argument
stringlengths 201
3.55k
| stance
stringclasses 2
values | id
stringlengths 36
39
|
|---|---|---|
Will UN ever keep peace. I think you are not clear about Cold War.I will tell you the meaning of cold war.Cold War :this term is used to describe the relationship between America and the Soviet Union 1945 to 1980. Neither side ever fought the other - the consequences would be too appalling - but they did ""fight"" for their beliefs usingclient stateswho fought for their beliefs on their behalf e.g. South Vietnamwas anticommunist and was supplied by America during the war while North Vietnamwas pro-Communist and fought the south (and the Americans) using weapons from communist Russia or communist China. In Afghanistan, the Americans supplied the rebel Afghans after the Soviet Union invaded in 1979 while they never physically involved themselves thus avoiding a direct clash with the Soviet Union.Now, there is no fighting among these two countries they are just competing with one another in subject matters like technologies,arms etc.. http://www.dadalos.org... | PRO | 93bd1880-2019-04-18T16:28:22Z-00004-000 |
My vision of Communism. "The way that Communism works is that there are no social classes which is a society where there are no one above you to rule over you and that there are no one beneath you that you rule." Then there will be absolutely no structure such as a head teacher to lead a school's teaching staff or an Army General to lead the soldiers in war. In fact there will literally be no parent to lead their child in life whatsoever and no police force to take down criminals since both would be equally ranked. This would lead to uncivilised chaos whereby no progress could proceed."Since the people is[are] in power which includes you then you will technically own it because you are the government so you want lose anything in a communist society." This point is irrelevant to the debate because /not losing something' by doing something doesn't justify doing it. It's like saying "you won't lose anything by having sex with a teddy bear" that doesn't mean it should be done."In a communist society you will not be needing the that high of a salary because almost everything is free and provided by the government and you should be getting a longer education because if that's how you will get the job that you have always wanted" But if there is no high salary then why would any sane person bother to work their butt off to be a CEO as opposed to a standard office worker? There simply is no motivation. This would mean there'd be no leaders and motivators in any company and complete chaos would break out."I have heard many people saying that they wont give there money for the good of the society because they are afraid of the getting into the pockets of some homeless alcoholic and to that I have to say that it's the most ridicules thing I have ever heard of because of course no one would want there money to be given to a alcoholic" Your point proves nothing and in fact supports the con side of this debate.I have attacked every single line of debate you offered in favour of your version of communism. Thanks for reading the debate, I hope you have a very nice day. | CON | e13b6d92-2019-04-18T17:48:01Z-00000-000 |
Landmines in N. Korea are a threat to civilians. "U.S. Use of Landmines in Korea: Myths and Reality." Prepared by the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation." March, 2002: "Myth: Landmines in Korea are not a hazard to civilians. Reality: Seventy-five civilians have died from mine accidents in Korea since 1990 and the number of injuries is much higher; It is estimated that there have been over 1,000 civilian mine victims since the end of the Korean War. Landmines stockpiled for use in Korea are non-self destructing or "dumb" antipersonnel landmines that can remain active for decades." | PRO | 96f2396e-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00090-000 |
R is a vowel. The letter "r" in English is a vowel. It works and sounds like a vowel, so why isn't it? Think about how it sounds when it's just thrown in with the other vowels: "ah, oh, er, ooh, ih, ee, uh, ...". It's totally a vowel! And what's up with "rhythm" or "turn"? BS is what! Nobody says the "u" in turn. The letter "y" gets to be a vowel sometimes and really should be one, but we are taught that it is a consonant. Opponents will of course be biased against this because of this unquestionable and ingrained tradition. | PRO | d5aac3cd-2019-04-18T11:37:23Z-00003-000 |
Does our society decides what a girl is apt to do and what not? ( particularly for Indian society). I haven't asked about linking law with ethics. And how can ethic be involved here? Okay, For a moment if I agree with ur view then my question would be, Does our ethics teach us to disrespect women? Does our ethics build our society? You should not forget that the ethics of a religion illuminates for humanity not to treat a woman on filth. | CON | e4d341a7-2019-04-18T11:17:55Z-00001-000 |
God is impossible and he does not exist. The Big Bang is was an immense burst of energy that occurred 13.798 " 0.037 billion years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org... for more information. How would God - or any being in fact - have the power to create time and space (space-time) in an instant? The Universe is complex and has a sophisticated structure, one that could not have been created by any god or any other being. The Big Bang cannot be explained in a few sentences or paragraphs. My quote of "immense burst of energy" is just the basic idea. You would require an entire book - a rather thick one - in order to explain the Big Bang intelligently and entirely. Therefore, if you do not know what the Big Bang is, please research it. Heaven and hell are eternal. How can you remain emotionally stable by remaining in a single state forever? Therefore, if God created these worlds, he must be merciless. Why would Christians worship a being whose mission it is to spread his ideas throughout the world - ideas that are controversial - and to spread Christianity everywhere? God would send people of all other faiths to hell due to their lack of belief of himself. Therefore, God would be a serious moral failure. God is not our Lord, nor is he our Father, nor is he our Creator. He is a figment of everyone's imagination and he is not part of reality. Con, please write more sophisticated arguments. If you are lazy, just write a line or two. Just make a point. | PRO | 90a5846d-2019-04-18T16:38:18Z-00005-000 |
Prolly Should Be a Word. I will answer each point in turn! "If you did do that thought, then I would consider you pretty dumb because it is obvious that a normal person would use it in context" Yeah, well, I'm a pretty dumb and abnormal person! But if it makes people happy, as you would suggest, then why would you also say that people give you a hard time about it?! You yourself say that people who say it are given a "hard time"! You contradict yourself here! "As far as probly goes, I do not think that it is normal, and it is definitely not as fun to say." Allright, so go ahead and say prolly for fun, but it doesn't need to be put in dictionaries! "People may say probly, but people also say prolly." People may say prolly, but they also say probly. Your missing the point, probly isn't a word! It is just a way of pronouncing probably! It's not a word unto itself! Prolly is also simply a pronunciation of probably, so therefore it can not be its own word! "Just because the people around you do not say it does not mean that nobody does. You are assuming things that you shouldn't. The word prolly is just as common in my community as probly may be in yours." I said quite clearly "I will take your word for it"! I never assumed anything! "As you said before, probly is not a different word than probably. By talking fast, someone may say this but *saying prolly also means the same thing*." If prolly is also not a different word than probably, why should it be made a word?! If prolly is simply a way of pronouncing another word, then why should it get it's own spot in the dictionary?! "This doesn't cause only trouble though. By learning to abbreviate things quickly, children/teenagers are learning how to take notes faster. By abbreviating words, they are learning skills that they can use in college." This is slightly far fetched though, right? OK, yes, there are definitely here and there advantages to abbreviations, but this should not be incorporated into every-day speech. "I meant that people that already say prolly because that is how they learned to talk will not feel weird about saying fake words and having their friends bother them about it." Bother them about it? I thought you said it would make them smile. Hey, you know what's also fun to say?: Vote CON!! -His imperial majesty. | CON | abe658b5-2019-04-18T19:44:14Z-00000-000 |
Apathy and unconditional pacifism are generally dangerous approaches towards politics. I accept burden of proof. Apathy- lack of interest or concern http://www.merriam-webster.com... pacifism- opposition to war or violence of any kind http://dictionary.reference.com... "Apathy is the slow poison coursing through the body politic that paves the way to tyranny." -Laurence Overmire Part I: Apathy When a people do not care what their government does to them, they are more likely to tolerate it. People gradually take more and more until they are victims of tyrrany. Being apathetic is the ultimate cause of tyrrany. If such a thing occurs to a people, it is often because they were apathetic. Apathy leads to tyrrany; therefore, it is a dangerous approach towards politics. Part II: Pacifism Often times, violence is justified. This is especially true when a people are being attacked by a group that does practice violence. The group that is pacifist will tolerate this violence towards them. Ultimately, they will be abused and ultimately ruled by the very people who were violent towards them. Pacifism leads to being ruled by foreigners who care not for your people. Part III: Conclusion When a people tolerate too much, their situation gets worse and it effects their lives in dangerous ways. I'll leave it there and await an opponent. | PRO | 9ab8c11c-2019-04-18T19:26:10Z-00003-000 |
The state is a meaningless metaphysical entity that is unnecessary and indeed detrimental for our lives. States may not be perfect but they are better than a stateless society. Whilst states do not have a perfect track record a stateless society would have all sorts of negative consequences. The laws in modern countries are designed to protect the weak from theft and harm. Property laws protect people's property that, in the case of houses they may have worked for 20 years or more to acquire. A stateless society is one that cannot enforce these laws and must always be more unjust than a society with a state. improve this | CON | 5fb43899-2019-04-15T20:24:46Z-00010-000 |
Biproducts of algae biofuels are useful fertilizaers. Nick Hodge. "Biodiesel Bliss - The Second Coming". Energy and Capital. 2 Apr. 2007 - "fertilizer for other food crops can be produced by using the leftover nutrients that aren’t used to make the biofuel...after the necessary oils have been extracted from the algae, we use the byproducts (phosphorus and nitrogen) as fertilizer for the food crops that feed the nation--all while extracting C02 from the air." | PRO | ea61b0fc-2019-04-17T11:47:36Z-00053-000 |
Seniors should be required to take citizenship test before graduating high school. If a person plans to become a politician, or involved with the U.S Gov't. in any manner, then they should be able to further their personal knowledge of the U.S Government at their own discretion. Making it a graduation requirement would simply promote an indifferent attitude within teenagers about their state's government. It will simply be another "assignment" in their eyes. According to the Washington Post, (http://www.washingtonpost.com...) many skills that teens should know prior to graduation revolve around practicality and making themselves a more self-sufficient adult. The average adult rarely does much in their life that calls for an extensive knowledge of the U.S Government. | CON | 593d1e2e-2019-04-18T15:03:29Z-00004-000 |
Evil proves God does not exist (Part 3). 4 Rounds 8,000 Character limit 72 Hours to respond 1 Month voting period NO VIDEO LINKS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROBLEMS ? If you have any problem with the debate please post in the comments section first so we can try to come to an agreement before starting. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EXPECTATIONS It is expected that both parties act in good faith, eg no semantics, no cheap shots. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Round 4 Round 4 is the last round, no new arguments are to be made in round 4. Only rebuttals, counter arguments of the previous arguments, and summaries. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEFINITIONS Definition of God = Its existence is uncaused, morally good, all powerful, all knowing, personal, the prime/first mover --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Opening Statement & What this debate is about The existence of evil has been used as a "proof" against Gods' non existence for a long time, by arguing the impossibility of God existing and evil existing. According to wikipedia.... "In the philosophy of religion, the problem of evil is the question of how to explain evil if there exists a deity that is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient (see theism).[1][2] Some philosophers have claimed that the existence of such a God and of evil are logically incompatible or unlikely"" [1] It should be noted, that this debate is about the logical incompatibility of evil existing and God existing. Is there an explicit contradiction between God existing and evil existing ? What if I was to argue the following.... 1) If rabbits exist then aliens from another world don't exist. 2) rabbits do exist. 3) Therefore aliens from another world don't exist. Even if everyone agrees that rabbits exist, this argument doesn't work, because there is no explicit contradiction between rabbits existing and aliens from another world also existing. Now consider this argument...... 1) If evil exists then God does not exist. 2) evil does exist. 3) Therefore God does not exist. Once again, this argument doesn't work, even if we all agree that evil exists, there is no explicit contradiction between evil existing and God existing. As William Craig says when addressing the existence of evil and God.... "According to the logical problem of evil, it is logically impossible for God and evil to co-exist. If God exists, then evil cannot exist. If evil exists, then God cannot exist. Since evil exists, it follows that God does not exist. But the problem with this argument is that there’s no reason to think that God and evil are logically incompatible. There’s no explicit contradiction between them. But if the atheist means there’s some implicit contradiction between God and evil, then he must be assuming some hidden premises which bring out this implicit contradiction.." [2] Seeing Pro is the one arguing that evil proves God does not exist, I shall await their argument. I look forward to Pros response. Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.reasonablefaith.org... | CON | 8b5ff64c-2019-04-18T18:50:27Z-00007-000 |
