argument
stringlengths 201
3.55k
| stance
stringclasses 2
values | id
stringlengths 36
39
|
|---|---|---|
The Bible is Reliable regarding Israel's Covenant and Prophecy. Debate: My argument as Pro will be that it is reasonable to believe that the Bible is a reliable, adequate, factually, logical source of information concerning prophecy in regards to covenant Israel. Historical evidence other than the biblical accounts will also be included in my proof. In my attempt to establish this beachhead of reliability my aim is to show that in this area - Prophecy and Covenant Israel - those who reject the Bible are being unreasonable with the evidence available because it is reliable. Thus, if it is reasonable in this area it leaves open the question to the skeptic that other biblical claims can be trusted and reliable (perhaps these other biblical areas could be demonstrated in other debates as to their reasonableness). Con's burden will be to demonstrate that prophecy related to covenant Israel, as one aspect of the Bible's content, is not a reliable, accurate account, or reasonable to believe. My argument will cover such topics as: 1) Introduction to Israel's covenant with God 2) The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and what it means 3) The predicted promised Messiah as it relates to OT Israel 4) The unity of prophecy regarding Israel in the Olivet Discourse 5) Historical verification of the end of the OT economy 6) Israel in covenant prophetic pattern and shadow/type as it relates to the greater New Covenant 7) Addition proofs that may come to mind *** My burden of proof will consist of showing the reasonableness of prophecy as an accurate account of historic events written before they actually took place. It is reasonable to say these accounts are beyond the scope of anything man is able to predict or foretell. What the Bible prophesied would happen comes about as it is said it would happen without failure. This will be backed up using the unity of the Bible and history regarding both of these evidences where this can be reasonably and factually demonstrated. Cons burden of proof will be to demonstrate this is not the case using these same arguments and any others he chooses to use regarding prophecy related to Covenant Israel. Rules of the Debate: Burden of Proof is shared. Con can work out additional details in the Comment section and we can iron them out there before he accepts the conditions. Round 1 - Outline of the debate, fine tuning, and Con's acceptance. Round 2 - Introductory Statement and laying out the argument - for and against. Round 3 - Support and Refutation Round 4 - Support and Refutation Round 5 - Support, Refutation and Summary Judging the Debate: I request that this debate is judged by any or all of the top 10 active judges of debates as listed above (see Judges Leaderboard). I leave this debate open to the first person accepting the offer in the Comment section. Peter | PRO | 8e716270-2019-04-18T12:18:08Z-00002-000 |
Court Session, Mr. Krabs vs. Bikini Bottom. In the episode, "The Krusty Sponge", Mr. Krabs, in Spongebob's words, "poisoned his own customers" with the help of the Dreaded, "Spongy Patty". In this court session, I will justify that Mr. Krabs is, in fact, guilty of these crimes. Although he did have a court session in that episode, Mr. Krabs was let off the hook, when he let the Judge use the kiddy Train as many times as he wanted too, I won't be won over that easily. These are my Witnesses: -Squidward Tentacles -The Food Critic -Joe ( the first guy to be poisoned)' -The cop that arrested Mr. Krabs on the scene. My opponent can justify his 4 witnesses, and shall try to prove that Mr. Krabs is innocent of these crimes. May the better Lawyer win. | PRO | 1f4b3c1f-2019-04-18T16:10:32Z-00004-000 |
Minimum Wage and Labor Unions. Labor Unions do not need to support minimum wages. I do not believe in minimum wages because everyone should be able to work for the money that they earn and the raises that they get. If you want money hard enough you will work for it. No minimum wage should be instituted because of this example: If I worked at a fast food restaurant for 1 yearm and at the beginning of the year I earned 5 dollars an hour, which was minimum wage. After a year of working there, I get a dollar raise. This would mean by the end of the year I would be earning six dollars. Now, the minimum wage is increased to 6 dollars. Just before the increase my boss highers a lazy employee who does not do his work properly and just sits around and moans all day. After the increase, after all my hard work, the lazy employee gets tha same amount of money as I do. This is unfair. I believe Labor Unions should be something to fall back on when in trouble, not a necessary part of a job. "Its like saying the ball is blue and not blue simultaneously." Not really, it is more of saying the ball is part blue and part black, but moreso blue than black. And why do we need four rounds for this, especially when you are "just curious"? | PRO | 9640cdf-2019-04-18T19:50:02Z-00003-000 |
Resolved: The USFG should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the US. I have decided to drop myself from both LD and Policy tournaments. This is because I truly NEED a debate "break" before school starts up again. I will finish this debate (just for fun) and will continue w/ tournament director "duties". I'm interested in judge decisions but irregardless, I will give both "wins" to my opponent. but lets get to the arguments! ============== My opponent essentially runs this uber kritik. To counter this, I'm going to run a counter-kritik: A. Flow through the argument that states that the debate world isn't perfect. B. My opponent warrants that the debate world isn't perfect but later in his speech he breaks one of the very FEW debate rules, changes the resolution. C. By changing the resolution, I am left unprepared with what I am debating pre-round (at least to a degree) and instead am left with a bunch of how debate is in the current world. As far as any policy making in this round, you must vote aff. Because all stock issues were dropped stone cold. D. By voting Neg., you increase the imperfection of the current debating world. If you were to tell ANY kids a resolution to be debated (rich or poor) and they went into the room prepared for it and it was instead switched to another resolution, it would be unfair for them. This only furthers the imperfection of the current debating world. =========== Onto how my case could solve for the current situation. My opponent claims that such activities such as debate are dominated by rich white people. But what you have to see is that when you link the substantially increased economy from my case with the more money for everyone, you will see more people being able to do what they want. (If you want evidence I can get it but it seems pretty straight forward.) =========== Finally, off of the specific point about racism. Fear of racism leads to unfair treatment for all. --> Since my town has been seeing a lot more of the Hispanic race, I have seen MULTIPLE people bending over backwards to help them because they would feel racist if they didn't. New classes have been made, dates have been switched, all so that they may "feel at home"… Instead of being prejudice against them, it's like we are being prejudice against ourselves. In the end- My case solves for all of his "problems" AND it was completely dropped. My counter-kritik shows how my opponent is the one making debate worse. And because of this, I can only see an Affirmative vote! Thank you! | PRO | f1a21e6f-2019-04-18T19:39:32Z-00003-000 |
Moles are the greatest chefs in al of the land. My position is that moles are, at best, the third-to-fifth greatest chefs in all the land. My rationale for taking this position is primarily based on the well-known inconsistencies among mole who are chefs. A cursory survey of consumers of mole-prepared cuisine reveals an overall dissatisfaction with the quality of prepared dishes; many will report greatly enjoying a meal prepared by moles, only to be disappointed with subsequent meals prepared by the same moles. Complicated Italian dishes and courses requiring savory herbs, such as rosemary, are known to be particularly difficult for mole chefs to prepare consistently well. Additionally, though it cannot be denied that most mole chefs are quite adept at preparing cranberry pies (as my opponent has duly noted), the significance of this dish should be questioned when evaluating the import of the mole chef's ouvre. Most consumers surveyed greatly prefer the crab fritters of the tortoise chef to cranberry pie; a recent AP op-ed piece referenced a 2008 survey in which participants favored crab fritters to cranberry pie by a margin of almost 4.2 to 1. In brief, though the expertise and acumen of mole chefs is not to be dismissed, it is hardly sufficient support for the notion that they ae the greatest chefs in all the land. | CON | 4dceee65-2019-04-18T19:07:44Z-00002-000 |
Why don't people want to believe in God. Thanks for the debate. Good luck!I will try to be as polite as possible, so if you get offended It's not my intention.I believe that the principal reason why some people don't want to believe in god is that these people want to "know the truth".I personally, and I feel that most people that don't believe in god as well, don't believe in god because I think It isn't the best explanation to the nature of our world.I was raised Christian. But I was really curious. I really wanted to understand the things around us. And in that effort to understand the world I discovered that god doesn't seemed a good explanation. I discovered that science had more logical arguments than religions.I think that the belief in god should be respected. However, It is just that: a belief. People who want to truly understand the world tend to seek for an argument based explanation, not belief. And that's why atheist don't want to believe in god.You also talked about agnosticism. Agnostics argue that the truth value of metaphysical claims is unknowable. This means that they think they cannot know if there's any god or not. | CON | 42be6bf5-2019-04-18T13:49:32Z-00008-000 |
Certain arcade games are too close to gambling (full res. in debate). I made a very similar debate a while back. I'd like to try debating this again. Full Resolution: Based on the definition below, it can be proposed that certain arcade games are gambling, or at least so close to gambling, that children shouldn't be allowed to use them. If gambling isn't allowed for children, these arcade games should be illegal in arcades as well. Gambling: 1. a. To bet on an uncertain outcome, as of a contest. b. To play a game of chance for stakes. | PRO | 1fefd01-2019-04-18T18:17:37Z-00005-000 |
Time Travel is possible and can be done in modern day society. No, this isn't a troll debate. This is legit. Resolution: Time travel is possible and can be done in modern day society. I define time travel as either going forward or backwards in time. Meaning that I can either cause myself to get older (going forward in time), or cause myself to get younger (going backwards in time). BOP is on me. | PRO | 774359ab-2019-04-18T18:17:39Z-00006-000 |
Darwin's theory of evolution. I accept. Alders Razor says that anything which cannot be established by experement or observation is not worthy of debate. So this really isn't worthy of debate, but considering how absurd it is, and how widely accepted it is, I believe that it deserves to be exposed for all it's idiocy. We havenever observed or tested evolution in multi-cellular organisms, whjich as I have demonstrated here, is impossible:https://docs.google.com... | CON | e502177c-2019-04-18T13:01:38Z-00004-000 |
States’ duty to avoid the use of force when solving social problems. How will the severity and legality of flogging be monitored? How will it be reconciled with existing liberal democratic value sets? The majority of western liberal democracies are party to inter-governmental and supranational agreements that expressly forbid states from using torture or degrading or inhuman punishments in any capacity. The mark of a modern, liberal state is that it uses authority and engagement rather than raw power to protect its citizens. The use of force or power by the state and its agents is harder to regulate and costlier to compensate when it is misapplied. Liberal democracies, apart from being agents of realpolitik, are also aspirational bodies that should strive to reflect and adhere to the values they were created to defend. Arbitrary, coercive force and violence is one of the core harms that a state must guard against. Violence is said to be the preserve of criminals and those acting against the values of society. Therefore, as an aspirational body, the state should hold itself to a higher standard of behaviour than such individuals. Violence, as most liberal constitutions make clear, should only ever be employed by the state as a last resort. Where a state has the means to do so, even if those means are costly or politically contentious, it should endeavour to achieve peace and order within its own borders without wielding power. At its broadest, the liberal democratic ideology holds that the rights and autonomy of individual citizens should be only be infringed in order to protect the rights and autonomy of other citizens. This principle would be violated if the state resorted to corporal sentencing as a way of satisfying a mob-like demand for visible and harsh criminal sentencing. No citizen of a liberal democracy has a right to demand that another citizen, criminal or not, should be subjected to unnecessary pain and suffering by the state. | PRO | 28e619e4-2019-04-15T20:22:47Z-00020-000 |
Abortion Legality. First off, I want you to show me your sources for at home abortions. Second, most mothers don't realize that their pregnant until the third week or beyond and at that point and time the baby's heart is already developed. The only difference between abortion and murder in this instance is the baby isn't breathing the same air as us. If you were to kill someone right now with a beating heart it's murder. What's the difference here? | CON | e727af12-2019-04-18T12:48:51Z-00003-000 |
In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice. This is my first debate in my return from the grave and the first one I'm participating in with the new site. The examples that my opponent listed, for the most part, are examples of how civil disobedience has brought about positive changes in America. The problem, however, is that America is not an exact democracy. The American form of government is not a true democracy, because not every person has an equal access to equal power. Laws are not passed based on the wants and needs of the American public directly, Laws are passed through money. In a Democracy, rich businessmen practicing immoral acts to acquire wealth would not be able to stand against the majority, who recognize their practices and wish to pass a law restricting them. However, this is one of the most common practices of the American tradition: Using money to buy power. Lobbying is rampant in this country, special interest groups rely more on bribery than by having a uniform voice. The country is not run by the people. The country is run by the people with the most STUFF, and by people who want that STUFF. In a democracy, civil disobedience would not be an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice. Necessarily, the exercise of each individual's voting power would be the only appropriate weapon in a democracy. The fact that civil disobedience needs to exist, is because some power is interfering with Democracy and perverting it into something else. | CON | 43e8ce92-2019-04-18T19:37:48Z-00002-000 |
British security is dependent upon NATO not the EU. In a letter to the Telegraph five former Secretary-Generals of NATO stated “The European Union… is a key partner for NATO” and that “Brexit would undoubtedly lead to a loss of British influence, undermine NATO and give succour to the West’s enemies just when we need to stand shoulder-to-shoulder across the Euro-Atlantic community against common threats”. They give sanctions imposed by the EU on Iran and Russia as examples of where the EU has lead on enhancing regional security.[1] Moreover if the EU is to create an EU force this will happen regardless of Brexit. Britain stands a much greater chance of stopping it when it has a voice in the EU with which to object. [1] Lord Carrington, Javier Solana, Lord Robertson, Jaap De Hoop Scheffer, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, ‘Letters: At a time of global instability, Britain needs to stand united with its EU allies’, The Telegraph, 10 May 2016, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/05/09/letters-at-a-time-of-global-instability-britain-needs-to-stand-u/ | CON | 1cc70207-2019-04-15T20:24:49Z-00013-000 |
