argument
stringlengths 201
3.55k
| stance
stringclasses 2
values | id
stringlengths 36
39
|
|---|---|---|
Vampire Diaries is better than True Blood. I have literally no time left to write this, so I will have to work really fast and present just one argument. Rebuttals and the rest of my argument will be given in the next round. SEX Vampires need to have nasty, hardcore sex, with humans and with other vampires. True Blood has this in spades, while from what I can find The Vampire Diaries is little more than some PG13 bullsh!t. Here is my evidence: VIDEO #1 is a sex scene from TVD http://www.youtube.com... I suppose there is some passion here, but compare this to... BE WARNED!!!! THIS IS NOT PORN, BUT IT'S EXTREMELY CONFRONTING FOR THOSE WHO ARE OFFENDED BY SUCH THINGS. PLEASE DON'T WATCH THIS AND THEN REPORT ME. THAT WOULD BE LAME. It is completely relevant to my argument... This scene shows a near-mad Bill having extremely violent sex with Lorena (the vampire who turned him) since Sookie no longer wants him. VIDEO #2: http://www.youtube.com... (I have specifically put the "Verify Age" link for this video because it's pretty full-on) Sex and vampire go hand in hand and the sex in True Blood is far closer to how I imagine vampires would have sex than The Vampire Diaries. Over to you. | CON | a0d5ec5a-2019-04-18T18:02:48Z-00002-000 |
I will not contradict myself. The answer to Question 12, "It did when Bertrand Russell invented the paradox," is not Yes, No, or any explanation as to why Yes or No would be insufficient. This violates Rule 2 [1]. I will give my opponent another chance to answer the question appropriately. 21. If one scenario is written in one way, does that mean that a rewriting of the scenario should be assumed to match the previous scenario in all ways unless proven otherwise? 22. Do things that do not exist have physical properties? 23. If a child (a male human, but not a man) barber cuts only the hair of all men hwo do not cut their own hair, must he be bald? 24. Are fetuses innocent? 25. Are blastocysts innocent? 26. Is pure democracy (rule directly by the people, with no power above the will of the majority) justified? 27. Have I ever said that, in any scenario that I have written, there is no sign? 28. Is the answer to Question 24 factually correct? 29. Is the answer to Question 25 factually correct? 30. Is the answer to Question 27 factually correct? 1. http://www.debate.org... | CON | 4468a30d-2019-04-18T19:04:57Z-00004-000 |
911 inside job. Really dude? Another 1? This is getting to the point of ridiculousness and I only accept this as a means save others from dealing with you. But ill play your game. Ill bite. I'm of course an open minded person and if you can actually give me something that beyond the shadow of a doubt proves your theory then I will accept that. So far I have not been impressed. So bring it on mate. Lets see what you got. | CON | abae15b7-2019-04-18T17:09:04Z-00007-000 |
Ivf. Good response, but IVF is the future. Think about this, a virus goes around infecting many more woman than men. This virus causes blockages in the Fallopian tubes, not allowing the egg to travel down to the uterus. Boom, instant decrease in population if our birth rate is lower than our death rate. IVF may save us from this potential future disaster. | PRO | 21fac102-2019-04-18T13:25:38Z-00005-000 |
Shakespeare as national treasure. An education in England cannot ignore the vast cultural wealth of our country. For too long have we lost pride in our national icons and allowed nationalists to reclaim them as their own. Keeping control of the powerful icons such as Shakespeare is a tool for integration. Shakespeare has enlightened the lives of the people of this country for 500 years, and for good reason. His poetry and drama represent the pinnacle of the English language, and influences the way we speak today. It is a beautiful body of work, ranging from comedy to tragedy, murder to hatred, treating difficult subjects brilliantly. If we are to remain proud of the history of this country, we cannot ignore the contribution made by this one man to our culture, and wider European culture. Shakespeare made his name here, but has been read by an audience far beyond the reaches of "this sceptred isle" (Shakespeare: Richard II, 2.i). | PRO | c089c9f4-2019-04-19T12:45:29Z-00014-000 |
Affirmative Action should be abolished. =Resolution=United States should ban Affirmative Action.DefinitionsShould: Indicating a desirability.Ban: Officially or legally prohibit.Affirmative Action: Affirmative action or positive discrimination (known as employment equity in Canada, reservation in India and Nepal, and positive action in the UK) is the policy of favoring members of a disadvantaged group who suffer from discrimination within a culture.Rules 1. No forfeits.2. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be within the debate or in comments.3. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere. No trolling.4. First round acceptance.5. No K's6. No deconstructional semantics.7. Burden of Proof (BoP) is shared8. 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.9. By accepting you are gurnateeing to participate in this debate. I shall not accept any request to tie this debate, unless something serious has occured. Please, if you want to forfeit, just say you forfeit in the round rather than waiting 4 days. | PRO | 87854f59-2019-04-18T14:19:31Z-00007-000 |
Would send a positive social message, increasing animal welfare rights more generally in society. We do not have to justify cock fighting and other acts of animal cruelty as morally permissible. These are different acts to animal research in an important respect. It is not the intention of the researchers to harm the animals, but rather to produce high quality research for the betterment of human lives. Whilst it is true that in some cases harm to the animals is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the research, this is minimised wherever possible, with pain killers, anaesthesia, and attempts to use other research means. There are many exceptions in law which maintain moral consistency due to the intention behind the act. For example, killing someone for money would be murder and illegal, whilst an exception might be made if you were killing in war, or self-defence, as the intention behind the act is held to be both different and morally just. | CON | 7f023e5c-2019-04-15T20:22:59Z-00018-000 |
The Newfoundland seal hunt should not be abolished. I would first like to say that I understood GaryBacon's comment and I understood all of what you said and the fact I am arguing something you don't believe in doesn't make my arguments any less valid. Furthermore, choking doesn't mean death, however, I do sort-of believe in equal punishment (what you do wrong is what you get back at you). Does that just make me descend to their level? No, it balances us all out, thereby making us even. I also don't like the fact that your province is apparently using a seal hunt to help themselves. That's much like a gold-digger wife murdering her husband for his money. (No offence intended). ""So, I wonder, do you expect that when the world population grows to the estimated 9.2 billion in 2050, if someone commits murder he'll get off because he was trying to help reduce the population because there is so much hunger?" No, because it's not the same thing at all. It might seem like stretch, but it is in fact the truth that the hunt will keep the population down and in turn help it, whether you want to believe that or not." - And I suppose it's not the same thing because they're animals, naturally? I also believe that the seals can take care of themselves and we didn't need to intervene just to reap the benefits. Leave nature to sort itself out. The idea is that the massacre is cruel and a dirty way to get financial and other etc. help. Try a different investment. As for "helping" the seal population, they can help themselves. No-one would want to "save" them if there wasn't something in it for them. | CON | b7d1e4a9-2019-04-18T19:45:21Z-00002-000 |
cyberbullying isn't a real issue. Dear Jabie. I'm not sure if you are aware or not, but cyber bullying is a major issue. It doesn't just end with blocking somebody or deleting the account. My best friend was on kik and she was getting cyber bullied by her ex and even after she blocked him, he just got his friends to harass her and to call her rude names. Cyber bullying leads to thoughts of suicide, self harm, and the loss of self-esteem. Cyber bullying is a huge role in bullying and is a major problem in the world. | CON | 97e8d9cb-2019-04-18T15:14:28Z-00007-000 |
Lizards are Cooler than Parrots. "He explains what it means for lizards to be cold-blooded and that they like to live in warm areas, he explains that birds migrate to warmer places in the winter, but so what? " Well, if you read my argument you'd realise that this shows how no matter what, parrots will maintain a constant level of coolness whilst lizards are bound to be slaves to the coolness of their surroundings and if it happens to be hot around them as you so rightly stated "lizards are warmer because they take on the temperature of their environment"Your false bullsh! t about lizards having an internal temperature of zero was actually contradicted by your own argument. Where you state "the mean internal temperature for these lizards is only about 100 degrees Fahrenheit"You never defined cool. I defined cool as "To remain at lower temperatures when faced with hot or tropical climates. "Lizards are inferior to parrots at this and you never refuted my definition. Better luck next time Lizard. | CON | cf2b59bd-2019-04-18T17:46:08Z-00000-000 |
Palestine has its own infrastructure and government and is, in all meaningful ways a state. Regardless of what people may wish, Palestine is not a state. It is probably the most recognised issue in twentieth century politics that the statehood of Palestine is a matter of dispute. The United Nations is the forum for those states that recognise each other’s existence to debate matters of mutual concern, it is not an opportunity from grandstanding and point-scoring over matters that are still under dispute. Absolutely any group can design a flag, appoint a president, elect a congress, print stamps and undertake all sorts of similar activities, that does not make them a state. When squatters in a London road in 1977anounced that they were declaring a unilateral declaration of independence from the UK[i] they were not recognised as a state just because they wanted to be. Although the stakes are much higher in the case of Palestine, the principle is the same. [i] Wikipedia. Frestonia. | CON | 894d7869-2019-04-15T20:22:53Z-00006-000 |
Private Schools have better extra-curricular opportunities than Public Schools. Gonna forfeit the BEST ROUND OF THE DEBATING? My points too good to refute? Bad move. .. .. . "Funding" My opponent stated that "Public Schools are run by school boards, and in each school board their a many schools. " He goes on to say how public school boards give less to each school because of the more schools they have to fund. However, who says private schools are not run by a private school board too? Also, usually school boards get a LOT of money so that they CAN give a ton of money to each school. One more thing: Donations/Fundraisers. I have had experience with a public elementary school that had a great amount of money BECAUSE students and parents create fund raising things that give the school money! "No School Board Watching Over Them" My opponent states that "the school board needs to make sure that all elementary schools have the same opportunities, all middle schools have the same opportunities as the other middle schools etc. .. " But hear this: The school board gives them money, but not specifically for anything. So, if a public school wants to spend there money for seven field trips, they will! | CON | 75cddcdf-2019-04-18T16:19:36Z-00000-000 |
The Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) was gay. First of all, my sincere thanks must go to my brave opponent John Griswald, the bear-wrestling debater from Colorado! I must say that my initial reaction to my opponent's revelations about The Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) was one of complete shock. It appeared that not only was The Prophet a screaming homosexual but he was also a depraved sex pest and a filthy paedophile as well. But then I re-read my opponent's arguments and, thankfully, all is not what it seems. For example, in the passage about the boy servant overhearing The Prophet say "O Allah! I seek refuge…from being overcome by men," he meant being defeated by men, not men coming over him. Then there were various references to The Prophet kissing other men, but kissing other blokes doesn't make a man gay – at least not according to JOHN TRAVOLTA: http://www.canada.com... Moving on to The Prophet dressing up in women's clothes. Again, this in itself doesn't make a man gay – at least not according to JASON DONOVAN: http://www.priscillathemusical.com... Regarding the question of The Prophet sleeping with children, that in itself doesn't make a man a paedophile – at least not according to MICHAEL JACKSON: http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Now, The Prophet's practice of going about sucking women's nipples in public would seem to fly in the face of Islamic tradition where women are supposed to hide their beauty, even to the point of wearing a veil. I remember admonishing a group of young men who called something rude out to a passing Muslim girl. I told them it was very offensive to shout "get your t1ts out for the lads" to women of the Islamic faith and that it would be much more appropriate to shout "get your face out for the lads" instead. Anyway, it seems that I was wrong and Muslim girls in fact consider it their religious duty to let blokes suck their nipples, but never mind that, the point is that The Prophet liked his jubblies as much as the next man. Finally, we come to the issue of The Prophet spitting in babies' mouths and then French kissing them. Well, all I can say is that that's just plain wrong – in any country and at any point in time and I can fully understand why my opponent described The Prophet as a "pervert". Nevertheless, not all perverts are gay and it is no longer considered appropriate to describe all gays as perverts so my contention still stands that The Prophet Mohammed (may Allah's blessings be upon him) was not gay. Thank you. | CON | 72760fca-2019-04-18T19:14:55Z-00001-000 |
Moon colonization similarly important as colonizing America. "Why Go Back to the Moon?" NASA. January 14, 2008: "To put the arguments for a return to the Moon, and a lunar outpost, in the most general terms: the Moon is essentially a whole planet, one that has so far been barely touched. But this new planet is only a few days travel away and we have already camped on it. To turn our backs on the Moon would be equivalent to European exploration stopping after Columbus’s few landings, or China’s destruction of its giant ships to concentrate on domestic problems in the 15th century." | PRO | c4c16da0-2019-04-17T11:47:29Z-00047-000 |
Making room to put a nutrition class in grade school through high school. Italia, its called a gym class! and health class! almost every school has one. In my high school we spend a large amount of time learning about how to prevent diseases. We also learn how to be wise about what medicines we decide to take. I have a lot of common sense and most americans do. so if some company decides not to give information about the topic or things along that line i'm going to do my research before i put something into my body that may not help. And all those companies who dont spend any time on the information on the disease or those sorts of things shouldnt your doctor be the one to give you the information. For you to say that they dont give enough information that may be true but people also should get the important information from their doctors. you know the ones who diagnose them in the first place. also lets please keep this debate knowledgeable and factual for the sake of the debate. | CON | b818a298-2019-04-18T20:03:44Z-00002-000 |
