argument
stringlengths 201
3.55k
| stance
stringclasses 2
values | id
stringlengths 36
39
|
|---|---|---|
"Facebook law" widens gap b/w student lives inside/outside school. "Missouri 'Facebook Law' Limits Teacher-Student Interactions Online, Draws Criticism And Praise." Huffington Post. August 3rd, 2011: "'The number one technology that students use outside school is social networking sites,' said Christine Greenhow, an assistant professor at the College of Education and the College of Information Studies at the University of Maryland. 'This is the technology they're going to as their one-stop shop for communication. It's their email, their bulletin board, their online photo album, it's where they do their writing.' For that reason, Greenhow, whose area of expertise is learning in social media contexts, argued that limiting communication between teachers and students only furthers the gap between a student's in-school life and his or her life outside of school." | PRO | ab3e066e-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00035-000 |
Vigilante Justice. First, in your right wing fantasy world, is usurptuous a word? Now, onto the real debate. I think that we need to clarify the difference between self defense, and using a firearm to decide what punishment is given to a criminal. Of course life threatening situation call for split second decisions and fire arms can be used to protect you and your family. But I am talking more about the situations in which no one's life is at stake, yet gun owners feel the right to shoot at a criminal who maybe only stole something from a store or their home. This idea is ridiculous and shouldn't be an argument in any debate on gun control. There have been multiple cases in which a criminal is shot and killed by a legal gun owner after only stealing or another crime in which death is not a just punishment. Onto the idea that you need guns to defend against the government turning on its citizens. This makes no sense, sorry to tell you but all the AR's and shotguns you own aren't going to do anything against a tank or fighter jet. So this is again another point that cannot be used to debate the need to defend yourself with guns. The situations in which a gun will be a just and necessary retaliation to a crime are few and far between. If you want to help the world by stopping criminals, become a police officer. We can't have every citizen thinking that they have the right to shot first and ask questions later as in the stand your ground law. | CON | 59913494-2019-04-18T11:37:59Z-00001-000 |
Every debate member of this site should get a friend to join this site. Aye it is true, having two friends join this site would most likely double the benefit. However LakevillNorthJT has not done anything to contradict my case, instead he has confirmed it. For instance if I were to post a sign stating, "Bring a friend to McDonalds" it would not suddenly be assumed that one can only bring one friend. If I were to say, "Everyone who eats an orange shall be given a balloon" then the people who eat three oranges will still be given a balloon because they have ate an orange. Which brings me to my next point. At some point during getting two friends to join debate.org one is going to have to pass through the point of getting one friend to join. In other words the process of getting two friends to join debate.org can be broken up into two separate instances: a. I have got a friend to join debate.org. b. I have got another friend to join debate.org. In both of these instances a friend has joined debate.org. Thus getting two friends or more to join debate.org falls under my resolution. In conclusion my resolution, "Every debate member of this site should get a friend to join this site." Is not limited to just ONE friend. If my resolution said something to the effect of, "Every debate member of this site should get EXACTLY ONE friend to join this site" then my opponent would have a formidable case. As he doesn't, and as his case simply confirms my case, I can see nothing but a Pro vote. Thanks for everyone's time. | PRO | 2878621d-2019-04-18T19:42:19Z-00002-000 |
There is no possible way god exists unless you believe in utter hate and evil: Timmy Kinner. I think what you're not getting, is that I'm not FOR God, necessarily. Not even FOR religion. I'm trying to explain to you that since you're not involved in said religion, it's absolutely unfair to make judgments upon the entire group of people who call themselves followers of Christ. Or even the entire group of people that claim to "belong to a religion." May I remind you that your bio says that you belong to the religion of atheism. It may not technically be classified as a religion, but it sure as *Empirical Senses* functions as one. It functions as a belief system, as proven by your adamant behavior. "ThErE is nO wAy tO CIRcuMvENT tHis." You have an interpretation of The Bible that people who ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT AND BELIEVE IN IT can't relate to; so what's the point? The end-all I'm trying to lead you to is that you're arguing for nothing of real value. From what I can tell, you've devoted your life to pedantically "disproving" the existence of a being that none of the believers are going to simply stop believing in. What is your goal in this discussion? Throw a bunch of videos and verses that have been stripped of all context and laugh in my face? I don't believe in the EXISTENCE, I simply believe that there's meaning and value that can be gleaned from the teachings of this book. There was no requirement that I had to be Christian to debate you, but so what if I was? This would just be another hateful and worthless fight over an outcome that is the opposite of beneficial. The opposite of progressive. The opposite of what you say you're fighting for. What do you want, Michael? -Efron | CON | 87d1c5a1-2019-04-18T11:24:21Z-00002-000 |
Gay Marriage. I appreciate it. 1) You start by stating that "marriage is the sacred bond of a man and a woman, not a man and man or woman and woman. " Tell me why two human beings who love each other can't have the same privileges, rights, and responsibilities because of their gender. This blatant discrimination is unacceptable. Also when you say that marriage is a sacred institution, divorce rates are at an all time high, infidelity in marriage is an epidemic, and when someone can compete on a television reality show to "Marry a Millionaire", the argument about saving a sacred institution seems kind of pointless. 2) You stated that "If gay marriage is legalized, there will be many riots. " I do not understand and if you could elaborate, please do. This is a foolish assumption and there isn't any evidence that such events will manifest. 3) You also state that "it wasn't thought in the time that the Consitution and Declaration of Independence were written, because back then, there were barely, if not any homosexuals. Our Founding Fathers never thought of this as an issue when these great documents were written. " 1st of all, these are very important documents, but there is no denying that they were written over 200 years ago. Many things aren't defined in the Constitution. 2nd of all, you coveniently forgot to mention when speaking of the Constitution that there is a clause in the Constitution named the "Elastic Clause" that grants Congress the power "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. " Many issues aren't clearly defined, and because of the vagueness of the Constitution, this clause was included. I look forward to your reply. | PRO | d9e8f321-2019-04-18T19:13:39Z-00004-000 |
Affirmative action is counterproductive. I would Like to Applaud TonyDJr for taking me up on this debate. He is a good friend of mine and it is, by no means, easy to argue pro affirmative action. That being said, I agree totally that many who are eligible for affirmative action benefits are those who have been at a handicap in the past, may need a little push. Let me use an example here to illustrate a point. Martha and John have been friends since childhood. Martha was of a wealthy background and therefore had better opportunities than John, who would often after school have to work to help his father feed his family. As a result John would suffer in school. Martha, being the good friend that she was, would do John's Hw and projects, practically give him the answers in all tests quizzes etc. even whisper what to say when the teacher asked him something in class. Then came college, Martha still helped John with everything. Finally today John is going in for a Job Interview. Now what, John is so used to getting help from Martha, he doesn't really know much on his own. Same applies with affirmative action. It can only take John so far, but what then. If a black student gets into Law School only due to affirmative action, how will he be able to compete with other students who, due to having better opportunities can maybe read better. If he makes it through law-school, how will he compete with other Lawyers? How about another example to illustrate yet another point. A white, son of a poor farmer from the mid-west and a black son of a rich R&B artist from NY both apply to the same college. despite having a lower GPA and SAT scores than the white student, the black student is admitted and the white rejected. not only is this the effect of affirmative action but also reverse racism. Another example, firefighters in Connecticut take an exam. Upon passing this test they are promised a promostions. Coincidentally, despite meeting the standards for black white diversity, no blacks passed the test. As a result the whites who did pass were denied the the promotion and the tests were thrown out. http://www.aclu.org... | CON | 50e515ce-2019-04-18T18:21:56Z-00007-000 |
Nuclear energy is benefit to the society. In the catastrophic events such as Chernobyl disaster, the damage and cost are unbearable. German Environment Minister has stated that "potential human costs of atomic power make it unaffordable over the long term".Nuclear waste is increasing considerably and experts predict that even if repository at Yucca Mountain were to open today it would fill to its limit of 63000 metric tons of commercial waste in. After the tsunami in Japan Germany has acted further to abandon nuclear plants. | CON | 35052009-2019-04-18T18:49:51Z-00002-000 |
Homosexuality is a dangerous sexual deviance and should be illegal. The facts are out on overall homosexual comportment and deviant sexual proclivities such as pedophilia. Of course I'm speaking generally and there are Sexual deviance definition 1. A condition, such as exhibitionism or masochism, in which sexual gratification is derived from activities or fantasies that are generally regarded as atypical or deviant. 2. Such a condition when it causes distress or impaired functioning in the individual or actual or potential harm to others; a paraphilic disorder Pedohpilia definition 1. a paraphilia in which an adult desires or engages in sexual relations with a child; it may be either homosexual or heterosexual in nature. adj., adj pedophilic. 2.arousing fantasies of engaging or repeatedly engages in sexual activity with a prepubertal child.pedophilic | PRO | 5d0797f5-2019-04-18T12:45:51Z-00007-000 |
Jonah never existed. When we look at Pro"s claim, we see that Pro is trying to disprove a historical figure by discrediting legendary stories that surround that character. Simply put, this is as weak as saying George Washington never existed because he never cut down a cherry tree. Pro also discredits the Bible, the only available source on this character. But if we are to discredit the only source on a historical person, how can one reasonably prove this character never existed? The answer is that you can"t. In short, Pro is trying to argue that Russell"s teapot doesn"t exist. The problem is that the burden of proof is squarely fixed on the instigator, who (in my opinion) will have an impossible time vainly trying to prove this assertion correct or even likely. | CON | 9280cbe8-2019-04-18T12:57:02Z-00004-000 |
The Republicans must move away from their social values to win elections. I realize I need not refute your arguments in the opening round because anything of worth has been repeated. So. Onto the arguments. You assert emphatically that "...American voters are tired of hearing about God, don't want politicians regulating their bodies, and don't want to prevent gay couples from being married..." Can you give unbiased references to this. The opinions of a few people notwithstanding, this has never been corroborated and is actually opposed to the actual statistics. For example, [1] 46% of Americans believe in creationism. This is an increase of 2% over thirty years. Hardly getting tired of hearing about God. The others are logical extrapolation of the data, since that is what creationists believe. It is thus evident that the assertion regarding tiredness of rhetoric is absolutely false. I agree with you that better candidates are needed. However, I find the possibility of new good candidates are very few and far between considering the statistics. The statistics shows that Americans generally have an IQ below the normal average [2]. The possibility of getting a higher IQ person is not as high as in other countries. I view better candidates as those having a higher IQ. It is thus not as likely to get a better candidate. Furthermore, if the Republican Party shifts their social ideology to fit the liberal ideology, almost 46% of americans would stop voting for them and either cease voting or vote for the libertarians (Which is about the best they can get). If the Republican pick the liberal side, they would be right in the heart of the Democratic Party"s bastion. This would be destructive to the very core of the Republicans. Should Republicans abandon their social values because of some strong criticism from their opponents? I think not. Here"s why. Abandoning their values with such criticism only goes to show that Republicans have no backbone. Who is going to vote for a spineless party? At the very end, I will address the issue of Abraham Lincoln. Despite his hero status in the present, Lincoln did not win the election by an outright majority. [3] Of course, since this was an election with four running, one have to admit the possibility of having a lower majority win. So, from [3], we can clearly see that Lincoln only won by about 40% of all votes cast. His closest rival won by ~30%. It is not worth looking at the election for his second term [4]. From all these information, it is clear that my first arguments stand. This is because if the republicans abandoned their current ideology, they would lose a vast percentage of their current votes, which they would have to try to regain by entering into solidly held democratic ground. Now back to you. For now. 1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 2. http://www.abytheliberal.com... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... | CON | 4694392e-2019-04-18T18:02:32Z-00001-000 |
Homosexuals were better off obeying homophobes from the 1970's to present in the USA. "Pro really rebuts my points by expressing his own opinion, once again" This is a blatant LIE I clearly posted sources, links and MANY quotes from sources such as CDC "He does nothing about my arguemnt that STD's come from chimpanzee's. He only says this is faulty, yet provides no type of fact to show this is wrong" Con obviously doesn't understand fallacies. Con spewed a red herring fallacy. Red herring - In argument, something designed to divert an opponent's attention from the central issue. STD's coming from chimpanzee's is irrelevant to my claim because it doesn't change or challenge the fact that gays TRIGGERED the spread of hiv. Again, the origin of hiv is not the same as the spread of hiv. I posted quotes of the government hiv timeline, and sources such as 'how we got gay' documentary, the 'NBC earliest reports on aids 1982' and links and quotes from CDC. "I stated multiple times that hetrosexuals carry STD's as well. Yet, pro misunderstood that. He mearly is sugessting that I belive ONLY gays carry the disease" First of all, none of your claims changes the fact that gays triggered the spread of HIV and if they had have obeyed homophobes and stopped having gay sex, thousands of gay people's lives would have been spared. In the documentary, "how we got gay", gays admitted that they were told to stop having gay sex but they refused. As a result, 10,000 gays in one zip code in San Francisco died of aids. By the way, it was the gay community in San Francisco. I posted links and quotes showing that even though gays are only 4% of the population, they make up around 70% of all HIV cases. In conclusion, I posted links proving gays triggered the spread of HIV, gays marriage increases HIV among gays, source (how we got gay) proving that gays were told to stop having gay sex but refuse to do so and as a result, thousands of gays ended up dying of AIDS. The Documentary 'How We Got gay' also showed that the Stonewall riots led to gay sexual liberty in which contributed to the HIV epidemic. Gay sexual liberty started when gays stood up against homophobes and stopped conforming. Gay sexual liberty led to the HIV epidemic. Again, if they had have conformed and obeyed homophobes, there would have never been gay sexual liberty in which led to the HIV epidemic in which devastated the gay community the most | PRO | 4c02d026-2019-04-18T14:15:59Z-00001-000 |
