argument
stringlengths 201
3.55k
| stance
stringclasses 2
values | id
stringlengths 36
39
|
|---|---|---|
Rap Battle. That was a good effort 9space, but you're below average at mostThat last round was so friendly, I swore your name was Casper the GhostThis is a rap battle - you've gotta be as mean as can beNow call MTV as I hit you with the sweet 16You mentioned Russian Roulette, but you don't hold weapons And have Santa as your picture, yet you've got no presence You're too sweet - meanwhile by punchlines are never iceSo you'll disappear after one hit - call him Vanilla IceEvery word I spit is hot, literally I spew flamesCall Lars, change "Siege's Latets Victim" as your new nameI'm too sick, you're too plainSo I'll never lose - I feel like Jordan during the Flu Game I've got ice running through my veins, that's why I expect to winThe only thing running through your veins is estrogenYou seem pretty well known, still that isn't stopping me 'Cause really they only care 'til you lose - American soccer team | PRO | e7372d7d-2019-04-18T15:56:06Z-00003-000 |
Fascism is the best system of governance. Alright. I'll give you the win for the first two paragraphs. But the others... It appears that you're contradicting yourself. You say Fascism is for the people, yet you are willing to oppress and detain any citizen who opposes your rule, whether they be an intellectual or a common fool. Have you forgotten Albert Einstein--he who deliberately refused to return to Germany BECAUSE of Nazism? Has he not contributed more to science and achieved more miraculous things in America? Einstein, a pacifist, WANTED The Allies to brace for war against the Germans. Surely if Einstein was in your class you would have had him thrown out with other disruptive/thought-provoking pupils. With that said, I shall repeat: the Nazis WERE NOT passionate about their own people, but only their party and people who supported them, citizens or not. The only reason Braun was accepted into the inner-circle was because of his knowledge, nothing more. He wasn't enthusiastic about the party, and even if he was, it was all a ploy for the welfare of his life/career--not true enthusiasm. Ultimately, Nazism does not truly represent the core of Fascism or nationalism nor was it for the people, meaning all Nazi-based sources and arguments are void. And again, it did not "take all of the allies to defeat Nazi Germany". Simply because they were involved does not mean the Soviet Union wouldn't have crushed them alone--which they would have as proved before. Meaning, by your terms, that the Soviet Union was the most formidable, not Nazi Germany. Simply because I ask for my friends' help to clean my room doesn't mean I need their help, as I could easily do it by myself, but within a longer period of time. And now for my actual stance in the debate. There are many forms of Fascism, and it seems you've chosen the most extreme form of it--detaining opposing views, restricting free press, using Nazism as an example, etc--and therefore I must form a statement against that version alone. However, I don't need to, as you have already shown and proved that Fascism (your version) in not the best form of government for it is not a government, but a rule of separate management enforced among the weak or the different by brutal force and/or oppression. No wonder my so many "Nazi" generals plotted to kill Hitler. For if it were a government, then it would attempt to unify all people by conversion, not oppression. Thus, you have proved your own declaration to be false. | CON | d1aa9ba5-2019-04-18T17:36:55Z-00003-000 |
The Bush Tax Cuts have had a negative impact on the US Economy. youre going to have to learn what Marxism is on your own - and unfortunately for you, it will probably be the hard way, given who you would elect You simply dont like Bush, and this is so much of just another foolish liberal Bush Derangement Sydrome Rant how about the Reagan tax cuts - he cut the top marginal rate from the Carter era from 70% to 28% - and receipts to the treasury went up 1 trillon $ (and the democrats kept spending more by the way) how about Kennedy, a demomcat hero ? He cut taxes as well This is a plain and simple demarcation line between socialist marxist democraps and conservative people and business minded conservatives You want the government to take my money from me and redistribute it I want to keep my own money and spend it on my family Who's philosophy will make for a great nation? Who's philosophy will create misery hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? | CON | 6d59dd56-2019-04-18T19:57:28Z-00002-000 |
The Confederate flag is racist. The Confederate flag is not racist for several reasons. One, the Confederate flag is a historical document and therefore, is a part of American history. Second, the country that made it, The Confederacy of the United States, despite what people say, was not made just because they wanted to keep slavery. There were several other reasons I'm not going to go in depth about. Third, slavery itself isn't racist. There have been several cases of whites enslaving whites, blacks enslaving blacks( In medieval Gambia), etc. So slavery is not racist. It's not like every slave ever was an African American. Fourth, the fact that reason people only care about it now is the fact everyone is super dramatic. You can't say squat without being called racist. These are my reasons for the confederate flag isn't racist. | CON | feef801d-2019-04-18T14:39:15Z-00004-000 |
Term limits. Thank you for joining this debate. First I will rebutt your points and then move to mine. If the president is doing very well then we can't just let him keep on running what would the world be like. The first to fifteenth president was MR.PRESIDENT all the time. You act as an election is the next it is every 4 years you can't just If we did not want them in office, then we could just not vote for him/her in the next election. That can't happen. Yes we can do something about it for if it is his third time running obviously he is liked very much, now do you think that we can just easily convince everyone not to elect him the next terms, rather then 1st or second term it would be much easier and people would be convinced. Thank you for informing me but I had already had a good understanding of it. Suppose he wants to make a bill that would help him greatly and he's a republican, just assume: I am pretty sure that in the congress or supreme court has at least one republican-I said AT LEAST do you think that they would vote against him or for him? Exactly giving him supreme power. Also on that point if he has been elected for his 3rd term I am pretty sure he is liked by a lot of people which means, they would vote for him if he wanted to pass a bill and they would support him. Now to my points it will be brief: If there was no term limit you have to think about the rest of the world, how would they deal with the same president over and over again. What if that president has a view to keep all the soldiers in france. Now do you think that the French President would be happy and not wage war against this president? That's why we should have term limits. Thank You | PRO | fbc442be-2019-04-18T19:57:01Z-00003-000 |
"Socrates should have drank the hemlock". Socrates himself noted that he could have won the trial and been acquitted of his charges had he practiced the art of Sophistry, yet he chose to speak the truth. He did not try to finesse his way out of the charges against him, though he knew he had committed no crime whatsoever. I chose the negative side of this argument because I don't believe that Socrates should have drank the hemlock, or that he even wanted to because he was of old age. He knew in his mind that he was simply testing the Oracle's vision of him being the wisest man. He set out to find others who were like him, or wiser and made them question certain beliefs, in order to in fact determine whether or not he actually was the wisest man. Socrates stated that he was not a Sophist, nor a corrupter of the youth, but described himself as a gadfly sent to help the people. Socrates was well aware of his ignorance, in reference to Sophists who proclaimed to know everything, yet they did not. While on trial, Socrates proceeded to ask everyone present if he had corrupted anyone's mind. Plato, among others, spoke out in defense of Socrates stating that Socrates has helped them, but never corrupted their minds or ways of thinking. therefore, Socrates was innocent of the crime of corrupting the youth | CON | cc92b6e8-2019-04-18T17:45:28Z-00002-000 |
The rich should be taxed more than the poor. I believe someone is "rich" if their annual income is equal to or greater than $250,000 and the total value of all their assets exceeds $5 million. Also, I am talking about a percent of income tax as is done in America, the rich already pay more taxes since it is a percentage, not a solid number. So, I don't believe the rich should be taxed any higher of a percentage just because they have a lot of money. | CON | 5535576a-2019-04-18T12:36:18Z-00002-000 |
Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons(Cross Examination in comments section only 7 que). Oh thats interesting, where are you from? I could tell you were at varsity level, you were one of the few able to truly attack my case. I am a novice. Most novices i go up against with this case are clueless. You would definietly crush me had this been a real round. I have written my case for the drug topic as well. What do you suppose is a good value for the neg? Filler See comments Please vote asap! | PRO | a7bfeafe-2019-04-18T19:01:01Z-00003-000 |
Equal rights for women (I'm for). You're right on some of the things mentioned. But again, I think you're using the definition of "same," in contrast to "Equal." We're all "Different," I get that. And, even though we cannot fully be "Equal," in ourselves alone due to everyone being unique from everyone else, (job, house, income, etc.) as you have clearly expressed, we should at least have "Equal RIGHTS" here. We live in a free, democracy, where we can govern ourselves. So why should differences in people affect what rights they do and don't have? That's kind of like The Civil War done all over again. Excluding rights that all U.S. citizens have just because of skin color, which makes them different, which is a poor judgment. So why is gender considered a factor in what rights women have? If Thomas Jefferson would've thought that since women are U.S. citizens too, they would deserve the endowed Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness the Declaration of Independence gives us. And women need men more than men need women? You made some good points on that one, but just the same, here are some of my arguments against that. 1. Women actually give birth to the baby or babies, that are a part of the population. 2. To keep our population at a steady and equal level, the mother should give birth to at least one girl and boy, to replace the male and female, so they can have a boy and girl to keep our species going, but keep it at a reasonable level of an equal amount of men and women. 3. Because eggs are scarce, that means there is a limited time for reproduction and fertilization from men. Thus, I think that we both need one another equally. An, while we're at it, how does that even effect equal rights? And as far as working hours go, they probably didn't record every working-man or woman on the earth, so there's no way to get 100% accurate results on that. In fact, with people being born and dying, the tests would need to be taken again and again. It gives us some plausible results, but not 100% accuracy. And, speaking of which, The pay for the hours they work should be the same. Why? Not only would it help women in poverty or low income get more money, If the man is paid the same for each hour, if he works more than the woman does, (or vice versa) Then he/she is getting paid more in the end, although the pay for hours is still the same for the woman and man. And, the poverty/ low-income percent would go down a bit. In fact, women would be more encouraged to get a job if it pays more, also dropping down the unemployment rate, and raising more money for the economy. So, even though inequalities or differences exists between each human being, we are all equal in freedom and in this country itself. | PRO | dde0680c-2019-04-18T17:02:37Z-00004-000 |
Nothing is Perfect. perfectADJECTIVE having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be: "she strove to be the perfect wife"synonyms: ideal · model · without fault · faultless · flawless · consummate· Nothing can be perfect, simply for the fact that nothing has "all the required desirable elements, qualities or chracteristics, we all die. Everything breaks, (watches, books, etc.) nothing stays forever. Even some sharks who live more millions of years die. Nothing is in fact perfect. A synonym for perfect is flawless. I think I speak for everyone on earth when I say that everyone and everything and every anmial, has a flaw. Nothing can be perfect. | PRO | 18e91454-2019-04-18T15:27:38Z-00004-000 |
Involving men is the best way to ensure family planning works. The idea of family planning is wrong; and it reflects the unequal power structures operating in society. Within African cultures families are polygamous, extended, and far from the ‘normal’ neutral family structure. Therefore by enforcing family planning we are failing to understand what the family is across Africa. Family planning is simply seeking to limit choice about the structure of the family. Just including man and wife rather than any more extended family is itself encouraging a certain structure that not all Africans agree with or desire for their family. | CON | 690d1db-2019-04-15T20:24:39Z-00010-000 |
There is evidence for the existence of a God. First of all, I never said that God has to be infinite, but let's assume that. Plus, I'm not saying I have a proof as in proving that the angles of a quadrilateral equal 360 degrees. I'm just talking about evidence as in if I had to defend for the existence of God, I could bring a piece of evidence to the court that the judge will not immediately knock down. Anyway, I believe that the universe is so fine-tuned that it would be difficult for it to happen without a God, like if I had the source code for this website and said that nobody created it. Sure, I could have a random text generator, so it would eventually create the source code, but I would need the source code for the random text generator, which would also be difficult to imagine to come about without a creator. | PRO | 52844cf-2019-04-18T11:56:15Z-00003-000 |