Prolifers should make it easier to choose life. If I understand your motion correctly, I believe you are making the point that if one is Pro Life, than the burden is on him to make it easier to choose life and not abortion. If I have completely misunderstood your question, then perhaps you should restart this debate with a clearer motion. Now to address your concern. The burden should not be on the Prolifer to make it easier to choose life. That burden should fall on the those who are not Prolifers. For example, should it be the burden of Educated to make it easier for others to earn an education. Schools exist and it should not be incumbent on on who has been educated by said schools to make it easier for others to get educated. Is it incumbent of the Vegetarian to make it easier to for non Veterinarians to choose to eat only vegetables. I believe it not. Therefore, the burden of making the choice of life should not lie in the Prolifer. It is an individual choice as your choice to go to school, or to be a vegetarian. No one should choose life or death on your behalf. The choice of Life should be given equally to all who must make that decision. My introduction is over, if I did not address your point, then the fault lies with my misunderstanding of the motion which may or may not be completely my fault. | CON | 19983702-2019-04-18T11:53:48Z-00001-000 |
The LG Voyager is the best cell phone by Verizon. In that case the opponent should have stated that for the topic, but because the topic clearly states "The LG Voyager is the best cell phone by Verizon." rather than something along the lines of "The LG Voyager is better than the Samsung Sway" or any other phone the opponent would have chosen to debate about. My case still stands strong. The LG Voyager is not the best phone by Verizon. There are many others with the same if not better features. Take the Motorola Krave ZN4 Black from Verizon for example...it has bluetooth, weighs 4.6 oz, it's 4.1 in in height, Touchscreen, etc. It has the same features. The only difference is the prices. The LG Voyager is $549.99 and the Motorola Krave is just $49.99. That's a very good price for a phone that has the same features as the LG Voyager because in these economic crisis, a phone like that is way better than the LG Voyager. Thus, the LG Voyager is not the best phone from Verizon. I stand in the strong negation of this debate and urge a vote against the affirmation. | CON | 4fed345b-2019-04-18T19:25:27Z-00002-000 |
Evolution. Believing God assisted evolution is as useful as believing invisible fairies assist gravity in keeping things to the ground. It is an unneeded assumption as the theory works without that assumption. Also, lets take a look at the two competing hypothesis: (i) Atheism (ii) Classical Theism Atheism predicts that reality is not governed by a loving being. Theism predicts that reality is governed by a loving being. If we look at evolution, this process has lead to 99% of all species that have ever lived to go extinct and suffer deaths on a massive scale. This is easily explained under the Atheistic hypothesis, as we would expect reality to not be governed by a being who cares about his creatures. Thus, we should not be shocked at the mass suffering and extinction caused by the evolutionary process if Atheism is true. However if theism is true, then it is baffling to think a loving God would create life in such a cruel way, because this is not how loving beings usually behave. The theist would have to make excuses as to why God as to why he would allow this, making the theistic hypothesis as a very weak explanation for evolution as it has to pile up extra assumptions. For the reasons above, I think the most reasonable conclusion is that a God is not responsible for evolution. | CON | 1e7134ea-2019-04-18T17:31:08Z-00007-000 |
That the Earth is flat (Tom Y vs Matt G). The world law states that gravity does exist because the Russians say so, And the Russians are the most superior force in the entire world and hence gravity exists. Now to my arguments, If the earth was flat then how hasn't anyone fallen off of the edges, Hence proving that the world isn't flat. Since their are a lot of veggies in the world, And seeing that the world has been around for 2018 years, How hasn't anyone fallen off the edge of the world. Now to quote Donald Trump, "Good girls are found in every corner of the earth but unfortunately, The Earth is round" | CON | 742b3485-2019-04-18T11:20:10Z-00004-000 |
Welfare is a form of forced charity. It is wrong and should be outlawed. So i suppose poor children and elderly people who have no ability to work, they should just suck it up? Your argument is based on a ridiculous proposition: that everyone can earn money at will. they cant. They really cant. In this, or any country, you can see that high rates of unemployment, poor economic stability or outsourcing are prevelant in many cases. this makes one man = one job, impossbile. there are extenuating circumstances and your friends that are too lazy to work are only a fraction of the unemployed community. And its not my soft spot, its common logic. Part of being american, being a capitalist, being democratic is being willing to help your neighbor when he is in need | CON | f1399828-2019-04-18T19:51:45Z-00002-000 |
The CIS was more justified. I have chosen my opponent and the topic is that the CIS was more justified than the republic in the clone wars. Rules 1. Standard DDO rules 2. I wouldn't count sidious as an argument as he was the leader f both sides and in my opinion the same exact result in the end would happen if sidious favored the CIS more. 3. justified- having done for a legitimate reason 4. I am going to say Bane's rule of two happened because otherwise I haven't seen an apprentice master line to lead to sidious | CON | 2ef16277-2019-04-18T14:12:03Z-00006-000 |
All Bronies Clop to MLP:FiM. Topicality? Pro can clarify a definition that Pro made that in turn Con tried to redefine since Con's definition was argumentum ad passiones "Most bronies are friendly teenagers and young adults that simply aren't afraid to admit that they enjoy a show which is innocent, colorful, and funny" (Also known as Appeal to emotion) [1] Instead of facts, persuasive language is used to develop the foundation of an appeal to emotion-based argument. ' Con attempts to discredit Pro by Argument from fallacy[2] when the points made by Pro were directed at Con's argument which misrepresented evidence. ex. claimed survey[3] said 60% had not clopped when it was only 14% Con attempts to Strawman 'Joint Enterprise' over criminality even then is futile because acts such as these could be considered criminal[4] which part of the brony fandom is producing/distributing pornographic images of a children show . [5]"...her 6-year-old daughter, Jillian, watch "My Little Pony" videos. But when she left the room for a moment, she heard something that didn"t sound anything like a cartoon. Her daughter had stumbled upon a graphic video..." Any attempts by Con to shift the blame would be dishonest and self-serving. Referring to[6] My point cannot be the "No True Scotsman" because I am not excluding people, I am including others based on evidence,which is the complete opposite. When it is actually the bronies who exclude cloppers from themselves This is generally done in order to make the case that no element worthy of criticism can ever be held against them. The fault lies in "P2: All X are clearly not Y" the difference between X and Y is minimal and condenses down to 'X Claims not to be Y Because Y has negative connotation'. When applied to this debate P1: All Bronies clop P2: Bronies claim not to be Cloppers because Clopper has a negative connotation. C1: All Bronies clop Con's argument continually ignores the quote Pro posted from a brony on that same poll which showed how a brony could masturbate to MLP and still not consider himself a clopper the amount of bronies that claimed to masturbate to MLP in that poll was 57% A majority while all of them do not consider themselves a "clopper" they are still a 'brony' and still 'clop'. Yes (465 votes [57.76%] No (340 votes [42.24%] [7] Which the original point is that all bronies clop, not whether all cloppers clop to which would be redundant. If Con does not concede then the only option is to vote Pro. Sources 1. https://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://rationalwiki.org... 3. https://www.reddit.com... 4. https://www.law.cornell.edu... 5. http://www.nytimes.com... 6. http://rationalwiki.org... 7. https://mlpforums.com... | PRO | 63664a9e-2019-04-18T13:58:14Z-00001-000 |
The Universe was Created Last Thursday. In regards to Con: "From my point of view you"re making it up because I myself remember days before Thursday, as well as everyone else"s memories who judges this debate. Simply, how do you prove that you"re not dreaming?" As stated, these memories were apart of the creation and are therefore unreal. This concept did not arise out of creation as it was an acquired thought as opposed to a lingering one (one that began development prior to Thursday). "Why must we assume that? If we did this debate again next week, we would have to believe that the universe was created the following Thursday [...]" If we were to define the topic, "The Universe was Created February 5th," it would not be susceptible to reinterpretation of this form. Ignoring this additional hypothesis, you go on to say that this process, without modification, must be repetitive... It is possible to believe that the universe regenerates every Thursday, therefore turning things that once existed into an entirely identical, yet separate, object. This allows us to still state that memories are unreal as 'we' did not experience them. In regards to your "Dialogue on Nothing" ... (Con, Round 2) "Truth is a part of the contents of the universe. So for your logic to remain consistent, your statement would have to be inevitably untrue." (Pro, Round 3) "the truth of the statement 'truth is untrue' is untrue because the truth of the statement must have surely been constructed." To extend on this, the hypothesis is not restricted to the logic of predetermined quality because it is an acquired hypothesis, not a lingering one. It acquired its quality of truth rather than having been formed with creation where its truth becomes corrupted. When I claimed "we must then assume that nothing is true," I say so because the hypothesis' truth could not be restricted to creation, else we'd have to assume that truth has contradicted itself. In order for its truth to be arguable, it would have to be acquired and therefore open to interpretation. | PRO | 9313ba81-2019-04-18T15:17:10Z-00001-000 |
Abolish the House of Lords and creating a fully elected Senate. The powers of the legislative House of Lords are limited. They in fact only have a power which enables them to delay the ascent of legislation proposed by the Government. If the House of Lords rejects a Parliamentary bill 3 times, the legislation can then be passed. Given that there is normally a years delay between one Bill and the next, this gives the House of Lords a very limited power. Despite how limited it is, it is useful should an undesirable Parliament be elected in. Once elected, the House of Lords is the only hault on Government power, surely we do not wish this safety catch to be abolished and replaced by the same elected parties who will only follow their party lines anyway? | CON | 6a1775bb-2019-04-19T12:47:59Z-00003-000 |
Children 10 or older should be able to have a Facebook account. I have yet to meet a responsible ten year old kid. They shouldn't be worried about social media anyways, as they're body's have yet to even start growing and developing, so they should be outside in the nature in stead of sitting in front of the computer. When I was ten I was out side running around, swimming, climbing, etc. but nowadays ten year olds are out having sex, smoking weed, and playing on the internet. Yes I agree it all depends on the kid, and how their parents feel towards them getting online. | CON | f9b4faf9-2019-04-18T15:15:35Z-00000-000 |
Christmas (Pro) vs Easter (Con). This is my rebuttle to (Pro) arguments 1. You can get presents on Easter as well depending on where you celebrate it for and what the significance is too it. Kids get excited for the candy that they find and unlike Christmas you don't really know what's in the egg since it may be mysterious. What I've personally done before is get really big eggs and hide them for children and inside can be something that is useful and not just candy like a gameboy or a cheap toy that kids like. At younger ages kids play with toys more than other expensive things like Xbox one or the PS4. So Easter can be considered a child's holiday. 2. So (Pro) argument is that since more people celebrate Christmas then it's better however the (Pro) argument is an appeal to popularity fallacy Description: Using the popularity of a premise or proposition as evidence for its truthfulness. This is a fallacy which is very difficult to spot because our "common sense" tells us that if something is popular, it must be good/true/valid, but this is not so, especially in a society where clever marketing, social and political weight, and money can buy popularity. Logical Form: Everybody is doing X. Therefore, X must be the right thing to do. So (Pro) has commited a fallacy in his argument now this doesn't mean he is wrong yes there is a lot more Christmas spirit than "Easter spirit" but it doesn't make Christmas any better since it would be based on its popularity and not it objectively being better than Easter. 3. This argument is purely based on the country you live in I live in the United States and we get a whole week off for Easter (spring break) but we do get more Christmas time off but that's not because of Christians itself but because we have New Years right after Christmas so it shouldn't be considered a (Christmas holiday) rather it's more reasonable that it's (half Christmas and half New Years holiday) That is my rebuttle to (Pro) main arguments. Next round I will present a counter-rebuttle (response to opponent rebuttle) then a closing statement | CON | a82485f8-2019-04-18T12:21:22Z-00002-000 |
Fantasy Superhero Showdown. I accept this very weird and intriguing debate. Name: Grace Status: Unknown, origin unknown. Abilities: 1. Nigh Omnipotence 2. Supreme weakness detection 3. Reality Warping/Molecule Manipulation 4. Enhanced Power Replication 5. Enhanced regeneration Allies 1. Beyonder, Pre Retcon 2. The Living Tribunal 3. Mike, supreme leader of Grace's race Accessories: 1. War Armour 2. Book of hindsight 3. Mace Energy Source: 1. Life energy | CON | bf1af6e0-2019-04-18T11:51:15Z-00004-000 |