Requiring photo ID in order to vote. First, photo ID is not expensive. It's like, 10 bucks. And you don't need to have a driver's license, you can just get a photo ID [at the DMV]. So what's the argument against this? That people shouldn't be forced to go through the trouble of paying 10 bucks and getting a photo ID. It's "unfair." Know what else is unfair? That you have to leave your house to vote. I mean, come on, all those hermits are being excluded from the voting process. You have to PAY to get transportation to wherever you're voting at, unless you're within walking distance. What about people who don't have a couple bucks? They get excluded! You have to SPEND TIME walking/driving/riding there. What about all those people who don't have time? They get excluded! What a serious problem this is! This is VOTING we're talking about, people shouldn't have to go through ANY trouble at all to do it, right? Oh. Or maybe, it's OK for the government to force us to go through a little bit of trouble. Since it fixes a problem, why not add Photo ID as one of the many requirements? I'll admit, voter fraud is not a huge issue. There aren't swarms of illegals/etc voting because of it. But those that do are being allowed to abuse the system. See, that's not how we do things. We don't even let our ordinary legal citizens abuse the system like that. Photo ID fixes this, and it's a very minor thing for peple to get. People who are too lazy to go get one are the same people who are too lazy to vote in the first place. People are already required to have photo ID's to buy alcohol or cigs, so why not to vote? | PRO | 73231531-2019-04-18T19:40:46Z-00004-000 |
Should Pokemon be Banned. Sadly my adversary has chosen to forfeit every round of this debate after his opening statement. Simply claiming that something should be banned, is not an acceptable cause or reason for it to be banned. Since my adversary is proposing a change in the status quo, it is on him to provide evidence and reasons as to why the status quo should be changed. He has failed to do any of this because of all the forfeits. His only reason for proposing a ban on Pokemon that " it is the worse type of game". This is entirely subjective and only based off of his perspective. He has given no reason that Pokemon should be banned, therefore we have no reason to believe that the status quo should be changed, and a ban should be placed on the games and movies. I would have went way more in depth with this, but since he has dropped all of his previous rounds, I believe this will suffice. Since he has taken on the BOP and failed to meet it, there is no reason to believe the status quo needs to be changed. | CON | 68bad5ca-2019-04-18T17:03:51Z-00000-000 |
Daryl Dixon is the most overrated character on The Walking Dead. The so-called "cash cow" of the Walking Dead TV show has been the non-GN character Daryl Dixon. And yes, crossbows are kind of cool, but really isn't he overrated? With a show with so many great characters, it is hard to see why people need to keep buying "If Daryl Dies We Riot" T-Shirts or shipping Carol and Daryl or complaining when Daryl doesn't get enough screen time. Okay, that never happens. Daryl gets TOO MUCH screen time! My point is, that Daryl Dixon dying would not need to incite rioting. Indeed some of us might be relieved because then it would help us to focus more on some of the other characters. It's nice that Daryl has had some plots with Aaron but really? Should he continue to be "safe" because of public opinion of him? Carl, who the show should really be more about the development of, got limited screen time last season, all so Daryl could appease the fans. This has to stop. TWD without Daryl would be a breath of fresh air. | PRO | f1063f06-2019-04-18T14:26:59Z-00004-000 |
Mormons can and do not have more than one wife. Toria, i believe your judgement of the mormon religion is wrong and based on un-education on the specific religion. Mormons since the late 1800`s have not practiced polygamy in the least. It is against their religion to take more than one wife. It is also against the state laws to practice polygamy. Now tell me why would a mormon take more than one wife, if he would get arrested and excommunicated from the church? | PRO | 113830a0-2019-04-18T19:51:01Z-00004-000 |
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people. Before I precede to my well constructive speech I'll post questions for Affirmative side "Why in the first place are we to sacrifice?" and "What are the incentives of these sacrifices to others?" Well, I believe my opponent needs to study his case. Secondly, I am sorry if I said that you copy and pasted your argument because as far as I can see you never tried to link your points back to the motion/topic. Thirdly, I appreciate that you gave a definition even if I come late, however I will stick to my definition and probably get some definitions of the affirmative side. Let's weight and analyze what is the difference of sacrifice and murder? Whatever you could say, sacrifice or murder and what not it is still simply killing. Sacrifice happens when the person himself/herself is willing to give his/her life, it only means there is a prerogative or an authentic free of choice. In the affirmatives resolution, it seems that the said innocent person has no authentic freedom of choice, it only concludes that society or the government or others are dictating the death of the said innocent soul. In this case, murder happens because the said innocent soul doesn't even know why should he/she be "sacrificed" or killed in the first place. Could you even call this a sacrifice if indeed others are the one who decide your fate or death, even if you say that it's for the betterment of the many? I believe that innocent society or the people whom you offer the sacrifice sees murder or killing as immoral and I don't think they are willing to sacrifice/kill an innocent soul to begin with. Secondly, if you kill or sacrifice an innocent person is still not justified because the people that you are offering to are advocates of preserving life and morality, therefore they don't want blood shed. I don't think my opponent's so called sacrifice for the better good will be productive. There are alot of means and ways to save innocent souls you don't need to sacrifice one of them. Stated by Affirmative side that societies are secured and well protected however they want to "sacrifice/kill" an innocent soul. You know if they are secured already why do they need to kill. In Conclusion, both sides of the house are for preserving life then again which side preserve life better? Well it's definitely Opposition because we are not the one who is willing to sacrifice or in other terms "kill" an innocent soul, which is definitely Affirmative side. Secondly, we see other avenues to save lives we don't need to give up one. Thirdly, we follow societal morality which means we see what the majority sees and the majority wants is to preserve life and "make life alive!" So ask your self which side preserve life better? Is it Affirmative side that wants to kill an innocent soul or Opposition that sees alot of avenues to save life? | CON | 168e0871-2019-04-18T19:35:35Z-00001-000 |
Promiscuity is fine as long both parties agree and there is precaution before, during and after sex. Promiscuity is fine in a relationship as long both parties agree and use/take precaution before, during and after intercourse. Let's establish some definitions before the real debate begins: Promiscuity- Promiscuity is the practice of having casual sex frequently with different partners Precaution- a measure taken in advance to prevent something dangerous, unpleasant, or inconvenient from happening. Examples: Using a condom, Background checks (ie: knowing the person well for a few months before sex), and taking the pill. Swinging is an example of promiscuity and promiscuity is fine because both parties agree and realize the possible consequences of being promiscuous and they are fine with that. "A 1996 study examined the developmental changes typically faced by middle-aged couples and suggested that open marriages and swinging develop social ties and satisfy sexual needs that are commonly associated with restrictive middle-class backgrounds. Studies have suggested that in an era where about 50% of marriages end in divorce and there is almost an equal percentage of extra-marital affairs, the shared experience of opening a marriage can sometimes bring the marriage partners closer together." & "Several research studies have shown that couples involved in open marriages tend to be happier and more satisfied with their marriages and with life in general than couples in monogamous marriages." Sources: http://moderndirections.com... | PRO | 7929aed3-2019-04-18T14:58:44Z-00003-000 |
Corps have no moral consciences like persons. A critical element of having rights within the social compact is that an individual has a moral conscience. This is because only entities with moral consciences can be trusted to fully uphold the social compact. Corporations do not have this moral conscience. This is partly because they simply are not human beings, but organizations that are specifically designed to make money and maximize profits. And, because they do not have moral consciences like humans, they should not be given the rights of ordinary persons. | PRO | f5f72aae-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00053-000 |
9/11 was a US government plot. A plot? The fact of the matter is that we were attacked by Al Qaeda. Whether or not President Bush knew more than he let on is something I can't know. The myth is that Bush probably had some warning earlier that something like this is possible. But there is no evidence for this and unfortunately you have no evidence to suggest anything but a conspiracy theory. | CON | 60555145-2019-04-18T16:29:35Z-00005-000 |
PC gaming is superior to console gaming. I would like to attack my opponents case that console is better then pc.The gaming industry in the U.S gets 21.3 millon dollars then the pc industry.The console gaming allows you to be able to more advantage s like you are able to play a way more variety of games just from your own console. Consoles do not damage easily from downloads and software and can be kept for a very long time.Consoles are also more cheaper to buy while a computer can cost about 650 or up.Pc is good but not a superior.In this argument console attack s my opponents case. Rebuttal "Thanks to steam Pc is more affordable" Steam is just something that makes it cheaper so thats not really the original price. "I can do any other awesome thing outside of pc" This does not show how pc beats console. "The derexabilty means mouse no autimatic so most games are playable" On consoles you can do the same with a controler. | CON | bfa7aa2a-2019-04-18T16:57:27Z-00004-000 |
The riches rule over the law. Riches don't rule over the law.They can rule over the officers that enforce law but once the culprit is caught and is displayed before the law courts.No one can save him if proper rules and evidences are put into application and shown respectively.For example,fundamental rights or human rights remain same for everyone whether rich or poor.Riches cannot control law.The richest of persons can be punished under the law.rule meaning- Verb: Exercise ultimate power or authority over (an area and its people): "Latin America today is ruled by elected politicians". or simply put the meaning of rule is to govern - reign - dominate - administer - direct - controlBut this does not happen.Wealth cannot control law.Even if one tries to do so,one can easily be punished if the person who accuses one has proper evidence .Also,a practical example of that riches cannot rule over the law would be the tax collection system,the rich people are also taxed and they are helpless-They cannot say 'no' to tax.If they escape tax and are brought to court,they will be punished.Their riches won't save them.If the evidence provided is solid,and there is a law that says a person is guilty and should be punished,then he would be punished , no matter how rich a person is.There are many examples of this.Generally, a person who is suspected to be a criminal, and proved that he or she is guilty is punished by law.It is basically judgment in standard of society. | CON | 4657e986-2019-04-18T18:02:35Z-00000-000 |
The Bible contains error. I thank Renascor for agreeing to debate this with me. I shall be arguing that it is highly unlikely the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is true. Being that this is an intramural debate between Christians (Renascor and I) certain things like God's existence and the Bible being God's Word are being taken for granted in this debate. I propose some definitions of terms in order to make things absolutely clear: God - "the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe" [1] Biblical inerrancy - "is the doctrinal position that the Bible is accurate and totally free of error, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact."" [2] The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy perhaps gives the most sophisticated statement of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. [3] The first round should be used for acceptance of debate and for taking care of any definitional or terminological issues. Rounds 2 - 4 will be used for argument about the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.spurgeon.org... | PRO | 5913c4bd-2019-04-18T18:35:47Z-00006-000 |
Commentator's Choice - Democracy is a good system of government. 1.Democracy means that the people rule over themselves. Democracy really has nothing to do with capitalism. In the U.S. the two terms have been colluded because Capitalism is such a large part of our society. But democracy in it's purest sense does not rely on money or ownership of resources.2. Democracies always fall eventually, the average is about 200 years. When the people find out they can vote themselves money from the public purse, the course of decline has begun. Add to this groups of scheming persons who hasten this dependency as well as moral decline in all other areas so they enslave the people through manufactured debt and laws to protect them from imaginary enemies which require them to surrender their rights, and you have the tried and true formula for bringing down a free nation. This in fact results in an Autocracy, the philosophical opposite of democracy.3."- The Nazi governmental system was in control from 1933-1945; it lasted 12 years- Italy's fascists took power in 1922 and started to crumble in 1943; it lasted about 21 years- The USSR takes control from about 1920-1991; it lasted 70 years- Chinese communism has been around for about 60 years. It has authored programs which have killed produced more death than any one nation has suffered in WWI or WWII combined[3] (It's what happens when you have one man deciding policies while ignoring every other PoV)."This list is very limited. It doesn't even hold such non-democracies that have existed for long periods of time such as China which lasted for thousand of years, Ethipoia which had lasted for thousands of years as a monarchy, and Morocco which has had a monarchy for a thousand years. The data you selected didn't cover the entirety of all nondemocratic regimes, it only showed the shortest lasting of them. | CON | 37a1eb6f-2019-04-18T16:05:08Z-00000-000 |
Church. Here is something controversial... What would happen if we went to any other tomb on Earth, opened the doors and said "Wake Up, It Is Time!"? Every nonbeliever and their idol hands would remain a lifeless body. What would happen if we said, "How can you see what is in Heaven so clearly but you can't see what is standing directly in front of your face!"? We would be stoned mentally and spiritually by the walking dead. What would happen if we persisted even further? We would become surrounded and stoned physically! Therefore we walk past the tombs of nonbelievers and do not enter. If the dead ever find themselves trapped in a dark tomb with other nonbelievers waiting for Christ to return then forgive one another, confess to one another and the gates of Heaven will open and Christ will be revealed. | PRO | a236c376-2019-04-18T11:29:05Z-00003-000 |