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should colonize Mars. I am unable to find a debate that suits my fancy and so I have made this. It is impossible to accept so just put in the comments a suggestion and I will respond asap. No matter the topic, though, the structure will stay the same: 1. Acceptance. 2. Main body. 3. Rebuttal and Conclusion. Alright, I have chosen! I will be pro for the colonization of Mars. | PRO | f094fe7b-2019-04-18T16:01:32Z-00004-000 |
Sith Philosophy Applied to the Real World. Yes, the extended universe is still valid for information. The conclusory statement should be a concession or rebuttal to the point that the prompt is a better model for living than it's counterpart in the universe or modern systems. As I stated before, I believe that the Sith philosophy, if modified to a certain extent, can create a prosperous civilisation as well as launch the hypothetical nation further in the subjects of military might, educational and scientific prowess, and general productivity and commerce. Obviously, the sith of the fiction cannot truly exist as the Force is not a real thing, however the philosophy and tenants of the order are valid in principle. For instance, the sith code would be an excellent model for raising youths in our hypothetical nation. The concept of always acting with passion, always being deliberate and thorough, and striving for constant success and achievement is very important to raising responsible, wise, and ambitious members of society. In systems of business and government, it would be important to constantly promote and elect the strongest, smartest, and most capable while also cutting out the weak, ignorant, and foolish in order for prosperity to occur and be maintained. This alongside the constant drive by the younger generations to make themselves greater than their predecessors, In science, the contributors will be constantly driven to achieve, not only for themselves but for their countrymen. The more advancements a scientist would make would earn him more prestige among society as well as bring new knowledge to the people. While ambitious people already exist in schools, politics, and science, it is not something we as a people stress or encourage among all of us to be as great as we can be, we must stress and enforce physical, mental, and social prowess in order to survive as a nation and as an individual, as well as prosper and advance beyond any who would challenge or defy us. http://starwars.wikia.com...... http://starwars.wikia.com...... http://starwars.wikia.com...... http://starwars.wikia.com...... | PRO | 2a6de514-2019-04-18T16:03:11Z-00002-000 |
Masculinity. The problem with leaving the painting, the spear, up is that to many young men President Zuma symbolises what excessive wealth can ‘buy’ you. He is the figure head of the nation, the pinnacle of capitalism and masculinity, of which the penis and sex are instrumental in this image. By leaving the painting up, it encourages hyper-masculinity (which is inherently violent),[1] because it assumes there is an inherent link between power and the penis. This is unhelpful, both for women and men who are trying to live in equity. [1] Scheff, Thomas J., ‘Hypermasculinity and Violence as a Social System’, Universitas, Vol.2, Issue 2, Fall 2006, http://www.uwf.edu/dearle/cold%20war/hypermasculine.pdf | PRO | 19c7a1db-2019-04-15T20:22:58Z-00020-000 |
The Kalam Argument is a sound argument for the existence of God. The debate is as it is set out in the title, where the Kalam being that promoted by W.L.Craig, roughly:Everything that begins has a causeThe Universe has a beginningTherefore the universe has a causeThe cause is God.God is defined as the deity of Abrahamic properties (i.e. properties of, or similar to, the Abrahamic God, such as powerful, intelligent, creator, etc.).A sound "argument" would be one which rationally leads us to conclude a cause similar to God. This does not include the life of God, or the bible's accuracy, or the historicity of any event, but simply whether this argument accurately acts as a 'clue' that points towards God. | CON | bc18553e-2019-04-18T18:10:54Z-00007-000 |
Moon is ideal for extra-terrestrial discovery. "Why Go Back to the Moon?" NASA. January 14, 2008: "Another example of Moon-based astronomy can be the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI), by radio telescopes that on the far side would be shielded from terrestrial interference. Small telescopes on the Moon’s solid surface could be linked to form interferometer arrays with enormous resolving power. Astronomy in a limited sense has already been done from the Moon, namely the Apollo 16 Ultraviolet telescope emplaced by Apollo astronauts and before that, the simple TV observations of Earth-based lasers by the Surveyor spacecraft. The much-feared lunar dust had no effect on these pioneering instruments." | PRO | c4c16da0-2019-04-17T11:47:29Z-00083-000 |
Nudity is shameful according to the Bible. Format: 1st round - Acceptance only 2nd round - Introductory arguments, no rebuttals 3rd round - Rebuttals 4th round - Counter-rebuttals, closing statements Source text: The Christian Bible (any translation, including interlinear texts, no Apochrypha) Definitions: Nudity - The state of full undress. Partial undress can be included if there is significant evidence that it would be culturally considered a nude state. Voluntary nudity - nudity which is not forced upon someone by a 2nd party. Shame - a painful feeling of humiliation or distress caused by the consciousness of wrong or foolish behavior. Exceptions: If my opponent agrees, we will not consider nudity inherent to marital sex, as I believe the Christian Bible is fairly vocal in support of such nudity and treats that situation differently. All other cases and examples of nudity are fair game otherwise. I am arguing for Con, against the idea that nudity represents shame in the Bible. | CON | 976f804e-2019-04-18T12:48:49Z-00004-000 |
This "A Midsummers Nights Dream" is very humorous. hi con you make some good points POINT 1 you say "Motion suggests that the 'poem' is very humorous for everyone" and as you say "The resolution places the onus probandi on my opponent," yes I accept that which all I can say is you have given an example yourself that proves my point -as you seem to contradict yourself 1) you say about "The Merchant of Venice" When the play was originally produced it was taken as a comedy where EVERYONE enjoyed laughing at the misfortune of the Jew" NOW YOU SAY EVERYONE FOUND IT HUMOROUS SO I ASK YOU TO PROVE THAT- JUST AS you want me to prove that the poem MND is very humorous for EVERYONE you say because you did not find the poem MND humorous then my claim is dis proven so I could say I bet there was Jew that did not find " Merchant of Venice" humorous so then that would disprove your claim if you can make a claim that "The Merchant of Venice" When the play was originally produced it was taken as a comedy where EVERYONE enjoyed laughing .." then I can make the claim that the poem MND is very humorous- even though you did not laugh my point "The Merchant of Venice" was humorous and perhaps for some still is so I can say the poem MND is very humorous POINT 2 yes the poem might be porn but that does not mean porn cannot be humorous you seem to me very serious and seem to think that sex cannot be humorous - if you believe that then you are missing out on a lot of fun when you have sex POINT 3 you say the poem is porno-as a put down- because it deals with cocks and cu.t but you then when you have sex must see that as just a porno thing as you must get aroused which must mean by your views that you are watching porno or doing porno act | PRO | 4986eb38-2019-04-18T15:57:55Z-00005-000 |
Parliamentary sovereignty. There is no need for a second referendum as it is Parliament that is sovereign. Major changes in British Law require the consent of parliament, acting as representatives of the people (through having been elected) in order to be enacted. The government has already promised “there will be a meaningful vote on the Brexit deal where parliament can choose to either accept that deal or we can leave without a deal”.[1] Once parliament has given its backing the people themselves have as a result of each MP representing the electorate in their constituency. There would be no need for a second referendum. [1] Reuters Staff, ‘Parliament will have a meaningful vote on Brexit deal- PM’s spokesman’, Reuters, 26 March 2018, https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-vote/parliament-will-have-a-meaningful-vote-on-brexit-deal-pms-spokesman-idUKKBN1H2194 | PRO | b0f3731e-2019-04-15T20:24:51Z-00021-000 |
The battle of the Bulge was the most important battle of WW2. Yes, but in Stalingrad did not hurt as much. The Germans might have lost 850,000, but the Soviets lost over 1million soldiers. Plus a good deal of the German soldiers lost were Italian, Romanians, Hungarians, and Croatians. The German allies totaled around 640,000 men out of an total of 1,040,000. At Stalingrad there were 8 armies and just 3 of them were German. In the Bulge all units were from the German armies. | PRO | 1026a073-2019-04-18T16:35:34Z-00002-000 |
Rap Battle. Our Father who art in Heaven... Bless this idiot Jew / for he know not what he do Before he started, he was through / his inability to stay on cue Is the clue / this homosexual dude / wants to be baptized in my crew Spendin' 4 bars to scientifically talk about my dick!!! What kind of sick sh*t / is this b*tch really tryin" to hint? Nigga, I don"t give a f*uck about racial slurs, ya dig / throwin' around the word nig Your transvestite-lovin' behavior, femboy is sacrilege! Now feel my holy lyric / fill you like the Holy Spirit As you hear it / you will fear it and tear it I see one on ya cheeky / need a hanky you fakey Youse a flaky / as sweet as Red Velvet cakey Take yo b*tch-@$$ back to the Burbs / and tighten ya words Elevate ya verbs / you porn-watchin' feminized nerd You up against a magical Master / dumpin' on you Hurricane disaster Get on yo knees & beg forgiveness / like I'm yo Pastor Oh, I warned you! In the first verse I hit ya with the Rope-a-Dope You bit the bait / Now my genius will suffocate ya throat Cause you can never eclipse me in verbal delivery For my PhD / is specifically in Psychological Proficiency I can take any topic / and mock it like Pac You'll only just cop it / and flop it like a cock With them elementary lines / you try to call college rhymes I'll be yo tutor cause you're lyrical way behind the grind Take a breath / Youse a mess / cause The Best has came / to serve you shame Little Poodle / tryin' to rumble in the jungle with this Great Dane Nigga, is you insane? / Mentally & chemically imbalanced in yo brain? Yo mama told you there'd be days like this / now you done pissed off my fist Markin' you off my Hit List / cause my lyrical bullet will never miss a Mikal b*tch. | CON | e73721fc-2019-04-18T16:05:28Z-00004-000 |
Paul and Bloomberg Campaign. I think Ron Paul and Mike Bloomberg and anyone else for that matter, should run as extra-party candidates for president. I think at this point we can realistically infer that Paul will not win the Republican nomination. Paul supporters, please don't argue with me here, this isn't my position. In this election, perhaps more so than any other election in recent memory, there is an overwhelming part of the voting population who will remain vastly unrepresented by either of the major party candidates, no matter who they are. Therefore, in the interest of making America a better democracy, we should have major extra-party candidates run in November, particularly Paul and Bloomberg as they have been rumored to do so. I write this somewhat out of personal interest. If there is a McCain-Hillary November I think I am going to write in Newt Gingrich. | PRO | 28c63abf-2019-04-18T19:51:44Z-00007-000 |
love and hate. Hello, thanks for the response. First, I have a question: If being yourself is positive for yourself and others And if you were naturally a negative person Would being negative be positive for yourself and others? Your updated argument is as follows: Primarily getting positive energy from oneself is love for oneself and others Primarily getting positive energy from other things is hate for oneself and for others Therefore, depending on where you get it, positive energy can be both love and hate. This is still a fallacy like the first for the same reasons. | CON | 12294441-2019-04-18T12:25:42Z-00002-000 |
People should have freedom of choice. Why shouldn’t would-be parents be able to do this, given that... People should have freedom of choice. Why shouldn’t would-be parents be able to do this, given that no harm is done to others by their decision? Article 16 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that:\ 'Men and women of full age… have the right to marry and to found a family.'\ and this right should be understood to cover the right to make decisions over how that family should be formed.\ | PRO | f9c5be29-2019-04-19T12:46:08Z-00008-000 |
