rules. My opponent without even realizing it is promoting absolute ethics. He is using absolute rules to show that certain situations in regards to ethics are different. It seems the absolute rules he is using is; Do the action that results in the least amount of harm. Summary My opponent has the burden of proof to show situational ethics are superior to absolute ethics. In order for my opponent to do this he needs to first show that situational ethics is even possible. Him using moral and ethical absolutes to prove situational ethics is useless and contradictory in nature. | CON | ce08c8d6-2019-04-18T16:34:47Z-00004-000 |
Christians rationally know truth from fiction. Ah,seeing as you seem to have missed my point, presumably not seeing the countless originals, you must just think that I'm a massive dick. This is really a parody, seeing as a site member has been posting like a dozen of these about Atheists. To kind of steal his points in case you actual want to argue their point either way, any "facts" known can only be determined by your senses, which you have no rational basis for trusting. You can't know any of these facts are actually facts rationally. But again, this was really a parody, sorry I didn't make that clearer. My bad on this one. | CON | 36a81c46-2019-04-18T12:35:21Z-00003-000 |
Social Media is bad. I'm aware that cyberbullying is bad, but schools around the world have been teaching teens on how to prevent cyberbullying (here is a site: http://cyberbullying.org...). This has helped teens become more aware of what could happen on social media and has also decreased the possibility of someone being cyber bullied. It's a persons' choice to be more talkative through social media (to people that live far away) than talking to people around him/her. | CON | a5deb511-2019-04-18T13:31:14Z-00000-000 |
Recruitment will be adversely affected if the police are armed. The police themselves are calling for more routine arming in the United Kingdom, through both the unions that represent rank and file policemen, and the bodies which speak for the senior officers. If we want them to uphold law and order, we should trust the police's judgement about the tools they need to carry out their task. To the contrary, recruitment will also suffer if police officers are seen as too vulnerable, as easy targets for criminals because they have no proper means to defend themselves. | CON | 2250950f-2019-04-15T20:22:46Z-00019-000 |
The United States is a Christian Nation. The hate speech laws in France are matters of both civil law and criminal law. Those laws protect individuals and groups from being defamed or insulted because they belong or do not belong, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or because they have a handicap. The laws forbid any communication which is intended to incite discrimination against, hatred of, or harm to, anyone because of his belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or because he or she has a handicap.......from WikWhy can the US not do this?I thank my opponent for their argument and there is a breeze of naivety that I could float on that would almost make their argument true. However, in the cold light of day a country must be judged by its actions. Trump is affiliated with a very conservative branch of Christianity. America fights with Muslim countries and Atheistic countries. Why? Trump does not care about the implications of Global Warming. Why? Christians spend their lives waiting for the end, it is endemic within their mindset and this is an attribute of Trump Voters in 2016. I have nothing against a Christian Democracy in so far as it could be worse but you have a long way to go before you become a secular France which is where democracy really exists.The Bible is America's Constitution, God has made man in his Likeness and his Laws shall reign supreme over us. This is the crutch that keeps the Absurdities of Inequality and Waste with the US sustainable. The Christian soldiers of the US lead the vanguard against an invisible enemy that now is Muslim extremism, but which might easily morph into secular rationalism tomorrow. Try taking guns off these Christians, try stopping the production of armaments in US factories. Why would a secular society do these things in the name of God. They wouldn't. Obama used more Christian euphemisms than I can possibly recall and it was regarded as normal."My faith is a great source of comfort to me. I've said before that my faith has grown as President. This office tends to make a person pray more; and as President Lincoln once said, 'I have been driven to my knees many times by the overwhelming conviction that I had no place else to go.'" ObamaAt least now we know who is 'pulling the strings'. | PRO | 4c77620a-2019-04-18T12:41:38Z-00002-000 |
Michael Jordan is the best basketball player to walk the face of the earth. Thank you for responding. F.Y.I, I did state something about MJ's individual "greatness". Actually, I stated a LOT of stuff. All the stating from MJ prove that he was not the greatest basketball player to walk on the ace of Earth. Greatness means physical greatness, but also spiritually greatness. In order to be great, you need to be ,of course, strong, but also nice and having sportsmanship. Did you see any sportsmanship in those quotes? I DON'T THINK SO. Mentioning Jeremy Lin has a purpose. I'm just saying there are other people besides MJ that are great basketball players. Jeremy Lin is not the only other great players. I was just using him as an example. Thank you. | CON | 234eed37-2019-04-18T18:26:53Z-00006-000 |
Girls r hot. Girls aren't hot otherwise I would have died of burning right now because I kiss girls practically all day. They queue up to do it and t is a 23 month wait, but it's worth it. I am normal temperature.I think pro could be confused about what people mean when they say women are always in the kitchen they mean the women are in the kitchen but outside the oven, not in it. I could understand how somebody would think this, though, because cooking women would be sexist.Women always are in the kitchen. My sister makes regular trips and brings back souvenirs every time (the fridge magnets. They're what keep the lid of the fridge and the rest of it from separating).Thank you. | CON | 6346f360-2019-04-18T16:42:34Z-00004-000 |
death penalty should be abolish. Yet there is the major issue now of overpopulation in prisons in America so certain criminals are being let out due to that issue so people who are in prison for a life sentence with good behaviour and "rehabilitation" they are being released and causing more of a danger to society again. So you're saying we should put these prisoners to work instead? In other words the government gets cheap or free labor while screwing over the little guy and taking away work from the people who actually need the work and money. How is allowing a monster to work helping anyone? Answer? It isn't. Giving them the death penalty is what these inhuman people deserve for the unspeakable crimes they have committed. We do not lose our humanity in taking the life of a person who has committed acts of such evil, we are protecting future victims and punishing this person or crimes worthy of death. Also many families also want the person who took their loved one away to die, their will always be families who have lost a loved one to a murderer who would rather them rot in jail than death whereas there will also be many who want that person to die for stealing the life of their loved one or ones. Also the cost itself is debatable as well, all agree the initial cost of the death penalty process is quite expensive but in the long term life in prison can cost even more. Also there are laws protecting mentally challenged people and children from being given the death penalty so your argument there is invalid. Also by the sounds of it the governments you are talking about there are corrupt ones anyway which even if they didn't have the death penalty would still scurry off certain people and have them killed in secret anyway. That is not the death penalty it is an assassination that even if the death penalty was abolished would still happen anyway. In America you get judged by a jury of your peers you have evidence brought before the court to prove your guilt and even when found guilty are still given certain rights which protect you. Death is never the soft release death is the final release and most of these criminals would rather life in prison than the death penalty and the ones who don't care are the ones where life in prison wouldn't cause them any suffering anyway because they don't feel like we do they are inhuman. In the end the death penalty shouldn't be abolished it is a punishment reserved for those certain monsters that commit such evil acts that letting them live is the crime. In conclusion I believe I have given enough reason to show why the death penalty should not be abolished. | PRO | 62cd9e88-2019-04-18T17:42:25Z-00000-000 |