Cell phones at a early age yes or no. The fact that parents have bought there 6 or 7 year old a brand new iPhone that they do not require 1 it's ridiculous These children do not need a phone at this age as most parents go out and buy it for them and it's a waste of money but children this age don't need it and that it teaches them nothing it teaces then that the world will fall into there hands | CON | b10382ba-2019-04-18T15:21:28Z-00002-000 |
All Sins are denial of the Word of God and are Blapshemy. May I ask first are we using the bible ? If we are may I suggest the use of the of the 1769 Cambridge King James Bible . If Christianity is not your religion could you please specify that . Now I must refute the statement " NO argument can be made to suggest any religion ever suggested theer is forgiveness of Sin" Well if that is true the Word of God you speak so sure of says this Psalms 130 : 3 If thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? 4 But there is FORGIVENESS with thee, that thou mayest be feared. Iniquity being a synonym of sin surely should suggest your argument is flawed . Forgiveness is not only suggested in this passage but it a characteristic of the God you speak of . This round is leaving food for thought I hope for a resourceful answer . Peace - Khayil | CON | 51c24e33-2019-04-18T13:46:53Z-00002-000 |
Thbt Percy Jackson is better than Harry Potter. As mentioned, I will begin by stating how Percy have a better personality. I have two points, each referring to the partners Percy and Annabeth. Let's begin with the first point. Point one (Percy): It has been discovered in the final book of the first series, The Last Olympian, that Percy's fatal flaw is none other than loyalty, which actually means he puts his friends before himself. While that may get him killed, you may see the Percy has never died once in all the three series, (Percy Jackson the series, Blood of Olympus, Trials of Apollo) while Harry himself, has technically died. This shows that while Percy has a huge amount of loyalty in him, he is also capable enough to keep him alive. This makes him an incredible hero and his loyalty and ablity to get a girlfriend in only 5 years (for SUMMER only) actually shows Percy has a true legend's personality. Point two (Annabeth): Much like Hermione, Annabeth knows a lot about a lot in her world. However the one thing that seperates them is that Annabeth ALWAYS has a plan. Annabeth had been treated like a demon as a kid and eventually ran away from home at the age of seven. She then fought monsters under the guidance of her mom, Athena, for a few months with ONLY a mortal hammer. The excellent part about this part are the words "Mortal hammer" and "A few months". EVEN with the guidance of Athena, to fight a monster with a HAMMER would be VERY difficult. Even with the help of Hermes and Athena, you may remember Perseus almost avoided a narrow death with the other two Gorgons (sisters of Medusa) and had a nervous breakdown. Hercules took more than three days with the guidance of Athena and a gift to get rid of the Stymalitian birds. This shows Annabeth is really courageous in addition to being really knowledgable showing that she is a true example of a very sucessful entrupreneur. Overall, I have proved to you how Percy is good enough to save his friends AND the world no matter what and Annabeth as a worth demigod capable of handling anything and deserves to redesign Olympus. | PRO | 9a788a7e-2019-04-18T12:05:40Z-00001-000 |
Change the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment states that "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", I do believe it could be changed. The world today is full of craziness so allowing anyone to walk around with bear arms isn't a safe decision. Personally, for me I feel as though you shouldn't be allowed Bear Arms unless you have a registration or license for the gun itself; People such as "Gang Members" only want to have an affiliation with a gun to collect "cool points" or "Street Cred" But doesn't understand the potential danger that armed guns create. Also allowing people to carry guns bring suspicion especially in the eye of the public, children, and etc. | PRO | dae5762f-2019-04-18T11:43:16Z-00001-000 |
Ban muslims. Well, You"re very mature aren"t you? You clearly did not take the time to consider my view, Just expected me to believe you. Writing my answer was a waste of time, As this clearly wasn"t a serious debate. And about the fact that "nobody wants to be a Muslim", I have multiple friends who would say otherwise. So maybe think about what you"re saying before you say it, And don"t generalise like that next time. | CON | 2a73c50b-2019-04-18T11:17:53Z-00000-000 |
I will not contradict myself. "1. Should abusable drugs be legal for this 'responsible' population?" Answering this question would mean agreeing that this population is generally responsible, which I am not willing to do. "2. Can anything possibly be considered greater than God?" Yes. "3. Are you against drug legalization?" You've admitted yourself that the BIG issues are hard to understand. It would depend on what you meant by drug legalization, as there are many possible interpretations. If you go into more detail, I'll answer this in the next round. "4. Is this question 4?" Yes. "5. Is this question 5?" Yes. "6. Is this question 6?" Yes. "7. Can God create something more powerful than Himself?" Yes. "8. Can one infinity be considered greater than another?" Yes. "9. Can something possibly be more powerful than something omnipotent?" Yes. "10. Is there a number that can be considered greater than infinity?" Yes. | PRO | 489cc263-2019-04-18T19:21:16Z-00003-000 |
A technological dependancy will prove well for the greater good of mankind. The road to recovery from an emp In the modern world countries are very giving and willing to hand out foreign aid[1], so in the scenario that one country emp's another in all likelyhood the country hit would receive millions of dollars worth of foreign aid to help pay for the damage. I'll even list some of the aid money, and what country it's from the Katrina hurricane [2]: (I would also recommend you view the source since I only listed a few countries) Afghanistan- $100,000 Albania- $300,000 Armenia- $200,000 The Bahamas- $50,000 Canada- over 1,000 personnel Cuba- 1,568 doctors China- $5,000,000 along with 1,000 tents, 600 generators, bed sheets, medical care, disaster relief workers, and 104 tons of medical supplies. Cyprus- $50,000 Equatorial Guinea- $500,000 Gabon- $500,000 Iceland- $500,000 South Korea- $30,000,000 Oman- $15,000,000 Qatar- $100,000,000 to victims Turkey- $2,500,000 United Arab Empires- $100,000,000 I would also like to clarify that a strong, long lasting solar flare emp landing on a continent is very, very unlikely to occur in an average man's lifetime(and my opponent build his argument off what will happen if another country emps another). Meanwhile a nuclear emp typically lasts less than 0.01 of a second meaning you can immediatly start rebuilding, once electronics are destroyed. My opponent said: "this is very wrong your generators you will have for a short time but what are you going to do when the gas runs out ? do you know that all gas station pumps will not work ? and most likely people will kill for gas . so thats "ill_logical"" However I reccomend ignoring this since not only will the country get millions upon millions of foreign aid and technology (such as gas station pumps) but it will likely get oil from another country in the event it runs out or even low during an emp. Just for example both Portugal and Spain offered 1.75-2% of their oil reserve to the U.S. during Katrina.[2] Besides is their any logic within saying that technology is bad because it can be destroyed/emp'd, In addition all of its effects listed this debate (mainly round 2) have been positive, thanks for debating this topic with me Con and I look forward to seeing the votes and comments. Sources: [1] http://www.heritage.org... [2] http://www.nationmaster.com... | PRO | 8b731ef3-2019-04-18T16:36:39Z-00001-000 |
The user known as "brittwaller" should not have lost the following debates. The return of Kleptin is a great thing. Unfortunately, and wisely, in this instance, my opponent obviously agrees with me due to his actions to correct the said problems. This kind of makes the position of CON null and void. As of the writing of this post, about 9 pm CST, the score on the debate that should have been tied is actually tied, so as long as no one touches that one it should be golden. it is tied right down the middle, 30 to 30. Very nice. I say that as it would be a disservice to both sweatingjojo and I if it falters again. The other two are closer, but not reversed. I did not make this debate for vanity, but for rational justice 8) | PRO | 7d0dbc24-2019-04-18T19:37:46Z-00003-000 |
Ireland should pay the cost to the UK taxpayer of the Pope's forthcoming visit to Britain. The Pope's forthcoming visit to Britain is going to cost the country �14 million [1] and I firmly assert that the Irish government should pay. Here's why: The Irish aren't very adventurous with their food and they won't eat pasta, rice, noodles or any other "foreign muck" so when the potato harvests failed during the late 1840's, millions of Irish people were left with nothing to go with their succulent lamb chops, juicy pork steaks and rich beef and Guinness stews. Therefore, millions of Irish people decided that life in the Emerald Isle was no longer worth living and they decided to sail across the Irish Sea to England, the country that had taken Ireland under its wing in 1603 and had nutured and developed the country since then. [2], [3] Once in England, the new arrivals from Ireland received a warm welcome, offers of employment and, of course, the opportunity to gorge themselves on huge bags of lovely, golden-brown fish and chips. Unfortunetly, the extra demand for potatoes to make the chips to feed the Irish immigrants meant that extra supplies had to be imported from Ireland, which, ironically, excerbated the acute shortage there and led to a million Irish people starving to death. But never mind that, over in England, the Irish immigrants retained many of their traditional customs: heavy drinking; brawling in public; fixing horseraces; building houses on the cheap and operatng dangerous fairground rides are some of the many, but chief amongst the Irish imports was Catholism. Before the Irish came, England was a wholly protestant country but today the decendants of the original immigrants have created sufficient demand to warrant a Papal visit to Britain. Most British people are either protestant or not religious at all – it's the decendants of Irish immigrants that make up the majority of Catholics in Britain. So, since Britain helped Ireland out of a fix when they had a shortage of potatoes, surely it is only right and proper that the Irish government should pick up the tab for the Pope's visit to the UK? Thank you. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [2] http://users.drew.edu... [3] http://www.great-britain.co.uk... | PRO | 37279829-2019-04-18T19:04:09Z-00003-000 |
Movie age limits should be more strict. I would disagree with the argument here. In the real world nowadays, kids are going to be exposed to all sorts of disturbing imagery inevitably, and to shield them from that almost hurts them more than for them to see it. I know someone who in high school, met another kid who had been to a Catholic school from grades K-8. When the kid went to a public school, he heard "foul" language and swearing that he had not been exposed to. This can cause bullying and such. Point being, shielding kids from disturbing language and imagery hurts the kid more than it helps them. | CON | 504836d7-2019-04-18T11:38:32Z-00000-000 |
Stereotyping. I believe stereotyping is an important factor for our safety. Stereotyping is defined as using context clues or one's 6 senses to view an individual or situation and assume a broad summary. This can help when safety is of concern. Being able to stereotype someone can lower your risk almost instantly of potential threats into your comfort zone. In every situation there are pros and cons. I feel the pros considerably out way any con in this situation. I would certainly rather be safe then sorry when it comes to my well being. | PRO | 7473e3cf-2019-04-18T18:34:07Z-00005-000 |
JFK was assassinated by the ghost of Doc Holliday. J.F.K was killed in 1963 in Dallas, Texas. The motorcade turned left from Houston Street onto Elm Street, driving through Dealey Plaza, where the president was assassinated. The street on which the president was killed will become important later. [1]Among other things Doc Holliday was a gunfighter and a dentist. In 1873, Holliday opened a dental office in Dallas, Texas. The dental office was located on Elm Street. The very same Elm Street that J.F.K. was assassinated on. In fact, Holliday’s office was mere blocks from where the murder took place. Holliday had a habit of getting into gun fights. At one point he was shot by a fellow gambler and reported dead in the Dallas Weekly Herald. But he wasn’t dead. Not yet.[2] Have you ever seen The Nightmare on Elm Street before? Did you know the movie was based on actual events? There have been stories all throughout the world about people who have nightmares and then are found dead. You didn’t realize that did you? Wes Craven got the name of the street right. It was the name of the killer he got wrong. [3][4] If you watch closely on the Zapruder film, moments before J.F.K.’s head was shot, he appears sluggish. His is drooping down and it appears he’s nodded off. Not surprising, the president is a very busy man and probably doesn’t get a lot of rest. I submit to you that just before he gets shot, J.F.K dozed off, and right as his wife goes to wake him (you can see in the video she leans over to him) his head is blown off. Killed, by none other than the Dream Master himself, Doc Holliday. I rest my case. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://mytruestory.com...[4] http://www.forteantimes.com...[5] http://www.youtube.com... | PRO | 73f31353-2019-04-18T17:04:27Z-00001-000 |