The backlash against all symbols, names, and places relating to the Confederacy are unnecessary. Well I'm not quite sure how to respond to this one so I will consider this a conclusion round summarizing each of our points to make it clearer to readers. 1. It is destructive to an entire regions history and to the men who died fighting for their homes. 2.There could be very dire consequences in the future due to the usage of institutionalized censorship. 3.It is largely reactionary and had little to no bearing on the nation before the events of last summer. | PRO | eee50dd3-2019-04-18T14:02:18Z-00001-000 |
Say NO to online social networks. The main argument I will by replying to, is your one about Specialized networks. You continue to not believe that such a thing can exist. I offered up a few suggestions, and here is one more: http://sermo.com... -- A specialized OSN for Doctors. They talk about the field of medicine, and things of that nature. This is neither spread out nor useless, as it shows that people who's career involves saving lives, can talk to their peers about what they do. This certainly isn't a waste of time. Like I've said before, it's just one of many, and I'd like to reiterate again, that your saying that OSNs are useless, is your opinion. I'd just like to clarify that I know many things on Debate.org are opinions, but, this is where it actually matters, because your statement is that it's a waste of time to pretty much everyone. On the subject of debate.org, while it isn't as vast as Facebook or Myspace, it's closer to an OSN then you think. While we don't have a messaging system, we can still create a pretty deep profile. We can upload a personal picture as well, and can browse other people's profiles. This brings me to another point. People may browse other's profiles just for the heck of it, but it's also could teach them something. At a place like this, someone could learn more about a parties political views, or find a lot of new quotes. At a place like sermo, people can find what methods work for what doctors. When I said "it comes with the territory" I was mainly making a figure of speech. A lot of users know about the dangers of putting information out on the web, whether they learn it from the news, from their peers, or just from reading something on their respective networks. I understand that bad things will still happen, but again, as bad as it is to say, it's not a real significant problem. There are millions of profiles out there, and there aren't a significant amount of crimes reported each year. I'll close this debate by saying this, and this is not just for the sake of winning or losing, but for taking away a lesson: What is a waste of time to some, is a lifestyle to others. We're in an age where someone can have a life online, whether it's through an OSN, or an MMO, like Warcraft. It's not anyone's place to judge which is which, for each person. Thank You. -BBE | CON | 868b43c1-2019-04-18T19:45:26Z-00000-000 |
Many Iraqis support the continued presence of US forces. Sheikh Mahmood Ejemi, head of the Ejmani tribe in Hiyt, believes the improved security could quickly unravel without sufficient US support. - "I advise the Americans to withdraw only when Iraqis can secure and achieve security and have a strong and capable military force to protect the borders and the populace. We need to have a national government that protects Iraqis, not works to isolate and kill them, like it is doing now. We need US support in fighting sectarian militias and al-Qaeda."[22] | PRO | d67f6b84-2019-04-17T11:47:43Z-00342-000 |
Education transcends international boundaries. Yes, I don't really believe that this point was used to justify high tuition fee - "We are preveliged to had our predecessors ruled forein countries and made the all the wealth." - "As a famous dicoverer of human genetic material said, we are superior human beings in this world." Counter-arguement - "About ruling foreign countries, Most of the times English people took undue advantage of hospitality by citizens of colonies. In some eastern countries where a Guest is considered next to God, English people came and started ruling. People showed hospitality and in return they got slavery from UK. - " Superior race' I hope you meet me in person so that you can explain me how you became superior race. I believed that origin of human being is from Africa and theory of evolution says that the we all came from Africa. But I am not sure if there is any chance that some people in Uk believe that they evolved separately in an Island compared to rest of the people. And based on these idiotic ideas if high tuition fees are justified then I dont believe that the education is worth taking. kind regadrs How do you then explain my situation. Born in England, parents took me to Canada when I was 11. returned to England at 18. I am being charged full International fees and despite not being able to pay I am unable to have my status changed. Scholarships are for non British. Who am I and where was I born? | PRO | e208df6-2019-04-19T12:45:31Z-00009-000 |
There is nothing that is Universally Good or Bad. I would like to start by saying that those definitions may be in their own respect completely solid, but the way people use those definitions to define other things is very skewed. To go back to what my opponent said about Robbing a bank: The robbing of a bank may be bad for the people who run the bank, or who have accounts at the bank, because they lose money. In that sense, the definition of bad is clearly in use. On the other hand, from the viewpoint of the robber, the robber would gain a lot of wealth from this endeavor. Thus, good and bad viewpoints can both come from something that may appear to be bad, such as a bank robbery. Also, for a future note, I would like to try to keep religion out of this, mainly because your religion is not the defining laws of what's good or bad, and honestly, I'm not entirely sure why religion was brought into this. Religion just offers another lens of what's good or bad, thus justifying my point even more. From a religious viewpoint, sleeping with another person out of wedlock is considered bad, from what I understand. But from the viewpoint of a teenager who isn't religious, sleeping with another person before marriage is considered normal, at least to most. In this sense, one action can be viewed differently by two different groups of people in two different ways, thus nothing is universally good or bad. | PRO | f5215a7f-2019-04-18T18:53:48Z-00003-000 |
Fixating on personal lives results in infringing the rights of more than just the politicians themselves. While it is no doubt unfortunate that the innocent family members of politicians might feel unpleasant scrutiny, it remains essential to the promulgation of political accountability. Furthermore, it is valuable that citizens understand who their leaders are, and what kind of people they are, which necessitates knowing what kind of people they associate with in their private lives. Obviously, not all personal associations, such as biological family, may be chosen, but all the same those relationships can reveal much valuable information about the politician’s character. All of this is part of the trade-off politicians must accept if good, accountable government is to be achieved and maintained. | CON | 5c22eb90-2019-04-15T20:24:40Z-00018-000 |
The US Federal Government Should Pass a Term Limit Amendment. I going to rebut my opponents arguments from round 2. I. Constitutionality My opponents states that if term limits were in place it would be in violation of the Constitution, but what my opponent fails to see is that there is term limits in the Constitution if you look at the 22 Amendment is states " No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice," that is term limits {1}. The ruling that U.S. District Judge Wiliam L. Dwyer gave should be in question. Term limits isn't going to restrict people if anything it gives people the opportunity to have a greater chance of being elected. Any of the qualifications term limits will add on will be after someone is elected that is not telling someone they can't run it states that they have had their turn and is time to turn it over to someone else. Term limits is not against the first amendment. The first amendment is about freedom of religion,speech,press and expression{2}. Term limits isn't telling someone they can't worship as they will, can't say what they feel,telling the press they can't do their job, or even telling someone they can't express themselves. If someone is truly against term limits they can still right in the candidate they want they will just not be able to get elected. If term limits are against the first amendment then so are the restrictions about age, citizenship, and residency because that could stop someone from electing someone who doesn't fit those qualifications. Term limits is not against the 14th amendment. In the 14th amendment is about voting and if someone wants to vote for anyone they can they just might not be qualified{3}. It isn't saying someone can't vote it is just states who will be allowed to be elected just like the restrictions already in the Constitution. Term limits is not against the Constitution and is an invalid point to give. II. Experience If experience is so important than why is the national debt over 16 trillion dollars {4},problems with taxes{5}, and deficit spending at such a high rate{6}. The problem is that the people who have put America in such a bad place are still in office and can still have office for a life time. It takes new blood to get things moving and changed. III Power Shifting Term limits gives limits to someones power. The problem is that these elected officials become puppets for corporations and rich individuals because those are the people who get officials elected. If their is term limits it will become extremely hard for a corporation to control everyone. Sources {1} http://www.usconstitution.net... {2} http://www.usconstitution.net... {3} http://www.usconstitution.net... {4} http://www.brillig.com... {5} http://www.taxhelponline.com... {6} http://www.foxnews.com... | PRO | 68f5a81d-2019-04-18T17:53:49Z-00002-000 |
Violent Video Games. Thank you for accepting, and I agree with your first statement. I would like to start with your second, that children are more prone to violence from video games. Well I still stand by my reasoning about responsibility of parents, but also a child's mindset is different then when in adolescence or older, therefore they most likely do not understand the concept of the violence that are in those video games. And how many kids have you heard violently hurting someone just because they wanted to? Even if their past growing up was not rough or devastating? Sure there are some smart kids out there, but if they were smart enough about it, they would know about violence and take in account human integrity and have some idea that it is wrong to cause violence. I admit I may have outspoken for the more recent Call of Duty's, but the older ones did have a educational value. If violent video games could hold some sort of educational value I believe the violence would matter less The education, if prevalent enough, takes your mind off the more violent parts of the game. The emotional status of the characters, how the game makes you feel, whether it be sadness, or even hate towards another character, that emotion leads to a deeper understanding of the violence in the game, if that makes sense. And the thing about the military? They live that on a weekly bases, even before video games became electronic. Sure it may be how they become less aware of killing another human being, but again, that is their lifestyle, and sure there are more even better ways, to deal with that, but obviously video games were the option chosen, and I would like to believe more for the fun that could be taken out of it by sitting next to your comrade in arms having a friendly competition. | PRO | 5b6b29c-2019-04-18T17:47:59Z-00003-000 |
No current religion is the best guide for being a moral person in the 21st Century. Since the burden of proof falls on my opponent I see the task before for him extremely difficult considering he will have to prove why each religion is not the best guide for being a moral person. This debate topic also assumes that their is an innate morality universally understood by all human beings. I propose that Christianity (non denominational Bible believing religion) based on faith in the the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ referred to in the Holy Bible is the "best guide" for being a moral person. Defining moral person as: Moral character ...good behaviors or [[Habit (psychology)|habits]]. When someone is a 'moral character', it is primarily referring to the assemblage of positive qualities that ... ... functioning across a range of situations"' [http://www.iep.utm.edu...] . So basically what we mean by a moral person is someone who has a good character, integrity, and follows the "golden rule" treat others as you would wish to be treated. If someone were to follow Bible based Christianity to the fullest they would exemplify Jesus Christ who is the Gospel in Human form. Now whether you believe the Bible or not Jesus was the only true moral (or good) person to ever walk the earth. I believe Jesus was the son of God, but if you believe Jesus was a good moral person to be an example for others (which most non believers do) than that in itself shows that Bible based Christianity is the best guide to being a moral person. The Bible says love your neighbors as yourself, give to the poor, take care of widows and orphans and teaches forgiveness and turn the other cheek when hit by an enemy, it tells us to pray for our enemies. I would go as far as to say that the following alone ... The book of Proverbs, Psalms, The New Testament and the Ten Commandments are a better moral guide than any other religion and for anyone who would follow what they say. Even single versus from scripture if followed would be a better moral guide than any other religions entire philosophy. Anyone who knows scripture knows that Bible based Christianity by far would be the best moral guide to anyone in the 21st century or any century for that matter. My opponent is going to have to prove how all other religions compare to Christianity and prove that one is better than Bible based Christianity to win this debate. I have a lot more I can say on this subject especially in relation to actual scripture references that show if believed and followed Bible based Christianity is hands down the absolute best moral guide to anyone in any time past, present, future. I am not going too in depth at this point b/c I'm anxious to see just what my opponent is going to do to considering the burden of proof falls on him. | CON | b0e2ca48-2019-04-18T19:37:52Z-00004-000 |
'Nothing' exists. What is 'nothing'? My personal definition is "the absence of an object or person that is not present on/around/below/etc. an object, person, or other physical matter." The argument here is not 'Nothing exists? Everything is existing right now!' My argument is that the idea and "matter" of 'nothing' can exist. The absence of something can exist. Prove me wrong. | PRO | 23b4574a-2019-04-18T20:01:39Z-00005-000 |