Whites need to be bred out. Well it looks like my opponent has run out of ideas and is now trying to make up words. I looked up "conservadumb" in the dictionary, but sadly there was no definition. I would also like to say that I am in fact not voting for Trump, and I am in fact not racist. I don't think I have said anything in this debate that would be a proving example of how I am racist. However the title of this argument is "Whites Need to be Bred Out", and since you are the one who named this and you are arguing for whites to be gone, it simply proves you are racist. Like I have said countless time you can't blame a whole group of people for what one person did, so you cannot call white people "bad". I agree that fracking is bad and I wish it wasn't practice. Wars are commonplace and are not just among whites. I also don't know how simply existing is destroying this world? You have stated that Egyptians invented electricity, but you have not provided any sources or evidence. Also, the battery was invented by Alessandro Volta (https://en.wikipedia.org...). You also did not provide any evidence with Indians inventing the telephone, and I have not seen any proof of that, along with Eskimos inventing the fridge. I see you have some dealings with history though, as Carver did invent many things concerning peanuts. The real number is actually around 300, not 100. Einstein did come up with the Theory of Relativity, so maybe you should check your facts. Einstein is indeed in fact Jewish, however Adolf Hitler is the one who oppressed the Jewish people in the Holocaust, not all of the whites. As this is the end of the debate I would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity to argue with him and make my valid points. I would also like to thank anyone who votes. Thank you. | CON | d6c7130a-2019-04-18T13:57:33Z-00000-000 |
Intelligent design is plausible under a literal interpretation of the Bible. I like your enthusiasm. To support my claim that Intelligent design is impossible under a literal interpretation of the bible, I will pull a quote from the bible. Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. Genesis 2:7 If God literally created man from "dust on the ground", how can Intelligent design hold water? | CON | a394e916-2019-04-18T15:16:42Z-00005-000 |
are the current changes in the political scene at Delhi indicative of better future for India. Challenge accepted.I shall be the Pro in this debate i.e. I shall be arguing that the current changes in the political scene at Delhi ARE indicative of a better future for India.Due to him being the instigator, the burden of proof is upon my opponent. I eagerly await his arguments in the next round, failing which I shall present my own.I look forward to an exciting and fairly-contested debate. | PRO | 7f602a4-2019-04-18T16:54:06Z-00004-000 |
single gendered schools do more harm than good. .. Pillaging Invaders . .. Looting Set ablaze the campfires alert the other men from inland Warning must be given there's not enough men here for a stand The Vikings are too many too powerful to take on our own We must have reinforcements we cannot fight this battle alone They're coming over the hill they've come to attack they're coming in for the kill there's no turning back Invaders . .. Fighting Invaders . .. Marauding Axes grind and maces clash as wounded fighters fall to the ground Severed limbs and fatal woundings bloody corpses lay all around The smell of death and burning flesh the battle weary fight to the end The Saxons have been overpowered victims of the mighty Norsemen You'd better scatter and run the battle's lost and not won you'd better get away to fight another day Invaders . .. Raping Invaders . .. Plundering | PRO | eab20922-2019-04-18T19:42:42Z-00000-000 |
Nutella is the only reason to live. = Opening = Dude, you totally reminded me of this one time I was at the doctor's office and I had to get some surgery! I was deathly ill with a super-rare disease that affects one in ever 14 trillion people, it was called Phantom onychositis. Or, the inflammation of a toenail that isn't really there. I was prepped for surgery when a nursed came in with a meal tray. Naturally the doctor began to berate her for interrupting a surgery, especially one so delicate as mine - in her obvious guilt the nurse hit the edge of the tray sending it's contents flying across the room. As a peanut-butter and jelly sandwich flew through the air, it hit me in the head and I died. My funeral was swift but as the preacher spoke, he iterated how I might have survived the fatal sandwich had it been filled with Nutella instead of PB&J. = Framework = Observation 1: These words are written in english. Observation 2: You totally can't lick your elbow. And no, touching your tongue and then your elbow does not count. Observation 3: My opponent lives in Nashville, or so his profile claims of the time I post this, thus he must know Talyor Swift. Dude, you should totally get me an autograph! = Arguments = 1. Nutella saves lives- a. Hard evidence already presented- Dude, I told you; I died because my nurse brought me a PB&J sammich instead of Nutella one! b. Empirical data points to this conclusion- My Mom told me that Nutella saves lives, so I believe her. What? Are you calling my mom a liar? jerk. 2. Animals love the stuff- a. this cute squirrel- http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net... b. THIS cute squirrel http://24.media.tumblr.com... 3. The stuff is freaking cool- a. Pietro Ferrero; And Italian Willy Wonka- From Cracked.com [1] "Ferrero SpA (the Chocolate Factory) has been described as "one of the world's most secretive firms," making Ferrero himself like an Italian Willy Wonka." "Chocolate was being rationed during World War II, because we all know how much those Nazis love their chocolate, so Pietro used Hazelnuts which were plentiful and cheaper as an alternative, no one complained." b. Nutella is healthy! Nutella is Kosher, Gluten free, contains no peanuts and is marketed as a breakfast food! Everyone knows that all breakfast foods are super healthy, like Ihop's[2] Big Steak Omelette! With 1210 calories, you'll barely have to eat anything else that day, how convenient! And wit just a few handfuls of Nutella on it, it'l be even better for you! = Closing = Later y'all! I'm boutsta take a spoon to this magical jar of nutella sittin in front of me. = Evidence = [1] http://www.cracked.com... [2] http://www.ihop.com... | PRO | b256263-2019-04-18T18:12:10Z-00005-000 |
Werewolves make better lovers than zombies. I do wish however he would do a better job. He offers as a mitigating factor that if you don't want a rotting zombie you could just have a freshly dead one. Why not just have a human at that rate? What's the point of the zombie. It's my contention that due to the added spice a werewolf would be a better lover than a human and most of the time would be in human form and thus the same. However it's his contention clearly that zombies are sub-human lovers. The analogy is clear. If humans are better lovers than zombies and werewolves are better lovers than humans then clearly it must be the case that werewolves are better lovers than zombies. My opponent equates having sex with a werewolf with bestiality. But, werewolves can often be perfectly human at different phases of the moon. So my opponent is clearly calling having sex with humans bestiality. What do you have against humans? What do you have against werepeople? That is racism through and through. If you go undead you will lose your head. They will rip it off to eat your brains! Readers, don't be fooled by my opponents clever word play and his fancy college words. The decision is clear. You can either suggest that a dead rotting corpse that stinks and kills you is somehow a better lover than a wild, kinky, hot, animal in the sack werelover, or you can accept the truth. .. the sexy sexy truth! | PRO | 3f9f888f-2019-04-18T19:23:43Z-00001-000 |