we should expand nuclear energy. as already admitted, there are cons to nuclear, as there are cons to all sources. at least with nuclear we aren't destroying the atmosphere. and if you look at other countries, they seem to be handling things just fine. per weopons, the USA already has hundreds of them. using nuclear energy isn't going to add to that,or change that. and we dont even use the weopons we do have anways.. we won't magically start using them. con points to chernobly which i already acknowledged. but she didn't respond to the idea that that was a long time ago, and other countries are doing just fine. con says nuclear is expensive. but to be sure, n o on would build it if it didn't give profit more than is put in. con mostly just used arguments i already addressed and didn't address my response to them, such as how other countries are doing just fine with waste and disasters. what does she make of that? | PRO | f1c23394-2019-04-18T14:40:46Z-00003-000 |
should gay marriage be legalized. Gay marriage in the states its allowed in have shown a decrease in divorce. One example is Massachusetts, which became the first state to legalize gay marriage on May 17, 2004, had the lowest divorce rate in the country in 2008. Its divorce rate declined 21% between 2003 and 2008. Another reason to have gay marriage is because there are states that have bans on gay marriage and are depriving them and their Right to do so. Heterosexual marriage is a RIGHT, that men and women enjoy together. It is not right to keep gays from this right if others may have it as well. Gay marriage is incompatible with the beliefs, sacred texts, and traditions of many religious groups. The Catholic Church, Presbyterian Church, Islam, United Methodist Church, Southern Baptist Convention, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, National Association of Evangelicals, and American Baptist Churches USA all oppose same-sex marriage. Churches should also not have a say in this because churches do not have to marry them as a judge can. Also religion should not be involved as it is not a religious argument unless you make it one. In rebuttal to your comment about Peter, Paul, and Patrick. Marriage is between 2 people that truly love each other and so it should not have to do with the fact that they are best friends they do not have the special love that only 2 people can share. Also marriage should have romantic feelings between each other and if there is suspicion that the marriage is just so that they can get the money then they should have a kind of test to prove that it is true love that the 2 people have for each other. | PRO | 1d3a62-2019-04-18T18:47:49Z-00002-000 |
Is The Amazing Spiderman 2 a Better movie than Captain America 2. I feel Amazing Spiderman 2 was a better movie than Captain America 2 because Captain America 2 lacked a proper storyline as compared to Spiderman. Also the movie contained too much action which was supposed to be there. Spiderman on the other hand had a good story and also moderate action. The villains of Captain America did not have much power or strength which made them weak. Also the villains of Spiderman 2 where not bad in nature. Electro was not a bad man. He became bad when he fell into the aquarium like tube with electricity around him which made him power thirsty. Goblin became bad in his greed to cure himself. | PRO | 6e2e5974-2019-04-18T16:01:37Z-00003-000 |
Children should be raised without religion. I believe religion has a negative effect on children, and minds so young and impressionable should not be influenced by such a powerful thing. Please note I am not speaking against religion, I simply feel that children should grow up without it, and then when they are more mature, they can make an educated decision and choose a religion that suits them, instead of them being forced to be Christian/Muslim/Atheist etc. I also believe this will make better, more open people who make better choices for themselves. Serious debate please. | PRO | 15880271-2019-04-18T16:41:05Z-00005-000 |
Anger Can Be Good Moral Motivation. 1)According to Aristotle virtues are characteristics based upon situations we find ourselves frequently placed in. 2)Out of the two types of virtues, moral and intellectual, moral is learned by habituation. 3)Anger is a virtue in which we have had in us from our birth. 4)Since a young age we have had the ability to become angered, but not the refinements of as to why or when. 5)By being placed in situations where anger is prominent, we then ourselves gain anger as a virtue in either a negative or positive moral way. 6)To be excessive, to be deficiant, and good temperament are three ways in which the virtue of anger can be seen within an individual. 7)By practicing the right habits, an individual can tell the morally acceptable from morally unacceptable 8)By using this sense of good and bad, anger can morally motivate us in either direction. 9)If we place ourselves in the middle of deficient and excessive in regards to anger, we can then be morally motivated to commit acts of moral goodness. | PRO | d0af7c4b-2019-04-18T16:52:25Z-00005-000 |
Nadya Suleman should lose custody of her children!. My opponent says I know nothing about her,when,in fact,that is false. here is a link to prove what I'm talking about. . http://news.softpedia.com... As for the plastic surgery,what sane mother has 6 kids and no job,then turns and thinks, "I want plastic surgery"? Link provided below. It doesn't matter if she had 14 before hand or not,what matters is that she had 6 at the time and . . http://www.makemeheal.com... The comments from both links provide just reason for her to lose custody. . http://www.associatedcontent.com... She is UNEMPLOYED and that can mcause her to lose custody,as well as this bit of a link . http://glosslip.com... She thinks she can get away with using them as some paycheck rather than getting off her butt and doing something for them,and MEAN it. She spoke in an interview that she expects help from her family and church,funny how you need help from those certain sources in order to have no points against you for custody. Does she even GO to church? She never talks about it,except for that one time. | PRO | 25d01deb-2019-04-18T19:22:33Z-00003-000 |
Runescape is better then WoW. Hello there, thank you for posting your argument. "You will constantly have a flood of random people coming in and out of your channel" That is the point, social clan chats are meant to have many people coming in and out of the clan chat. You will always have many people to talk to instead of being in a silent guild or clan. "In Wow we have many more channels of communication then in runescape" I disagree with you here, there are endless clan chats, any one can make a clan chat. There are also clan chats meant to help you in a single area of the game meaning you get your help faster. "Worldwide chat vs house party" Those trade chats are only open in city's where there is usually people already, not any where and any time. The trade chat is more like a famous runescapers clan chat. A more accurate argument would be "Trade chat vs Clan chats." While the runescape house party's are still in its own league versus wow. (By they way, the runescape house party's aren't just hanging around. While socializing is fun to do with people you can also test your skill in dungeons players create in their homes. "every quest that you do tells and leads a story that usually ends in a climatic way" Sorry, i just don't see anything that climatic about gathering 10 pieces of crab meat, while at higher levels some quests chains may have some climatic ways of ending, you feel empty as the main reward you get becomes outdated at maxed level. A majority of the runescape quests has a interesting way of ending a quest or a special boss fight style that hasn't been used in runescape before as well as a reward that won't be replaced by something else. Runescape quests have different styles of quests. Here is a good sample of the last part of a quest showing some of the rewards. http://www.youtube.com... "If its not broken don't fix it" This is why as of right now "70% of trial players quit wow before level 10" http://www.wow.com... "runescape" List Requires timing on eating and using your special attacks, this takes me to my next point. A few "Real" ability's runescape has, -Many special attacks (link has list of special attacks) http://www.runescape.com... -Healing spells, Spells that recoil damage to someone, Many more prayers then one or 2. http://www.runescape.com... http://www.runescape.com... -Summoning familiars/Summoning familiars special attacks http://www.runescape.com... http://www.runescape.com... "World of warcraft" section of the list. As i showed you above, runescape also has many ability's and spells Runescape also has "PVP" worlds, these are worlds that you can fight freely against other A majority of the time the "strategy" is pile the one guy in your base in battlegrounds. | PRO | a53dfd98-2019-04-18T19:03:02Z-00001-000 |
The Death Penalty. This speech must be cut fairly short as I have somewhere I need to be, but I will do my best. What I want to do at this point in the round is evidence comparison. Which evidence is better? I would argue in all cases, it's mine. Issue 1. Costs. We can see that most of my the Con assertions under costs are either from poor material, or have no basis at all. The Con brings up biased sources, and uncredible evidence to make the point. I have, tried at least, to use unbiased studies, such as my deterrence source, to show an factual, unbiased look at the death penalty as a whole. So, in short my evidence regarding this point has been better. Vote Pro. Issue 2. Deterrence. Once again, my evidence is taken out of context. My first source was simply to show that there is evidence for deterrence right now. It would be simply my word against his, if not for the studies I brought up in my last speech, that showed a growth of the murder rate when the death penalty was taken away. This was completely dropped by the Con as well. Issue 3. Innocence. I have showed there is no evidence of anyone in modern times getting executed as a innocent. Three times in fact, with solid evidence. My opponent's only response has been, "Humans are fallible, they make mistakes. " If this were true, there would be evidence. My opponent just can't back this up. Issue 4. Prison Chaos. His evidence about the murder rate being higher in death penalty states had nothing to do with convicts in prison. Only in the outside world. Some final words. I truly do apologize some of you are unable to access my sources. 90% of my sources were from databases that are inaccessible unless you have authorization. That is why I have posted full credentials, dates, titles, and authorship's as my sources instead of full links. I can send anyone who wishes full quotes from my sources. I also apologize if sound a bit whiny in this speech. I am just pressed for time. | PRO | abe4d945-2019-04-18T18:13:40Z-00000-000 |
The Confederate Flag Should Be Banned. My opponent's premise is basically that banning the Confederate Flag would encourage people to rise together and demand that they be given their freedom of expression. My opponent has offered up one of the oldest debate tactics, All A's are B's. What my opponent is really trying to sell is "Every time a government takes away your rights you appreciate your rights more". Or, "You don't know what you got 'till its gone". However, one of the easiest debate arguments to refute is the "All A's are B's" argument is to offer one example of an A that isn't a B, or one B that doesn't result from A. I feel like an analogy! Whoo-hoo Analogy time. A country has a reserve of money, as opposed to a debt. The people of this country are coming to their King and demanding that the King be generous with these reserves and spend it liberally on tax cuts and social programs. The King denies saying "Lets save the money for when we really need it, such as in a time of war". However, the people of the Kingdom keep on pestering the King to spend the money on tax cuts and social programs. After several weeks of this the King finally snaps and says "You ignorant people you do not appreciate having such a great luxury such as a reserve of money! To make you appreciate it more I will drive our country into debt my spending the reserves all on Jello and leopard print 5 inch heels!". And he does. A few weeks later the country is in a deep economic depression while the King enjoys jello and wearing 5 inch heels. Okay, analogy time over. Similarly, the people of this country have a right to Freedom of Expression. If the government deprives that right, than what is stopping the government from depriving more rights (religion, press, assembly, etc). Pretty soon, after the government has taken away our rights to make us appreciate them more, we have no rights. And we cannot demand our rights back we had in the first place if we have no rights. Government is just a group of power-hungry, stupid, greedy individuals. What gives them the right to say "Appreciate this more"? Thank you and good luck. | CON | 85818334-2019-04-18T19:21:44Z-00005-000 |
A privately owned business should be able to legally choose who it serves. I will be arguing that the statement presented in the title is true. Please allow for the first round to simply be acceptance and no new arguments in the finale round. As for the middle rounds, well anything goes. Definitions: Privately owned business: a company or business with private ownership. Legally: permitted by law. Serves: perform duties or services for. http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.dictionary.com... http://www.investopedia.com... | PRO | 477f61a3-2019-04-18T12:42:54Z-00007-000 |
The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts. Does the United States of America have a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts? My opinion is yes. I would like to look at this through three main issues, or contentions. Contention 1 A person has a moral obligation to help someone in need of aid. If I was walking down the street, and I saw a small child getting abused on the side of the street, I have an impulse, a little voice in my head, telling me I need to help. Let us say that I was too weak to help the kid, so I decided to refrain from helping him. Does that all of a sudden stop the impulse in my head shouting at me to help? of course not. this is very simple. Lets say I wanted to go to Disneyland, but I didn't have enough money to go. does that stop me from wanting to go to disneyland? no it does not. it is simply not arguable that there is a voice shouting at me to help the kid getting abused on the street. Contention 2. The united states has a moral obligation to help people in need of aid. The same thing can be applied to countries. Multiple philosophers have said, a country is of one mind, one body. Because we are a completely unified body, the same argument can be applied to countries as well as people. So the United States has a moral obligation, an impulse that urges the United States to take action. it is for this reason that the United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international affairs. Contention 3. This is the side for you Whether you believe that the United States should or shouldn't get involved in international affairs, this is the side for you. Again, the resolution doesn't state what the US should do, it just says the United States has a moral obligation. The key is this, the united states has a moral obligation to help any country. that is not deniable. however, the us also has a moral obligation to keep its people safe. No matter which obligation outweighs the other. both are there in summary, the united states, just like a person, has a moral obligation to help countries. it doesn't matter whether the US should, or how big the obligation is, it just matters that they do. Thanks! | PRO | 447978ce-2019-04-18T17:10:09Z-00004-000 |