Character is best forged by Mental Pain. I'd like to see if we can't find some common ground on which to debate this. You are of the opinion that 'personal' experience (yours and what you observe in others) is a valid basis for ascertaining 'truths' of the world. I simply contend that it is not because your 'experiences' are unique to you, as well as your 'interpretations' of others experiences. Einstein knew this when he postulated his theory of relativity (which takes into account the 'experience' (or point of view) of the observer). By quoting facts, statistics, etc. I am not attempting to 'insult your intelligence'. I am merely operating on the above principle, that whatever you or I may 'think' it is not a basis for uncovering the worlds's truths. I also believe you can 'learn' from debates, but I disagree that it is not about winning. In a presidential debate, (arguably one of the most important debates), I'm sure that the candidates learn about others and themselves (and possibly the issues themselves) but they are there to 'win' their argument. (here is where I would usually quote a source on what the objective of a debate is defined as, but I won't). Also, because we have had dealings before, you are mistakenly making this about MY character. I am simply debating my position on why 'character is best forged by mental pain'. I am purposely trying to avoid relating MY experiences, because again, that is unique to me and may not apply to other people or the world at large. Using your own words, "We should debate the real issues, not rationalizations." I agree. And the REAL topic of debate is not that "niceness" is not a factor in determining one's character, or that "adversity" is problematic. The real topic is that Mental Pain forges CHaracter the best, which I outlined in my first argument, and that concentrating ONLY on niceness in the world leaves you unprepared to face adversity as strongly as if you had experienced pain before. There are people who crumble; but unless they die, they come back stronger than before, much like a broken bone heals stronger than it was originally. And that is what I'm trying to have someone see. | PRO | ddd02352-2019-04-18T20:03:47Z-00005-000 |
Why the Future is Safe. I'm not sure if the Instigator is still interested in the website, but I'll accept nontheless.I won't make any arguments, but I will make a few obversations.Observation 1: The Instigator needs points for something... What exactly do you mean by "points" for what topic? Is it for school?Obvervation 2: The Instigator wants me to make arguments for him. That's not how debate works. If you do need information, I recommend Google and Yahoo Answers. Google grants you webpages for research, and if you're too lazy for researching, to go Yahoo Answers, where other people can answer your question.Obvervation 3: While I can't make your arguments for you, I can look for where your own arguments could be improved. Debate isn't always about who is correct. Sometimes, it's about what is correct.And, for clarification, here's some definitions:Future: time that is to be or come hereafter (Basically, 2017 is the future. At least at the time of me posting this.)Safe: secure from liability to harm, injury, danger, or risk (Basically, being safe is being free from harm)Harm; to our health and population.So, Pro, tell me what you have so far, and I'll give my opinion on it. | CON | 3a205777-2019-04-18T12:54:13Z-00000-000 |
Science Should Progress Religion Instead of Religion Dictating Science. Religious people still believe in science, and to say they don't is an outrageous claim. Where does religion argue against science? Are you talking about religious people disagreeing with the theory of evolution? Evolution has not been proven as a fact, so why should people have to agree with it? Some creationists believe in a young earth, but does that belief imply that they disagree with all science? Origins and evolution are questionable issues and science still has not provided the answers, so what's the issue? Religious doctrine (the Christian bible), makes no attempt to disprove science. In all reality, there are quite a few verses in the bible that give reference to real world science. The bible provides information on weather patterns, atoms, and even radio waves. I would like to know what science you believe religious doctrine is trying to disprove. Science is not only limited to evolution and origins. Do you see my point? Can you scan through all of the information in the bible and disprove it through history or science? No you can't, and I would like for you to disprove the bible through historical accounts or through science. | CON | 7c704a8c-2019-04-18T16:38:56Z-00004-000 |
Creation over evolution. The bible is not an accurate source of proof and therefore every time you cite the bible your argument is invalid. Charles Darwin gave light toa theory that can prove evolution is real. Because lower intellegence level animals minds can develop to an extent (i.e., sniffer dog), it's plausible to conclude that the human mind is a highly developed evolution from a lower intellengce animal. From Darwin's "THe Descent of Man" (1871) "man is constructed on the same general type or model as other mammals. All the bones in his skeleton can be compared with corrsponding bones in a monkey, bat, or seal." All of these animals were on earth before humans. Humans didn't pop up out of no where (i.e., Adam and Eve) and had to have evolved from something already on earth. | CON | 4d6fd66c-2019-04-18T18:22:15Z-00002-000 |
Imprisonment: A special consideration.\Rehabilitation is not only important when the court is deci... Imprisonment: A special consideration The goal of “rehabilitation” is at its most dangerous when it is applied in the context of actually carrying out the punishment of imprisonment; that is, when it is used as a criteria for release decisions. For how can any prison staff, parole officer or even psychologist ever tell that a person “has reformed” or “probably will not offend again”? Evidence has shown that such vast discretion given to treatment staff, guided only by the grand ideal of “rehabilitation”, has systematically produced unfair, incorrect and even racially discriminatory results. Indeed, on what basis can they make any fair, sensible decision? The sad answer is that, since one can never tell if an offender is “cured”, having “rehabilitation” as the goal forces the decision to be made be based on statistical ‘risk factors’ like whether the person belongs to a racial group that is statistically likely to reoffend, or whether the person belongs to an economic underclass that makes him statistically likely to reoffend. Of course all this does is to double-penalise the offender for something he cannot help, such as his race or his poverty. It also leads to what is sometimes called “back-end sentencing”: the offender is sentenced once in court, but in reality he is sentenced again out-of-court – because the final date of his release depends entirely on parole officers or prison staff. | CON | f832e1ca-2019-04-19T12:44:41Z-00013-000 |
In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory. Since Con has not provided any rebuttals, I will provide my third argument:Democratic Ideals PromotedTaking on this action of making voting compulsory would be only asking those who take advantage of the democracy to put in their work for the same democracy. We will be asking those citizens who wish not to go to a polling station to complete their duty. Additionally, the fact that the registered voters would have an incentive to go to vote in the election year, they will be forced to keep up with the parties and the leaders. If they have to go to the polling station, they will think, why not just vote for someone. This thought will increase the number of people who would place a legit vote and would be voting for what they believe.I would like to extend this argument, but seeing that Con has yet not provided rebuttals to my last two and has not strengthened Con's own arguments, I will delay the extension of this argument. | PRO | 84367233-2019-04-18T17:20:27Z-00001-000 |
The Allies could have won World War 2 without the Soviet Union. 1. The Soviet Union doesn't join the Axis nor makes war with the Allies, they stay neutral throughout the entire war. In this debate, the Soviets are as neutral as Switzerland was in the Cold War. 2. The Allies consist of all the nations that was on the Allies side minus the Soviet Union, with all powers and capabilities unless we've agreed to restrict certain powers and capabilities in the comments. 3. Axis nations consist of the nations that was apart of the Axis pact. This is, Germany, Italy, Japan, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Croatia, and Slovakia, with all powers and capabilities unless we've agreed to restrict certain powers and capabilities in the comments. 4. Burden of proof will be shared. I, as pro, will need to make the argument that the Allies would defeat the Axis. You, as con, will need to make the argument that the Axis would defeat the Allies. 5. When I say win/defeat I mean one side will win by unconditional surrender like how it really ended. If you are OK with these conditions accept. If there are any questions or concerns about this then bring them up in the comments before joining. Don't join unless everything is resolved. | PRO | 968d5d4d-2019-04-18T12:53:58Z-00002-000 |
Men are better to kiss with facial hair. Your statistics are from 2013, whereas my statistics are more updated. Throughout the debate you have defined words but haven't actually said why you believe in your side of the debate. My points were: facial hair is unhygienic and facial hair is voted less attractive. Pro is trying to tell me that my information is false. This is ridiculous and all information used in this debate is completely valid. So now, have a think and remember, would you kiss someone with an unhygienic beard? | CON | b22955b6-2019-04-18T15:02:53Z-00000-000 |
Germs in the blood is a secondary phase of the disease process. I will show that germs are the cause of many diseases. I will show that the "leaky gut" theory, even if accepted as true, will only explain at its best a small minority of diseases. I will show that even if one eliminated all "leaky gut" one would still be prone to a host of other diseases. PRO has made a somewhat derogatory statement about being advised by " some less educated persons on this site that germs are the cause of disease". Pro must distinguish between "educated", "wise", "intelligent", and "comprehensive". I have known many educated people who could not comprehend. I have known many intelligent people who were not wise. Within this debate, we must take the medically educated as all three. Those who put forth "medical theories" which are not accepted by the "medical scholars" have the burden to prove their theory to those scholars first and lay people second. Writing a popular book to convince non medical readers that a theory has merit is akin to selling "snake oil". We must not accept a popular book as a substitute for a medical textbook. We must see results from treatment of "leaky gut". We must see "leaky gut " clinics with a host of "leaky gut "survivors. Anything short of these parameters must be taken as simply apocryphal. Finally Pro must explain clearly his concept of " secondary phase of the disease process." | CON | a3020950-2019-04-18T11:59:22Z-00008-000 |
THW ban space exploration. Thanks for Con to make his first two arguments. First I will make my own argument then say my rebuttals.1. So my first argument is that it just takes a lot of time. For example lets see how far mars is. You have to go there in about 260 days!!! also this is just a lot of time and also there isn't many things to look at for astronauts. Only the rovers are doing this, so people aren't doing this. Also why do we need to know about other planets. We should just take care of OUR planet earth and should just make global warming exist. This is what Professor Crain Patten says, "How long does it take? It takes the Earth one year to orbit the Sun and it takes Mars about 1.9 years ( say 2 years for easy calculation ) to orbit the Sun. The elliptical orbit which carries you from Earth to Mars is longer than Earth's orbit, but shorter than Mars' orbit. Accordingly, we can estimate the time it would take to complete this orbit by averaging the lengths of Earth's orbit and Mars' orbit. Therefore, it would take about one and a half years to complete the elliptical orbit above ( solid and dashed parts! ). Since it would be nice to spend some time at Mars, we are only interested in the one way trip ( solid line ) which is half of the orbit, and would take half the time of the full orbit, or about nine months. So it takes nine months to get to Mars. It is possible to get to Mars in less time, but this would require you to burn your rocket engines longer, using more fuel. With current rocket technology, this isn't really feasible."Also it takes about 9.5 years to go to Pluto. I think the earth and the economy will just find information and help Earth then just going to these discoveries of other Planets. For example when New Horizon it says that they went to Pluto at 2006 and came at 2015! Also with those information it will take 16 months to even send all the information back. So basically it is 10.4 months because 9.6 months and 16 months equal to 10.4 months. 2. My second argument is that It just takes a lot of money for these space discoveries.It says that the trip it self takes $25000 dollars and the space shuttle is about 450 million dollars. Also a space suit is 12 million dollars. All together it is about 462,025,000 dollars. That is a lot of money. And also we do not get 462,025,000 points of information from these missions. ( This is the average of the space shuttle, suit, and whole trip.)Sources Used http://pluto.jhuapl.edu...http://www.space.com...https://www.nasa.gov... http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov... Now I would like to invite CON to the podium. | PRO | 45ee5ae7-2019-04-18T14:30:50Z-00003-000 |
Abortion can be funny depending on your outlook on life. I shall be taking the position that abortion isn't funny and is a very serious choice to make. But I'm also somewhat confused by your argument. You mentioned that "I think that abortion can be funny. " Then you later said "But some abortions are not funny, and very necassary. " I suppose abortion could be funny but most people don't look at that view. It is a very serious decision to make and consider, because it impacts the individual far later in life. | CON | eb3c14b0-2019-04-18T18:53:34Z-00004-000 |
Plump Barbie Faces the Same Issue as Slim Barbie. I understand my opponent's thoughts on the curvy doll, for I thought the same thing, at first. It's easy to interpret the curvy doll as an embracement of diversity, because that's what Mattel has been portraying her as. My opponent is speaking on behalf of the surface, while I'm looking below the surface, because there's more than meets the eye. Although my good opponent is correct in saying Taylor Swift displays a skinny figure, she's not showcasing her skinniness, while Kim Kardashian is showcasing her curviness. It can be argued that Taylor Swift is just presenting her body type, as oppose to presenting it as beautiful, even if it is. I would like to argue with my opponent that people don't look to models for standard beauty but for imaginative beauty: as beautiful creatures than beautiful people. A majority of the female models are taller than the average male, for example, which is not ideal for the standard woman. As for runway models, that my opponent mentioned, who are skinny, are not in the media, but commercial models, who are, are known to be much curvier. If the full figured doll was made to make full figured girls feel beautiful, as my opponent states, then the doll is capable of giving young girls the impression that you're not made to feel beautiful until society thinks you are, because it wasn't until society thought that full figured bodies were beautiful that Mattel released this doll. The only people Barbie represents are the people the media represents. Girls need to be shown that you don't have to be beautified in the media to be beautiful, but Barbie shows otherwise, when she shows a full figured doll only after it has been shown through the media. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having an abnormally large nose, but Barbie has yet to embrace this because the media has yet to embrace it. Until Barbie stops caring more about setting good trends than setting good examples, she will continue to have a bad influence on some girls and we can't afford a bad influence on any girl. That's my final piece. I'd like to thank my opponent so much for contributing to this debate and opposing my argument so well. Good luck to her, and make the best debater win. | CON | 60089da7-2019-04-18T12:40:29Z-00000-000 |
Honor is more important than morals. You are assuming that the person is waiting until people die. This may not be the case and the person may wait until the person who chooses to kill others simply gives enough evidence that they would kill someone before acting. If someone was going by honour and decided to kill the person too soon, maybe the "killer" mentioned how s/he does not like a certain group of people, than the fight could be for a misplaced cause and could cause a death, either the "killer" or the person, over a situation that didn't need to happen. Sometimes, it's best for one to see what will happen. | CON | 2c941fbb-2019-04-18T16:48:16Z-00002-000 |
