argument
stringlengths 201
3.55k
| stance
stringclasses 2
values | id
stringlengths 36
39
|
|---|---|---|
Mass Refutation Debate #1. Ah well, I digress; here is my next batch. Good luck. P1: Men who think about having sex with other men on a daily basis are probably homosexual. P2: My opponent does not think about having sex with other men on a daily basis. C: Therefore, my opponent is probably not homosexual. P1: It is possible for paper to be flammable. P2: Origami cranes are made of paper. C: Therefore, it is possible for an origami crane to be flammable. P1: buckIPDA is Pro in this debate. P2: DakotaKrafick is Con in this debate. C: Therefore, buckIPDA and DakotaKrafick are debating each other. P1: Yahweh only performs morally good acts. P2: Yahweh murdered people. C: Therefore, murdering people is a morally good act. P1: The definite description "that sandwich which it is not conceivable for another to be tastier" is understood. P2: "that sandwich which it is not conceivable for another to be tastier" refers to that sandwich which it is not conceivable for another to be tastier. P3: The concept of whatever sandwich a definite description refers to has existence-in-the-understanding. P4: It is conceivable that a sandwich is tastier than anything that lacks a tasty-making property that it conceivably has. P5: Existence-in-reality is a tasty-making property. P6: Any sandwich the concept of which has existence-in-the-understanding conceivably has existence-in-reality. P7: It is not conceivable that a sandwich is tastier than that sandwich which it is not conceivable for another to be tastier. C: Therefore, that sandwich which it is not conceivable for another to be tastier exists-in-reality. | CON | 62101f98-2019-04-18T18:28:15Z-00004-000 |
mandatory vaccination. Forcing people to get vaccinated is uncostitutional, and should ALWAYS be your choice. Even though all that stuff you said is mostly true we can never force people. Some people just flat out believe vaccinations are bad, if they don't want them then that's fine. Most people get vaccinated anyway, the only thing this law would help to do is prevent a small amount of people from not getting vaccinated. | CON | 1638c88b-2019-04-18T11:51:25Z-00003-000 |
Public insurance option is a reasonable compromise. The public insurance option is a compromise between the very prominent extremes of those that want the continuation of the status quo - with solely private insurance companies in charge of health care - and those that advocate for a single-payer system, in which insurance companies simply cease to exist. It is therefore, unreasonable to argue that such a half-way compromise (that concedes the possibility of destroying the insurance industry altogether with a single-payer system) goes to far. It is a reasonable compromise that should not be seen as a deal-breaker by opponents of government programs. | PRO | 4e63160a-2019-04-17T11:47:29Z-00182-000 |
I Don't Exist. Pro shall argue that I do not exist. Con shall argue that I do exist. Con, upon accepting this debate, is accepting the primary burden of proof. Con has these burdens: 1. Give a reasonable explanation why the arguments of this debate should be based on probability rather than certainty. 2. Upon providing burden 1, prove that it is probable that I do exist. This will happen if Con does not accomplish the burdens: 1: If Con provides a lousy argument(by discretion of the voter) explaining why the debate should be based off of probability rather than certainty then it will have to be assumed that my existence is uncertain and thus Con loses. (Normally, there would be a new burden for Con to prove that my existence is certain but since the integrity of Con's explanation is judged after the debate this can't be done) 2: Con may provide a reasonable explanation why the debate should be based on probability rather than on certainty but if Con does not prove that it is probable I exist then Con loses. The debate shall have this lay-out: Round 1, Pro: Intro/rules Round 1, Con: Burden 1. Round 2, Pro: Rebuttal to burden 1. Round 2, Con: Burden 2 Round 3, Pro: Rebuttal to burden 2 Round 3, Con: No arguments may be posted; short closing statement. This is essentially a 2 round debate but it is expected to be difficult and highly semantical. If either Pro or Con forfeit a single round, besides Con's closing statement, it is an automatic loss. Definition of I: The entity who started this debate. Definition of entity: Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit. These definitions are clear and do not need any further definitions of words in them; Con may not present any. | PRO | e7a5db9f-2019-04-18T18:58:13Z-00005-000 |
Students shouldnt have homework. As I recently stated homework is something to do as help not just as the perfect grade. It is done to understand a topic and not kill yourself. Also, essays can easily be done in advance spaced out through a week rather than doing it the night before. Stressing about homework and sleep is due to a students inability to take time on their assignments and spread the work out over a course of a week or more. | CON | 7de56526-2019-04-18T15:10:01Z-00004-000 |
Ask yourself this... It is not the same situation because time has passed also there's marginal diminishing utility:You'll get tired of apples/cakes at some point therefore opting for the other. The author of the 'yes' point has signposted successfully, the major topics of such a debate on free will and determinism and for this the author should be highly rewarded. However it should be noted and the author of the previous no point did so only abiguously, that because time progresses or it changes in some way then because of this the situation 'of choosing the cake' at one point can never be repeated. But also on the atomic or quantum scale, the molecular structure of such a space in which you chose the cake has changed i.e. your cells have changed, the particle energies of the cake hath changed. Thus in reality (by reality i merely that world in which we perceive that is not the thought experiment) we can never repeat a situtation and thus we can never prove that if it was repeated one will choose differently. Correct me if my intepretation on your 'individual stance on the issue' is wrong, i feel that basically your argument can be stripped down to two fundamental propositions; 1) Our actions are either determined by our physical self, by external motion 2) after we are determined we could have chosen otherwise. My argument will refute the first proposition, and my agument is such... Imagine the cake situation there are two cakes. The probality of choosing either is 50/50 , now what makes the choice occur i.e. what actual physical occurence or event determines such a choice between two cakes? If the universe does eveything that can happen then that person chooses both in alternate dimensions, therefore probality determined the choice thus the universe needed to fulfill every possibility. If anything but choice determines our actions then our actions essentially mean nothing if the other action is acted our simultaneously. This only occurs when the universe determines our actions. How do we avoid this problem ? we say that it is the mind that chooses. The mind chooses one of the cakes by any criterion, and thus if we assume the mind to be metaphysical then the universe will not have to simulate every possiblity. Thus we can choose otherwise. Thus our actions are products of choice. (this stance is not my stance on the case, i feel that it was an interesting stance to take) | CON | d5d8984a-2019-04-19T12:45:53Z-00005-000 |
Governments have to be aware of the implications for national security and immigration of an increase in student visas. There are already laws in place to deal with both of these difficulties. If students are on a student visa they are, generally, not allowed to work. Equally there are security measures in place to prevent acts of terrorism. The problems with non-nationals illegally entering the workforce is more easily dealt with in the case of university students as the university itself has reliable methods of knowing whether someone is actually acting as a student on the basis of whether or not work is being completed. On this logic countries would also have to seriously reduce tourism – a far more common method of immigrating illegally than student visas. | CON | 4566fc90-2019-04-15T20:22:23Z-00014-000 |
Violent videos games lead to aggression in individuals. "I would like to include that I am not suggesting a correlation between video games and violent acts, such as murder. The supporting and dissenting evidence, regarding this subject, is lacking, so I will not make such an empty claim. " -So let me get this straight. You say you aren't claiming that violent video games cause or even correlate with aggression in individuals. .. it it just me or is that a forfeit in disguise? "Repeated and long terms exposure exposure to violent video games cause aggressive arousal by a number of physiological and hormonal cues. This effect does wear off after a period of time. " -As is the same with porn and horror movies. The physiological effects are temporary. Thus, my opponent has once again admitted that violent video games do not lead to more violent people in real life. *Basically as of now, my opponent has only shown that playing violent video games invoke physiological responses, which in themselves don't show much. He has admitted to saying that it eventually dies down (usually in less than a hour), and that there is no correlation or causal link between violent video games and aggression in individuals. | CON | 57fa1b03-2019-04-18T19:37:09Z-00002-000 |
Death Penalty. To keep thing's balanced I will refute my opponent's claim's in the next round and put forward my argument. Good luck! Should be an interesting debate. I've been pondering this issue for quite some time, and have changed my mind on it recently, having been Pro before. I look forward to round 2. If there is any particular structure, or any key area's you wish to address, just state so when posting round 2. All the best. | CON | a490c87e-2019-04-18T19:03:46Z-00006-000 |
United Nations peacekeepers should have the power to engage in offensive operations. This is a debate regarding the full utilization of our assets in the fight against evil. This is a debate where one side clearly and consistently advocated for a reasonable reform of giving authority to armed men to do what's right. This is a debate that the Pro side has won. We've seen the competing impacts. We've seen what happens to people when those we trust to keep the peace aren't given the authority to do their jobs. And we've seen what happens when they are given this authority--FT never had anything to say on the example of the Congo, a vindication of my side. An army should not stand idly by as civilians die. Don't let them. | PRO | c6bb40f0-2019-04-18T14:11:11Z-00000-000 |
Once a cheater Always a cheater. Thanks for the debate, Pro. It took me all night to read Pro's last round. I'll still respond to Pro's objections. Let's end this. *Responding to Pro* Pro reasons: "Yeah but if you cheat on a math test, you still cheated on a match test. " My response: Aside from the unexplained concept of a "match test" this doesn't make any sense at all within this debate. People who use cheaters on a *math* test are just trying to read the test items more clearly, and this does not make the people themselves a pair of glasses; it makes them resourceful test-takers. Cheaters are a pair of glasses per the accepted definitions of this debate no matter how people perform on tests. Therefore, things that were once cheaters aren't always cheaters, because pairs of glasses can be melted down into other things and Pro never touched on this. | CON | 326020a1-2019-04-18T11:42:12Z-00000-000 |
Gum chewing should be allowed in school. Counter Argument 4: At my school, there are Closed-Circuit Monitoring, and teachers walking down the halls everyday, therefore invalidating your Counter Argument. Argument 5: Chewing gum (surprisingly) helps with respiration by producing Oxygen and disposes Carbon Dioxide. Closing: You shouldn't have to be required to suffer mental, respiratory, and/or digestive problems. You should be allowed to chew gum in school. | PRO | 570d007-2019-04-18T16:07:43Z-00000-000 |
President Obama is a Socialist. Resolve: President Obama is a socialist This is the third time I have attempted a debate on this subject. The last two times my opponents have forfeited for one reason or another. I would really like to debate someone who not only believes that President Obama is a socialist, but will actually complete the debate in its entirety. Clarification: This debate is not about support for or criticism of the President, just as the resolve states this debate is about whether or not President Obama fits the definition of a Socialist. pro will argue that President Obama is a Socialist Con will argue that President Obama is not a Socialist. Definition of terms: Socialism: "A way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies"(1) Socialist: "A person who believes in socialism"(2) Format Round 1: Con: acceptance and definitions Pro: acceptance and opening argument. Round 2: Pro/Con arguments and rebuttals. Round 3: Pro/Con arguments and rebuttals. Round 4: Rebuttals and closing statements, No new arguments. This does give pro and extra round... good luck to whoever accepts. (1)http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2)http://www.merriam-webster.com... | CON | 63d29637-2019-04-18T15:45:50Z-00005-000 |
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at the same time. 1. The definition of love was defined in premise no.1, which you have agreed on. A person can have strong desires for connection with more than 1 person, for example, it may happen that one of the partners die, so eventually the widow or widower will find another partner and may experience the same feelings as he or she had with the previous partner. Simultaneously, you have that same desire for 2 people at the same time. 2. Infinity love is never guaranteed to anyone. One of the partners cheats on you, as a matter of fact you decide to leave him/her. But the fact that you left him or her doesn’t mean that you don’t love him anymore. You are still in love with that person. Meanwhile, you meet someone else and you fall in love with this person. So, it is the same form of love. 3. Past or present love is still called love. It will never change the meaning, name, time or form of love. I mean, the feeling that you have for someone, not the past or present tense but term love. 4. Many religious believe in polygamy, and according to polygamy all wives must be treated and loved equally. If a man would love only one wife could get married to only her but not to another 2-3 more wives, so that is not the case. So they get married to more than 1 wife and they do share the same love to all of them equally. 5. Infidelity means to have sex with another person, beside your wife. Cheating on your wife doesn’t mean that your unhappy or unsatisfied sexually. It may happen that the partner is addicted to sex, that is why you feel love for your mistress too. 6. While your argument can be true, I still have to disagree. Not all partners in open relationships do agree on a romantic or intimate relationship with another person is tolerated. 7. Therefore, it is possible to love more than 1 person at the same time | PRO | a6beadec-2019-04-18T15:18:50Z-00005-000 |
A ban may make the problem worse. When thinking of the good of society as a whole as the government should be it is better to have a tiny segment of the population suffer such effects than all young women. Should the model industry be unwilling to change and become reliant on those who are going to extremes to make themselves thin the government can take action against anything that may seem like pressurising young women to ensure equality between body sizes. But most important would be the response of readers. With a ban readers would be empowered to reject images of very thin models and demand a broader range. As readers begin to demand the pictures in the media reflect society so the model industry will respond to match those expectations rather than risk losing readership and revenue. | CON | 2fb5f5cb-2019-04-15T20:24:51Z-00016-000 |
