argument
stringlengths 201
3.55k
| stance
stringclasses 2
values | id
stringlengths 36
39
|
|---|---|---|
It widens the gap between the haves & have-nots and keeps the disadvantaged where they are - servants to those who have made it. In the UK today - working parents have no time or energy to come home - after trying to keep their jobs - and then drive and cajole their kids into trying to study hard, practise like mental athletes in order to make it. They are too tired and too poor to afford tutions. And unlike rich parents where invariably one of the parents can afford to be at home in order to "take up their kid's studies" and pressure their kids into getting thru these heavily competetive exams - the poor ones who probably come home @ 8pm by the time they have managed to meals on the tables even though they could have talented children in their midst - invariably are forced to settle for comprehensives. Thus, the people who really really get thru are the rich kids - who really talent-wise are probably there because of the coaching classes they went to while the poorer kid lost out to a place not because he was not talented but because he did not have access to tutions. If the Labour and Conservatives were not lazy and took responsibility to raise the standards of the comprehensives and help parents to find time along with their employers - so that they can tutor their kids. The rich - poor kid gap would narrow and the purpose of comprehensive schools for equal eduacation for all would be upheld. | PRO | f25712d3-2019-04-19T12:46:01Z-00024-000 |
Rap Battle Tourney SemiFinals. Oh, what an incredible previous round We can see my opponent has no bounds He has mentioned such detail with X-treme focus He does not trail off like my hocus-pocus Why, my opponent is better than a sniper Shootin' down enemies, swift like the Dnieper He manages to crush giants as easily as he breathes Move entire continents with just a little sneeze I simply cannot compare to him, he's the real rappin' king Standin' up to him I'm like a little meal, I look like nothing He shreds me, eats me up like I'm a paper in a shredder If he was cheese nobody could eat him, he simply got too much cheddar He's too amazin' with his glowin' orbs of eyes They dazzle brighter than those stars in the skies This battle is already set, he won before this even started His objectives have been easily met; I got trumped an' outsmarted | CON | 3a9ebb65-2019-04-18T15:45:39Z-00002-000 |
life being nature, there is no, before life. God, what it must be like in his head. Honestly if mind reading were possible, reading his would be illegal. They would probably legalize weed first.Firstly, Pro can't prove religion is false. Thus that means nothing. Also Pro never offered any real impact from that statement. Next his says he can't exist without nature. That doesn't matter. Because the resolution seems to imply that nature requires life, not the other way around.Also, lets look at that whole "without nature life can't exist, nature is life". A leads to B, therefore A is B without rational logic. The Sun allows for Plants. Thus the Sun is a Plant. I wonder if it tastes good.Pro believes he can somehow twist (to put it lightly) some part of my statements against me. I didn't say he must prove life exists. I said he must prove his definition is right. But the voters can easily see that Pro has performed a strawmanAnd Pro ends with a question that means literally nothing to the course of this discussion. Presumably it's a strawman as well.Hey, has anyone else thought that Vi Spex is a mutated Spam Bot? It would explain the discussions he has.Anyhow, things happened, a fellow coworker took some food out, and didn't check it, and shipped it. Well.. to get to the point.. The Boss's Wife got a semi raw Lemon Basil Tilapia. I took the fall. Son of a b*tch. Yeah he was pissed. Well after a short discussion, I've opted to accept a job offer elsewhere, and put in my two weeks at my place. I can do my job d@mn well, I don't need someone treating me like cr@p. Well I'ma head off.As Always, vote ConSources: America Fvck Yeah! | CON | e413bda7-2019-04-18T14:57:56Z-00002-000 |
War in Iraq became a battle front in War on Terror. The War in Iraq quickly became a battle front in the War on Terror, even if it originally was not intended to be one. It drew Al Qaeda terrorists in from the surrounding region, and created an opportunity for the US to kill or capture them. In addition, the intelligence gathered through interrogations of captured terrorists in Iraq proved valuable in the broader regional and global War on Terror. | PRO | 40e9a292-2019-04-17T11:47:22Z-00012-000 |
Science v. Politics. Scientific method has proved invaluable to humanity during its climb from the dark ages to the height of digital evolution. The time has come now for Science to further serve humanity as we face crisis on multiple fronts. Politics presents no answers. I will contend as con that Political system is obsolete and no longer adequate to serve 21st century needs. Pro will take the counter position, that our democratic systems of government is still the best system of government we can have. | CON | e7e4162d-2019-04-18T16:26:38Z-00005-000 |
Homework Should be Banned, or at Least Made Optional. Thank you for your welcome, and also your clarification, but I do know what utilitarianism and active & passive mean. While homework does have its benefits, which you mentioned, such as improving student's grades, scores, and futures, the cons of homework far outweigh them. Homework can clarify the subject, but if the concepts have not been learned once class is over, the homework becomes pointless. School is, and kids lives in general are, already immensely stressful without homework. Clear relationships between student's stress and ailments (physical and mental) have been found . I am again going to emphasise that homework should be limited. Though you make an excellent point about time restrictions, many teachers assign time-consuming homework that no one could complete quickly, no matter how intelligent they are or how well they understand the concept. If homework were to be limited to a few nights a week, this would open up more time for kids to be kids. I cannot speak for everyone when I say this, but at my school, we have at least four hours of homework total. Per night. Add in school, extracurriculars, meals, and sleep, and that leaves little to no time for freetime. No matter how well you manage your time, there will always be something that does not fit. If you were to try to squeeze in some freetime, you would most likely end up giving up some sleep, which would impair your performance at school the next day. As most kids enjoy having freetime, this is often the case. Therefore, I must say that, though homework is intended for a good cause (that is, improving ability), the ideals commonly get lost in the stress that balancing the different aspects of your life, and homework becomes more of a burden than a helper. You mentioned that homework benefits teachers, but I would have to differ. Homework does show teachers whether the material is clear or not, but it creates extra work for them (as well as the students). Now they not only have mountains of classwork, tests, and projects to grade, they have to grade daily homework as well. This is more evidence why even just limiting the amounts of homework would be beneficial. As for benefiting the nation, you yourself mentioned that the issue we have does not lie within homework, but rather within emphasis on athleticism. In that way, homework is unrelated, and not the fix for the issue: stronger emphasis on education through something such as more personalised learning is. | PRO | 503cf2fa-2019-04-18T16:18:09Z-00002-000 |