Increased restrictions should be put on guns in the US. I believe we should increase gun restriction (From now onm I will refer to this as gun control) simply becaue it keeps us safer. (I know I am using part of my argument from another debate) In 2007, 16,929 people (. http://www.fbi.gov... ) were murdered. Now you may say that this is a normal number for international crime rates, But it is not. Looking at the homicide rate of our own country (5.6 murders for every 100,000 people) compared to other developed countries, we see we have a particularly high rate. (United Kingdom 2.1, Japan .5, Germany 1, Italy 1.2) (. http://www.photius.com...) So what makes us different from these countries. They are just as developed, and many of the outside influences are the same. So what is the difference? All the countries I listed have some type of gun control. (. http://news.bbc.co.uk... . http://www.guncite.com... . http://archives.cnn.com...) So this proves that gun control is effective. Japan has the strictest gun control and the lowest homicide rate. Now I think we can agree that the purpose of a government is to ensure the welfare and saftey of its citizens, so we should keep our citizens safe by banning guns. | PRO | 181cc311-2019-04-18T19:28:45Z-00001-000 |
Its Possible that there is an alien mothership hovering above earth. I thank Con for their reply.Lack of detection does not prove the alien mothership does not existAlot of Cons counterargument rests on the premise that we have lack of evidence of the alien mothership. As Con says..."In order for this definition and the resolution to be true then there has to be some logically connected way that an alien mothership has been suspended within the area of Earth's atmosphere without being detected by humanity." But notice the hidden assumption, it assumes that if the alien ship exists that we would detect its existence. But what if the alien ship had a cloaking device and/or took measure to hide themselves ? Unless Con can prove that its impossible for the alien ship to exist without detection then the lack of detection does not prove the alien ship as a logical impossibility. Logically possible vs PlausiblePlausible = (of an argument or statement) Seeming reasonable or probable [1]Just because something is logically possible doesn't mean its plausible and/or likely to be true. After all, what ever probability you assign to the existence of aliens, is lowered once you add them having an alien ship, which is lowered again once you add a cloaking device, etc.So I grant the alien proposition is utterly implausible based on the various evidence and observations given by Con, such as lack of detection, suspension of movement by the ship, etc. Never the less, this doesn't prove that an alien ship hovering above earth is IMPOSSIBLE just that its implausible. As such its still possible that there is an alien mothership hovering above earth.Over to you Con.Sources [1] http://www.google.com.au... | PRO | 79defe95-2019-04-18T18:33:04Z-00003-000 |
There are no right or wrong answers in ethics. What keeps people and society from going into chaos is that they chose to not act like savages and run rabid in the streets. Leader of the Wu Tang Clan, The Rza, says has a philosophy and part of his beliefs is that we are all free to do whatever we want to do, but there are consequences to our actions. So while I can punch someone in the face I could go to jail or be killed because of my actions. While people may not realize that they have more control and freedom over their lives, they do know that their actions have consequences that will affect them. Even though some people know this, they still choose commit acts that go against the law and are considered wrong as a means to an end. So even if someone does something wrong if it places that person in a better situation, they might go with doing the deed. There are many books, movies, and comics that show people going against a ethical code that they were brought up in and choosing to turn its back on that code to do what they believe is good, for money, save a loved one, etc. In Star Wars Anakin Skywalker turned to the dark side and betrayed the jedi order to save his wife. I will take it even further and say that before he turned to the dark side he broke many rules of the order to save others knowing full well that he shouldn't. He let his anger and pride get the best of him; leading to the deaths of a tusken raider village, the lost of his arm, but also a large sum of his power came from his anger. He refused to let go of his attachments to his mother and married Padme Amidala which forbidden for jedi to do. Anakin knew what he did went against the jedi code but he chose not to let that stop him from doing as he please. They are also instances where people without any moral judgment do what is considered the right option. In the movie, The Dark Knight, the Joker has bombs on two boats. One boat is full of civilians and the other boat is full of convicts. All the people both of the boat could have blew the other boat up but they chose not to. Realizing that you have a choice, even if it means pain or death, is more powerful than a moral code because you are in control of your actions and not by a code that tells you how you should act. | PRO | 8ecf486e-2019-04-18T16:43:38Z-00002-000 |
Nonsense Poetry Battle!. I wrote this back in September and had fun writing it. I hope it fits the rules. The peep stole the cheese and put in on the air. It said it was healthy that way, but it was actually a chronic chocolate of a time so the solution was to swim to the case land for vases. The liquid map was not enough help. They survived anyways and jumped to grasslands. The brainac had no idea so they sat to the walker ways. That was not enough though. The riots were still going. They needed more cheese even before the peep stole it. The peep already cannon balled to the pond, but the cheese was rocked. The elephant was upset about that. Moral of the story: You can't please them all. | PRO | 85f225da-2019-04-18T17:02:07Z-00004-000 |
Metric System. 1. I never said America was the first Republic I meant during the 1700's America changed the course of the world's way of government 2. Even tho you say that people wouldn't be confused that hypothetical like saying that I will become president its possible but not a certainty. your argument is that America is falling behind in measurement but what about healthcare,money,military etc. do they care about measurements? America has had its way of measuring for over 200 years why stop it now. | CON | ec6e4510-2019-04-18T17:42:35Z-00004-000 |
If A Tree Fell In A Forrest With No One Around To Hear It, It Would Still Make A Sound. If a tree fell in the forest and no one was around to hear it, it would not make a noise. If there were no sentient beings in the surrounding areas to perceive to sound waves then they simply would not exist. In order for something to exist they have to be perceived. Sorry if I don't make sense. I'm new to this. | CON | 276400a2-2019-04-18T14:57:30Z-00004-000 |
favorite heroe. This is a very short debate here, only 500 characters long, so I will talk about the burdens, etc. DebateThe debate is about favorite hero. Con is negating. That means the debate is not about which superhero you like. You need a debate like, "Is raven better than Superman? ", or what so ever. This is not a debate topic, should be a poll. My opponent has the BoP of the debate, and he needs to fullfill it, but right now he is not doing this. | PRO | 950c0704-2019-04-18T12:57:33Z-00000-000 |
My opinions are more important, accurate, and meaningful, than your opinions. Congratulations, you quoted the bible, a book written by a bunch of superstitious men with almost no grasp on reality. Since you're using the bible as your source, if a christian votes on this debate then you'll win, if an atheist votes then i'll win. The world is biased on these things one way or another. Just because an ancient book says you're better than non-believers(yet at the same time says everyone is equal or, "all god's children") does not mean it is true. You need facts to back your claim up, not ifs and maybes from a book with ridiculous claims. | CON | d291b550-2019-04-18T12:39:01Z-00004-000 |
Is homework good for students. OK thank you for those points. I shall now give mine. 1) Homework for reviewing Is it not true that there are students who daydream in class and not listen to a single thing the teacher says? No there are students like that. A classmate of mine in my former-school always daydreamed and did not even know what was going on. He always came to me for help. That, itself, is proof already that these students do exist. Homework eliminates those people. Because my old school rarely had homework, I had to take care of a classmate with his studies. Homework makes sure they understand. Teachers teach for a reason. To clearly educate these children. They give practice exercises in many branches and the students should understand. No one will teach a-b-c and give homework about x-y-z. Practices exercises act as a primary source of how children understand. Homework secures that stance. | PRO | 6851beca-2019-04-18T12:14:03Z-00000-000 |