Could Canada and it's allies beat America and it's allies in a war. BoPI will accept my opponent's suggestion that the BoP will be shared.Military Super PowerMy opponent concedes this point, it must be awarded to Con.AlliesI accept my opponent's apology and wish the debate to continue unaffected by this.He next brings up, in concurrence with this point that North Korea, Vietnam, and the Middle East could join in. However, the simple fact is that North Korea is skittish. They are afraid to launch any attacks on the United States. [1] Furthermore, Vietnam doesn't have sufficient military to attack the US [2], nor would they like to get into another major conflict after the Vietnam War. [3] As for the Middle East, they are already dealing with a number of problems, most of which pertain to the Islamic State. [4]Multi-culturalIt is indeed the United States that is multi-cultural. [5] It as also been referenced as the "melting-pot" of the world. [6] This promotes unity and pushing beyond social and economic differences to create one unified system. This combines natural talents of each race into one strategic army. Thus, these strategies can be combined to create an elite force like no other. This refutes the argument my opponent brought up.HappinessThough happiness plays a minute role, we must consider factors that are more important to war than rebellions within countries. Manpower is a more important statistic, one that the US owns. In fact, manpower and resources were the primary reason as to why the Union won the Civil War. [7]Manpower:Manpower is one of the most important statistics. The United States has 145,212,012 available manpower comparative to Canada's mere 15,786,816. [8] I encourage voters to visit this linke [8] to read further statistics rather than list them all here. This manpower also outweighs "better" snipers and health care reforms. Conclusion:Conclusively, we find that I have refuted my opponent's points while he has left many of my points either conceded or unargued.1. Canada must face the US alone.2. US is a super power (conceded).3. Military presence belongs to the US.Sources:[1] http://www.antiwar.com...[2] http://www.globalfirepower.com...[3] http://www.history.com...[4] http://www.theatlantic.com...[5] https://www.boundless.com...[6] http://photos.state.gov...[7] http://www.historytoday.com...[8] http://www.globalfirepower.com... | CON | 65c69131-2019-04-18T14:55:27Z-00006-000 |
All drugs should be legalized and regulated. Firstly I will wish pro good luck for his/ her first debate. This is my third so we are both beginners. I agree that eliminating drugs and drug use entirely is impossible. This does not mean though that society and government does not try its best to do so. In my opinion the legalization of all drugs would be effectively giving up the battle against drugs. This would result in legalized unlimited sales of all types of currently illegal drugs. This would allow drug dealers to operate freely, able to coerce more people into buying drugs and becoming drug addicts. They would be free to sell anything they like and would likely increase sales of the most dangerous types of drugs due to the larger profit margin and the absence of serious prosecution. The removal of restrictions on drug use would lead to many people to believe taking drugs is OK. Many people who would never have tried drugs either because they were scared of the danger posed by drugs or the fear of persecution for using drugs would take drugs. Many of these people would become drug addicts. The legalization of drugs would also make them much cheaper to buy. This would allow existing addicts to afford to buy bigger quantities of drugs and more powerful drugs. The increase in drug addicts, the increased availability of stronger, more dangerous drugs would be very dangerous to many addicts. The health risks to them are very high if drugs were legalized. The legalization of many dangerous unproven drugs is guaranteed to lead to more cases of overdoses, addictions, crimes caused by the effects of drugs, deaths from the effects of drugs and would lead to increases in drug use. These factors combined would lead to an increased burden for both the police force and the health service, and will allow gang and mafia culture to thrive. The amount of health service resources used on treating drug addictions, drug overdoses and health problems caused by long term drug use would either take away resources from other areas or lead to a need for significantly more funding for the health service. It is clear drugs are dangerous, addictive and cause premature death. They should not be legalized. | CON | a799c6ee-2019-04-18T14:21:14Z-00008-000 |
Hitler's rise to power. Now, I'm no Aryan, so get that out of your system before you start to read, and I am in no way demoralizing Britain, but If Hitler admired the British, and copied their idea of concentration camps, and also copied a 'master race', then who's the most to blame for loss of life? Hitler for using ideas, or Britain, for fueling them? I personally think that Britain are the most to blame. Reason being that Britain use these concentration camps in Africa during the Boer War, forcing many innocents to either work, starve or dehydrate to death. Africa is a very hot country, and working for a scrap of bread and a little bit of water per day, for example, is nothing worth working for. Now, some may argue that Hitler had more harsh conditions, but in History during school, are you ever taught about how the British treated their prisoners of war? I was never taught that, and through my own research I found out that Hitler is no worse than Britain at the time. | PRO | 4f6afd67-2019-04-18T18:07:31Z-00003-000 |
The Legal Drinking and Gambling Age Should be Reduced to 18. WHile you make some good points, I feel that not only do you leave some of my arguments alone, but you don't really refute the ones you have chosen. Just to start with, I agree with you that the government should in no way gain MORE power than they have right now, and that they should not be protecting us against ourselves, one of the main problems with the War on Drugs and prohibition, but that's another debate. What I meant to say earlier was that the states were not neccesarily concerned with our personal health when making the MLDA 21, but that by lowering it to 18, the disease issue would be one of the reasons it would be bad for the populace as a whole. My next point also ties into my desire for a libertarian society. I feel that Americans should be able to do whatever they damn well please, as long as it does not infringe on others' "lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness". However I feel that with the definite increase in ALCOHOL-related driving accidents (remember I am not talking about illegal drugs here, so your Vietnam argument doesn't make much sense) would definitely influence others' "lives". While I agree with you wholeheartedly that if the government keeps regulating everything we do, we'll turn into a "passive" nation, I restate my earlier point that it would in fact be for the protection of society as a whole, and not just against ourselves. Finally, you never really deal with gambling, which is fine, but again, for that AND for the MLDA, it is up to the states, and what you are proposing is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and against the Tenth Amendment. These rights are guaranteed for the states, and to make federal laws concerning it AT ALL is against our forefathers' wishes and against the Bill of Rights. Thank you. | CON | 357d3b4f-2019-04-18T20:02:49Z-00002-000 |
Humans are not supposed to eat meat. Yes, we naturally got the intelligence to make ovens and weapons for hunting meat. But just because our we can do something does not mean we should do it. Like we have the technology for roofies, but we don't "natrually" need to rape. Here are more points about our physiology. Humans have weak nails and small canine teeth. Carnivores have sharp claws and large canine teeth to tear flesh. Like other herbivores" teeth, human back molars are flat for grinding fibrous plant foods. Carnivores lack these flat molars. Carnivores swallow their food whole, relying on their stomach acid. Our stomach acids are much weaker in comparison. Carnivores have short intestinal tracts and colons that allow meat to pass through the animal fast. Humans" intestinal tracts are much longer. Also, our brain is equally against eating meat. Carnivorous animals are excited by the scent of blood. Most humans are revolted by the sight of blood. Where do we get our protein? You can get plenty of protein from plants. | PRO | 4980ff78-2019-04-18T16:21:27Z-00001-000 |
Mandatory sentencing gives prosecutors undue power. Prosecutors can stack charges, which they can use to scare a defendant into accepting a plea bargain. Prosecutors are part of the executive branch; they are directly answerable to elected officials (and are often elected themselves), whereas judges are generally more removed from political influence. Politicians often promote themselves as being “tough on crime.”[1] In order to make good on this claim, they may pressure prosecutors to increase conviction rates, get longer sentences, etc. Thus political pressure may lead prosecutors to handle cases in a way that makes them more popular with the public, rather than one which gives the criminal their fair due. Because judges are less susceptible to public pressure, it is safer to entrust discretion to them. [1] Michael A. Simons, “Departing Ways: Uniformity, Disparity, and Cooperation in Federal Drug Sentences,” Villanova Law Review, Vol. 47, Issue 2, 2002, 923. | PRO | a781de02-2019-04-15T20:22:47Z-00021-000 |
Hitler was worse than Stalin. You talk about Stalin's purges of political and military leaders and about how he killed 660,000 people. However this is not millions of people. Stalin killed over 40 million people throughout his 28 year regime. Hitler killed over 30 million people in about half the time. I will argue that the reason Hitler was worse was because of his reasons for killing. Hitler killed people simply because he did not like them. He killed Jews, the disabled, and homosexuals. Stalin killed people because he was either paranoid about them being a threat, or they actually were a threat (such as the Ukrainians who rose up against Stalin's collectivization) in the 30s. Most of the people who Hitler killed, he killed between the years 1941 and 1945. This includes 17 million Soviets civilians, 6 million Poles, and 1 million Yugoslavians. And those countries only include part of the eastern front. In 4 years Hitler killed around 30 million people. Stalin killed over 40 million people but he did this over a period of 28 years. If you compare Hitler's concentration camps and Stalin's gulag, you will notice a huge difference. When prisoners arrived to the concentration camp, 70% of them were killed immediately. This included women and children and even babies. In the gulag, people were worked to death. There were no children since a child could not be a threat. All the people who arrived at the gulag were people who could work. The fact that Hitler was killing people at a much faster rate proves that he was the worse of two evils. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... | PRO | 926a8c-2019-04-18T17:03:17Z-00005-000 |
Gun Control. Indeed your points are valid. But I said that we could modify tazers so they could be like guns. The person Could shoot from long range stoping the attacker without you killing them. When you say anybody could get a gun illegaly, I say it will be harder because they know that guns will be harder to get because the govt. could check every dock for guns,and the TSA would certainly not allow guns to be transported into the U.S. illegaly. And if you see somebody with a gun, people could inform the police and know that they are comiting a crime. I'm sure that if you say people can still deal drugs and stuff, it will be harder for people to deal guns, they are easier to see. It is true that criminals could attack with any other weapon but the purpose of gun control is not to get rid of all crime but to decrease it. For example if you have a cold and you take medicine to get rid of it, that wont stop it from cmoing back but it relieves and reduces the cold. The second amendment states "A regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."I don't know if this is all new to you but we don't use a militia anymore. We have police departments as well as armed forces paid for a run by the government, not civilians like a regular militia. Also our founding fathers never thought of guns that could wipe out an entire class of chldren in mere seconds. Back then they had single loading muskets and pistols that took 5 minutes to load. Maybe you should change your name ( no offense intended) because if your going to call yourself "policydebategod" you should rebuke and debate every single argument not just 2 or 3 and add a new fact. | PRO | 579ea5ea-2019-04-18T20:00:09Z-00002-000 |
Stop does not always work. To start, this debate is impossible. So I will try to prove (very over the top) why saying stop does always work When you say "Stop!" Your mouth opens, the sounds come out form the audio waves that register as stop. So when you say stop, stop is said. Simple? The bully eventually stops. Bully fights me. I say stop. He like totally annihilates me. HE goes away. Stop worked. Thus, stop always works eventually. Simpler? | CON | de8be9f0-2019-04-18T19:54:19Z-00004-000 |
Harriet Beecher Stowe contributed to american racism. I fail to see the civil war as a point to increase racism is contributed to her. By strengthing the abolitionist cause she makes people put an immediate demand to end slavery as you say. I fail to see how it caused the civil war and encouraged racism. Harriet Beecher Stowe is predominantly known for her first, Uncle Tom's Cabin (1852). Begun as a serial for the Washington anti-slavery weekly, the National Era, it focused public interest on the issue of slavery, and was deeply controversial. In writing the book, Stowe drew on her personal experience: she was familiar with slavery, the antislavery movement, and the underground railroad because Kentucky, across the Ohio River from Cincinnatti, Ohio, where Stowe had lived, was a slave state. Following publication of the book, she became a celebrity, speaking against slavery both in America and Europe. She wrote A Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin (1853) extensively documenting the realities on which the book was based, to refute critics who tried to argue that it was inauthentic; and published a second anti-slavery novel, Dred in1856. It promotes a very anti-slavery anti-racism view and not a racist claim like my opponent claims. And it was at the time as my opponent says protraying these slaves as uneducated and they were so it is not racist it is merely an observation of truth. Today, Uncle Tom's Cabin raises many questions. It requires readers to confront and think about racism, and theories of race in the United States. It provokes important questions about differing feminist ideologies and agendas across race and time" (Ammons, intro). Whatever our feelings about the novel, it remains one of the most influential American texts written by either man or woman. It is possibly the first American social protest novel, and anyone concerned with the state of race relations should read it. I think my opponent has tried to skew the evidence that Harriet Stowe is not a racist but rather an abolitionist against racism and slavery. | CON | 20606de6-2019-04-18T19:28:36Z-00002-000 |
We should a limited number of voters or limeted time on www.debate.org. I will make an attempt to win this although it is set up extremely lopsided, towards the Pro. Because the website updates the statistics on your w/l record, it is not necessary for them to stop the voting at a certain time, so as to tally the results. By limiting the number of voters, you limit the selection of voters, so, if 10 liberals get to a conservative topic before the conservatives, and there are only 10 votes allowed, it would be unfair to the conservative debater. Also, because there are so few members on the site, and so few actively voting, by limiting the voting time, you limit the number of votes, which I have already stated is not a good thing, some people aren't on here 24/7 but may still want to vote, but if the voting period is up before they get to the topic they can't. | CON | 806480f-2019-04-18T20:02:33Z-00002-000 |
IVF Debate. Some issues of multiple births is that it can cause children to be born early and have a low birth weight. Multiple births can also cause a risk of stillbirth, neonatal death and disability in children born. It is also more likely for a woman who used IVF to have multiple births. 1 in 5 pregnancies from IVF are multiple births. This means there is an even higher chance for children to die or have some sort of birth defect. It also increases the risk of dangerous complications to the mother, such as late miscarriage, high blood pressure and pre-eclampsia. | CON | ea87e1f3-2019-04-18T14:59:45Z-00002-000 |