abortion should be legal in every state. After analysing my oppenent's point of view i realised that he looked at this matter from one angle.That is ,abortion because of medical reasons,i cant say to you that the correct thing to do in a situation like that is to save the baby and leave the mother to die because the mother may have a husband who loves her and have already attached to her,so in a situation like this where it is strictly for medical purposes and abortion seems to be the only way to save the motherls life then i agree that it should be allowed. On the other hand abortion to prevent shame and other troubles that would come with teenage pregnancy,in some cases pregnacy outside of marriage and even pregnacy where the wife has been unfaithful and is now having a baby for her partner outside of marriage should be illegal altogether. If abortion is legallised without boundaries then this will just be an easy way out for women to become sexually active even more than before and not have to worry about giving birth. Some people would even ask the question 'what if a woman was raped and is now expecting?' and i say to that question even if rape is the case abortion should not be the victim's only alternative because arrangements can be made for the baby to be adopted at birth . Saying that the baby would serve as an emotional reminder of what happened in the past is not the way out ,although i sympathise with victims of rape who have conceived babies for their attacker i say to you please keep in mind that there are happy couples out there who have tried for years to get pregnant but simply cant because on infertility so for you to have that ability to bring a precious soul into this world and give it up is saddening. I close by saying that abortion strictly for medical purposes is not wrong and if anyform of abortion is to be allowed then this should be it but abortion for self purposes other than health is disgraceful .Think of what that child could have become in the future , think of if you were aboerted. | CON | a21797ac-2019-04-18T17:09:29Z-00001-000 |
should Christopher Eccleston reprise his role as the ninth doctor one more time on doctor who. No matter how good he was, there is one thing that should stop Christopher Eccleston from returning- He doesn't want to. Believe me, I want him, John Hurt, Paul McGann, Sylvester McCoy, Colin Baker, Peter Davison, and Tom Baker to be in the next multi-Doctor special as much as anyone, but it would be wrong for the crew to pressure him into doing something he doesn't want to do. | CON | a2089394-2019-04-18T16:46:21Z-00004-000 |
Is communism a good idealogy for a society. My opponents opening argument demonstrates a clear misunderstanding as to what communism is- communism is a political and economic system in which all property is owned by the state, the state controls the means of production, and individuals are prohibited from buying and selling freely. So, enable for my opponent to prove what he claimed in Round 1, he must prove that the Government taking control of the education system would make it better, that by the State usurping the health care system, it would make health care system more efficient and capable of accommodating more people, and that removing the profit incentive for picking a career would be a good thing. On the contrary, it has been suffiuciently demonstrated by the operation of Military Hospitals and the failure of Obamacare that a Government ran health care system is less efficient and is capable of accomidating less people than a free market healthcare system. | CON | a463477-2019-04-18T12:21:09Z-00000-000 |
Atheistic Military Men are Proud Brave Fools if not obedient cowardlly fools, and they can be mean. Again, kudos to my opponent for a honorable, reasonable, respectful and civil debate. First, I want to point out that my illustration of a proud, brave, enemy combatant parading around boastfully in front of a well camouflaged Marine is entirely relevant to this debate. My opponent seems to be trying to ignore the illustration by calling it irrelevant. The fact that we cannot see God with our eyes does not mean He is not there. It is not wise to parade around in front of God saying how good we are and what great things we have done while we say in our hearts that God is not there only because we cannot see Him with our eyes. How long will it be before His tolerance of the unbeliever or his amusement with the unbelievers ignorance gives way to His anger when all He wants is for the unbeliever to believe and surrender to Him so He can show His mercy and let the former unbeliever have eternal life? In this paragraph, I hinted at my opponents key objection which is his assertion that some or many atheists are not corrupt and their deeds are not vile and they have not done abominable iniquities. This is going to be a hard pill to swallow, and it probably will cost me the debate though it is true and should win the debate for God: There is none that does good, we are all corrupt, and we have all done abominable iniquities.....the best of us, the worst of us, the smartest of us and the dumbest of us......we are all guilty of breaking God's law, and any breaking of God's law is vile, corrupt, abominable, and disqualifies us from goodness because we have all gone bad and the corruption of badness is in our blood. By nature we are no good. The tiniest though of hatred toward another person is murder in God's viewpoint, the tiniest desire to have something that does not belong to us is theft in God's viewpoint, the tiniest lustful look on a woman we are not married to is adultery in God's viewpoint. These are all vile acts if even only in thought, these are all abominations in God's viewpoint, these are all born of the corruption that is in our nature which is against God. No matter how much good a person does, no matter how moral of a life that person lives, no matter how accomplished that person is, in God's judgement that person is corrupt and their record is nothing but one big black mark against their nature For a good, moral, honorable man to say in his heart "There is no God", the man, created by God, is making a fool of himself in front of God and is in danger of God's wrath which He promises to execute with fire of Hell against His adversaries. | PRO | ff980d53-2019-04-18T15:59:58Z-00003-000 |
Welfare should not be long-term. In this debate, I have established how most welfare recipients are actually in dire need of long-term government assistance. While there are a few bad seeds (as with every group in the world), many welfare recipients are legitimately unable to work due to physical, mental, emotional or social handicaps, or a combination of all four. These disorders are not distinguished by bleeding heart liberals, but rather competent and experienced doctors who receive absolutely no benefit to passing people along through the system. In fact, since the government is so inclined to remove people from the welfare program, it would probably behoove the doctors to deny a patient the right to receive government assistance unless it was undeniably necessary. For this reason, you must agree with me (as I believe Pro has) that long-term welfare is in fact justified. I am somewhat disturbed by Pro's presumed notions regarding how welfare works, though I believe this incorrect assumption is widespread in this country and hence the disdain for such a program. In fact, the government does everything in its power to deny a citizen the right to 'free money' from the tax payers (they'd rather pocket it themselves, obviously :P). Furthermore, the money that one does receive from the program is incredibly low -- hardly enough to get by. In fact, many recipients receive free transportation passes just to arrive at their scheduled appointments with their case managers (because most of them do not have cars and cannot afford the public transportation fare). In reality, it takes a lot for a welfare recipient to actually receive aid, and especially on a continuing basis. I believe that if more people did their research on how the system works - or at the very least did not judge the program without knowing anything about it - this country would be better at making informed decisions, instead of letting their ignorance run rampant on sites like this... | CON | b77d5eb6-2019-04-18T19:37:41Z-00000-000 |