If God is real, then he is stupid. I fail to see how this is a knock on God's intelligence. It could certainly be seen as a strike against his moral character, that it could. But that would seem to, if anything, support my stance.I hold that if God is indeed real, he is not only intelligent, but entirely evil. If we take away the presupposition of God being morally good, much of what we see in the modern world, and read in the Bible, suddenly becomes much more clear. An evil force that wipes out whole civilizations, yet gets people to worship it by claiming to be good and holy? This is highly manipulative behavior. Consider the amount of conflict and suffering we see in the world. Consider how many people pray to "God" for peace and clarity. If they receive it, praise be to God. If they are denied it, well, "he works in mysterious ways". To be able to convince people that, no matter what, you are right, requires a highly intelligent mind, capable of knowing just what to say and how to act to deceive others.My opponent seems to think that because God does bad things, he must not be very smart; this, however, presupposes God is seeking to do good. There are no grounds to assume this, and in fact, the world makes far more sense if we assume that God enjoys the suffering and conflict we experience, to one extent or another.Take, as an example, my opponent's citing of the biblical flood. God is displeased with the many cultures of the globe, and decides to slaughter them and all life on the planet, save an old man and his family, and some creatures this man brings with him. My opponent claims this is an act of incredible stupidity, but again, basis this on the presupposition that God is seeking to do good. Let us assume that God is instead malevolent. God would have wiped these life forms from the planet, simply because he desired to. Because he didn't like them. And at the same time as doing this, manages to convince a member of these life forms he is about to eradicate that he is morally good, and that he should dedicate the rest of his life to him. He does this successfully, and from this man, manages to spawn a cult that has engulfed the globe. This is nothing short of malevolent, calculated, manipulation. This requires an at least average level of intelligence, if not more so. | CON | f877831b-2019-04-18T17:25:27Z-00004-000 |
Abolishing the drinking age(U.S.). I will post my opening arguments in this round and then expand on them in the next. 1.)Making a minimum drinking age does not deter most teenagers from drinking alcohol. 62% of high school seniors according to one survey admitted to being drunk recently.[1] All this does is make alcohol a forbidden fruit which makes it seem more attractive to youth. 2.)As a minimum drinking age does not lower alchohol ingestion rates among teenagers, teens are not allowed to drink in bar or most public places. This means that teens must steal alcohol and ingest it in private which can lead to higher rates of binging as there are not social pressures to make the teen stop when he/she is at his/her limit. I will go into more detail in the next round and also refute my opponent's arguments. For now I pass the debate on back to my opponent. [1]http://www.about-alcoholism-info.com... | PRO | d2aaf5c0-2019-04-18T18:51:37Z-00002-000 |
An omnipresent God is an atheist. My opponent may provide anything he wishes, I allow him first and last argument out of respect. The only thing I must do is clarify a few terms for this debate. Omnipresent- everywhere all the time the resolution implies the existence of a God with this characteristic, so don't tell me to "prove it", I'll make my case after my opponents opening argument, however I would like one question to be answered: What is the smallest block of life, the minutest stone which lays the first foundation of life? | PRO | 22cc11cf-2019-04-18T19:46:05Z-00003-000 |
I will not contradict myself. 21. Do you believe that the government should enforce minimum working conditions? 22. Do you have to answer questions that I ask in this debate correctly? 23. Do you have to answer all questions that I ask in all this debate without contradiction? 24. If a group of people unanimously vote for their government to levy an income tax upon them, then is it justified? 25. Should the government ban slavery in all cases? 26. Are you an anarchist? 27. Do you have to answer any questions that I ask in this debate correctly? 28. Do you have to answer any questions that I ask in all this debate without contradiction? 29. Does Question 18 refer to any thread? 30. Can a person own an animal's hair? | CON | 4468a36a-2019-04-18T19:04:47Z-00004-000 |
We would encourage our kids to aim for job stability instead of pursuing their passion. Short debate with 2000 characters max. The nominated judges are: Wylted, Ragnar, bladerunner060, YYW, whiteflame, lannan13 and Blade-of-Truth. IMPORTANT INFORMATION: In this debate, 'we' is defined as parents of children in DEVELOPING countries, not first world countries. Not US, UK, Germany, Australia, France etc. Countries which come to mind include Turkey, Malaysia, South Africa and indeed many, many others. In these countries, there is a big dilemma on whether young people should aim for job stability or pursue their passion. Please, please only accept this debate if you intend on seeing it through. Do not forfeit rounds. FIRST ROUND IS ACCEPTANCE. Looking forward to a good debate. Thank you! | PRO | 7b911093-2019-04-18T13:09:16Z-00007-000 |
Rap battle. Can't deliver a good rap, can't handle any dramaYou ask me about a kiss when your last was from your mommaI write alone, I stand alone, still hold my own, no holding of the pastMy last song is nowhere close to this contrary to yours you will not lastYou tried to attack my love life, didn't work out so wellNow that its my turn your @$$ will get sent straight to hell But we must not forget this is a battle of rapLets analyze and break down yours to see how you phrase all that crap You gave absolutely nothing, not a rap but a poemThe girls I miss, the girls I kill, no knife or gun just flow andMy expert lyricism, better shjt compared to youI flow with the waves, you gave in with the caves I swish and you're kebab as you let me throughSorry for the fast pace, makes me a little less obviousWhich beat I'm rapping to but that is simply not justThe problem 'cos the moment you say my shjt aloudYou can't realize the power will not just draw a crowdThrough a pen and canvas, crumple the piece of paper!Throw it to the rubbish bin like it's not my little saviour No defenses, I throw easily as I'd do it to youHow long have you been rapping, I already knew that you're new. | PRO | 83ce5fb4-2019-04-18T11:31:09Z-00002-000 |
Age does not affect one's intelligence in a significant way. Age is not the only factor that affects one's intelligence but it does have a significant affect. A brain is not fully developed until age twenty five. source:http://www.academic.marist.edu... This has a significant effect on one's decision making, problem solving, ability to understand, and many other areas of intelligence. Also, the brain deteriorates after a certain age, causing normal functioning skills also to be affected as well as these other characteristics. If a person has had more time to experience things and has made an effort to do so, then they probably have. If I have been in high school for three years and you only for two, I have most likely learned more in high school. Same goes for being in the world longer. Same goes for being in the world. If you have been in the world longer than I experiencing things, you have probably experienced more than I. This is by no means a rule, there are so many other factors. Someone younger can easily be more intelligent than someone older. But, age is a factor. You usually assume a parent is more intelligent than a child. Why? Because they have been in the world longer and probably experienced more and have developed fully. | CON | 81387bf5-2019-04-18T18:56:36Z-00005-000 |
Jesus ran a sex trafficking ring and all followers of Jesus are sex victims. I don't Believe this, Theres no way Jesus Likes to have sex with human beings I Have some theories that Jesus liked to have sex with Plants and staff 1: His mother Virgin Mary had sex with a Lily "that show to us that she had plant fetish 2: Jesus hated Whores and womans in general , He hates gays 2 so either he is Asexual or He have Fetish with plants 3: Jesus may Followed his mother Plant fetish to pleasure himself That is what i believe and you cant prove me wrong | CON | 8509e038-2019-04-18T11:33:19Z-00002-000 |
Abortion is morally permissible within 1st trimester. Well, the truth is we have gotten way off topic and you contradicted yourself by saying we BOTH shouldn't let religion sway what we believe--especially about abortion--so I won't and I will purposefully just focus on your arguments defending abortion, even if my faith is part of the conversation. (You can debate me about the Bible and God another time, if you'd like.) I believe that every human CAN be invaluable, if they aren't already, and yes my "religion" sways this argument because I believe God created us all, loves and cares for EACH of us no matter what, and none of us are better or worse in His eyes. It all comes down to a person's faith and if they accepted Jesus as their Savior. So, a person can go from being awful (in the sight of the society and people around him) to a decently nice person and the past won't matter any more. Nevertheless every person is special, am I wrong? When women perform abortion it takes away the CHANCE of what-could-be a human, let alone the very life. This is the very thing I've been trying to explain--despite the forfeit which I was out of town for--and I wish you would understand and have some heart for these people we are denying life to. My definition of life: anything that prospers by itself, prospers with others (or will) and is living. Population is not an excuse to deny life to a human being, the reason that if the human is given a chance and has the right influence he will do well in society. We don't know whether he would hurt or prosper in life unless we LET him ("him" being the baby). A person's a person (or factually will be a person). It's really simple, just know that the fetus will be a person and it needs too have a chance at living outside the womb because the mother chose in the first place to have that kid! When a mother says she is unprepared for the baby that probably means she is single and/or the biological father doesn't have a say on whether the fetus lives, is that not right? That is why a strong marriage is so important to have BEFORE performing sex because when the reproduction happens the kid should have a strong home to live in, too. It won't only be a ready mom, but both parents will be committed to raising a child. Our society accepts divorces, though, so it's no wonder it also accepts abortion. | CON | 60e49bb5-2019-04-18T16:02:05Z-00001-000 |
The user Lifeisgood is a narcissist. My opponent's defense is as follows: 1) I was emotional, I didn't mean it. 2) I wasn't being serious. 3) I was being silly, I didn't mean it. 4) I was joking, I didn't mean it. === Voters- You are the jury of this debate. I, Nags, am the prosecutor. And my opponent, Lifeisgood, is the defendant. His defense is atypical of the justice system in the United States. "I didn't mean it... I didn't do it." Yet, he failed to make his intentions known at any time. Every single time he has posted something narcissistic, he has done so without any smilies or emoticons like everyone else on the forum. He only apologizes after I call him out on it. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant may be apologetic now, but that is only because he knows his guilt. He is simply saving face. I have made a damning prosecution of the defendant, which he failed to defend other than "I didn't mean it... I wasn't serious." For all the above reasons, Lifeisgood is undoubtedly narcissistic, thus Lifeisgood is a narcissist. I rest my case. | PRO | 43a6bf00-2019-04-18T19:18:57Z-00001-000 |
Laptops are Better Than Desktop Computers. Here are your arguments (and my responses) : 1. Laptops are also not nearly as powerful as desktops (unless you want to shell out a thousand extra dollars). Desktops are great for large computations, like gaming and multitasking, with out ever running the risk of over heating or being dropped. Smart-shoppers can build an amazing rig for under $1,000. Given that does not include a monitor, keyboard or mouse, so more like $1,200 if you need those things. Mine: First, some type of input device is needed for a computer to use it (eg. keyboard/mouse) so lets assume a desktop is bought for $1200 (as told in your claim). However, gaming laptops start from 649.00, and include keyboard and mouse. (1) 2. Laptops have a much shorter life. Their batteries die, hard drives fail, the over heat, and run the real risk of being dropped and smashed. If any part of a desktop breaks (which is still less likely than the same part in a laptop failing), it can easily be replaced. Mine: Batteries can also be purchased directly, and are as easily replaceable as desktop pieces. Plus, you can also put the laptop on AC power. Hard drives can fail on laptops, and the risk of getting computer viruses are equal. Laptops overheat only if the fan is not working or the computer is put on a soft surface and sinks into it. Laptops can get dropped, though it will not always get damaged. Desktops, on the other hand, are heavier and will probably fall apart when dropped. 3.Desktops are more customizable. Buying computer parts for desktops is easy. They have do not have special sizes or parts. If I buy a new part for a desktop, it should fit into any other desktop. Buying parts of laptops is very difficult because of the variety and compactness. Mine:There are many computer parts that work for laptops. For example, there are ones based on U.S.B. 4. Desktops are cheaper ($500 will get you a better desktop than laptop, as will $1500). Even after buying a monitor. They are also cheaper in the long term because they will need to be replace less often as I stated in point 2. Mine: I stated the response to this below 1. 5. Desktops can (you don't even have to buy speakers) have better audio than laptop. I just hate listening to a good song with crappy (often mono) speakers Mine: After you put speakers on a laptop, (about 10$), and add that to 649$, you get 659$, which is lower than the 1100$ you stated for desktops. (1)http://shop.lenovo.com... | PRO | 2e6cbe91-2019-04-18T18:08:23Z-00003-000 |
There are more churches than Circle Ks. Not so fast. Maybe what I really meant was there are more churches than convenience stores. Such a figure of speech, a synecdoche, is a type of metaphor and one could not be blamed for supposing that common parlance to be intended. Who knows, maybe even grocery chains are similar enough to Circle K stores to be included. If churches are also similar enough then you have an auto win. No geographical scope was specified so maybe there is a part of the world, certainly any Circle K. Out of space. | PRO | d22f2d43-2019-04-18T19:26:50Z-00006-000 |