Resolved: That secondary education in America should value the fine arts over athletics. its very shameful for my opponent to assert that i do want to prioritize both. what i am explaining is that these two subjects cannot be separated easily. Look at the definition that i have gave regarding fine arts. Physically healthy because it is not only your mind that works when performing these kinds of activities but also your senses.im so sorry because i cannot fully understand the arguments that my opponent is raisng. | PRO | 2c4f392b-2019-04-18T19:43:00Z-00002-000 |
J.D. is not "all purpose" degree; it's for lawyers. "Should You Go to Law School? Not Unless You Want To Be a Lawyer." Wronging Rights. January 22, 2009: "I know that you have heard that a J.D. is a 'great all-purpose degree,' but it isn't. That's a lie put about by parents who are trying to trick you into middle-class professionaldom and law schools who are trying to take your money. A J.D. is not an all-purpose degree, it is a law degree. It does not qualify you to become a diplomat, a 'senior policy advisor' to anything, a politician, a banker, an aid worker, a political operative, or any of those other jobs that seem like they might be a fun way to satisfy your West Wing fantasies. It qualifies you to be a lawyer, and it doesn't really even do that -there's still the pesky matter of the bar exam." | PRO | 50689d14-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00125-000 |
There is a fear amongst the US scientific community that the US is losing its dominance of the acade... Surely it would be far better to engage nuclear scientists in something of more benefit to humanity, like safer nuclear power stations or nuclear fusion? The risk of a massively funded nuclear program within the USA is that, just as with the Manhattan project, it is likely that any new technology would simply end up being stolen. The fact that scientists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory repeatedly lose laptops with sensitive information and that the FBI had to investigate allegations of spying at the facility in July 2004 makes research into mini-nukes look like a good way to spread new technology to China and Russia, not maintain US dominance.\ Secondly, there is the risk that whereas strategic nuclear weapons are kept under great security in missile silos, on submarines or at aircraft bases often on the US mainland, tactical weapons are likely to be placed near potential threats and in larger numbers. This makes it more likely that they will be stolen, lost or involved in accidents. Given that mini-nukes have yields low enough to make them practical for terrorist groups to use for political ends, combined with the almost inevitable adoption of mini-nukes by states other than the US, the possibility of a terrorist group acquiring them, potentially for an attack on the US itself, looks high. | CON | c41d90c8-2019-04-19T12:47:40Z-00016-000 |
Why do atheists believe in macro-evolution? It is so contradictory it is hilarious. Atheists have always been opposed to christianity on the grounds that they take a blind leap of faith into the religion and into the belief of god, but what about macro-evolution? It requires the same blind leap of faith as any religion. Macro-evolution has no definitive evidence of probability and lacks the "missing links" that could possibly prove or validate the theory what-so-ever. The notion that a single cell could be a complex multicellular organism is hard to believe at best. First of all the crlls would lack the DNA to form the tissues and subsequently the organs that would support a multi-cellular organism. Organisms cannot spontaniously create entirely new and complex DNA and gene stuctures. Even by replicating a section of DNA due to a mutation could not and would not produce a nessesary and efficient result that could support a multi-cellular organism. What's more, even if a cell could pull off creating the desired result, the other stuctures that make up a complex organ would still be missing. The chances are astronomical that macro-evolution and the "scientific" explanation of the formation of life are probable or even likely to happen. | CON | 266e7edc-2019-04-18T18:23:19Z-00003-000 |
Diet pills should be banned. Hello everyone! I am new to debate.org so I apologize for any mistakes. I would like to propose a debate on the idea of diet pills. Nowadays diet pills became more and more popular. The testimonial on a leading diet website is gushing: "I lost all the weight I wanted and then more - now I really love my body!" Most people believe all you have to do is take a pill and magically the weight will disappear. Considering they do more bad than good for a person, there is no question that the pills should be banned. | PRO | 19901fc2-2019-04-18T18:10:29Z-00006-000 |
Minecraft sucks 5. I accpet Definition of sucks: 1.to draw (as liquid) into the mouth through a suction force produced by movements of the lips and tongue 2. to draw something from or consume by such movements3. to apply the mouth to in order to or as if to suck out a liquid http://www.merriam-webster.com...Pro has not labeled the correct definitions, so I will go ahead and do that for him. Your welcome pro Good luck | CON | 1f3ca5cb-2019-04-18T14:41:06Z-00008-000 |
God exists. =C.E. Jean-Baptiste Litre= The difference is that Litre was confessed as a fraud by his creator. God of the Abrahamic faiths is confessed as existing by all those who have encountered Him, and many have gone to their deaths not recanting. Kenneth Woolner would not have died in devotion to his make believe character. The point here is that you can't prove that you think, so how can you ask me to prove that God thinks? You have failed to engage the Descartes existentialism argument, so it carries. =Holy Texts= You are ill instructed about the nature of "Holy Texts". You just grouped three separate faith's Holy Writ, composed over 6,000 years, on three continents, in 4 languages, by over 40 authors, into one modern genre-- fiction. This oversight is breathtaking. Considering the Bible alone you have literature that belongs in several genres, including types no longer extant. They do not fall into our modern breakdowns of fiction and non-fiction, because they have elements of both, and neither. They must be examined according to the genre they were written in. http://helpmewithbiblestudy.org... The scriptures all describe various historic episodes (with shocking accuracy), this isn't needed to prove that these writings are also correct about God's existence, but it does negate your attempt to pour white-out on the largest body of pre and ancient writings man has ever known. I hope the judges penalize this horrible and offensive oversight. Further your point about the birth of Jesus is moot, http://www.comereason.org..., or at least impotent to invalidate the worlds largest religion. Even if you had been right, biographical oversight does not a fraud make. Even the encyclopedia makes mistakes. The fact that an error would be painstakingly recopied over 2,000 years actually argues in favor of the Bible's credible preservation. =Physical and Esoteric= Your example has the symbol of currency being shown, not value itself. This is a straw-man fallacy. Further, you're categorically mistaking the nature of God as described in the Abrahamic faiths, which is, intangible and incorporeal. You want me to put God in a bottle and hold it to your face, but that's like asking me to put love in a bottle. Shaking your fist at empty bottles won't disprove an intangible thing. The subjective existence argument is superior to your rebuttals because you misidentify God, are ignorant of other things having subjective existence, and desperately want this debate to be about if God is nice. =Problem of Evil= I'm not here to discuss variant theologies in the Abrahamic faiths, and your question of whether God is good requires exactly that. Each camp answers this question their own way, by seeing God's mission and intention differently. But all of them are united in declaring God's existence, even if He isn't nice. | PRO | e2ff369c-2019-04-18T19:01:48Z-00004-000 |
InfraRedEd Is The Greatest and Most Benevolent Being Who Has Ever Existed. The imaginary InfraRedEd is not the same as the real one. For god it may be different depending on whom one asks and when. My Opponent is even now imagining or attempting to imagine or attempting to not imagine a Being even greater than Myself. If He attempts to argue that He is not that just proves that He is. That Being, imaginary or not, also inhabits the Vast Empty Mindscape which My Opponent is attempting to describe. But My Opponent will present an Argument He is attempting to not imagine that Being but He doesn't have to because that Being is not imaginary anyway. It is My Opponent. He is just a figment of his own imagination. | CON | ed468e10-2019-04-18T19:23:45Z-00004-000 |
DECRIMINALISATION OF PERSONAL POSESSION AND CONSUMPTION OF ALL DRUGS. There is no way to say that jails cause more harm than drugs, millions die because of drugs in all forms. To say it any other way is just ignorance. And please do explain how jails cause harm, they keep harmful drug dealers off the street. 2. Clinics are something after you are caught, jail time is to prove a point and if anything the resolve should stand stronger against drugs. 3. Saving money is nothing compared to the dehumanization that is happening when people are under the influence. They are not themselves and are a danger to those around them. To not try and stop this are devaluing a human life saying no your not worth being at full health. 4. There was a time where they legalized some drugs like LSD and Marijuana. That turned out to be disastrous for both our economy and our society. The soldiers were never themselves again and were harmful to our society. 5. Also when people are under the influence they tend to do nothing especially under marijuana if its legalized they we are condoning doing nothing and eventually if everyones doing nothing our great country would be destroyed. Vote Negative for the reasons above | CON | 6c760732-2019-04-18T19:53:42Z-00002-000 |
Unless we deal with the problem of poor communities, our cities will be surrounded by a belt of pove... The need to rethink urban-rural connections is unarguable and this will certainly need to be faced in the future. However, this has little to do with the question of subsidies. As modern societies are clearly moving away from an agricultural economy to an industrial and post-industrial economy, new demographic challenge arise with high concentrations of people in urban areas where jobs are available. The solution here is not subsidies, but rather the spreading of jobs across the whole economy, including rural areas, and the re-education of those who need to fill these jobs. These are structural problems that every society will need to address, regardless of how many subsidies the state is providing or not. | CON | 39d7bc1-2019-04-19T12:46:00Z-00012-000 |
Summer Is The Best Season. My contender says that summer is the best sport I deny it just because it may be his/her favorite season doesn't mean it is the best season. Many people enjoy Winter they enjoy playing in the snow or staying inside to watch their kids sled down a hill. Many people also enjoy the Winter Olympics and watching people ski down hills or ice skate in rinks. Others may enjoy the leaf piles and cool nights Fall brings. And of course many people may like spring because of Easter and the ring spring brings with it after all April showers bring May flowers. | CON | 78f9e390-2019-04-18T11:37:14Z-00003-000 |
Letter Writing has truly become obsolete. Obsolete:no longer in use or no longer useful Standing Out In this day and age, technical communication is much more prevalent among the world than "snail mail". Therefore, more messages are being sent via technology which makes getting your message to the recipient much more difficult. To make my point I will use an example. If one was to try to communicate with Matthew Santoro(https://www.youtube.com...) via twitter, it would be lost in the sea of other tweets sent to him. However, if one was to send a letter to Matthew Santoro, he is more likely to read it as it stands out. Infact, he has a segment in which he reads and responds to every letter and package sent to him () . If one was to send him a letter, it would have been read and responded to while a tweet would not have. He seldom responds on his twitter page(https://twitter.com...). Final Remark Letters are not obsolete as they have at least one current use. | CON | 8c7d2899-2019-04-18T15:23:30Z-00002-000 |
The United States military should be reduced in half. It is my contention that the U. S. military should be substantially reduced in size and scope. This includes the number of personnel, goals, and overall military spending. The military shall refer to every branch of the armed forces. Although I am an anarchist, I will be arguing from the perspective that the U. S. military should exist and be federally funded through taxes to avoid any tangents about the proper role and responsibility of government (though I'm sure that will be a factor in the debate, I don't want to be arguing from the position of anarchism as I think that would deter from the overall quality and discussion). I'd like to wish my opponent luck. I will provide my opening arguments in R2. While character limits will be enforced, it will be permissible to post our sources (no analysis or description from within) on another page if need-be. Regards,Danielle | PRO | 202e3967-2019-04-18T17:56:17Z-00007-000 |
The Bible is the word of God and is a scientific document. Well, in a world where bare assertions were equal to argumentative logic, my opponent would be making a wonderful case. Unfortunately we actually live in a world where logical statements must be matched with reasoning and evidence. My opponents deeply circular reasoning makes me wander if he's even the least bit serious. He states that the Bible is the word of God because God said so. Well obviously we now have to establish both the validity and existence of God. Unfortunately my opponent points to the Bible as a source. In other words the Bible's trustworthiness proves God and God proves the Bibles trustworthiness. Now there is a simple method of logic to refute my esteemed opponents argument. It's called baby logic. Baby logic is the most obvious forms of logic that no-one would disagree with. The law that circular reasoning is invalid is one of these self-evident facts. A cannot prove b while b is what proves a. Do I need go further? | CON | 31e85028-2019-04-18T18:13:48Z-00000-000 |
The Call of Duty Series is overrated. Looking at how they release another Call of Duty game every year, I got to thinking: "Man, this series is seriously overrated." I mean, it's basically the same game over and over again just with a few new perks. e.g. Call of Duty: Ghosts: new perks include.... a PLAYABLE DOG!!!! *faints from excitement*. I believe that they should actually try to reinvent the series like they did with COD 4, which was the best one IMO. Any challengers?? Remember, this isn't a formal debate, by the way. | PRO | b62f198f-2019-04-18T16:39:32Z-00004-000 |
Pro-abortionists dehumanize "fetuses" to get away with murder. Frederica Matthewes-Green, "Personhood of the Unborn", on National Public Radio's All Things Considered, (January 21, 1998) - "When we question whether someone is a person, it is because we want to kill him. We do this with our enemies in wartime, or with anyone we would like to enslave or exploit. Before we can feel comfortable treating others this way, we have to expel them from the human community. But there's just no logical reason to expel the unborn."[3] | PRO | b67fc3fb-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00152-000 |