Pro Abortion Vs Against Abortion. No, I just can't. If my daughter says that she is ready to be pregnant, Then I let her be. But if she says that she is not ready, I'm gonna let her get an abortion. It's not like she had sex with her boyfriend in the first place. It's because she got raped. . . And if she already got an unfair treatment by the one who raped her. . . I'm not gonna force her to be pregnant. She was forced to have sex and now people want to force her to just be pregnant? I'm gonna let you down, But I will stick with my daughter. . . I am a male, I will not get pregnant and never will. I will never know the pains of a mother burden while being pregnant. If she already FORCED to have the sex she didn't want to, I'm not gonna FORCE her to be pregnant if she says she is not ready. It's not fair for the baby yes. That's why we must choose fast before it's too late. . . Before the baby can feel pain. I'm not gonna let her change her mind when she already 15 to 20 weeks pregnant, The baby already developed and probably feel pain. but if its like 9 weeks or before, It's still killing but the baby doesn't feel pain yet. . . So we get at least that. No. I just can't. Force people that already forced to do something before, Like sex. . . Especially if it's my daughter. . . No, I'm not gonna stand on that. | CON | 66496b5f-2019-04-18T11:11:37Z-00003-000 |
Tupac > Biggie. Tupac can be shown to be the best based on 3 simple things. His poetic talent, his positive messages, and his contributions to the better good. Hip Hop itself is poetry with a beat, that speaks to the people. This is something Tupac Shakur excelled at. "Don't believe everything you hear. Real eyes, realize, real lies." A poet, actor, and musical artist Tupac had many talents, and he used them all for the greater good. A modern day Poe, you can see Tupac's talent in each of his songs. "She tried to hide her pregnancy from her family / who didn"t really care to see, or give a damn if she / went out and had a church of kids / as long as when the check came they got first dibs." -Brenda's Got a Baby His lyrics work to inspire and speak on important issues. "And since we all came from a woman/Got our name from a woman and our game from a woman/I wonder why we take from our women/Why we rape our women, do we hate our women? /I think it's time to kill for our women/Time to heal our women, be real to our women". While other rappers were rapping about "having sex with hoes", drugs, and money, Tupac was trying to make a difference. Not only that Tupac gave back to the community. He had many charities that he told no one about because he didn't want people to say he did it for the attention. He also helped anyone who ever needed him, "In 1993, Tupac received a letter from the parents of a dying boy, named Joshua. They said it was Joshua"s last wish to meet Tupac. Tupac flew to Maryland to meet Joshua and took him to a basketball game. Soon after Joshua"s death Tupac renamed his publishing company from Ghetto Gospel Music to Joshua"s Dream." "From June 1994 to April 2002, Ms. Erica Ford ran Tupac"s Code Foundation even after the rapper had passed away. Erica, Tupac, and his stepfather Mutulu Shakur, established The Code in 1994. The mission was simply to keep young people out of jail and to decrease "Black on Black" crime." And it doesn't stop there..... "Tupac put together a benefit concert to help a growing non-profit organization, A Place Called Home, raise money for a new building. Founded in 1993, A Place Called Home is a safe haven in South Central LA where at risk youth are empowered to take ownership of the quality and direction of their lives through programs in education." Believe me when I say there are MANY more. | PRO | f510337f-2019-04-18T13:32:57Z-00001-000 |
Legal Immigration has started to hurt Americans. So judging by your argument that legal immigration is starting to hurt as you say, the hard working middle class Americans, what would your answer be? To prevent legal immigration in total? The immigrants work equally as hard, or possibly even harder seeing as they probably have the job. The blame is not to be put upon legal immigrants for unemployment and in your example you stated that the person would probably still have a job if it weren't for legal immigrants. If there weren't any competition at all, the person would probably still have a job, however we are working in a very competitive market nowadays and rather than harm a colleague who had no part in his unemployment, one should seek other means. Immigration also brings a more diverse economy as foreign investors want to buy into successful companies, therefore increasing the stock market and stabilising the economy, which in the end also helps decrease the recession. With such a large diversity within the country this also attracts tourists which also helps stabilize the economy. | CON | edbdc40b-2019-04-18T17:11:10Z-00004-000 |
The NHL season is too long. -"1.82 games is hardly much of a season when you compare it to other sports like baseball have 162, it hardly deters any of the popularity of the sport." In terms of popularity, MLB trumps the NHL. Why bring MLB into this discussion? -"2.Canceling a month worth of games would in no way "help" the sport, if anything there will be less income for each team as well as a drop in viewers since there are less games to watch the viewer's for those what would be another month of games." Here you are making a correlation between the amount of games played to the amount of viewers. Based on this logic the NFL would be the most unpopular major sport since they only play a 16 game season. On a side note, bringing up revenue is irrelevant. -"3.The importance of the regular season wouldn't be heightened, each game would matter the same, its the playoffs not the season that draw the real hype." This is a flawed statement. First, it is quite logical to say that if one team plays an opponent in less games during the regular season than those games become more important. Second, you say it's all about the playoffs and not about regular season right? Well, the focus of my argument centers around a shortened regular season. This would help the popularity of the game and perhaps attract viewers such as yourself who tend to not watch regular season hockey games. | PRO | 3506353-2019-04-18T19:54:02Z-00003-000 |
Conservatism (Pro) versus Libertarianism (Con). Libertarianism: An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens Conservatism: The holding of political views that favor free enterprise, private ownership and socially conservative ideas. Pro must be a Conservative and against Libertarianism. Round one is acceptance only Round two is opening statement Round three is arguments Round four is counter arguments Round five is conclusion Cite your sources, be civil, and no logical fallacies. | CON | 60eb62bf-2019-04-18T12:10:26Z-00001-000 |
The death penalty should be illegal. Yes, you are absolutely right. There is no practicality in spending so much money to keep murderers in prisons. However, is money really something that can have as much value as a life? We cannot just say that they do not deserve life. Especially because it costs money. How can we restrict someone from living? The death penaly is a murder against a human. Is there any excuse that would really make a murder justified? | PRO | 97ab35bd-2019-04-18T18:52:39Z-00002-000 |
Morality Is Subjective. Extending all arguments.My opponent has violated the rules of conduct, to which he agreed to by accepting this debate. The opening arguments are to be made in Round 2, as was stated in Round 1. It's a shame my opponent has not complied with the arrangement of this debate, as I was looking forward to my opponents case. Furthermore, this will have some negative consequences. We have less rounds to debate at our disposal. Also, my opponent has one more round for rebuttal and he has more time to respond to my arguments as well.Anyhow, my case stands firmly and I will continue await the first move of my opponent. | PRO | b42d50a6-2019-04-18T16:46:28Z-00003-000 |
gun control. they did massive control in australia in 1996. since then they have had no mass shootings, whereas before they had almost one per year. homicides are down like fifty percent. etc etc. studies without question prove that if you have a gun in your home, you and others are more likely to be hurt because of it. it's so incontrovertible that offiials always recommend getting rid of your gun if you want to be safer. if this is true, it makes sense that limiting who has a gun, or the easiness of getting a gun, will reduce violence and mishaps. japan has massive controls and relatively has almost no gun murders, very small. 40% of sales do not have background checks. if we can have mere checks, lives will be saved. it's common sense that not all people are black hoodies who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if they dont have a gun when theyd do their crime, a crime will be prevented. if there's any question that some control will result in some lives saved why not err on the side of caution? there's no question control would be helpful, and at least given a shot | PRO | 7439bc7e-2019-04-18T17:32:27Z-00004-000 |
belief=theism. My opponent states that theism is a belief in god which I previously had stated in my previous arguments. He however has not explained why theism and belief mean the same thing. He then goes on to saying that god is the same thing as information. And that santa, an alien, a unicorn and god are all the same thing. However, he has not explained any of his arguments or provided evidence. Thus there is nothing much for me to counter-argue. | CON | dc0a849e-2019-04-18T14:35:08Z-00004-000 |
Should America combat The Islamic State. I feel that my opposition has misunderstood the question but I will post my thoughts anyway. "Should America combat The Islamic Stat?" The answer for any rational person that understands the question should be no. The Islamic State is not a group of terrorists with bombs strapped to their chests trying to blow up a bus station. The Islamic State is a type of government, in which the primary basis for government is Islamic religious law (sharia). Our government is based on religious freedom, freedom of speech and unalienable rights. Attacking a country because of their religious views would be the ultimate act of hypocrisy. | PRO | 20ac6a0c-2019-04-18T15:40:55Z-00004-000 |
Taxes should be wealth-based, not income-based. I am an anarchist, and thus believe that taxation is always theft, but I'm going to put that aside for this debate. "Consider a homeless person. Does he need a fire department? He"s living in a box, even if it got burnt up he can still find a new one. Does he need police protection? He has nothing on him worthy to be stolen, and any fights that he gets into are over before the police show up." - This is not true, he does have something of worth; His own life. In other (Eastern European) countries homeless are murdered a lot. "And what about the wealthy? They've got cars that might be stolen and a house that might burn. They have something worthy to lose.They may desire legal protection for his property and goods. Rich people use more services, both in an absolute and a relative sense. They need government more. They should pay more for it, both absolutely and relatively." - You're right about this, the richer the person the moral gov't services they will use. The problem with taxing people at a wealth-level is as follows; They can hold the vast amount of their wealth within an off-shore account, and only keep what is necessary. Moreover, if it is done by wealth, then people could be taxed into poverty or even homelessness. | CON | d57885d-2019-04-18T11:43:06Z-00001-000 |
Teenagers should be tried as adults in court of law. In summation, I acknowledge that the increase in the number of teens committing violent crimes is an issue that begs attention. The resolutions that work best for situations like this are usually those that incorporate the motivating factors of the individual into the interest of society at large. Without speculating on ultimate causes or solutions, it is clear that our current strategy for dealing with these offenses leaves much to be desired in the way of prevention and recurrence. But i do believe that rehabilitation and reintegration is central to any long term solution. So I will conclude that trying teens as adults is tantamount to attempting to wash dishes in a basin of contaminated water, and that this is what makes the proposal fundamentally unacceptable even if we set aside the fact that the proof that teens are morally mature, remains to be seen. I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate!!! It has been a sincere pleasure to engage Until next time!!! | CON | 95989753-2019-04-18T13:33:28Z-00000-000 |
Capitalism Is A Religion Of The Rich And Anybody Who Believes In It Is Nuts. The rich crashed the economy in 2008 by selling subprime mortgage investments to people it knew could not afford them. The rich recouped their losses from the taxpayer, courtesy of the same people whose political campaigns they funded. Most other people lost their homes, their jobs or both. Many of these are the same people being attacked by Conservatives right now as "benefit slobs". Capitalism has twisted people's thinking to irrational and absurd degrees. It is perfectly obvious that the people who benefit (or believe they benefit) from capitalism will not change it. That's all the people you get your news from and all the people you elect into office. You don't think the US and/or England are dictatorships? When was the last time you had a vote about capitalism? | PRO | 6d941d59-2019-04-18T16:01:19Z-00003-000 |
Tennis is better than hockey. Hockey is also better then tennis becuase hockey players are tougher then tennis players. you dont see tennis players taking out there teeth on the bench then countinue playing the game. Here is a video of Dupuis pulling out one of his teeth during a game. http://www.youtube.com... the game he was interviewed and said that he would try to put his tooth back in when he got home.... himself. The new rules that they make for hockey are for safty reasons. They dont change any rules for tennis becuase they only have to be worried about getting hit with the ball. Were in hockey your being slamed into the boards and the ice and have to worry about getting hit with a hard fast flying peice of rubber. Hockey is a tough contact sport. Some players just cant learn to control themselves (look at the nasty flyers for example). they hit players with an illegal check (when the player makes the hit and they can only see the number of the person there hitting against the boards) those are cheap shots by dirty players. its nearly impossible for a hockey team to go a whole season without an injury, its pretty much expected for players to get injured when theres as much contact as there is. in tennis there is no contact, the players cant hit eachother. There is more action in hockey then tennis. in tennis theres 2 people hitting a ball back and forth. in hockey there are a total of 12 players on the ice at a time ( 3 offense, 2 defense, 1 goaly for each team) and there always moving. | CON | e57a60bb-2019-04-18T17:03:57Z-00001-000 |
the required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is unclear. so here we have if folks? the official list of things that must be believed, through milleniums of fighting and wars by christians..... it has been officially listed on debate.org during the month of June, 2014? notice the sarcasm. so you are asserting that someone would not be saved if they: 1. You must be baptized 2. You must believe Jesus Christ was God's son and died for our sins 4. You must repent your sins. didn't tell anyone that they were Christian after being baptized? do you go against the bible's teachings, then, as it says "anyone who confesses that Jesus is Lord, and believes in his heart that he was raised from the dead, they will be saved". that shows a lower threshhold. even most fundamentalists don't require *necessarily* that you be baptized, just that it is proper. what if they are new to the faith and never had a chance? what if they were trying to figure out what it means and wanted to know what they were doing before getting baptized? and what about the Lord's supper? it was a direct command for us to do it.... why is it not in your list? what makes baptism so much superior to the lord's supper? i'm sure i could go on and on with more examples. i don't see any reason why con's list is so magical. | PRO | 41026b0b-2019-04-18T16:05:57Z-00003-000 |