Affirmative action is racist against minorities. It tells them that they need help, that they are nothing but their races, and that the country feels sorry for them. At least that's how I see it. I recognize that it does have benefits, but this is about whether it's racist. I'll be honest: I just want to reach my three debates as quickly as possible so I can vote; I wouldn't feel the need to start a debate about this otherwise - but I still intend to take this seriously. | PRO | 66176d73-2019-04-18T17:58:07Z-00005-000 |
It is a good and holy act for Christians to honor Mary and ask her intercession. I accept christisking's debate challenge and thank him for his succinct opening statement and concise definitions. I agree with these definitions with one proviso: Namely that during the unfolding of this debate I propose to illustrate that Catholics go beyond simply 'honouring' Mary and stray into the unscriptural realm of worshipping her. I feel fully justified in this semantic discrepancy as my opponent has himself stated that I am, in essence, defending 'my' Protestantism against 'his' Catholicism. I invite my opponent to state his case. | CON | cda2019f-2019-04-18T18:42:59Z-00007-000 |
Famer's Story-Writing Debate Tournament Round #1 DakotaKrafick VS Logic_on_rails. Nary forty contestants remained in the Contest of RiddlesAt least half which were Aremair’s harem, him standing squarely in the middle Eagerly they fought for him, seduced by his smile and charmInvincible he thought himself, no one could do him harmTwenty of his women were left, he counted in his headTheir minds, he noted, as dull as their performances in bedBut with so many, the win was surely his!His plan was flawless, so genius it all is!Whenever it was one of their turns, rare as it was(sad but true, their wit was nothing to earn applause)They would give him the next riddle, one they both already knewThen he would give his answer and turn straight to Lenny or that shrewThere was one weakness in his genius plan, though not a big flawBut big enough for her to see, and the flaw, you see, she did sawThese women he seduced each individuallySo each thought herself his one and only“You musn’t act like my lover,” Aremair had warned one before the contest started“Or they’ll know my win was ill-earned,” and with that he departedHe had fed the same line to all of the othersIn order to ensure none could find out about each otherAnd he had done so, he thought at least, in privacyBut that woman had heard, by luck, from a bend in the alleyThis was the flaw, and what a flaw that it wasSo marvelous this will be, she thought, imagining the applause“I choose you,” she pointed to one she knew was part of his scheme“Solve this riddle and I’ll acknowledge you keen:“The acme of chivalry, his name is AremairLike any gentleman, he has but one maiden, beautiful and fair“Not the brightest she is, but I’m sure he loves her all the sameIn order to solve this riddle, you need but give me her name”“Hold on a minute,” Aremair blurted loudly in objection“That isn’t a riddle; it’s just a gossipy question!”“He’s right,” Lenny agreed, “It doesn’t seem fair.How could this person know who’s the love of Aremair?”“I’m sure she has an idea,” the woman said, having so much fun.“But if she thinks it impossible, I could always give her harder one.”Her victim was frightened, covered in sweatA harder one? she thought, I’m sure that wasn’t an empty threat!Aremair had told her to keep their love secretThis she remembered, but wasn’t winning more important than their silly agreement?“I know the answer,” she said and Aremair almost died“It is I," she shouted with all of her pride. | PRO | df3069a7-2019-04-18T17:34:59Z-00004-000 |
Whose life is more difficult? Woman (Pro) or Men (Con). Hi, I'll accept the side of men. I'm new to this site, so I'm not sure if I'm supposed to give some of my argument straight away, but I will state some facts. 40% of all domestic violence happens to men, just to put some perspective into the argument that women are the only real victims. Now that you know that men are actually victims too, I will give some other opening facts about this issue. 1 out of 10 male on male rapes are reported, making the 3% of men in the UK that admit to male on male rape and the 5% that admitted to the same as a child even more disturbing, not counting prison rape. The CDC reported males being forced to either penetrate or give oral sex to women being a surprising 4.8%; 1 out of 21 men. There was an experiment where at first, a male fought with a female (verbally) in public, in a crowded area, loudly so everyone could hear, and pushed her maybe once or twice, and people started whipping out phones to alert authorities and ran to go get help. The experiment then reversed the situation, waiting until different people were in the area and put the man as the character being abused, and the woman actually punched him a few times while yelling at him. The bystanders simply looked out of curiosity, sometimes laughed, and kept walking. That should show how people feel about abuse. I can link to the video if I need to, but I don't have it on hand. | CON | f89a9738-2019-04-18T16:04:58Z-00002-000 |
animal testing is wrong. Thank you for the interesting topic. (Please note the video will be referenced in my 5th contention). So my opponent has assumed the burden of proof that she must prove "in every way" that testing is bad. That means that if I prove one good way you must vote Pro by default. Contention 1: Testing humans. Humans are scientifically considered animals and their hundreds of different programs that test out different tests in morally correct ways with positive benefits. The U.S. does have a set moral standard for this. Ex: "Nearly half of patients who completed 56 weeks of treatment with Orexigen Therapeutics Inc.'s experimental obesity treatment, Contrave, lost at least 10 percent of their weight in a late-stage study and the drug also appeared to help cholesterol and blood sugar levels." http://www.foxnews.com... Thus we see that experimental testing did not make them suffer thus denying my opponents point and also that a positive was achieved in the end as people actually lost weight in this "experimental" treatment. Hence its clear to see that their are benefits and remember as my opponent as stated she will prove "wrong in every way". Contention 2: An owner can test products on their cat. If I am a cat owner and I want to see which food brand my cat loves the most I can feed him two different types and see which one I get the happiest reaction from. Thus I am doing a positive for my cat in a way that is making it happy. Hence this type of testing is also justified. Contention 3: Doggy-day care. If I send my dog to two day-care programs and I see which one makes it the happiest I am doing a test by testing the day care on it, and it is not suffering. Contention 4: Animals except humans do not have feelings. Feelings-Feelings is a United Artists Records album by easy listening duo Ferrante & Teicher. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feelings_(Ferrante_&_Teicher_album) I have never heard of a dog/cat/sheep/goat etc. owning such an album as this and thus animals do not have feelings too. Contention 5: Animals testing products do not suffer. Look at the video in the top corner of the screen. http://www.youtube.com... The gerbil is clearly in a box and having a light saber tested with him and you clearly see that he is not suffering. Thus products can be used in a way that does not make them suffer, instead it even looks like the gerbil is having fun. Thus it is clear to see that my opponent can not prove that animal testing is "wrong in every way" Thus by default a strong vote for Pro is advised. Thank you. | PRO | 11ace9a4-2019-04-18T19:11:45Z-00004-000 |
60's Rock. http://www.youtube.com...The Kinks - You really got Me - 1964The third single to be released by the kinks, You Really Got Me features on the bands debut album; The Kinks (also known as 'You really Got Me' in america). This great song has had a dramatic effect on the development of hard rock and heavy metal, often said to be the foundation of all heavy metal music. The song went through multiple recordings, in many different styles before being released The song has recieved much praise over the years, it was placed at no. 82 on rolling stones 500 greatest songs of all time, got to number 9 in a bbc poll on the 100 greatest guitar songs of all time, and got to no. 7 in the american pop singles charts. There is a well known rumor that the guitarist who played the solo in 'you really got me' was infact Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin, though he denies the claims. | PRO | 534aa7c5-2019-04-18T18:29:02Z-00002-000 |