U.S.A. should stop selling firearms and change the gun law. Lets first say this, Guns do not kill people, People kill people. So the reason you are posting this is that your saying that guns are used in crime and to kill. So next thing they should do is ban knives, forks, pencils, pens, because all of those can be heals against someone to either kill or injure someone severely. "I ask you this, where did the guns came from?" The guns come from out of country sources, I don't know how much you know about this type of things but any gun can be traced back to its original buyer and they catch him, then get him to tell them where there guy is. Just like drugs they don't buy them from stores they get them for out of country sources. Lets just restate, guns don't kill people, the person having the gun kills the person. Guns aren't dangerous at all if used properly. Also, guns are used as self defence across the nation. I'm ending my discussion by saying guns have been around for decades and decades, people are going to kill other people, whether it be shooting, beating, stabbing, drawing, ext. Removing guns WILL NOT stop crime, they will just resort to knives and such. Also, its our constitutional right. I believe I have won but it is up to the voters. | CON | 92a91ae6-2019-04-18T19:02:42Z-00000-000 |
The Beast of Yucca Flats is the worst movie of all time. I will be arguing that the movie "The Beast of Yucca Flats" is the single worst movie ever made. My opponent must be able to watch this movie, hopefully with the aid of mystery science theater for the good of his own sanity, and have the recourse to find it. If you are unable to watch the movie, do not accept! First round is for acceptance and issue of the rebuttal film title that is considered worse and to give time for my opponent to watch the film. Comment section will be used to ensure that the rebuttal film is findable and can be watched by Pro. Second round is for summing up the plot for the voters and explaining why it is the worst movie ever made. Third round is for rebuttal. I look forward to watching your nomination for worst movie of all time | PRO | c009e278-2019-04-18T18:33:26Z-00004-000 |
Rap Battle - Perussi vs. CosmoJarvis. What are you? Some parrot or other brainless bird?Why are you resorting to regurgitating my words?Truly, you're nothing but an amateur.Are you trying to offend me?Because all I'm feeling is a tad bit sleepy.See, listen here, Jack.You give me sh*t, I'll just serve it right back. So maybe once you learn to rap, I'll give a quack. | CON | 2dea1c51-2019-04-18T12:27:44Z-00002-000 |
Wealth and laziness. I will say in my personal opinion people who live on welfare are rich in s sense. I believe it was my lead then wealthy up bringing that made me a better worker. I've had a job since I was 14 worked 32hrs a week by the time I was 16. (Not trying to brag) I worked hard because of I wanted anything including good I had to. Where as a wealthier parent can simply but their kids what that want. I also think wealthier kids to better in school because they don't have to work but that's a different debate. | PRO | 9b47c7ab-2019-04-18T13:35:31Z-00001-000 |
Think about it. The second amendment is no longer applicable to modern life. The second amendment reads ""the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"". The Second Amendment protects an individuals right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes. Yes self-defence is included, but also recreational purposes such as hunting, and target shooting, with over 40 million people participating in such recreational activities in the USA it is highly relevant. | CON | f22c90b3-2019-04-18T17:43:03Z-00002-000 |
Americas second amendment. The problem with your argument is that it's based on 18th century logic. Your entire point seems to be drawing a parallel from the American Revolution to now. During the American Revolution, the government and the "rebels" were relatively equally armed. It was muskets and cannons against muskets and cannons. It was reasonable for a sufficient number of rebels to stand a chance against the government. You can make a case that the Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment for the reason of overthrowing a tyrannical government for the simple fact that they couldn't envision Predator drones. Your entire argument is also predicated on organizing as you put it "hundreds of thousands, if not millions" of civilians with assault rifles. Problem: there's no way you can keep that kind of operation under cover. No matter how you coordinate it, the NSA, CIA, FBI etc. will have you under surveillance long before you make any traction. https://www.eff.org... http://www.washingtonsblog.com... https://www.washingtonpost.com... I could go on for a long time citing stories of the government spying on us. Bottom line, long before you got a significant number of "soldiers" together the military capabilities I mentioned in Round 1 would brought to bear against you. Your conclusion states that "if it becomes tyrannical and we try to launch a coup or rebellion we would fail going up against the most advanced military in the world with hunting rifles and such." This is the basic point of your argument, and in order to make it you need to show convincing evidence that the difference between a "hunting rifle" and an "assault rifle" would make a significant difference in going up against "the most technologically advanced military in the world" (using all your terms). You have cited no evidence, statistics, studies, articles, anything to support this thesis. We could substitute "foreign invader" for "tyrannical government" and the arguments would remain the same. Probably not germane to the debate, but the reason I despise this argument is it's a red herring. If you REALLY want to do something about the tyrannical central government, spend less time worrying about your AR-15 and more time supporting politicians who will defend the Constitution against the excesses of the current trajectory of the executive branch. | CON | 86b35000-2019-04-18T12:59:54Z-00000-000 |
Rap/Poetry Battle. Hmm...it appears that during his turn, my opponent: A. Accused me of plagiarism, which is a rather serious accusation. If so, then I ask him to prove this allegation. Google the lyrics to"Pants" and see if the boot fits. B. Claimed that my work of art (regardless of how bad it was) was little more than a rant. If so, then I ask him to elaborate how it was a rant. I intended for it to be humorous. If my opponent sees it as racist then perhaps he does not appreciate politically incorrect humor. That having been said, I will compose my second rap song for this debate. "Life in Da Big Apple" By Anthony Rodriguez I'm a human nocturnal, I'm an unliteral night owl Ima sleepa in da day and I rest inda city's bowels But at night da bear awakens and everything's mine for da taking Cause when yo black and da' night is too you've got somethin' hip in da making Cause yo see My skin's da perfect camouflage in da darkness of da night Yeah da people are my subjects as long as I stay out of da light I wander 'round da city and dey don't know cause it's too hard To notice in da dark dat dere's a black man in deir car Yeah I can snatch their purses, I can steal from their grocery bags And dey don't know I'm dere cause I'm invisible and yes I means to brags But it ain't like Is gots a choice cause somebody they stoles my clothes But I like it dis way, cause my power it only grows Cause yo see My skin's da perfect camouflage in da darkness of da night Yeah da people are my subjects as long as I stay out of da light I wander 'round da city and dey don't know cause it's too hard To notice in da dark dat dere's a black man in deir car I'm da city legend, I've stolen from a hundred wimps Da police dey's don't knows where to looks cause nobody's ever ever caught a glimpse Yeah I've stolen money, Coca-Cola too And if ya go to New York den who knows I just might steal from you But I must admit dat da thug life ain't brought me joy dat comes through famly an' friends I ain't got nobody to care if I meet an extremely painful end It's a lonely life, it's a costly life, my soul is wracked with guilt and shame And in da end I ain't got nobody except for myself to blame Cause yo see My skin's da perfect camouflage in da darkness of da night Yeah da people are my subjects as long as I stay out of da light I wander 'round da city and dey don't know cause it's too hard To notice in da dark dat dere's a black man in deir car I wander...I wander...I wander... | PRO | c3acb097-2019-04-18T16:01:53Z-00003-000 |
Shanks is the strongest character in the One Piece Anime/Manga. Now for my rebuttals. Contention 1: It takes years to master the powers of a Devil FruitDoes that really matter? You don't need to master your devil fruits just to fight with them. His Yami Yami no mi is considered unique, even for a Logia type, and his second devil fruit, the Gura Gura no mi, has been widely regarded as the strongest Paramecia devil fruit. Even after training for 3 years you can still be extremely strong. Contention 2: Shank’s Raw Physical power is immenseWhy did Mihawk stop having daily duels with Shanks? Because he lost interest after Shanks lost his arm. This means that his physical powers have lowered considerably.Shanks sword, according to the wiki, looks bigger than a regular saber. This means that there is a possibility it was specially made. Contention 3: Strongest Haki in the One Piece WorldRight now, I'm going to try to prove that the person with the stronges Haki is Rayleigh, not Shanks, because I know Blackbeard doesn't have it. This is just to prove that Shanks doesn't have the strongest Haki. 1. The auction house- Rayleigh's haki was able to knock out everyone at the auction house, and pick out some people still standing. He was also able to check which monsters on the island he was training with Luffy in were stronger than Luffy.2.Redirecting Kizaru's attack- Kizaru was in Full Motion! This also proves that he has Busosoku Haki. Kizaru was coming straight at Zoro, and then... Rayleigh comes in. He redirects Kizaru's lightspeed kick like it was nothing.3.Rayleigh's sword- Rayleigh's sword is a straight-bladed sword, and has no remarkable qualities, just like Shank's.Shanks has had 10 years of training? Rayleigh has had over 30. Contention 4: Blackbeard himself stated that he was not ready to face ShanksThere has been a 2-year timeskip. Like you yourself have stated before, just because one person is more powerful than another at one time, it doesn't mean they are still at the same power after. | CON | 2be71b4f-2019-04-18T15:53:06Z-00001-000 |
Russia's inventions vs. ______'s inventions. You know what I meant by oil. You know, how everything was lit by oil lamps until the lightbulb. Lots of that oil came from whales... The Gatling Gun - Dr.Richard J. Gatling- 1861- This gun was the first rapid fire gun, setting the path for modernized machine guns. https://www.princeton.edu... The Tesla Coil - Nikola Tesla - 1891- The Tesla coil produced a high voltage, alternating low current that is still used today in AC adapters and other machines. http://en.wikipedia.org... Kevlar - Stephanie Kwolek - 1966 - The durable fabric was used to protect American soldiers in battle, and replaced steel in racing tires. http://inventors.about.com... | CON | 3a4ba4cd-2019-04-18T16:14:14Z-00002-000 |
The most critical consideration for extending the generally accepted age of retirement to a mandator... There is no medical evidence to confirm that person’s over the age of 65 are either infirm or incapable. In the professions such as law and medicine where this law would take effect, there are safeguards to identify malpractice or incompetence, and these are far better dealt with on an individual basis according to individual health and fitness, rather than punishing those healthy capable individuals who wish to work beyond this age. | CON | a81aa0ff-2019-04-19T12:47:01Z-00005-000 |
Nintendo is the greatest developer in the world. When someone first thinks of videogames, they might think of Halo or GTA but what really comes universally to everyones minds is Mario. He has graced nintendo consoles since the 80's and with the release of Super Mario Galaxy, he has shown the world that he is still on top. Sure, Rockstar has made Grand Theft Auto and Bungie made Halo but what other great games have they made? Nintendo has created so many different franchises that are still considered great today. Some examples would be Metroid, Donkey Kong, Super Smash Bros., and of course Zelda. They also have the current slots for the best video games of all time which are generally Zelda Ocarina Of Time and Super Mario Brothers. There has never been a single developer to accomplish so much. Along with this evey single game that nintendo has put out has always been considered very good or great (exception being Mario Party). Nintendo is the pinnacle achievement of the gaming industry. | PRO | 512adde-2019-04-18T19:44:05Z-00005-000 |
Pick your own debate!. …. The resolution resolved: 9/11 is a conspiracy theory isn't even in the issues section (unless I'm blind)… But I'll take a crack at the pro side just for the hell of it. noun, plural -cies. 1. the act of agreeing to work together toward the same result or goal 2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot. 3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government. 4. Law . an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act. 5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result. http://dictionary.reference.com.... Considering that there were multiple terrorists who got together and developed a plan were 19 hijackers would go to America learn to fly and hijack 4 airplanes, and then crash those airplanes into buildings I'd say that it was a conspiracy. Bin Laden and his second in command and 19 terrorists got together and conspired to attack America. It would be absurd to say that those 19 hijackers all decided to hijack those plans on the same day, in the same way without first devising them plan amongst themselves. | PRO | ffcf93d6-2019-04-18T18:36:12Z-00007-000 |
Anabolic Steroids Should be Legalized for Professional Athletes. I would have to disagree with you there. You are correct that steroids is getting a free 48 hour workout, and that is precisely why it should be legalized. From what I see in your argument, you are saying that it is about having the skill through practice. In a professional sports team, it is all about getting into the championships or the playoffs or whatever the finals are. Sports are not about leveling the playing field. In all sports, everyone is different. There are short people, tall people, light people, heavy people. We are not going to level the field by making everyone 5' 10" and 220 lb. It just isn't going to happen. | PRO | d4cf84c8-2019-04-18T15:35:47Z-00005-000 |
Benazir Bhutto Was Most Likely Killed by Pervez Musharraf. Benazir Bhutto was likely not killed by Pervez Musharraf. I. Bhutto was killed by one of the following things, or a combination of the following things. 1. Guns shots, fired by a man in the crowd. 2. The explosion caused when the man detonated a bomb, killing himself, other people, and possibly Bhutto. 3. The Interior Ministry of Pakistan has recently claimed that Bhutto hit her head and died. http://news.bbc.co.uk... II. I advocate neither of these in particular, however, these are supported by my link. III. The topic is not whether Musharraf ordered/was involved in the killing of Benazir Bhutto, but whether Musharraf killed Bhutto. If the affirmative cannot prove reasonably that Musharraf killed Bhutto, there is no reason to vote affirmative. IV. The affirmative should not be allowed to change the topic in mid-debate. | CON | c0393f7c-2019-04-18T19:58:09Z-00004-000 |