Millennials are just useless braindead losers. Well I will be providing sources of why millennials are brain dead and can't function without their phones, here are some reading materials https://www.entrepreneur.com... https://www.theloop.ca... https://www.buzzfeed.com... https://www.mindingthecampus.org... I'm not the only one who thinks millennials can't think on their own, and that is why they end up unemployed or only working brain dead jobs as Starbucks barista's 12 hours a week, while complaining that there are no jobs out there, while wearing their Green Lantern t-shirts, that mom washed for them the night before and changed their bed sheets because they are too busy spending 90 hours a week playing Fortnite and blowing their allowance on another Comic book movie and texting all day long because they don't know how to socialize in real life. | PRO | b09bd8a3-2019-04-18T11:32:39Z-00002-000 |
99% of white people are racist. I would like to ask my opponent and Debate. Org a question. Why was my final argument removed and do you really think I'm going to spend time writing another argument when I haven't broken any of the rules? It's clear which way the wind is blowing. I guess my comment of "99. 9 percent of white people come from racist families" is ringing true as we speak, Which proves my point perfectly. I honestly thought this site was ethical and legit. . . Very disappointed. Of course, I probably won't get a logical reply if any reply at all. If I partake in another debate and it happens again, We can just part ways. Yes, I've already received the email on Feb. 22 stating that the debate has ended. | PRO | 282327bc-2019-04-18T11:11:11Z-00000-000 |
Video Games Are Bad for You. This puts me in a very difficult position. I understand that video games can be good for you, but when someone does nothing but play video games, there can be serious repercussions. I have a couple friends that play video games for only 30min a day, but have been playing video games for a long time. Some of these games (in this case, Call of Duty) track how long you cumulatively play. All this time added together, my friends have wasted many days of their lives playing these games. How much would would you give to have just one more day in your life. People will be on their death beds, regretting everything that they didn't do, and think of all the times when they chose to play video games instead of doing something else. There are also people literally wasting their lives away by playing video games. "[I]t"s not uncommon to hit upwards of twelve hours" [1]. Playing video games for half of your day can really have an impact on all aspects of your life. It is also not uncommon for people to become addicted to video games. As you know, people can't help becoming addicted to things. The 30 minutes a day is essentially the same as just one cigarette. There is actually a whole website dedicated to the ongoing problem of video game addiction [2]. If this isn't a problem, not as much attention would be focused on it. These are my arguments. Good luck to my opponent. [1] http://cashplay.co... [2] http://www.video-game-addiction.org... | PRO | fc3f97e0-2019-04-18T16:44:10Z-00002-000 |
Homework Should be Banned. So what if certain kids don't want to do it. But that's totally different argument. You claim that homework takes a lot of time out of your day. If it really takes you hours to complete your homework, My heart goes out to you, obviously your teachers have no compassion. Instead of reiterating my argument I'm going to try something new and kind of go into a in related debate. Why is it the federal governments responsibility to interfere in the classroom? Shouldn't teachers be allowed to teach their subjects with the government telling them what they can and can't do? I think that teachers should be allowed to teach how they please and if they Are effective they should be allowed to continue. We shouldn't ban homework because it interferes in the classroom. I'm running out of ideas. Your turn. | CON | 2acab7ab-2019-04-18T17:01:31Z-00002-000 |
What leds to the war during 1900s. Here is some opening thoughts. Political turmoil The years before the 20th century were those of strife. The ottoman empire had fallen, Austria hungary was crumbling, And russia and spain looked on this in fear. Would they be the next to collapse? Not to mention the sudden emergence of Germany. Prussia had merged with parts of austria to become the greatest power of the time. Despite their overwhelming power, They were denied the colonies traditional european monarchs had. Even the netherlands had more colonies then Germany. Germany had all of this power and they felt like europe was denying them of what they deserved. Then there is the world leaders of the time. Germany had been unified by a skilled leader and diplomat, Otto von bismark, The iron chancellor who did what was thought impossible, Unifying germany with a prussian head instead of a austrian one. Otto however had resigned, Refusing to work with germany's new incompetent kaiser wilhelm II, Who decided to replace Otto's foreign policy with quote "in favour of a war of aggression". Czar nicholas was a leader with a inferiority complex, Always feeling like everyone though of him as weak. A war, No matter the scale, Could make him seem a strong leader. All of this brought great tension to europe, Which erupted into the first world war. | PRO | 1db4a786-2019-04-18T11:13:02Z-00007-000 |
Taxation is theft. I will argue that taxation is theft. Taxation is defined as: The process whereby charges are imposed on individuals or property by the legislative branch of the federal government and by many state governments to raise funds for public purposes. [1] Theft is defined as: The removal property without consent of the owner with the intention of depriving the owner of it permanently. [2] The debate format is as follows: Round 1: Pro - Challenge Posting, Format, and Definitions Con - Acceptance and Acknowledgement of Definitions and Formats *No arguments/statements for Pro/Con in Round 1 Round 2: Pro - Opening Statement Con - Opening Statement *No rebuttals admitted in Round 2 Round 3: Pro - Rebuttal to Con's Opening Statement in Round 2 Con - Rebuttal to Pro's Opening Statement in Round 2 *Argument point(s) not refuted denotes 'Automatic Acceptance' on said point(s) Round 4: Pro R4 - Rebuttal Responses and Final Arguments Con R4 - Rebuttal Responses and Final Arguments *No new argument points allowed in Round 4. Rebuttal points not responded denotes 'Automatic Acceptance' on said point(s) Round 5: Pro - Summary and Closing Statements Con - Summary and Closing Statements *No new points or arguments allowed in Round 5, Case Summaries and Conclusions only! [1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... [2] https://www.britannica.com... | PRO | 539db54f-2019-04-18T12:07:03Z-00003-000 |
Missingno. is the connection between Cubone and Kangaskhan. hmm... The anime is not the games... I say the anime isn't canon. so what now if the anime is excluded? and what if Missingno. is a bunch of pokemon some long gone and others returning favorites... so what about... "Cubone actually being Kangaskhan's mother." Cubone is Kangaskhan's mother... LOL ok I'm done! too funny! Anywaysies Idk what to say... | CON | d97e9841-2019-04-18T14:40:56Z-00002-000 |
Most Important Battles. Battle of GettysburgThis battle is considered the turning point in the American Civil War. Just like Stalingrad, the battle started out with a rougly small force. A Union cavalry brigade commanded by Brigadier General John Buford and a division of Condeferate infantry commanded by Brigadier General J. Johnson Pettigrew. His superior officer, Major General Henry Heth, wrote in his memoirs that he ordered Pettigrew to move to Gettysburg to search for supplies in the town, especially shoes. The Confederates pushed the Union Cavalry back, but the a Union infantry vanguard arrived to help. By then end of the first day, Union troops were pushed back to Cemetery Ridge, south of the town of Gettysburg. Confederate commander General Richard Ewell decided not to attack.The next day Confederate General Robert E. Lee arrived to commanded the Southern forces. The Union troops were commanded by General George Meade. Slowly Union troops were coming in to reinforce the high ground and they had up to 90,000 men. Lee had 70,000 men. He believed that because the Union forces were still stragling in, he could attack them. He ordered General Ewell on the right flank of Cemtery Ridge to attack when he thought it was practical. However, this was a mistake as Ewell was not directly ordered not to attack. Ewell did not really understand his orders and decided not to attack. During the day, Union General Dan Sickles marched his corps off the ridge allowing Confedrate troops commanded by General James Longstreet. The Union troops were forced back to a hill called Little Round Top. Fighting occured all over the hill, but eventually a bayonet charge led by the Union's 20th Maine forced the Confederates back. The fighting at the hill remained one of the most epic moments in Civil War history.By the third day, General Longstreet talked to Lee about disengaging the enemy and moving south to threaten Washington DC. This would force the Union off the ridge, but Lee refused and instead ordered Brigadier General George Pickett to attack on the left flank of the ridge. Over 13,000 troops led by Pickett marched in close ranks toward the Union ridge. Union musket fire and cannon fire devastated the Confederate troops. They made it all the way to the ridge, but could not press on and the force retreated. On the right flank, Confederate cavalry commander J.E.B. Stuart launched a charge to outflank the Union troops, but Union cavalry commanded by General George Armstrong Custer countercharged and defeated Stuart's cavalry. The Battle of Gettysburg was over. Both sides lost around 23,000 men.Had Lee won this battle he probably could have won the war for the CSA. This key moment showed the consequences of attacking uphill and being outnumbered. Tatics like this would in the end cause the overall defeat of the South. Here are some videos.http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com... | PRO | 45180298-2019-04-18T18:15:22Z-00003-000 |
Welfare programs are beneficial to the country and should be continued. After his first debate, DucoNihilum welcomed a challenge on this topic rather than debate in the comments section. While I have been guilty of doing just that before, I agree and understand with DucoNihilum's desire, and I hope he accepts my challenge. To begin, regardless of whether you think welfare programs are perfect in their current incarnations or need to be changed somewhat, it is undeniable that welfare programs are beneficial to the poor, as well as the country as a whole. These programs are much more often used by individuals and families to get back up on their feet after the loss of a job or affliction of an illness. Programs ranging from adult education programs, to medicaid, to "welfare", to section 8 help people transition from poverty to a better standard of living, as well as help formerly middle-class people transition through a difficult time. Without these programs, homeless rates would sky-rocket, wages for low-skilled jobs would plummet and the poor would have a much lower level of purchasing power than they do now. In addition to the practical side of social programs, we, as the wealthiest nation in the history of the planet, have a moral duty to help the poor rise above their state. Without these programs, our country would bear more of a resemblance to a fascist state, with those at the top accumulating all the wealth of the state while the poor are left to languish. This is actually my first true debate on this site, and I'm looking forward to it being a lively one. :) | PRO | 619d2903-2019-04-18T19:53:43Z-00004-000 |
The Minimum Wage should be increased. The Minimum Wage must be increased. Republicans claim it to be a "job killer", but they obviously do not know anything about how the American economy works. No person working full-time should have to live in poverty. It is most unfortunate that this is occuring right this instant. Entry-level employees make a certain amount of money an hour, they work full-time, they come home and try to support themselves and their families. With a Minimum Wage of $7.25 an hour (it is higher in some states), supporting yourself and your family would be nearly impossible. This is only my main point. Please allow me to elaborate in the next round. | PRO | 342cf7b6-2019-04-18T16:32:02Z-00006-000 |
Challenge World Of God Is In Dream Of Humans And Dream World Only Proof 100% Original Truth. You need to understand my lecture like how the current world of god is controlled by genies and gods ? how there power increases and works on others ? Didnt you understand about the world of god that if any god is true his power increases with the truth he or his genies believes in. Understand from the point of view of human, if you try to research what i said as human then you will understand what is current world of god about ? I will make your believe perfect just understand my holy book http://believerism.com... If you read then it will be easy for you to understand it and if you can tell to your god and all other gods of current world of god then they will understand who i am ? I just want you to start making fun of current world of god after understanding my holy book original torah which is my believe only. Practically test out whether my believe is true or not ? if my believe is true then i won from you. I am waiting to get winning from you. Ahmed. | PRO | d58e84a6-2019-04-18T11:55:16Z-00003-000 |
Halo is better than Call of Duty. Ok ok so you said your comparing one halo game to all call of duty games. And that halo game franchise is not better than all of the call of duty game "Sales of the Call of Duty franchise have not done as well since Black Ops in 2010. This has led some to believe that gamer fatigue with the annual series has steadily set in. A new survey of gamers released Thursday by analyst firm Piper Jaffray disputes the fatigue argument, though, as a survey pegged Black Ops III as the title gamers are most excited for this year." http://www.inquisitr.com... | CON | 32b28ebc-2019-04-18T14:31:34Z-00002-000 |
A visit to a doctor. A visit to a doctor My parents found out that I was sick So they took me to a doctor To a psychologist and psychiatrist Psychiatrist gave me some good pills Psychologist talked with me She told me how I need to get a job To secure my future How I need to have friends And some joy in life Oh, What a naive fool she was I won't get a job I don't need it to survive I will have food and water in prison And everything I need to survive My existence is secured Joy in life I will get when I molest children I probably will never have friends And that's something that doesn't Bother me too much I know that you are just trying to help But I am a sick person that can't be fixed Just pass me to my psychiatrist, I want my pills They make me happier They don't cure me of my sickness They don't tell me how I need to do this or that They just make me happy and I love them for that | PRO | c78c98cd-2019-04-18T11:21:20Z-00001-000 |