Jesus Was Probably Resurrected By God. The burden of proof is on my opponent to demonstrate historical facts that are best explained by the notion that God rose Jesus from the dead. I only must undermine my opponent's arguments. My opponent will argue in the first round, but to ensure we have the same amount of rounds to argue, in the last round, Pro must not argue and put:"No argument will be posted here, as agreed."Failure to abide by the rules will result in an automatic forfeit. | CON | 21b1ffba-2019-04-18T16:59:19Z-00007-000 |
Youth Suffrage? should we lower the voting age. The right to vote is a injustice to just not only me, but to future generations of citizens. We are all citizens, we all live and work here, why as teens are denied the most important civil right to our democracy. Youth Suffrage or lowering the voting age to 16-17 is a issue that is sidelined by the media and the government. But I have a voice, and want to use it. Why in the home of the free, we are still being looked down as dumb uneducated teens? We are more inform than half of voters. We pay income tax when we have jobs and pay sales tax when we buy stuff at the stores. We can drive cars, that can kill us but not vote! We can be charged as adults but not vote! We, just, want our voices to be heard as equal. Why give a vote to a person who has no idea how our democracy works, but not a teen that dose? I am asking for your support and help to bring this issue to the tables across the country and the world! We are all citizens of the world! | PRO | 219652fa-2019-04-18T14:33:32Z-00005-000 |
Likability Verses Capability. This debate is whether success relies more on an individual's heart or brain. I can tell you why kind people have a better chance at success (in workplaces) than skilled people, and you can tell me why they don't. It doesn't matter how well you can work for people, if you don't know how to work with people. I'm a lifelong Christina Aguilera fan, and although Xtina is more capable than Britney Spears, [1] she's not as likable, and she's not as popular. [2] Resource(s): [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org... (Artistry/Voice) [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org... (Introduction) Make the best debater win. | PRO | 6e9ac28-2019-04-18T12:40:30Z-00005-000 |
Phone Guy is the killer in Five Nights at Freddy's. for purple man being a cop I have this video and I don't give up! I know he's an SK BUT this is all speculation. so it's up for grabs, and the purple man in Foxy's mini game is different then the one in the S A V E T H E M minigame. so... there is 2 killers? Because the purple man in Foxy's mini game, killed a child in the Give Cake mini game. do you see what I'm pointing at? 2 KILLERS! and I think the one from Foxy's minigame IS NOT Phone guy! BUT the one with a badge! A badge?? A BADGE?! eeyup. a badge! so he wears a badge! HE WEARS A BADGE!! mmm... I think purple man is a day shift guard. why day shift? because night shift was taken. | PRO | 8a5de2c8-2019-04-18T14:58:36Z-00004-000 |
There should be sections of interstate with no speed limit. You make some valid points which is why I supported the use of speed limits in problem areas such as construction zones and high congestion areas.The annual fatality rate on the Autobahn is 2.7 per billion kilometers traveled. The United States has a 4.5 fatality rate for the the distance. Furthermore this could bring about new changes in in how people drive, and drivers education, as well as how maintained highways are. The accident rate on the Autobahn is consistently lower than many other highway systems, partly because of its better construction, it has a 40 year rating. The US highways have a 20 year rating. Also new laws would come about such as mandatory vehicle inspection every two years. Responsible change is a good thing. | PRO | c6c31c36-2019-04-18T15:19:47Z-00001-000 |
Belief in the god of the bible is irrational. The same book I keep using mentions that the word "day" in the Bible was translated from the Hebrew word "yom," which could also mean something similar to "period of time," so each "yom" could have been many, many years. So, the Earth could have been created in 7 "yoms," not literal days. Biblical prophecies: "There are over 2,000 accurately fulfilled predictions in the Bible, including some 300 specific details and implications about the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. For example, Isaiah 53 beautifully describes the life of Christ 700 years before it took place! Even the town of Jesus' birth was foretold in the Old Testament (Micah 5:2). And there are no prophetic failures." From (http://www.faithfacts.org...). Also, Jesus kept saying that He was God. Any liar would deny it later rather than die. Would anyone persist in lying to the point of an extremely painful death? No. Jesus told the truth. | CON | 1042fd26-2019-04-18T12:52:34Z-00004-000 |
Patriots running up the score. To counter the spygate scandal, all the Patriots had to do was win games without stealing signs. It doesn't matter how much they win by - just winning without video-taping the other team's defensive signals is counter enough to the idea that the Pats only won their first game by stealing the Jets' signs. That being said, running up the score is not necessary to dispel the spygate scandal (which happened 14 wins ago - I don't think there's any doubt now.) Since it's not necessary to counter the scandal any longer, the Patriots' running up the score will only be taken as unsportsmanlike, and not received well by fans or commentators. Given all of those things, I think it's safe to conclude that if faced with the option, the Patriots shouldn't knowingly try to run up the score to demonstrate their superiority. | CON | bec5b391-2019-04-18T20:02:18Z-00002-000 |
The United Stares of America is an empire. I will give some examples of this, some in fairly recent history: Northwest Territory (aka the Midwest,), gained after the revolution, The Louisiana Purchase, 1803, The Annexation of the Republic of West Florida, 1810, The Cession of what was called East Florida (regular Florida today), 1819, The Annexation of the Republic of Texas, 1845, Mexican Cession, more commonly known as the Annexation of The Republic of California, 1846-1848, Gadsden Purchase, 1853, Alaska Purchase, 1867, The Annexation of the Republic of Hawaii, 1893, after the Spanish-American war in 1898, Spain ceded Cuba, Puerto Rico, The Philippines, and Guam, the American Samoa was ceded from the Samoa natives due to a civil war in 1899, and the Purchase of the Virgin Islands in 1917. So as you see, most of these are annexations or cessions, with few of them being purchases. So, while it's true that the US has not annexed territory for over 100 years, I believe that the US is still an empire.The USA has given rights to the Native Americans. We've even given land to many of the Nations.There have actually been calls in the US for the annexation of basically the entire Middle East, including Israel.Proof that the USA wanted to annex Israel? Last time I checked that never happened. There might be a case about the Arab countries, but even then the USA didn't. Blame Britain and Denmark for invading Iraq.First of all, in WW2, Germany annexed Austria, making Germany an empire, not a union. Secondly, the US can no longer be classified as a union, because a union has to be voluntary, and when the South seceded in 1861 to form the CSA, the US took it back by force, immediately ending the union between the north and the south. The only original territory that was voluntarily united that can still be considered part of that union is the Northeast.No it was voluntary. Hitler was actually an Austrian. The majority of people in Germany and Austria, with good reason, supported Nazism, and it was a union they craved.The USA is not an empire anymore. If anything the only countries with empires are Denmark and Britain. Denmark still mistreats the Inuits like it's nothing, and their attitude is one of "I don't care."As for the Civil War, it's hard to say exactly, what the war was really about. | CON | c63567b7-2019-04-18T16:05:20Z-00004-000 |
someone should go around video interviewing cops who shot calm, unarmed people (and were filmed). ..and weren't punished for it. it happens way too much - it would only take 300-400$ in gas for a little road trip. they need to be summoned to answer publicly for what's on the video or be shown in the compilation of cops avoiding the camera interview. we should start a crowd funding campaign to do this, i can ask them the tough questions. we just need a big guy holding the boom mic to back me up. let's do it | PRO | 3298b54e-2019-04-18T16:11:31Z-00005-000 |
Circumcision better done as infant than later in life. Edgar J. Schoen, MD, Clinical Professor of Pediatrics. "Risk and Complications of Circumcision". Opposing Views: "Newborns are metabolically best suited for the operation, they heal very quickly, and the surgery is most easily done at this age, with the lowest complication rate. Complications in infants are generally slight with an incidence of about 0.2-0.4 %. At older ages the procedure takes longer, healing is slower and the complication rate, with generally mild problems, is about 10 times higher at 2-4%." | PRO | c4e8d546-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00112-000 |
Rape is love. Okay well pedophilia is a controversial topic, However your points don't justify what you do as right, Literally no evidence you just state how you enjoy the things you do. 1. " my only crime is love" actually no it's not. Your other crimes would include at least for CA. Penal code 288: sex crimes against children, 278 child stealing which im assuming you did becuase doing this in public would have gotten you in trouble and well 261 felony rape charge so yeah you actually have more crimes then just love. 2. My next point, A 4 year old girl can't really give consent on something as impactful as intercourse, So. . . Yeah that's not right also just becuase you like it doesnt mean the 4 year old likes it. Molesting a 4 year old would have traumamtizing effects on the persons life. 3. What you like and want to do in the American Pediatric Association in the DSM-5 pedophilia is a mental illness. You are considered again in the CA penal code as a 5150 and therefore you cannot take of yourself and are an endangerment to others and yourself, Basically your whole poem is just illogical and wrong. | CON | b2f4dc52-2019-04-18T11:22:00Z-00000-000 |
best pokemon starter. Let's begin. Pokemon Red and Blue's winner is Blastoise. Charmander has a rough time at the beginning of the game and only has one extremely useful spot in the game. Venusaur does not have a huge variety of types of moves. Then there is Blastoise. Blastoise can learn ice and ground type moves. Since water types are weak against electric and grass types, you can counter the electric types with Blastoise's ground type moves and the grass types with Blastoise's ice type moves. And with Blue, the Pokemon Champion in the game, he has a Pidgeot, Alakazam, Rhydon, Arcanine, Gyarados, and Vensaur. You can easily counter the Pidgeot with his ice type moves, the Alakazam will not stand a chance if you use bite, which is a dark type move, Rhydon will be a piece of cake with your ice type moves, Arcanine can be destroyed with your water type moves, Gyarados won't be countered by Blastoise, but if you grabbed an electric type Pokemon you can obliterate Gyarados. Last is Venusaur, you can use your ice type moves here to good use. I doubt you want to hear me ramble a bunch so I will for now on just put the best starter for each reason. Pokemon Red and Blue: Blastoise is the best, Venusaur is the second best, and Charizard is the worst Pokemon Gold and Silver: Typhlosion and Maganium tie, Frirlagator is the worst Pokemon Ruby and Sapphire: Swamprt and Sceptile tie, Blaziken is the worst Pokemon Diamond and Pearl: Never played them Pokemon Black and White: Samuwott is the best, and Serperior and Emboar tie. Pokemon X and Y: Delphox and Greninja seem to tie, Chesnaut is the worst Pokemon Sun and Moon: Game is easy so it doesn't matter | CON | 578fd92-2019-04-18T11:42:59Z-00001-000 |
gay marriage. Marriage should not be biased at all because then its just bull plucky! there is no proof needed only because any gay or straight person would believe that no one can decide who they date or who they want to be with! People if you really understood what i am saying and that would be that god did not create us to hate some for liking the same sex yes it is not looked upon as the bible would state. .. but gay/lesbian people were not born to think different there not dumb there not any less then us heterosexual couples they love each other. They need each other! Thank you! | PRO | 25956e2-2019-04-18T19:35:34Z-00001-000 |
Chances that a alien visiting us would be nearly identical 2 humans or humanoid at all is very small. I am only taking it because I figured it would be a rather interesting discussion, given my taste for Stargate/Star Trek. As a start, I am not even an evolutionist, nor do I believe that any aliens exist, but I love sci-fi and that kind of stuff. Now, on with my side: Firstly, with potentially billions of billions of trillions of planets in however many galaxies as exist in the universe (I don't know the estimation, but I believe you get the point that there are lots of planets around the universe), chances are that there are other "earth-like" planets in the universe. It is a decent assumption, therefore, that there are possibly (via our rules of science) other humanoid species. However, there are lots of other different types of planets over hundreds of different types of stars. Therefore, there are also probably hundreds of types of intelligent life forms out there. GOing further into speculation, some sci-fi writers have even hypothesized the possibilities of beings with triple helix DNA strands, silicon-based lifeforms, and hundreds of other types, with possibilities that used something other than proteins as building blocks. I guess that my argument is that there are probably lifeforms of humanoid AND non-humanoid beings. For all we know, there may be an intelligent life form similar to the Go'Auld from Stargate that communicates as a symbiote and aren't really humanoid at all. | CON | 1066a920-2019-04-18T19:53:34Z-00004-000 |
Same sex marriage should be legalized in Australia. You have only addressed one of my arguments. "Opposite-sex couples can get married whether or not they are able or willing to procreate." This does not subtract from the principle of marriage and procreation is still a possibility. However, same sex couples cannot procreate, it is not even a possibility. "equal legal treatment." Heterosexual marriage is not equal to same marriage. Discrimination on the basis skin color, gender etc is wrong but discrimination on the basis of skill, talent, charisma, social skills etc is not. In this case the discriminating factor is procreation. Same sex couples are awarded legal rights under civil unions which is sufficient. "Same-sex couples have and raise children" Opposite couples are better equipped to raise children then same sex couples. WHY has nature endowed us with a mother and father? "higher suicide rates than their heterosexual counterparts" Is this not the the cause of this their homosexuality. Higher suicide rates and lower life expectancy is common among homosexuals and to attribute this to other people ignores all internal factors. Take regions where homosexuality is accepted thoroughly but yet these statistics remain. The source of these problems is in the lifestyle itself. "celebrate their love and commitment...social recognition" All of your arguments can be applied to any non traditional marriage relationship. "Same-sex marriage is already a reality in a growing list of countries including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa." Morality and laws are not based on what everyone else is doing and so this argument is arbitrary. I believe in absolute morality as given by God. I feel as if your argument is a copy and paste so please respond directly to what i have said (QUOTE what i have said and say why i am wrong). Answer This: If two sisters came up to you and said they love each other and are deeply committed and wanted to adopt children, what principle would you rely on to dismiss them access to marriage? Are you not "discriminating" and denying them equal social and legal recognition etc. | CON | a2f192fd-2019-04-18T14:23:08Z-00001-000 |