flat tax. ok I made this debate to broad. But I will keep it as it is. Well to make my stance more clear, I belive every tax rate needs a constitutional ammendment to pass. This is so when the goverment passes lets say a 9% or a 6% tax then they cant keep raising it every time they blink. Because you 100% is imopssible anyway, and our goverment isnt that dumb to make a 100% tax at this time. I also don't see how it is immoral. Should my parents who make x amount oof money get taxed 40% and not the people a few miles away? A small tax won't be that much. Further more they use our schools, our roads, our police system, and they don't pay for it. And it wouldn't make people more poor because if the buissnses are taxed less they will be more likely to hire. EX. lets say after investments I have 1,000,000$. I own a company. Then the goverment comes and takes 50%. Or after the flat tax with an ammendment is passed I only lose 10%. Woould I be inclined to hire more with losing 50% or 10%. I would build a new factory and hire with the 10% law! Well, It is not economically sound. Obviously they have their flaws. My libatarian dad has told me some of them. But as he said "a flat tax is a lot better then the tax system we have now. It would temporarily create jobs. And if the goverment never raises the rate then it will forever be good." So even a skeptic of a flat tax thinks it will help the economy, as long as it stays the same. Also it is still economically sound because If those people with no taxes get hired then they get taxed, and can get promoted. Thats what capitilism is about. Capitilism is about freedom, work hard you get earnings, and pay for what you get. I added the last part but people need to oaay their fair share as I stated above. I still don't understand how the goverment owns our income. Is it because they set it to wherever they want? Well they do that now don't they? Just saying. A system without an income tax is terrible. Weve seen this in europe. They pass a sales tax and keep raising it. You can't really regulate raising and lowering the sales tax because the federal goverment keeps a 10% tax on goods and you state tax just keeps raising it unless the feds tell them to stop. so its 10% federal tax, 30% state tax. Wow that sounds good... not. "Not if the tax rate is 90%." once again, even though our goverment can be dumb at times, they wouldn't pass a 90% income tax. Maybe a 9% or 6%. And they can't raise it if we use my idea, ammendment. http://www.heritage.org... read this it is interesting. http://townhall.com... http://www.epinions.com... http://www.financialsamurai.com... | PRO | 4531b787-2019-04-18T18:37:54Z-00005-000 |
Gun rights. I'm so sorry con but your whole argument in round 2 is false as per you failed to cite any sources.My good friend a teacher would never have a gun on school grounds in the first place- this is only a privilege for principals. Teachers guns would be easily obtainable by children causing a risk. According to http://www.ijreview.com...:USA is 24th in murder rate of countries so we need to arm our citizens. Also John Lott, Jr. and Bill Landes say “States that allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns enjoy a 60 percent decrease in multiple-victim public shootings and a 78 percent decrease in victims per attack.” USA's Murder rate has decreased over %65 since 1973 in stride with many state's gaining gun rights.John Lott, Jr. Co-author with Bill Landes of “More Guns, Less Crime. says: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.” (Kates & Mauser, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 30, No. 2)There is a direct relationship that the more citizens have guns, the less the murder rate.Let's save our children and generation and give the the people of this world guns to protect themselves! | PRO | 691333cd-2019-04-18T16:48:33Z-00002-000 |
Should abortion be legal. Should abortion be legal? Thank you for posting this question, I actually had conversation about this subject with my sister. I also believe that abortion is morally wrong, yet we live in a country that secures too many freedoms to take away abortion. If we take away the freedom for a woman to have an abortion, anyone can make the argument to take away any other freedoms. What if someone's religion is that you must have a male be your first born (which it is in some cultures). If abortion is illegal than that would contradict the 1st amendment in the constitution saying that we must have freedom of religion. If we don't have freedom of religion than what was the purpose of the founding of this country. Most of the people left Europe to the United States for freedom of religion. As much as I think abortion is a morally wrong thing, I don't get a say to what people have a right and wrong to do. People have to have their freedoms and without abortion, some might not get religious freedom. | PRO | 83226e2e-2019-04-18T17:40:10Z-00007-000 |
The Bible is not historical fact. ' Its not just that these stories are outlandish, they are scientifically impossible '... You have to understand that these stories are miracles, even people in the bible people disbelieved in the prophets who foretold future events and performed miracles. it may be scientifically impossible for snakes to speak english because they do not possess the capability but you have to understand that these miracles were ' divine interventions ', this means they could not have happened without an interference from god It is important to note that these miracles are not 'logically impossible' so it is not like god creating a stone he can not lift or making a round triangle. These are all plausible within god's power. The rest of your argument does not follow the topic of discussion, You state that the bible was not a historical fact, then you went and starting claiming that if god exist why is there evil, then you touched on evolution etc. If you want answers to those questions , I advise you to visit here --- http://www.godandscience.org... So far you have not disproven the bible's historical accuracy, you said they are unlikely or scientifically impossible, Within god's power, they are perfectly plausible. I advise you to do more research on the bible history, so you can actually bring evidence to this debate rather than mentioning baseless opinions. | CON | 6f2e2a17-2019-04-18T14:10:54Z-00000-000 |
should we end the federal reserve. The federal reserve destroyed the economy, not helped it. 1. Capitalists made and designed the bill, congress just mindlessly sighted it. 2. It's kindergarten economics, common sense, easily verifiable, you have fingers I'm not going to site something for you to say it's not true. 4. If it was just doing it's job then why was it hiding in the shadows about it?. 5. No, it is a part of the constitution, the federal reserve violates it, end of story. 6. That is not a source, it's a number in parentheses. 7. It is common knowledge, you don't need a source. 8. No they do not, it is a private corporation. 9. See 7. 10. See 5. | PRO | 80bad2e2-2019-04-18T14:25:07Z-00001-000 |
Christmas (Pro) vs Easter (Con). In this final round I plan to give a short response to my opponents claims then give my final closing statement. 1. I agree that you get more presents on Christmas Day however like I said in my original argument most of the time people spend more money on Christmas than Easter so if your a cheapskate then Easter would be a better and easier holiday to celebrate than Christians since most of the time Easter is far more cheaper than Christmas ever is. 2. Again my opponent has committed the popularity fallacy just because more people celebrate Christmas it's not evidence that it's better it's just more traditional in the sense that families have done it throughout generations. There are more Muslims than Hindus does that make Islam any better than Hinduism? Of course not since that argument can be applied to anything that's why making arguments based on popularity is considered a fallacy. 3. When I was speaking about the week off I was talking about the time kids get off of school since they get the longest breaks and I say this because holidays are very fun for children and it can effect how society looks at holidays. When it comes to adults it's based on the workplace and city or country you live in. There are many people that have to work on Christmas and Easter so really this cannot be an argument in support of Christmas or Easter being better. I apologize if I never made that point in the last round of this debate but it's true. Many people work on Christmas and Easter. CLOSING STATEMENT So we have seen why (Pro) arguments are fundamentally flawed and none of his arguments actually show why Christmas is objectively better than Easter. I've shown you reasons why Easter can be considered better than Christmas it's all based on what people want to spend there money on and what there traditions are. I'm not trying to attack Christmas I celebrate Christmas ever year however I believe that all holidays should be treated equally what I mean is that there should never be 1 holiday that dominates all the other holidays. It makes me upset when I see Christmas decorations on sell in stores 3 months before December even starts. I believe that all holidays have significance in our lives and we should respect all of them. I hope you enjoyed reading this debate and I hope that you can come to a rational decision on who you vote for. Thank you for reading and have fun voting :) | CON | a82485f8-2019-04-18T12:21:22Z-00000-000 |
Gay Boy scout leaders. In all seriousness though, gay boy scout leaders would be very beneficial for the boy scouts. It would make the boys more diverse and prevent the boys turning into monsters who put up tents for a living. Gays, in case you haven't noticed, are in fact a lot like women. This makes them beneficial to be boy scout leaderrs, because as we all know, women are strong [1]. Women also can do some neat things like hold another human in their stomach and have red wine pour out of their coin slot. These are some cool tricks that the boy scouts need to know. It may interest Con to know that he is a sexist pig, as he is generalizing and saying that men are these omnipotent superheroes and that women are these hair-obsessing fashion-following screaming weak muppets. That is not true. Women can be omnipotent superheroes if they want to and men can be hair-obsessing fashion-following screaming weak muppets if they want to. There's no reason why they can't be. (This paragraph should get me the vote of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, feminists and trans people). Men are not dominant over women. Men need women to survive, just as women need men to survive [2]. For all these reasons and the ones that I gave in the previous round, I think that the boy scouts should allow gay boy scout leaders. I thank you. Sources[1] . http://www.youtube.com... (the video)[2] . http://www.parenting.com... | PRO | 4fec325c-2019-04-18T17:30:50Z-00001-000 |
There is no scientific evidence to support evolution. Good to see the debate kick back off.Now, it seems my opponent has implicitly conceded the argument, stating that he will not try and refute what I said. I am glad I presented such an airtight argument.To briefly address the two points my opponent brings up, we have unfortanately a lot of claims and absolutely no real science.Rather than quoting pro, I simply direct users to the heading of "The meta-information challenge" at http://creation.com... from which pro has simply copied and pasted his argument. I would like to point out to Pro that I would have really liked to see some original content instead of just a copy and paste from the scientifically discredited Creation.com domain. The title of the page, "Can mutations create new information?" has the answer of an obvious yes, and to support this I simply refer to the Kitzmiller v Dover trial results, page 86 http://en.wikisource.org...;In addition, Dr. Miller refuted Pandas’ claim that evolution cannot account for new genetic information and pointed to more than three dozen peer-reviewed scientific publications showing the origin of new genetic information by evolutionary processes. (1:133-36 (Miller); P-245). In summary, Dr. Miller testified that Pandas misrepresents molecular biology and genetic principles, as well as the current state of scientific knowledge in those areas in order to teach readers that common descent and natural selection are not scientifically sound. The second point my opponent raises, which again has nothing to do with common ancestry, is about the complexity of a modern cell. I will no dispute that, modern cells are very complex. The problem with where this line of argument is going is that people unfamiliar with evolution often think that a modern cell is the result of abiogensesis. In reality, the modern cell has had billions of years of evolution, and as we go back in time cells become simpler and less complex. So yes, modern cells are complex, and yes, this is entirely expected if evolution were true.ConclusionI have provided unambiguous and solid reasons why there is scientific support for common ancestry / evolution. All my points remain uncontested. I would earnestly invite pro not to be so shut off to evolution - the majority of Christians around the world, indeed the entire Catholic church, recognises that not only is evolution true, but it does not conflict with Christianity. There is no scientific controversy about evolution, and it remains one of the most useful and best support scientific theories ever formulated. Christian scientists, atheist scientists, buddhist, hindu, muslim scientists, all accept evolution. And it is not because there is a conspiracy amoung scientists to (for some reason) deceive the public, it is because, honestly, it is where absolutely all of the evidence points. | CON | f7e9160f-2019-04-18T16:05:02Z-00000-000 |
Is lady gaga weird. Firstly, you have made no logical argument except that lady gaga is weird because she is a bad influence on kids. In order to win, you must prove that: 1. She is a bad influence on kids (what do you mean by 'bad'?) 2. She has a bad attitude (what do you mean by 'bad'?) 3. She is weird (compared to whom? what? and what is weird anyway?) 4. And that she is being inappropriate by being weird 5. Then explain why singing should not be allowed under these circumstances I must say, this is a very humorous topic. | PRO | 753a1b2a-2019-04-18T18:55:40Z-00003-000 |
Life ends (death) when the heart stops beating. Life starts when your heart begins beating. 1: Let me clarify; *human* life, such as yours or mine, begins at conception.�Of course the single egg or single sperm is technically a living thing but it is not its own human being. A zygote has all 46 chromosomes present, that are not the same as, say, the 46 chromosomes in any random cell in the mother's body.� 2: "Thats it?" I wanted to add more but was running out of characters. The difference there is that even though your different body parts may have different DNA, they will never grow into another person on their own. A zygote is a different person from the mother. Your testicles could be removed and you would remain you; it wouldn't have murdered another human. Killing an embryo is killing a human in its entirety, whether or not it has a heartbeat.� 3: I'm just showing there is no point in saying you support women's rights (R1) if these "rights" are causing murder, which you do not support.� I think I have addressed the difference between amputation and murder in point 2.� | CON | cb70da26-2019-04-18T18:32:40Z-00004-000 |
Radical action needed for racial equality in South Africa. It is plain for all to see how unrepresentative rugby union in South Africa is. While there is not necessarily a deliberate policy of racism, it is very easy for biases to creep in. Across the division where the quotas will come in only about 6% of players are black, a number that should increase to 33%.[1] Quotas could help concentrate the mind to ensure that the best team is picked. At grass roots level, there have been some cases of flat-out racial abuse of non-white players, including using racial terms that are particularly offensive in a South African context. [1] Peacock, James, ‘Peter de Villiers says racial quotas are ‘waste of time’, BBC Sport, 15 August 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/23713530 | PRO | 1db25c4b-2019-04-15T20:24:36Z-00008-000 |
Electoral College. The electors we have are corrupt. They are no better than the majority of the people because they too can be can be trusted. The longer politicians stay in government, the more likely they are going to be corrupt. Sure they were established to represent the people, but the only problem is that they really don't. They can easily be bribed by big companies, just like how presidents are bribed. You are pretty much saying that the electors are good people, which they are obviously not. "This argument you make about making the voting system "fair" is invalid. You are in agreement with me, since the Electoral College was made indeed to make the voting system fair, and I never argued that it didn't." -I'M arguing that the electoral college isn't fair. -The current electoral college isn't working because although it was made to be fair, it isn't even a fair system. | CON | 47484a8e-2019-04-18T13:25:18Z-00002-000 |