Society's pressure is too much. First off, im not talking about having only one million dollar in bank account. of course more than a million. Average person cannot make it to even a million. If you are saying we shouldn't take society pressure, then you are in my favor my friend. Only practical classes helps learn a lot more than tests who we forget later on. do you remember what you had in your last chemistry test? no right? we barely remember questions and answers on the tests. You are totally favoring this topic by saying to achieve your own goals rather than looking towards the society and that is what i said, society's pressure of becoming successful is way too much nowadays. Thanks | PRO | 9ae41859-2019-04-18T15:43:41Z-00002-000 |
Is Apple Better Than Samsung. Apple is a company that actually cares and listens to there fans. Samsung doesn"t. All the hate about Bixxy, and all Samsung did was disable that feature!!! It took them 6 months and all they did was disable the feature! They didn"t even make it so you could use it for another feature. Of course they put the button in the easiest place to accedentally press it. Apple would never do that. Their phones are unique. Think about it, if Apple never made the IPhone, there would never be Samsung. Samsung copied off Apple with the touch keyboard. So don"t say Apple is horrible, because Apple basically made Samsung because without the IPhone or Newton, there would never be the Galaxy or Galaxy Tab. | PRO | 8974e509-2019-04-18T11:37:56Z-00001-000 |
Banning guns. "It is true that most car crashes are not meant to happen but guns are more fatal than car crashes. " Again, Compare the two statistics and guns are less dangerous than cars. The key to Brazil is poverty and drugs. "The free state" is different from the people. The rising anti-slavery power in the U. S happend and then the civil war. (not defending the South). There is multiple examples that less guns = more crime. Britain banned guns-more violent crime and doubled the crime. Since you used Brazil, Mexico has no guns, HIGHEST crime rate in the world. There is a movement to ban KNIVES in Britain now. You say "School Shootings". But I mean not attempted or 1 to 2 deaths. The first school shooting happened in 1966. This leads to why guns are not the problem. If less than 1% of gun owners resist, It is a near uprising. Back to you | CON | 369e6fda-2019-04-18T11:12:10Z-00000-000 |
San Bernadino. Firstly, my opponent attempted to ridicule my value by calling it a "one sentence framework". Well one sentence is better than nothing at all. Secondly, my opponent also dropped my point in the last round, so it is but logical to assume that he has no argument to counter it, therefore judges please extend this point across the duration of the rounds. Secondly my competitor said there are no rules to dictate this match, but since you mentioned the word "contention" you are implying a form of either parliamentary, Lincoln Douglas, or Public Forum format. It is quite foolish to pick rules from a format and leave some out. Therefore my timeframe restriction still stands. Since my opponent complied with my value, he must realize that he has lost this debate because for Apple to comply with the government will never endanger the well being of the people if not protect it, where as to not comply could stop information on Islamist terrorists that could potentially stop a second San Bernardino, or avenge the lives of so many dead children, women, and men. The government is asking Apple's help for a reason, because they recognize the value of this iPhone, on the other hand, my opponent used a redneck cop who probably doesn't have any actual information on this iPhone to say that there is no value in this phone. My opponent also has the "burden of proof" as well. He must prove that there is no value in the iPhone, when it could be so easily be a key into knowing people like Farook who are out seeking for blood that here in the U.S. If he can do that, he wins. But since he hasn't done that, you can see the net benefits of examining and investigating this iPhone. You've heard the term "better safe than sorry" this is what I'm taking about. Vote Affirmative!! | PRO | c9c57b01-2019-04-18T13:41:19Z-00004-000 |
The United States should elect a woman as President in 2016. Debate parameters:1) I have burden of proof2) By 'should' I am arguing that the consequences of electing any reasonable female candidate, Republican or Democrat, will be better than that of electing any real-world male candidate with similar political positions, and as a result that Primary voters in both parties ought to support female candidates if a viable one is available (and that such women who fill these criteria have a certain imperative to offer themselves as candidates). I am not, for example, arguing that electing Paris Hilton would be superior to electing the platonic ideal of a politician who happens to be male.3) I am NOT arguing that American voters should in any sense be forced to vote for female candidates, just that it would be better if they did. 4) Character limit will be 6,000 words, and the reference list must be included within those. Use of external reference lists or lists in comments will be considered cheating.5) The format is as follows: First round for setting out initial cases. Con may, if (s)he wishes, use some of this time for rebuttal, but is also required to present some kind of concrete case for the negation of the resolution. Second round is for rebuttal and extension. New substantive arguments may not be offered in the third round, but new rebuttals, new examples, and comparative analysis are permitted. | PRO | f86d3a87-2019-04-18T17:50:59Z-00005-000 |
Twilight is detrimental to society. "two words: okay. I will." Actually, that's three ; ) http://www.scientificblogging.com... that will tell you that vampires do not exist... http://nces.ed.gov... that is the graph showing how many people get killed by vampires vs. how many vampires are in the world. you failed to prove your points. maybe you will do better in the next round. please give me something to debate against....Thanks=D Lola | CON | ca2cc4c4-2019-04-18T19:31:13Z-00002-000 |
Evolution is a lie. It takes one fact to debunk a theory so I will use facts. -If humans begain 50,000 years ago then there would be 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 people. -FROM TWO PEOPLE, CREATED ABOUT 6,000 YEARS AGO, AND THEN THE EIGHT PEOPLE, PRESERVED ON THE ARK ABOUT 4,500 YEARS AGO, THE WORLD"S POPULATION COULD EASILY HAVE GROWN TO THE EXTENT WE NOW SEE IT"OVER 6.5 BILLION. -Evolutionists teach that giraffes kept stretching their necks to each higher branches, so their necks became longer. In other words, need promotes evolution. However, August Friedrich Leopold Weismann cut off the tails of 901 young white mice in 19 successive generations, yet each new generation was born with a full-length tail. The final generation, he reported, had tails as long as those originally measured on the first. There's also the fact that circumcision of Jewish males for 4,000 years had not affected the foreskin. Those are my three points http://allendra3.deviantart.com... https://answersingenesis.org... | PRO | d4dfd2ce-2019-04-18T13:33:01Z-00003-000 |
0.999...= 1 | Prove Me Wrong. Your 2 "proofs" 1) "x = 0.999...10x = 9.999..."10x=9.99....0 because multiplying by 10 is (for lack of better terms) moves the number left one relative to the decimal point. This means that after the infinite run of nines, there is a 0 to fill the void. 2) A imilar thing exists for your 2nd proof.You said, "0 = 0.000...1" The number on the right is "infinetly small and not yet 0". This quote is so famous that there is an article about it.http://www.massline.org... | CON | eac42f7b-2019-04-18T11:25:55Z-00004-000 |