Operation Wrath of God Was a Justified Operation by Israeli Mossad Agents. Thank you to Con for his acceptance. My apologies for my slow reply--Summer classes are far more demanding than I expected. I shall endeavor to be more timely in future rounds, and I thank Con for his patience.After the 1972 Munich massacre, Israeli agents, at the behest of Prime Minister Golda Meir, waged a campaign to break the terror network in Europe by systematically assassinating everyone who was directly or indirectly involved in the Munich attack. There were 35 total targets, and the list for one of the assassin teams had 11 targets on it. (Also included in the overall Wrath of God operation was the Spring of Youth action, which involved commandos going to Beirut and hunting down three of the PLO's top leaders in their homes. Their mission was also successful, accomplished in 30 minutes from insertion to extraction.Israel's action, even counting the one case of mistaken identity and the one extra killing of a female assassin who killed one of the Mossad agents, was a rousing success. The terrorist network in Europe was broken, and all targets were eliminated except one. The point of Israel's actions were not only to serve justice to those responsible for the deaths of innocent Israelis, but to strike fear and terror into the hearts of the terrorists by hitting them in their safehouses, their residences, and inside their own network. It was Israel's intent to send a message--that terrorists were not safe anywhere, and they would pay for their actions. It was justice, revenge, and future deterrent all in one.Israel's actions were justified for three reasons:1) The lives of the Olympic athletes were worth justice. ""Because it cannot be that people can terrorize other people and kill them. And there is no price to be paid." [1]2) In killing those responsible, Israel thwarted future attacks and saved more innocent lives.3) "Israel, surrounded by hostile borders, must take extraordinary precautions to protect itself...What may be an unacceptable response in a certain situation can, and does, become not only acceptable but morally right, under other circumstances." [2]Israel's actions were "the most daring assassination campaign of our time," and since then, "Israeli tactics have become an object lesson in Washington." [1] In short, Israel had no choice. To allow terrorists to brazenly storm into the Olympics and murder innocents without answering for their actions would have resulted in Israel signing her own death warrant.http://www.cbsnews.com...;http://www.fas.org...; | PRO | e3ca1f8e-2019-04-18T18:43:46Z-00003-000 |
God was justified in exterminating the Amalekites. Amalekites: An ancient tribe that occupied some of the Sinai peninsula and up into Canaan South of Gaza. (Approximately) God: Living God of the Bible. Justified: With good cause, appropriate measure. In line with moral and legal law. Extermination: Executed by King Saul as described in 1 Samuel chapter 15. For this debate, you don't have to believe the events occurred, but you must argue about the justification of the events, not the existence of the events. If you want to have the debate that X event in the Bible didn't occur, we can do that in a separate debate. | PRO | 6e06ba89-2019-04-18T14:05:22Z-00003-000 |
The issue of Slavery was the main cause of the Civil War. Rebuttals "The south broke away because of state rights were being violated. Slavery was the main one but that's not the cause." Take note of two things : 1. My opponent conceeded that slavery was the main violation of states rights. 2. My opponent didn't find any other violation of states rights. "We went to war because because we were not going to let the south break away." This was a factor, but remember, the Confederacy fired the first shots, at Fort Sumter. Question to Redsoxfan010: Can you find any violation of states rights other than slavery? If not, then the ballot is more clearly Pro then you described it to be Con in Round 1. Arguments: Remember, the Confederates went to war with the Union, not visa versa. Their reason was because the Confederates felt their states rights would be violated on the SLAVE question, under Lincoln's administration. Sectional Divide between North and South was on the SLAVE question. There was already deep divide on the issue of slavery, the nation came close to civil war in 1850, and it was the Missouri Compromise of 1850 that united the nation until 1861. Slavery was an intense, emotional issue for most of the first half of the 19th century. Joseph Smith predicted the Civil War in the 1830's. It seems as if the nation was headed for a collision on slavery for most of the first half of the 19th century. Slavery was the main issue of the Civil War, partly because all of the other issues were caused by divide of slavery. My opponent tries to counter this with the "cause of the cause of the..." argument. What he doesn't seem to understand is that slavery was the common thread, just like addiction to oil is the main thread to problems including Energy, Environment, and Economy. My opponent seems to assert that it is more like those Russian Babushka dolls that open and have a replica inside of it. | PRO | db36423f-2019-04-18T19:31:25Z-00000-000 |
Taxation is Theft. Like Pro's earlier case, this is bullsh!t. The bullsh!t comes in Pro's attempt to act like because taxation is like theft in one way (that it involves taking someone's "justly-owned property"), it must be like theft in another way (it must be immoral). After all, who wouldn't agree that theft is wrong? At the same time, most people don't really think of taxation as inherently evil. So, by their insisting on involving morality, as Pro has done, we can see what someone saying this (like Pro) is trying to do: to make people think of taxation, and by extension, the government, as inherently immoral. Of course, this isn't obvious, so Pro has to try to convince us by using special definitions. Not only do his definitions not reflect what most people try to communicate by these words, they also have 0 serious legal precedents. Why then should we use Pro's definitions, when they only exist to make us think taxation = theft? Why should we beg Pro's case for him? I can rephrase this challenge with Pro's special definitions: Prove that taking justly-owned property is immoral. Notice how this doesn't "sound right," which is exactly the point of Pro's system: he wants to make disagreement "sound wrong," instead of giving us a direct reason to oppose or condemn taxation. Pro's definitions in round 1 made more sense, because most people do think theft is wrong. But because they don't think taxation is evil, Pro must demonstrate that taxation is also evil. Pro has not done that, and he's only trying to make his ultimate point (that taxation is bad) by demanding special definitions no one has any reason to use. If Pro wants us to use his definitions, he should give an honest reason to think of taxation as badly as we generally think of theft. | CON | cb1050f1-2019-04-18T11:41:25Z-00006-000 |
Humans are responsible for global warming. "As for humans being the cause of the "rise" in carbon emissions, that is entirely false, due to the fact that as fast as we are putting CO2 into the atmosphere, trees and other plant based life are effectively weeding out the extra CO2 because they need it to survive, thus eliminating the excess waste." My argument to this is that with the rising CO2 emissions, and with that comes more industrialization. The industrialization creates deforestation, this creates a larger problem for human based CO2 emissions. Also there is a limited amount of fossil fuels and it is believed we are going to be at the point of no return, we need to start using greener more effective ways of energy before this occurs. Your second statement about growing ocean levels, though the land is not sinking the ocean rises. And for the reefs there is an abundance amount of scientific proof that agrees with my argument. The reefs die because of the rise in sea temperature making the algae in the reefs work too fast and it cannot repair itself, which emits the toxins that bleach coral reefs, this has a direct tie to global warming. Swamps do produce methane just as cows do, but as population grows, swamps tend to be drained and used for housing and are slowly leaving the picture as a problem for global warming. Importance of rainforrests for the earth (because of global warming): http://www.telegraph.co.uk... Deforestation rates: http://rain-tree.com... Limited fossil fuels: https://www.ecotricity.co.uk... Sea Levels rising: http://climate.nasa.gov... Reefs: http://news.nationalgeographic.com... Bleaching: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov... Swamps draining: http://wwf.panda.org... | PRO | 74fc08ec-2019-04-18T12:32:40Z-00000-000 |
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at a time. 1.) It is not possible to romantically love more than one person at the same time. 2.) I agree with your first premise because I believe that is the definition of what romantic love is. 3.) Monogamous relationships involve having only one spouse or significant other at once. Most religions and cultures accept this type of relationship. 4.) Being monogamous builds a strong trust between the two parties involved in the relationship. 5.) Because more than two people are involved in a polygamous relationship, the trust is now undermined by sharing that trust with a third party. 6.) Love should have a foundation of trust and openness between two people because by adding the factor of a third party, it destabilizes the relationship by introducing feelings of jealousy, danger, and betrayal. 7.) Therefore, it is only possible for an individual to be in love with one person at a time. Non-Controversial: Premises 1, 2, 3 and 4 are not debatable. Premise 1 is just a statement I am introducing. Premise 2 is an agreement that both parties share on what the definition of romantic love is. Premise 3 is my definition of monogamy. Premise 4 is a fact based the definition of monogamy that I'm defending and cannot be refuted. Controversial: Premises 5 and 6 are considered debatable. 5.) Although the trust can be undermined, it is still possible that it won't be. 6.) Feelings of jealousy and betrayal does occur when a monogamous relationship adds a third party at any capacity, but as long as the two original partners agree to accept the third person in the relationship, those feelings should concede. | CON | 872eee9b-2019-04-18T15:16:53Z-00006-000 |
Resolved: the action of protesting at funerals ought be prohibited. well actually if you didn't accept the challenge you would not taken part in the debate. no one would have gotten any points. no impact. And you accepted on the pro side of prohibiting the protests. you are for making them illegal, or outlawed or whatever the hell one might see prohibit to mean. Your argument was supporting my side of the resolution. | CON | f9137ce4-2019-04-18T19:08:42Z-00001-000 |
Gay Marriage. So, homosexuality is not natural, you can't say that because some penguins supposedly did stuff that it is natural. The truth is is that there is no genetic link to homosexuality, we know that it is developed over time, and that it causes mental instability. It is not natural, I would also like to state that the Hindu religion consists of the cast system, and it was where all this "the Aryan race" business came from. I think it is quite ridiculous to justify something because of what the Hindus believe, not to mention the fact that they are not as good parents. A natural mother, or natural father, naturally have oxytocin directed toward their children, gay people have none because it is not their child. Gay marriage is not marriage at all, it is a little different in the way that it is perverse. We all know what happened to Victor Frankenstein when HE violated natural law don't you? | CON | 63356721-2019-04-18T14:11:32Z-00004-000 |
If Pinocchio says, "My nose will grow now," then it will grow. This is my first debate on this website, so I decided to start with a troll debate until I gain enough experience to get into some of the bigger stuff (I also need three debates if I want to be able to vote, sigh). Round 1 will be for acceptance only. Rules: 1 - Pinocchio is a fictional character and the main protagonist of the children's novel The Adventures of Pinocchio (1883) 2 - When Pinocchio tells a lie, his nose grows. My position (pro) is that when Pinocchio says his nose will grow, it grows. Your position (con) is that when Pinocchio says his nose will grow, it doesn't. | PRO | 3c7f6b21-2019-04-18T16:01:46Z-00005-000 |
Granting Foreign Workers Suffrage would Protect Them from Human Exploitation. Because foreign workers don’t have a voice in the society, this makes them vulnerable to abuse. Offering foreign workers a “voice” in the society in which they live legitimizes their place within it, and makes them part of it. This gives a healthy outlet for foreign workers or even their children to express their opinions and participate as local citizens without posing any threat to national sovereignty. Such participation is empowering and will encourage people to be proactive in knowing their rights as workers. “Migrant workers are some of the most vulnerable groups in any society, especially those whose status is irregular. Documented, undocumented, in a weak bargaining position or in otherwise is dirty, dangerous or degrading employ…” says Lindsey Couronne, director of Amnesty International, Mauritius.[[http://www.howto.co.uk/abroad/living-in-paris/finding_employment_2/]] Giving the foreign workers a voting right acknowledges their position as members of a community, and their rights as humans. In affording them status and legitimacy, it also sends a message to those who would exploit their vulnerability. Article 22 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states that: “Everyone, as a member of society…is entitled to realization through national effort and international cooperation in accordance with the organization and resources of each state, of the economic, social, and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. Foreign workers are inherently vulnerable to exploitation “…Many live and work in conditions described as akin to "modern slavery", apart from facing discrimination, the denial of labour rights and even violence...”[[http://allafrica.com/stories/201007020682.html]] Regardless of their rights under the law, socio-political marginalization often leaves them in a position with no power. Is it surprising that so many are unwilling to come forward and accuse their employers | PRO | aa33af9f-2019-04-19T12:45:08Z-00014-000 |
Quality of headline news. It is where it happens that matters rather than what happens. Reflecting on a global scale, the Rwandan genocide occurred with absolutely no coverage in the Western countries. This genocide occurred over the span of 100 days and 70% of the Tutsi were eliminated. It is estimated that up to one million people lost their lives during this genocide. The United States government was aware of the preexisting conflict that was happening in this area (power struggle between ethnicities), yet fear of interfering kept them from stopping a mass genocide. The Israeli government was confirmed to have sold firearms throughout the conflict to the Rwandan government, but refused to release any documents saying so. Western countries did not even hear a whisper of what was happening until reporters began to tell their personal experiences after the genocide had occurred. Reporters had the information and were not allowed to fly back home until the conflict had settled and was safe enough to leave; even with making phone calls and connections back home, there was no media coverage or attention brought by the United States government. When you turn on the television and listen to the news, you are mainly going to hear what is happening locally (within the country) rather than news on an international scale. Even so, when global news is being broadcast, it only focuses attention on the violence in other countries, feeding into the idea that Western countries are better than any other. When people hear of international conflict, they are selfish in the sense that they feel bad for a split second and then change the channel, or it creates a great conversation piece at the next dinner party. There are numerous events that occur every single day outside of North America that are extremely serious and news-worthy, yet remain clear from the media. The question really boils down to, do people really care what happens outside of the Western world? If so, it the sympathy genuine, or is it just moral conformity? | PRO | b764b8da-2019-04-18T13:25:28Z-00003-000 |
The Bible is morally wrong. Hello, I am new to Debate. org and I would like to debate in favor of the motion that the bible is morally wrong and that it shouldn't be, as some people say, "a guide on how to live". I will demonstrate that the bible is morally flawed, and anyone who follows it completely would not be deemed moral by the majority of the population. In this debate morality includes the principles of freedom, equality, fairness, the right to live and opposes killing and other issues that directly oppose this principles. | PRO | 82e2fa8-2019-04-18T17:25:51Z-00003-000 |