Does God Exist? Theism and Biblical Faith vs. Atheism and Agnosticism. **OFF TOPIC: If copy and paste is a problem I certainly apologize for doing so I mean no disrespect to my OPP but I still have to do research to put together my argument. I do not have all the info memorized I am learning as I go that being said even if you re-phrase a sentence its still the same argument is it not ?** Christian-agnostic is only used for the properties of God As Duns Scotus put it, there is an infinite distance between being and non-being, and theism posits the origin of being by being, whereas atheism posits the origin of being from non-being. In our everyday experience everything has a beginning. Fact of the matter the laws of science show that everything has a beginning easy was to prove this is things come to an end. Look at our sun running down. The sun is using up its fuel at millions of tons each second. It cant last forever. The same can be shown to be true for the entire universe. The Christian faith is not a blind faith it is a logically defensible faith(over Atheism). To say life is the result of dead matter and random chance alone leaves on in a confused state. With no central over arching theme that ties together all the problems of humanity. Theism solves them all does Christianity solve them all in one swoop. With atheism or materialism most of these problems are disconnected and require separate solutions. With God they are all resolved in the one simple answer of God's existence. This makes belief in God the simplest and most elegant solution because it resolves all of our most important questions at once. That offers a strong indication in a that God is the cause of all life. Thx to my OPP and our audience.... I look forward to another debate with my OPP on his terms this time. | PRO | 5336ae35-2019-04-18T18:20:59Z-00001-000 |
Gay Marriage. I accept the debate that the State should not sponsor/recognize same-sex marriage. Obviously we are taking about state-instituted marriage. Naturally, purely social or religious marriage is available everywhere in the United States: It is just that this marriage is not recognized by the State. I also would prefer that the State be limited to politics within the United States, but am open to other interpretations. However, please make sure to specify that next round. I look forward to my opponent's opening arguments. | CON | 6334f58b-2019-04-18T15:37:47Z-00005-000 |
President Obama would kick*** against past presidents. My opponent contends that he meant former presidents - I contend I have met his standards. Michael Jordan is former president of Washington's Basketball Operations (see round 1 for source). Micheal Jordan meets this criteria. I also find his contention that because Obama is black and from the south side of Chicago he is "tough and strong" dubious at best. But I shall leave that aside. I urge voters to vote Con as Pro has admitted that Obama has no chance of besting Michael Jordan in a bout of fisticuffs. I now turn it over to my opponent. | CON | b03e7413-2019-04-18T19:13:03Z-00001-000 |
XBOX is better than Playstation!. The Playstation was originally a team project headed by Nintendo and Sony beginning in 1988 as a CD-ROM-compatible version of the Super Famicom before Nintendo opted out of its partnership with Sony in favor of a partnership with Phillips, allowing Sony to release the PlayStation in 1994. 9 years and 6 months later, the PlayStation became the all-time best-selling gaming system at 102.49 million units sold. This would be surpassed by its successor, the PlayStation 2, with 155 million units sold. | CON | f0b04753-2019-04-18T16:49:20Z-00006-000 |
The scariest SCP. Ah, SCP-632 Class Euclid For This round I'll talk about how it spreads and the first stage of infection How it spreads And first stage of infection: They and I quote "they undergo parthenogenesis to reproduce. When active, SCP-632 will secrete a feathery thread from its spinnerets and attach its microscopic eggs along it" As said in paragraph 2 sentence 3-4 It is weightless and will be transported around by small air currents Then upon contact it will hatch into a juvenile SCP-632 whose sole purpose is to seek out and burrow into the sweat pores in the skin. Once inside the body, SCP-632 will live off body tissue, burrowing into the nearest blood vessels. First off this is scary since you will never know if you get infected or not it lives off of our life sure its not fatal, yet anyways. This could infect you from miles away and you'd never know until its too late I might as well add it was first found somewhere in china after reports of an entire village bludgeoned to death came to the attention of the police. Sources [1] http://www.scp-wiki.net... Good luck to you in round 3 | CON | db8dbdf1-2019-04-18T14:48:21Z-00001-000 |
Global currency. . .. my opponent's account has been deleted? SUMMARY In my post R1 I gave several benefits of a global currency (decreasing costs and economy crises, and promoting investment). My opponent did respond to some of these benefits, but she failed to give sufficient analysis to rebut them. On her side, Con's 2 main arguments were: (a) a practical system for implementing a global currency, and (b) the harms of a global collapse of global currency. In response to (a), I have given the basics of a tentative system, and for (b), I have argued that the harms of a global collapse of currency would occur even now, and are nevertheless outweighed by the benefits of global currency. | PRO | 8f18f901-2019-04-18T19:27:25Z-00000-000 |
Novice Presidential Debate. Now ive seen people on here that are my idols. Everyday i get on and see great debate, forum games, and PM's that make me laugh. It is for these reasons that i want to try and make my way to the top with them. One of my favorite things to get on and read are imabenches Presidential debates. I love them and would like to do one of my own with another person. I will let my oponent choose who they want to be. I would like to be The Doctor. The david Tennant version, not Matt Smith. This Presidential debate is open to anyone. 8,000 characters 5 rounds, minus 1 for acceptance 2 week voting period Remember that this is a Novice Presidential Debate so join if your like me. Relativley new to the site and willing ot have a good battle. AND PLEASE NO ROUND FOFIETING. I really don't like that. | PRO | 6e6f316b-2019-04-18T17:53:35Z-00008-000 |
Evolution does not necessarily refute Religion. "Do not assume anything, ALWAYS state it in your resolution" Yes, a weakness of mine, I confess. I have a habit of not clarifying myself to the necessary degree, and for that I apologize. Still, even if we were to take my first argument as is, I am still safe. All I said was that religion is not necessarily refuted by evolution--this means that in order for me to be wrong, any and all religion absolutely MUST not be able to go hand in hand with evolution. So, either way you take it, my argument still works. "...what Jesus teaches his followers, and what evolution teaches its followers are different in that evolution is science and Jesus and the Bible is faith." True, but just because one is a Christian does not mean that their beliefs must only be what Christ taught. For example, I believe that 1+1=2, yet nowhere in the Bible does He teach this. Does this mean that I cannot believe in math, then? As convenient as this would be for me, it's simply not the case. One's beliefs are not "either/or" when referring to faith and science. It is fully plausible--indeed, an actuality--that one can have faith for some things and have knowledge of others. "...they believe in is that GOD created man, not the fact that man spontanteously and SCIENTIFICALLY morphed from monkeys!!" Just because something happened scientifically does not mean that it was not done by God. Consider the possibility that God -only- works through science. At first glance, this seems absurd--all the many miracles Christ and the ancient prophets performed could never be explained by science. Well, this only pertains to the science that we know. There is still so much that we cannot even begin to comprehend; how can we thus say for certain that God and His miracles do not break and are not outside of the laws of science? Of course, one may say that if we can understand how God works, there would be no faith for him. However, knowing how something happened still does not prove whether or not there is a higher intelligence/power that is causing it to happen. Thus, even if we may find, as absolute fact, how every miracle and work of God was performed, we still have not proven that God exists, and thus there is still need for faith. "Therefore, Intelligent Design is man was created by a higher being (i.e. a God) and evolution is humans evolving over time, no higher being involved." What I'm arguing is why can't there have been a higher being involved? Why can't one believe that, perhaps, God guided evolution--caused the genetic mutations, allowed some species to survive while others died out--until man was created? If He guided evolution in such a way that He caused man to eventually be created, gradually over time, step by step, certainly we can still say that God created man. | PRO | bae6dbf0-2019-04-18T20:00:17Z-00001-000 |
Resolved: Governments ought legislate anti-bullying policies focusing on sexual orientation. This debate has turned into semantics. My claim is that Pro's interpretation of his resolution is misleading. Let's take an example. Say a mayor of a town announces the passage of a special piece of anti-crime legislation that "focuses on jewelry store theft." Such a claim heavily implies that either extra resources or harsher sentencing laws are being enacted to counter thefts from jewelry stores. However, upon closer examination the law targets not just jewelry stores but all thefts in general under the given jurisdiction with no special protection given to jewelry stores in the context of similar thefts of that nature. Would it still be rightful to say that the piece of legislation "focuses" on jewelry store thefts? I'd say the claim is misleading at best and a gross misinterpretation at worst. To bring this back to the issue at hand, how can one claim to "focus" on sexual orientation when every other possible discrimination claim is being treated as equally important under Pro's own terms? The term "focus" implies a kind of exclusivity. For instance, to "focus" in on an amoeba under a microscope is to apply special attention to the amoeba and to essentially neglect other pieces of matter outside the amoeba under the microscope. It would be disingenuous for Pro to deny this. Pro insists that people with disabilities or the obese are not the subject of this debate, but clearly Pro has both mentioned them and accepted that they deserve their own legal protections. I would also like to note that Pro has never answered my challenge as to what groups should not be given protection. From this it's implied that Pro actually favors general provisions against bullying rather than the resolution which carries much different implications. I would also question Pro's sources, but this is a whole other point that's removed from the central issue of contention. Even if we take the high 84.4% figure cited by the GLSEN study that is essentially equal to the amount faced by stutterers as cited earlier considering margin of error. Additionally, one much consider the degree of harassment, the subjectivity of self-reporting, and the pressures that GLBT students are under when answering these surveys. In conclusion, it appears that we both agree on general anti-bullying provisions that would cover virtually all cases of harassment in schools. However, the resolution clearly states that Pro is arguing for special provisions that FOCUS in GLBT victims. Not – as he has tried to claim – that governments ought to legislate anti-bullying policies that merely cover or include discrimination claims based on sexual orientation. | CON | 15445abc-2019-04-18T18:11:52Z-00001-000 |
Yo Mama Joke Battle. Well I don't know my opponent's situation, but it is sad that he\she forfeited. But, I'm a nice guy and I'll let my opponent post ten yo mama jokes on his\her next round. But remember voters, HE\SHE DID FORFEIT A ROUND!! Now, on with the jokes! Yo mamma so fat she sat on a quarter and a booger shot out of George Washington's nose. Yo mamma so fat she eats Wheat Thicks. Yo mamma so ugly, she walked into a haunted house and came out with a paycheck. Yo mamma so fat, she sat on a rainbow and skittles popped out!! Yo mamma so nasty she made speed stick slow down. | PRO | 1036fcc3-2019-04-18T17:47:46Z-00001-000 |
Homework Hinders Learning. okay I see your points. Yes i do agree that some homework may be pointless like doing cross words and puzzles and such like that, but your still practicing, for example say you have to do a cross word puzzle for your vocabulary words in lets say science, they give you the definition and you try and find the word... sounds like learning to me because you are learning the definition of the word as your find it. On the other hand different teenagers have different ways of doing their homework and studying and some are just smart enough to get the homework done faster than others so I guess the teenagers finding time to do stuff is their time on how fast they get done and their study habits. I know I set up a schedule like if I have a test coming and a different one on the same day I would pick the subject I suck more in and spend more than a half hour or so, then the subject I'm most efficient in I study a little less because I understand it, homework is study material basically. I f you do the homework your studying (atleast thats how I see it, and most of my friends). Doing homework is just a more effective way of studying. Most teachers do give out lots of homework depending on what they are learning, some may give very little for many reasons. Homework is good, but yes it may be overbearing at some times, but we learn more from our mistakes, which mostly come from the homework we do! | CON | acf20e3-2019-04-18T19:29:41Z-00002-000 |
Legalization of Marijuana. First of all con did not follow the debate rules by posting his argument in round 1. Secondly, and more importantly, con plagiarized his argument. http://casac.org...Although con should be disqualified I will continue with this debate.1 Marijuana is often used as a stepping-stone drug, leading to heroin, cocaine, or other harder drugs.Con gives no evidence to support this claim and is actually in contradiction with most evidence on this matter. An article on scienceblog.com reads, "Marijuana is not a “gateway” drug that predicts or eventually leads to substance abuse, suggests a 12-year University of Pittsburgh study."[1]2 Stoned driving and other dangers would be increased.Con gives no evidence to support this claim.3 Some consider use of the drug as morally wrong.Some consider sex before marriage as morally wrong also. Should it be illegal?4 Legalization would increase the chances of the drug falling into the hands of kids.Con gives no evidence to support this claim and is actually in contradiction with most evidence on this matter. Legalization allows the marijuana to be regulated in the same way alcohol is. It is easier for teens to get marijuana than alcohol because it is unregulated and sold on the black market to anyone willing to buy.[2] 5 Because of drug-related arrests, people who have committed or are likely to commit more serious crimes can be taken off the streets.Using this flawed logic we should arrest every person who wears black. We could prevent so many future crimes. 6Physical damage would be done to users that abuse the drug. Con gives no evidence to support this claim but even if we assume marijuana is harmful, the user has every right to harm his own body. Jacob G. Hornberger, founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation, [3] is quoted as saying, “If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all.”[4]7 More widespread use would increase the dangers of secondhand smoke-damage to bystanders.Con gives no evidence to support his claim that use would be more widespread. 8 Legalization of marijuana could eventually lead to the legalization of harder drugs or all drugs altogether.Con gives no evidence to support this claim. Marijuana should be legalized for many reasons but the fundamental right of every person to do whatever they want with their own body as long as no one else's rights are violated is the most important reason. [1]http://scienceblog.com...[2]http://blog.norml.org...[3]http://www.fff.org...[4]http://thinkexist.com... | PRO | 90bdd4aa-2019-04-18T18:38:03Z-00005-000 |