Eritrea started the 1998 war. Eritrea was responsible for instigating the war against Ethiopia, making it liable for its increased isolation. Eritrea was officially recognised by an international Claims Commission as the initiator of the war1. The state invaded the region of Badme after a long diplomatic dispute over the border issue as they believed the territory was rightfully theirs2. They removed the Ethiopian presence from the state, compromising territorial integrity and incurred a reaction from Ethiopia. This marked Eritrea as the aggressor. An aggressor in a war cannot be seen as a ‘just’ actor and has therefore contributed to its own seclusion by acting in such a manner. 1) BBC, ‘Eritrea broke law in border war’, 21 December 2005 2) Briggs,P. ‘Ethiopia’ pg.30 | PRO | 2a7a4428-2019-04-15T20:24:37Z-00008-000 |
Gay marriage should be illegal!. I think my opponent isn’t going to post any arguments, so I’ll make this round brief. I will have one contention and one rebuttal. Argument #1: Unalienable Rights In the Declaration of Independence, one of the United States’ most important documents, it states that all people have three unalienable rights; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Hence, those rights cannot be taken away from someone. Taking away a homosexual’s right to marry violates all three of those rights. Hence, homosexual marriage should be legal in order to protect the unalienable rights of homosexuals. Rebuttal #1: Religion My opponent made a religious claim to defend his argument in the beginning of the debate. “I believe gay marriage should be illegal its inhumane and against the bible.” However, religious arguments aren’t relevant. Part of the First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” So, we cannot use religion to make something illegal or legal. Therefore, this argument that my opponent uses is irrelevant. Conclusion: With two important US documents, I have established not only why homosexual marriage should be legalized, but why religious viewpoints aren’t good for arguments against homosexual marriage. This has been very brief, but like I said, I’m pretty sure my opponent isn’t going to continue this debate. Resources: http://billofrightsinstitute.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... | CON | 61f8dce6-2019-04-18T16:30:14Z-00003-000 |
Usage of Solar Thermal Energy instead of Non-renewable Resources is better. Hey! thank you so much for your participation.. This is my first debate as well. Actually we are doing a project for National Children's Science Congress (India) in which we got a choice to choose any one of energy resources where we chose Concentrated Solar Thermal Power Plant. Obviously its better, and why not? It reduces pollution, and can be a new prevention for depletion of energy.. And I said before in my first and I am telling now as well that this is one of the way that can be used. I never told in my debate that this is the one and only way that has to be used. And coming to the questions you put up I hope I can answer each of them. I accept that we cannot put it in the places which don't have suitable climatic condition but we can at least out it at places where we have the suitable ones. And coming to the situations of rainy season etc. a lot of energy can be stored in this process. We can reduce the use of non-renewable resources by this.. Because present stats say fuels like oil, coals and other natural resources would soon get depleted by 2128. This might be a long time for imagining at but once we really start feeling the shortage of resources we would realise the use of renewable resources. We even can't realise when we use up non-renewable resources later. We need to have every thing we are blessed with by nature and make use to all the resources but not totally rely n only one. And why not? When we have many technologies coming up forward to change this scenario of using up non-renewable resources. can't we use them? And coming to the new methods you put forward like the shale gas and nuclear energy, thank you for the new ideas you put forward so that we can't also spread awareness about this. But, I never told that we should only use solar thermal energy and not any of you ideas. I just put up one of the ideas which we can use and get rid of the increasing concerns about energy.. And have have many resources still, which we can use. When we have so much, why do we have to depend on only nuclear, solar thermal or fuels? We need to take the gift of nature and use all of them. Concentrated solar thermal power plant is really one of the very beneficial resources that we have make use of today and yes "Usage of solar thermal energy instead of NON-RENEWABLE RESOURCES is better!" Thank you! Please do share your views :-). | PRO | 3e86da6b-2019-04-18T17:08:45Z-00002-000 |
Cloning. Imagine a person with a severe injury. Like maybe they are paralyzed with a severe back or neck injury. Or maybe someone who has lost a limb. Or possibly in the not so distant future, you could have an exact copy of yourself. Stem cells and cloning may be able to fix those things. Stem cells are a type of cell found in the embryonic. They are an almost base cell. Because later on pregnancy they begin to turn into all the cells the body will use (e.g. brain, muscle, heart, skin, bone etc.). But they turn into anything that they are near. So if you place stem cells combined with certain chemicals and DNA next to someone's brain it could repair brain damage. This is caused by the stem cells cloning themselves into the cells around them. This type of cloning is called therapeutic, it is used to help animals, and hopefully at one point people too. There is another type of cloning that literally allows us to make an exact copy of creatures through birth. It has only been tested on animals and is still very basic and in the early stages. There are still some obstacles to get over but if we push through with some hard work and dedication we will be sure to have cloning become something very well possible. There are obviously going to be some complications. One complication that we have is that the cells we are taking we are trying to make them feel like they are brand new, and although we can make them think they are new, they don"t always act like it. This means that some cells may die much earlier than normal causing the animal or creature to die earlier too. We are working on this issue and seem to be progressing very well. But in my opinion stem cell research and cloning should push on because I see in the future that this will become very useful. And may even save thousands of lives and make even more lives better. | PRO | f2508129-2019-04-18T16:32:39Z-00007-000 |
Racial discrimination is an issue in the US. I will start off with the topic of supposed racism involving crime. http://i61.tinypic.com...This graph depicts the victimization of homicides according to race. As you can see, the number of black victims is significantly higher than the number of Caucasians. This may seem disturbing, but...http://i58.tinypic.com...This graph depicts homicides by the race of the offender. The number of white on black homicides is actually the lowest of all, resting under 5%. The alarming number of black homicide victims is due to the high number of black on black incidents, which accounts for a little over 40% of the total. Unless one was to consider intra-racial homicides as discrimination, I would not say that discrimination is an issue here.Now with education.http://www.motherjones.com...The number of blacks graduating from high school has tripled to 84%. http://www.motherjones.com...The number of blacks receiving a college degree has quintupled to 20%These charts show that blacks are receiving a higher education than they were before. If discrimination was an issue, there would be little to no change with these numbers, but as you can see, they are on a steady rise.Next we will look at the state of poverty within the black community.http://www.motherjones.com...According to this graph, of those on the Needy Families List, only 32% of the black community is on welfare, which is highly contrary to popular belief.http://freebeacon.com...A poll done by NBC and the Wall Street Journal shows that only 2% of the nation thinks that racial discrimination is a cause of the perceived poverty. Surprisingly, the majority opinion is that welfare is the biggest instigator of poverty, as it inhibits initiative. | CON | 86c3e33c-2019-04-18T15:31:39Z-00004-000 |