say no to uniforms. Why would a uniform prevent you from expressing your feelings? While a uniform may take away your ability to express yourself via the clothes you wear, you just then have to express yourself in other, more tangible ways. Does a uniform prevent you from growing your hair long or cutting it short? You can wear buttons or color your hair or wear different color socks... all kinds of things! Learning to be different when everyone looks "the same" will be a valuable life lesson for you.It would not be boring. It will be the best thing that's ever happened to you as a person. Plus, you don't have to spend so much money on clothes and use it instead on cell phones or video games or Pokemon cards or whatever you kids do nowadays. Maybe you don't have to worry about getting randomly killed by a gang for wearing the wrong color too. Nobody can bully you about your clothes, because they will be wearing the same ones. Who knows? With all the extra time you get from not shopping for clothes, maybe you can get your homework done or learn something instead.School uniforms are the bomb. | PRO | 17535337-2019-04-18T13:44:47Z-00002-000 |
Singing debate. I chose to do one of my favourite jazz songs: Cry Me a River, by Ella Fitzgerald. (I apologize for the coughing in the background coming to the end. That's my sister.)http://www.youtube.com... Cry Me a River, Ella FitzgeraldNow you say you're lonelyYou cried the long night throughWell, you can cry me a river, cry me a riverI cried a river over you Now you say you're sorryFor being so untrueWell, you can cry me a river, cry me a riverI cried, a river over you You drove me, nearly drove me, out of my headWhile you never shed a tearRemember, I remember, all that you saidYou told me love was too plebeianTold me you were through with me and Now you say, you say you love meWell, just to prove that you doCome on and cry me a river, cry me a river'Cause I cried a river over you You drove me, nearly out of my headWhile you never shed a tearRemember, remember, all that you saidTold me love was too plebeianTold me you were through with me and Now, now you say you love meWell, just to prove you doCome on and cry, cry, cry me a river, cry me a river'Cause I cried a river over you If my pillow could talk, imagine what it would have saidCould it be a river of tears I cried in bed?So you can cry me a riverDaddy, go ahead and cry that river'Cause I cried, how I cried a river over youHow I cried a river over youSource for song:http://www.metrolyrics.com... | PRO | 7306be92-2019-04-18T15:28:54Z-00005-000 |
Resolved: Disney World should continue to have "gay days.". Marketing: One of the beauties of marketing is that the consumer has a good say over what happens where they are or aren't consuming though the law does not force Disney to respect morals the consumer can by sending them bankrupt so on a marketing interest they will want to stop gay days. Equality: If Disney is trying to spread equality than why did they refuse Christian groups entrance to the park as a church trying to enjoy the day. Narrow-mindness: My opponent tries to state that I am narrow minded and all the other people who don't want their young children exposed to homosexuality are narrow minded but what is really narrow minded is this person fighting so hard to make everyone believe their point of view and refusing to accept the morals of the average person believing those morals should be tossed aside so they will believe what my opponent does I find this narrow minded and as far as gays killing themselves homosexuality has become widely accepted in America you can hardly say you disagree with homosexuality now without being labeled as ignorant and dumb for that if a homosexuals. Coming like any other they aren't just coming in and leaving they are getting in for less money celebrating their sexuality coming out if a strait couple left the park going I'm so glad I'm strait its great to be strait people supporting the gays would be appalled. | CON | 7083bc11-2019-04-18T18:19:45Z-00002-000 |
Abortion. Abortion is not the only way to get rid of an unwanted child. The child could be given to foster homes and be put for adoption that way that child has a chance at life. After ten weeks abortion procedures become very painful for the baby to experience. Bernard N. Nathanson,MD, a late abortion doctor who later quit that field because he became a pro-life activist after his experience. When performing an abortion a 12-week old child open its mouth in an unheard scream and followed by the death of this child. This whole experience was viewed through an ultrasound image. Abortion is so horrific that a professional doctor decided to quit his job as a late abortion doctor and became a pro-life activist because of how cruel abortion is. http://abortion.procon.org... | CON | b186fd25-2019-04-18T13:12:04Z-00007-000 |
The Bacterial Flagellum, as an example of Irreducible Complexity, proves evolution unlikely. Irreducible Complexity is a term used by microbiologist Michael Behe in his book "Darwin's Black Box". IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex because it will not function AS A FLAGELLUM without all of the parts working together. Thus, if a part was removed, or all but one part were present, it would not function AS A FLAGELLUM. My argument: No research has discovered a detailed evolutionary pathway showing how the flagellum could have been assembled in a stepwise, incremental process without the assistance of a designer. | PRO | 739d7ccb-2019-04-18T16:37:10Z-00005-000 |
That a human life is intrinsically worth more than the life of an animal. You have guessed right that I lost interest in this debate. My opponent did not post a single, distinct argument how animals are equal to humans in Round 1. All he did was refute my arguments starting from Round 2. 1) He missed out the critical fact about the long life of an average human. With long life and age of an average human, there comes the experiences and with the experience, there comes knowledge. Now why is he going to compare a human to a koi fish and a Galapagos tortoise? Humans experience a lot of things on the long run before they die. The koi fish or the Galapagos tortoise do not. 2) He missed out the fact about the appalling things humans do. Yes, I acknowledge humans are vicious creatures too. However, the point is that a human can eliminate as many animals if they could. 3) Intrinsically worth means just naturally worth and naturally superior. Humans have superior emotions since they can shed tear, feel betrayal, etc. My opponent said that we may not fully understand animal emotions. Then how is he and the experts sure that Harambe was trying to protect the three year old child? 4) I don't see how a harmonious society makes an animal equal to humans. Humans created civilizations that expanded and shaped the world like Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, etc. which created a very organized system (for example, modern democracy). 5) Humans know what is good or bad. If we are the only animals that know what is good or bad, doesn't that make us superior because we have our own knowledge? Con did not provide a single argument how animals are equal to humans. All he did was try to refute my points. | PRO | af13dc4a-2019-04-18T12:55:57Z-00000-000 |
WAR GAME SCENARIO: Russia Versus Chosen Nation. Overview:Military:Noord-Brabant:Active Frontline Troops- 11,915 men and womenActive Reserve Troops- 8,050 men and womenArmored Fighting Vehicles(AFVs)- 270 AFVsSelf-Propelled Guns(SPGs)- 13 SPGsTotal Aircraft- 40 total aircraftTotal Naval Strength- 14(in Noord-Brabant)Frigates- 1 frigateSubmarines- 1 submarineNoord-Holland:Active Frontline Troops- 11,915 men and womenActive Reserve Troops- 8,050 men and womenArmored Fighting Vehicles(AFVs)- 270 AFVsSelf-Propelled Guns(SPGs)- 13 SPGsTotal Aircraft- 40 total aircraftTotal Naval Strength- 14(in Noord-Brabant)Frigates- 2 frigateSubmarines- 1 submarineGelderland:Active Frontline Troops- 11,915 men and womenActive Reserve Troops- 8,050 men and womenArmored Fighting Vehicles(AFVs)- 270 AFVsSelf-Propelled Guns(SPGs)- 13 SPGsTotal Aircraft- 40 total aircraftTotal Naval Strength- 14(in Noord-Brabant)Frigates- 2 frigateSubmarines- 1 submarineFriesland:Active Frontline Troops- 11,915 men and womenActive Reserve Troops- 8,050 men and womenArmored Fighting Vehicles(AFVs)- 270 AFVsSelf-Propelled Guns(SPGs)- 13 SPGsTotal Aircraft- 40 total aircraftTotal Naval Strength- 14(in Noord-Brabant)Frigates- 1 frigateSubmarines- 1 submarineResources:Oil Production- 71,720 bbl/dayOil Consumpution- 1,010,000 bbl/dayProven Oil Reserves- 243,900,000 bbl/dayLogistical:Labor Force- 7,895,000 men and womenMerchant Marine Strength- 744Major Ports and Terminals- 7Roadway Coverage- 139,295 km.Railway Coverage- 3,013 km.Servicable Airports- 29D.P.N(Defensive Plan of Netherlands)Phase One:- The Netherlands will be split into four regions(I'll have it in the lbum later, but I will show my oponent first so he knows). Phase Two:- Mines are to be placed 10 km. away from the shoreline, with being spread from each other 1 km. apart from each mine. - Trenches, concrete bunkers, and concrete stakes on the coast to slow down troops and tanks. - 4 anti-airgun fields are to be placed in Netherlands(this won't hold them forever but it can slow them down).Phase Three:- Production of regular day goods will be cut down by 12%. So that military weapons can be produced.Phase Four: - Recruitment of militiamen and minutemen will soon commence. So that if everything fails we can try holding with these small forces.This is my plan so far, and I will have some maps soon hopefully by tommorow night. | CON | 987302ae-2019-04-18T15:21:34Z-00007-000 |
Anarcho-Socialism/Communism is possible under certain conditions. In order for this society to work, everyone in it would have to voluntarily give their possessions to others. Some people are generous, but most people would not want to do this. If a person didn't want to work, then what would happen to them? Would someone punish them? If so, who? Wouldn't that person be higher up than the person being punished?The main way that this would be impossible is this right here- "This is possible through the dissolution of nation-states and borders. What Ancoms believe is that the world should be transformed from states, which have organized borders and coercion, to what are called communes. Communes are small, self-governing city-like governments in which there is no government hierarchy. All citizens are equal, and have an equal say in government."Which is, of course, impossible. You would have every nation just decide to not exist anymore? How would that happen? Even supposing that all of the socialists, communists, and anarchists combined (Even though some people are Anarcho-Capitalist) they would not be able to fight off the governments, combined with all of the other citizens who would be against Anarchy, Communism, or both. The other problem is that Communism and Socialism, in every real world application, has devolved into an autocratic regime. Stephane Courtois, author of "The Black Book of Communism" considers Communism and Nazism slightly different totalitarian systems. He claims that Communist regimes have killed "approximately 100 million people in contrast to the approximately 25 million victims of Nazis".[1] Courtois claims that Nazi Germany's methods of mass extermination were adopted from Soviet methods. This claim is backed by his citing of Nazi state official Rudolf Höss who organized the infamous death camp in Auschwitz- "The Reich Security Head Office issued to the commandants a full collection of reports concerning the Russian concentration camps. These described in great detail the conditions in, and organization of, the Russian camps, as supplied by former prisoners who had managed to escape. Great emphasis was placed on the fact that the Russians, by their massive employment of forced labor, had destroyed whole peoples." [2] Socialism doesn’t work because it does not reflect human nature. This unnatural state of existence, by the way, is what makes socialism an ideology – it doesn’t reflect what’s real; it only reflects what’s imagined. Volumes have been written about what can be described in one sentence: The imagined benefits of socialism always require government coercion to force changes in human behavior. That effort has never worked in the history of mankind. If socialism’s benefits were real, little government coercion would be necessary to achieve them. Ordered liberty, or freedom, requires some government coercion. The difference between freedom and socialism is that government coercion in a free society conforms to human nature. The same is not true with socialism. Society is an imperfect thing, because we as humans are imperfect beings. Anarcho-Socialism/Communism will never work. [1][2] Werth et al. Margolin, p. 15. | CON | b6939fc6-2019-04-18T15:12:05Z-00003-000 |
Motion: This House will remove all relics of saints. Good day to you. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you hat ignorance is encouraged in respect to faith therefore it is good that the faithful are ignorant about the relic because it is in respect with faith. I think in this argument, the ignorance of man to what the relic is, and its purpose is not essential to salvation, so is the relics of saints. It may remind us of the men and women enjoying the gift of salvation, but this will not guarantee salvation for us who venerates it, or even to those who keep them and dispense them. You said in your comparison with a candle: "A candle is also of no use once it melts (completely). but it has too. you would not buy it without intending to light it eventually. relics may last longer than a persons life last, but that does not make them immortal, eternal, so permanent that they never meet there end. putting it a vault may extend its 'lifespan' a great deal but for what good? we never use the relic again to prevent its deterioration because its deterioration would cause us to never be able to use it again?" In my opinion, I think that there would be a good use for the relics if they are safeguarded properly: they might become a reminder for the future generations that a person of virtue lived during his day, and the proof is the relic.This is also what I mean when I referred on the historical value of the relic as stated in my previous argument. | PRO | 81867b08-2019-04-18T19:16:11Z-00001-000 |
The media is liberally biased. Wow ok. That escalated quickly. So there are a couple thing here that I'd to touch on: 1) My argument following yours sought to poke some holes into the study. If I can render your proof as irrelevant, then you don't have any support for your claim and that's really half the battle. Since this is technically the closing remarks, let me give you a link to a collection of articles that argue against Tim Groseclose's Theory which is what I think you posted and give way to the idea that the media isn't really that liberally biased: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... You can find many counter arguments. One of which is that a lot of reporters are themselves liberally biased, and/or the intensity of the writers/anchorman as another factor. Another article https://www.dartmouth.edu... exposes an assumption of Groseclose, which is that, "advocacy process in which members of Congress cite think tanks and interest groups in floor speeches somehow parallels the journalistic process by which reporters cite those groups in their reporting." To which he raises 3 possible deviations. They are listed below and if you're interested, you can actually read in more detail in the link above: - Asymmetries in Technocratic or Subject-Matter Expertise - Asymmetries in Public Relations and Marketing Skills - Asymmetries in Citations over time. 2. You did define liberal and conservative but your definitions are counter to your own actual post [which is actually in the 3rd round]. That was my point. I did a search on what I believe to be the original article [http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu...] and out of all 47 pages, there's no mention of the word establishment. Perhaps I missed something but ya... 3. Just intrigued by the assumption that you think I'm female and how you base rant about how I am a poor debater around that...I dunno man, that seems pretty over the line to be honest. We may be getting a female president soon and I'm pretty sure she can debate~ Anyways, let's let the voters decide~ I do have to thank-you though cause I learned a little more about politics from this. | CON | a1d0c23-2019-04-18T14:20:52Z-00000-000 |