Kung Fu Panda is best DreamWorks movie. Kung Fu Panda is the best DreamWorks movie because it is one of the best "never judge a book by its cover movie". Say the title, and admit that it sounds serious. No. It sounds stupid. But watvhing the movie, it was better than some people thought it would be. The animation is amazing, the jokes are modern, but it is the good modern jokes, great acting, and overall good characters. This movie has some great action because it takes all advantages that it is animated, and a comedy, to give some fast action scenes. Also for a comedy, there is surprisingly good drama Kung Fu Panda is the best DreamWorks movies. These characters are memorable. I could remember almost every character. What makes this better than other DreamWorks movie say like Shrek is because while Shrek is a good movie, it has more story than jokes. Also, Shrek is kind of boring with Mike Myers and Eddie Murphy mostly talking, and some jokes don't make sense. This is why I think Kung fu Panda is the best DreamWorks movie. | PRO | ab748faf-2019-04-18T14:40:29Z-00003-000 |
Sex Education Should Be Taught In Schools. Thank you. Here's my rebuttal to my opponent's argument. First of all, my opponent only wrote one sentence and it's a bare assertion. He doesn't provide any evidence saying that kids are better taught by their parents than schools or that schools are insufficient in teachings sexual education. With no sources or logic applied to this argument, it can easily be thrown out, but I'll go even deeper into it to prove my point. Not all children have parents, that's clear."It is estimated there are between 143 million and 210 million orphans worldwide (recent UNICEF report.) The UNICEF orphan numbers DON’T include abandonment (millions of children) as well as sold and/or trafficked children. The current population of the United States is just a little over 300 million…" [1]Those children can't be taught sexual education by their parents. What about children who are abused or neglected by their parents? "...there were nearly 27,000 reports of child abuse and neglect in Pennsylvania in 2013 and about 22,500 Pennsylvania children lived in foster care in 2014." [2] This is in Pennsylvania alone. What about on a larger scale?"According to NCANDS whose latest statistics are for 2005 an estimated 3.3 million referrals of child abuse or neglect were received by public social service or CPS agencies. Of these referrals, 899,000 children were confirmed to be victims of abuse or neglect (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2007). That means about 12 out of every 1,000 children up to age 18 in the United States were found to be victims of maltreatment in 2005 (USDHHS, 2007)." [3]Would these parents be qualified/willing to teach their children about sexual education? Most parents aren't qualified to teach the way a licensed teacher hired by a school can, unless, of course, they're teachers themselves. Thirdly, let's say that every single child in the world had parents who are actually somewhat capable of teaching their child. In this fantasy land, they're actually decent parents who properly take care of their child efficiently without abuse or anything like that. But there's one thing that isn't certain: if they're putting in the time. In a school environment, you can ensure that every child is being focused on and they all get an equal amount of education and time. In a home environment, you can't exactly make sure of this. Thank you. I look forward to my opponent's defense.Citations[1]http://www.orphanhopeintl.org...[2]http://www.papartnerships.org...[3]http://www.americanhumane.org... | PRO | 8be2b95f-2019-04-18T13:14:36Z-00005-000 |
One cannot be both Jewish and Atheist. I am an Atheist Jew (or perhaps a Jewish Atheist). A few people have understood how that is possible, but the average person will start gritching about how it isn't possible, which is not the case. I always try to explain, and somewhere around one out of every five people I explain it to will get it. I'm curious to see if I can convince any of you, and I am confident that we can make a great debate out of it. I will allow my opponent to begin. | CON | f8f4d8fe-2019-04-18T19:15:49Z-00003-000 |
R: Corporal Punishment is a reasonably adequate punishment for certain crimes. I affirm: Corporal Punishment is a reasonably adequate and just punishment for certain crimes. [Definitions] For clarity I pose the following definitions. Corporal Punishment: caning or flogging. Reasonably: fair, proportionate Adequate: sufficient for the purpose Just: giving each their due [Observational Analysis] For analysis of the resolution, I pose the following observations. 1. The resolution asks for a "reasonably adequate" punishment. This is a punishment that is proportion to the crime that has been committed. Note: Proportionality is not equivalence. 2. Certain crimes. The affirmative offers the 3 following crimes that warrant Corporal Punishment while in Jail/Detainment. Crimes: Rape, Kidnapping, Attempted Terrorism. [Contentions] Contention I: Corporal Punishment is a reasonable punishment.(Proportionality) For the 3 crimes I have posted above; corporal punishment is a proportionate response. These 3 crimes do not deserve death but they are too great for jail only. Punishments must be fair and proportionate. Using corporal punishment open up an avenue for an intrum punishment. I.e. a punishment between staying in jail only, and receiving the death penalty. For a punishment to be reasonable it must be: "fair, proportionate". Corporal Punishment is indeed proportionate for crimes that do not warrant death or jail only. Corporal Punishment could be sued while the person is in jail for the given amount of years, or life. (Since we are talking about rape, kidnapping, and attempted terrorism). Contention II: Reducing Crime (Justice) According to the CIA country information site, the countries which have corporal punishment have significantly lower crime rates then the US. E.g. Japan and Singapore. If deterrence is indeed a factor being played, it is a good secondary outcome, that is just for the members of society. Contention III: 8th Amendment (Proportionality, Constitutionality) The 8th Amendment is based off of the ideas of Beccaria. He said the famous quote: "The punishment must fit the crime." The 8th Amendment claims no cruel and unusual punishment. Beccaria explains that this means that the punishment cannot exceed that of the crime committed. If it does, then it is an unjust punishment, and thus violates the Constitution. for reasons in contention I, the punishment is proportionate, and is thus in coherence with the constitution. Contention IV: Faulty Jail System (Justice) The jail system in the US is faulty. We have overcrowded jails which lead to lessining of sentences. This is the reality of things. however the justice system must keep justice. Using corporal punishment can be used to achieve proportionality but have reduced sentences, if necessary. That way, we would have more room to fix the system, and return it back to normal. Therefore, corporal punishment is a just way for members of society by reducing taxes and making a more efficient justice system. Thank you ladies and gentlemen. | PRO | 7da5bbc3-2019-04-18T19:38:37Z-00004-000 |
Chris Kyle a was not a hero nor did he fight for our freedom. I don't know if this would be the proper way to debate....or if this belongs in the opinion section.....either way.....send me sources on proper debate format and focus on the argument.....If Chris Kyle was a hero who fought for our freedom, then Jesus Christ was our savior who died for our sins. - I use this comparison because the word hero is being used as in courage and self-sacrifice for the *Greater Good* So I want to point out that no American Freedom is currently at stake in Iraq. Let us not take the recognition away from the soldiers that fought for American Freedom during the revolutionary war - World War II .... So....we would be hypocrites to say that killing insurgents in iraq is for the greater good and i think many people confuse insurgency with terrorism... to keep it simple and straight to the point.....Insurgency is a rebellion against a government ....the Americans were once the insurgents when it was the 13 colonies rebelling against Great Britain. I wont accept that he was only carrying out his duties and that in his eyes he was fighting a just war because one could turn around and argue that in the eyes of Hitler, In the eye of The Suicide Bombers, in the Eyes of Jim Jones and the rest who drank the cool-aid. I am not calling him a bad guy.....In his book he clearly stated that he considered the people he killed savages....he told bill o'rielly that he doesn't know and doesn't care if iraqi considered him a savage.......he also stated that he enjoyed killing savages and that he enjoyed it as a job. That tells me that he did it because he enjoyed it........that doesn't sound like self-sacrifice it sounds like indulgence. .... Weather or not there is something wrong with enjoying it and not feeling guilty is an entire different argugment. Don't focus on my grammer either because American English is not proper English | CON | c2005f69-2019-04-18T15:19:25Z-00005-000 |
Escape Plan!. I expected the roit to happen.A message before my rebuttals|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||Congradulations you escaped :PI concedeYou can accept my rematch This really wasn't fair in the first place to begin with. I put really no restrictions on the prison. Technically you could've had the electronic dog collars, and put merely two prisoners inside, with 1000 freaking guards watching them 24/7, merely random jelly with water in it for all three meals, and a prison inside a prison inside a prison inside a prison inside a prison, and you still wouldn't have broken the rules. Good debate, I learned my lesson and the next time I do this it's gonna be much better and fair.Sorry for wasting your judges' time, I know this is a front page debate but, I made a mistake, and that mistake killed me. I know my plan stinks while Zaradi's plan is fool-proof. Game over, my opponent wins.Vote my opponent. | PRO | eb5d9827-2019-04-18T15:34:36Z-00003-000 |
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat. My opponent is correct the Earth's temperature has been hotter a long time ago. This falls into the stage 4a of climate change denial. [2] Meaning my opponent accepts the first part of the resolution but rejects the second half.The problem is not the temperature itself, but the rate of change. High rate of temperature change historically has lead to mass extinction. In summary, species including humans will struggle to adapt to such changes, if adaptation to such a change is even possible. [3]Impact, high rate of temperature change equals mass extinctions, which are a threat. Next my opponent uses information sourced from an ultra conservative website called the dailycaller.com I will first attack the source of the argument and then the argument itself. The dailycaller is an ultra-conservative website. You can verify this yourself by seeing the news story against Hilary placed first on the dailycaller.com."ultra-conservative Daily Caller" [4]Next, lets take a look at the argument. Basically this is a reiteration of the first argument and again falls into stage 4a of denial. [2]Yes, not all the predictions came true. Yet, the overall premise, that co2 and temperature are rising an alarming rates is true. Thank you for taking the time to debate. I think it takes real courage to speak what you perceive is the truth against the majority. Sources.2. http://grist.org...3. http://grist.org...4. http://www.newscorpse.com... | PRO | b567d7db-2019-04-18T12:55:48Z-00003-000 |
Resolved: The US should pass a law prohibiting the personal ownership of firearms. DISADVANTAGE: CONSTITUTIONALITY In the Constitution of the United States, the second amendment clearly states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. " Therefore, your entire plan is entirely unconstitutional and will be declared so in the Supreme Court once this plan is passed. The impact is the impeachment of your administration. DISADVANTAGE: PUBLIC SUPPORT According to recent CNN polls, public opinion of strict gun control laws is only supported by 39% of the American population. Therefore, public support for this policy is limited and passage of this law will increase tensions in this country. The impact is thousands of riots around the country which will lead to civil war over a policy that no one wanted. . http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com... This will not link to the counterplan because our c/p is not gun control, only stricter regulations (see below). CHILD MORTALITY Alternate cause- When we ban all firearms for all Americans, we are punishing those honest tax-paying citizens who do not murder their neighbors. Instead, as the article below states, the cause of the high homicide rates in the U. S. is due to the large number of assault military-grade-like weapons that plague the inner city streets of our nation which are being handled by dangerous criminals and former felons. SEE OUR COUNTERPLAN which will solve both of these issue without causing the disad impacts and alienating the rest of the American people. . http://www.usnews.com... SOLVENCY How will you be able to take away all of America's guns? And even when you do, YOU'RE GOING TO PUT THEM IN JAIL FOR IT? ! This is extremely horrifying and you should be impeached. I also question how you will be able to execute this. . which questions if you'll be able to solve your advantage at all! COUNTERPLAN The United States Federal Government shall 1) Ban the use/sale of assault weapons in the United States; 2) Implement mandatory background checks and restrictions to limit the sale to those persons on a "gun-watch list"; 3) Funding for anti-firearm-smuggling programs for the U. S. Border Control will be increased to limit illegal arms flow into the U. S. ; 4) Create an independent federal commission under the U. S. Department of Justice to regulate all federal guidelines, of whom the members shall be appointed by the U. S. Senate Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs; 5) All guidelines, including definitions of "assault weapons", will be revised every 5 years. C/P S: This counterplan will solve your Child Mortality advantage while ALSO being constitutional and not causing our disadvantages. | CON | 9823f6e3-2019-04-18T19:11:46Z-00004-000 |