Seal Clubbing does more harm than good. Sigh. .. it would seem that Pro still hasn't learned his lesson. His argument from THIS round is copied from here - . http://www.slate.com... . I'm really getting tired of this. Why should I have to respond to arguments that Pro has just stolen from another source? And yes, once again it's plagiarism, because Pro hasn't even told us where he stole his new arguments from. If Pro really feels strongly about this issue, then perhaps he should actually come up with his own arguments. I would like to point out that regardless of whether you think me or my opponent did a better job, the voting criteria clearly states that the arguments should be their own. Since Pro has not presented any of his own arguments, then he has really provided no arguments at all, and thus has failed to uphold the resolution. Having looked at the source that Pro's plagiarised argument provides it is actually a distortion. In actual fact, the report emphasises many times that in the vast majority of cases the seals are rendered unconscious and that in the small amount of cases that the skull is not crushed completely, the seals will most likely have been bled unconscious anyway. For instance, 'during the hunt in the Gulf in 1999, which was carried out mainly with the use of hakapiks, Bollinger and Campbell examined a minimum of 225 carcasses of beaters. At least 220 of these carcasses were of animals that had been killed prior to the observers' arrival on the ice floes. Skulls of all but 4 (1.8%) carcasses had multiple depressed fractures of the calvarium, with massive destruction of the underlying cerebral cortex'. It goes on to say that the remaining four were probably rendered unconscious after being struck anyway - . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... . 2. This is ridiculous. As already pointed out, ragged jackets look very similar to suckling pups. Otherwise, this is just a play on emotions. I imagine I could do the same with any animal after dead and make the audience feel sorry for it. The creature isn't suffering anymore because it's in that state. 3. Attacking your sources is perfectly legitimate even if you hadn't plagiarised from them. 4. Uh huh. And. | CON | 10820883-2019-04-18T19:10:16Z-00000-000 |
Problems with the claim that zoos are beneficial because they help to conserve endangered species. There are two problems with the claim that zoos are beneficial because they help to conserve endangered species. First, they do not have a very high success rate – many species are going extinct each week despite the good intentions of some zoos. This is partly because a very small captive community of a species is more prone to inter-breeding and birth defects. Secondly, captive breeding to try to stave off extinction need not take place in the context of a zoo, where the public come to look at captive animals and (often) see them perform tricks. Captive breeding programmes should be undertaken in large nature reserves, not within the confines of a zoo. | PRO | 866b2e2-2019-04-19T12:44:45Z-00015-000 |
Marginalizing Society. Artists often use allegory to convey messages, which is a figurative mode of representation conveying a meaning other than the literal. We see this all the time, (e.g Animal farm), so how will props censor know when a song is being pointlessly misogynistic or being allegoric? And what about pornography? Some feminist condemn it, some promote it, will phone sex agencies be legal or deemed misogynistic? In order for proposition to remain consistent, they will have to stifle society. We've explained how society has always enjoyed fictional violence, but how come it has never lead to real violence? Firstly because we're intuitively built for survival, and as is quite common amongst primates, we need to survive in packs which is where our care for our fellow man is borne, Prop does not have exclusivity on these sentiments. That is why we came up with the concept of human rights, fictional violence can be entertaining, but real violence is abhorrent, hence the number of soldiers who suffer PTSD (1), I'm sure they've all seen war dramas before! Secondly, modern societies generally have laws that provide a disincentive to committing crimes, so even if you want to commit rape, most of us don't because we don't want to spend our lives in prison. And thirdly is the enforcement of those laws, it is no coincidence that the most egregious crimes are committed in the countries with the worst law enforcement, hence the high rate of human rights abuses during war as prop rightly pointed out, it's hard to have law enforcement on a battlefield. Finally, we have society which condemns real acts of VAW, even in South Africa rape is not celebrated, it is just that crime is a natural part of life for about 40% of South Africans, they have high murder and Assault rates along with VAW. A more solid correlation to high VAW is poverty rates, neighborhoods,education, these should be fixed before a ban on speech. (1)http://ptsdcombat.blogspot.com/2006/04/ptsd-statistics-wwii-to-iraq.html | PRO | 209e6901-2019-04-19T12:45:08Z-00031-000 |
Studying English(Pro) vs Math(Con). I think you have set off on the wrong direction. I didn't mean whether the subjects have certainties or not, but which subject is easier to study and can be thought of as better than the other. Also I am talking about studying them in school. While you put in terms English rhetoric and semantics increases difficulty, the same thing can be done for math. While Math is mostly about numbers, I could twist around the straightforward definitions of say algebra to confuse the students. In English too they can be expressed in a far more understandable way. Math can at times lose its usefulness. It is just like my friend said 'Just learn the four operations, add, subtract, divide, multiply and then throw the book in the bin. I have not been using algebra in my daily life, as we don't take the time to substitute a value for the place of x and switch around things, for it goes automatically. For example I ask what number to add to 5 to get the sum of 9? You will say four, not run around for a piece of paper or write a variable and then solve it. For further reference I will refer to my debate 'Is algebra useful in our daily lives?' What is the use of graphs as well, when we have soft wares in which we can just put the values and the graph will pop up? Ms. Excel has that facility. I don't get why I need to draw it. Furthermore, English has a lot of uses in our daily lives. We always need to speak, and English is a global language. We also get times when we need to convince others of our view, like arguments and even this debate, and usage of semantics and rhetoric help in convincing the other person. Even without semantics, knowing good vocabulary can help muster more reasons to persuade the other person. Plus English can be entertaining if you like reading novels, while Math entertainment is more limited compared to the wide range of books available. Math is hard, but you say life is hard. But who said death is easy? It is a painful process, whichever way you wanna die. English is easier than Math, simply because it has more uses so our expertise is increased. From all subject except foreign language to even games, English prevails. | PRO | 30ef2862-2019-04-18T14:58:58Z-00003-000 |