Marvel (Pro) vs DC (Con) movies. Marvel more than likely won't kill of any protagonist until part two of infinite war, they plan on having 60+ characters appearing in that, so they are trying to save as many as they can. How can you say DC has more depth than Marvel?!? The MCU has been tied together in all of the movies since the first Iron man through S.H.I.E.L.D. With the exception of Batman vs. Superman how often does the depth of DC go past the protagonist of that specific movie. People want to see a hitman squad, that's why the MCU has been so much more successful than DC who ruined any chance of keeping depth to their movies in Justice League considering they just killed Superman AGAIN. Batman's ideals go as far as don't kill. Marvel characters save lives by killing psychotic villains from time to time, what's the Jokers kill count at right now? Captain America didn't ditch his ideals, he though that it was wrong he would have to take orders from the U.N. in case the Avenger's needed to help and they wouldn't let them. | PRO | 63268580-2019-04-18T13:24:22Z-00002-000 |
Lawns. org. For this round I will point out the reasons that having a lawn is a good thing. Adds Value to HomeIf someone keeps their lawn well maintained it can add up to 18% on a home value. The reasoning for this is that having a more attractive home makes it more valuable. Giving a home a well maintained lawn can complement a home and give it a fresh clean look. Lawns also can clean the air around the home by absorbing CO2 and releasing Oxygen into the air around the home giving it fresh air feel. Freshly cut grass has been voted number one as UK's favorite smell and this is possible by a well maintained lawn. Lawns help with Exercise. Obesity is a problem throughout the world. Mexico has the highest obesity rate at 30% of residents considered obese, coming in at second is the United States at 28%, and United Kingdom comes in at 25%. The causes of such high obese rates is that it people aren't eating the proper foods and getting enough exercise, but having a lawn can fulfill one of those requirements. Mowing can be great exercise with an engine powered lawn can burn up to 178 calories, while having a non-engined lawn can burn up to 251 calories in a 30 minute time span. A lawn also is a great place to have safe fun. It is much safer to have children play out front compared to having them go to a park alone. It is a great place of children to get out an play and have some daily exercise. A lawn is great, I have one and I must say it is just great to see a well maintained lawn and the fresh smell of cut grass gives me goose bumps. Thank con and I will be looking forward to your response. Sources. http://margiestibora.com...http://www.dailymail.co.uk...http://www.livestrong.com...http://www.livestrong.com... | PRO | 8fa6f055-2019-04-18T17:28:40Z-00002-000 |
India is a great country, Mother of Mothers. According to me "greatness should not be in words, languages or religion, it should be in work, power and terminology ." In my opinion, practically we can't say like that because there are so many facts which directly opposes this article. As per as 'Jeevan' has told that, "India contains so many languages and so many people" , so what -it doesn't proof its greatness . For example US has not so many languages , it has only one languages still this is most developed country in the world. So according me, "practically India is not a great country in all sense. there are so many negative points of its in various field. | CON | 7b0d806a-2019-04-18T19:30:10Z-00004-000 |
Darwinism is the most Reasonable Theory for Life on Earth. Let me clear a few things up. "Darwinism, concept of evolution developed in the mid-19th cent. by Charles Robert Darwin. Darwin's meticulously documented observations led him to question the then current belief in special creation of each species. After years of studying and correlating the voluminous notes he had made as naturalist on H.M.S. Beagle, he was prompted by the submission (1858) of an almost identical theory by A. R. Wallace to present his evidence for the descent of all life from a common ancestral origin; his monumental Origin of Species was published in 1859. Darwin observed (as had Malthus) that although all organisms tend to reproduce in a geometrically increasing ratio, the numbers of a given species remain more or less constant. From this he deduced that there is a continuing struggle for existence, for survival. He pointed out the existence of variations"differences among members of the same species"and suggested that the variations that prove helpful to a plant or an animal in its struggle for existence better enable it to survive and reproduce. These favorable variations are thus transmitted to the offspring of the survivors and spread to the entire species over successive generations. This process he called the principle of natural selection (the expression "survival of the fittest" was later coined by Herbert Spencer). In the same way, sexual selection (factors influencing the choice of mates among animals) also plays a part. In developing his theory that the origin and diversification of species results from gradual accumulation of individual modifications, Darwin was greatly influenced by Sir Charles Lyell's treatment of the doctrine of uniformitarianism. Darwin's evidence for evolution rested on the data of comparative anatomy, especially the study of homologous structures in different species and of rudimentary (vestigial) organs; of the recapitulation of past racial history in individual embryonic development; of geographical distribution, extensively documented by Wallace; of the immense variety in forms of plants and animals (to the degree that often one species is not distinct from another); and, to a lesser degree, of paleontology. As originally formulated, Darwinism did not distinguish between acquired characteristics, which are not transmissible by heredity, and genetic variations, which are inheritable. Modern knowledge of heredity"especially the concept of mutation, which provides an explanation of how variations may arise"(has supplemented and modified the theory, but in its basic outline Darwinism is now universally accepted by scientists)." | PRO | de960068-2019-04-18T11:22:52Z-00001-000 |
Emphasis In The Word "Bagel" Should Be Placed On The "A". In my regional dialect we pronounce it bag-el. Yes, like a paper bag with -el added on to the end. Now you may say this is technically incorrect because a dictionary will tell you that it's pronounced, "bay-gel." I beg to differ. What is the point of language other than to convey a message from one person to another? The pronunciation doesn't matter so long as the who I'm talking to understands what I'm talking about. So please, my fellow debaters, vote no and stand up to dictionaries and their "right ways and wrong ways" of pronouncing words. Please, respect the ways of my people and help us overcome this idea that the way we speak is incorrect just because it's different from that of common society. It doesn't matter how you personally pronounce it, stand up for the little guy, vote no. Thanks in advance, SirPrinceAndrewIII :) | CON | 6fb902f5-2019-04-18T14:54:46Z-00006-000 |
We should make cigarettes more lethal. Of course, some will die, but less than are dying already from smoking. By making it known to the public that smoking is more dangerous than ever before, smokers have a choice to quit or die. We are not killing them. They are choosing to die. If you are smart, then you will quit. If you are... less intelligent... then you will die. Do not see it as the murder of smokers, see it as evolution taking its course through natural selection. | PRO | c6dfc058-2019-04-18T16:08:35Z-00007-000 |
am do the for seven the. Cast your mind forward and regard the validity of the future event. Juxtaposed with ancient Egyptian theist approbations. You might find the similarities of our messages profoundly awakening. Any complex message takes time and endurance of thought, in order to accomplish total comprehension. Eventually with comprehension, there will be solution. Lies and homicide are no mystery. Just the pathetic floundering of benign masses, thrown up in that tenuous sea of organic chaff. Whether or not knowledge has purpose, is the great unanswerable question. | CON | 2380fc2c-2019-04-18T12:17:30Z-00002-000 |
This is a war of words. Don't be a coward, bring it, no matter what your teacher told you. Why Be PC? **1st point** Pro's little discussion about my hireability at the UN aside, Pro doesn't actually point out how being offensive could add to a discussion. Consider that it was possible for me to make my entire case without insulting anyone, and that this is true in effectively all cases. **2nd point** Pro underestimates the harm negative stereotypes, which PC attempts to prevent from being aired, have. Consider the stereotypes of blacks as criminals and/or poor. First, this emotionally hurts people. When one is called a criminal or thought to be poor without grounds, it hurts, and it may make one angry. Even little things, like how many Asians are assumed to be able to speak an Asian languahe or know Asian culture, can hurt and/or anger. None of this helps anything, and just hurts people. Second, these stereotypes become self-perpetuating. For example, out of two equivalent job applications, one with a "black" name and one with a "white" name, the "white" application gets accepted for interview more often than the "black" one, leading to increased economic hardship for blacks and subsequent stereotyping (see Freakonomics on this). **3rd point** While it is good to teach children that words cannot hurt them, it's probably not good to teach them that insulting your peers with negative stereotyes is acceptable, because, as pointed out earlier, those stereotyes hurt people and add nothing. **Pro's beliefs** Again, Pro's beliefs are irrelevant to this discussion. Even if some of Pro's beliefs interact with PC, we are debating the objective merits or problems of PC, *not* Pro's take on PC. If Pro wants to have another debate, Pro may do so. **Summary** Conduct: Clear Con vote. Pro called all persons supporting PC "b!tches". Grammar: Clear Con vote. Pro often failed to capitalize, and then capitalized too much. Arguments: Clear Con vote. Pro raised no anti-PC arguments, and all Con arguments stand. Sources: Clear Con vote. Pro has no sources, Con has one source. | CON | 250024a2-2019-04-18T15:55:11Z-00000-000 |
Any form of Chronophilia should be considered a disorder and not a crime. Whom ever going to join the debate. I salute you. so explanation: I'd like to address anyone who has encountered the definition Chronophilia. The definition is not yet complete and rarely is used. So the definition the chronophilia that we're going to debate is : 1. Limited attraction to a specific age based state (Child, adolescent, adult. .. etc') I'll call the age of attraction as "chrono state" just to clear confusion. | PRO | e8b7c81f-2019-04-18T17:05:41Z-00005-000 |
Being a Vegetarian is better than being a Non-veg. Yes, being a Vegan is definitely better than being a non-veg. You may say that meat has proteins, calcium, and so on. But if you take a closer look, vegetables and milk has the necessary vitamins, too! This is supported by the number of vegans in U.S.A which adds up to over 2.5 Million people, according to https://opinionessoftheworld.com... So aren't these people healthy? They do have the necessary nutrients and vitamins for the day. Besides, why would you want to kill innocent animals that suffer pain and still eat it? So, guys please consider this debate and change your lifestyle. It may be difficult at first, but slowly you can be a full veg. Start of with two days per week, then gradually change yourselves. I beg you to become a vegetarian. If any queries, you can ask me through this debate session. Thank you and may god bless you! | PRO | ebf0ab1b-2019-04-18T12:58:35Z-00001-000 |
Deep Space Nine was the best star Trek show. I will be arguing that overall, Deep Space Nine (from now on abbreviated as DS9) was the best Star Trek. My opponent may argue that any of the others were better but cannot rely solely on one movie (for example using Wrath of Khan to prove the original series was the best). The first round is for acceptance. Good luck and may the best nerd win. | PRO | 7c0cb631-2019-04-18T17:31:17Z-00007-000 |
You Should Never Believe Anything With Insufficient Evidence. My opponent would like to believe that the ship captain argument is a valid argument for allowing him to sail across the sea without a valid inspection being done[RI]. But keep in mind that the example was not about the captains belief if the ship could make it across, but based on the fact that he was not responsible in fulfilling his duties as a captain to ensure a ship safe for voyage[S]. The argument was mainly about risking the lives of the people on board. And to address the other argument about the one in a thousand in reference to seeking another opinion from a second or third doctor, we are not speaking about a one in thousand situation[Q]. For a man does not get sick over a thousand times a week. We are speaking of a person unsure due to lack of evidence shown about the Doctors character[Q]. Also, I would like to point out that our opponent has not even addressed that they have continued to provide evidence for an argument that they are stating that sufficient evidence is needed. Now they may say that at times no evidence is needed, so can you say like William James that "....two one-dollar bills in our pocket must be a hundred dollars?"[I] Because by not seeing the bills directly, you can assume the value but without evidence be completely wrong. Or perhaps they want to go on a simple hope of being correct. Like Allen Woods said, "...such as wishful thinking, self-complacency, prejudice, partisanship or social conformity....determine what we believe."[I] Basically saying you have no evidence to prove your point, like my opponent, so you allow others to influence your ideas and beliefs, also showing a lack of self control[RE]. | PRO | 3285483d-2019-04-18T17:59:08Z-00005-000 |
The government has the Military power to end domestic armed conflicts/rebellions. (ex. Cliven Bundy). My opponent has admitted that the prompt is to be taken at face value, so my round 2 argument is back in play. Pro did not offer any rebuttals to my round 2 argument, so we must assume they are accepted as valid. When taken at face value, the prompt does not specify arguing in favor of the military's constitutional or legal power to act against civil rebellions. Therefore, I assumed the discussion was about the military's physical ability to end a rebellion. When discussing general rebellion, the entire spectrum must be considered - from one single person to a massed, nation-wide revolt. The military can easily stop a small rebellion, but it does not have the power to physically stop a massed revolt. Offering an external article as an argument is a logical fallacy called "appeal to authority," so this argument is invalid. The article doesn't apply to this debate anyway, because it's one isolated example of a small rebellion. I admit the army could put down a small rebellion, but my opponent's position falls apart once we increase the rebellion's notional size. The only contemporary example Pro offered was the Cliven Bundy incident, which didn't involve any military forces so it has no application to this debate. I would encourage Pro to clarify their position better next time. | CON | d8653ae8-2019-04-18T15:40:42Z-00000-000 |