Legitimizing assassination cheapens the value of life. By assuming the power to take life arbitrarily, even in an apparently good cause, we cheapen the value of life itself. Many terrorists, criminals, or indeed dictators could and have claimed similar legitimacy for their violent actions. Only if we ourselves respect human rights absolutely, will our promotion of these values seem valid to others. States that use assassination as a political weapon will soon find that others seek to turn it against them. | PRO | 1378c40-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00086-000 |
It's time for English-Americans to assert their ethnic identity. Ladies and Gentlemen, today on Side Opposition I stand for the empowerment of English Americans, I stand for the voice of the minority being heard, and I stand for a true and equal America through recognition and celebration of ethnic English background. Asserting their Ethnic Identity through the ways prescribed by Pro, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the worst possible way of achieving what side Opposition stands for. If anyone here is familiar with Special Interest Groups they will understand my concern. Forming an organization like pro has suggested, with but one purpose of ethnic empowerment has worked in the past as seen with the Civil Rights movement, but cannot work today for two reasons. An ethnic special interest group is doomed for failure. No grassroot organization can have any sort of influence on a society such as America, they can hold their meetings all they want but they will not be able to compete with enourmous Corporations and other powerful organizations like The National Italian American Association. If they decide to form a representative body to lobby the Government for a change in policy that supports English American ideals, they will first have to overcome every other Special Interest Group. This is impossible as many Corporations have a stranglehold on Congress with their tactical Special Interest Groups-if a pro English SIG wants to force the government to ban corporate ads from mocking English Americans, they will have to fight the proffesional Corprate Lobbyists who have Billions of Dollars to stop actions like the one I just described. Then there is the issue that a representative body of English Americans will not be succsessful in out lobbying all the other representative bodies of Racial Minorities. The Italian-Americans and Nigerian-Americans own the scene when it comes to changing gov policy to support their ethinic groups, and both are immensley powerfull groups. And English-Amercian Representative body will have sour luck trying to get their method out if they adopt said methods. So what do we do then? Simple, they should follow the example of Latvian Americans and take direct action in Policy Change. That means the English-American community ought to pool its money together, open a posh private school, and nurture their children to become the future Senetors and Presidents. Problem solved. I beg, to Oppose | CON | 1b556ae0-2019-04-18T18:23:00Z-00002-000 |
God. Hi Lance, I figured this would be a fun first debate as I'm new here. You probably started this debate as a joke but I think there is some ironic insight into your statement. Buddhist philosophy and the idea of "enlightenment" suggests that you (and I) are God, we just haven't realized it yet. Realizing that you are God is enlightenment. The problem arises when you try to lock down what you mean by "I". That's where things get tricky and can slip down the slope of solipsism and megalomania. Because you started by saying "I am Lance", I'm going to assume that by "I", you mean the individual personality - the memories, brain activity, preferences, and psychological traits that collectively make the story of you. If that assumption is correct, then I challenge your assertion that "you" are God. Let's assume that God is infinite and timeless. Your personality (or your "story") is not infinite nor timeless. It has an end. When you die and your brain activity stops, "Lance" is no more. The memories are no more. YOU are no more. Lance becomes nothing more than a memory in the minds of those Lance leaves behind. So, Lance cannot be God because Lance will one day come to an end. Let's assume that, if God is infinite and timeless, God doesn't change. After all, change requires time. Without time, there is no change. But "Lance" has changed a great deal since he was born. He has learned, he has grown, his personal preferences have evolved, and that change will continue until "Lance" dies. Since that personality that you identify as "Lance" changes over time, he can't be God. God is timeless, God doesn't change. Now, if you were to become enlightened, in the Buddhist or Zen sense of the word, then that, too, would kill Lance. Your body would still exist. Your mind would still work but your identity would transform dramatically and the personality would dissolve. After enlightenment, the word "I" would have a very different meaning. I'm in no position to explain what that meaning would be... but based on the countless books I've read on this topic, you would no longer identify as a personality. You would identify as the consciousness that observes the personality. You would identify as as an instance of awareness that is shared among all living things. If you were an enlightened being, I wouldn't attempt to argue with you if you claimed to be God. However, you're not an enlightened being. You're Lance - a personality. Therefore, you are not God. You are just a confused mish-mash of brain activity that can self-reflect, witnessed by an all-encompassing awareness we call "consciousness", just like the rest of us. | CON | a782d5ad-2019-04-18T11:24:11Z-00000-000 |
Democrats do not Have What it Takes to Halt Terrorism. Recently it has become the United State's main interest to bring a halt to terrorism at its worst. While terrorism has been a threat to US for many years liberals in office have time and time again cast a blind eye towards Al- Queada, the Taliban, and Islamo-fascism all together. As the strongest nation in the world can we allow another Liberal to take office in the 2008 election? This may appear to be rhetoric, but history reveals the truth. Liberals can NOT handle the task of halting terrorism. | PRO | 8828b7c9-2019-04-18T19:58:05Z-00005-000 |
A conclusion to the art of communication. To clarify monotone abuse. Now, this is not to be tone deaf as many are. This is to fall behind an apathetic tone in one's voice. I have even heard David Attenborough doing this when he speaks within scientific intricate jargon. So if wisdom is to have the ability to have a structured conversation with the village idiot and accepting that tomorrow it's my turn to be the village idiot. Explaining complexities in the simplest manner is just like nuts and bolts. The hardest part is knowing how to put it all back together. What would you say to that? If you read or even listen to audio books how well can you read a none or fictional storybook for your own children as to make it as genuinely real as possible? As to in capture there minds within the actual moment of the adventure. This ability is just like an artist within a picture or a musician's to harmonise. Just as our own language is if broken down is explanatory as an example assume, to assume makes an a#s (of) u (and) me. Sometimes I believe that the structural evolution of language was created as to harmonise and many people as the likes of scientists are missing or abuse its true nature and hide behind monotones. But a salesman does the opposite and utilise within a harmonic natural speech pattern as to make the sale. To much honey in my tummy makes me feel funny. Would you trust a salesman selling snake oil that speaks with a forked tongue? For this is what I see within many scientists as the limb that they choose to go out upon weakens and almost at a breaking point change there own tune in their voice pattern and a tone that wasn't there now is. As to blow smoke up one a#s. I also believe that to be apathetic is also within this same spectrum within one's own individual cognitive drives mindset and I fell that this is the cause and effect of why many scientists chose to lean towards atheism. As I hear it in there own descriptive failures within the harmonics of expression. As to Emphasize. Emphasis. Empathy within expression. is it deliberate or unintentional or as to be unaware of one's own self as the well-balanced individual would be aware of this. Is something just missing or not; passion, frustration and anger. Where is apathetic? Hiding behind the anger and frustration for passion within expression, falls away real fast doesn't it? | PRO | 83df1aa8-2019-04-18T11:35:04Z-00007-000 |
should prisoners be able to get a job after prison. I apologized for my forfeit, I coincidentally had legal issues to deal with. You were given the chance to further prove your point and didn't so I will state the obvious. Newly released prisoners are released. They have decided to change their life for the better. However after searching for an honest job that will hire them, they see that society has given up on them and prevented them from simply getting a basic job to support themselves and their family. They see no other alternative as to go back to crime to make a living, as they need to survive. Preventing convicts from attaining jobs causes more problems than then positive things. No discussion | PRO | dea181d2-2019-04-18T15:28:37Z-00000-000 |
It's time to bring back the pillory. In times gone by, perpetrators of petty crimes, from all walks of life, were pilloried in public [1,2]. This involved the offender being restrained, often in prominently situated wooden stocks, and the public were invited to heap scorn and derision upon them. In addition, members of the public were also invited to pelt the incarcerated criminal with dog faeces and rotten food. I propose this form of punishment should be restored for petty crimes, such as comon assault, but also that the pillory should fit the crime. So, for example, if a man is convicted of an assault that was aggravated by homophobia, he should be put in the stocks dressed in a tutu, ballet shoes, fairy wings and a tiara with signs reading "I'M A SCREAMING HOMO"; "CAUTION: I'VE GOT AIDS" and "COME AND GET ME HORNY BIG BOYS" hung around him. If the assault was racially-aggravated, for example against a person of Hispanic descent, the offender should be put in the stocks wearing a poncho and sombrero with a sign reading "I'M A FILTHY, CASTANET-PLAYING, FLAMENCO-DANCING GREASER" hung around him. In cases where the victim of the assault suffered life-changing injuries, instead of being placed in the stocks, the offender should be put into a straight-jacket and pushed around town strapped into a wheelchair with a sign reading "I'M A TOTAL SPAZ" and "I'M SUCH A CRIPPLE MY MUM HAS TO WIPE MY ARSE" hung around him. This humiliating punishment would b e a far more effective deterrent than a fine, especially for rich offenders, and would also save taxpayers the cost of imprisonment in some of the more serious cases and that's why I duly assert that the perpetrators of minor assaults should pilloried and that this public punishment should fit the crime. Thank you. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.medievality.com... | PRO | cb6b60b1-2019-04-18T16:23:08Z-00003-000 |
Liberals and Multiculturists are hypocrital anti-white racists. liberal- is a political ideology or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality...[1]liberals emphsize principles of liberty and reject the ideals of racism. Holding another human being to being nothing but equal to another is not liberal platform........as you see when you look at my sorce it does not support racism...[2]Mlticultural-2. the policy of maintaining a diversity of ethnic cultures Ethnic diversity does not support racism. http://www.debate.org... | CON | 2708c2f2-2019-04-18T18:18:49Z-00002-000 |
The donor of an organ, or his family, will stand to benefit considerably from the sale. Even the mos... The donor of an organ, or his family, will stand to benefit considerably from the sale. Even the most impoverished individual will not choose to donate their heart or lung and thus die. Neither would a surgeon be prepared to conduct such an operation. Yet, both a kidney and a piece of liver can be removed without significant detriment. It is patronising to consider that the individual cannot make a reasoned decision to donate or sell these organs. The family of a relative recently deceased ought also to be able to choose to save the life of another and simultaneously receive some remuneration. | PRO | 9d12e57-2019-04-19T12:44:26Z-00008-000 |
Beauty Pageants. With all that being said, it is true. Some girls could undergo issues like that. However, studies have shown pageants make girls feel good about themselves. The majority of them go into the pageants because they love the self confidence level boost it provides them. Granted, the girls should feel confident with or without make up but if that's what it takes for them to be confident then so be it. Pageants could also be a game changer. Girls could go in their feeling awful about themselves and then get on stage and realize all of the phenomenal qualities they do have. | PRO | 1e4449ce-2019-04-18T17:00:46Z-00002-000 |
The Argument from Motion proves that God exists. "your original argument can not be valid in it's current format either, which is why I have been trying to alter it." Here you are conflating validity and soundness. validity refers to the syllogistic structure of an argument while soundness refers to the truth value of the premises. You are attacking, in your rebuttal, the soundness of my premises, not the structure of the argument. "Please note that I am using this quote only as a possible example we could use in place of the placeholder that F is currently holding. So, F has to potentially describe something that could exist in the real world, or else it is a meaningless variable. I am going to assume that temperature is a worthwhile stand in for one of the many things that F could represent. We will use the arbitrary temperature 600 degrees C. Your premise would then become: "P2. If something is moved to being 600 degrees C, then it is potentially but not actually 600 degrees C." I believe that using this concrete example is the best way to demonstrate why the language used for these arguments do not illustrate any sort of logical thinking, even if they may hint at a logical intention. If something is moved to being anything at all; it is, by definition, the thing that it has been moved to being. If you do not intend to express that meaning with your argument, then you need to change the wording of your argument, because it is currently false." This is a misunderstanding of the distinction between act and potency (or potentiality) as it is used in the argument. If something is moved to being F, then it existed in a state of potency related to F. It's becoming F means that it is in act, or is actually F. What you express as P2 in your paragraph is a tautology, as anything moved to being F is of course F; however, P2 is not like that. P2 expresses the proposition that anything that is being moved or changed contains within it the potentiality for change or motion. This is not a tautology. It is a synthetic a priori analysis of what it means to be in motion. " In what way would this mover be in a state that is relevant to F? Relevant how? Does the state of the mover have some deeper significance to the thing in F?" Relevant here simply means relatedness of the sort that pertains to the matter at hand. So when I say: P3. If something moves a thing to be F, then it (the mover) is in a state of actuality relevant to F. What I mean to say is that if something moves a thing to be F, the the mover is in a state of actuality in a sense that is related to a thing's becoming F. | PRO | 2e7d0d15-2019-04-18T13:10:22Z-00000-000 |