The desire to succeed makes us compromise with moral values. Good morning First of all let us try to understand the meaning of moral values. Moral Values are the rules and regulations which we follow to earn our dignity and respect in the society and moreover to be a good human being. The phrase "makes you compromise with moral values" in the sense is that we have to sacrifice our moral values in order to gain success but the thing is that by sacrificing our moral values it is not possible to gain success permanently. The reason is that real success is not present in money, success is present in the respect and dignity which we have earned in a number of years. At some times moral values and success come in the way of each other, at that time we should choose moral values. For example you are finding a job and you get a job in a hotel, but the condition is that you have to falsely praise the hotel to attract customers. If this situation is there then you should look for other job rather than telling lies. We can"t just simply leave our moral values because moral values affect our life too much. It is because of moral values that we are having some respect in the eyes of our neighbours, colleagues, relatives, teachers and many more people. And it is only because of our moral values that people trust us. If people distrust us then it can be a big problem for us. If we realize the importance of moral values then we will never compromise with moral values in order to gain success. | CON | f727a669-2019-04-18T14:27:07Z-00005-000 |
Anarchy is no better than terrorism. All war is capitalist .. Anyone who supports capitalism has blood on their hands. We live in a capitalist state with capitalist interests that must be protected. The handful of anarchists who broke the windows of the Royal Bank of Scotland made a visual point that a handful of people do not agree with the indifference of these politics and glass. When banks stop robbing people. People will stop robbing banks. But it does not have to be a situation of either or, lets not dive into a realist interpretation. So society does need banks, but in the same way that we need our hospitals, our schools, our roads, etc. Let's start treating bankers not for their prestige, but as simple civil servants. There is no justification out there that legitimizes their ridiculous pay-checks, whilst others in temporary employment are slaving away for a salary that just covers their basic needs. And if it has come to a state of anarchy in protests, these individuals are not complaining for the sake of complaining. There are reasons for their discontent, haven't we learned to listen? If there is no absolute truth, what each of these protesters believe to be the case is of equal value to the belief held by anyone else, be it a politician, a journalist or a teacher. Lets start embracing subjectivity, and stop assume objectivity in the belief of policy-makers. | CON | 97d32d51-2019-04-19T12:45:50Z-00012-000 |
Tommy, Go Back To Bed. There's No Monsters. They Can't Hurt You. That would be a typo. (Damn it Wizard of Oz.) Con is not a noun - it's an adjective to describe a position. My example used the same exact context that you use. You refer to me as Con; I refer to you as Por (well, you expect me to); the skinny man refers to the guy as fat man and vice versa. Throughout this, it's all towards the audience. | CON | 6f73d197-2019-04-18T15:51:35Z-00003-000 |
The First Amendment should be fixed (It is broken). The con will argue that the first amendment should not be fixed and is the way it should be. Waiting for a con Free speech should be limited and religion should be removed from the first amendment and all of society because there was a video warning that liberals would do protests called "Impeachment Protests" on July 2nd Religion should be removed because here is the truth: (1) Jesus Christ is not real, he never existed (2) Children are being killed for not conforming to their beliefs like ISIS, Adolf Hitler, and Christian churches (for not believing in Christmas) also, there is a video about a Christian threatening women and children acts of torture for not comforming to their beliefs: (3) All Religions are dishonest, unreliable, and make fake forgery accounts trying to conform mythology with modern day history like the Roman Empire. | PRO | 30b74ec6-2019-04-18T12:11:24Z-00007-000 |
Banning Guns in America Will Not Stop Crimes in America. But guns are saving MILLIONS a year. Again you haven"t respond to my Study that showed guns stop anywhere from 500,000 to 2,000,000 crimes EVERY YEAR! At the time when the founding father wrote the Second Ammendment when there were guns like the Belton Flintlock, Giradoni Air Rifle, Puckle Gun, and Pepperbox Revolvers all of which would be banned by today"s gun laws. Every founding father knew about these and their destructive capabilities and still wrote the second Ammendment. Also it is not like the founding father were stupid. They knew that weapons would evolve. They had evolved during the fathers lifetime and before. From swords to bow and arrows, to metal swords, to cannons, to guns and behond. They second Ammendment was not just written for muskets, it was written for highly advanced weapons and it still applies today. Governments turn oppressive all the time, again te me point out Nazi Germany, Communist China, Cambodia, Democratic Republicof the Congo. I"m not dealing in extremes I"m dealing in events that happen very often, and trying to not let our country repeat history. If every black slave had been armed with a gun there wouldn"t have been slavery. If every Jewish citizen had been armed, the Halucaust would not have happened, at least not to the extent it did. Guns protect citizens and keep the government in check. The second Ammendment is part of the system of checks and balances in our government Scenario A: Government disarms citizens knew oppressive whilst limiting freedoms Scenario B: Cotizens keep their guns and the government never become oppressive because of the armed backlash of the people Scenario C: People keep there guns, the government tries to become oppressive and the people stand up and keep their liberties I"d love to have Scanario B, but if need be I"ll fight for Scenario C, I just won"t let Scenario A happen. It"s a threat to me, my family, my friends, and this country which I love dearly. Gun are foundational to this country and this countries values. Guns are also detrimental to the safety of citizens and limitation of the government Mic Drop | PRO | 6302a037-2019-04-18T11:30:01Z-00001-000 |
Christians can't claim the moral high ground because the Bible condones slavery. Wow! I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. There was no need to assume the first round was for acceptance ONLY; it said it very clearly as fact. Then he goes and uses the first round to claim I somehow have the burden of proof when, by him claiming con, took half the burden to prove Christians CAN claim the moral high ground.OK, I'd like to point out that according to U.S. Law, slavery is against the law, mostly due to the fact that it is not moral. One of the main reasons for the civil war, was because, although slavery was legal then, people knew that it was not moral to get free labor from fellow human beings and put them in living conditions where they would be beaten and/or killed.Morality is based on the "golden rule": Treat others the way you want to be treated.That being said, the Bible does, indeed, condones slavery. Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. This is not just a story. It is a direct rule from god that you may, in fact, beat slaves you own as property. This is not indentured servitude and this is not taken out of context. A Christian can NOT take the moral high ground due to the fact that his/her god condones slavery. | PRO | b8f3f872-2019-04-18T16:21:03Z-00003-000 |