Government employees may not use their religion to refuse the issue of gay marriage licenses. The whole point I want to make in this debate is that, unlike Con's assertion in the last round, a county clerk, or any other government employee does NOT have the choice to do what he or she feels is right, as regards whether or not to perform the duties of the office to which they've been appointed or elected. If they feel that their job requires them to do something that is against their beliefs the only honorable options are to either resign or request reassignment. A soldier doesn't have the right to decide what combat assignment he'll accept, a policeman can't decide what laws to enforce, and a county clerk can't decide which couples, of those who meet all the legal requirements for marriage, she'll issue a license to. If any government employee believes, for any reason, that they can't fulfill the duties of their office, as defined by the government who writes their paycheck, they shouldn't be in that office. Would any employer, government or private business, keep on an employee who tells them that they refuse to perform all the requirements in their job description but still insists on being paid their full salary? I thank Con for this debate and the interesting points Con provided. | PRO | b52b2679-2019-04-18T14:26:12Z-00001-000 |
Who is better, Gaara of the Desert, or Minato Namikage. As pro,it is my job to prove Gaara is better than Minato. OK for starters, Gaara is untouchable in MOST cases, (with the exception of Sasuke's Chidori and Diedara's Clay Bombs,) because part of his sand automatically covers his body and protects him from anything touching him. Also he is the host, ( or Jinchurikki) for Shakaku the sand demon, thus having a lot more chakra than most ninja. he can fight both on land or in the air, and has a absolute defense. only another Jinchurikki can keep up with him. plus Minato's Rasengan would be useless against Gaara, seeing as it won't be able to penetrate his sand. so with these arguments and others for next round i ask my opponent to rest his case. | PRO | b0eee43c-2019-04-18T18:21:04Z-00005-000 |
UN-educational shows. Yes, the ones replacing them are getting increasingly stupid. If that keeps happening though, a lot of people in the future will probably be stupid. What will that do to the jobs. More kids will be taught to take the easy way, Wawa and Mcdonald will be full of employees. We still could use more lawyers and people to be president, don`t we. We don`t want stupid lawyers and very un-intelligent presidents. | CON | f8955156-2019-04-18T17:06:09Z-00005-000 |
The New Testament contains no genuine contradictions of consequence. OPENINGI accept all my opponents terms and rules. Thank you for providing an exact version of scripture and an easy to use site (though your previous search disappearing when you clicked on it was annoying when trying to read previous verses). I will only provide three contradictions for this first round, pending my opponent accepting a line of argument I would like to use in the comment section. Moving on. .. ARGUMENTSGenuine Contradictions of Consequence:There are all examples of genuine contradictions of consequence which I believe meet my opponent criteria. .. a) How should mankind pray? Matthew 6:7-13 strongly suggests that one only uses the Lord ’s Prayer rather than asking for specific things, as “…when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. ”However John 14:14 clearly states: “If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it. ” and John 16:23-24 further contradicts it. This is a clear contradiction between John and Matthew. b) How is mankind saved? First let me establish what the Bible means by works, since I wasn’t sure. I assumed it meant actions and I was correct. ‘Works’ is doing good deeds for others. Romans 3:28 clearly states that man are judged by their faith, not their ‘works’. Galatians 2:16 elaborates on this. James 2:14-17 says that (paraphrasing) without ‘works’, faith means nothing. James 20 and 26 elaborate on this. This is a clear contradiction between Romans and James. c) Can all sins be forgiven? This is a really obvious one:Acts 10:43 (“To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name. ”) and more specifically 1 John 1:9 (“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. ”) strongly infer that all sins can be forgiven through Jesus yet…Matthew 12:32 (“…whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. ”) and more specifically Mark 3:28-30 (“Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— for they were saying, ‘He has an unclean spirit’. )”This one is blatant; John completely contradicts Mark. CONCLUSION I am interested to see how my opponent responds to these contradictions. They seem fairly clear to me. | CON | bbc0b5bb-2019-04-18T18:48:12Z-00006-000 |
Death Penalty. Candice I think we have to be friends now The topic of this debate says it all basically, The death penalty is a warning, just like a lighthouse throwing its beams out to sea. We hear about shipwrecks, but we do not hear about the ships the lighthouse guides safely on their way. We do not have proof of the number of ships it saves, but we do not tear the lighthouse down. | PRO | a490c080-2019-04-18T19:48:04Z-00004-000 |
Waterboarding is torture and anyone who allowed it/executed it should be prosecuted. Sorry for taking so long! I was slightly preoccupied with my bad sinus infection and a faulty power jack on my computer. "It's obvious, looking at the legal system, that waterboarding was accepted as a legal method of interrogation at the time." Actually, that's kind of what we're debating. Besides, just as federal law overrides state law, international law overrides federal law (that is, if you signed the resolution, which we did). "All three instances where waterboarding was used for terrorist interrogation were authorized and preformed by CIA agents, which, in case you "live under a rock", as my opponent put it, are pretty high up on the legal chain." First of all, there were way more than three instances in which waterboarding was used. While it was only used on three people, it was used multiple times on each person. In fact, it was used 183 times against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (http://today.msnbc.msn.com...). "Even if waterboarding was criminalized by the current administration, the Constitution prohibits the government from punishing or rectifying past cases "after the fact"." I noticed that you have not made a single mention defending that waterboarding is not torture. This hurts your argument tremendously, because unless you discuss it, the voters would have to assume that you conceded that it is, in fact, torture. As such, I could go on to make the argument that torture was already illegal, and what you're saying is basically that since it was a while ago and that administration thought it was okay (did Congress approve it? I don't think so), they shouldn't be punished. Well, if a guy murders someone, does it exempt him from punishment because it happened so long ago? You can't prosecute someone for doing something illegal before it was illegal, that is true, but torture was already illegal. As you made no contention to address your position that waterboarding is not torture, one can only assume that it is; therefore, it is illegal, and was as much during the Bush administration as it is during the Obama administration. I am looking forward to your response! | PRO | e260489-2019-04-18T19:23:14Z-00003-000 |
There is no mechanism that permits free will to exist. We feel as though we make choices. I'm of the opinion that this is an illusion. Pro will argue that there isn't a mechanism that can give us free will. Con will argue that there is a mechanism that grants us free will. Rules, the key to the debate is the mechanism and what we see in the world. Is there a mechanism, that when we compare human behavior with the mechanism, that makes sense and grants us free will? Pro will argue that no such mechanism exists. Con will argue that there is such a mechanism. I'm willing to let Con use any mechanism he wishes, including magic, if necessary. However, Con must offer some type of mechanism in order to win the debate and show how it would give us free will. Con doesn't have to prove the mechanism exist (soul as an example) he only has to show it can give us free will while matching to reality. Free will should be understood as a person that has freedom to make any choice they wish. Free from biological, cultural or other influences. Free=untethered. Will=desire to do something. | PRO | 6737184-2019-04-18T15:34:09Z-00006-000 |
The show "League of super evil" is now forgotten. First off I'd like to briefly examine what my opponent said. It will not take long. First off, my opponent pretty much conceded the debate with the following statment. "The show itself may haven't been completely forgotten"I ask voters to take this into consideration. Moving forward, the BOP is in fact on Pro. He must show that no one remembers this TV show, if I can prove that even one person does remember, then the resolution is negated and I will have won the debate. My opponent's entire 2nd round arguments are not really relevant. Because he is still talking about revivals of the show and the show's popularity. This doesn't relate to the resolution at all. In his 2nd round arguments, my opponent hasn't said anything of worth. He is only saying that there will be no sequel, which is irrelevant to the debate. Now I will answer my opponents questions here.1. ) Did you remembered this show because of this debate or were you thinking about the show before you have replied to my argument and saw this debate? ( Please be honest in this wet)The fact that I even accepted the debate is a point against my opponent. First off, throughout this debate, it is certain that neither my opponent nor I have forgotten about the show. If we had, we wouldn't have been having this debate. So that's one point that negates my opponents entire resolution. WE haven't forgotten about the show, and we probably won't forget until after this debate has ended. This point alone is enough to award me the win. 2. ) Were the views in the League of super evil wiki adds until now? If yes does it add slowly or fastly? I don't know what my opponent means by "adds. " But the 1500 views stat that I gave were views over the past month. Again, my opponent has not refuted this point at all throughout this debate. All of those people haven't forgotten about the show. Again, this point alone is enough to award me the win. I will throw in one more argument before this round ends. There is still a site dedicated to League of Super Evil. The link is as follows. . http://leagueofsuperevil.ytv.com...Now my opponent will most likely say I can't prove that anyone visits this site, which is true. However I don't have to. The fact that this site is up is again, enough to award me this win. The people who work on and pay for that site, in order for it to stay up, have not forgotten about the show. The resolution is negated. | CON | 7e6d3463-2019-04-18T13:58:55Z-00003-000 |
Does the government have a special responsibility to help minorities. First of all i don't believe that in anyway the low crime rate have anything to do with inequality but rather the low amount of people in poverty in said country. Also i believe that some anti-discrimination laws like the law that forbid you saying anything racist or even hurtful is just plain stupid, mainly because it attacks one of out most valuable freedoms namely the freedom of speech. You also made an argument about helping minorities could prevent school shootings which isn't true since 79 % of school shooters are with, and white people are not a part of this infamous minority so that don't make any sense what so ever. If a company decides to let an employee go because of their background then that is none of our business since it's a a private company, we can think it's bad to do such things but in the end it all comes down to the company and who they want representing them. You can't compare USA and Denmark because they have such a different demographic where USA has a lot more minorities than Denmark. | CON | be2bd0e7-2019-04-18T13:08:59Z-00003-000 |
Music Battle! Songs with deep and meaningful lyrics!. Murder on Music Row-George Strait and Alan Jackson Nobody saw him running from sixteenth avenue. They never found the fingerprint or the weapon that was used. But someone killed country music, cut out its heart and soul. They got away with murder down on music row. The almighty dollar and the lust for worldwide fame Slowly killed tradition and for that someone should hang (oh, you tell them Alan). They all say not guilty, but the evidence will show That murder was committed down on music row. For the steel guitars no longer cry and fiddles barely play, But drums and rock 'n roll guitars are mixed up in your face. Old Hank wouldn't have a chance on today's radio Since they committed murder down on music row. They thought no one would miss it, once it was dead and gone They said no one would buy them old drinking and cheating songs (I'll still buy 'em) Well there ain't no justice in it and the hard facts are cold Murder's been committed down on music row. Oh, the steel guitars no longer cry and you can't hear fiddles play With drums and rock 'n roll guitars mixed right up in your face Why, the Hag, he wouldn't have a chance on today's radio Since they committed murder down on music row Why, they even tell the Possum to pack up and go back home There's been an awful murder down on music row. | PRO | df494269-2019-04-18T15:55:41Z-00001-000 |
The Kalam Cosmological Argument proves the existence of a Personal Creator. I would like to issue an open challenge on a debate regarding the Kalam Cosmological Argument as supported by William Lane Craig and whether it in fact proves the existence of a personal creator- ie, god. I will take the opposing position, ie that it lacks evidential support and thus cannot prove its conclusion. The KCA: A.Whatever begins to exist has cause B. The universe began to exit C. .'. the universe has a cause.NOTE: The creation of the universe does not simply denote what arises from a cosmic expansion, but an actual creation of its materia- energy. | CON | f96f0650-2019-04-18T18:34:46Z-00007-000 |
trump is worse then hitler. Thanks for the response.My opponent has continued to make unsubstantiated assertions. He responds to claims I have sources to back up without providing his own. “but he was a communist thou” He was a ‘National Socialist” although even if he was a Communist that wouldn’t mean he didn’t hate other Communists, Communists always hate other factions of Communism. “milo is alt right commninsts ofc he likes trump, he likes trump therefor he likes hitler!!” Milo is alto right, but not a Communist. Although he is not a good guy he hasn’t gotten to Hitler levels. I did admit he is bad, but not everything that is bad is in the same league as Hitler. “hitler didnt even kill that many people, he killed to many people in a short amont of time, its not even possible! you dont make sense!” I provided the evidence, all I have gotten from my opponent is assertions without evidence.Considering I have provided evidence and my opponent has failed to do so. Vote for me for the win.Thank you. | CON | ac0d25f9-2019-04-18T12:24:20Z-00000-000 |