Skyrim deserves to win the next Ultimate Game of the Year. I am very glad at the chance to debate this topic, this being my first debate also. I would like to instead suggest other games which could win Game of the Year which you have ignored, and to point out some points of what Skyrim lacks. I agree that Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3 do not deserve the game of the year, as their gameplay may have become somewhat stale. But I believe you have left out some of the other main contenders for Game of the Year. The possible games which could beat out The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim would be as listed: Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword (which I will be focusing on during this debate, and which I also personally own). Batman: Arkham City Portal 2 Each game has it's own respective positives, in which I will go into more detail as you build your argument in the next round. Thank you once again for debating with me. | CON | 6dddab97-2019-04-18T18:35:25Z-00004-000 |
One Point Nine Repeating is Equal to Two. Thank you for your acceptation of this debate! I've never heard of some of those arguments before, but I'll do my best to offer up a solid rebuttal and arguments of my own. "2 - 1.9r = n N must be higher than 0 as proved by this equation. n + 2 = n + 1.9r If I was to subtract 1.9r from both sides I end up with an infinitesimal number. as supposed to 2. " n+2=n+1.9r if considered true only proves my point. When n is subtracted from both sides, you're left with 2=1.9r. However, if the equation is true, your statement "N must be higher than 0" must be false and n=0 because when you do subtract 1.9r from both sides, you're left with 2n=n, which is only possible if n=0. "1.9rs final digit is 9 and therefore it is an odd number. 2 is an even number. (if you don't rebut to that you then are a bit of a fail)" Your very first statement is false. Assuming you are correct and 1.9r is less than 2, 1.9r would not be an integer. Parities (aka whether or not a number is even or odd) only apply to integers so 1.9r is neither if not equal to two. "The factors of 4 are 1,4 and 2,2. 1.9r,1.9r don't give you the same answer. It is simply impractical to be precise. " The point I am arguing is that 1.9r=2, therefor anything divisible by two is divisible by 1.9r (see my arguments below). "Here is my most important argument though: Multiply 1.9r by ten and then it reduces in size one decimal place that means it is not infinitesimal and therefore it is definitely not the same. On the other hand 10(1+1) = 10(0.5+1.5) and therefore 10 X 2. For any two concepts to be the same you should be able to multiply them by 10 and get the same answer as proved. " Let x=1.9r Then, 10x=19.9r So, 10x-x=19.9r-1.9=18.000. .. So, 9x=18, which implies n=2. My argument applies infinitely. Meaning if a is any integer, a.9r=a+1. When you substitute our aforementioned x for a, 10x=19.9r, 10x=20. There are infinite numbers in existence, and yet there is no real number between 1.9r and 2. This is impossible, unless my previous statement and main argument is true and a.9r=a+1. My favorite point has to do with devision. 1/3=0.3r. This should mean 0.3r*3=1, however different calculators give you different results, and some say 0.3r=0.9r. I agree with both statements, as they're both mathematically correct. When you add one to each side, you're left with either (0.3r*3)+1=2 or (0.3r*3)+1=1.9r. Because of the law (if a=b and a=c, b=c), that means 2=1.9r. | PRO | 542bfec5-2019-04-18T15:01:59Z-00001-000 |
"The Real World," most infamous reality show ever to hit television has been on steady decline. Oh wow, so we have Laguna Beach AND Dawson's Creek to thank 'The Real World' for, well, let me just admit defeat right here. Are you really serious? Can your taste be this bad? The Real World is the worst trash on television that spawned an entire sub-genre of trash made by lazy people designed to put a lot of unsavory, hyper-aggressive, and horridly slutty people all together to see the monkey fights that break out between them. It appeals to the lowest possible common denominator and that's why it's so popular, it's the same reason why Alvin and the Chipmunks is getting world wide release and movies like "There Will Be Blood" are only paying in two theatres in the whole country. The entire concept behind the real world is just to throw a bunch of mongoloids together in a sack and shack the sack to see who fights who and who has sex with who. It's pathetic and only pathetic people find it entertaining. | CON | 91278547-2019-04-18T19:58:53Z-00001-000 |
Ocean exploration/colonization makes more sense than Space exploration/colonization. Thanks for the interesting topic and good luck. While oceanic exploration is a worthy endeavor and has been largely ignored, the long-term, and I do mean long term, future survival of the human race depends on space exploration. I agree living in or on the ocean is going to be important as sea levels rise with global warming, but space exploration will yield even more exciting rewards. Side note: NASA's budget is relatively tiny these days and they might have much more impressive results if they had better funding. To continue, our sun will burn out in approximately 5 billion years at which point Earth, oceans and all, will become uninhabitable due to extreme cold (oceans will freeze) among other things. One space exploration endeavor that could pay off handsomely in the near future is asteroid mining; which could yield tons of precious resources without threat of say polluting the ocean as we have seen with the Horizon deep water drill rig. Also, at any moment an asteroid may come hurtling at Earth and cause mass extinction. We actually already have the technology to prevent such devastation--telescopes keeping watch and a rocket ready to launch to tow the rock off of the collision course, but aren't funding any operations to do so. This could potentially eliminate the human race at any time, including before global warming and rising sea levels get a chance. I'll include sources for this information if anyone wants to see it, but I just took an astronomy course at university and I know a bit about space. Your turn. | CON | ce97d67a-2019-04-18T17:11:50Z-00003-000 |
Resolved: Progressive income taxes are just. I would like to simply argue the resolution on facts, evidence, statistics, etc. My opponent should feel free to include a broad moral idea, but I don't plan on using it in my arguments or connection what I am saying to a philosophical view of any kind. Also, I would like to provide an alternative definition of just, for I feel the one provided by Iddebater (Pro) strayed too far from simply the adjective "just". Just: based on right; rightful; lawful: (http://dictionary.reference.com...) I also congratulate my opponent on his previous win, and am anticipating high quality work from him. This challange will be enjoyable and intellectual. | CON | a3ca2678-2019-04-18T18:41:30Z-00006-000 |
Food Irradiation. Vitamins are crucial, as they are what make fruits and vegetables as healthy as they typically are. However, vitamins aren't necessarily destroyed. In fact, they're well-preserved. Take into consideration the components it takes to keep food viable before it spoils. At least one of those components is vitamin content, in which case, those are still consistently present, considering how irradiated foods take longer periods of time to spoil. (http://uw-food-irradiation.engr.wisc.edu...) Also, their nutritional value is still preserved, as my source states. Even if vitamins were depleted during irradiation, it would not be very many. | PRO | a56dda91-2019-04-18T16:23:19Z-00003-000 |
Gay marriage should be legal in every state. Hello and thank you for accepting. I will first begin with explaining my previous points. 1. "There is nothing a gay person can do about the fact that they are gay." I believe that people are born being gay. A straight man could not even begin to consider kissing another man. In their eyes, that would not be normal. So why do people think that gay people chose to be gay? No one could even imagine choosing that. Recently, scientists came up with a theory that explains why people may be gay. They say that they may get the gene from their opposite-sex parent.[1] This actually makes sense, because even mental genes can be passed on like that. 2. "There is nothing immoral about it." There really is nothing immoral about same-sex-marriage. People may say that there is, but I really do not understand why. Do you think you might be able to explain that to me? 3. "The concept of traditional marriage does not have an actual limit or boundary. Who says gay marriage is crossing the boundary?" Last I checked, there was no rulebook for marriage. There were no moral laws placing boundaries on marriage. Some average citizens may have written and published one, but it is not official. Now yes, I think you may be thinking "The bible is the rulebook for marriage. It talks about it." Well, I'm sorry to say, the bible also says that if you do an activity other than church and God on Sunday, you should be stoned to death. How many of us really follow the word of the bible? 4. "Marriage is redefined as society's attitudes evolve, and the majority of Americans now support gay marriage."[2] What people think of marriage has changed over time. So even if the bible defines marriage, people have not followed it for hundreds if not a thousand years already. Why begin following it now? These are only s few of my points. I will give the rest later. [1]http://www.usnews.com... [2]http://gaymarriage.procon.org... | PRO | fa5ebca0-2019-04-18T16:52:17Z-00005-000 |
More people die from Drug War than overdosing. William F Buckley Statement to New York Bar Association. July 1st, 1996: "more people die every year as a result of the war against drugs than die from what we call, generically, overdosing. These fatalities include, perhaps most prominently, drug merchants who compete for commercial territory, but include also people who are robbed and killed by those desperate for money to buy the drug to which they have become addicted." | PRO | fc90616d-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00076-000 |
Darth Vader was framed. Anakin was always meant to be a jedi...this was clear from when his medichlorines (jedi's molecules that connect them to the force) were off the chart. It would me a mistake of the entire jedi council to allow such a powerful youth not be trained by the jedi. Yoda might have disagreed with Anakin's training, but it is clear that he wanted power and that if the jedi didn't take him, the dark side may (The emperor can easily sense someone with power) Plus Anakin wanted the power to free his mom and the slaves (What could be more noble right?) There was no way that Qui-Gon would not train him and therefore he was destined to be Jedi in any case Now on your topic of free choice...it is clear that Anakin was involved from the emperor from the minute he became a Jedi. Sure he didn't seem very attched in the first movie, when palpatine was just a Senator, but he was surely great friends by the second movie... before he got involved with Padme and had the vision that eventually lead him to the dark side. Not to mention the fact that the emperor had sent Darth Maul early on in the first movie to get OBi-Wan and Qui-gon and stuff and clearly, if the emperor can tell the future (as revealed in episode 6), he surely knew of Anakin right at the beginning before Padme and love was in the picture, so the emperor could have easily (and did) corrupt Anakin through the force. remember Anakin's medichlorines were off the scale. Now you say that he was tempted by love and because he broke the law, but it is clear that even other Jedi like Obi Wan supported Anakin and that he didn't convert to dark right after marriage. The visions... they came after Anakin met the emperor so clearly the emperor could have caused them So there go all of your arguments and you never responded to any of my opening arguments directly, so therefore i must urge an affirmative ballot It is as clear as the crystals in a jedi's lightsaber...Darth Vader was framed. | PRO | 46716758-2019-04-18T19:40:02Z-00001-000 |
The Voting Age in the U.S.A. Should Be Lowered to 14. You are arguing that the group of 14-year-olds who are employed is too small? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov...), in 1999 roughly a quarter of 14-year-olds held non-freelance, meaning paycheck, jobs. If 25% is too small a group, then you might as well argue that black people shouldn't be allowed to vote - after all, they make up only about 13.2% of the U.S. population, according to the United States Census Bureau (https://www.census.gov...). 25% is, by no means, a negligible minority. | PRO | c6ce3e46-2019-04-18T13:30:26Z-00003-000 |
Abortion. the bit about sperm and an unfertilized egg.. wrong. they are not changing and developing the chancing and developing does not happen until the egg is fertilized, ones and egg is fertilized life has begun in a separate human being. also alot of women do not use HEALTH reasons for abortion, alot of times they do it simply to not have to take responsibility for their actions which if your actions result in a pregnancy you should have to follow through with it. do not punish a separate life for something that was your fault not theirs. to put into A religious sense, which explains my moral belief only god has the right to take a life that he created within a woman no one else not even her. just like we would get punished for ending our own lives or someone elses, Life does not begin at birth but at conception. and don't mention the separation of church and state as there is no law of separation between church and state and Morality should play a roll in law. you say a pregnancy is a punishment for having sex I don't I say its a known expectation of unprotected sex besides disease. Life is Life it does not matter when it begins thank you | CON | b1862824-2019-04-18T15:01:09Z-00003-000 |
Christianity is true. If you want to look a Genesis as well, fine. Young Earth creationism, which I do not endorse due to the wording of the creation story, interprets the Hebrew word YOM to mean a 24 hour day, which was also used to mean a generic period of time. Proving the Earth is more than 6000 years old only disheartens young earthers who interpret the creation a bit more literally. Yes, I admit, a worldwide flood seems improbable at the least, a more local flooding would be likely, as the Sumerian Legend of the Epic of Gilgamesh shows similar elements and was written earlier. This would solve the problem of the animals of the ark, as Noah would only need to house local animals. Once again, there are many interpretations of the accounts, due to the nature of translating Hebrew into English and due to alternate theories about scripture. However, you did not rebuke my early dating of the Gospel accounts, and I therefore add another thing for you and spectators to think about, we know Jesus was a real Jew in Israel and Judea in the 1st century, and we know 4 historical facts about his death: 1) he died - the disciples had no reason to make this up and it is regarded as a historical event anyway 2) the tomb was empty - if it wasn't, they authorities could parade Jesus's body in the streets to end Christianity 3) the disciple said they saw him alive - the reason Christianity exists 4) the disciples were changed men - afterwards they were willing to risk their lives for their cause, all being tortured and executed along the way I propose that no other alternative theory other than the Gospel accounts could account for all 4 of these points with the simplicity of the Bible Sources: http://www.historywiz.com... http://channel.nationalgeographic.com... http://www.oldearth.org... | PRO | 47b0642-2019-04-18T12:25:13Z-00003-000 |
Rap Battle. Let's start to refine and define your battling ability because its evident you are not benign All you do is moan and whine, you make it abundantly clear that you have no spine Battles like this arent even battles to me, they are just a waste of time Comparing our bars is like trying to compare snap chat to vine Burn this btch on the spot, hes that in the closet kind of gay Go biblical on him and give him the cat of nine tails with a proper flay I'm a pure bred rapper that is in a battle with a stray Literally this is like putting the patriots up against tampa bay Your moms such a whore that google maps couldn't find her virginity She has had so many diks in her, when she goes to church she tried to fuk the trinity Sorry for the witty imagery you probably should evacuate the vicinity I'm just providing some validity to my critically wickedly simplicity to display my true affinity | PRO | e73735b9-2019-04-18T15:31:51Z-00003-000 |