Bullies should receive much harsher punishment. You say that a harsher punishment will allow the bully to learn that their actions are not acceptable. That is probably how they're going to see it. What they will probably miss is why they're doing it, and could invent another way to hurting people that does not end up getting caught as easily. What I mean by this, is that there's reason their being a bully, and that hasn't stopped just because they got suspended or went to jail for a bit. So harsher punishments are likely not to work in the long run. (1 & 2) As an example, a common reason for a bully to bully, is parental neglect (a passive yet powerful form of child abuse sometimes used as disciplinary action), most adults will tell you those that crave attention must've hardly had any from their parents, and sadly they're right. Most kids who are neglected from their parents tend to cause havoc to get attention (4&6), and the more neglected they are, the more they'll act out to receive attention whether it's good or bad. This would accredit to being suspended for 7 days, it's good in the sense maybe they'll get more attention with more time at home, and not in the sense they'll have less school. To back this up a bit, I'll tell you of the opposite. I knew a girl who hated being home because of verbal abuse she received at home, so everyday not only was she a hard working student, she'd stay after school every chance she got to have an excuse to not go home immediately after school. Staying after school was no longer allowed the next school year, simply because the vast number of kids that stayed after without giving reason, so she migrated to the local fast food shop and stayed there after school for the remainder of the year. So you can imagine, that the only way to solve these problems of hating ones own house, or that of a bully seeking grand attention will simply brush off their time in disciplinary custody if their mistreatment or emotions are gone unchecked. In conclusion, harsher punishments will not solve the problem of the emotionally conflicted individual, but maybe helping them sort out their problems and any crime equivalent punishment would do just fine. (1) http://www.crimeinamerica.net... (2) http://toolboxparent.com... (3) http://psychcentral.com... (6) and all Anyone wanting a more "professional" outlook choice http://www.nber.org... direct http://www.nber.org... | CON | 30357674-2019-04-18T17:39:58Z-00002-000 |
violates the constitution. It violates the first amendment "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" The pledge of allegiance indicates that we honor god for we are "one nation under god" I believe that times have changed and people today are no longer as religious as they use to be, so people do have a right to be offended by the phrase. If there is supposed be a separation between church and state, stating that were are one nation under god is not necessary and it clearly violates the constitution!! | PRO | e8528bac-2019-04-19T12:45:07Z-00039-000 |
It is probable that God exists. Observation 1: Pro makes it clear that he believes God does not have a creator. He makes this claim while also claming something had to create the universe, If it is possible for something to exist without needing a creator (God), Then why does the universe need a creator? Pro has committed a fallacy known as 'special pleading' wherein a double standard is employed by the person making the assertion. His logic used, Does not apply to God. O2: Considering we know the universe is expanding, It's more likely to assume the universe undergoes a constant expansion and contraction cycle, It could therefore be the cause of the big bang. It would be more logical to say this cycle has been going on for an infinite amount of time, Rather than, To suggest a God has existed for an infinite amount of time. Arguing for an uncaused cause does not demonstrate the existence of a God, It only introduces more questions, The question here is simple, Why does an uncaused cause have to be a God? O3: If there was no time and only God before the creation of the universe, Then what was God doing before creating the universe? Omnipotence ParadoxMy opponent who considers himself a rational man, Has responded to the rock paradox with this, "God can actualize logically impossible situations"This is a neat way of saying God is magic. This is where our debate is going. Pro cannot rationally answer a simple question and has to resort to the magic argument. [1] Omnipotence is logically impossible, As we both agree. [2] To believe a God to exists, One must believe logic is not always necessary. [3] To not use logic, Is to be illogical. [4] Pro is illogical and believes in magic. God can create an unliftable rock and still lift it, Because he's magic? Then he's failed at creating an unliftable rock. Pro has shown he does not understand the paradox presented and shown his reasoning is illogical. My opponent’s science argument I didn’t respond to this section because there was nothing of substance to respond to. I agree that the big bang occurred. I could not find an argument detrimental to my stance in this section. Deductive reasoning If deductive reasoning is all the Kalam argument offers, Then I am thoroughly disappointed. God is an extraordinary claim to which we require extra ordinary evidence, Deductive reasoning is not extra ordinary evidence, Therefore the resolution was never met. In summary Even if an uncaused cause is needed for the creation of the universe, Pro has not demonstrated that such a cause is omnipresent, Omnipotent and a God. I am disappointed that Pro had to resort to the magic argument and in doing so, Ignored logical and rational thinking. Pro has not made a single argument from science and has thus far failed to meet his burden of proof. The existence of a God remains improbable. | CON | 21128ae3-2019-04-18T11:17:30Z-00002-000 |
THE MARINER SPACECRAFT. The mariner spacecraft that was launched in Mars in 1960's has shown evidence that life outside the planet earth does exist. The photographs from the Mariner series of spacecraft, Mariner 6, Mariner 7 and Mariner 9 showed evidence that water once flowed in abundance on the Martian surface. Vast river systems, flooded plains and even ocean basins were in evidence. Present theories about life on Mars also suggest that if it exists it will be microbial in nature and most probably nano-bacterial or archaean. There is almost no credence given to any ideas that Martian life will be any more complex than this. Good evidence that perhaps Martian life exists or at least, exited a long time ago has come from analysis of Martian meteorites, as well as the detailed examinations of the planet that have been carried out by the series of spacecraft that have visited. | PRO | 8f9a96bf-2019-04-19T12:45:07Z-00009-000 |
Discipulus_Didicit has on at least one occasion received coal from science. If you see a bowl of fruit on a table in front of you, it is justified to believe that there is a bowl of fruit on a table in front of you. You don't have to imagine anything. To answer your extended question: I do not know if aliens are real or not, based on not having any evidence either way. Science is based on observation. Observation is your experience of now, which you seem to be in favor of. | CON | f5d73b1c-2019-04-18T14:35:08Z-00005-000 |
Rap Battle 21: JimShady v Masterful. *record scratch* (lyrical spherical) *record scratch (empirical) *record scratch* I know rap is a downtime, but I take it seriously And I read your ad lib, it instilled no fear in me Now it's time for my freestyle, you'll be hearing me Your bars sound more wack than Siri, G This fool got banned prolly cause he's racist He prolly wanted a ban cause he knew he couldn't face this Can you taste this? Are you amazed bjtch? I'll knock you down, What50 too, and all of your faces Stomp you to the ground, leave no traces, Cause every molecule in your body will be scattered in different places I'm weary from atheists debate, but I'm up for this diss I'm up to it like my penis is up in your sis Sorry to get in her biz, I couldn't stand just a kiss... Because she's advertised on PornHub as so much bliss I know you ad-libbed, but you need to exanimate Your words are not worth keeping, much less laminate I don't know why this guy thinks blacks contaminate But it seems to have gotten you banned for hate I'm done, I've shown my impromptu skills It gives the audience a hell of a lot more thrills. | PRO | f2cd9c2f-2019-04-18T12:06:31Z-00000-000 |
Dance Is A Sport. Thank you, broken_doll, for instigating this debate.Negative CaseA1: Dance only *can* be a sportThere is semantic problems with the resolution, in that it pertains to an absolute. Let me explain. Dance, according to Google's dictionary, is defined as:"a series of steps and movements that match the speed and rhythm of a piece of music" [1]Whilst it is possible to define dance in slightly alternative ways, this fair definition does not have the inherent qualifier of competition (and even if you disagree with it being fair, I show later how some forms of dance do not have the competition aspect), which brings me to my negation of the resolution: dance *can* be a sport if there is a competition aspect, BUT there is not *always* a competition aspect, hence dance is not always a sport. You will find that my opponent's definition of what a sport is requires the components of:1) Involving physical exertion2) Skill3) Individual or team competes against another or others4) For entertainmentNumber three is the issue, because dance can occur WITHOUT competition. An example of this is a theatre production involving dance, like the Bangarra Dance Theatre which perform Aboriginal pieces. Clearly, there is no competition aspect of which was highlighted as required by my opponent in order for an activity to be considered a sport, hence dance is not a sport, in this instance.ConclusionDance most certainly can be a sport, but it is not always, hence the resolution of "Dance is a sport" cannot be fulfilled.Reference[1] https://www.google.com.au...[2] http://norpa.org.au... | CON | 44db19b-2019-04-18T15:07:15Z-00004-000 |
Religion and science agree. Many of the so-called problems of religion are rooted in short-sightedness. What does harm today, may heal tomorrow. Our saving grace at present may prove to be our fatal poison in the future. Many are critical of God because He seems cruel, unfair, and unkind. But how can we be sure such actions are maligned? Does not the toddler revile against his parent when forced to spit out a contaminated object? Should a being exists who is Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, would we not expect His perspective to contain insights not readily visible to our temporal, earth-bound minds? I have long been under the impression that if something is understood prima facie, then that thing is either incorrect, or incomplete. Those who hold God to an impossible standard will find that what they have wanted all along is an inconceivable idea. With scientists placing estimates at around 5%--less than 1/20th--of our matter and energy is even available to us to explore. Within that 5%, we find our samples are grossly under-represented. Over 15,000 new species are identified annually. With such limitations on our knowledge, why should we expect a simple explanation for worldly and social phenomena? It would seem much more reasonable to expect incongruence to our thoughts and observations, rather than the opposite. | PRO | f6313f4d-2019-04-18T12:59:40Z-00002-000 |
Lets debate Cannabis. Again, the problem with your reasoning is that since alcohol causes more harm, weed should be legalized. I have finally thought of a comparison to this; Well there are already weeds in the garden that I can't dig up, might as well let more grow. Alcohol, like cigarettes and even guns, cannot be banned in certain countries because they have been rooted there for decades to the point where it would be impossible to uproot. I doubt even the President could place such a ban, or even Congress (if they wanted to) because it is too difficult a subject to stop. But what they would like to do is prevent further drugs from being used. A defense to your claim that it will continue illegally; crime is illegal, but it still happens. Maybe we should make crime legal? Perhaps if some form of regulation was placed on it, then it might work. But you have already suggested that the workplaces associated should deal with it. Would an employer hire weed using employees? Could he fire them for having it in their system the following Monday? And even if the state regulated it, as you've pointed out, people can always ignore bans and regulations. Awaiting your response, Duncan. | CON | c886388e-2019-04-18T17:21:56Z-00005-000 |
the death penalty. Ok I can see what your saying, however, isn't kinda a casual approach. And you are saying a devout christian "sinless" let me just say no one is sinless, but anyhow i am in fact talking about injection. Now I am not saying a sis deserves a sin because that is kinda being unfare. this is a hard topic but my debate club is debating this subject. ok let me put it this way. If I was saying a sin deserves a sin. Let's say you stole from your girlfriend would you want her to do the same to you. God said do unto your neighbor as you would want them to do to you. You also said what if he belonged to one of those religous groups where they would be sent to absolute peace. Now that can be said, so say if the person did die "justly" he was convicted and found guilty and he was a Christian wouldn't the death penalty fit him well | PRO | 49d55805-2019-04-18T19:45:27Z-00002-000 |
A debater's sense of humor can ultimately affect the number of votes that debater receives. Sorry, I didn't know you already had a debate like this. (I suppose you accepted this one because you won the other one XD) Thanks for accepting. 1) Can you post a link to that debate, since I can't find it in your debates? It would help me alot with this point (as I can't rebut without looking at the circumstances). 2) If you say argumentation should be purely funny in a ridiculous debate, then you agree that humor can affect the number of votes a debater can receive, because they will vote on the funnier debate. | PRO | ec6029c9-2019-04-18T19:44:29Z-00003-000 |
The national motto of the United States should be changed. First of all, we should take a good look at our definition of the word "God" 1capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe bChristian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind 2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship ; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality 3: a person or thing of supreme value4: a powerful ruler. So God is a supreme power that control over our universe, an infinite source or power, a divine or even just a powerful ruler. Let's just talk in a respectful manner, which part of the word "God" in "In God we trust" are one of these? In the history of the world, not just Christianity but there are also lots of religions that worship God, or at lease believe there's a God, so we don't have an actual religion to say that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establisment of religion. .. ", so therefore, you can't really identify that God is a Jewish God Yaweh, Christian God Jesus or Muslim God Allah. Furthermore, as we know a religion is a belief, a belief and in a scientific manner we can call that a theory, a theory that God is real, that He's a divine and supreme power or at least like the Creationist scientists believe, a force that created the Universe in a neat and organized way. But unfortunately our country is also putting a belief forcefully into our student belief and theory by teaching Evolution in our Public school system, although both Intelligent design and Evolution are both scientific theories. So can we say that US is establishing a law that violating other people's belief? E Pluribus Unum is actually base on history is a word that quotation from a gentlemen magazine quoted from a French artist that design our dollar bill, yes it still has a super and special meaning, E Pluribus Unum yes is a reflection of our country our principles, we want other countries to know that: "Wow, this is a God chosen country! " our of many, only one, E Pluribus Unum. If there's no God, there's no Thanksgiving, no God no Christmas, no God no Easter, God and church has been a source of morality, truth and righteous as we always know: "One nation under God" Therefore I extremely suggest that we need to let the motto "In God we trust attach on the money and become a great motto for the United States for years and years to come. Thank you. | CON | a94fb120-2019-04-18T19:20:22Z-00002-000 |
Claim that Medea is responsible for her actions. 5. Anger had taken over because it is a powerful emotion that must not be tempered with. Her initial decision was to let it take over, consciously she knew what she was doing, and what she was doing was wrong. 6. The decision to enact revenge on her husband was what influenced anger and this mood. Revenge altered Medea's mood, but it did not physically make her do anything. No one but herself could make up her mind to do such a thing, then actually do it. 8. Driving someone insane and being insane is not the same thing. Aside from that, her ego was what guided her mentality into physically taking action. Id goes hand-in-hand with ego. 9.Blame is just an excuse. Blaming actions on emotions or thoughts is what Medea had done, it means nothing and claims to nothing. 10. Responsibility is when someone makes an independent decision, other influences can change and alter the decision, but other influences do not matter when the deed is done. Medea is to be responsible for her actions because it was an independent decision, clearly very personal. | PRO | 1ac44ebb-2019-04-18T14:54:27Z-00003-000 |