The Austrian Model Of Economics Is Better Than The Keynesian Model. The cause of the bust that slowly became the Great Depression, according to Keynes, was that people started hoarding money when times became tough... but times become tougher when everyone started hoarding money instead of investing. In order to "re-stimulate" the circulation of capital that signifies a healthy economy, the government has to start spending. And you reference how Ben Bernanke agreed with Friedman about the Fed's role in causing the Great Depression. However, while the Austrian School's explanation also blames the Fed, it blames the Fed for a different reason. It claims that the Fed caused the Great Depression by INFLATING the money supply, while the Monetarists (such as Friedman) claim the opposite... that monetary contraction (the Fed's limiting of the monetary supply) and the DEFLATION that followed caused the Great Depression. [1] The Austrian School accuses the same culprit that Bernanke and Friedman blame... but it blames the Fed for the OPPOSITE REASON. Rothbard clearly stated that the proper course of action for the government after the Great Depression had started was to employ a laissez-faire policy--or, in other words, NOTHING. That's right; he expected the market to correct itself. This is, of course, market fundamentalism at its finest. [2] Oh, and that gold standard currency system that Austrians are so in favor of? Well, that contributed to the Great Depression, according to a number of economists--including Friedman. [3] The views of the Austrian School suck. Thank you. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://mises.org... (pg 19) [3] http://tinyurl.com... (video) | CON | 92d9fcee-2019-04-18T16:52:41Z-00004-000 |
God is real. Argument from Morality. In the examples you give, it still points to a system in which there are moral norms, instead of a subjective system, in which each person somehow decides their own moral values. There exists a nearly universal moral intuition that certain things are objectively right or wrong. Even if evolution is the cause (and this a little off topic from our argument), all humans evolved with the same objective morality. Non-theists also run into the problem of lack of moral accountability. What is to stop a person from acting for pure pleasure, instead of being held accountable by a higher being. Even if there are objective moral values under evolution, it does not make a difference whether one is a saint or whether one dies at 20 from drug overdose. "There is no god, no hereafter, and no punishment for evil. We can do what we wish. " "Historian Stewart C. Easton sums it up well when he writes, "There is no objective reason why man should be moral, unless morality "pays off" in his social life or makes him "feel good. " There is no objective reason why man should do anything save for the pleasure it affords him. " This brings it back to the argument that care for others cannot happen in a world without god. Why would you sacrifice your own self-interest for someone else? Life is too short to jeopardize it with irrational actions like risking your life for others. WHY SHOULD HUMANS RISK THEIR LIFE FOR OTHER HUMANS? Moving past evolution and creating a system of morality as separate human groups does not explain the moral norms that are so predominant in every culture. I spend so much time on morality because it is one of the main clues that point to a god who created the morality code that we live by. The fact is that non-theists have no answer for the fact that we live by an objective system of morality. I will end my round 4 argument with the ontological argument. 1. It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone. 2. "God" means "that than which a greater cannot be thought. " 3. Suppose that God exists in the mind but not in reality. 4. Then a greater than God could be thought (namely, a being that has all the qualities our thought of God has plus real existence). 5. But this is impossible, for God is "that than which a greater cannot be thought. " 6. Therefore God exists in the mind and in reality. | PRO | ae4602a0-2019-04-18T16:29:30Z-00003-000 |
The meaning of life. My beginning argument is short and sweet. Many people have debated for centuries over the meaning of life. Every religion has its own unique point of view and ideas about the meaning of life, however I myself have come to a discovery that I have yet to have ever heard before. I heard it in a dream and, to me, it makes perfect sense... "The meaning of life is to give life meaning." No matter who created us, we were created for a reason. there was meaning to our creation, and obviously it is so much more than continuing a daily repeat of our common schedule. Wake up, eat breakfast, have coffee, go to work, work, eat lunch, go back to work, come home, eat dinner, watch tv, take a shower, go to bed. And the next day the same, and the next day the same, and so on. Any religion's ideas about the meaning of life can easily go back to this simple sentence... "The meaning of life is to give life meaning." | PRO | 4ad49896-2019-04-18T19:11:30Z-00007-000 |
The death penalty should be accepted under curtain circumstances. I certainly regret that my partner was unable to join this discussion over the last round. I hope that they are well, and will rejoin us soon.As I am unsure as to whether or not they will be able to return, I shall keep my remarks concise:The death penalty cannot be trusted to be inerrant; because it will always be administered by imperfect humans. Humans make mistakes. Among these mistakes cannot be the accidental killing of innocents - brought about by our allowing ourselves to become destabilized by rage. Consider this lesson, learned during my attendance at a firearms safety class. Students seeking training in firearms safety are taught to always "acquire your target." The target must be seen, and no target exists otherwise. The mere fact that we are quite certain that a deer is rustling those bushes does not mean that it is ok to fire into them; no target has been acquired. Why is this rule in place? Because there is always the chance, however remote, that Bubba is using the bathroom in those bushes - and no deer exists. We could accidentally kill someone - and that is unacceptable to firearms safety instructors. It is a good lesson, and should be applied in the case of accidents involving the death penalty. It must be a hard and fast rule that our society and culture do not accept the killing of innocents - even if we are quite certain that we aren't doing so. We are human, and we make mistakes. These mistakes are bound to occur, inevitable, and so we must not apply fallible human understanding to this irreparable and irreversible act. | CON | fcb9cb57-2019-04-18T18:08:33Z-00004-000 |
superman could kill darth vader if he wanted. In his final round, my opponent dropped all of my arguments. Therefore, you can extend my entire case. Concerning Superman being noble enough to win, the resolution states that superman could kill Darth Vader if he wanted to. Given that Superman believes killing to be "un-noble", my opponents point is hence a contradiction to his defense of the resolution. Closing statements: With my entire case extended, my opponent essentially concedes to my arguments, thus being the main reason the con wins today's debate. I like Superman and believe him to be very powerful, but even if he wanted to kill Darth Vader, he wouldn't be able to considering how Darth Vader would always have time to prepare for Superman due to precognition. Not to mention that Vader could kill Superman while being in a different quadrant of the universe or he could simply mind control him if the two confronted each other. Vader wins against the man of steel hands down. With that said, I thank my opponent for having this debate and look forward to debates with him in the future. I also would like to thank the audience for reading. Good night. | CON | ab4bc16f-2019-04-18T19:54:35Z-00000-000 |
Bus driver's salary, and crowded transport. The actual cost is not really an issue. Presumably the tab would simply be picked up by government. The transport being free would not make bus drivers into volunteers. However the technology is increasingly moving towards being able to have driver-less cars, so why not driver-less buses? Driver-less trains are already possible. The environmental argument you put forward is however wrong. yes a more crowded bus will use more fuel than one that is not crowded. However it uses much less per person. This actually means that overall there is a fuel saving to having buses (and other public transport as full as possible). This is exactly the same as the idea behind car sharing. Similarly the cost (environmental and monetary) of building new buses is much less than building the cars to transport an equivalent number of people - even if we make the assumption that some of them will be changing from walking. Being on a crowded bus is still far less stressful than driving. You can use your phone or fall asleep without being in danger of your life, you aren't susceptible to road rage, you don't have to worry about running out of petrol or damaging your car or getting lost. The overall cost is so much less than running a car, monetary stress will be less. | CON | cecebeb2-2019-04-19T12:47:39Z-00027-000 |
England Should Not Have Colonized North America. Like I mentioned, many left for America because they would've been killed had they stayed in England. They, too, suffered great loss, even from the trip over[3]. While settling in America, the Europeans had to go to some extremes that compromised the well-beings of some Native Americans. There are much less tribes and preserved tribal grounds today, but the tribes that do exist have good opportunities they might not have gotten without the colonization. They learned new things about business they had never heard of, and built up immunities to foreign diseases. Today, they have many technologies they wouldn't have had their land not been shared, and America has many freedoms and opportunities denied to citizens of other countries. This is a great example of the ends justifying the means. Rebuttals: "England should not have colonized North America because they did not have the right and they were not seeking to join the existing culture, but to extend their own." There were no laws set in place at the time that specifically prevented aliens from visiting or settling in America. The colonists had charters, and made deals with the Natives for land[1], which still has legal recognition even if the Natives had different opinions regarding land ownership. Some did go to experience the existing culture and explore new lands[2]. There were still settlers, most recognizably William Johnson, who did respect the culture and even joined it[3]. Many were still extending their culture in America, but only because they had nowhere else they could practice their beliefs/religion without being persecuted. Sources: [1] http://www.nebraskastudies.org... [2] http://teachers.henrico.k12.va.us... [3] "A History Of The US: From Colonies To Country" by Joy Hakim Someting I'd like to point out to voters, and Pro in the case this was an honest mistake: "Round two-Arguements, no rebuttals" -Con, round 1 "[I] agree to ... the Rules/Format provided by Con" -Pro, round 1 "Rebuttals ..." -Pro, round 2 Pro has broken the format s/he has agreed to. | CON | 30e769a9-2019-04-18T14:54:24Z-00002-000 |
Alcohol consumption not comparable to military service. Robert Voas. "There's no benefit to lowering the drinking age". Christian Science Monitor. January 12, 2006 - "First, I'm not sure what going to war and being allowed to drink have in common. The military takes in youngsters particularly because they are not yet fully developed and can be molded into soldiers. The 21 law is predicated on the fact that drinking is more dangerous for youth because they're still developing mentally and physically, and they lack experience and are more likely to take risks. Ask platoon leaders and unit commanders, and they'll tell you that the last thing they want is young soldiers drinking." | PRO | dabcc311-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00062-000 |
Intellectual property is a legal fiction created for convenience in some instances, but copyright should cease to be protected under this doctrine. An individual’s idea only truly belongs solely to them so long as it rests in their mind alone. When they disseminate their ideas to the world they put them in the public domain, and should become the purview of everyone to use. Artists and creators more generally, should not expect some sort of ownership to inhere in an idea they happen to have, since no such ownership right exists in reality.[1] No one can own an idea. Thus recognizing something like a property right over intangible assets is contrary to reason, since doing so gives monopoly power to individuals who may not make efficient or equitable use of their inventions or products. Physical property is a tangible asset, and thus can be protected by tangible safeguards. Ideas do not share the same order of protection even now because they exist in a different order to physical reality. However, some intellectual property is useful in encouraging investment and invention, allowing people to engage their profit motives to the betterment of society as a whole. To an extent one can also sympathize with the notion that creators deserve to accrue some additional profit for the labour of the creative process, but this can be catered for through Creative Commons non-commercial licenses which reserve commercial rights.[2] These protections should not extend to non-commercial use of the various forms of arts. This is because art is a social good of a unique order, with its purpose not purely functional, but creative. It only has value in being experienced, and thus releasing these works through creative commons licenses allows the process of artistic experience and sharing proceeds unhindered by outmoded notions of copyright. The right to reap some financial gain still remains for the artists, as their rights still hold over all commercial use of their work. This seems like a fair compromise of the artist’s right to profit from their work and society right to experience and grow from those works. [1] Fitzgerald, Brian and Anne Fitzgerald. Intellectual Property: In Principle. Melbourne: Lawbook Company. 2004. [2] Walsh, K., “Commercial Rights Reserved proposal outcome: no change”, Creative Commons, 14 February 2013, http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/36725 | PRO | 6390f342-2019-04-15T20:24:15Z-00009-000 |