The doctrine of the trinity is Scriptural. Since this is the round for closing statements, I will not be providing rebuttals. I would like to thank my opponent for taking the time to carry out his side to the end and I enjoyed the engagement. My goal for this debate was to prove that the doctrine of the trinity is Scriptural. My opponent and I agreed upon the following definition for the doctrine of the trinity:"There is one eternal being of God - indivisible, infinite. This one being of God is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. "My initial arguments really expanded on this definition and provided a Biblical defense for each piece of it. I believe I successfully provided rebuttals to all of my opponent's arguments throughout the entirety of the debate, but that is ultimately up to you, the voter, to decide. The Bible clearly teaches the deity and eternal nature of the Son (Jon. 1:1-3; 20:28, 29; Rom. 9:5; Heb. 1; 1 John 5:20; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; Rev. 5:13, 14) and the Spirit (Jon. 15:26; 16:13; Act. 5:3; Eph. 4:30; 1 Cor. 2:10, 11; 3:17). The Bible very clearly shows the triune formula (Mat. 28:19; Rom. 15:16, 30; 2 Cor. 1:21-22; 13:14 Eph. 2:18). These passages form the metropolis of the trinity. | PRO | 5bb46099-2019-04-18T12:15:26Z-00000-000 |
Resolved: Current U.S. Foregin Policy in the Midddle East Undermines our National Security. Our foreign policy does not undermine our national security but makes us stronger as a nation. I am going to start by attacking my opponents contentions. 1. we are not at war with any middle eastern nations, and are in fact helping their governments build their army and fight terrorism themselves. we are creating bonds with countries like Iraq and Afghanistan by making them stronger and helping defend them. The policy in the middle east will not affect our trade because we are fighting terrorist organizations, not nations. Also I do not believe his first contention to be topical due to the fact this has nothing to do with our nation security but more trade and economic STABILITY not SECURITY. 2. Yes the United States is threatened by terrorists groups, and that is why we have the policy we have today. to defend ourselves against terrorist organizations like Al-Quad. We have prevented many terrorist attacks on American soil and have made a strong organization weaker and weaker. they used to control entire governments but now they are being pushed back into their caves by American forces. We can not stop now. We are making the world a better place, and trying to rid it of terror. 3. We need to support our allies in the middle east because they fight a much harder battle than we do as Americans. They have to deal with terrorists attacks on their nation, I am not stating that we haven't but they have had to more often, they help fight terrorism and are a great ally. We need to support Israel We are safe right now because of our foreign policies. We fight the problem and don't just let it do whatever it wants. This is common sense, and cast a neg ballot thank you | CON | 20ec89b9-2019-04-18T17:35:01Z-00002-000 |
The big bang theory. Since this the last time I will get to talk before the voting starts I will end this heated debate with a bang. So the reason why the single dense point exploded is because the point spun so fast in a friction empty environment. The point went so fast that it eventually exploded. So that would mean that all the planets should be spinning in the same direction. Right? Well sorry to burst your bubble but 2 planets spin backwards: Uranus and Venus. And some moons not only spin backwards they orbit their planet backwards. This is solid proof of the Big Bang theory being wrong. | CON | e638a5c7-2019-04-18T13:45:13Z-00000-000 |
A SkyLift or a Tram Must Be Built for Batu Caves. Batu Caves limestone temple in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia is one of the most visited limestone temple outside India. You could only reach it if you are fit enough to scale 272 steps and fight the monkeys manning the stairs. Shouldn't the authority build some form of automatic lifting system to help the elderly and tourists to take them on the temples? Forget the tradition. Should religion accepts modernization too ? Reference: http://www.jomjalan.com... http://www.jomjalan.com.my... | PRO | a80f4352-2019-04-18T17:38:44Z-00004-000 |
Catholicism Is Not a Christian Faith. I do not believe Catholicism is a Christian faith because it does not teach a saving gospel. For me, the issue is not about trivial matters, but about the heart of the gospel itself as I will show. Of course, as a protestant, I am not a fan of the traditions of the Catholic church, but these are minor issues. If the Catholic church does not teach the real saving gospel, it is not Christian, although individual Catholics who do not agree with their church may be saved. I truly hope that I will lose this debate and be convinced that Catholics are in fact Christians, but I don't see how that is possible at the moment. I hope I am wrong, but if I am right, I hope those of the Catholic church will heed my warning. | PRO | a6c459e6-2019-04-18T11:53:55Z-00004-000 |
9/11 was not an inside job. "Once that floor was under too much stress, it gave out and crashed on to the next floor. It's weight was almost quadrupling as each floor fell onto the next." 1. The weight did not change. The building supported a certain amount of weight before the collision and same after, extra floors were not added. They were simply stacked on one another. 2. If this was true, then "layers" of floors stacked on top of each other would be found afterwards. There were no stacks of floors found. In fact, the floors were shredded. Same with the steel columns, if there were no explosives, then the columns would be bent, beaten but not SHREDDED as they were found and as you can see in this picture. http://911research.wtc7.net... "Hot steel will continue to undergo exothermic oxidation reactions while exposed to air, causing iron to increase its temperature until it melts, forming pools of molten iron." Which is why it was steel that was molten weeks after the collision, and not aluminum. Aluminum would have cooled off. "I'm not asking WHY the government would do that" The government did it to create a national enemy and create a reason to invade Iraq/Middle East for oil. Lots of money. http://www.cnn.com... http://readersupportednews.org... "It "failed" because the hijackers turned off the airplanes transponders so the Air Traffic Control could not track them. The only way the Air Force could shoot down those hijacked planes is if they got an alert from Air Traffic Control, which they didn't because Air Traffic Control could get in touch with the hijacked planes." NORAD is immediately notified when a plane stops broadcasting the transponder code and NORAD had many drills with planes that had transponders turned off. One of the planes was flying around without a signal for 45 mins, yet NORAD still "couldn't" take it down. http://georgewashington.blogspot.com... I will note that my opponent dropped my point about Bin Laden. It can be noted that the buildings fell at almost free fall speed. Nothing can move mass out of the way that fast except explosives. http://911research.wtc7.net... | CON | 3e1df866-2019-04-18T16:14:24Z-00003-000 |
Steroids should be banned in all pro sports. My opponent is making his case based on the effects of anabolic steroids. This is only one type of steroid whereas the resolution calls for the ban of steroids in general. In my argument I contend that if steroids were completely banned from use in all professional sports then athletes that use corticosteroids to treat their conditions would be barred from competition. I will state again that corticosteroids are used to treat skin conditions such as eczema, psoriasis and allergies. They also are used to treat hay fever, many autoimmune disorders such rheumatoid arthritis, asthma and polymyalgia rheumatica. Corticosteroids are also used to prevent organ rejection in transplant patients. Sometimes they are injected into joints to reduce joint pain and swelling. If these facts are not enough to convince the voters I will also provide an argument as to why Anabolic steroids do not need to be banned from _all_ professional sports. Anabolic steroids are used to improve and accelerate muscle growth. This gives these athletes an unfair strength advantage and is the main reason that they are banned. There are many professional sports where strength means nothing. These sports include [2]: * Auto-Racing * Curling * Motorcycle Racing * Speedway * Radio-controlled model * Video Games My opponent may also argue that since aggression is a side-effect of steroid use that they should be banned. I contend that this is not the case as aggression alone does not pose a threat. It is only when a person actually causes harm to another that is a problem. This is a crime in and of itself and would possibly lead to jail time for the aggressor and legitimate ejection from a sporting league. I look forward to my opponent's response. [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... | CON | d1edcf12-2019-04-18T19:10:00Z-00002-000 |
Song Battle. My next song " believe it or not " is "Let it Go" from Disney"s Frozen! I know I"ve criticized this movie " I still think it"s overrated! " but the song is just so darn catchy and I think it carries a deeply-veiled significance to release your potential, to dream big, and to let your inhibitions go! Now, I"ve read into the context of the movie and what Elsa (I think that"s her name?) was apparently letting go was the fact that she couldn"t manage her own power and hurt her sister"but let"s ignore that and enjoy the fascinating song! Thanks for the debate, Mikal. | PRO | c1382acc-2019-04-18T16:08:59Z-00000-000 |
Lower the Drinking Age from 21 to 18. In response to your arguement, I have done my own research and found that the younger the person the more proned they are to being tempted to drink ,because of peer pressure. This is statistical research. Due to that fact I think that 21 should be the legal drinking age . We should not lower the drinking age to 18 because teenagers say we should . This would be an abomination ! by that I mean that we should as people know that drinking under age is far more dangerous than not drinking. If you are going to drink , it should be where you can not drive because you are drunk. That being said, I still feel that 21 should be the legal drinking age, due to being responsible or lack there of. | CON | 2226ff9-2019-04-18T20:01:46Z-00004-000 |
The US government should cut military spending. People- there are 1.6 billion people in this world who want to murder us, burn out towns, poison our wells, destroy our crops, eat out cats and rape our goats. These gus are insane, deranged, and sadistic sick little monkeys- and if we don't do something about our Muslim problem we are ALL gonna die! Chris Christie knows what I'm talking about: | CON | ab22a436-2019-04-18T12:24:27Z-00000-000 |
God does NOT exist. 1.) "Until one can prove that the big bang WAS caused by god, one may justified in using SCIENCE as a viable option for the causation of yet unexplained phenomena." I was not stating that one must believe in god as the source of the big bang, only that it has not yet been proven that god was not the cause, so one may choose to believe that if one wishes. After that you try to shift the burden of proof from you to me. You are the instigator and pro in this debate and are the one who challenged me. In this debate, you have the burden of proof and it is up to you to prove god does not exist. I do not have to prove that a god exists, I must merely refute your own arguments. 2.) My opponent at this point responds to my challenge to show that people's prayers going unanswered proves there is no god. This has not been done. I noticed in the example of the study you provided the only people praying were Christians. The Christian god might not exist, but that does not disprove the Greek or Muslim gods. You also have not shown that god could not simply be malevolent so we can assume you have conceded this argument. Why can't our vision of god be incorrect? You may be able to disprove a benevolent god according to our own standards but might the standard that has traditionally been attributed to god be incorrect? There is not complete agreement on the moral code of the Muslim, Christian, or Greek gods. So your contention that if god were 'perfect' ,in the sense of my definition, he would act in a traditionally benevolent manner is faulty. You have also not responded to my refutation of the problem of evil so it may be assumed that the point has been conceded. You also did not provide a source for your example of the prayer study so it may automatically be discarded. If I'm not mistaken though I believe I recognize that study from the book, 'The God Delusion'. | CON | 94448443-2019-04-18T18:52:16Z-00002-000 |
Horses should be used for meat. horse (n.) a large, solid-hoofed, herbivorous quadruped, Equus caballus, domesticated since prehistoric times, bred in a number of varieties, and used for carrying or pulling loads, for riding, and for racing. meat (n.) the flesh of animals as used for food.Round 1 is for acceptanceRound 2 is for debateRound 3 is to attack and defendGood luck, you may start | PRO | 7e4ea386-2019-04-18T18:40:10Z-00004-000 |
The Bible Does not teach that Sunday or Saturday is the Lord's Day, but that this Day is yet to Come. The Bible teaches that the Lord's Day is a future time associated with the Coming of the Lord, not Saturday, not Sunday, not the Sabbath. My opponent must defend his position that either the Sabbath, Saturday or Sunday, is the Lord's day. He may choose to begin his defense in the first or second round. We must both share the burden of proof. He or she must be or profess to be a Christian. | PRO | 9f7007fd-2019-04-18T18:29:54Z-00005-000 |