The Death Penalty Should Be Implemented In Every Society. An actual change of opinion? That's something that doesn't happen too often. Anyway, to tie up some loose ends and summarize:1) DeterrenceAll studies that show deterrence are flawed. How can they all be wrong? Well the first thing to note is the sample size. There are so few executions per year and to draw from such a tiny sample size causes a lot of variations and outliers which would skew the data. Not to mention, some of the studies did not take other factors like unemployment into account. Secondly, and most importantly as can be seen with the Emory example, the professors are very careful with their data and usually show both sides as well as any limitations it might have. The media on the other hand blows it out of proportion, misrepresents the data and says sensationalist things like "15 innocent lives saved per execution" which is usually not what the professors intended. Overall, I have proved that the Death Penalty does not deter and the studies are actually inconclusive. 2) CostLegal proceedings are an integral part of the costs so the Death Penalty is actually more expensive. 3) Human RightsJust because modern human rights haven't existed for thousands of years does not by itself mean that they are not correct. Pro makes an extraordinary claim that "lack of human rights" is the correct thing, so he has the extraordinary burden to prove it. Lethal Injection causes great suffering for the inmate, they just can't express it because they are paralyzed. It also has the potential for screw-up since amateurs not medical professionals administer it.4) Innocent LivesThere have been hundreds of cases of DNA evidence clearing people. Our justice system is not perfect. The problem is that only rich people will have lawyers who are good enough to extend their appeals, find DNA evidence and clear their name. The poorer people will be executed. The irreversibility of the Death Penalty distinguishes it from all other forms of punishment as the mistakes made by the justice system cannot be corrected, or at least they have a limited time to correct it as opposed to unlimited time for Life Without Parole. The Death Penalty should not be implemented in any society. I was really anticipating Pro's response to my argument but that's okay. LordKnukle, it was awesome debating with you, and I hope we debate again. | CON | b58ad49c-2019-04-18T18:39:21Z-00000-000 |
Aliens have helped develop our society. Very good point Con! Although the Egyptians are very well known for their advancement in technology, which thanks to your response and link to Dunn's website, I am convinced in this area. But you leave out the other civilization in Bolivia responsible for the building of Puma Punku. Evidence supports that the Andean peoples with "simple reed boats" could not have moved these giant rocks over 10 km, which was where the rock quarry was located. The type of holes and drilling that were so mathematically exact, proves impossible to use from stone or copper tools. They would need a more advanced way to cut the contoured holes out. These contoured holes through the huge slabs would show that they are similar to interlocking building blocks. I would say that compared to just stacking huge blocks on each other, "interlocking building blocks" would require a significantly higher amount of thinking and reasoning. Keep in mind this was all done with almost exact precision with one of the hardest stones on Earth. The sheer sizes of these rocks, with the intricate detail in the overall engineering of the rocks interlocking and precision cuts and drills prove a thinking process higher than that of the civilizations known at that time. Not to mention the transportation of the red sandstone block slabs, about 85 metric tons, up a steep hill from the quarry 10 km away. Although concrete would be a solution to the complexity and the regularity of the rocks, there aren't any concrete in that area at all. Plus modern day geologists would be able to discern rock from concrete. But what about even lifting the stones into place? They would need cranes of course, but operated without any engines, so it would all be muscle to operate which would be even harder because the crane wouldn't be 100% operating efficiency and the work to maintain the "machinery". They would also need ropes or cables strong enough to lift these blocks somehow. This is great by the way! | PRO | 8964bf50-2019-04-18T18:30:04Z-00003-000 |
Wrist wathes are better in general than wall clocks. "appearance of a wrist watch does not have to be dorky or excessively bulky, which ever appearance or style suits you. "It doesn't HAVE to be dorky or bulky, but it CAN be. Take a look at this watch - (. http://3.bp.blogspot.com...) Who would wear this? "Most wrist watches are not really expensive there is a variety, like I stated whichever suits you. "Sure you can get a dorky velcro watch for $15 but if you want something stylish with a good brand name, you can end up paying at least $100"Watches do not create, tan lines. there is a huge difference from create than support. Usually you can wear a rubber clip watch which does not cause hand markings. "Ok I don't think you understand my point. Wearing a wrist watch consistently in the sunlight will eventually lead to tan lines. It's like sunglasses. If you wear the same sunglasses consistently outdoors in the sunlight, you will get tan lines on your face from them. "Like stated previously there is different watch clips. rubber, steel, aluminum, act. Outside is one of the main reasons to wear a wrist watch, because there is no wall clocks outside. "All right there are different materials a wrist watch can be made out of. .. .. .. .. .. what point does that prove? Ok you can wear a wrist watch outside. But once again you have a clock on a cell phone that basically everyone carries around with them anyway, making the portability of the wrist watch irrelevant. "There are some digital wacthes which tell the time straight forth without reading the times. "Digital watches display the time in numbers rather than a traditional watch, but reading the watch can still be hard to do when you take into account the size of the watch and the glare caused by the sun. This debate is on the wall clock and wrist watch, the cell phone is irrelevant in this debate. so basically since you stated, "Why use a wrist watch while you can just pull out your cell phone and check the time if you need it? Cell phones do not provide any of the cons a wrist watch does. "Then this also means you could just check your cell phone instead of wall clock. .. point concededSo my opponent says that the cell phone is irrelevant in this debate, and then tries to use the cell phone to support his case. The cell phone is relevant in this debate because it effectively removes the ONLY advantage the wrist watch brings to the table - portability. Even if you don't factor in the cell phone and give the wrist watch the advantage of portability, the wrist watch still has so many disadvantages that do more than cancel out its only advantage. My case has been successfully defended from my opponent's attacks. My opponent will supposedly provide more info in the next round, so I await my opponent. | CON | bb6232d4-2019-04-18T18:17:41Z-00004-000 |
Violence can be prevented. Let me start off the arguments. Human beings has a reason and moral. However, they can not prevent violence. Therefore, the prevention of violence is a difficult problem to deal with. We must keep in mind that violence in society is triggered by a number of factors. In my opinion they contribute to preventing serious violence which develops into crimes resulting in serious injuries or death of human beings. John, Monahan(Psychologist and professor of school of law at University of Virginia) points out three main cause of violence. They are(1) biological, (2)sociological and (3)psychological causes. There are many biological factors which can be nominated as candidates for causes of violence. He says that ``hormones like testosterone, transmitters in the brain like serotonin, and blood abnormalities like hypoglycemia are only a few that have been mentioned. Biological factors do not have to be hereditary. They could be caused by a head injury, poor nuitrition, or environmental events, such as exposure to lead paint. ``(. http://www.sodahead.com...) According to the studies by the National Academy of Sciences, biological factors like hereditary does not necessarily trigger human violence. The important thing is that a violence has something to do with the kinds of food which he or she takes, disease and the environment in which he or she lives. Second is sociological causes. Firstly, it depends on where he or she lives. For example, ``within America, violence is subject to great regional variation. The murder rate, for example, is almost twice as high in the South as it is in the Northeast, but the robbery rate is almost twice as high in the Northeast as it is in the South. ``(. http://www.sodahead.com...) Moreover, ``the smaller the community, the lower the rate of violence. Within the same city, some neighborhoods have rates of violent crime 300times higher than other neighborhoods. ``(. http://www.sodahead.com...) For example, in the big city like New York of the U. S. people come together not only from every part of the country but from many parts of the world. In urban areas community which bonds people deeply from cultural and social perspective does not function. The opportunity to promote dialog among menbers of the community is deprived. Therfore, seeds of violence are always grown. I continue my arguments further in round 3. I am looking forward to reading arguments in round 2 by Con. | PRO | baefa260-2019-04-18T18:17:10Z-00005-000 |
There are many reasons why oil and gas exploration should not be allowed in the Antarctic. Firstly,... There are many reasons why oil and gas exploration should not be allowed in the Antarctic. Firstly, proven and probable reserves of oil and gas are still rising faster than global consumption, so there is no economic need to exploit any hypothetical Antarctic sources. Secondly, as the continent is already suffering as a result of global warming, our priority should be to find renewable alternatives to fossil fuels rather than to continue our dependence upon them. At a practical level, the cost of exploration and production would be completely uneconomic, especially given the hostile climate and the serious iceberg threats to offshore rigs, tankers and pipelines, as well as the very deep continental shelf. There would also be a serious danger of pollution, both from the increased human presence in this fragile environment, and from oil spills. | PRO | a102cf15-2019-04-19T12:43:57Z-00011-000 |
VAT is an empowering tax. This is fundamentally a tax on consumption, the more resources in our society you consume the more you contribute to that society. The more material benefit you choose to gain from our society the more you give to it in return. You gain no material benefit by having a million pounds in the bank - only when you or someone else spends that money do you benefit - and you are then taxed on that benefit. At every stage your personal choice is involved in whether you pay tax. When was the last time you could phone up your local tax office and say "Times are tough at the moment - can we pay less tax for the next 6 months, we're trying to save for a house deposit". Never? Now you can. | PRO | 2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00028-000 |
true or false ? i am real hashem of jews. Is this true or false ? I am real hashem of jews, not rebirth, not attached, not israeli. I am of purity and my enemies which are hindus, muslims and christians are killing me from last 9 years and taken dont know how much property and my jewish religion does not knows it. Some jews even did not let me enter into my small synagogue. Am i truly 100% hashem of jews or what do you think that hindus and muslims and christians are killing me since 9 years and maybe more then 9 years. What spirits believes of different religions ? i want to know debate on spirits and myself. | PRO | 2512fd81-2019-04-18T12:23:51Z-00005-000 |
The Big Bang theory is true. Rebuttals: "If all the matter in the universe was compressed into a small dot, what caused this to happen? Where did gravity come from that held it together?" The Universe was extremely dense. Not even the size of a molecule. That is what held it together. "The Big Bang theory also ignores the First law of Thermodynamics, which says: "matter cannot be created or destroyed"" No, it does not. How? 1) Like said: "Alright. While solid objects are dense (Mass compacted together as having no space to go around), liquid and gas is not; the mass has space to go around in which it does. Same goes for our Universe." 2) You can fit as much energy and mass in the Universe. | CON | 5a72d9c5-2019-04-18T16:54:56Z-00006-000 |
True Blood is better than Twilight. That is true. Granted in Trueblood, it is impossible for vampires to birth children, or to impregnate a human woman. However, there is a very strong romantic, and even sexy aspect of the show. In the first episodes of the show, Sookie(main character) fall deeply for a vampire by the name of Bill Compton. Through out the show they are faced with many obstacles that threaten their relationship. Multiple times during the show, Sookie and Bill split up. Once Sookie even has an affair with another vampire name Eric Northman. What I am implying is that Trueblood has a very deep and intricate romantic aspect. | PRO | 5a9f2ace-2019-04-18T17:44:08Z-00001-000 |
Rap Battle - Come Hard With Your Bars. Hello Anon (I'll call you this until someone accepts"There is no rules as far as how mean or nasty your roasts/bars can be, but before you accept, and to anyone voting i recommend voting based on these criteria1. Wordplay, including but not limited to punchlines2. Originality - I believe the opponent should be penalized heavily if (s)he bites or steals any artists original works3. Creativity - Both contenders should be judged based off of how the words flow together, how vivid an image they can paint using words, and most importantly their rhyming choices. (rhyme schemes, etc) I recommend penalizing for using "generic" rhyme patterns (flippin, skippin, dippin | college knowledge | lyrical miracle spritual, but depending on the creativity of the line the rhyming word choices can be overturned.all in good fun, good luck,your first verse may begin immediately, no acceptance round. And most importantlyCOME HARD WITH THE BARS | CON | 68157dc7-2019-04-18T12:08:01Z-00002-000 |
Formal letters are completely unnecessary. R1 Rebuttals: Pro states in round one that formal letters are unnecessary because 'because the writer or the sender will not be able to completely express him/herself due to fact that the entire letter is polite and simple', but the entire point of a formal letter is that it is indeed polite and simple.' The purpose is to inform the reader of an important matter, not to engage the reader in friendly or casual discourse; one does not write formal letters to express themselves, one writes formal letters because there is a need to considerably, but sensibly, convey something of moderate urgency to the individual recipient of the letter. 'And if someone writes a letter that isn't formal and sends to the person/people in authority, it could be discarded and considered as rubbish which just shows that our opinions and feelings and voices can't be heard until they're expressed in a particular, subtle, polite way.' If anything, Pro has outlined here why we should keep formal letters. Many persons in authority are naturally accustomed to formal writing, so if they were to receive something informally, they may not treat it with the significance it requires; or they may reach the conclusion that the person who has composed it is of inferior intellect. There's some traditions and customs that exist for a reason; to ensure that things are kept simple. Informal letters to formal institutions would inevitably complicate matters. R2 Rebuttals: Pro begins this round by acknowledging that I have made a point, but then asserting that I actually haven't made one; which is confusing for readers to say the least. 'Or instead of the usual boring acceptance letter sent by the school telling me that I've been admitted, it could be a note.' There's certain things in life that need to be boring, formal letters being one of them. 'And informal letters don't necessarily have to be written in slangs. You could still use good punctuation and follow all the rules of grammar but the nature of the letter wouldn't be serious. It would just be like you're talking to a friend or to your parents.' Well, if we were to somehow change the tradition of formal letters, there is nothing to prevent slang or improper grammar from being used-especially if Pros example of 'like talking to a friend' was to be applied, as slang and informal language is often used in replacement of formal and proper language in discussion among friends. | CON | a00ae256-2019-04-18T11:59:36Z-00002-000 |