Science is a major threat to human existence. I will be arguing that humanity's existance is directly and inderectly threatened by scienceI have made this debate impossible to accept. If you wish to debate, please apply in comments.Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Main PointsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Defense against round 3 rebuttalsRulesNo forfeitsNo deconstructive criticismNo vulgaritiesNo changes to debate structure, or definitions without consent of both debators.If a rule is broken, the offending debator forfeits the debate.Definitions:Science - the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Threat - A person or thing likely to cause damage or dangerhttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Human - Of, relating to, or characteristic of peoplehttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Existence - The fact or state of living or having objective reality http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Thanks to all who apply, and good luck to my partner! | PRO | 69be2b5-2019-04-18T14:44:05Z-00006-000 |
A Challenge To You. Hello once again dear 'friend'. Followerofchrist1955. This here is a chance for us to move on and reset the slate. Over the past few weeks, we have both dealt each other blows, with you attacking my/people's lack Of Christian literacy, and then you have me attacking your debate style. For example, 2 weeks ago backwardseden said '@MRAAJ - You will find here that there's true scum like followerofchrist who babbles on and on..'. Nonetheless it's time we had a mature, professional debate about religion. Here you will be able to defend Christianity, all I will do is highlight the disadvantages of Christianity,and /or press for more information. Rules: Send me a debate request, since your profile is currently private, bet your receiving tons of hate crime, oh so rule 2... No low blows or hate crime No disrespect to opposition Aim:Gain understanding of contrasting our opinions on Christianity 'being the only way to live '. In the meantime, someone can accept this debate and you can feel free to openly mock him, if you share the same concerns. Conversely some of you might actually agree with his debate style of openly condemning non-Christians, and may want cool my ego down, as you know I'm (not) perfect. MWAHAHAHA HA. But I'll wait for him first. | CON | ce1e777b-2019-04-18T11:51:34Z-00004-000 |
goku vs superman goku stomps mad carzy 5. If you saw the video you'd know exactly where the math comes from because it's thoroughly explained.i have seen the video i also know the math the question is do you? and have had this debate many times before you state or assert that something is the case, without providing evidence or proof.so this math you claim show it to me explain it if you claim it prove it | PRO | 4823a709-2019-04-18T16:15:05Z-00001-000 |
We need to abandon the theory of evolution because it has not been able to explain the diversity of. When I am speaking of the diversity of life, I am talking about whales,monkeys,fish in all thier varieties,birds,dinosaurs,etc. I am not talking about small changes within a species such as small changes in a beak. I am talking about new species coming forth and so far,evolution has not given us a satisfactory answer.It is time to find a new paradigm to work within that will be more effective. | PRO | 185fc8b9-2019-04-18T18:11:45Z-00005-000 |
jesus didn't mention homosexuality. I will answer your question. Christians believe that having sex is fine as long as the couple are married. The bible doesn't say anything about how to have sex. It doesn't say that it should only be used for procreation. So if christians think that a marriage certificate can change the sin of heterosexuality into something nonsinfull, then they should be able to think the same for homosexuality. But since most of them don't it just proves that their homophobia isn't actually based on the bible.A279; | PRO | a1210af3-2019-04-18T14:08:59Z-00005-000 |
i'm probably one of top ten smartest persons in terms of iq on this site. i'm probably one of the top ten smartest persons in terms of iq on this site http://www.highiqsociety.org... http://www.testriffic.com... i got a 142 on the first test, and a 147 on the second test statistically, whichever iq test you compare to, that means i'm probably in the top 99.9 and given that there's a few over 3000 members, i'm at least probably in the top ten. probably the top five. http://www.assessmentpsychology.com... | PRO | 60820687-2019-04-18T19:49:37Z-00005-000 |
abotion. Please spare me your outrage. I'm tired of hearing the same old argument trotted out again and again.You said yourself that this round is for fcats [sic]. Plain, empirical facts.You 'ABOTION in the eyes of god is hate you should never kill a creation of GOD i konw i would never kill my baby and neither should anyone else you need to love the baby or if you dont dont have kids .... 'I'm just going to dissect this and pull it apart. 'ABOTION in the eyes of god is hate'As I said above, the mind of 'God' is unknowable. 'you should never kill a creation of GOD 'You need to prove a 'God' exists before this argument approaches anything like validity.'i konw i would never kill my baby' You really need to understand that not being born is not the same thing as killing, and that pretty well invalidates your whole argument for this round. 'neither should anyone else'You can't just go marching in and say 'Right, I think that abortion is wrong, now you go and stop having them.' 'you need to love the baby'Not disputing this, but this has no relevance to your argument 'or if you dont dont have kids ....'You are now doing nothing more than rambling.I challenge Con to now show why, in fact 'ABOTION in the eyes of god is hate'. And let's see if she can actually spell it right. | PRO | d0e40cfa-2019-04-18T16:22:19Z-00004-000 |
Literal biblical creation is unbelievable. Greetings, all. Seeing as how my opponent is both the instigator AND the affirmative, it is his duty to post an opening argument. As of now, I will post a rather simple opening statement to reduce the amount of white space in my box. :) As of now, my opponent has mentioned but provided absolutely NO evidence in support of his case. As such, there is no argument for me to attack. However, I will say that I believe in biblical creation, and it is thus believable. I await my opponent's arguments so that the real debate may begin. Good luck. | CON | 77aca3e2-2019-04-18T19:08:32Z-00004-000 |
The United States Should Adopt No Gay Zones. Resolved - The United States Should Adopt No Gay ZonesTermsUnited States = United States of AmericaAdopt = Implement No Gay Zones = Areas Where Gay People Are Not Allowed To EnterRules:1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. No trolling5. No semantics abuse6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss.This is a Shared BOP My adversary starts round 1 and waives his final round.If you find a way to accept this without my permisson, you will suffer a automatic loss | PRO | 3a9d6bf5-2019-04-18T14:06:06Z-00007-000 |
Resolved: The Qur'an contains scientific foreknowledge. AS I need to forfeit my right to argue in this round four, I will simply rant and ramble as my opponent can no longer argue. I have stated that the Quran says people will intentionally or unintentionally spread false religion, this is a scientific fact, and because there was no evidence that the Quran would sustain itself as a world leading religion, the fact that the Quran is used as a false religion makes it very relevant as foreknowledge considering societies scientifically recorded events. So, although I forfeit this debate round, I reinforce my confidence in what I have already stated and established prior. I did admit I want to be on the other side of this debate. However, apart from science, the Quran suggests that multiple big bangs could have occurred. Which is a scientific statement which has yet to be proven, but it is the only source anywhere stipulating such things are possible. I can go on and on about how my opponent never indicated I needed to source my claims or information, seeing as we should have both been well verse in the Quran before hand to have this debate, but what was irritating was my opponent did not even make mention of a single claim he has heard of in which a Muslim referenced the Quran indicating it held scientific foreknowldge that has been since discovered, therefor entirely disbanning his BoP which was 'that the Quran does not Have Scientific Foreknowledge'. " in a debate you should have had a cause for debate, and so referencing a scientific fact Muslims claim is in it, which was not foreknowledge should have been your primary debate component; the substance which instigated it. Apart from that, it was scientific, however not foreknowledge to indicate Hell comes to sinners. | PRO | 87a05935-2019-04-18T15:01:46Z-00000-000 |
Organ donation should be 'opt out' as opposed to 'opt in'. The percentage of the British population who have joined the organ donor register is 31%. A much larger percentage of the population would donate their organs if directly asked just have not made the effort to sign the register. The number of organs required per year far exceeds the number available and this would go some way to being solved by a system of 'opt out' rather than 'opt in.' | PRO | 5340f6d9-2019-04-18T17:23:32Z-00005-000 |
You should need a license to have children. Hello Michael,this is my first debate on this website and I am looking forward to debating with you about this topic. I assume that the United Kingdom is the proposed country for this license.First, I would like to ask you to define the term "having children". This could refer to the act of procreation, birthing or being allowed to keep a new-born child as opposed to isolating the newborn from its parents and putting it under the care of child services.Since you propose the introduction of a "parenthood license", the burden of proof is on you to show that such a license would in fact ensure a better childhood for children and therefore contribute to society.I will start with three main con-arguments: 1. A "parenthood license" would be blocked by higher laws in any democratic nation. Prohibiting parenthood is a tremendous limitation of freedom that is incompatible with laws of a modern democracy, such as the UK. But before even considering if UK-law allows such a license, the Human Rights Article 16 (http://www.un.org...) clearly guarantees every human the right to found a family. 2. It is impossible to accurately test for parenthood qualities. You proposed testing for "that the are capable or looking after and raising the child". However, these capabilities have such a broad spectrum, ranging from communicative skills to cooking skills, that it is impossible to rate "parenting skills" accurately and empirically, which would be necessary for such a license. To further complicate things, many necessary skills are only acquired during parenthood and do not have to be present at birth of the child. 3. A "parenthood license" is impossible for practical reasons. How would people who have children without a license be punished? Would there be an abortion? Would there be a fine? What I am trying to say is, that such a law would be impossible to enforce. And a law that is unenforceable is worthless. Furthermore, there would be tremendous costs involved with such a procedure. Potentially even higher costs if you plan to check on parenting skills in regular intervalls after birth. | CON | 99ac8fe9-2019-04-18T17:38:35Z-00003-000 |
Prohibition on drugs should stop. I watched the following videos. I must agree, and say that the prohibition is not all that amazing. But in the videos, it also showed that legalizing it is not the best either. Most underground drug deals are stopped. Those that are not, are simply very few. Those people who do the illegal drugs are often times taking into court, and convicted of there crimes. It is not the answer to all of our problems, but it does help to stop many bad things from happening. | CON | 319ddd26-2019-04-18T16:50:02Z-00004-000 |
Collective bargaining leades to pay crises in the public sector. The public sector being paid extra is something that is acceptable and necessary within society. Workers within the public sector often fulfill roles in jobs that are public goods. Such jobs provide a positive externality for the rest of society, but would be underprovided by the free market. For example, education would likely be underprovided, particularly for the poorest, by the free market but provides a significant benefit to the public because of the long term benefits an educated populace provides.In healthcare the example of the United States shows that private providers will never provide to those who are unable to afford it with nearly 50million people without health insurance.1 Although the average pay received by government employees tends to be higher, the peak earnings potential of a government position is significantly lower than that of other professions. Workers who chose to build long term careers within the public sector forgo a significant amount of money, and assume a heavier workload, in order to serve the needs of society and play a part in furthering its aspirations. As such, and owing to the fact that the people who do these jobs often provide economic benefit beyond what their pay would encompass in the private sector, it makes sense that they be paid more in the public sector. This is because their work benefits the people of the state and as such the state as a whole benefits significantly more from their work.2 1. Christie, Les, “Number of people without health insurance climbs”, CNNmoney, 13 September 2011, http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/census_bureau_health_insura... 2. “AS Market Failure.” Tutor2u. http://tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/as-marketfailure-positive-externalities.html | CON | 6867df2e-2019-04-15T20:22:19Z-00008-000 |