Minecraft better than Mario Party Nine. 1. Minecraft fuels teamwork 2. Minecraft fuels creativity 3. It has no ending. after beating the ender dragon, it does not end their By the way your mario party 9 needs a wii. What's a wii? some people don't even know what that is. It is a very expensive piece of equipment. In minecraft you can make anything using commannd blocks. why if anyone tried, they could probably make your game inside of minecraft. Your argument "the graphics are bad" is the most generic argument i have heard in my life since everyone knows that the gameplay makes up for the graphics. Its like legos except you have an infinite amount of them. Just look at this (https://trends.google.com...) my game is is obviously better than you game. Do you know board games are losing popuarity? Do you know that Mario party games are the same old' games but with a different number and different boards? Mario party nine does not help educate students but minecraft does. While Mario Party nine will soon be forgotten by the next generation, Minecraft will not. | PRO | 35fb000d-2019-04-18T12:10:17Z-00001-000 |
Black holes are not infinite. I don't understand where my opponent is getting her definition of the space time anomaly known as the 'black hole'. The Smithsonian Scientific Journal defines it as an object in space with a gravitational field of significant size so that, to a certain distance, not even the high velocity and low mass characteristics of light can escape it. Because light does not escape the event horizon of a black hole, human perception regards no existence from that area thus we call them 'black holes'. In accordance with the above mentioned scientific journal, other high accuracy publications confirm that definition, such as the North American Astronomical Research Facility. Thus my definition stands as the more accurate of the two negating her argument. I will further by presenting an argument of my own. If said black holes were points of infinite mass, as speculated by some theorizers, then by the equation, Force of gravity = (gravitation constant X mass 1 (black hole) X mass 2 (any other object)) / (distance between the two objects)^2 or F=(GMm)/(r^2) then we find that the resulting force is also infinite. We then look at the other object's force acceleration through this equation. force found earlier = acceleration of other object X mass of other object or F = am thus the acceleration of the affected object is infinite Also notice that the neither the distance from the black hole, nor the mass of the other object matters because the resulting forces and accelerations are still infinite. Thus if a black hole had infinite mass, it would pull in an infinite amount of objects, from an infinite distance, at an infinite velocity, in an infinitely small amount of time. Since this is not happening now we must concur that the objects scientifically labeled as black holes by reputable scientists are not infinite but instead of a definite mass of epically large proportions. | PRO | c2b34c5c-2019-04-18T19:28:05Z-00002-000 |
Mitt Romney's calling his own sons liars in the debate last night. I'm not sure what your contention is here, but it seems like Romney just provided one of his "zingers." I don't think he called his sons liars, so much as outlined a teenage stereotype. It seemed like a pretty innocent quip that a lot of parents of teenagers can relate to. It was probably a prepared retort that was meant to reduce Obama's credibility by comparing him to a teenager. I think he delivered it decently (better than you would expect from him), which is why you're not hearing about it. | PRO | f9889e19-2019-04-18T18:08:00Z-00000-000 |
only personal physical experience of now is real. everything and nothing is defined by experience, singularity is the opposite of humanity if you perceive it you experience it that is a belief, they can not actually read the words, i know logic, therefore i know i can reason, there is no logic in fantasy so there is no knowing cause and effect in my imagination if i am in a simulation, there is nothing to simulate, where as because i can simulate something, means there is true and false, so something is real on a higher level, the future is possible, so i know i am in my imagination when i cant imagine anything the past is impossible because you can never experience it again, and reality is absolute which means there is no other option, so that includes impossible, therefore its impossible for you to close your eyes and read these words on the screen imagination is false, you cant imagine reality, so cause and effect doesn't apply, its a simulation, reason, the concept of logic, it might be true that its happening in your false imagination thou the only effect in your imagination is emotion caused by your thoughts, if what happened in your imagination was true you should die when you jump off a cliff and splatter on the ground only the time of now is real, the future and past dosnt matter, and matter is space and space is time, like air. there is no reality in the past, neither in the future, to say 5 seconds ahead of now is real is saying 5 seconds ahead of reality is real, as i have to imagine it "know=physical experience of now, and know is no other option" seeing with your physical eyes is knowing, you have 5 senses, and there is no other option for you then to look at these words on the screen with your eyes if that is your only option, THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION, absolute, so its impossible for you to read on till the end of this message with your eyes closed belief is the opposite of knowledge, know is the balancing point between belief and knowledge, true is the opposite of false and truth, 0 and 1 belief=False=future know=true=now knowledge=truth=past its true i am here now, so i must have gotten here somehow, and the future is unknown i was stating my opinion when saying hospitals are necessary, i think they are, i like em! :) natural is necessary an effect that wasn't caused has no effect, anything else is a lie particles, atoms, the world, galaxies, a universe, all imaginary, not real | PRO | c0e36551-2019-04-18T15:31:19Z-00003-000 |
Any given person should do debate (details below). The pro side is ignoring my last argument entirely. The "copy & paste" statement refers to your first argument. Look at your source. You copied an pasted the entire source. As for the resolution, you did not specify in the actual resolution who/what is being referred to. It does not matter if you wrote the resolution, you can't discount the vast majority of the world: ANY GIVEN PERSON. Stop cheating by writing nonspecific resolutions, the writing off your opponents as whiners when you try to limit the scope of a pre-written resolution. Let me get this straight. You want to say any given person should do debate, yet we should exclude: 1. anyone who is not a teenager 2. not an American The framework itself shows that the pro side feels cornered, and the only way to win is to twist the resolution out of context entirely At this point, I am getting tired of the Pro side's poor conduct, stating disappointment, and whining. So let's clear this up. The pro side lied about copy/paste. The pro side cheats in changing the focus of debate, mid-round. Finally, relating to my original case, my opponent is clearly mentally retarded, and should clearly not debate, because he cannot do it fairly. | CON | 82288983-2019-04-18T18:53:40Z-00002-000 |
90% of Black homocides are done by other Blacks... and Democrats race bate over the 10%. Not to seem too abstract, but most houses are built from the bottom up. Thus, I don't think it is entirely wrong to build the American Economy back up starting with the lower class. African Americans are the demographic with the highest poverty rate, and Democrats are attempting to address that, unlike most Republicans who think that tax cuts should be directed towards the upper classes. The reason you aren't seeing a drastic change is the stubborn conservative House and Senate. If Democrats could finish work on the bottom of the bottom, I think you could see a larger middle class. Democrats can then deliver on a lot of their promises. However, when liberals in the White House and Congress try to do anything to help the lower classes, it is immediately shot down by the GOP. Meanwhile, the GOP constructs laws requiring Voter IDs, a law that has come under fire from many NAACP members, as well as local citizens. If the Republicans wanted a larger African-American vote, maybe they should think twice about angering their voters. As for your second argument that the struggle of the "Modern Black Community" is addressed by Conservatives, I would have to disagree as well. Your statement that all of this has to do with politics is almost completely false. Most of these troubled African-American families you speak of have been poor for generations. Do you know why? It is something called segregation. Yes, since the 1950s, these families have been kicked over and over by racist conservatives. As for your statement about education, let me respond with some questions. If you are living with a single mother, in a small run-down public housing development in the ghettos of a major city, do you think your main concern would be studying for that Chemistry test? If I was in that situation, I would try and get a job as soon as possible. That may involve me dropping out of school, and finding a minimum wage job. I would be forced to return to public housing, and raise another generation of poor African-Americans. It is a giant cycle, and I think African-Americans can see that Democrats have the ability to change that. | CON | b325a18a-2019-04-18T14:57:37Z-00002-000 |
As long as clothes are cheap, Americans are blind to garment working conditions. As Con has proven and Pro has agreed, 'Americans' do not care about working conditions for the workers of any industry, whether the products are expensive or cheap. I would like to thank Pro for the opportunity to debate, and hope we can debate again, in a better setting next time, hopefully. But never mind, welcome to formal debating. It's just like non formal debating. The goal is the same. The technique might be a little different, but you'll get the hang of it quite quickly, especially judging by the other debates you are having. I hope this did not come across as too harsh, as a law student I just very carefully analyse the linguistic as well as the factual statement, which by the way is a very good way to win any debate, whether formal or informal. | CON | 9a634ff-2019-04-18T14:44:00Z-00000-000 |
Abortion. Homicide is the deliberate taking of a person"s life by another person. If someone commits homicide, they can be put in prison for a life sentence, or under certain circumstances be executed. Abortion is the deliberate "procedure" of taking an unborn baby's life. The key word is deliberate. In both cases however, someone"s life is taken by another person on purpose. In 1973, the supreme court"s decision over Roe Vs Wade effectively legalized abortion in all fifty states, opening abortion clinics all over the nation. Norma McCorvey, also know as Jane Roe, was dragged into the Roe vs Wade case. She wanted an abortion, and it was this that led to her being behind the Supreme Court"s ruling. She says it is the number one regret in her life. She wishes she had known what she was getting into.. She hates that because of her abortion is legal. In other words, murder is legal. If the person behind the thousands of Planned Parenthood's is Pro Life, shouldn"t that mean something? Anything? Or even everything? | CON | b1870887-2019-04-18T12:55:05Z-00001-000 |
Chess is not need in Schools. Well let me go ahead and shut down your arguments: Your first argument is saying we should not incorporate chess is because it's too hard, and students won't learn it. -If this is true, then why don't we take out English, and math? Just because a subject is too hard, we need to remove it? If this was the case, we would have no subjects since everyone will have a subject they will struggle in. Your second argument, is why don't we put a more fun and enjoyable game in the curriculum (monopoly, go, etc..)? -The reason we shouldn't put a game like monopoly, is because that game favors heavily in luck, by rolling the dice. Chess is all skill, and requires no luck. It takes skill to find the best move to make checkmate, you don't get lucky that you won. | CON | 847f0140-2019-04-18T14:45:52Z-00001-000 |
Should Schools Allow Phones In The Class. Having phones in school can provide a distraction yes, But what is a fire was to occur and the adult could not contact a fire station. " On april 20th 1999, 2 teenagers walk into columbine High school carrying sub- machine guns and homemade bombs intending to do some damage, 13 innocent students were murdered and many more would have been if it weren't for some students and their phones. 1 student hiding for his life called 911 and described the location of the school, And what the murderers looked like. If it wasn't for him and many other, More people would be dead. " | CON | 7b8abd0e-2019-04-18T11:16:08Z-00003-000 |
States Ought Not Possess Nuclear Weapons. Definitions: states- a division of a federal State (such as the states of the United States of America).[1] States ought not possess nuclear weapons as it would force individual states to develop foreign policy, as they would have possession of weapons of mass destruction that are not the property of any form of federal government. Since historically foreign policy has largely been the responsibility of federal governments.[2] This would cause unnecessary tension between the two entities, and may even result in a civil war. The possession of nuclear weapons best belongs to federal governments. I thank my opponent and eagerly await his response in the next round. Sources [1] http://geography.about.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... | PRO | ca2aacb0-2019-04-18T19:03:17Z-00004-000 |
Non-violent offenders and murderers should be segregated in prison. With murderers and non violent offenders in the same area of prison, more conflicts occur. Murderers are there clearly for violent purposes and they have it in them to be more violent. The non violent offenders are in there for some other reason and have no reason to be violent towards anyone. Mixing them together would only cause problems that would not occur if they were not in the same area, like unnecessary fights that violent people get a thrill out of. | PRO | 30ce9e7e-2019-04-18T15:28:23Z-00005-000 |
Gun control in America. I would like to debate for gun control in America. I am a firm believer that we need to work towards protecting our citizens, and this idea should outshine all else. The first round is for acceptance only please. As I know this is a very heated debate, remember to keep debates in the debate world and do not let it carry outside of that. Also, a word to voters- please try to put your bias aside and only vote for who made a better case. Thank you. | PRO | 133bb7f0-2019-04-18T15:52:07Z-00005-000 |