Abortion. True, but it is not our choice to decide who lives and who dies, and especially not who never even has a chance to live. We cannot see into the future, therefore we cannot know what kind of life that child will have, we just have to hope for the best. Everyone knows that life is not easy, and abortion doesn't mean we are "saving" these potential children from it. I'm not going to be a hypocrite and say "don't have sex before marriage," because that is no longer the norm. However, if you are going to have sex before marriage, you should know, accept, and be aware of the potential consequences. I feel that the possibility of abortion causes people to make even worse decisions, because its basically telling our society that "any problem can be fixed with money." You had sex and you get pregnant, but luckily for you, you don't have to deal with it. Instead, you can just pay a doctor to "take care" of it. | CON | b1852c63-2019-04-18T18:27:22Z-00001-000 |
Markan Priority vs Matthean Priority. [Knowledge of New Testament Studies is presupposed for this debate] [This debate is about gospel priority, not two-source hypothesis or stuff like that] My dream is to be a biblical scholar, and i want to put to the test the knowledge that i have of NT scholarship in this place, debating in a not well known (for the laity) but important topic in NT studies, that is, gospel priority. -The topic is about gospel priority, stick to it. -Be polite, no need for bad words or disrespects. -Do not misrepresent any position, be honest. -Let the best position wins! Intro: Should we take for granted that the Gospel of Mark was the first one to be written, or should we take a new look to the classical position that the Gospel of Matthew was first? In this debate, i will argue for two points: - That recent scholars in the subject are correct in making the assumption that Mark's Gospel was the first to be written. - That tradition has been misread/given to much importance in order to make a good case for Matthean priority. [Looking for someone who wants to defend Matthean Priority!] [I will unfold my argument(s) until round 2!] | PRO | c2a5d5e5-2019-04-18T11:37:44Z-00004-000 |
Celebrity involvement counters financial power to the benefit of the disenfranchised. Parties advocating policies that benefit the most financially powerful (big business etc.) are able to make large revenues from donations from wealthy business personalities involved in those industries. Film and music stars tend towards the ‘liberal’ or ‘left’ wing of politics[1]. Consequently, in being prevented from exerting non-financial power (through endorsement) the different political parties are not equally affected: rather, you disproportionately punish the liberal parties. This is significant, given the necessity of a counter-balance to the power of big business (through donations – for example in the USA 90% of donations from mining and the automotive industry goes to the republicans[2]) over our political system (which is not being similarly banned). [1] Meyer, D., Gamson, J. ‘The Challenge of Cultural Elites: Celebrities and Social Movements’, Sociological Inquiry. Vol.65 No.2, 1995, pp.181-206 [2] Duffy, Robert J., ‘Business, Elections, and the Environment’, in Michael E. Kraft and Sheldon Kamieniecki, Business and Environmental Policy, 2007, pp.61-90, p.74, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=H42pGSh8IIYC | PRO | d3a0f6f7-2019-04-15T20:24:12Z-00015-000 |
Evolution is tried and true and should be taught in the modern school system. "Here is what I meant: Tried and true is a figure of speech, it means that its the current working model, and is good enough for science to say OK! " THIS IS WHAT YOU PUT "Evolution is tried and true and should be taught in the modern school system" "As multiple lines of evidence shows, the evolution model of life can be tested and has been proven." "Shown again and again by experimentation and direct observation." "Why are we deluding future biologists from knowing the truth about our origins." "This is important for the future of biology, and our species." Your admission of evolution as unproven theory. "I'm afraid your first 3 questions don't work, as we cannot hope to complete a process that took nature millions of years in a matter of a single human lifetime, or many lifetimes. " This readily means no actual evidence exist, theorizing we must wait Millions of years to "SEE" IF something evolves? That is in direct contradiction of Use of the term TRUE. This also may be construed as an awareness of misleading at onset. Knowing something is UNTRUE but inferring it as TRUE is a violation of debate rule, i.e... misrepresentation, fraudulent statements, misleading statements. Further You did not notify opponent of your deception till Round 3 this is unconscionable and unacceptable. Debate was entered into in good faith, you've turned into a sham by deliberately lying to cover up your errors, rather than simply admitting your loss. Now you insult the intelligence of your readers and voters by insisting figure of speech was your intent all along, when a simple reading of your opening statements clearly demonstrates you meant precisely that evolution WAS TRIED AND TRUE in the absolute. Why in the world something known to be false would be of more benefit to teach in school as you recommended, shows want of clear thinking, and a clear indication that you yourself, were obviously UNAWARE that evolution was false at the onset of our debate. And only by my questioning, were you forced to research and discover your error. I'm afraid in light of your inexperience on the subject of evolution, continued debate would be all but pointless. This obviously renders my submission of further evidences as moot, in that you cannot even provide any evidence contradicting my original four questions, what sense would there be to submit other, equally unanswerable questions. You lose. Sir, in every way that matters you failed to provide anything that could remotely be called TRUE! | CON | 1f697747-2019-04-18T12:19:03Z-00003-000 |
Video games and/or simulations are an efficient form of training and education. My burden is to try and prove that video games and/or simulation can be just as efficient or more efficient in educating and training people, than the traditional methods of educating and training people. My opponent's burden will be to try and prove that the traditional methods for educating and training people, can be more efficient than video games and/or simulations in educating and training people. | PRO | 8ae69f16-2019-04-18T18:50:16Z-00005-000 |
Women Should Be Able To Hold In Their Period Blood Like They Do With Pee. Okay, but it's gross. Like, if you can't control yourself or your blood just put a Band-Aid on it or something. Like, why don't they teach these girls how to take care of their bloody issues. I don't want to sit in a chair in class that a girl has been bleeding all over it's rude. If they can't control it, they should just not go out in public for the remainder of the week. Clean up, or stay home... that's my motto! | PRO | 7fcd1676-2019-04-18T11:30:05Z-00000-000 |
homosexual marriage. Hi!! , I am gay myself, and of course I think that is completely natural, at least for me. I am in favor of gay unions, but I am against gay marriage. Why? . Because one simple reason, the word "marriage" has a religious connotation. I think that the right think to do is to abolish marriage ( all kind of marriage) , and gave civil unions for all the citizens, it would be the same think as marriage, but it would not have a religion connotation. | CON | 36878a82-2019-04-18T17:45:45Z-00002-000 |
Canada is not a democracy. What did the free sovereign people do in 1949 as reported in hansard to become a democracy. Did you vote in a referendum in 1942 to adopt a constitution as created by the people of Canada or was it just a government bill. Their is nothing in hansard record showing the people of Canada voted by a referendum to adopt a constitution giving the government any power to govern. You keep making statements of what you were indoctrinated to believe but have not produced any hansard record to back up your claim. You defeat your own argument by your statement ," Canada was not a democracy in a legal way until 1949 ". Post what you think Canada was before 1949; and what has changed to make it a democracy. The same B.N.A.Act is use as the governments source of power before 1949 and after 1949? And The B.N.A.Act is still the source of government power ; which you stated was not a democracy . Their is a difference between what you believe and what you can prove; as your post has demonstrated. Your argument is only based on your belief and not on any documented hansard record. The people of Canada were never free from colonial rule; which is the bases for a democracy as defined by Blacks Law Dictionary as defined earlier. In order to have a democracy you first have to have free sovereign people and you have not produced any hansard record as to when the colonial government resigned, allowing for a democracy to be formed. No country can pas a bill giving another country a democracy; and you have not produced one document to support your position. Do you know the difference between indoctrination and education? | PRO | ac655321-2019-04-18T19:27:05Z-00003-000 |
The Ontological argument for Gods existence. OK, so now my opponent's rebuttals are these: 1) My arguments only prove the notion of God 2) The same thing could be applied to the flying spaghetti monster 3) My argument presupposes God First, let me say that if a notion about existence is true, then it follows that it actually exists, as otherwise it is a false notion. In fact, let us assume that God only is a notion. We conceive of God as perfect. Therefore our conception exists - not just as a notion (because otherwise it wouldn't be perfect) but in reality. We cannot say God does not exist if we say God is perfect, because that would be a logical contradiction. So my argument actually proves God, not just as a notion or conception, but as reality. Second, I did not say that the notion of God proves God exists. I said that because God is perfect God must exist. However, this cannot be likewise applied to the flying spaghetti monster, which is not perfect. I know this because it is made of spaghetti and it's a monster - both limitations. Perfection and limitation are also, for obvious reasons, exclusive. Third, the argument my opponent spent the most time on. My opponent argues that the presupposition that perfection exists is an implicit assumption of the conclusion that God exists. In fact, that isn't a presupposition of my case at all. Let me write out my case in logical steps like you did. God has quality Perfect Everything Perfect must Exist Therefore God must Exist I did not presuppose the first line of reasoning because you conceded it before the argument even began. You said in round one that God had various qualities which could only be true of a perfect being. Even if this were not true, line one of working does not say perfection exists. It says that God has a quality. The second line I did not presuppose because it can be logically demonstrated. I in fact did this in round two, and you said you agreed to that analysis at the start of this round. While you might say this line is equivalent to saying God exists, that is only true when read together with my other premise. If I was begging the question, then my conclusion would be stated in one of my premises. In fact, while it follows from my premises when put together, it is not in and of itself written in the premises. It does require a logical connection to be made, as is true of all logical arguments. That isn't begging the question at all. I am still looking forward, this time to my opponent's last-minute rebuttals and summary statement. | PRO | cecd35d4-2019-04-18T18:50:54Z-00002-000 |
God or No God. "If Con can prove the bible isn't a credible source then I am wrong." Well let's get to it! Based on the Bible's chronology, the Earth is, at most, 10,000 years old. https://answersingenesis.org... The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. http://www.talkorigins.org... This point fulfills the challenge issued by PRO, and I have won the debate. Thanks for reading! | CON | eea0d773-2019-04-18T15:40:05Z-00000-000 |
US should focus its resources on Africa. Case 1: Markets in Africa are boomingRemember the late 1800's, with the dissolution of the Qing dynasty? A massive scramble to deal within the growing Asian markets turned into a full scale trade war. China is still one of the largest sources for raw materials and cheap labor, but the government has been having trouble with fierce competition with Africa. [1]A new scramble has begun. British firms have capitalized industries in Somalia and old British Africa[2]. China has been sending investments African nations for a while now[3]. France, Italy, and the Netherlands have already participated in the scramble. France is investing in Algeria and Mali [4], while the Dutch are showing huge intrest in CAR. The European Union has even decided to send a small army to CAR to protect their trade intrests[5]. Africa has the fastest growing economies in the world. Some countries like Ethiopia, have growth rates above 6% [6]!!!!! Almost every country has major investments in Africa besides the US. Besides a few companies along the gold coast, mainly Liberia[7], America is behind in the race.So here's what we need to do....1. Invest in growing markets, and refocus from China. Many people are finding labor in China more expensive then within our own country. This will yield much income, and send a few favors our way.2. Stop sending so much money to Syria, Israel, and Korea, in the event of some hypothetical war[8], and start focusesing on the areas which really stand to benefit. Unrest in Africa hurts the globalized economy, and redirecting our humanitarian aid to Africa benefits the world.3. We need to work our military through organizations like the EU and UN. By sending tactical, medical, and intelligence support we can gain more influence and ensure stability throughout Africa, which I already proved, is very profitable. I'm not advocating direct warfare though, but tactical aid.Africa has become so profitable. By focusing our resources on them, we help their markets and ours grow stronger. The worlds already noticed the potential, and its time we do as well.[1] http://www.cnn.com...[2] http://www.britishafrican.org...[3] http://www.chinaafricarealstory.com...[4] http://www.npr.org...[5] http://www.theguardian.com...[6]http://www.economist.com...[7] http://www.firestonenaturalrubber.com...[8] http://www.usaid.gov... | PRO | dad21b0b-2019-04-18T16:23:53Z-00001-000 |
Migrant rights have been eroded in many states. Marie Barrel. "The United Nations Convention on Migrant’s rights, a Luxury for the European Union?" Notre Europe. December 2006: "The Erosion of Rights in Europe. [...] there is no denying the fact that the national texts have, everywhere in Europe, undergone deep modifications, restricting the rights of legal migrants. A survey of the legislation recently passed or still in preparation on the admission of immigrants and their families goes a long way to invalidate the idea that the ratification of the convention is unnecessary." | PRO | 40f44a1b-2019-04-17T11:47:22Z-00050-000 |
Islamic parties have led governments before. While these examples prove that in some iterations Islam can work with democracy, it is likely that other factors made democracy viable in Inodnesia and Turkey. Indonesia is free of the hostile relationship with the West that often undermines the stability of the Middle East, and has benefitted from a strong trade relationship. While the AKP in Turkey is Islamist, it operates within the Turkish constitution which requires the military to dissolve any government that threatens the secular nature of the state. Without a constitutionally defined commitment to strict secularism, like in Turkey, the Islamist parties in Egypt and Tunisia will resort to undemocratic practices. While Indonesia’s revolution superficially looks similar it should be remembered that no two revolutions are really the same. They are different in almost every respect, culturally, geographically, economically. Indonesian Minister Natalegawa argues “I think the lesson form us is that it is possible for the democratization process to return to the military to it must be its original function.”[2]However this really shows a difference. In Indonesia the military never stepped in to take over the government as they have done in Egypt. If the key is reducing the role of the military Egypt has barely begun. [1] Wolfango Piccoli, Full steam ahead on Turkish Constitutional reform, ForeignPolicy.com, 29th May 2011, http://eurasia.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/19/turkey_full_steam_ahead_on_constitutional_reform accessed 20/05/11 [2] Julia Simon, Reformasis and Revolutions, Asia Calling, 17th April 2011, http://www.asiacalling.org/ur/news/others/1966-reformasis-and-revolutions accessed 20/05/11 improve this | CON | bf91a7cf-2019-04-15T20:22:29Z-00011-000 |