The incentive for corruption and self-enrichment in office is increased by term limits:. With term limits, a legislator will, after he enters his final permitted term of office, not have to face the electorate again, meaning he can do whatever wants, to an extent. This encourages corruption and self-enrichment on the part of legislators in their final term of office when they do not need to face the people to answer for poor management. There is likewise less incentive to follow through on election promises to supporters, since their withdrawing support can have little tangible impact on a lame duck. A study into term limits in Brazil found that "mayors with re-election incentives are signi?cantly less corrupt than mayors without re-election incentives. In municipalities where mayors are in their ?rst term, the share of stolen resources is, on average, 27 percent lower than in municipalities with second-term mayors."(Ferraz, 2010) Furthermore, lame duck politicians can devote time to buddying up to businesses and organizations in order to get appointments to lucrative board seats after they leave office. This has often been the case in Western democracies, where former parliamentarians, cabinet ministers, senators, etc. find themselves being offered highly profitable positions upon their retirement (Wynne, 2004). Imposing term limits necessarily increases this sort of behavior, as politicians look more toward their retirement during their final years of office, rather than to the interests of the people. 1 Ferraz, Claudio and Finan, Frederico, (2010). "Electoral Accountability and Corruption: Evidence from the Audits of Local Governments" Berkeley, 2 Wynne, Michael. 2004. "Politics, Markets, Health and Democracy". University of Wolongong. improve this | PRO | 49804ffd-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00019-000 |
Christmas Is Annoying. Christmas is a tacky and an annoying gimmick that gives shops the excuse to put plastic tree with rubbish on them for a period of three months. not to mention the silly costumes people have the excuse to wear in public. When did it become acceptable to put a santa on a tree and feed relatives disgusting birds with berries that taste foul and sprouts that nobody likes. BECAUSE ITS A PLAN TO GIVE THEM DIABETES! | PRO | 617f8c4d-2019-04-18T17:57:20Z-00002-000 |
Democracy is the best form of government. Democracy is the best form of government. I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. In this round, I will simply be stating the pros of Democracy: Democracy represents the people. Democracy ensures that the basic human rights are granted to each citizen of the country. People have the right to express their opinions about any topic out loud, without being censored by the government. Democracy promotes debates and group discussions which are crucial for the exponential growth of a nation. In a democracy each and every citizen have the power to decide who runs the country. By granting the power to the people, democracy ensures equal participation to everyone in the government of the country. Democracy helps in making the citizens responsible and aware. A democracy does not discriminate anyone. A democratic system of government ensures equal political, social and economic rights to everyone. In a democracy no laws can be passed without the consent of the majority. Any law passed must conform to the broad guidelines of the constitution, and if a law does not meet this requirement, it can be challenged in a court of law and repealed. Ensures complete transparency in decision making and prevents any unjust law from being passed. In a democracy, elected government cannot stay in power for as long as they want because they are bound by the constitution wherein they have to end their terms in office. Democracy promotes social peace and harmony. The freedom of speech granted by democracy, brings with it the various platforms that promote wise utilization of the spoken word. Debates and group discussions are organized for people to voice out their opinion and share their ideas. Exposes the citizens to different perspectives and they understand each other better and together they contribute to the overall development of the country. My opponent might state that mob rule is possible in such a government. Yet, the electoral college protects us from a situation like this. Source(s):http://thefederalist.com... https://www.quora.com... https://listontap.com... | PRO | 5c791cdc-2019-04-18T11:58:00Z-00001-000 |
The paradox of the stone refutes an omnipotent God. Resolution: The paradox of the stone refutes an omnipotent God The paradox of the stone goes as follows: P.1 God either can or cannot create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it. P.2 If God can create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent. P.3 If God cannot create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent. Therefore: P.4 God is not omnipotent. P.5 If God exists then he is omnipotent. Therefore: P.6 God does not exist. [1] First round acceptance No arguments last round Please refrain from semantics. [1] http://www.philosophyofreligion.info... | CON | 295c076b-2019-04-18T18:16:02Z-00006-000 |
Incompatible with PCs. Macs are so incompatible with PC’s; the amount of time I've had to spend re-formatting videos and pictures for my media degree is unreal. Why does apple do this? – So everyone has to buy a Mac! Also, Apple is so motivated by profit that you can bet your Mac will break almost as soon as the warranty runs out or that a couple weeks after their sales peak they will release the ‘next best thing’! | PRO | fd35722a-2019-04-19T12:45:01Z-00075-000 |
Trinity. Is the Doctrine of the Trinity a Scriptural Doctrine? Scriptures- Protestant 66 Book Holy Bible Version- KJV or NIV. Choose one and then stick with it. I will give the contender the choose of version. I will give Scriptural proof that the Doctrine of Trinity is a valid Doctrine. No straw men please. Waste of time and characters. Either version of Protestant 66 book Bible is reliable source for information is this debate. | PRO | 10f4351-2019-04-18T19:37:52Z-00009-000 |
Williams V. Walker- Thomas Furniture Co. (1965). Yes, plaintiff Williams was responsible for the payments on her purchase, but every individual deserves a second chance, even though they did missed a payment and became defaulted on their prior account doesn"t mean it will happen once again. Walker-Thomas, on the other hand should have been a more responsible business owner, and had better business decision making skills. Knowing that the purchaser Ms. Williams had a prior account in default and still extended her credit to be able to purchase the stereo set she wanted, even though Walker-Thomas knew she wasn"t financial stable. Should the contracts be overturned on grounds of unconscionable acts of poor business practice? The answer should be answer accordingly to the ruling of favor on Williams, yes, she knew she couldn"t afford to make a purchase or to take on "more debt" sort to say, but she did. Just as if you"re approved for a credit card knowing that you already owe the creditor a certain amount of debt or balance, and is struggling to make the minimum payments you"re going to still make purchases and take on additional debt. So who is to blame on that part is the creditor, if you know an individual can"t pay back a loan and missed payments why would you lend out additional money? Just like Walker-Thomas, he knew Williams owed money from a prior account she possessed with his company, but still with poor decision making, and unconscionable business acts, he still went ahead and let Ms. Williams take on an additional loan for a stereo set knowing her financial hard ship she was in currently at the time of the loan was established to her. | PRO | dbe45287-2019-04-18T16:15:30Z-00005-000 |