The ban of all automatic and semi-automatic firearms. You said that the government was created with the sole purpose of protecting the rights of the citizenry. Would you agree that it is also the purpose of the government to protect the lives of its citizens? Should tens of thousands needlessly die so that we will have weapons when a dictator tries to rise to power? Last time I checked the US is the most anti-communistic country on the planet. We were willing to involve ourselves in nuclear war because of our distaste in communism. Your stance has a few problems. First of all, you took it from the preamble of the constitution, not the second amendment. Saying that we could possibly be helped in the worst of circumstances at the loss of thousands of lives doesn't make sense. The government should act in a way in which it does everything it can to ensure its citizens live safely. You countered my stats by saying swimming pools are 100 times more deadly to kids. Are you implying that 3,000 dead innocent children is insignificant? WE ARE IN A WAR BECAUSE THREE THOUSAND AMERICANS WERE KILLED ON 9/11! Most swimming pool deaths are due to improper supervision or improper pool setup. You could equate getting shot on the street to being forcibly drowned. How many people are forcibly drowned per year? People jump into pools and let their kids play around them knowing they could drown. We don't go into everyday life expecting to be shot randomly, but it happens. We have reached a stage in society where people go out and kill just because they are fed up with life. We can easily take the weapons out of their hands with a strong enforcement on a no weapon policy. Bush has no need to stop illegal weapons trading seeing as all weapons are allowed in the US any way. You failed to disprove or demerit my stats on the United Kingdom. They only allow hunting rifles and shotguns and in return recive only 210 deaths by gun. I feel that if corruption was removed completely from this area of government an effective policy banning firearms could be made. This time please explain how your views are supported by the second amendment, not the preamble to the constitution | PRO | 207be50-2019-04-18T20:01:22Z-00003-000 |
Sola Scriptora and there is no papal infallibility. First I want to point out how illogical the doctrine of "the bible alone" is. First of all if the bible is the only source of truth, then why doesn't the BIBLE say that? Second of all, if the bible is the only source of truth, then why isn't there a list in the bible of all the books that are suposed to be in the bible? After all if the bible is the only source of truth, then how do we know what books are supposed to be in the bible if it doesn't tell us that? We know because the Catholic Church tells us that. But the if Catholic Church does not have papal infallibility, than we have no way of knowing if the bible is really inspired scripture or not. Third, if the Church does not have any infallibility, than neither does the bible. The CHURCH gave us the bible. The bible didn't just drop from the sky. The Catholic Church gave us the bible. So either they both are infallible or neither of them are. | CON | 5027788d-2019-04-18T18:16:37Z-00008-000 |
The Federal Reserve Caused the Great Depression. You daid you wanted to debate this. I have taken away the stances. Full Resolution: The Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression by causing the stock market to crash. In other words, the stock market itself did not cause the Great Depression, but was tanked by actions precipitated by the Federal Reserve. Rules: 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is an automatic loss and all seven points for voting should be given to the other person. 3. No semantics. | PRO | 78819fc5-2019-04-18T18:15:43Z-00008-000 |
Pro-Choice is unethical. I do not accept your definition of Human Life." I figured you wouldn't. "By definition a child is a human being, therefore proving that the definition of Human Life is subjective to individual interpretation..." If it's subjective, then what is there to debate? It's like you saying NUHUH on one side and me going YUHUH! on the other. There needs to be evidence and information given. "(thus proving my Hammock Scenario)" This would only prove your hammock scenario if a person thought a fetus was a human being. It does not hold true if a person does not consider a fetus to be a human. You are trying to prove that you scenario is valid using faulty logic. "This also refutes any points you made that is based on the assumption abortion is ethical." Not really (see above). In fact, we have been debating the wrong topic this entire time. Your resolution stated: "I will prove the Pro-choice stance is unethical." All we have been debating is whether or not ABORTION is ethical, not Pro-Choice. Your hammock scenario attempts to justify why abortions are unethical, but it does not even scratch the surface of Pro-Choice being ethical or not. All you have done is prove that Pro-Choice may or may not be ethical, depending on the person. Also, I need to ask. If someone you knew and were got raped and got pregnant as a result, would you still be against an abortion? Law is a reflection of society's beliefs and values. If the society wishes a bill to be passed into law, the chances of it going through are large (in a democratic system). Law is sometimes referred to as the "ethical code" or "secular moral code" (http://www.knowledgerush.com...). So when Canadian Law states that abortion is legal, it is safe to say that the majority of the population agrees with the fact. Here is a picture to show where the world stands on abortion: (http://upload.wikimedia.org...). Whether abortion is legal or not, they will still take place. Every year 68 000 women die as a result of unsafe abortions (http://www.prochoice.org...). This figure is only the number of women who die from unsafe abortions, not the number of unsafe abortions that have taken place. But in Pakistan alone, there are 980 000 unsafe abortions that take place every year (http://www.cvcradio.in...). If anything, Pro-Life is unethical. It limits the freedoms of women, restricting their right to choose. If a person really wanted/needed an abortion but it was illegal, what would they do? Resort to un-safe abortions, put their health at risk and possibly die. This stance on abortion strips women of their dignity and respect. Thank you Skunk for this debate, have fun in the last round. | CON | bf713dde-2019-04-18T19:20:39Z-00002-000 |
Haiku Battle. A tricky topic I must say; I credit you I will have to think The oil industry Is not helping Saudi's pop. It's foreign workers Iraq civil war Cannot contribute; dirt poor Being stolen from Japanese; dollar Selling to U.S. for cheap Budget deficit? Chavez against us There's threats with Venezuela Unstable; just fights Countries are just broke Leaders: unreasonable Exchanging goods? No. Instability Is seen in global market Make a compromise http://www.markswatson.com... That was a difficult topic since I knew nothing about it. Well played, well played. Your topic: Acne Medication Chemicals? | PRO | dfe43410-2019-04-18T18:26:12Z-00007-000 |
the USA should have universal background checks. i never said anything racial in regards to my use of the phrase 'black hoodie'. if voters want to dock con for using racist remarks, and injecting race where it wasn't before, feel free. most people like the idea of background checks. when it gets into specifics, the polls start varying. but there is general support for checks up to the ninety percent mark. getting into anything specifc, people will start disagreeing, sure. it's like hitting your head against a wall. it's common sense that not all people will stop at nothing to get a gun, does con posit that one hundred perscent of people who are denied a gun will go get one? it would be ridiculous to suggest. and, so, we see that if a person is more liekly to get into gun trouble with a gun, they are more likely to not without a gun. there is no way around this argument. the case is closed. most guns might be used for hunting or self defense, but we're only trying to stop people ith a record,,,, these other people are mostly irrelvant. a knife doesn't kill automaticsally like gun does. there was two recent shootings on the same day at schools. one involved a gun one involved a knive, both invloved over twenty kids injured or killed. one schoolhad all murders, the other had all injuries... guess which was which? plus the psychology isn't there to run and get your knife as it is to run and get a gun,,,, there's added psychological pressure to use a gun, and it kills automatically to boot. the reason why con is ranting about the same things as he is in the past debate is beause he has nothing relevant to say in response. the case is closed. con pretty much just ignores all the studies i provided, and ducked and ran from the common sense points i gave. and con added as a last jab that i gave no studies and gave unbacked arguments. i gave ironclad common sense and the studies i gave were rightthere in the first post.... harvard, oxford, covering individuals states and nationas... it doesn't get much more comprehensie and acadamic study that that. | PRO | a2b0b345-2019-04-18T15:54:36Z-00001-000 |
Religion Science and Philosophy should not be separated, they all point to a common and real truth. I have proven that religion science and philosophy should be seperated. Since you aren't talking about a single religion, well you are but you shouldn't be, then all religions, which is religion in general, all of science and all of philosophy cannot be united. It is impossible. And I also have proven how they cannot all point to a common and real truth. One religion may be backed up by science and philosophy. that's great. But religion itself, not talking specifics, is not backed up by science and philosophy. Since it isn't, then it can't point to the same truth as the other two. That means that I have proven both sides of the resolution to be false. first that they should be seperate, and that they don't point to a common and real truth. Also, you are supposed to prove that they shouldn't be seperated, which you haven't because you haven't answered my arguments, and you haven't proven how they point to the same truth. Therefore you don't win. | CON | 67121bf1-2019-04-18T20:02:08Z-00000-000 |
Abortion should be legal in the United States. My arguments against abortion: Abortion is killing a fetus. A fetus is human and alive therefore it is a human life. Killing an innocent human life is murder. Murder is wrong. Therefore abortion is wrong. The right to life is more important than the right to end a pregnancy. The right to life is more important than convenience to the mother. Adoption is a great alternative that does not involve killing. Fetuses develop quickly. For example, in 8 weeks the eyes, nose, mouth, and tongue have formed. Electrical brain activity begins at week 6. By week ten the fetus can make bodily movements. The heart begins to circulate blood at day 22. We can establish that fetuses being aborted have the basic features of a human life [1]. Lack of development is not an argument for abortion because a newborn is far less developed than an adult but has the same right to life. 1: http://frc.org... | CON | f8b7357b-2019-04-18T16:24:40Z-00002-000 |
Moonbase advances knowledge of human viability on alien planets. It is critical that humans begin the process of understanding the health implications of living on alien planets, including the Moon, Mars, and possibly others in the distant future. This requires understanding - among other things - the implications of living in a lower-gravity planet, such as the Moon, and developing techniques - such as artificial gravity - to cope with any issues that may arise. The Moon is an ideal place to begin this technological process. | PRO | c4c16da0-2019-04-17T11:47:29Z-00054-000 |
Tourism benefits the world. I would like to reinforce my previous points. First, PRO said that the cited incident tourist kidnap was due to "poor relations" between the West and Iraq. Although this is undoubtedly true, can it not be that these poor relations were actually caused by tourism in the first place? The definition of tourism is "the activity or practice of touring, esp. for pleasure". (Dictionary.com) Could what has sparked these conflicts and what has led to their escalation not be the practice of countries leaving their borders and "touring" around the world, invading countries here and there, for example Europe and its 'crusades' in the Middle Ages. http://www.international.ucla.edu... - This page supports my argument about ancient 'tourism' causing the East/West conflicts. This image seems to conclude nicely: http://img105.imageshack.us... (You are welcome to do the same.) | CON | 9b496435-2019-04-18T19:27:00Z-00003-000 |
Is God real. I feel like you and Jackgilbert would make good friends. Anyway, Let's do this. "You think that something comes from nothing. " No I don't. The earth came from stars exploding, Which made, In the words of Bill Wurtz "rocks, Ice, And funny clouds. Like this ball of flaming rocks (Earth). Oh sh*t, We just got hit by another ball of flaming rocks. " The eventually, The entire world is an ocean. Point is, That's how Earth was made, God did not do anything. "There is no scientific proof that God doesn't exist" well, The proof that God doesn't exist is the "proof" that God does exist is incorrect. "it might be that the universe was created last year, But with all the memories and physical evidence, To look like it was much older" the world ended in 2012 REEEEEEEEE. We have written, Video and photographic evidence that the world wasn't created a year ago. Sources: https://youtu. Be/xuCn8ux2gbs ('history of the entire world, I guess' by Bill Wurtz) This argument is weak as f*ck but at least I know god isn't real. | CON | 6c770967-2019-04-18T11:17:24Z-00006-000 |
electronics in school. I suppose that the disadvantages of having phones or tablets for students considerably outweigh the benefits. Here are the reasons for it: 1) Students get disctracted by phones. The cases of emergencies don't happen very frequently; however, the availability to the Internet on phones keeps us connected to different sites-- for example, social networking sites-- all the time. As a result, student have a temptation to chat with their friends online or surf the Internet instead of listening to "boring" lessons. Thus, their productivity on the lessons decreases due to phones. In addition, in the case of emergency, parents can call school's administartion and ask them to alert you, so students' devices are not the only solution for such kind of problem. 2) Phones influence the social status of a student in school community. Mostly, the phone model can tell about the level of income in a student's family. Those who cannot afford expensive telephones may feel uncomfortable comparing themselves with those who have the newest phone models. Also, children with "cool" smartphones can have better impression in the eyes of their peers, meanwhile kids with bad or even no phones will have a disadvantage. So, having no phones in school can help to create the atmosphere of true friendhip where students will choose friends not according to their level of income, but looking at qualities of character. 3) You said that student's phones would reduse school's expenditures. But have you considered that children can have absolutely different phones? For example, while some phones can support certain apps necessary for the work at a lesson, others cannot. Moreover, some students don't have phones at all. What should they do? I think that it would be significantly better for school to provide its students with the same equipment for proper work at lessons rather than to have such problems. | CON | 4c4ce076-2019-04-18T12:43:08Z-00000-000 |