Human population needs to be controlled. First off our world is a lot like china in some aspects. But in terms of the kid law we don't have that yet. However it should be stated that China is facing a problem. They have a swollen population because individual people wanted big families. They do not have sufficient resources to provide for there entire population. That is a grave problem that i dont want to see here. One must accept that we live in a world of Finite resources. As it currently stands, with the growth of health care and the almost nonexistent rate of child birth deaths, humans have swelled 7 billion in just less that 150 years and live longer than ever in history. These are the two biggest reason the population is as high as it is. But that is okay. I have a plan to get the population under control. Now I don't want you to think i am just going to say, kill people and get the numbers right. NO. What i do think we need to do is look at the Fertility rate for wanted vs unwanted pregnancy world wide. Almost unanimously unwanted pregnancy happens at a higher rate than wanted pregnancy's. Unwanted sits at roughly 3.1 and wanted is roughly at 2.1. What this means is people who want children are reproducing at a sustainable rate. At this rate you would be able to have 4 children because that 2.1 means a lot of people are only having 1 child. However the problem is that 3.1 unwanted, that is where our growth is swelling into uncontrollable levels. How do we fix this? How do we get all the unwanted pregnancies down to 0? Contraception for one. We need to provide long term contraception to all women who want it or need it. There are many ways to control your body to prevent pregnancy. Unfortunately there is not a lot of options for men just yet that are temporary, so most advertising would be geared to women until more options become available for men in the future. My second solution is a very divisive one. I believe that the world needs to allow abortion to any women who wants one. By allowing abortion you empower women, giving them total control over their body. You set up a way for unwanting parents to go and not put themselves in a position they don't want to be in. Lastly this options helps get the 3.1 even lower getting our population to the sweet spot of 2.0 also know as the replacement rate. | PRO | 2cb5c286-2019-04-18T17:38:52Z-00002-000 |
All of the recent DDO members with KKK members in their pictures are one person. That's literally the ONLY anomoly. If you are smart, you wouldn't want to make it too obvious that you created multiple accounts. However, it's still pretty obvious. What exactly are the chances of this large percentage of debate.org's active members being KKK members? It's estimated by a number of sources that there are between 5,000 and 8,000 total members of the KKK in the US[1]. Of the total US population of about 324 million. 5000/324 million is .001%. You're telling me that there are more than 5 KKK members on Debate.org out of probably the 100(that's an over-estimate of the total active members) that are active? Why exactly would they be so over-represented?Additionally, as I pointed out, all of them updated their profile around the same time, all of the accounts post the same content in the same manner: where it's impossible to accept the debate. Sources:[1] https://www.google.com... | PRO | c93fa5cb-2019-04-18T12:19:59Z-00003-000 |
If it's possible to go faster than the speed of light, then time travel (into the past) is possible. I'm sure that you understand how we see things. Light bounces off them and then into our eyes, allowing us to see that object (1). C1: Seeing the pastThere is a way that would allow us to see things from the past. There are places in the universe in which the light that bounced off our Earth (or any object) has not reached. If we travelled to that place in the universe in a speed faster than the speed of light (another way of doing this would be to warp spacetime, but that would be dangerous), and the looked at the object whose light had not reached that place yet, and we were able to see that object, then what we'd be seeing is the light that had actually reached that place, so we'd be seeing what that thing looked like in the past (2).Then, if we travelled at a speed above the speed of light to the object, we'd obviously be seeing things that happened in the past.However, everything we heard, smelt and touched would be from whatever was happening in present day, because it wouldn't actually be the past, we'd only be seeing things that happened in the past when the light hadn't yet reached your eyes. Otherwise, it's the present.C2: Paradoxes in travelling from the present to the pastIf time travel into the past were possible, then you'd be able to interfere with the past in such a way that changes the future. For example, you could go back in time and kill your granddad. Since your granddad is dead, he could never give birth to your mother and so you wouldn't be able to exist. But, you couldn't have killed your granddad because in this scenario, you don't exist. This is one of the many paradoxes with travelling into the past. There are many more you could think of, this is just one. See, if you interfered with the future (present), as you likely would, it would be different. But the present cannot be one thing and not another in accordance to the law of non-contradiction (3).Therefore, being able to travel at speeds above the speed of light wouldn't make it possible to travel into the past as an impossible thing cannot happen.In summary,a) The ability to travel at speeds over the speed of light does not make it possible to time travel into the past.b) Travelling into the past is not possible anyway.Sources(1) http://www.engineeringinteract.org... (2) http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...(3) http://quod.lib.umich.edu... | CON | 5ae9c2f8-2019-04-18T16:47:34Z-00005-000 |
It is a huge waste of money to spend on something which carries a lot of risks. While growing GM crops is thought to be an economical benefit to farmers, this only applies to large farming businesses who can afford to buy the seeds in the first place, at twice the price of average seeds. These farmers must be willing to buy new seeds each year as most are patented and will become sterile after 12 months. If GM food is to solve world hunger, seeds will have to be offered to small farmers and those in third world countries at a reduced rate (8). However, while these large farms benefit from higher profits, the Monsanto corporation, responsible for the overall engineering of GM products, is described as a ‘multi-billion dollar world-wide outfit” (9). The testing process of GM foods is not only controversial but hugely expensive. Vast amounts of money are spent on extensive, complex testing of the foods which is essential if they are to be put on sale for human consumption. But is it really worth the hassle and resources? It seems absurd to invest millions of pounds in preparing food which supposedly will provide health benefits if detriments to health appear inevitable in the long run. (8) http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php (9) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7426054.stm | PRO | 37c8a072-2019-04-19T12:45:24Z-00010-000 |
Should Transgenders Be Allowed to Join the BSA. Okay. You know what? Pro wins. They can come up with millions of facts to crush me, and I can't do anything about it. I do overlook some things and I am sorry, but I still stand with my statement. I will say though that pro insists on acting as if all these people are are biological outliers and not real people. Sure they have slightly different brain makeup, but that is not the only reason transgender people decide to follow that path. One excuse I have is I cannot put my exact thoughts into words without it sounding stupid. It's a lame excuse I know, but its the truth nevertheless. So in conclusion, I surrender. BUT, I still stand with my side. Thank you for accepting this and for crushing me extremely. No hard feelings though. | CON | 37d15f61-2019-04-18T12:18:59Z-00001-000 |
war. Do I win? War is not a good thing. People die, families are destroyed and a lot of the time both countries economy suffer. War is however necessary considering that evil must be destroyed. I do not believe that many people would consider World War 2 a 'good' thing but would consider it a necessary war as the evils of Nazism and German expansionism had to be destroyed. In answer to your first argument of "war is good because it keeps our population down", I say this, yes it does keep the population down but that is not the best way to do it. If war keeping the population down is a good thing then maybe you also believe that the Holocaust was a good thing because that brought the population down. Or even Americas involvement in the Philippines. In answer to "it can also get rid of some people who cant get a job", I say this, that is a awful and disrespectful thing to say because we should never put lives being lost into something that helps society. Also you may have contradicted yourself because many people who cannot get work is because of being in a war-torn country. So what you are saying is that war is good because it kills the unemployed who were made unemployed because of that war. This next part shall be in capital letters because I want my honorable opponent to defiantly read this part. I HOPE YOU HAVE THE DIGNITY TO RESPOND TO THIS ARGUMENT BY EITHER ACCEPTING MY POINTS OR BY COUNTERING THEM. | CON | 7b8f56f6-2019-04-18T13:09:11Z-00002-000 |
Hockey is a better sport than football. i agree with your point that you need to wear just as much pads as football players and that you need to change directions in a blink of an eye. My argument is that with all of the padding that a football has, you must have the endurance and stamina to keep and also with the change of direction football is a tough sport to deal with. Im not refuting that hockey doesnt have alot of padding as well as football does because they do. But in your previous argument you were refuting that endurance and stamina is tougher in hockey than football and thats not the case. Now to popularity, i understand that hockey is very popular internationally but we are talking about AMERICA. We are in the United States and talking about AMERICAN sports. If we were in Canada or Russia were hockey is there national pastime then sure hockey is way more popular than football but we arent. This past Super Bowl there was an average of 111.3 million people who watched the superbowl and the past Stanley Cup had an average of 2.88 million viewers. You do the math | CON | 311797b5-2019-04-18T18:26:30Z-00002-000 |
Vegetarianism is a good idea. I'm very happy to hear you think my arguments are good. Thank you. To address your arguments, you quote from the article, 'Limit the animal-fare and you'll be reducing your likelihood for heart disease.' The key word here is 'limit.' The meat itself doesn't cause these diseases - rather a large quantity of meat is the source of the problem. "Studies... Have shown that eating high quantities of these meats (e.g. a small steak every day) also increases the risk of death from cardiovascular disease." Once again, it's the high quantities of meat that cause the problem. "I wanted to say that people can reduce risk." Yes, people can reduce the risk by becoming vegetarians, but then they also open themselves up to a host of problems. In order to be a vegetarian, people must be very conscious about what they're eating in order to make sure they are getting a wide range of nutrients and often still needing to take additional supplements. For example, vitamin B12, which can only be found naturally in animal products, can lead to anemia and depression even with just a slight deficiency. People can also reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases (and others) simply by eating in moderation. It is not necessary to fully remove meat from your diet. Meat is high in iron, protein and vitamin D, all nutrients that are more difficult to come by in a vegetarian diet. You also address environmental issues, which I would like to thank you for because it was not something I had previously thought about. After some time researching farming effects on the environment, here's what I found. First of all, the 'cutting down trees', is done not just for animal pastures but also for farming. So the same land that has its trees cut down to produce beef, might also be there to produce carrots. But in a study by the World Agroforestry Centre (WAC), scientists have recently found that many farms are planting and protecting trees spontaneously. To quote from the article, "Based on data from satellite images, the report is the first global study of tree cover on farms. It found tree canopies made-up more than ten percent of farmland spread across ten million square kilometres. The researchers' calculations indicate this quantity represents 46 per cent of all agricultural land - an area the size of China." Dennis Garrity, the director of WAC, says that it is a realistic fallback. I don't speak Russian, so I'll take your word for it, but it's important to note that *farming* uses 70% of water, not specifically farming animals. So to do away with eating meat would not help the problem very much - we do need food. In such a case, we need to use better irrigation systems to make sure that all the water consumed is not being wasted and that the water can be reused. Also, thank you for this debate. I'm learning a lot. Resources: http://content.time.com... http://www.healthaliciousness.com... http://www.coolearth.org... | CON | eb7cbdce-2019-04-18T17:08:09Z-00001-000 |
POFO debate only pleasee. Tax rebates have worked actually, and here is why, about three things are going to be spent on. Won they spend the check, which will stimulate. Two they save it which gives banks more liquidity and with more liquidity they can work with the individuals that may foreclose on their house, that way the money is not lossed. Or three they pay off debt, paying off debt isn't bad, because then they have money available to spend. So it will mitigate, tax rebates always focus on the spending not even realizing the other options of the money. As far as your china analogy, we have plenty of money to help the U.S. out. Onto your next point or last point, how is this one sided as you said just asking. | PRO | 148dbaed-2019-04-18T19:46:54Z-00002-000 |
The UK School System does not work. Okay, well. You could have given me just a little bit more to work with. So explain your point; why do you believe that the education system works? Why am I an idiot? The education system focuses on teaching useless facts, like 'mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell', or 'Curly's wife has a red dress and red represent danger so Curly's wife is danger', that you're probably going to make use of in something like a pub quiz. Aside from the obvious basics, like a small amount of maths, reading and writing, school teaches you nothing to do with the key skills required to progress with a career; that is, unless you go into the specific field which a subject teaches. But even then, out of everything you learn, only a small amount will be applicable to your career. | PRO | 5751f01f-2019-04-18T11:53:21Z-00000-000 |
Death Penalty. PrefaceThis is a debate between Lexus and myself on the death penalty. There are 72 hours to post each argument, with a maximum of 10,000 characters per argument. I request that Lexus accept this debate as soon as possible. A minimum Elo of 2,000 is required to vote on this debate. Full TopicThe United States should retain a death penalty.TermsAll definitions influenced by Wikipedia, the Google Dictionary, and the Oxford Dictionary of English.United States - the United States of America, a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the extreme Northwest and Hawaii extending the nation’s presence into the Pacific Ocean.Should - is correct to do (in the sense that "it is best that the United States retain the death penalty"). Death Penalty - execution of an offender sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law of a criminal offense.Rules1. No forfeits.2. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources can be within the debate or in an external link. 3. No new arguments in the final round (including new positive arguments, new rebuttals not presented before).4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere.5. No trolling.6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution).7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions.8. No deconstructional semantics. All words not specifically defined are defined by the ordinary definition that best fits the context. 9. The BOP is shared. 10. The first round is for acceptance only. 11. The second round is for arguments only, with no rebuttals; the third round is only for rebuttals, without defending one's own case; the final round is only for defense, with no rebuttals. 12. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss. StructureR1. AcceptanceR2. Pro's case, Con's caseR3. Pro rebuts Con's case, Con rebuts Pro's caseR4. Pro defends Pro's case, Con defends Con's case, both crystallizeThanks......again to Lexus for what I hope will be a stellar discourse, and to voters and readers. | PRO | ed876acf-2019-04-18T14:36:55Z-00007-000 |