This House Asserts Ontology Necessitates God's Existence!. Shalom Aleichem! The idea of this debate started with me contacting Tejretics for a debate. Given a list of topics he believed that the best topic to discuss is the Ontological Argument. I believe I should mention the Spirit of the Motion is whether the study of Being, with relation to the studies of Ideas can make God a necessary conception. There are some rules which both parties must accept: 1. The first round for Tejretics is acceptance only, and to share any pleasantries. He accepts the definitions, and rules set herein. 2. The onus rests on the Proposition who must show that there is a logically sound Ontological Argument. 3. The order of the debate is such that the maximum limit is 10, 000 characters, there fwill be 72 hours given to post an argument. I do ask, of those who vote, to please provide strong reasons for debate explaining the decision on each point. This is of course only a humble request. 4. Any and all sources must be linked, and a referencing number should be provided in the argument. Sources must have paginations cited. 5. All the respective definitions may be taken from the Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy or any other well reputed text such as A Treatise of Human Nature by David Hume, or A Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant. These definitions of course can be debated. 6. No deconstructional semantics, trolling, semi-trolling, pseudo-trolling, patatoes or tomatoes. Here are some of the fundamental definitions: 1. God: God is a trasncendental, sentient, creator, diety who goes beyond the limits of empirical cognition. He is distinct from the Universe, and possess the qualities of excellence and greatness. 2. Ontology: Ontology is the study of Being where one tries to prove phenomenon from a completely rational perspective, starting out with nothing but the conceptualization of a Being. 3. Necessitates: Makes necessary, when I talk about necessitating God I make it clear that the argument must prove that God exists. | PRO | 85e35b2a-2019-04-18T14:16:17Z-00007-000 |
Economic and social protections prevent the exploitation of migrants. Migrants face a number of challenges when they reach their destination, such as finding housing and in integrating into the workforce, and the opportunities to exploit them can be dangerous. According to Dr Tasneem Siddiqui, "In 1929, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) identified the migrant workers as the most vulnerable group in the world. Seventy years have elapsed since then, but they still belong to that group."[1] This is something that the U.N. Convention attempts to address creating specific changes in many countries that would make migrants less vulnerable. For example, in all of the Gulf States, migrants are prohibited or at least restricted from “participation in independent trade union activities.”[2] Protecting the right to unionize, as the U.N. Convention does with Article 40(1), allows migrants to fight for their own rights in the workplace, allowing migrants to fight and ensure their own rights is the best way to ensure that they will be protected in the long-term. Migrants have the same fundamental rights as any other segment of the population as recognised by all states when they signed the universal declaration of human rights. Yet while migrants often initially migrate due to the dream of a better life they often find themselves in terrible living conditions, even in developed countries like Britain they often end up in what are essentially shanty towns, in London for example even if they manage to stay off the streets many new immigrants are housed in sheds and garages.[3] All governments should recognise their responsibility to ensure the minimum rights of migrants when it comes to shelter, education, and health are protected. [1] Daily Star, “Ratify UN convention on migrant workers’ rights,” May 3, 2009, http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=86583. [2] Human Rights Watch, “Saudi Arabia/GCC States.” [3] Rogers, Chris, ‘The illegal immigrants desperate to escape squalor of Britain’, BBC News, 28 February 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17183171 | PRO | 50591168-2019-04-15T20:22:27Z-00019-000 |
Evolution is the best and only explanation for the diversity of life we see on our planet today. Evolution is the best and only explanation for the diversity of life we see on our planet today. Creationism and ID don't qualify as explanations because they don't offer any explanatory or predictive capability and are unfalsifiable. They are instead solely concerned with trying to poke holes in evolution mostly by criticizing old outdated science i.e. instead of examining the current evidence for evolution they try to poke holes in Darwins 150 year old first formulation. I predict that anyone who takes me up on this debate will not offer any alternate thorough explanation for the diversity and development of life on this planet thus proving my point. | PRO | 905ccf04-2019-04-18T17:17:07Z-00005-000 |
creationism verses evolution. Well, I am thoroughly disappointed. I hoped my opponent would post his rebuttals. I have been in a few debates recently where my opponent forfeited and I am getting really tired of it. If you cannot keep up with a debate, do not start it. If something unexpected comes up, at least have the courtesy of notifying your opponent. Because there are no rebuttals to give, I will leave it at this. | CON | 80431fe9-2019-04-18T16:14:03Z-00000-000 |
illegal immigration. Thank you for challenging me to this debate. Definition: illegal- forbidden http://dictionary.reference.com... immigration- the movement of non-native people into a country in order to settle there http://dictionary.reference.com... Cause we both live in USA, I guess this issue takes place in USA. 1. Illegal immigrant is helpful to our economy. Immigrants illegally entering united states is good because they help out our economy. They make up the 5% of the total number of USA labor force. Illegal immigrant pay taxes which help fund USA economy. http://teacher.scholastic.com... 2. Illegal immigrants work for low cost. Illegal immigrants do the same job as any native and for a cheaper wage. 3.Illegal Immigrant support big businesses. The Burearu of Labor Statistics thinks that there are about 22% percent of construction workers are foreign born. Nationial Association of Home Builders says that about 25%-30% of the workers are illegal immigrants. http://money.cnn.com... | PRO | 12fb1301-2019-04-18T18:48:52Z-00002-000 |
No-one should be an organ donor in the event of their death. My opponent begins the third round by saying that my claims are not refutable, and therefore I must lose conduct points. Odd. All I brought to the table were some statistics and valid sources which support my argument. My opponent has also misinterpreted my argument, saying "I introduced my argument by using a simple example about terrorism to merely point out that just because something belongs to you such as money does not mean you 'should' or assume it is right to do whatever you want with it, and this is true for your body too, which is why this topic is debatable... What Cons fails to realise is that holding a gun to someone"s head does not remove someone"s choice to do the right thing i.e. prevent them from stopping others being in the same situation via not complying." My opponent refers to my remark about how organ donations are completely optional. It is up to the decision of the individual considering donating organs. I still do not see how organs are like money, where, as he says, just because you can donate them doesn't mean you should. My opponent fails to expand upon this claim and explain any consequences of being an organ donor while alive or posthumously. My opponent proceeds to ask "The question is: should someone be an organ donor in the event of their death?" And yet my opponent still doesn't answer why people should not donate their organs. Then, my opponent posts a fair amount of my argument, yet hardly addresses or responds to specific points in it. My opponent concludes his argument with "People should not be encouraged to believe that there are times when murder or negligence, is okay." Honestly, I feel that this comment should only support my argument. If we fail to tend to the 120,000 people in need of new organs simply because we think "organ donations are wrong," then we're basically neglecting their needs and leave them to die, or spend the rest of their lives being reliant on artificial organs. My opponent failed to refute all of my claims and has yet to bring any evidence as to why we should condemn organ donations, preferably with valid sources and data. | CON | fff3103a-2019-04-18T12:25:39Z-00002-000 |
I will not break a rule. PRO BROKE: 14 (this round was lacking device #2), 27 (previously), 28 (same), 29 (twice incorrectly pluralised), 30 (sonnet has 14 lines always, he's got 13 but 14 sentences - this also voids #17), 31 (see below)... A paralellism is any form of parallel structure! Like inverted word order! Epanalepsis DOES allow for different forms of the same phrase to be used! As I did! Under #4, a future rule required extra examples not in my case! So you're still wrong! Victory be mine - I'm victorious! One can also "use" phrases without quoting them directly! Example: Cheese & Macaroni! New stuff: 32 - Debaters must follow this argument's rhyme scheme, include 2 Chuck Norris facts and cite two academic non-web sources; 33 - Additionally, they cannot write "sacred peach tree," "heavenly wisdom" or "furious five"; 34 - We can only make rules if the rule has 2 words starting with "r"! | CON | 4b5cd17-2019-04-18T18:56:25Z-00004-000 |
Can cause diplomatic crises. Soccer war of 1969 between El Salvador and Honduras coincided with rioting during the 1970 world cup qualifiers where the two teams were playing each other. Broke out just 3 weeks after the match. It left 6000 people dead. Ryszard Kapuscinski, foreign correspondant "In Latin America, the border between soccer and politics is vague…There is a long list of governments that have been overthrown after the defeat of the national team." . During the recent world cup qualifying campaign Algeria’s win over Egypt nearly caused a diplomatic crisis. There was intense violence in Cairo, and Egyptian businesses in Algiers were attacked after stones were allegedly thrown at the Algeria team bus. Algeria has recently frozen a $750mil deal with Eqypt’s Ezz Steel as the project ‘has been affected by the financial crisis and problems linked to soccer’. Egypt has been punished by FIFA and cannot play their next two qualifiers in Cairo. Also during this world cup qualifying campaign a qualifying match between North and South Korea had to be moved from Pyongyang to Shanghai, after North Korea refused to play the South Korean national anthem. George Orwell "At the international level sport is frankly mimic warfare," | PRO | e4af4505-2019-04-19T12:46:09Z-00005-000 |
Televising court cases undermines the right to privacy for the victim and the defendant’s family. Court proceedings can be extremely stressful for the families of the accused, and publicising them in this way only makes this worse. Again, a good example of this is the Milly Dowler case, when her father’s pornographic magazines were used as evidence against him[1]. Not only did he then have to try and come to terms with his daughter’s disappearance, but also the knowledge that the media – and his family – now knew intensely personal details about him which were not even relevant to the case, but used to try and condemn him anyway. Meanwhile, although the family members have done nothing wrong, they are forced to listen to critical evidence of another family member which is suddenly now broadcast into peoples’ homes directly from the court. Their public and private lives would be irrevocably transformed by this experience. Secondly, because the defence must try to protect the defendant, these vilifying tactics can also be used against the victim – which could then lead to fewer people being prepared to testify. There is already a problem in society where not all crimes are even reported, sometimes because the victims are afraid of how people will then think of them[2][3]. The knowledge that the defence will try to expose them as a fraud, or deny that the offence took place – in front of millions of people watching the case on television – suddenly becomes a much bigger obstacle for victims, especially if they are emotionally shaken by their experience[4], to come forward and help a criminal to be convicted. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8517521/Levi-Bellfield-trial-Pornography-made-Milly-Dowlers-father-first-suspect.html, accessed 19/08/11 [2] http://www.crimestoppers-uk.org/crime-prevention/latest-crime-statistics, accessed 19/08/11 [3] http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6237368.ece, accessed 19/08/11 [4] Support group for women who have been victims of rape; helping them to testify in court http://www.justicewomen.com/testifying_tips.html, accessed 19/08/11 | PRO | 50b1fa37-2019-04-15T20:22:47Z-00018-000 |
Animals shouldn't be exposed to cruelty. You stated that true necessity did not include religious practices but I would like to point out that to a person whose religion dictates sacrifice for salvation, the alternative is probably eternal damnation. If that were your belief, would you not view it as an unpleasant necessity? Would you take joy in that practice? Most likely, no. Additionally, most animal sacrifices involve a slaughter technique consistent with how the animal is typically butchered. For example, the slitting of the throat or breaking of the neck. While neither of those practices are painless, the resulting death is swift and therefore humane. Unfortuntely, it is a cruel world in which we live. just watch National Geographic and you will see what a creature endures during natural predation. It is simply a fact of life that everything dies eventually and its not always "clean." | CON | 1a85c387-2019-04-18T16:31:23Z-00005-000 |