Others have committed comparable atrocities. With all the horrible events in history considered does Adolf Hitler deserve his damning reputation? The science of the time was without a doubt completely and fundamentally flawed. However, while heinous crimes like the holocaust were committed under Hitler’s rule, aren't we still to a lesser extent committing similar crimes? The South African government has attempted ethnic cleansing. In Iraq, Afghanistan and other nations we have been trying to spread democracy by killing off the pre-existing government structures and replacing them with our own. I would suggest that many Americans, due to the negativity of the media, feel about Muslims what Germans felt about Jews. Some would even compare the former Guantanamo Bay and its gross human rights violations to a touchier camp. All through history there have been attempts at racial and cultural genocide: China in Tibet, Roman rape policy, deliberate starvation in Ireland, and South Africa to name just a few. So does Adolf Hitler deserve his reputation as one of the worst men in history? Or is our history, like Churchill said, "Written by the victors". The scale of ethnic cleansing undertook by the Nazis fully deserves its horrific reputation. Yet it is not an isolated historical event; there have been many comparable atrocities, yet those responsible have not been demonised in the same way as Hitler. | PRO | c47177f2-2019-04-19T12:44:52Z-00019-000 |
Globe, Not Flat. Don't accept this debate unless you LEGITIMATELY beliexe that the Earth is flat. I know the sun spins around us for a fact also the moon. See it depends on perspective. Sometimes the sun gets bigger as it goes away and sometimes it gets really small. Yes, A circular movement of the sun and the moon around the earth makes sense. Those countries don't exist. They don't want to get nuked. Also, Everyone accepts the reality of the world with which we are presented. It was nice debating with you. | CON | 2975fbe2-2019-04-18T11:12:43Z-00000-000 |
Resolved: Nightmare Moon is an Underated Character in My Little Pony. I would like to note that my opponent has violated the rules by refuting my arguments in the second round instead of posting his own arguments and shall lose conduct at minimum, but I will now further my own arguments. Section 1: Though there was jealouscy between the two, but we can see that it did not fully manifest until after the Battle with Sombra. We can see that this gave her stregth as she turned into Nightmare Moon in that clip. Section 2: My opponenet is greatly mistaken. There are several times when the Elements of Harmony failed. We have to observe the first battle with Discord and they failed there. It was not just because of the "Discord" that existed between the Maine 6, but was more of the fact that it takes time. The Elemens of Harmony didn't defeat Tirek as it was the Power of Friendship which they unlocked at the season finale. Again another misque on my opponent's part. Not to mention that Nightmare Moon destroyed the Elements of Harmony in the Second Episodes. Section 3: Tantabus is a key factor. Despite being mostly a dream beast. We can see that it has many of the same abilities that Luna has, but it is different. It is a mere punishment for Luna and what Tantabus did was its job by tormenting Luna. There was no real harm done, but more of a Nightmare. (http://villains.wikia.com...) | PRO | e5972ecb-2019-04-18T14:26:40Z-00003-000 |
Hunting ( for food, not for trophies ). I think hunting is a good thing! Now keep in mind, there is a difference between trophy chasers and hunters. You can probably tell what the difference is. A hunter will never let an animal suffer. Ever. Hunting is a pure sport, void of wrong doings. Accidents happen, yes, but a hunter will never purposely injure an animal to watch it suffer. | PRO | 38b9eec3-2019-04-18T12:42:33Z-00001-000 |
Naploleon Bonaparte would defeat George Washington in a war. Rebuttals 1. Actually, battle is a point. It is true that Napoleon has made mistakes, but he was able to learn from them. He also won much more battles than Washington. The only battles Washington won were purely because of number, while Napoleon won many battles while outnumbered. Again, look at the statistics. Napoleon Bonaparte Austerlitz - Victory and also was outnumbered Jena - Victory Waterloo - Defeat, but would have won if his officers cooperated Logan - Victory and outnumbered Pyramids - Victory and was outnumbered Wag ram - Victory George Washington Fort Washington - Defeat Brandying - Outnumbered the British, made poor decisions and lost Saratoga - Victory Germantown - Outnumbered the British but lost Monmouth - Draw Yorktown - Victory, but only because the French came 2. Navy is an inportant factor. It is true they both had a navy, however Napoleon's was much larger and powerful, and would overpower Washington's tiny Navy. 3. Thank you for conceding the troops. 4. It is true that Washington made did indeed make some good tactical decisions, but look at the majority of the battles. At Brandying, he outnumbered the British, yet failed to learn from his mistakes and lost. Same with Germantown. Most historians would agree that Bonaparte was a better tactition than Washington. "nepolian was an emperor. he was the sole commander of his everything.whereas washington was just the commander of continental army. he was just the servant of congress." Ok. That just gives Napoleon more advantages. "among all these obstacles george washington fought the war, won the war and brought america back its freedom. nepolean did not have to face any obstacle. he just was a player in an open field where only he won." The only reason Washington won was because of French support. Without the support, the British would have won. Also, what do you mean that "Napoleon did not have to face obstacles"? Napoleon faced many obsticles. He won many battles while facing many enemies. Sources Sources are the same sources from last round. | PRO | 14fe8ea5-2019-04-18T18:25:35Z-00004-000 |
Wearing a clip-on tie on a t-shirt. I do actually have evidence to support Google being a reliable fashion source. When I search 'fashion' into Google, There many things that come up that I have seen people wear. Sequin dresses, Camouflage yoga pants, Pencil skirts, You name it. And, If Google isn't a reliable fashion source, What is? Because Google combines pictures from websites around the world, So if Google isn't a reliable fashion source, Doesn't that mean nothing is? You say I don't provide evidence, But you haven't provided any evidence that wearing a clip-on tie with a t-shirt is fashionable. If i'm wrong, Give me the evidence. I have looked on many different fashion websites, Including Fashion Nova, American Eagle, The Mountain, TRUE Links wear, Fortress of Inca, Tucker Blair, Etc. I haven't seen a single website mention a clip-on tie with a t-shirt is fashionable, Or even mention it at all. I think if it were stylish, Someone would notice, Right? If you can find ONE fashion website with a picture of someone wearing it, I will back down. I will admit you are right. If not, I will assume it is because it is an unpopular, Unstylish fashion choice. The reason I haven't seen anyone wear a clip-on tie with a t-shirt isn't because I'm not paying attention. Trust me, If I see someone wearing that, I would know. I don't think you should cling on to only one of my many points on why I think you are wrong. It makes it seem like you know i'm right, And have nothing to come back with. That is just a tip on debating in general. | CON | d757bbb7-2019-04-18T11:15:49Z-00000-000 |
The theory of evolution is false. First of all, thankyou very much for your argument... As for the suggestion that there IS enough evidence to backup evolution, in actual fact scientists over time have only found a coffin full of bones that somehow prove the theory of evolution to be somewhat cosiderable.Surely a coffin full is not enough evidence. I do understand that it is quality more than quantity but even then we can clearly see that none of those evidence are powerful enough to change views against the theory of evolution as it is still considered just a 'Theory' ,that itself states that there is not enough evidence to promote the theory to a fact. Now, you have just told me that I was wrong in thinking that the initial claim of evolution is that humans have evolved from apes and that it is more true to say that humans and apes have common ancestors, and I accept that the mistake here is mine.I apologise for that. Anyway even then I would like to ask that doesn't having common ancestors of the two different species (humans and apes) mean either humans evolving from apes or apes evolving from humans. And if you are saying that acually us humans and the apes have evolved from a completely different species, which e have no clue of,' then aren't we being a bit mythical here? Do you not think that if there were this 'other species ' then we would have found some evidence of their existence in the prehistoic era. I mean we have even gone to so much depth as to find evidence of dinosaurs, then surely finding the creature that were our forefathers is no challenge for us humans in the 21st century. Okay so next point, sorry but I guess you just don't know what planets and stars have evolved from.( I know, cheeky right? I guess making the point about 'cosmology' and not 'evolution' was a bit stupid of me...have to be honest here) But as for humans not being around for long enough I should most probably clarify. What I initially wanted to suggest is that maybe us humans have been around a short enough period of time to realise that there was no evolution. Thankyou hope I haven't said too many stupid things, you should know that this is my first time debating, you can probably tell. | PRO | c299a441-2019-04-18T17:48:44Z-00001-000 |