Most of geniuses are shizophrenic. However, you said that schizophrenia is a disease and you are quite right, but I already mentioned that schizophrenia could be acquired over time because of overloading the brain, in conclusion the diagnosis could be - schizophrenia ( kind of disease). I joined a site that you put into your arguments. And there is said that leading role in the occurrence of schizophrenia has a genetic predisposition. And here is the thing that I would mention is that children's of geniuses often born idiots. Einstein's son doctors found schizophrenia. When Einstein, fell into madness. After his death doctors found that there is no gray matter (carrier of intellect) in his brain. Another evidence that I can give you is the film "Beautiful Mind", probably you have seen it, the film is based on real events. The main hero was also genius and schizophrenic. In conclusion: not all schizophrenics are genius but most of genius are schizophrenics. Thank you. | PRO | 4d7d23b3-2019-04-18T17:52:33Z-00001-000 |
People should be allowed to carry guns with them. A primary concern of people carrying guns is the possibility of violence, which, admittedly, sounds plausible on the surface. However, there is one human aspect that almost guarentees that violence would not occur often; fear. Fear is a crippling human aspect which stops us in our tracks. How likely is someone to pull out a gun when potentially dozens of people also have firearms? Not very. This would also cause an increase in a want for firearms, thus creating new jobs in the gun making and selling businesses. | PRO | 3578fc8-2019-04-18T18:17:42Z-00003-000 |
The United States are the Real Terrorists. This is pretty much my argument, and this is both a rebuttal for your argument and my presentation: There, indeed, was an attack at September 11, 2001. The 2 towers collapsed. However, my only argument is that we NEVER caused that. We did NOT strike. We did NOT fly the plane into the tower and make it MUCH more vulnerable to collapse, seeing as that also supported the tower. | CON | e5381a2-2019-04-18T16:34:03Z-00003-000 |
Morality is irrelevant so long as what is done improves society on a whole. Since were talking about a fictional situation, let me take the thought experiment further. Lets say that there was a society where most people, for whatever reason, completely despised redheads, who were only a small minority of the population. Let's say someone decides to murder all the redheads. People are happier, now that the hated redheads are gone. Because people are happier, they become less likely to commit crimes, and they have less stress and live longer. Society, as a whole, is undoubtedly improved by this redhead holocaust. Obviously, almost everyone would consider this mass murder of redheads a horrible crime, even if it did improve the lives of many people. You may counter that the example I gave is an unfair one, because the people of the society whose lives were improved were despicable bigots. Well, what other society would become much happier with the mass murder of millions of people? What other situation could there be where mass murder improved the lives of the rest of society? In addition, in what sense could 'society as a whole' be improved by this mass murder? Value is subjective. Maybe the people who aren't killed feel that the murder was the right decision, that they are better off without those millions of innocent people. What about the people killed? They are a part of society; how can the interests of 'society as a whole' be calculated without considering their interests? Surely, they gain much more from being alive than the rest of society gains from their death. How then could it be in the interests of 'society as a whole' to murder them? | CON | 8838b8be-2019-04-18T19:04:35Z-00002-000 |
People should be legally permitted to marry more than one person, in secular society. Both sides must justify their views. This is debate about secular society, so do not bring forward your religious beliefs. First round is for acceptance, no argument is posted.Definitions :1. Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries.2. Marriage is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws. | PRO | f1f932c9-2019-04-18T16:45:13Z-00006-000 |
Christianity vs Islam. Thank you Aicha. I have already responded to this in my first rebuttal. I have not seen a response to most of my arguments or my responses I am still disappointed. I know what the Qur'an says in regards to the subject of the deity of Christ. This debate is about what data we have from the Bible and the Qur'an on this subject. I believe that I have made a good case from both in my first response. I would like to see my opponent interact with some of these before the end of the debate. | PRO | cd1ea8c5-2019-04-18T12:09:06Z-00002-000 |
A partial ban would not work. The rights of the musician This musician have the rights of making any music they like as long as it doesn't harm themselves or any other people. The Social Contract said that "the moment when citizens pays their taxes, it is the government's duty to provides and protects their rights and facilities." And yes, this musician do pay taxes, so that is why they also have the rights to make any musics that they like. | CON | 91fcf6dc-2019-04-19T12:44:31Z-00008-000 |
Religion can be blamed for some crimes committed by theists. This debate is about if religion should be blamed for some of the crimes committed by theists. Rules: 1. Burden of proof is shared 2. Stay on topic 3. If one of these rules is broken, loss of conduct. 4. If rules were broken in all rounds by an individual, award no points. 5. Follow the following format for the debate Format: Round 1- Acceptance. Rounds 2 & 3- You can bring up your points/arguments and rebuttals. Rounds 4- No new points/arguments. Round 4- If need of more rebuttals, make them. Include a conclusion to your case. Let the debate begin! | PRO | 794cf149-2019-04-18T16:17:01Z-00006-000 |
RESOLVED: Globally speaking, imperialism should be allowed. Well, I am resigning from Debate.org. It takes too much time to write an elaborate case, and I see that I am not apt in the field of online debate. "Please prove this claim. As a counter-claim I'd like to say third world country's do not have the expenses to carry out a successful imperialistic reign. (ex. Sierra Leone)" Who cares??? They are inherently inferior and should be annexed. Vote PRO because the burden of truth is highly overrated. To end my case I give you the gift of life... http://youtube.com... | PRO | 7ed91d60-2019-04-18T19:43:06Z-00001-000 |
Spoons are more useful than forks. Useful for what? Forks can (1) scoop non-liquids, (2) stab, and (3) cut with the side. Spoons can only scoop. The one thing that spoons beat forks at is scooping liquids. But more things can be stabbed than than can be exclusively scooped by spoons. This includes people. Any liquid that needs to be scooped can be scooped with a person's hands. But unless you're Edward Scissorhands, you won't be stabbing anything with your fingers anytime soon. | CON | 688aec98-2019-04-18T19:21:56Z-00004-000 |
Quebec should be apart of France again. I do not know why my opponent forfeited his second round. Many French Colonies, French Guiana for example has many other native languages. In fact all other French Colonies, including Madagascar have native tongues which are more abundant in population than French is. The Languages of French Guiana are so numerous, that conforming hat country to French is seemingly futile. Regardless the Long necked dinosaurs reported to still living in the Congo, and the Stegosaurus reportedly still alive in Brazil are both good enough reasons to stick our noses into the business of these poor nations. It would help unify the worlds news, education and security in emergency situations. The French Colonies of Africa make up for almost half of the African Continent, yet there is still only an estimated 80 000 000 French speaking people in the world: less than 80 of 7,000 million people. This region, although uneducated, poor, disunified and isolated, may be opposed to learning French. Seeing as they haven't done so already. So, Should these people come together, we would have a much more prominent diverse culture, a powerful and well-respected people (with a noble history and conquest method), and over all the world would have ease of mind having resolved conflicts in Africa, would know more about the living dinosaur breads, and could travel further abroad on one language, which is littered with Philosophy, history, literature, music, and culture. United Provinces of France! | PRO | ce575691-2019-04-18T13:30:30Z-00000-000 |
vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate. i think you all maybe have misunderstood me. i didn't really want this to be exactly a debate, especially not a serious one. i just wanted a fun, opinionated, discussion of out of these two what do you like better. personally i love chocolate, i have an addiction to it but i think that its awesome how you can put so many toppings on vanilla! my actual favorite iceacream is cookies in cream. again this was just supposed to be fun | PRO | b1588935-2019-04-18T12:21:05Z-00003-000 |
Rap Battel. Am I a bore to you sorry if I know how bad it must be to smell like pooI was like that once, the class dunce But now I am the king of this wrestling ringDont make me give you the flying elbow, your so high right now you'll be shouting "Doubl Rainbow! "You really need to stop smoking because it makes you start choking in rap battles I will have to go ham on this kid like the Seahawks did to the RamsNext round I won't go so easy, just trust me | PRO | 1f09056c-2019-04-18T16:50:13Z-00002-000 |
Arming citizens with guns is an ideal action to take to defend against the threat of criminals. Welcome to this debate, viewers! This is a debate pre-discussed with my opponent - LagerHead based on an opinion post I did. Should LagerHead accept; he will accept the following things: The BoP relies upon both of us to provide reasons for or against the preposition aforementioned. The first round is acceptance only. The last round is closing statements only - no refutes or new arguments. Rounds 2, 3, and 4 are for debating, argument proposals, and refutes. Any questions - please post a comment! | CON | 8395dc46-2019-04-18T17:18:08Z-00009-000 |
It"s time to crackdown on cash-point cretins. We've all been there on Saturday night, standing patiently in line to withdraw some beer vouchers from the hole in the wall while some mental defective stares blankly at the screen, occasionally pressing buttons, seemingly at random. Jesus Christ on a fvcking bike, what is wrong with these morons? I mean, what's so difficult about withdrawing cash from an ATM? I say it's about time the banks got tough with these cash machine menaces. This is my idea: when users take too long between pressing buttons, say over 5 seconds, certain messages should flash up. To begin with, the messages should be gently encouraging prompts, such as: "Hurry up!" and "Come on, come on, other people want to use this machine as well you know." Then if the delays continue, a more forthright message should flash up: "You seem to be taking an extraordinarily long time completing your transaction, what's wrong with you? Are you monged out of your head on drugs or are you just a complete fvcking retard? Press either: A - Sorry, I spent all day on lying on the couch in my underwear eating cold pizza and smoking crack and I'm not thinking straight, just give me a second while I get my fvcking sh!t together dude.' Or: B - Actually, as it happens, I do have profound learning difficulties, thank you very much, and consequently my responses may be somewhat protracted compared to those of so-called 'normal people' but I can assure you I'm doing my best." The machine should then either allow 20 seconds for the transaction to completed in the case of the first response, or 30 seconds in the case of the second response, and if this time elapses without the cash being withdrawn the following message should appear: "Right, that's it, you were warned, you were FVCKING warned. Clearly you don't give a flying FVCK about our valued customers waiting behind you, so we're keeping your card to teach you a lesson. You can have it back when you can prove to us that you are fit person to use a bank card and not before. Now FVCK OFF out of everybody's way." This would send the message to those inconsiderate people that unnecessarily delaying other cash-point users is not acceptable such behaviour will not be tolerated. Thank you. | PRO | 8e556ff6-2019-04-18T17:51:07Z-00002-000 |
The Chinese Cultural Revolution Positively Impacted China's Well-Being. Kathleen, you state that "students were encouraged to gain knowledge to solve society's most pressing issues. Nationwide, more and more people were given access to schools and a better quality education", however, this is debatable since as Mao's power rose, he wished to suppress knowledge and understanding, and in actual fact, almost wiped out all of China's education, forcibly moving young people to the countryside where they were forced to abandon all knowledge in the face of Mao's teachings. Almost all of China's citizens became manipulated and almost brainwashed with the ideology of Maoism that people started to make poor judgements such as denouncing and accusing people in the wrong way - this resulted in an increase in murder, suicide and violence rates. People started to turn against each other for no reason, and eventually, mass chaos occurred where people were persecuted; churches, mosques, temples, books and ancient scrolls were burned; agriculture declined, factories closed and all the Chinese cultures and traditions nearly disappeared altogether. Additionally, although women were liberated, the notion of gender equality was never fully acknowledged in China - even to this day. Families continue to want boys over girls, abandon girls to support sons, give men better jobs - even if a woman can do it such as manager or a C-role ect. ect. Certainly, it was a step up from the previous inequality level, however, it wasn't worth the 20 million lives lost. And even though you say that was only 0.02% of the population, it is still 20 million people. 20 million people died. For a revolution that didn't do much good. Even the Nazis killed less people during World War 2 - and that was a world war...this was a revolution. Women living in China during the Cultural Revolution continue to be affected by the trauma today. One such woman is Ping Fu, who at age 8 was taken from her home by Red Guards and forced to live in a government dormitory in Nanjing. According to Forbes, at the dormitory Ping was "brainwashed, starved, tortured and gang raped." Millions of women went through this suffering, and thousands still have to live with the trauma. | CON | fa742e61-2019-04-18T14:42:09Z-00002-000 |