should we ban alcohol. Alchohol however doesn't do that in maintained amounts. While it can do that when being overused, anything can do that. Too much food makes you fat, too much to drink makes you drown, and too many drugs makes you overdose. The problem isn't that it's alchohol, it is that people tend to get addicted to it. However there is a reason that we have limits on alchohol, and that is because of this. I do agree that it is very easy to get around this limit, however it IS up to that person who bought the alchohol. | PRO | 3b2d871-2019-04-18T16:36:23Z-00002-000 |
Weapon debate. No prob! The barrett 50.cal uses the same round as my opponent. This is false. The Cheytec Intervention fires a .480 Cheytec round, which is bigger then a .50cal. The StG-44 fires a 7.92x33mm bullet, also larger then my oponents weapons. And again, my gun is fully auto. The P90 is also a 9x19mm Parabellum. You have not told me anytime about your lmg exept that it comes from a family of rifles. For this debate lets stick with the M1887. Your turn Con | PRO | c7b012b9-2019-04-18T18:31:42Z-00005-000 |
Harry Potter books promote sexism. I only agree with Con's statement "my opponent is dumb." I am dumb. Otherwise I wouldn't have read the sexist book harry potter and participated in this debate. There. In yo face.I'm actually very dumb. I once thought a girl was joking with me when she asked me to be her prom date, so I showed up at the door in a hotdog-man costume I had borrowed from my dad(it was his day off). When I entered the house, her mother started crying and the girl stood there like a deer caught in the headlights. She took a deep breath and said, "How did you know this was my fantasy?" Well, things got complicated after that. I didn't like her fetishes and fantasies. Especially those which involved shoving unidentified objects and home equipment up my backdoor.Refutation1- The FDA is a masonic, Jewish group ran by green-shapeshifting lizards. They don't count.2- I don't know who Hawking is. He sounds like a bird, and birds cannot possibly read Harry Potter.3- Darwin liked Harry Potter because of Dawkins' main role. Someone else must have wrote the origin of species. Probably Charles Darwin.4- My mother is a female and females can't read.5- JK Rowling is a female. Her opinions don't count.My opponent resorted to fallacious tactics like logic to sound convincing, and in DDO we value debate tones more than logic and evidence. He surely loses the debate just on those grounds. He also is saying that something is not sexist. Everything is sexist. Even anti-sexism and orange-colored bunnies in the park. If you don't believe me, look deep inside your heart. The answer is there.P.S: I'm still wearing the hot-dog costume. Vote for me. ;) | PRO | 1979b1-2019-04-18T17:16:01Z-00000-000 |
God Exists. Rules/ StipulationsGod will be defined as the tri-omni (omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent) creater of the universe. The burden will be on Pro to demonstrate that God exists. My burden is to undermine the arguments for God's existence, and/ or the support for them. The first round will not be for acceptance, as my opponent will make his/ her opening argument in the first round. However, in round 4, Pro must simply put:"No argument will be posted here as agreed." | CON | 59d1225b-2019-04-18T17:22:05Z-00007-000 |
Guns should be banned in the USA. UnconstitutionalYou argue that the topic of the debate makes my argument weak but 'Should' still can be influenced by 'can'. If the U.S. constitution stops the 'should' by 'cannot' then your side of the argument is knocked down. The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments of the U.S. cannot be amended (https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org...). Your sources are biased as most of them are studies made by liberal organizations. My source may be from a talk show, but he still uses statistics. Thanks and good luck to you too. | CON | 874e97d2-2019-04-18T12:56:37Z-00002-000 |
Government Meddling in the U.S. Food System Only Makes Things Worse Off for Everyone. While the government has made it's mistakes in the past, enough has been made for the government not to repeat them. Trans fat has been a problem that has done far more harm then good, and banning it will work in favor of that majority. We know that some bad has been done through government meddling, but we can learn from the mistakes and there has been numerous occasions where meddling has worked. | CON | ea02feaa-2019-04-18T14:39:01Z-00003-000 |
All Confederate flags and symbols should be removed. I think we are going to actually start the debate next round, so this will just be for my opening statements, things I expect, etc... First of all I thank my opponent for adding this debate to Debate.org's vast list of arguments. This is a topic I have a definite opinion on, so I shall debate to the fullest. I also expect a few things to be obeyed by my opponent; rules, if you will. I expect that my opponent will respect me, and I will respect him or her. I also will not do Kritiks'; do not even go there. And finally, any evidence that is not widely known to most people needs to have a link/book title or other form of reference or accessibility. I urge the voters to disregard any unsupported evidence. To you, the voters: I recommend that you cast your vote not to the debater who upheld your side of the value, but the one who best upheld his or her side of the value. Thank you, once again, all. | CON | 56568cb1-2019-04-18T14:20:49Z-00002-000 |
America has the best atheletics in the world. Okay, "bro," if you want to act like a child then why did you accept this argument. And by the way I'm not fat I played lacrosse in college. 1. The US has the most decorated Olympian of all time. Michael Phelps. Ever heard of him? He has won 19 Olympic medals. You really cannot refute this fact. (http://olympics.time.com...) 2. American basketball is by far the best. No argument. They have 14 gold medals in basketball, and some of those were from before they were even allowed to use professionals. They have the most overall. 3. The last summer Olympics the US had the most medals. The US (103) had 15 more medals than the closest team, China (88). (http://en.wikipedia.org...) 4. In the US soccer is not a popular sport at all. The average MLS player makes a mere 60k. Yet they still made it to the round of 16. They only lost to Germany by 1. By 1 point. How many did Brazil lose by again? Oh yeah 6 goals. Now the American women on the other hand are extremely good. They have won the gold medal 3 times straight and have won the FIFA world cup twice. Oh, and they beat the Dominican Republic 14-0, two years ago. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) 5. There is also this nifty fact: As of the winter Olympics in Sochi 2014, USA has won the most gold medals (976) (http://en.wikipedia.org...) | PRO | 1793ab4c-2019-04-18T14:45:35Z-00006-000 |
protecting the 2nd Amendmant. It has been said that the Japanese were afraid to attack the mainland because of weapons concentrated in the hands of citizens. Also some private ownership of firearms for self defense can be justified but you haven't addressed this in terms of the Second Amendment. There is no language in the Second Amendment that clearly defines an individual right to have arms. Having arms for self defense may be a good idea but there is nothing to codify it as an individual right that is inalienable. | CON | 1b697430-2019-04-18T12:45:27Z-00000-000 |
Christians are delusional. I'm going to keep my answer simple and not get distracted by your straw-man arguments of abiogenesis, Evolution, Cosmology. The burden of proof is on you as a theist to prove your God is real. The burden of proof for my claim that you are delusional is on me, And I have provided my proof (magic). I have proposed that Christians are delusional. I cited a generally accepted definition for mental delusion and a few examples of their beliefs that fit that description. Magic is not within the bounds of our reality, Therefore, It's delusional by definition. Hence, Christians are delusional. You said "Now, Using logic, If my opponent is going to attack the Bible, It should be the BIBLE that defends itself. ". I don't care what a bunch of old errant writings by ignorant bigoted stone age peasants say. The Bible cannot be evidence for itself, That's circular reasoning. Once again, To be a Christian you must believe in magic. Magic isn't real. Belief in it is delusional by definition. Examples of magic: God speaking things into existence, Jesus turning water to wine, Jesus resurrecting, Talking snakes, Global floods, Etc. Back to you. | PRO | 68d94f46-2019-04-18T11:12:26Z-00003-000 |
Holocaust denial should be legal in United States. Holocaust denial in itself does not incite harmful actions. The reactions of certain people to holocaust denial would be harmful, but that does not mean that people should be barred from expressing such a belief. If you were to scream "Burger King caused the 9-11 attacks!" and a group of Burger King's corporate executives were there and beat you up, it would not be your fault if you actually believed in what you were saying (and it is difficult to prove otherwise.) You would have had the right to express your own belief, and although it may make Burger King look bad, it would be legal for you to do it. It is ridiculously difficult to prove with certainty that someone is expressing a belief that he/she believes in [1]; in fact, it's virtually impossible based on modern police inquiry. [1] http://www.fas.org... | PRO | aaaa49ad-2019-04-18T18:23:57Z-00002-000 |
Homework. This is an open debate so feel free to comment and start debating me on your stance on homework. This topic is about the use of homework in schools. Many students hate obtaining homework when they have after school activities or they just are lazy. They hate the stress and cannot handle the amounts so they would rather not have any. What they don't understand is that homework is more substantial than just studying the night before a test, that is not an opinion that is a fact. The main reason why is that homework increases brain power on that particular subject and it makes studying much easier. | PRO | 1733c240-2019-04-18T14:46:35Z-00003-000 |
Save a whale, Harpoon a fat chick. Fat shaming is the only way to make a plumper lose weight. Since public image is the number one reason women dress up and buy millions of dollars in makeup and skin and hair products, Image is everything to a woman. Diets don't work, They are all fake news, You lose 10 lbs in the first week and in a month you plateau and go back to the ice cream tubs and chocolate. Therefore fat shaming is the best method of making a woman lose weight, As she doesn't want to be a fat chick or considered a whale. Therefore I'm all for fat shaming. Prove me wrong Why shouldn't I harpoon that plumper with no ankles LOL | PRO | a0322968-2019-04-18T11:17:53Z-00003-000 |
Higher wages throughout the economy are not necessarily negative, as an increase in purchasing power... As well as being internationally damaging, the macro-economic impact is also negative. As all pay levels are likely to rise, the minimum wage will be disadvantaged by inflation - increased costs are passed on to the consumer, stoking ‘cost-push’ inflation. For the NAIRU (non accelerating inflation rate of unemployment) to remain static, a rise in wages in one part of the economy would have to be balanced by a fall in another wage sector. | CON | 8852e5bc-2019-04-19T12:44:15Z-00015-000 |
logic determines right and wrong thus morality. yes i agre logic dosnt equal morality. morality is subjective cause+effect=logic logic+experience of it=reason(concept, mental simulation of logic) reason+intent=morality belief=unresonable=wrong=illogical=immoral=bad=false=imagination knowlege=resonable=right=logical=moral=good=truth=memory it is wrong to place my hand on the stove if my goal is being healthy, or if my goal is feeling good. god is illogical, there is no logic in fantasy is it moral to feed your kid battery acid if you want it to be healthy? let me think for you.. no ..becasue its not healthy for the kid.. and thus its wrong, its immoral, illogical, unresonable | PRO | 581cc4b5-2019-04-18T14:56:54Z-00007-000 |
Wikipedia is not for individual prose, but superior collective knowledge. - Wikipedians don't try to own the additions they make to Wikipedia. They are working together on statements of what is known (what constitutes free human knowledge) about various subjects. Each of us individually benefits from this arrangement. It is difficult to write the perfect article single-handedly, but it becomes easier when working together. Hence the saying "Many hands makes light work." | PRO | f8b36ff0-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00071-000 |
We Should Condemn the Teachings of Islam and/or Muslims. Islam is one of the most violent beliefs out there. It has verses that clearly violates basic human rights and a considerable amount of it's followers do think that these verses should be applied as law. In my opinion, even if the said muslim individual don't do acts such as killing infidels or stoning women who commited adultery like it was ordered in their holy book, they still should be condemned for thinking these are moral acts. | PRO | a3f13854-2019-04-18T12:05:58Z-00001-000 |
Rap Battle. You say youre holding the lyrical gun, Ive got a grenade. And im gonna propel myself to fame, And you the other way. Ive gotta say, Your rhymes are pretty sh*t. Maybe i should be the one who teaches you how to spit. Im gonna crush all your rapping desires. Better yet, Ill just set 'em on fire. Seems like your situation is getting pretty dire. Pretty soon ill be the knight, Youll be my squire. Back to you! | CON | e7380af8-2019-04-18T11:16:14Z-00002-000 |