Impromptu 5. 1. The British Army was truly the best in the world and still remains incredibly powerful (Among the top Five) to this day. Without the aid of much research, thus impromptu, I concur with topic #1. Definition: Great Britain = England, Scotland, & Wales. United Kingdom = Great Britain & Northern Ireland. CONTENTION 1: At some point in history, Britain has without a doubt, been the strongest military force. It is difficult to precisely dates the beginning and ending, but with a built in degree of enigmatic ambiguity, they have unquestionably been the premier force for some unspecified period of time. CONTENTION 2: Being a former military member, I would say that I have at least a rudimentary knowledge of the world forces. Having studied history in school, and observed the world events, I would have to say that Britain remains one of the top five powers in the world today. I would venture to guess a rough ranking system as such: 1. USA 2. China 3. Russian Federation 4. Great Britain 5. Israel Honorable Mentions (Others receiving votes :o) Canada, Germany, Iran, Australia, France, India, North Korea, South Korea While many nations have enjoyed periods of prominence, Britain has persevered for centuries, and continues to be recognized as a world power. British weaponry is featured and heralded in Jane's, one of the leaders in military information. Further, some of the most regarded leaders have come from Britain. William the Conqueror, William Churchill, and Margaret Thatcher just to name a few. Further, how can any debater think of Britain, and leave out John Locke? Impossible! CONCLUSION: Yes, Britain was and continues to be a military power. | PRO | 7d85e4e7-2019-04-18T19:06:55Z-00001-000 |
Today, the United States is the Greatest Country in the World. There isn't anything to rebut since Pro never specified how the US is strong, nor did Pro prove it in anyway.C1-American Intelligence & Innovation:The Program for International Student Assessment released a study comparing various countries' test scores in math, science, and reading. The United States finished lower than the OECD's average in all categories. (1): The United States also is no longer the most technologically advanced country in the world, but the 3rd. (2) Finally, the United States only ranks 6th on the Global Innovation Index, which measures countries innovation ranks. (3) Accounting for low test scores and the fact the U.S. doesn't lead in technology or innovation, the conclusion can be made that the US is not the smartest or most innovative country in the world.C2-American Freedom:Many Americans pride themselves in their countries' freedom. However, the US is beat my many countries in terms of its freedom. Regarding economic freedom, the United States only ranked 12th in the world. (4) The United States' press is only tied for the 23rd most free. (5) Sixteen other countries were also found to be less corrupt than the United States. (6) Finally, the United States was not even able to crack the top 10 most democratic countries in the world. (7) Gathering these facts together, one can conclude the US is not the freest country in the world.C3-American Health & Safety:The United States is only 47th in the world in infant survival rate. (8) The US is also only 42nd in the world in life expectancy. (9) Finally, the United States in a list of 218 countries, the United States has the 111th highest intentional homicide rate. (10) Overall, we can see that the US is unhealthy and dangerous compared to many other countries.1-http://www.businessinsider.com...2-http://www.insidermonkey.com...;3-https://www.globalinnovationindex.org...;4- http://www.heritage.org...5-https://www.freedomhouse.org...;6-https://www.transparency.org...7-http://www.countryranker.com...;8-https://www.cia.gov...9- https://www.cia.gov...10-http://en.wikipedia.org...; | CON | 8f613c1b-2019-04-18T15:05:01Z-00002-000 |
Morality has little meaning without force of will and power to enforce it. Thank you for your response Ingsoc, I will get straight to rebuttals "Without having an objective view of morality our own principles will decay and we will be left with a meaningless piece of life, where morality is constantly changing and is in constant turmoil. " What is wrong with a changing morality? Since morality is meaningless anyway their is no point in having it change with the times and seeing whether or not the ideas it represents will "survive" if you will through time. "Pro must have a very sick mind to believe that morality is a force determined by "nature". " Not nature necessarily, rather a survival of the fittest system found in nature applied to societal terms. "I will cite Aquinas for the existence of God, because without God something like the big bang would not be able to occur in the first place" Then who created God? What created that? This is circular logic, as you must keep on going forever. "Only with an all powerful being can something as beautiful like earth that can sustain life be created." Are parasites, viruses, and hideous alien looking abberant bacteria that beautiful to you? In a strange way they are beautiful to me, but not in the way of human terms of beauty. Besides, if we lived in a universe created for us to survive and thrive, but we had a different need, and our universe fulfilled this need, we would be using the same argument as you are. "an omniscient omnipotent, and constantly present being already exists to have a spring board for what is right and wrong." You still have to actually prove this beings existence. Thsnk you for this debate once more. | PRO | 986713b4-2019-04-18T16:45:21Z-00000-000 |
A mac osx is better than a desktop computer. I'd like to begin by saying that I really hate Macs. My opponent has based his first argument on the premise that there are no viruses known that affect OSX in any significantly harmful way. A quick Google search will tell you that this is quite possibly true and I won't contest it. I just wonder if my opponent actually read the article that they posted. It isn't very pro-Apple or pro-OSX if you ask me. In fact, it covers a whole lot of points which explain exactly why there are no "Mac Viruses" and I'll expand on them... 1. Minority of the market --------------------------------- Now, I understand that being a massive minority of the market would explain why Mac's had LESS viruses, but it doesn't explain why there are NONE. I think it doesn't alone explain it, but it does take a step in the right direction. This [1] shows that Mac's have just one tenth of the market for computers in the US. Now, a quick refresher lesson in how viruses work. They spread by attacking exploits in large numbers of machines. Automatically, by designing a virus that goes after OSX, it's going to be one tenth of the efficiency. 2. Making changes to the OS environment ----------------------------------------- The next point that I'd like to make addresses the fact that because OSX uses a Unix-based kernel [2] and file-system it is less vulnerable to self-replicating code, because it doesn't allow the user to run any executables outside their own memory space. Again, this is true. However, this very fact is the reason that so much software has to be specially designed for Unix-based systems, from the various flavours of Linux (Ubuntu, yum!) to OSX and more often than not, simply cannot be built to run on these systems. Gamers, you know what I'm saying. 3. What's the hell is a virus anyway? -------------------------------------- Finally, who the hell worries about viruses anyway? Those things are archaic relics of the past. While the term 'virus' is used by layman to describe all manor of computer nasties, it is actually malware (you know, trojans, spyware, worms...) that is getting the most attention from black-hat coders these days and Mac's sure as heck aren't immune to that. (See my opponents article for some examples) Conclusion ----------------------------------------- The fact remains that comparing OSX to any pre-7 Windows software is always going to make Windows look like a syphilis-infected whore. Do you want to put your data into that? However, the release of Windows 7 sees a significant closing of the gap between the integrity of their security features. I can tell you from first-hand experience that Windows 7 is a strong unit. Viruses that would have you formatting your XP installation, bounce off Windows 7 like it's wearing a virus-proof vest. Coupled with a strong anti-virus program like Symantec Endpoint Protection and this resolution is negated. Sources [1] http://gigaom.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... | CON | 6d765775-2019-04-18T18:58:57Z-00004-000 |
PETA is crazy. My first piece of evidence will be these links to PETA protests: http://www.toptenz.net...http://www.hbhud.com...http://listverse.com...All of these were participated in by many members of PETA.My second piece of evidence is that they are hypocrites. They denounce killing animals, yet they euthanize 90% of all animals that are sent to their animal "shelter."There also hypocrites in that they denounce animal testing yet they are proponents of testing new potentially drugs on humans; which are animals. The third way they are hypocrites is that in protests they subject humans to treatment that they would sue over if done to any other animal. All the members of PETA actively support these actions and voluntarily allow themselves to be tortured during protests in ways they would never allow for other animals. | PRO | ab103e63-2019-04-18T16:51:59Z-00003-000 |
Best State In America NJ!. Alright I can play your game? Your premise claims to be read Below: My premise is this, that New Jersey is no better than any other state in comparison of overall quality. I am here in defense of the other 49 states that are sick of elitist attitudes such as this. No state is objectively any better than the other. Such an opinion is merely that, an opinion. Its extremelt prejudicial and demeaning of the other 49 states to even say such a thing. My peer wishes to know why people dislike New Jersey so much, well if he is a shining example of the opinions most people from New Jersey hold, I think we have the answer to his question, because they believe they are better than everybody else, and that, is not a very nice stance to take. Shame on Nyfan, shame on him and his elitist prejudicial views. You said Contention One: New Jersey is crowded A) New Jersey Ranks first(the only first position it has in comparison to other states) in population density. B) New Jersey has no "rural" areas, just urban and suburban, so dont expect any peace and quiet, or nature. This example shows hear that you are clearly hating on New Jersey and basically contradicting yourself. Referencing the two points you said above. you are clearly bringing New Jersey down so you clearly don't think the other 49 states including New Jersey are equal because you are bringing New Jersey down. Since you solely have to bring New Jersey Down clearly it is the best state. Why Haven't you tried to bring down any other state then if you think Every other state is equal? You also claim I don't have a valid argument repetitively, then why are you attacking New Jersey If I don't have a valid premise? 2nd you still haven't answered how the New Jersey Shore is relevant to your premise which is going against all my claims. Basically whats the point you are trying to make with the Jersey Shore TV show? And once again you contradicted yourself "Shame on Nyfan, shame on him and his elitist prejudicial views". If you intended to show how the New Jersey inst the best state because of how young people look and conduct themselves, which in society can take place essentially anywhere wouldn't this make you a biased prejudicial elitist even more than me? I certainty think so. So Shame on Buddamoose. For everyone viewing this vote Pro because my opponent is biased with elitist prejudicial views which is stereotyping. Also Vote Pro because he failed at trying to result to fallacies for his premise which I thought was essentially impossible till now. Also vote pro because my opponent may just be a robot- "look how he presents all his claims" Clearly we figured out robots are superior from jeopardy. http://www.youtube.com... I will conclude on why New Jersey is the best state for my closing argument. | PRO | c5a045a0-2019-04-18T18:24:51Z-00003-000 |
roman catholic church has never contradicted itself. "If the Catholic Church would not true, then it would of contradicted itself". Something doesn't have to contradict itself for it not to be true. Example: I tell my parents I'm going to a friends house, when in reality I'm going to a party. My parents try calling me, I don't answer due to loud noise. The next day my parents ask me why I didn't answer their call, I say me and my friend fell asleep early. This doesn't contradict my story, but it doesn't make it the truth either. I suppose you're referring to truth as in the true Church? If this is the case then, why does the Catholic Church teach praying to Mary and Saints as reasonable? Some would see this as idolatry. The Catholic Church calls all their priest father, Jesus himself spoke against this. The ball is in your court for you to explain why you feel the Catholic Church is the objective truth. | CON | 71898213-2019-04-18T17:40:27Z-00002-000 |
Baseball players who were discovered to use steroids shouldnt be in the HOF and their records erased. You'll have to forgive me for being a little bit of a grammar lawyer here: you use the past tense a lot in you argument. The topic is "players who WERE ..." and you use the term "used". I assume that this means you are referring to players who have been shown to use steroids previously. There are a few problems with removing them from the HOF: 1. For a long time, steroids were not banned by baseball, but were illegal in the US. You cannot restrict a person's HOF status for something that baseball did not make illegal. 2. There is no hope of reliable evidence about who used and who didn't use in the past. Even the Mitchell report only produced hearsay and speculation. Since we cannot retroactively test players for steroids, we can never know who used, so we can't ban anyone from the HOF. 3. If many in the media are to be believed, steroids were rampant. They are usually a problem because they give players an unfair advantage, but if everyone's using, then you get no more of an unfair advantage than lifting weights. This means that the records are still important because while batters may have been juiced, so were pitchers. 4. it is unfair to give players a penalty that they did not know they would face. It's like if when you got a speeding ticket, the policeman said "oh yeah, and by the way, you're also going to jail for the next 10 years". If you had known about the jail time, you wouldn't speed, the case for baseball is similar. If you want to add new rules that say records will be removed, that's fine, but doing it retroactively is unfair. 5. under your proposal, if I accidentally am injected by my trainer once with a steroid and never use again, I lose my HOF record. That would be absurd. onto your points: 1. "anyone who used steroids cheated and cheaters shouldn't be awarded by being allowed into the HOF". I answer this above, but additionally, it does depends on waht record they broke. Steroids don't really help you improve batting average or fielding percentages for example. 2. "Do we really want our kids to look up to someone who used steroids to get ahead? what does that teach our kids" The incident will teach kids whatever parents decide to teach them. Removing HOF awards to help "teach kids" is absurd. Run PAs or something, don't give unforeseen consequences to players. 3. "it creates a deterrent for not using them instead of just a suspension". The current system does a fine job of being a deterrent. People who use will get caught and they will not play anymore. | CON | 7996458e-2019-04-18T19:55:44Z-00006-000 |