who is better joe liebermen or bernie sanders. How does running for president without taking money from wall street make you a good person automatically? There were 8 elections in the US before wall street was even founded so were all of those candidates good people? Again you praise him for being an independant but that does not make him a good person. His policy and his decisions are what make him either a good or bad politician. I hope you realize how much of a disaster affordable housing is and how bad it has been for our inner cities. Again, the facts are still not out as to whether it was good or not to enter there. We do not know and can not know what would have happened had we decided to stay out. I believe that you are referring to affirmative action here, but that is just a guess, and then you mention that minorities are not treated equal to whites no matter how hard they work. And I sit here wondering is that really true. Do minorities have less rights than any other american citizen? No. Do they have societal disadvantages that are seen in no other race? No. Do they get an average of 250 extra points on their SAT out of 1600? Yes they do. How is that fair? (https://www.princeton.edu...) Bernie sanders is also against guns and the "F" rating on the issue is from the NRA who is one of the pro gun lobbying groups, so to say he has an F rating would be good if that is something that you support. Now I am not saying that I support all of his policies, I do not believe that any one person perfectly represents anyone else because we are all free thinking human beings but he is for sure better than Bernie Sanders. | CON | 97ed8576-2019-04-18T12:41:30Z-00001-000 |
The government is better placed to consider longer term implications than companies that are legally required to maximize profit. Energy efficiency is an important part of any plan not only for its environmental benefits but also because of its impact on the balance sheet. This reality is being discovered not only by individuals and SMEs but by global corporations who are, increasingly building into their corporate strategy[i]. While it may be true that energy companies want everyone to use more energy for most companies the opposite is true. The market ensures that companies want to cut their costs and so reduce energy consumption. At the same time companies know that consumers too want to reduce their energy consumption so as to cut costs so make their products as energy efficient as possible It is, in fact, the best example of real change taking place because it has a market benefit. Government activity by contrast has mostly revolved around meaningless and largely unmet targets. Environmental concerns may be seen as a fringe issue by politicians but there is nothing fringe in the issue of reducing costs within the business community. As a result the market is far more incentivized to address this issue than recalcitrant politicians reluctant to admit that people really do have to give up their cars, insulate their houses and reduce their consumption. It’s a good example of the market beating regulation hands down. [i] Economist Intelligence Unit. “Unlocking the Benefits of Energy Efficiency: An Executive Dilemma”. | CON | 3aa2ad07-2019-04-15T20:22:23Z-00010-000 |
Catholicism or Protestantism? (Pro-Protestant, Con-Catholic). I would like to express my gratitude to Con for an informed and civil debate so far. I hope that this will continue until the end. I will now state by counterarguments. 1. Viewpoints on sin It is true that Protestants don't see all sins as equal. However, all sins' cost is death. "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:23). Homosexuality results in same penalty as lying, disobeying, or being afraid. However, Christians can earn eternal life not because their sin is not great, but only because of Jesus' death. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith: and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9). One might say that people who commit "lesser" sins may judge the people who commit greater sins, or that someone who commit greater sins might think that he does not deserve eternal life. However, Bible clearly says that Christians must not judge others."Do not judge, or you too will be judged" (Matthew 7:1). Therefore, true Christians will never look down upon others, no matter what sins they committed. Of course, matter of "pious homosexual" is a different topic and I will not mention it in this argument. 2. Viewpoints on Worship It is true that we must worship God every day. However, going to church is one way of worshiping him. Protestants worship God in our daily lives, as it is written in Psalms 15. "Those who lead blameless lives and do what is right, speaking the truth from sincere hearts" (Psalms 15:2). It explains who can worship God in His sacred tent. If we apply this verse to our lives, we can clearly see that we can and should worship God in our daily lives. 3. Viewpoints on Marriage Many Protestant denominations discourages and bans divorces. For example, Baptist church strongly opposes divorce. There are some churches that recognize divorce (though not accepting remarriage), which is similar to Catholic practices. In case of adultery, however, divorce is allowed. "But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery" (Matthew 5:32). I, being a devout Protestant, believe that Protestants follow the Bible more accurately. I am eagerly awaiting your opinion on the matter. This has so far been a debate with much civility as one can hope for. I would like to say that I am thoroughly enjoying this debate. I can hardly wait for your next argument. Thank you. Sources: New International Version Bible Book of Matthew Book of Ephesians Book of Psalms Book of Romans http://www.thehighcalling.org... http://www.religioustolerance.org... | PRO | ab65e8ee-2019-04-18T14:32:31Z-00002-000 |
Patriotism (Nationalism) is a great thing. Sure, here's a breakdown of a) what prisoner's dilemma is, and b) how it applies. Imagine two prisoners being kept in separate cells, being interrogated by the police. At the moment, the police have what they need to put these two away on lesser charges, but they want evidence to put them away for the more serious charge. So the officers offer the prisoners this deal: If you talk, and your partner doesn't, you go off for free, and he'll get 3 years. And same if he talks but you don't. If you both talk, you'll both get 2 years. And if you both don't talk, you both get 1 year. Now logically, these prisoners will both talk. Because that yields the better outcome. Paradoxically they would have been better off if they both stayed silent. Now Patriotism changes things a little. With all things being equal, Bob and John WOULD betray each other and both talk. But if they were both members of the same fraternity ... or members of the same Nation, the bond of trust makes it possible for both people to cooperate. What patriotism does is it changes the "payoff" of selling out your partner to "going off free" AND "guilt at betraying your countrymen". The greater the level of patriotism, the more trusting countrymen are of each other and engage in cooperative ventures they would not go on with strangers. Collective action is a little different, though in many ways a derivative of Prisoner's Dilemma. Here, we have a large number of players. If all players "contribute", the society functions well. If one player cops out, the society will still function well. However, if too many players cop out, then the society falls apart. An example of a Collective Action scenario in the real world is taxation. We might have the IRS, but with hundreds of millions of Americans, they depend heavily on Americans being at least somewhat truthful with their income tax filing. Now Americans know that taxes are important, to pay to the government. They also know that if they cheat a little they won't get caught. But if too many Americans cheat, then America'll be in trouble. With high levels of patriotism, people won't cheat. The society becomes more efficient and we would need the IRS less. Unlike before the era of patriotism where the government had to spend army on a military JUST to ensure the steady flow of taxation, in states with high levels of patriotism, such is unnecessary and money could therefore be spent more on social services. | PRO | 579dd818-2019-04-18T19:47:23Z-00002-000 |
Media should stop showing vulgarity. Yes parents can have a check on their children. What if even in cartoons these TV channels are showing inappropriate scenes. we can forbid our children from watching some TV channels but not all. Even on this small restriction a number of questions arise in their mind that why are we stopped from watching it? Why? And if it is a bad thing than why is media showing it. as all t.v channels are there on are antennas to be watched then whats the problem with our elders that they are making limitations on us. and as my worthy opponent is talking about the freedom right then there is also a right of every individual to live in a peaceful environment and if one evil factor is ruining a society's peace then there should not be any objections if somebody is raising his/her voice against it. | PRO | 6156fdfb-2019-04-18T14:57:20Z-00003-000 |
Death Penalty. We reserve the death penalty in the United States for the most heinous murders and the most brutal and conscienceless murderers. This is not, as some critics argue, a kind of state-run lottery that randomly chooses an unlucky few for the ultimate penalty from among all those convicted of murder. Rather, the capital punishment system is a filter that selects the worst of the worst... Put another way, to sentence killers like those described above to less than death would fail to do justice because the penalty " presumably a long period in prison " would be grossly disproportionate to the heinousness of the crime. Prosecutors, jurors, and the loved ones of murder victims understand this essential point... Perhaps most importantly, in its supreme gravity it [the death penalty] promotes belief in and respect for the majesty of the moral order and for the system of human law that both derives from and supports that moral order. | PRO | ed87cbaf-2019-04-18T12:14:52Z-00003-000 |
Does heavy/angry music contribute to or prevent suicide? (Pro=Prevents, Con=Contributes). I didn't expect it to end quickly either.I disagreed more with the premise behind the debate than the pro/con I had to argue against/for. I don't see this as a black/white contributing factor to suicide. Unless something is chemically wrong in the brain or there is substance abuse leading to suicide, I see environmental factors playing a much larger role in the depression than musical taste. Music forms an emotional connection on some level based upon experiences. That's why every break-up song ever written was written just for us when we go through a break-up. Likewise, every song of hope applies when we go through joyous events. The music preference reflects our experiences; instead of preventing or contributing to them. There may be a certain amount of circular re-inforcement over time, but I don't see that as a primary contributor. I didn't have that option to debate it that way.I had no idea how I was supposed to come up with three more rounds of "music didn't help your friend" even though you were there and you said it did. Kind of nowhere else for me to go with it. | CON | e7705357-2019-04-18T13:52:29Z-00004-000 |
Is the United States a democracy. The resolution is "Is the United States a Democracy" I have shown that it is a democracy. Just because it is two things does not mean I loose the debate. I win because you have conceded that it is a democracy and a Republic, but all i had to show is that it is a democracy. THe resolution is NOT "Is the United States only a democracy" I have won because i have shown it is a democracy. You were con on the grounds that it is not, and you conceded that it is a democracy and a republic. I win,and i fail to see your logic on how you win. | PRO | 4e0f4b45-2019-04-18T16:12:53Z-00000-000 |
The survival of the Post Office is more in the interest of private companies than the general public. While only a small proportion of mail is personal correspondence the service that Royal Mail provides cannot be seen as merely a wasteful, taxpayer-subsidised, business-orientated enterprise. The universal service which guarentees delivery to every address in the UK across six days a week, some 36 million delivery points, sets it apart from potential competitors and means that serving public interest is still a primary function of the company. Though investment and revenue are serious concerns and Royal Mail is ever more reliant on commercial business partners for financial security, this is a problem which will burden whoever takes over. | CON | 2931ade0-2019-04-19T12:46:54Z-00007-000 |
The use of sweatshops to produce goods is an acceptable practice. The use of sweatshops is a good economic practice, but it's a terrible moral one and shouldn't be used because of it. You're argument is that because the standard of living in developing countries is much lower then in the U.S., it's okay to do to them what would be pure exploitation and slave labor to someone here. It's not. Just because someone was born into a circumstance doesn't mean that they have to, or deserve to stay in that circumstance. The fact is, American companies can afford to give these people more. Dollars go a long way in poor countries, and just by paying them our minimum wage- I think the lowest in this country is about $4- it would improve their lives tremendously. Sure, corporations would lose some profits, but paying workers more, and treating them fairly, wouldn't put them in the red. And no one in these companies, or of U.S. consumers would be happy with the life a sweatshop worker, so what right to we have to impose that life on other people when we have the means to improve it? And as for consumers and retailers, most of them know that this is going on and make no effort to stop it, so they are supporting those who are exploiting these people. If I saw my neighbor's house getting robbed and didn't call 911, I'd still be to blame because I did nothing when I knew what was happening and had the opportunity to stop it. | CON | 5d639c51-2019-04-18T19:52:33Z-00003-000 |
In a battle, cthulhu would defeat Jesus Christ. For clarification, Jesus and cthulhu are at their height of ability that has been depicted(yes cthulhu is awake), and they are both alone. c1-cthulhu has more destructive power than Jesus One major example is his psychic powers, even the ability to control his minions and people. Jesus has never proven to be able to do this. In fact all Jesus has only been able to resurrect himself, other people and heal. He's basically a battlefield medic, not a fighter. He cannot win. c2-Jesus will be killed easily The only depiction of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, is from the bible. In the bible, Jesus never performs a powerful feat. (say, using pysichic powers to kill your enemy) And all the love Jesus preaches wouldn't help him against the merciless cthulhu. For this debate we are also to assume that Jesus is to be considered an old one. And according to the necronamican, the only way to kill an old one is another old one, therefore, Jesus cannot resurrect. c3- Cthulhu has a more able body than Jesus Cthulhu is seems to be approximately somewhere between 50-100 feet tall, while Jesus stands at about 5'6-6'2. And because of his lifestyle, is not very strong. Cthulhu also has wings to be able to fly, claws to destroy Jesus despite his powers, and many other physical features to best Jesus. http://en.wikipedia.org... | PRO | ffdb62b3-2019-04-18T18:48:03Z-00003-000 |
Anthony Elonis Should be found in Violation of the 1st Amendment. My opponent makes an invalid claim that in order to find Elonis in violation of the 1st amendment he must be a member of congress. He has appealed his case where he was convicted of threatening a federal agent and his wife. The supreme court ruling has not been declared so, we are debating whether or not it should be in favor of the previous ruling (in violation of the first), or whether the law should use subjective intent and over rule the previous verdict (this ruling would indicate he is Not in violation of the first and therefore his sentence previously was wrong). The negative opponent has failed to create any arguments against my case and if he intends not to then he forfeits the round and looses automatically, pease extend all of my arguments, they still apply to this speech and any other that will be made during the remainder of this session. Back to you Neg... | PRO | 31c15ed2-2019-04-18T15:26:57Z-00001-000 |