Bank tax compensates for damage done by banks. Tracy Corrigan. "Obama's bank tax will only work if there's a master plan in place." Telegraph. January 14, 2010: "In the case of the UK, it now appears highly probable that the Government will eventually recover all the money it injected into individual banks. That is hardly the point. The cost of the banking crisis was much greater than these capital injections. Just look at the size of the national debt." | PRO | 36fa654a-2019-04-17T11:47:28Z-00025-000 |
Global Warming is likely impacted by humans. I'm arguing that global climate change is not impacted by humans. My reasons for believing this are as follows: 1. Earth's climate has often warmed and cooled, and the recent rise in global temperature is within the borders of the natural temperature variations that have been recorded within the past 3,000 years. A study from 2013 claimed that the rising global temperatures that have been observed in the 20th century are similar to those observed around the 11th century. 2. Changes in global temperature are generally due to variations in the sun's heat, not by human activity. The majority of the observed climate changes between the 20th and 21st centuries has corresponded with multiple solar cycles. In 2012 it was discovered that there was a strong correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the Arctic, not by human activity.3. The receding glaciers are not a result of human activity, but rather have been growing and receding for thousands of years due to natural causes. A 2014 study of over 2,000 glaciers in the Himalayas proved that 86.6% of the glaciers were not receding. Another study claimed that receding glaciers in Antarctica were due to "atmospheric circulation changes" that caused West Antarctica to warm rapidly. 4. CO2 is not the cause. In 2003, a study showed that over the past four climactic cycles (which have occurred during the past 240,000 years) warming has not followed, but rather preceded, a rise of CO2.Of the CO2 that humans have produced between 2002-2011, about 50% has been re-absorbed by earth's "carbon sinks."Within the past 16 years there has been an 8% increase in atmospheric CO2, and still the earth has not warmed significantly. http://climatechange.procon.org... | CON | 7852a724-2019-04-18T14:16:39Z-00003-000 |
Evolution is a proven scientific theory. I believe my opponent has tried to cut me off with a very small time limit. I say evolution is not proven because it is a theory. Theories, as we all know, are hypothesis on certain things. It is not scientific fact. Therefor the only way to prove it definitely would be to take a time machine and watch it occur over time. Mutations are not evolution. Humans have not been around long enough to notice evolution in any animals either. | CON | 307cb1b0-2019-04-18T16:29:11Z-00002-000 |
Feminism Is Cancer. My opponent forfeit the last round. It also bears mentioning that they never provided examples suggesting that feminism is "evil" or difficult to curtail. If fact we can look to certain areas in the developing and developed world that show the exact opposite, that equality for women has difficulty taking root and expanding. Based on this forfeiture, and the preponderance of the examples provided, judges should vote Opp!Now on to some more festive celebrity bashing!Justin Beiber: What can be said about Justin Beiber that has not already been said about Cholera: He makes people vomit and defecate to the brink of death. Macaulay Culkin: Failed Justin Beiber attempt by evil scientists in the eighties. Thank God he got hooked on methadone and went away.Mark Zuckerberg: If you donate billions of dollars to yourself and get to write it off on your taxes, you should have to share a prison cell with Karl Rove for the duration.Karl Rove: Apparently his mother has apologized to the nation and the world. If saying your sorry makes it all better then my last two ex-wives should be back any moment. Tony Danza: Mr. Danza's recent suicide is tragic, but not at all unexpected. It was apparently his failure on the dating website E-harmony that finally pushed him over the edge.Business Cat: Largely responsible for the banking/mortgage meltdown of 2007/2008. This cat shows why so many faiths say greed is at the heart of evil. Lewis Ranieri: Don't think for a minute your gonna skate by Lew. Sure, it's not all your fault. But it was your idea without precaution that caused all that BS. You have to take your lashes like everyone else. I bet was his family pet. Purr nothing A-hole, and trim that ugly beard. You look like a just for men commercial. Too many to name.. I can't stand celebrities. | CON | d96819b8-2019-04-18T13:30:46Z-00000-000 |
The earth is a spinning globe. Thanks for providing a video though it does not prove or disprove anything, I believe this is a serious debate even though I think I can easily convince you that the Earth is spherical in shape and spinning. Earth is spherical "the basic idea of Earth being a spherically stratified planet are well founded" [1]. Seismic wave observations have been used to investigate the interior structure of the planet. S-waves can't travel through liquid such as the mantle resulting in a seismic shadow. Seismographs allow scientists to calculate the position of major boundaries in the Earth's interior [2]. "Aristotle (who made quite a lot of observations about the spherical nature of the Earth) noticed that during lunar eclipses (when the Earth"s orbit places it directly between the Sun and the Moon, creating a shadow in the process), the shadow on the Moon"s surface is round. This shadow is the Earth"s, and it"s a great clue on the spherical shape of the Earth." [3] Earth is spinning My questions to Con is this; if the Earth doesn't spin, does the moon orbit the Earth? Or is the moon stationary like the Earth? The moon clearly can't be stationary because the moon can appear 14% larger - called a super moon due to an elliptical orbit. So does the moon orbit a stationary Earth then? The moon is tidally locked with Earth, that is to say it shows the same side to Earth, so if the moon orbits a stationary Earth why is it that we cannot see the other side of the moon while standing on Earth? sources: [1] http://eqseis.geosc.psu.edu... [2] http://www.indiana.edu... [3] http://www.smarterthanthat.com... | PRO | 33a1f7f4-2019-04-18T13:23:19Z-00008-000 |
Mandates unnecessary in a single-payer system. Marcia Angell. "Regressive and Unaffordable". New York Times. June 9, 2009: "There would be no need for an individual mandate in a single-payer system, since everyone would be covered automatically and it would be paid for through their income and payroll taxes. So asking me, a supporter of a single-payer health system, about mandates is a little like asking someone whether he’s stopped beating his wife." | PRO | 37fd60c0-2019-04-17T11:47:29Z-00086-000 |
Ronald Reagan Should have Been Convicted of Treason and Impeached. Obviously a debate I shouldn't have taken since I have no interest in government or anything pertaining to it. As you can tell by my profile and picture, I am an anarchist who believes no government at all would be a good thing. I would like to point out you said twice, "I thank my opponent for their response" Indicating you have stated that your opponent is more than one person when it is only a simple Christian anarchist. But I won't hold that against you. But I would watch out for that mistake in the future. Reagan armed the terrorists? So do we. We practically have dirty pasts and histories. Reagan was trying to make allies, not enemies. And in the comments, tell me how were the hostages that were traded for the original hostages? Did they live or die? And if I basically admitted that everything you said is true, then I would say you are truthful. But those words didn't come out until I gave this example. But anyways. This debate was alright, but I made a mistake and wish I could've withdrawn this completely. I thank you sir for bearing with me. | CON | 8895e695-2019-04-18T16:55:10Z-00000-000 |
Mike Huckabee is the best candidate for the Republicans. While I appreciate where you're coming from I must disagree. "An ultra conservative will not win the election in 08'. It will take a conservative who also appeals to the democrats." Why must the Republican candidate appeal to the democrats? After 8 years of Bush, no registered democrat is voting for a republican regardless of how liberal he is. By making our guy appeal to democrats, we're only hurting oursleves by supporting a liberal republican in office. The democrats will vote for someone who is more liberal than they are before they vote for someone who is more conservative than they are (think Hillary vs Mike and a moderate-liberal in the booth). Remember: a conservative who appeals to the democrats is NOT A CONSERVATIVE! If we had a guy we all could get behind and who really stood for what we believed, I believe we could rally behind him and soar to a win in '08. We need someone to inspire and bring back the greatness of the Republican party that has been lost for the last decade or so. We don't need the democrats votes to win in '08, we need a candidate who will get every Republican voting in November, we need a candidate who will get people talking at the watercooler, we need a Republican who will inspire us to go tell our friends and convert our enemies, we need a Republican who stands for the traditional values (and everyone of them) and invigorates our party. It was once Grand Old Party, and with the right candidate, the Republican party can be grand once more. | CON | 6f66efa6-2019-04-18T20:00:58Z-00000-000 |
Abortion is immoral. 1. Exclusions Yes, I do agree, in few circumstances, abortion can be permissible. If a woman has cancer, and needs to abort her child, it obviously makes sense for her to do it. The baby wouldn't survive if she died. Or if she's raped. I hate to say I see this as permissible, barely, only because she was forced into pregnancy. Otherwise, I am against it 100%. 2. Human RightsIt is agreed that the right to life is once of the most basic of human rights. Now, since science has proved that a fetus is, in fact, a human being, I see no reason why an abortion is permissible. Just because it cannot think properly, or that it can't reason properly, does not make it less human. And again, it has been scientifically proved that a fetus is both alive, and human. Does this not mean that is has a natural human right to life? In my opinion, it is more than enough. A fetus cannot reason, because it is still developing. That doesn't mean that it is less human, or that it doesn't deserve a right to life. A fetus cannot be aware of it's surroundings, because it is both developing, and it never changes. It is in the womb, submerged in water. All it's needs are met in the womb, so it doesn't have a need to take notice of it's surroundings. And even though the younger fetuses cannot take notice of it's surrounds, even if it wanted to, it is still both alive, and human, meaning that it has a right to life. ConclusionThere is no proving that a fetus is not human, because it very much is human. It is a living human being, and because of this, it should be guaranteed the most basic of human rights, the right to life. Abortion, except in very few cases, is morally wrong and selfish. | PRO | 3535814e-2019-04-18T18:21:16Z-00000-000 |
Is Squidward's attitude towards Spongebob and Patrick wrong. Your right squidward does not show any patience towards either Spongebob or Patrick, though that's to be expected. Squidward has told them many times to not trespass into his home, to keep the noise down, and not to get into his business. Though no matter how many times he's told/asked/ordered and thrown them out they refuse to listen. In fact it usually continues to happen So yes while forgiveness would be great, Squidward can't forgive knowing that they'll just continue ignoring his requests. While its true squidward does somewhat shun Spongebob and Patrick, he doesn't shun them all together. An example of this would be during one of the Spongebob Christmas specials where Spongebob and Patrick find out about Santa and get excited about him coming. They eventually get all of the town hyped up as well. In the end Santa doesn't come and Squid in turn dresses as Santa and gives all of his belongings away. Thus also showing he's not always mean and sour. | PRO | 7676aad3-2019-04-18T16:13:19Z-00001-000 |
Star Wars VII is the worst film out of the current main 7 movies. Challenge accepted, with two additional criteria suggested for judging the films: 6. Battles (including space dogfights as a Star Wars staple) 7. Themes (i.e., use of symbolism, central concepts of the film, etc.) (I similarly enjoy most Star Wars films, and don't particularly think The Force Awakens was the best, but I enjoy seeing what people do or don't like about a film.) | CON | 3361c34a-2019-04-18T12:14:50Z-00003-000 |
There should be mental health regulations rather than gun regulations. I'm also new here and I understand as well so don't worry.But how effective is prioritizing mental health laws over gun laws? My point here is that there should always be mental health laws, yes they can improve society's mental state but they would be very futile without gun laws. Just imagine a world where gun laws are less important, treating mental illness won't assure no chaos, favoring mental health laws doesn't mean anyone won't do any crime. Right?Not all killers (using guns) are mentally unstable. 6,009 people were murdered with handguns in America in 2010, which was 67.5% of all murders in the country that year. There were 8,775 total firearm crimes reported in the U.S. in 2010. (http://www.dailykos.com...#). That doesn't mean those murderers are all crazy. According to http://www.washingtonpost.com..., Chicago's gun violence is so high because their gun regulations may be strict but have to be done on a national level. Guns there are so transportable. McCarthy even said, "Guns are bought legally and transferred illegally, and those are the guns that are ending up killing people here."I feel sorry for the navy yard shooting incident, I know there are numerous incidents like that but you showed no clear evidence on how your mental health laws would be able to solve the problem."this crisis could have been averted.", even if he wen't back to his normal state, you can't be so sure that he won't do another or the same crime.I feel sorry for the Sandy Hook incident as well but in that incident, it clearly shows to focus more on gun regulations, the weapons he brought and the lack of gun regulations that caused his mass shooting madness proved that gun regulations should be prioritized. The problem about Lanza should be treated at home. I mean, there's no need of making too much mental health laws. Even if he doesn't want to be cured (as said in the news), it's still the parent's responsibility to raise their child correctly. Situations should be handled as easy as possible. You can't unwrap a piece of a candy with a sledge hammer.Reason why other countries with strict gun controls still have a high violence rate is because of the lack of giving high value unto the issue.A man with a gun chooses to pull the trigger or not, that is a decision made by a person in a normal mental state, a decision where prioritized and strict gun regulations should take part.Gun Regulation is not a failure at all, it only becomes one because it is not used properly, not handled strictly and not taken to consideration as something as important as abortion or other big issues in the world.Being mentally stable is not enough to survive in this world. The influence brought by society and environment can't be stopped by mental health laws alone, we need better gun regulations. | CON | 56b3b699-2019-04-18T16:17:56Z-00004-000 |