The Government of Nazi run Germany under Hitler was a well designed and successful government. I will be using a simple setup for my argument. This will involve the success of the Economy, the pride of the German people during this period, and the rebirth of Germany as a world power. ECONOMY: The German economy during the 1920's and 30's was in shambles after the events of WWI. Then after a variety of coups etc. Adolf Hitler was put into power. During the time he was in power Germany's economy flourished and unemployment virtually vanished.[1] Government earnings rose by almost 5 billion Reichsmarks(German currency during Nazi rule) to 15 billion from 10 billion within 11 years(1928-1939). The German economy had been changed from a peacetime economy to a wartime economy which when done by the US when they entered WWII broke them out of a depression had a similar if not greater effect on the shattered German economy. NATIONAL PRIDE: National pride had risen in the time leading up to WWII in Germany as they had now had a thing to blame for the economic failures after WWI the Jews. This was a thought help by a lot of civilizations all around the world during this time and the Government used it as a marvelous way to inspire the German citizen to believe in their country again. GERMANY AS A WORLD POWER: Germany after WWI was forced to remove it's military, land, and a large amount of money(to pay for damages) thanks to the treaty of Versailles. When the Nazi party took over Germany became a Super Power again thanks to their Government using their abundant natural resources to their advantage as well as a rebuilding of the military after Hitler had revoked the Treaty of Versailles.[2] The creation of programs geared toward preparation for war such as the Autobahn project helped to have a logistical network ready for war when the Fuhrer's ambitions had come to fruition. Hitler changed the German outlook and in preparation for war had made Germany a world power yet again. Sources: [1]http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... [2]https://www.quora.com... | PRO | ccf7f7fc-2019-04-18T13:34:56Z-00005-000 |
North America Needs to go Green. Thank You for starting this, this is quite an interesting topic for my first debate on this website. Anyways, onto my argument. I will prove in this that "going green" is something you feel that should happen immediately. Therefore I will argue that it is not a task that need be completed immediately. I will base my position on the financial negatives to "going green" and why it is most certainly not needed in this sense. I will also base my position upon environmental reasons as well, as to why it is not necessary to immediately implement these plans. As the severity of impact of continued usage of carbon-based fuels has not been conclusively determined) Finally I will also base my response upon the limited supply of carbon-based fuels, and how it is not necessary to immediately go green. As even in this country we have untouched/unused resources. Thank you and I look forward to this debate. P.S.- I have to ask, why is the character count so short?(1000) | CON | ad5afc49-2019-04-18T18:29:06Z-00004-000 |
Abortion is murder and it should be banned worldwide. I accept. In this I will be arguing for Abortion. Despite moral and religious objections for abortion, it is a simple fact that we need them. Overpopulation: At the time of writing the current population of the Earth is 7,295,403,875 people (1) and is increasing at an exponential rate. Just today there have been 183,345 births(1) (at the time of this writing). To ban abortion Worldwide my opponent wishes to would increase these births exponentially. The current population of humans is already three time the sustainable level (2). We simply can't afford to have more babies on this planet. Is it not the right thing to do to give a unborn embryo a quick death rather than have a small child suffer through starvation? Even in America we face huge food insecurity rates (14.6% of American households suffer from food insecurity as it is) (3). Banning abortion will only increase this, because the average cost to raise a child is $245,000 (4). Why put not only the child, but the parents through horrible poverty and food insecurity just for moral justification? Child Security: If a mother wants an abortion she obviously doesn't want a baby. So why force a small child to endure a lack of love from a mother who does not want him? Of course my opponent may argue that kids can be put up for adoption but few realize the absolute horror of foster care systems. Kids in foster care have sometimes been put through horror and unspeakable things to the children they are suppose to be protecting. (5). Why put kids through such misery when you can give them a quick death when they are young and entirely innocent. I will rebuttal my opponents arguments next round. Sources: 1:http://www.worldometers.info... 2: http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org... 3:http://www.feedingamerica.org... 4:http://money.cnn.com... 5:http://www.upworthy.com... | CON | 997fd5c4-2019-04-18T15:14:37Z-00003-000 |
God Exists. My argument is based on burden of proof. Burden of proof states that "The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove." [1] In other words, you must prove God exists, not me disproving it. If I can refute your argument, then I win. [1] yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof | CON | 59d12d9e-2019-04-18T16:17:30Z-00005-000 |
Common core testing does not capture the true intelligence of the person taking the test. Con will reiterate, there are multiple definitions of intelligence, with all but the most ambiguous recognized as theories and therefore controversial. The common core does not test with that theory in mind because there is no garuntee as to the truth of it. Until the satisfactory empirical evidence is released that will prove the Pro's particular version of intelligence, the common core testing will be relatively unchanged due to its accuracy. As students must pass a certain standard of data manipulation, the test accurately places students at, or below, that standard for required intelligence. | CON | fd6dc6e8-2019-04-18T14:54:31Z-00000-000 |
Book Debate!. In this round I will defend the L'etranger (The Stranger or The Outsider), the classic novel by the French writer Albert Camus. 1) Philosophical Complexity The Stranger explores themes of free will, justice, rationality of the external and internal world, the genesis of meaning, and more. These themes are intricately woven together so that in the context of the story they are nearly inseperable. The story centers around a murder committed by the main character Mersault, a murder which was carried out on a beach with a gun and with no apparent motive behind other than the glaring heat of the sun. In asking the classic question "Why did Mersault shoot the Arab?" we are faced with a deluge of uncertainties and perplexities. Mersault had no motivation, from his own psychological vantage point he cannot explain his actions other than citing the heat of the sun. Was this and action of his own free will, then? If it was not how are we to understand the attempted application of a justice system to his crimes? Is a crime a crime if it is committed with no rational explanation? How are humans supposed to relate to a world in which a man can kill another man with no comprehensible reason, not even his own desire? These are the questions that arise from a single event in this book, and all are aptly explored as Mersault is put on trial and sentenced to death. The complexity of and interconnection of these issues is left in place; these themes are not artificially separated so that Camus may make neat little statements about this or that aspect of society. Camus intend for the reader to come into contact with these issues as they are in the real world: a big ugly tangle of contradictions that we are irresistibly compelled to try and unravel. 2) Ability to Evoke Visceral Confrontation with Absurd Not only are a variety of philosophical themes explored, they are explored in a manner that impresses upon the reader the relevance and reality of the matters at hand. These are not pie in the sky thought experiments, these are matters of life and death. In reading the book the reader is frustrated in the attempt to make sense of Mersault's murder and trial. This is precisely the frustration that the author Camus wants us to feel as we confront the absurdity of our world. We feel the clash of the color of humanity of our desire for meaning, justice, and beauty with a world that fundamentally contains none of this. The reader feels the weight and burden of the absurd and thus Camus succeeds in imparting his philosophical motivation to his readers through the use of powerful writing. 3) The Stranger Inspired the Song "Bohemian Rhapsody" For this reason alone the Stranger must be recognized as a great and influential book. | CON | ca446c7-2019-04-18T18:21:49Z-00006-000 |