School kills creativity. That may be true for some teachers, but not all teachers are as lenient when it comes to creativity. Teachers may let the students make suggestion but that does not mean that they will use them during the assignment. All teachers want is the work done on time and done correctly and they do not want their students goofing around when they should be hard at work. | PRO | f3c9793-2019-04-18T17:32:38Z-00002-000 |
sex ofender registry. Thanks for the topic, Con. I"m sure this will prove to be an interesting and informative debate. For the sake of clarity in this debate, let"s agree to define sex offender as "generic term for all persons convicted of crimes involving sex, including rape, molestation, sexual harassment and pornography production or distribution" (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...). My opponent has stated by his position on this debate that he is against sex offender registry. However, as we see almost immediately in his first round, he only really disagrees with what is considered as a sex crime. There is certainly a large gap between the concept of ensuring sex offenders of my above definition are registered and the flaw in our current legal system"s interpretation of what is a sex crime. To win this debate, my opponent must show that sex offender registry is intrinsically corrupt, not just that we need minor legal reform. | PRO | eba08afe-2019-04-18T16:13:51Z-00003-000 |
An agnostic is also an atheist. I understand what you are saying. I agree that by these definitions an agnostic can be an atheist. I will say this is not always the case. In the very first round you admitted that there are agnostic atheists and agnostic christians. By admitting this you discounted the entire premise we were arguing. From there on out you tried to prove how and atheist is an agnostic and not how an agnostic is an atheist. You have condemned me for making generalizations and then proceed yourself to make generalizations. I accept that an agnostic can be an atheist but I do not accept that they are. It would have been easier if the premise had been that an atheist is also and agnostic. | CON | 929848d6-2019-04-18T16:27:07Z-00000-000 |
Their Should be Open Borders. Framework for Debate: This will be a policy style debate. I am prepared to defend all aspects of my plan which is Resolved: The United States should create a default presumption in favor of admission for legal immigration that requires very strict scrutiny to override and eliminate existing caps and quotas for legal immigration The Order is as follows Aff 1st (framework for debate) Neg 1st (Confirmation) Aff 2nd (First Aff Constructive) Neg 2nd (First Neg Constructive) Aff 3rd (Second Aff Constructive) Neg 3rd (Second Neg Constructive) Aff 4th (Affirmative Rebuttal) Neg 4th (Negative Rebuttal) No Entirely New Arguments May be brought up during rebuttals. Cite your sources/cards Make sure your arguments have warrants. No counterplans Have fun! | PRO | 2c8b55d7-2019-04-18T11:24:02Z-00001-000 |
Sexiest Music Videos. http://www.youtube.com...My next video is "Promiscuous" by Nelly Furtado featuring Timbaland. It takes place in a club and the primary focus of the video are the dance scenes. Lyrics Sample ow you doin’ young ladyThat feelin’ that you givin’ really drives me crazyYou don’t have to play about the jokeI was at a loss of words first time that we spokeYou're looking for a girl that’ll treat you rightYou lookin’ for her in the day time with the lightYou might be the type if I play my cards rightI'll find out by the end of the night[N:] You expect me to just let you hit itBut will you still respect me if you get itAll I can do is try, gimme one chanceWhat’s the problem I don’t see no ring on your handI be the first to admit it, I’m curious about you, you seem so innocent[N:] You wanna get in my world, get lost in itBoy I’m tired of running, lets walk for a minute | CON | e80d0c74-2019-04-18T18:31:28Z-00002-000 |
Co-ops are a successful model for health insurance. Edmund Haislmaier, et al. "Health care co-operatives: doing it the right way". Heritage Foundation. June 18, 2009: "The co-op concept is also longstanding and widespread in the insurance sector, where it is known as a "mutual" insurance company. Thus, such large well-known companies as Mutual of Omaha and Northwestern Mutual Life are in fact cooperatives. There are also successful smaller, niche-market mutual insurers, such as Church Mutual (which offers lines of property, casualty, and liability coverage for member religious institutions) and Jeweler's Mutual (which offers similar coverage lines for members engaged in making or selling jewelry). [...] When it comes to health care, a group that "organizes" coverage provided by insurers could be structured as a co-op, and a company that provides insurance could also be structured as a co-op. Both could be present in the same market." | PRO | 4becd7cd-2019-04-17T11:47:29Z-00074-000 |
Atheism is problematic. For the purposes of this debate "Atheism" will be defined in two categories: Moral Atheism- objections to the existence of God when relating to moral issues i. e. , gay rights, women's rights, all things therein related to the problem of evil Scientific Atheism- objections to God when relating to scientific evidence. My argument is predicated one one point with several sub points. 1. One cannot be both a moral and scientific atheist. This is because: A. Moral Atheism doesn't actually exist. Moral atheists like to cast blame on God for evil in the world. "Why would a loving and just God allow evil into the world? " This question supposes that God does exist. Atheism is the denial of God's existence. Moral Atheism is therefore contradictory. A1. The moral atheist cannot define evil Moral Atheism supposes that morality is subjective, yet often condemns people with a different set of moral codes. In order to blame God for evil, there must be a consensus on what is defined as evil yet the moral atheist cannot adequately define evil because he cannot support his definition with an original point. B. Scientific Atheism contradicts moral atheism This point is far more simple. Simply put, how can you cast blame for evil on something you claim doesn't exist? Conclusion: atheism, be it a blend of moral and scientific atheism, or either individually, is far more irrational than a belief in God This debate is Atheism is problematic, therefore my opponent, whoever you may be, must refute every claim I made in order to win. Any argument made by my opponent claiming religion is problematic, will be considered a strawman and thus ignored. | PRO | d27c9efb-2019-04-18T12:04:28Z-00001-000 |
Being slim is desired in the society. Your physical appearance generates options and sets ones value... Recent scientific research makes clear that some of us are biologically inclined to overeat, but that the inclination varies, depending on our environment. Slimness as the symbol of beauty is chauvinistic. In many parts of the world being fat means prosperity and fertility. The round belly implies physical stability and economic sufficiency. Promoting one particular type of body image is also dangerous; anorexia among young girls is a serious problem. | CON | 86362978-2019-04-19T12:46:42Z-00017-000 |
A less known composer such as Dvorak should be considered as great as a composer such as Mozart. Hello, I am for this argument. The majority of people in the world (excluding the countries of Africa) have most likely heard of one of the great composers and one of their pieces e.g. W.A.Mozart- Symphony no.40 in G Minor. Mozart is someone who is considered a musical genius who was a prodigy and had wrote over 500 pieces of music. This is the reason why someone like this is considered a Great Composer. I believe that someone such as Dvorak should receive more credit for his works which I consider to be highly influential to early modern Classical music. In my opinion, you are not a great composer for writing 500 pieces of music, but for the quality of that music.To compare these two example composers. I emplore that you listen to a piece of music from each of these composer e.g symphony no.40(Mozart) - scherzo cappriciouso/ Slavonic Dance no.2 ( Dvorak). | PRO | f61dfe22-2019-04-18T16:25:43Z-00005-000 |
It wasn't the flaws of capitalism that caused the crisis. The current crisis was created by the housing bubble, which was created by the US Federal Reserve flooding the market with cheap money by lowering interest rates. Since money on the current system is not required to be backed by any physical thing (as was once with gold-backed money) but is just a number in central banks' computers, the low interest rates resulted in over-borrowing and reliance on unsustainable debt. In a truly capitalistic system, as that enjoyed by the US until the 30's, no body was able to decide unilaterally as to the value of money - people valued it for what they valued the equivalent amount of gold; hence, the description of capitalism as the creator of the latest crisis is wrong, and the crisis should instewad be attributed to state interference with people's judgement. | PRO | 9509b4a4-2019-04-19T12:47:13Z-00010-000 |
You Cannot Objectively Know Which Religion Is True (if any). It is possible to know (although I myself do not), if one were, for instance, to time travel back to the beginning of the universe and observe creation. Another way would be to access God (if he does exist) and ask him. Neither of these is possible with current technology, but could be possible in the future. Also, even assuming that "people always have the same religion as their parents" (source?), this has nothing to do with our abilities to find the true religion (although I do not believe there is any). | CON | e1c8e8b7-2019-04-18T17:13:55Z-00006-000 |
Youth shoplifting is still stealing!. Shoplifting is stealing.If you take some guys stuff, that is considered stealing.There should not be any difference regarding children, as the same exact act has been committed.Let's look at it this way. If I am adult who eats pie, the action is "eating pie". If a kid is doing that same action, it is called and regarded as the same action -- as eating pie.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I was robbed a few months back, he stole stuff from me. The police report said that he had stole from me, and from this basis (that he stole stuff from me via robbery), he went and served his punishment.I see no reason why youth shoplifting should not be considered stealing. Because if you are stealing, you are taking something away without their agreeement to the exchange. If a youth is doing the same thing, it is considered stealing. Basic vocabulary. Thank you. | PRO | afa35d87-2019-04-18T18:02:04Z-00001-000 |
Should special needs kids get believed if they say that someone did something to them. I think that if special needs kids say that some random person called them a name and they just believe them, thats baloney, the person/people that were told about it should actually go and investigate and ask people that were at the scene when it happened( if someone and/or some people there) but the school that I go to, when a mental or maniac kid that makes noises and/or hits or screams like hell in the hallways when people are trying to learn and they think in their stupid head that "oh, I THINK that someone made fun of me, but since im special they'll believe me no matter what". Thats bogus I think that they should actually investigate before they start playing the freaking blame game like "oh, he/she said that you said this to him/her, and shes special needs, so youre in trouble now". Well i got couple words to say "SCREW SPECIAL NEEDS KIDS, THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE REAL WORLD IS LIKE, if they GOT BUILLED THEN THEY SHOULD INVESTIGATE WHAT HAPPENED LIKE THEY WOULD WITH ANY OTHER NORMAL KID THAT REPORTS SOMETHING LIKE THAT | CON | 12feb715-2019-04-18T14:16:08Z-00003-000 |
Abortion. You misunderstand my point on opt-in and opt-out organ donation systems, it has nothing to do with my point on abortion. I was simply trying to explain that in your example of Human A and Human B, it is almost impossible for Human A to only have one possible donor, or for all their possible donors to reject donating a kidney. If your brother is so horrible that even your mother or father would not donate their one of their kidneys, he has probably committed numerous unforgivable felonies, or you exagerrate. If the former is true, I could understand why you don't see him as a part of your family. Your third point confuses me, do you mean to say that people who have registered their organs in an organ bank but simply do not want to donate them? Again, my first paragraph outlines why your example is impossible so doesn't apply to the debate on abortion. When a baby is born, it needs at least one parent or guardian to live, it cannot live on its own. A newborn child can be sent to an orphanage to new parents, similar to an unborn child. There will be an emotional cost, but this is unfortunately unavoidable. This brings me to another point, adoption. If a parent cannot raise a child, another family will always want to help. Why must we punish the unborn child for doing nothing wrong, other than existing in the way of the woman's comfort? Adoption is a much better solution to abortion, it comes at much less of an emotional cost and you are not unfairly punishing an unborn child. | CON | b18762fc-2019-04-18T12:35:24Z-00002-000 |
Racist's are ignorant and are purely stupid. Ignorant: lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned Pure:being that and nothing else Stupid: lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull. There are many people who were racists and very smart. Abraham Lincoln for instance, many people think him not a racists, yet he was. He was yet a very smart man. You are right about most of their arguments not making since, but they still have an argument. I am currently in a debate where my opponent is. .. shall we say, no we shouldn't say anything. But the point is that his argument's are crazy. Though this man's arguments are crazy, he seems like a ery logical man. I look forward to my opponents response. | CON | 1e79e18e-2019-04-18T19:09:07Z-00004-000 |
Reaganomics worked. if you want to argue that we should have gone through reaganomics even if it meant us going into debt, in order to squash the communists etc, sure whatever. but that doesn't mean we should do, as your thesis seems to suggest, reaganomics in order to maximize our economic returns as a society. the reason youve not shown this is because all youve argued is the communist thing, and not how reaganmics are better than other alternatives, or that the debt is worth it in general if we dont have communist issues. if you cant show these things, and you havent even attempted ot argue it... it's highly misleading and basically wrong to think reaganomics "worked" | CON | 876f4fd6-2019-04-18T17:24:41Z-00004-000 |
Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player ever. Even if the skill set is as good, (I assume that this is your own opinion), the entire game has changed. An MSNCB Sports writer says, "There is no resemblance between the game of the 1960s and 1970s and the game of today."{1} So comparisons between the past and the present are impossible, and therefore, determining the best player is impossible. In addition, Federer is not as good one current player: Nadal. Federer has lost to Nadal in 9 out of their 15 matches. Writer Greg Couch summarizes, "You cannot be the best player ever if you can't beat your rival."{2} Clearly, Federer is not the greatest of all time. 1}http://soundingoff.msnbc.msn.com... 2}http://tennis.fanhouse.com... | CON | 79c4c4df-2019-04-18T19:22:48Z-00002-000 |