Epic Rap Battles of History Personas : (pro)Ajab vs (con)Progressive Dem. What you talking about ajab, progs the name and my relationship with GCL is swell I'm going to open you up like one of the vaginas i've never seen, and then ask whats that smell Comparing us is like comparing computers, your an old apple and i'm a brand new dell Im bout to do do some dragon ball z sht, i'm going to put your freeza in a cell[1] You want to compare IQS?, mine hangs as low as my D**k They're both kind of thick, and are as solid as a brick My thoughts are like my semen, they come out way to quick If your IQ is so high, why do you never shave your stick, your just a fuking prick Oh you mean liz, the person you called the cancer of the site The thing provoked pots into action and then started a brand new fight It was muslim vs muslim, it was literally quite the sight Pot's popped that viking swag, and ended you with his might You seem to like kant so much but if he saw you, he would say your a categorical imperative your messing with someone that will show that your not even relative when its comparative This battle was over before it started, it was a pre determined narrative Just do division, I'm a plus and your a minus that should show you that your a negative. I've left the site before but never because I lost a debate The moment you challenged roy it was sealing your fate He's like a well well armored plate and your arguments did not translate That battle does the same thing girls to do you, when you see them you lose weight [2] You are God?, I guess you are whipping out some of that plimsoll sht. Im an economic atheist, literal knowledge and facts is something I emit Why even take this battle when you already lost, you should have just quit This is another debate you lost, so get ready to blame the voters and throw a fit Sorry man, no one has your back because its fact your a hack You like to distract and redact the things you say and that sht is totally wack You don't sexually impact anything and you lack any tact and pretend your a class act If you subtract your impact you come up with the fact that your arguments are cracked [1] http://dragonball.wikia.com... [2] http://giphy.com... | CON | 48809729-2019-04-18T15:51:18Z-00007-000 |
Presidential Debate: Walle_Ras v. Tejretics. This is a simulated presidential debate between walle_ras and I. He chooses his stance, and I choose mine. In this debate, we shall both campaign for President in the United States, as Independent candidates, with our own stances. There shall be an Electoral College [of judges] to vote on this debate, consisting of (if they accept the nomination): 16kadams (Texas), ResponsiblyIrresponsible, 1Historygenius (Wisconsin), Subutai, Theunknown, Zarroette, whiteflame, bladerunner060, Blade-of-Truth, and bsh1. I thank the Electoral College for voting. This debate shall require the presentation of platform in Round 1, followed by presentation of foreign, economic and domestic policy. Debate StructureRound 1: Con presents platform, Pro presents platformRound 2: Con defends and refutes, Pro defends and refutesRound 3: Con refutes and defends, Pro refutes and defends Round 4: Con refutes and defends, Pro refutes and defendsRound 5: Con refutes, defends and concludes, Pro refutes, defends and concludesDefinitionsForeign policy and economic policy should be pretty self explanatory. Domestic policy considers basically business, education, energy, health care, law enforcement, money and taxes, natural resources, social welfare, and personal rights and freedoms, but mentioning all of these topics is not necessary. Further, other topics may be added. Rules1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. No forfeiture. 3. No trolling, lawyering, semantics and kritiks of the topic. 4. All arguments and sources must be visible inside the debate. Arguments and sources may not be posted in the comments section or in an outside link. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. My PlatformForeign Policy: Non-interventionism, no-aggression policy, universal non-violence policy. Domestic Policy: Environmental protection, expanding energy resources via. OTEC, nuclear power, tidal power, solar power, wind power, etc. , strict animal welfare reforms, extensive personal rights and freedoms e. g. pro homeschooling, reduce and shut down affirmative action, stop state death penalty and limit to federal death penalty, begin on measures stopping the DP, adopt a cosmetic animal testing ban (not clinical). Economic policy: Major tax reform - first begin with a flat income tax, then graduate to removing income taxes and adopting a progressive consumption tax, remove the small fiscal stimulus but prepare in case of recession, limited capitalism, lessened-to-no minimum wage. Note this isn't an all-encompassing list. I may list things in my argument not in this list. | CON | 25225b64-2019-04-18T14:55:14Z-00008-000 |
High School schedules should be more based on helping career choices. When a student in high school is set on a specific career, oftentimes the student eventually changes his or her mind. Students should have to have a well-rounded schedule in order to keep their options open. Also, by making students take classes in a large range of subject areas, schools are exposing them to new ideas. Perhaps a student who once wanted to be a gym teacher could take a class in biology and now to wants to be a biologist. This exposure would not happen if students were not exposed to a diverse range of subjects. Lastly, school is not all about career-oriented training. It's also about simply instilling knowledge into the minds of youth. Although an education in Chemistry would not help a gym teacher's career, it would make him or her a more well-rounded, educated person, and that's what it's all about. Thank you. | CON | a320c888-2019-04-18T18:33:22Z-00000-000 |
The United States Federal Government should adopt a Single Payer Health Care system. con mentions a bunch of stuff about price contorls and supply and demand. most of his thoughts are just abstract musings. but in reality, he doesnt respond to the idea that we spend 17 percent GDP while single payer countries spend 10. he doesn't account for the fact that insurance companies spend thirty percent of costs on adminstration and profit, but medicare is less than 5 percent. i didn't ignore the kant argument, i just said i believe health care is a right. or if you want to use that langauge, a perfect duty. it is part of the social contract. it needs to be affordable and accessible. con didn't respond to the waiting lines in the USA v elsewhere. he just showed it isn't great or perfect elsewhere. he gave no frame of reference, i did with the liberatarian admitting france is better than the USA. im surprsied rand paul is endorsing that plan. it actually indirectly sounds like obamacare. it might not be government as the insurer with single payer, but it would surely involve buying plans in the insurance market. a bottomline is the insurance companies are a big problem, spending thirty percent of their income on adminstration costs and profit. medicare spends liess than five. | PRO | 308bb119-2019-04-18T14:40:05Z-00001-000 |
Abortion. Many people find abortion to be morally objectionable. Maybe not to the point of executing women who have abortions or even punishing them in other ways in the criminal justice system. There are some who generally oppose abortion but understand there are circumstances under which a woman would want an abortion. Laws can be set up and enforced in a way which allow abortions to occur when needed or in some cases where the woman wants one. But particularly in the later circumstances measures to discourage and dissuade the woman from having the abortion. Such as advising pregnant women of alternatives, and making contraceptives more readily available There should not be unrestricted access to and an unrestricted right to abortion. The state should balance the woman's rights with a respect for life | CON | b1870162-2019-04-18T13:07:32Z-00003-000 |
Religion in public schools. My 10 year old son's teacher gave him a book and on the inside cover wrote, "Stay strong and keep faith in God." I'm an atheist and do not push any kind of belief on my children and I was very upset by this. I brought it to the attention of the principal and was brushed off as though I had no right to complain. I'm very disgusted that this teacher would just assume that my child is religious. Religion needs to be kept out of public schools. If religion is going to brought into a public school then every religion deserves recognition. Not everyone shares the same belief. | CON | 3c839676-2019-04-18T16:41:42Z-00007-000 |
Obama should be in the BBC's TV Debates, alongside Cameron, Miliband, Clegg & Farage. The BBC debates' purpose is for undecided Britons to listen to each political parties' view. Thus, they can decide to vote. Having Obama included in the debates would achieve nothing, no one can vote for him. And, he does not and should not have a say in how Briton is run for he is the president of a different country. Also, for him to appear on British television unopposed by a US party would be propaganda. Impractical, controversial and will probably prove unsuccessful if put in practise. | CON | 6a3977d3-2019-04-18T15:19:32Z-00000-000 |
Hunting of whales that are not in danger of extinction. Your saying you can kill them because there not endangered. Humans are not endangered - can we kill humans? No. Do you know why? Because humans are alive, and so are whales. So you saying they were less important from birth. That's called discrimination. Finally, people have stopped rasism (discrimination of skin colour or country), but when will they stop rasism (discrimination of race)? | CON | 682fefe5-2019-04-18T14:25:21Z-00008-000 |
Illegals Should Build the Border Fence. I do understand that there is a huge amount of unemployment in the United States, but they are other things to do (like getting monthly mail that pays you every month for two years until you get a job), but since this is not what we're debating, I would like to switch over to what this debate is really about.The chance of getting a job in the US:http://thepoliticalcarnival.net...If we were able to build some sort of wall or have a giant border fence, you will be saying that you don't want anyone from Mexico ( and possibly Canada) in our country. Which seems very oppressive and you may possibly offend the other country. Even though there are some easier ways to immigrate, people are desperate.Putting a border fence will cause lost of trust. If we start building a fence, then Mexico/Canada would defiantly think that we don't trust them so they will not trust us. This will not help especially if you're going to go into war in the future- you want allies.Next, you have to be aware of where the money is coming from because I'm sure that just don't want a fence that you can just knock down. You will have to attach cameras, motion sensors, barbed, and bared wire. Even if both economies are bad, how are we ever going to afford those cameras? It has to go across the country.I had given some very basic arguments for you to think about. | CON | 1cd8ba87-2019-04-18T18:26:50Z-00002-000 |
Americans throw around the term 'communist' and 'socialist' way too much. There can't be THAT many. I agree with your definitions. I present my offense- 1. First, you must prove to me that people say 'Communist' and 'Socialist' way too much. If you don't do this, you cannot prove your own question. 2. Many people know what they're talking about and do not use this when it applies to a country that is obviously not communist. I'm sure some Americans use the word communist too much, but that does not represent the general public. 3. Define which countries most people commonly say are communist. I know you said Russia, and please notify me if this is the only one. This will allow me to attack specific arguments and not just broad questions such as this topic. 4. While I disagree with the way some people use 'Communist', or 'Commy', there is reason for it. Nearly every communist state has failed, and many exploited human rights. Answers- 1. "Even the Russians weren't communists. They had and continue to have rubles as currency. When someone on the Internet uses that word, they mean to say 'Stalinist' which is more Soviet and dictator-centric. How many people do you see who really advocate sharing all property?" The Soviet Union was Communist. Joseph Stalin was the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. 'Stalinism' is the term used to describe his regime. The term was first used by Lazar Kaganovich and was never used by Joseph Stalin. Stalin's idea of Collectivization is most definitley commuist, because it made peasants sell their farms to the government. 2. "Where in the US does government own corporations? It can be argued that many corporations own our government. No one in American politics adheres to these definitions." Who is saying America is communist? America is most certainly a democratic, capatalist state. I guess I agree with you that America does not own corporations. I need some clarification on this argument. | CON | a6401b9f-2019-04-18T19:57:16Z-00003-000 |
Unmanned salons are legal, yet deadly. Day after day, we hear and read about horror stories of kids who pop their pocket money into the sunbeds in unmanned salons and end up in hospital, burned and in agony. This is just the tip of the iceberg. These unmanned salons are still legal and very dangerous. The only way to protect everyone from dreadful cases of skin cancer is to ban sunbeds completely: they will thank the Government for it, in the end. | PRO | b1ea6154-2019-04-19T12:46:16Z-00016-000 |
27376(pro) will lose this debate. Pro will not lose this debate for his logic is flawless. I shall now prove to you why.Pro has turned me against myself in the most masterful resolution-play in the history of DDO.There is simply nothing as flawless as this conceivable. Not only does the resolution state his side but his specific username that he has attached to that side.Master... At your service, m'lord.Is there anything else I can do for you other than admit that you will win this debate? | CON | 6cfc70f9-2019-04-18T16:09:53Z-00002-000 |