Marijuana legalization. Thank you for posting your last argument. In no where in your posts did you say that you wanted to debate legitimate reasons, just reasons. You admitted that I have given you reasons, you said "Anyone can come up with REASONS why they think the opposite." You failed to make your argument clear, therefore I debated on what you wrote, not what you wanted. Yes, you have avoided things that I have said. The whole thing about selling to children, you did not even comment on that matter. There is a reason right there. You want to keep the government out of this, yet you still want to debate legal things? I am sorry but that is impossible, the government makes the laws. Audience, I have clearly shown the reason why the Marijuana is illegal. It is up to you to believe it or not yet it is still a reason. I have clearly won spelling, conduct, and sources. Who had more of a convincing argument is up to you. Thank you. Sources: (1). http://dictionary.reference.com... (2). http://en.wikipedia.org... | CON | 154dda41-2019-04-18T19:13:40Z-00000-000 |
City life is better then the country. I have to say who would live in the city. The city live has FAR more air pollution and noise. 341, 469 people went on the same stretch of road in a city in one day. How would u like to hear that going past your house every second. Personally I would be sick of it. I live in the country now and let me tell you I can do what ever I want peacefully with cars going past my house every few minutes. But the noise is also drained out by the native life which I know you don't get much in the city. So try and fight but you know that the country life is better then the city. | CON | d89f578b-2019-04-18T16:20:01Z-00002-000 |
Parents should be allowed to discipline their child with force! (spanking, etc.). I think it's all nonsense that you can not discipline your child the way you want to. Why should a parent not be allowed to smack their child when they are doing something wrong? Now i'm not saying to beat your kid to a pulp, or leave bruises, or welts, or make it so DCF has to be called. But if my kid is doing something wrong, and they don't listen to yelling, why should it be wrong for me to smack them up side the head, or grab them by the ear? After a while of you screaming at your kid, they can block you out, they know how to ignore you, so what do you do then? they won;t listen to you, your at your whits end,you don't know what to do. Don't you think that it grab their ear and pull that, that will grab their attention? I think so. | PRO | fc4a09d9-2019-04-18T17:20:46Z-00004-000 |
Disabled People Should Pay More Taxes. You did not refute any one of my arguments. They all still stand. "b/c you have autism, You owe me $100K right now. " No I don't. Even if DIsabled people should pay an extra $100 k in taxes (they shouldn't) the money shouldn't go to you. You are not where our tax dollars go to. "Please pay up, Or im going to smash your head with an axe" Apart from the fact that there was a grammatical error in part because you forgot the period, Threatening someone with death for something as trivial as them not paying your proposed tax is extremely poor conduct and is a death threat. I hope you don't get into trouble since I believe in free speech, But it should be clear that many voters would disagree with me and would want you kicked off of the internet or even ending up in 20 years in jail. This happened according to the link I put below: (. https://www. Huffingtonpost. | CON | 1f42dc46-2019-04-18T11:18:06Z-00000-000 |
Xbox 360 is better than PS3. Now I know this argument has probably been iterated a million or so times, but for my first debate I wanted to do something non offensive and simple. So I will be defending the Xbox and Con will be on the side of the PlayStation. Now onto my argument. Why the Xbox is better. 1.It has been out longer so has bigger better fan base. 2.Better exclusives E.G Halo, Forza. 3.Paying for Online gaming makes it less likely to run into a stupid arrogant twat, as if you pay for it you don't want to waste the money. | PRO | 91094b42-2019-04-18T17:53:37Z-00003-000 |
Logic without experience/experimentation can not achieve certainty. Hmm. .. I must admit I was waiting for a response that will get me thinking about the actual content of the argument instead of the usual over concentration on words. In short Con's argumentation method was: - Here is an improperly phrased sentence. I will stop reading here and start refuting. - Explanation about how misguided Pro is. - Logic lesson. What other points? What meaning? What content? This is what I mean when I say no semantics. I said "Logic is of course valid as a means of manipulating symbols and producing logical results. ". You are right. I shouldn't use the word logical because it makes it circular but come on. .. You know what I am saying here, no? And that is what I mean by common sense. . (sigh) We can rephrase it like: "Logic is of course effective as a method of reasoning with which we can reach valid conclusions. ". If you still find this problematic instead of doing the same thing please just think of my argument without that sentence at all and try to refute it. And please make your writing clearly related to my argument and not a general lecture in logical form. Conclusion -------------- Con occupied herself with the refutation of a single phrase from my argument. I have responded to her valid observation by rephrasing my sentence. If my new sentence is unsatisfactory as well, I have invited her to consider my argument without the sentence at all. It will still be sound. The content of Con's first argument demonstrated nothing more than her obvious interest in creative writing and her desire to teach. | PRO | 5573028e-2019-04-18T18:23:08Z-00001-000 |
Girls on boys team. Women should be able to join boy's sports teams. They belong in. Women can be just as good and have the same amount of skill. Notice the sport of wrestling. Although it's male dominated, women are allowed to join the team. They participate and face both boy and girl competitors and have one and lost based off of skill, not off of gender. | PRO | ec638273-2019-04-18T16:13:22Z-00002-000 |
pornography. My concerns in general center on numerous omissions of relevant facts and quotes, which had the effect of diminishing the extent of the apparent support of free expression, and the force of the mroal arguments for free expression, and of enhancing the support of those who are vigilant against dangerous speech, and obscuring the more extreme arguments made on their behalf. That is why porn should be legalized to people under 18. Thank you. | CON | e30d9bfa-2019-04-18T15:26:41Z-00001-000 |
Digital Piracy. Round 2 will be our opening statements and all our main arguments. Round 3 will then be rebuttals. Round 4 is then any final rebuttals, final thoughts and closing arguments. We will be using the dictionary definition of Piracy as defined by both the oxford dictionary and the Merriam Webster Dictionary:"the unauthorized use or reproduction of another"s work:software piracy" "the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright"I believe that online Piracy or peer-to-peer sharing of all commercial digital media, be it Movies, Games, Software or Music is theft and is not justifiable. | CON | 238b0aab-2019-04-18T16:38:34Z-00004-000 |