superman could kill darth vader if he wanted. My opponent is still suggesting that Vader cannot live without the emperor giving him 24/7 life support. This is not the case as we've seen too many instances where Vader and the Emperor have been light years apart. Plus, the life support system comes from the machines, not Darth Sidious. My opponent repeats the idea that Jedi cannot block a laser without knowing the trajectory, but as I've already stated, they are not only able increase their senses to the point to where time appears in slow motion to them, but can also gain super human speed at the same time. As far as force of the laser goes, we've never seen a Jedi get his/her armed snapped off through reflecting a laser, so my opponent is incorrect concerning that theory. As far as tracking down goes, Superman does not have precognition. Vader has precognition, thus being the reason as to where preparation is automatically built into this match for him. I've already explained the mind trick argument. Here is a better illustration. Both Superman and Darth Vader walk into their arena. Superman thinks: "If I move at my fastest, I can easily kill him." Darth Vader thinks: "By merely thinking about it, I can mind control this weak minded fool." Superman says: "I will now do your bidding, Lord Vader." It's as simple as that. By the time Superman is done thinking about killing Vader in the manner my opponent suggested, Vader will already have the man of steel under his control. As for keeping up with Superman, again, with force speed, Vader could see everything in slow motion and will have super human speed of his own to counter with, so this wouldn't be a problem. As for breathing, the current Superman needs to breathe. It's only because of his bio electric field as well as holding his breath for long amounts of time is he able to fly through nearly any environment. As I've suggested, Vader could just bypass this bio electric field with use of the force and kill the kryptonian in the comforts of his favorite chair. And that's all for now. | CON | ab4bc16f-2019-04-18T19:54:35Z-00002-000 |
Islam is a Peaceful Religion. While there is proof that Islam is responsible for violence and terrorist attacks, which I have stated multiple examples, you have given no direct example of how they were peaceful, so do not listen to the Pro's unproven arguments. The most you have given were a few Quran passages. Just because the Quran has a few peaceful passages does not mean that every Muslim follows the Quran. ISIS alone has 31,000 fighters out of the 1.6 billion Muslims. That is only ISIS. That is not including every other violent Muslims that were responsible for September 11th, Cologne, England, Orlando, Istanbul, Nice, OSU, the list goes on... and on. Do not even feed me your leftist views of Islamophobia. I know people who have made claims that Islam is violent and they get messages from Muslims saying guess what? Surprise, surprise! They were going to kill him. Yes, I guess they proved me wrong that they are not violent. And I know what your next argument is going to be. "You can not judge an entire religion based on the actions of a few." These are not just a few. I am giving you hundreds of example of Islam's violent rhetoric. At least ten Muslim countries enforce the death penalty for committing apostasy. Executing people for having different beliefs than you is violent. It is not peaceful. It is the only religion that acts like Mafia if you say the wrong thing or wave the wrong flag. Not only was it the 100 or so Muslims that said they believe in hanging homosexuals, but at least ten Muslim countries enforce it. Not only was it the 100 or so Muslims that said they believe in stoning women for infidelity, but at least eleven Muslim countries enforce it. Not only adulterers , but also rape victims. Stoning rape victims for something they can not control is violent. It is not peaceful. 39% of Muslims in Afghanistan and 29% of Muslims in Egypt support terror attacks. If you ask me, that is not very peaceful at all. Of course not ALL 100% of Muslims believe in this, but they belong to a religion that does. And again, like I said earlier this round, please give me proof of peaceful acts Islam has done in the past hundred years. | CON | 4e4239bc-2019-04-18T12:33:47Z-00002-000 |
I should be allowed to dye my hair red. The debate topic is "I should be allowed to dye my hair". You are pro, meaning you are in favour of such, and I am con, meaning I am against such. So you need to make your own reasons one why it is a good thing, and I need to make reasons why it is bad. Arguments extended since you didn't make an argument "bud". | CON | 7173946d-2019-04-18T16:20:16Z-00001-000 |
God, the Father of Jesus is not the god of the Jew/Old Testament. Since the name "Jesus" is not found in the Old Testament, it is impossible to categorically prove that God, the Father of Jesus, is in the Old Testament as He is described/portrayed in the New Testament. However, I find the challenge to be an admirable one, and will accept it. I will endeavor to show through hermeneutics that God, the Father of Jesus, is the God (among the Godhead) of the Old Testament. | CON | a034cf37-2019-04-18T13:27:41Z-00004-000 |
People ought adhere to Political Correctness. An Intro To Ethics: The burden of proof in this debate requires I demonstrate a moral obligation. Ethics delves into what ought to be rather than what is. Henry Sidgwick rightly points out a typical flaw made when determining what ought to be done. “we frequently prescribe that this or that `ought' to be done or aimed at without any express reference to an ulterior end,” (1) As John Stuart Mill says “All action is for the sake of some end. ” In order to determine what we ought do we must observe what the results will be from that action. What ends are produced? “all the rules of conduct which men prescribe to one another as moral rules are really---though in part unconsciously---prescribed as a means to the general happiness of mankind,” Henry Sidgwick (2) Any moral code is a means to an end. Thus to affirm the resolution that people ought to adhere to P. C. all I need do is show that by doing so the general happiness of mankind is produced or preserved. The Purpose and Impact of Political Correctness: By being politically correct we, as a society can avoid needlessly offending whole groups of people. Thus, resulting in greater general happiness of mankind. The harm that results from the P. C. inept: Perhaps those reading will recall some of the recent comments made by GOP Presidential Candidate Donald Trump when he announced he was running. “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems [with them]. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. ” (3) Obviously immigration is an issue in this election, but the crass comments from Donald Trump exemplify the harm that comes from the P. C. Inept. Donald Trump with this short statement effectively insulted and demeaned millions of people. Clearly this type of rhetoric is immoral. Conclusion: We see that the politically inept insult and demean millions of people, this negatively affects the general happiness of mankind. The purpose and impact of political correctness are to avoid such needless offending and results in greater general happiness of mankind. Therefore, we see that people ought to adhere to political correctness. Sources: (1) . http://www.laits.utexas.edu... (2) . http://www.laits.utexas.edu... (3) | PRO | 2a11e589-2019-04-18T14:04:12Z-00002-000 |
The Ultimate Fight!!! Goku vs. Superman!! Goku wins!!. . . . ~~~~~~~ Rebuttals ~~~~~~~ ///Your reference is laughable! Wikia? I could just as easily go onto the site and change it to say anything! ! It is good for laughs and such, but here? If you send a link, it must be reliable. Wikia is not. /// There is nothing wrong with my source. It is not my problem if you choose to not accept it's validity. In fact you have given no source for any of your contentions. I reccomend that you do this before the debate's conclusion. You have a lot of time. ~ ///[Point about reflexes]/// Goku may have faster reflexes, but I don't see how that matters when he is unable to harm Superman. ~ ///[Point about technique/martial arts]/// See above. ~ So far my opponent has given no evidence to show that Goku would be able to harm Superman in any way. Physical attacks will not work and it is his responsibility as instigator and Pro to affirm the resolution. I await my opponent's response. | CON | 32446a20-2019-04-18T19:05:46Z-00004-000 |
Christians should say the Pledge of Allegiance to America. Pro says that "we pledge allegiance to our flag (or to the nation it represents) only to the extent that the civil government does not require us to disobey God"s laws, either deliberately or inadvertently (Acts 5:29)." This, however, is not true allegiance. Pledging your allegiance means pledging your self COMPLETELY to something. The Bible says "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other." (Matthew 6:24) This means that you can not split up your devotion between a country and Yahweh. The allegiance of a Christian, by definition, has already been given to Christ and can therefore not be given to anything else. If a person is true to his or her oath of allegiance to America (which the average person has given dozens of times), then no matter what America decides to do, that person must support the decision or break their oath. The person that breaks the oath has, consequently, been living a life of deceit towards America. However, if that person had followed the words of Jesus as recorded in Matthew, then their life of lies would never have been. Instead, they would have been living a life, not drenched in deceitful pledges, but one dedicated to Yahweh. | CON | fb5ac75d-2019-04-18T16:50:26Z-00001-000 |
Resolved: On balance, Socialism is superior to Capitalism. RulesRound 1 is rules and definitions for Con, Pro may begin his Constructive Case. Round 2 Con may begin his Constructive Case (No Rebuttals), Pro will begin his rebuttals. Round 3 Rebuttals (Pro may also post his conclusions)Round 4 Rebuttals and Conclusion by Con. Pro will post "No round as agreed upon. "If Pro posts anything, but what is posted above then it is an automatic forfeiture. No trolling. No semantics. No profanities. On balance- With all things concidered. Capitalism- Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. In a capitalist economy, personal profit can be acquired through investment of capital and employment of labor. The concept of free enterprise is the cornerstone of capitalism, which believes that the laws of supply and demand with minimal government intervention is will ultimately maximize consumer welfare. (. http://definitions.uslegal.com...) I will be using the Milton Friedman Capitalism version. Meaning that the only exception to the above is that there should be no monopolies public or private. Socialism- A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. Moreover, The term “socialism” has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet statecommunism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to theuntrammeled workings of the economic market. The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended toward social democracy. (. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) | CON | c0d64e63-2019-04-18T14:32:04Z-00004-000 |
Aesthetic will be more important than graphical quality in the near future. Back when Pac Man released, graphical quality was a huge importance because ground could be covered quickly, but I contend that diminishing returns will take hold in the next few years of gaming. Due to that, companies (Triple A's included) will be forced to focus more on aesthetic rather than graphical quality. In that regard, I ask the con: will aesthetic (the art/look of the game) become more important than graphical achievement (720p, 1080p, 4K, better lighting engines, etc.)? 1st round: meet and greet/opening claims 2-4: actual arguments | PRO | 6f929e33-2019-04-18T14:47:59Z-00006-000 |
Aliens do exist.They just haven't made themselves public yet. Seeing that you weren't able to debunk any of my claims,AGAIN! I will just put more evidence for you. 1.The Belgium Wave: Residents of Belgium reported dozens of sightings of unidentified flying triangles which the military couldn't account for,they weren't picked up on radar and numerous photographs where taken to.prove it really happenned. http://www.ufoevidence.org... 2. Washington DC 1952 This has to be some of the military best evidence.Back when people were being ridiculed for claiming they've sighted a ufo,the beings seemed to introduce themselves to the world leaders as they flew past the White House in Washington DC. http://www.ufocasebook.com... 3. Even more intriguing is the fact that astronauts have seen ufos,Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong saw them when they where headed to the moon but you see,NASA prepared for this and therefore told the 2 astronauts to call back if they noticed something unusual,which they did.The Ufos where given code names,one being "Santa Claus" so the public wouldn't know what was being witnessed.Quoted " Every time it occurred, the astronauts informed Mission Control, who ordered absolute silence '. He added 'I think Walter Schirra, aboard Mercury 8, was the first astronaut to use the code name 'Santa Claus' to indicate the presence of Ufos '. But it was James Lovell, on board the Apollo 8 Command Module, who came out from behind the Moon and said, for everybody to hear 'Please be informed that there is a Santa Claus!' Even though this happened on Christmas Day, 1968, many people sensed a hidden meaning in those words.' http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net... http://www.syti.net... That'll be all for now until your next response. | PRO | 454f748d-2019-04-18T17:30:40Z-00000-000 |