The show "League of super evil" is now forgotten. This is going to be a pretty short round because again, my opponent hasn't said anything related to the resolution. First off, my opponent's point about Gravity Falls is worthless. How does this relate to the resolution? The resolution is whether or not anyone remembers League of Super Evil, not what it's reputation is. Remember, I only have to prove that one person remembers the show, which would negate the resolution as the show isn't "forgotten. " After this my opponent talks about the show's revival, and how it won't air a sequel. Again, not relevant to the resolution. Who cares that it won't have a sequel? What matters is whether or not people remember the show, which is the only thing relevant to this debate. The point of the website I provided is to show that there are people running that website, if there weren't the site wouldn't be up. My entire contention there was that the people who run the website still remember the show, or they're reminded of it every time they have to pay to keep the site going. This contention is enough to win me the debate, because that small group of people who keep the site running still remember the show. My opponent says that I don't know how many people visit the site. That's true. But remember, he hasn't refuted any of my points about the wiki page, which gets 1500 vists per month. My opponent ends off saying that no one would remember the show without reminders. Again, this doesn't matter. The resolution states "the show League of Super Evil is forgotten," not "the show League of Super Evil is forgotten without reminders. " Even if it takes a reminder like this debate, people who read and participate in this debate remember the show. Which again, negates the resolution and is enough to award me the win. | CON | 7e6d3463-2019-04-18T13:58:55Z-00001-000 |
this person should be tortured. "we shouldn't sink to their level" if you wanted to argue that it's inherently wrong to torture them, that is one thing. you seem to go on though with practical reasons why we shouldn't do it. but if htose practical reasons can be overcome.... why not go ahead with it? you haven't said it's wrong even then. but as to the practical points. first you say "torture simply doesn't work" but then go on to say "pobably going to lie". which means that even according to you, there's a chance they won't lie, and thus a chance it will work. in this case, we next to know that they know the information. and we can test the information they give to determine the accuracy. if a guy who clearly knows the info lies, we can torture until he tells. if the person knows the info, i'd argue they will probably tell to avoid torture. most wouldnt want torture instead of saving some women etc. you also say afghanistan etc would no longer be our allie if they ever get off their feet. real countries wouldn't hold grudges about specific people who killed or did wrong to other people. they'd just look out for the economic bottomline. that's how china, india, etc is with the USA. you can have people killing each other and the worst that might happen is economic sanctions, not a lack of relationship. even those sanctions probably won't happen w just a few bad apples. most would understand the need or issue of torturing someone even if it's their citizen, if that person is allowing tons of people to die. it doesn't make enough sense that it'd actually happen that they would disown us. if the person knows the info.. most people wouldn't be against torturing them until they give the info. most people wouldn't be against that. if you can stop tons of women and children from being tortured and killed... you assume the responsibility if we decide to torture you for your lack of candor. you'll be tortured till it seems you dont know, or till you tell. if the person keeps showing that they know, they pobably know, and we'll torture until or if they spill the beans. my guess is they would, but even if they woudn't... it was worth a shot. all your practical concerns aren't valid enough. | PRO | d23a6ca-2019-04-18T17:33:02Z-00003-000 |
One direction is the best boy band. I agree that they're most popular, as experts say that they might be the first billion dollar boy band (they are not right now). And you're right, the Beatles don't constitute to as a boy band but that still doesn't make 1D the best. A boy band is a group of male vocal singers and if you want to talk about vocals well even 1D don't do so well. The guys can do just fine on their own but together nothing really happens, nothing magical anyway. Boybands that are actually good are like: 1. Jackson 5 (yes they were a boy band) 2. Boys II Men 3. Backstreet Boys Vocally these guys can really harmonize and work together well. 1D simply just sing together. Like one part goes to Niall and the Zayn takes that... It isn't really singing like a real vocal group. Even Little Mix (the girl group that Zayn's fianc" is in) does a better job at singing together than 1D. And to just talk about your argument that 1D are the best boy band because they don't use derogatory language to woman...EVERY BOY BAND DOES THAT! THAT'S HOW THEY MAKE MONEY! They make songs about girls being beautiful to touch those who are insecure and take as much money from your wallet as possible. | CON | 3741abc9-2019-04-18T16:18:14Z-00000-000 |
Male is better than female. The statement 'male is better than female' can be encountered in many ways. For example, In early times when primates started to live on land, Males used to hunt and gather resources and females were caretakers and used to feed children and other members of the family. So, In the course of evolution hunters were predominantly male. This leads to the first point of comparison in the criteria of physical strength that usually 'male is better than female'. Now, As males used to travel large distances in search of food and resources they developed a better sense of direction. So, If you compare both genders in their ability to sense direction usually ' male is better than female'. Your statement "Male and Female are the same. Genders do not divide ability. I believe that the probability of success for both genders is the same " is absurd because you cannot talk about chances of success for women and men unless you precisely put forth on what grounds you want the comparison. There are differences between both genders both socially and biologically and that creates differences in their abilities in different fields. One more thing I want to mention, 'male is better than female' is quite a poorly stated topic because it does not tell what the debate is all about. You should specify what do you mean by 'better'? . 'Better' can be taken as more efficient or more good looking or better dancer. 'Better' word compares two entity of a class for a particular trait and hence it would be inconsistent if you do not mention the criteria for comparison. | PRO | 64cb28c0-2019-04-18T11:13:17Z-00003-000 |
Resolved: one can disprove the gods of pagans without disproving the Christian God. ^_^ But now that bit of confusion cleared up, let't get some good debating going. The premise of your arguments seems to be that it would have taken an omnipotent god such as the christian god in order to have formulated the proper conditions for our existence, and without one, there would be very little chance we would be here right now. But there are many gods that are just as powerful as the christian god in paganism. In fact, I could make up my own omnipotent god right that would be a complete opposite of the christian god, and if I where to start believing in it it would, in a sense, become my very own pagan god. Even if you prefer a different definition of paganism, there are still many all powerful gods for me to use, such as the Ik Onkar in Sikhism, or various African deities. But let's say that the christian god is indeed the only god powerful enough to do something like that. Then we wouldn't be here without him, right? I don't think this argument really proves anything. As far as we can tell, the universe is infinite, and strange things happen in infinity. If you went on a long, long trip around the universe, I'm sure you'd eventually find a solar system quite like ours, or if you went on long enough, maybe even an exact replica. | CON | 47da949a-2019-04-18T16:17:31Z-00003-000 |
Same sex marriage should be allowed. I need to be clear that just because I said that I am not for same sex marriage does NOT mean that me, or anyone else should be able to tell them they cannot get married. My previous statement is only an opinion. As I said before they still deserve to be happy just like everyone else. I only said how I felt! Not that it should be illegal! I do not think that the government should have the right to decide who marries who! Do I agree with same sex marriage? No. DO I think they should have the same rights to marriage as everyone else? Yes. It is not wrong to have an opinion. It is wrong to judge! | CON | 3268b939-2019-04-18T17:24:10Z-00006-000 |
Insensitive towards women. Team Australia has not made loose generalisations suggesting that all people are shallow minded and use music as a giuide to direct social and moral choices. The opposition agrees themselves that music is an influence. We are concerned about the level of this influence. No intervention effectively condones the intimidation of such music on 50% of the population. If the rights for one citizen prevents the rights of another citizen there is a problem and this is the case we are making here. The problem is that for far too long women have been subjected to music that encourages violence against women so that many have adopted a tolerance to such material. When there is no representation to protect women and society in general then there is no where to go for complaints. It is interesting that the opposition uses the idea- suggesting that because this music is far less available- which is not the case but even if it were true- it is not necessary to ban it because it doesn't do any harm to any one. This is flawed. Firstly there are few places women can go to change or prevent bands or musicians from making this music and producing it. Secondly the wheels of popular culture are so powerful, fed by the consumerist mentalities of the marketers that responsible marketing and making of music has been abandoned at the cost of the dignity of women. This is evident in the absence of industry watchdog bodies that exist.which make even the french advertising industry look more reliable over its concern for the dignity of women in the banning of underwear adds that breached its code of conduct and contributed to systematic sexualisation of women. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/french-knickers-in-in-a-twist | CON | 209e6901-2019-04-19T12:45:08Z-00026-000 |
Support for Kosovo independence will reduce Muslim resentment. It should be noted that Kosovo's Albanian population is chiefly Muslim, as opposed to the Christian orthodoxy of Serbia. In the Muslim world, the oppression of the Albanian Muslims by the Christian Serbs is viewed with resentment, ostensibly fitting neatly with the story line of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The continued denial of Kosovo independence is viewed in the Muslim world as just another example of Western and/or Christian oppression, inflaming Muslim resentment and lending fuel to Muslim extremist causes in the region and around the world. | PRO | fb3c3a1f-2019-04-17T11:47:46Z-00071-000 |
Res: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people. I agree, an individual's rights is important. However, the welfare of the society matters more. In an choice like this, both choices are immoral. However, we must choose one to be morally permissible. The Aff choice is better. What is better, to kill one or to kill more than one. Either way, we are killing. So we have to choose one choice to be morally permissible. Obviously, killing one person is much better than killing many people. | PRO | fe8da0c1-2019-04-18T19:36:47Z-00000-000 |
Giving more gifts than you receive is good for your social status. Traditionally gift exchange has ... Giving more gifts than you receive is good for your social status. Traditionally gift exchange has been an important part of social relationships in many societies, with those who give the most presents to others signalling their higher position in society. A patron who gives gifts to others who cannot reciprocate in kind establishes their economic superiority, and places the recipients in a socially-indebted, client relationship to the giver. In this way, it is definitely more advantageous to give than to receive, and even in a modern society the generous gift-giver can establish a beneficial network of relationships that may help them achieve business or social success throughout the rest of the year. | PRO | f8a40077-2019-04-19T12:46:24Z-00009-000 |
Funny Joke Contest. Ned bets his friend that he is the most popular man in the world. His friend says that if they go into the diner across the street not everyone will no him. They walk into the diner and everyone yells "Hey Ned!" His friend goes "Oh yeah, I bet you don't know the president." They go to the White House and sure enough the President lets him in and invites him to dinner because they are such good friends. They then go to Buckingham Palace to see if Ned knows the Queen of England. When the Queen sees Ned, she invites him over for tea. His friend gets really angry and demands that they go to the Vatican to see if he knows the Pope. When they get to the Vatican, the Pope asks Ned if he wants to go out on the balcony with him. They go out on the balcony and his friend passes out. They're in the hospital and Ned asks his friend what is wrong. His friend says "You could've been a regular at the diner, a campaign manager for the President, know someone in the royal family, and be very Catholic, but what surprised me is when you were on the balcony with the Pope, some guy said 'who's that up there with Ned?'" | PRO | d7758835-2019-04-18T19:23:40Z-00003-000 |
Rap Battle number 11!. Rap Battle 11. Open to anyone who wants to rhyme, I'll be sure and give you a hard time, I'll silence you like a mime cause all's you do is spit grime. Rules: Pro accepts and then raps first in Round 1, and then he/she can just say nothing in Round 4. Also, no plagiarizing, and be sure and fight hard. Let's go! | CON | 85f11e23-2019-04-18T12:22:41Z-00004-000 |
Should Languages be taught in school. Should Languages be taught in school well I vote yes! It helps them prepare for when they are older. For example, it Helps them get into a better college. Another example is, It helps them become better thinkers and better learners. One text even said, it gives the Cultural awareness of others! Another Reason might be that it's easier to learn at a younger age. For example, One parent wants to understand kid but cant because school is teaching at a young age so the children will remember foreign languages. Another example is, The brain adapts more and takes knowledge more seriously. Finally, there's less complex stuff to remember/learn when your an adult you have to worry about grammatical issues and pronunciation. One last reason is, They can become more fluent in English. For Example, kids will have to know English to be able to know what they are saying in a foreign language. Another example is, they will improve there grammar. Lastly, they have more fun if they can be more fluent and understand there reading! | PRO | 944a35e6-2019-04-18T12:14:11Z-00001-000 |
I am a panda. I thank Charlie for this date I will disprove him in one shot. Picture 1(http://www.debate.org...) contains people in the background, two to the upper right corner, one below Charles chin, and another and what appears to be a human figure to the centre far left. If a Panda and a sexy woman were behind the camera, the police would be rung and the Panda would be put in captivity followed by Charlies' escape. Clearly, there isn't a Panda behind the camera, thus Charlie wouldn't be in this picture (http://www.debate.org...) other than to fool people is a Panda. Ergo, Charlie is not a Panda. NEGATED | CON | a764f34d-2019-04-18T19:18:59Z-00000-000 |