It's reasonable to believe in magic. Recently I've been seeing advertisements about magic on this site. So I decided to make this debate, to see if anyone would defend the notion that magic exists.Definitions:Magic; the use of means (such as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forceshttps://www.merriam-webster.com...Exist; to have real being whether material or spiritual, in this worldhttps://www.merriam-webster.com...Rules:1) The Burden of Proof will be mainly on Pro to show magic likely exists, but I'll also bring a few arguments that show it probably doesn't.2) We won't be arguing whether magic exists in media (like video games or TV), but whether it exists in this world. Also, science doesn't count as magic.3) It's preferred to have sources alongside your arguments, but they can and will be open to critique by the opposing side.(If there's anything you'd like added to this debate, say so in the comments.)I'm arguing that magic doesn't, or at least can't be shown to, exist in this world. | CON | ec1a0518-2019-04-18T12:00:51Z-00002-000 |
There needs to be reform to campaign finance law. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has supported campaign finance law reform. Most of Romney’s recent comments on reform have been in regard to laws governing spending during primaries as opposed to general elections. Primary campaign funds are earmarked as such and forbidden for use in general election campaigns until after the Republican National Convention, so the Republican nominee is at a disadvantage against the Democratic candidate if the convention nomination outcome is evident before August 27. Over the years, Romney has advocated various stances on spending limits: in 1994, he supported capping congressional spending, but in 2007, he disparaged McCain-Feingold warning “We step into dangerous territory when politicians start eviscerating our fundamental freedoms in the name of amorphous principles, like campaign finance reform. If I am elected President, a top priority will be to push for the repeal of this deeply-flawed measure, and restore the full freedom of political participation and expression to the American people.”[1] Romney expressed support for the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United along with concern about the corrupting influence of corporate money in elections.[2] [1] Romney, Mitt, ‘The Fundamental Flaws in the McCain-Feingold Law’, Townhall.com, 25 April 2007. [2] Rivoli, Dan. ‘Romney Backs Citizens United, But ‘Not Wild’ about Corporate Campaign Spending’. International Business Times, 4 November 2011. | PRO | a03e61ec-2019-04-15T20:22:53Z-00007-000 |
welfare promotes laziness. The basis of my argument is that by giving people the option to welfare by human nature they will rely on government aid as long as it is offered. Let us first look at the number of people drawing welfare which in 1994 was around 15 million people, and is obviously risen a significant amount since that time. During my extensive research of this topic one thing has became aware to me, that if given the option people will allow others to do the work for them without themselves doing anything. Lets use logic for a moment, if someone offered you the chance to have everything you need payed by another person, who would decline? There are no circumstances that someone would not decline to that proposition. There are a several ways in today's age that people can obtain some sort of government help. Out of all these options there are "loop holes" in everyone that would allow some one to get away from having to work. That is my opening argument, its not in depth but i will wait for my opponent to argue his view of the topic. | PRO | 9892d9e8-2019-04-18T18:46:48Z-00005-000 |
racial segregation. I negate and will argue how Racial segregation is not good. Racial segregation can be detrimental for societies both politically and economically. Racial Segregation also encourages unequal public education. Due to time constraints, I cannot afford to post any more to my case at the moment. However, this should not be problematic since my opponent has done nothing more than claim that racial segregation was good in round 2. | CON | b24026b5-2019-04-18T19:46:36Z-00002-000 |
The Implementation of Competitive Matchmaking for Team Fortress 2 will be a benefit. Since I haven't done a debate in quite a long time, I figured that there would be no better way for me to get back into it by first whetting myself with a debate that I'm familiar with and won'r require much research, just for funsies.Rules:1. Do NOT accept this debate if you don't know what this is about, I don't have time to debate with somebody who doesn't understand the basics of the argument at hand. If you accept this debate and violate this rule, you forfeit the debate, because I'm not going to waste x number of characters to explain the argument. (That said, if you have a basic understanding, but don't know some of the concepts, PM me and ask, I'll anwser any and all questions to help you.)2. This argument is about a video game, since it's a debate, you are entitled AND encouraged to have your own opinion, but it's a GAME, not politics, so don't get hot-headed and start calling names, it's unprofessional and I've dealt with it way to much already.3. You may use sources such as a valid website, a youtube video, reddit, anything along those lines, because like I've said, it's for a video game feature, so there isn't likely to be a whole bunch of documented research. Feel free to call out a source if it doesn't help or doesn't even matter. (Judges love that stuff.)4. You may use examples from other games. (Example: Counter-Strike.)5. Do not attempt to change any of these rules or add to them without making sure that both parties are in full awareness and agreement, failure to do so will result in a forfeit. 6. Finally, first round is for ACCEPTANCE ONLY! Please do not respond swinging, because not only will I argue back, I'll point out to the judge's that you broke a rule.Good luck to whoever accepts the debate, and I hope it's a good one. | PRO | 6fea943c-2019-04-18T14:49:38Z-00005-000 |
Annihilationism is sound doctrine in Christianity. I accept. Revelation 20:15 says, "And whosoever was not found in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." Thus, the wicked(those not in the book of life) go to the lake of fire. Now the question becomes, "Will the wicked burn in this lake of fire forever." The answer: yes. Rev 14:11 says, "And the smoke of THEIR TORMENT ascendeth up FOREVER AND EVER." Thus, they are not annihilated. Jesus tells the goat nations in Matthew 25:46, "And these shall go away into EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT." The Wicked are never annihilated. Thats not even implied in the Scriptures. Observe all these references on Hell: Matthew 8:12- the wicked go into outer darkness where there's weeping and gnashing of teeth. They are not annihilated. Matthew 22:13-same thing again Matthew 25:30-same thing again God never just destroys these souls and puts an end to them. They are ALWAYS tormented. Mark 9:43,45-go into Hell, into the FIRE THAT NEVER SHALL BE QUENCHED. Further, Jesus Christ makes it perfectly clear that the wicked are not annihilated. He tells the story of a rich man and a beggar who died. The beggar does to Paradise, and the rich man to Hell. Luke 16:23 says, "And in Hell he lift up his eyes being in torments." Verse 24 says, "send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, AND COOL MY TONGUE; FOR I AM TORMENTED IN THIS FLAME." The Bible is clear that the Wicked are not annihilated, but burn in agony forever. | CON | 2ac17e3d-2019-04-18T18:11:23Z-00004-000 |
The New England Patriots will NOT win the Super Bowl!. Let me preface this by saying that I'm not the biggest football fan in the world, but I find fault with the logic of your argument. You said: "Firstly, and I think most importantly, they (hopefully) will not receive as much help from the referees as they did in the games against the Baltimore Ravens and the New York Jets." If you think they received help from the refs in past games, on what grounds do you assume they wouldn't receive help in the Superbowl? Isn't that something that isn't able to be predicted? The rest of your argument assumes that since the Patriots won't have played a high-caliber team by the time the time they have to face one agai, that they won't be able to beat these teams. Given the amount of time an NFL team spends practicing, and the level of natural ability any given NFL player has, I don't think it's fair to assume that the Patriots will play any differently against a good team in the Superbowl than they did at the beginning of the season. Why should we accept that assumption? I'd like to also point out that I don't necessarily think the Patriots will win the Superbowl - I just think that you won't be able to prove they won't. | CON | 5a409134-2019-04-18T19:59:12Z-00002-000 |