Even in democracies, we only have a chance to have a say in how the country is run every four years ... In a democracy civil disobedience cannot be justified. National elections take place regularly, and governments are accountable and can be changed. Members of the public who are unhappy can always lobby their representative or protest within the law, for example by organising marches, petititions, advertising campaigns, or even running candidates of their own for election. All these provide ways of changing laws and policies without the need for deliberate law-breaking. | CON | d3c310fc-2019-04-19T12:44:02Z-00006-000 |
Turkey is in violation of Human Rights. Concerning this original argument we must set objective foundations, along with clear semantics so we know what we are arguing. Firstly, by 'Human Rights' I assume you mean the declaration made by the United Nations, of which Turkey is a member. If so, the specific articles need to be raised. Are we talking about freedom of expression? Freedom of religion? Freedom from persecution? Secondly,, hatred and ignorance concerning a minority group HAS NOTHING to do with human rights. A religious or ethnic group can be hated but still be perfectly treated within their human rights. Thirdly, you refer your argument specifically to the Greek living in Turkey that are Orthodox Christians. Note that this DOES NOT mean all Greeks living in Turkey. Only those who are Orthodox Christian AND Greek. You then mention the Greek Cypriots, but this is not the same as your previous statement UNLESS you declare the 'Greek Cypriots who are also Orthodox Christians.' This was not made clear. Made clear. Taking your present argument truly, your are asserting the Turkish government is clearly in violation of the Human Rights of Orthodox Christian Greeks and Orthodox Christian Cypriots who live in Cyprus (Cyprus is unclear, I address this later). I hope you accept this interpretation as it is the precise informal form of your argument. Religion and ethnicity and/or nationality cannot be hastily conflated because they are very different things. I will also make the assumption that you are referring to Greek Cypriots in 'Eastern Cyprus' which is a part of Turkey and not the Republic of Cyprus. In order to succeed in your claim that Turkey is clearly in violation of human rights you must clarify: 1) Who they apply to SPECIFICALLY (Ethnic group, racial group, religious group, or certain combinations of all) 2) What benchmark you are using. 3) Which human right(s) I stress 1) because I do not accept your original statement. The groups you refer too need to be clarified and refined. The burden of proof is on you as you are making a positive claim. | CON | 94b7547d-2019-04-18T12:11:11Z-00000-000 |
children should be put on a leash. Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited round 2. In addition to the ethics mentioned before (here's the link to the book; I was referencing the beginning of chapter one http://books.google.com...), there is also a practical argument. With increasing child abductions and numbers of sexual predators, child leashes for younger children just learning to walk increase their safety(http://www.essortment.com...). Responsible parents would put their younger children on leashes. There is practical benefit and ethical justification. | PRO | 2d8c4dd-2019-04-18T19:14:29Z-00002-000 |
Philosophers theory. I think therefore I am refers to the mental not the physical just because you think you're someone's hair does not mean you will become it. There are alot of different right perceptions and heres the one I like If you put your mind to it you can do anything. But of course thats within possible realms you still can't become someone's hair. And in my mind to take such a great quote out of context makes you a very sad ignorant person. | CON | d95bd2a8-2019-04-18T19:52:33Z-00000-000 |
People can't be bought and sold. An organ, as part of the body, is a part of a person. People can't be bought and sold - article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - 'No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.' (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/) - so it shouldn't be legal to sell a part of a person - otherwise you would be able to sell a whole person and just say you are selling lots of parts of a person at once. | PRO | 2e16f364-2019-04-19T12:46:13Z-00009-000 |
homeschooling. Con forfeits.I will post my arguments.1. Can't affordSome reasons are that we just can't do stuff and go into regular schools. You might not have money. You might hate everything except for math. You might hate interacting with other people. No one is forcing people to all go to homeschooling, but you can and it should not be banned. Homeschooling kids can be people who can't afford or be like an average kid. Maybe you are too smart.2. Better TeachingThe quality of teaching will probably be better. You can use tutors or go to academies also. Homeschooling's definition is to not learn at school. Many people believe that they don't know how to teach. However they will be better in these reasons. First of all, the teachers don't care of your progress. They only get you for one year. It is not really important if they have you in your class or not. They do not really care what they do because they are not the baby and son, and gets no credit if they do good things for that child. They will teach like nothing. However these parents want the son to be better at everything and get a better job, so they will do anything to afford him or her.Second of all, you have more time teaching. School is limited. However you can teach always at home. Third of all, you can go more places like to more field trips and learn.3. Hang outYou have more time to hang out with your family. It is important to be friends and be hanging out with your family.Thank you. | PRO | 86de18df-2019-04-18T14:12:28Z-00003-000 |
NASA should focus more on unmanned space exploration than manned space exploration. I thank DH debate aka Bang-Bang Cocont aka Hello Orange aka Boom Boom banana (just kidding) for agreeing to debate this topic with me. Resolution: NASA should focus more on unmanned space exploration than manned space explorationDefinitions:Unmanned space exploration: No humans go into space. Manned space exploration: Humans go into space. Focus: Spend more money, time, and resources on, at the expense of the other. Time Frame: Currently and in the near future roughly the next 20 years. I agree that in the far future, it might be desirable to send humans to Mars and beyond. | PRO | 7f262c28-2019-04-18T18:40:36Z-00007-000 |
6*0 = 0 is true. Here's how you multiply two bananas by zero: No monkeys have two bananas. How many bananas are there? Zero bananas. Zero and one are not opposites f each other. Zero is the opposite of itself and one is the opposite of negative one. If you add a number to it's opposite, the answer will be zero. I don't think you get the number 0. 0 is (+X + -X). That means zero could be written as 1-1. So multiplying 6*0 is like this: (6*1) + (6*-1). That would be 6-6, which equals 0, because X-X always equals 0. Good luck on the final round! | PRO | be93b23c-2019-04-18T15:31:29Z-00001-000 |
Legalizing medical marijuana may cause crime and safety problems. Jerry Dyer, MS, Fresno Chief of Police and President of the California Police Chief's Association. Apr. 16, 2008 letter to Deputy Director of the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police: "Based on the almost 12 years of medical marijuana experience in the state of California it is our observation that it has been destructive to lives and communities. Passage of any form of medical marijuana anywhere in our nation is bad public policy and will cause crime and public safety problems."[33] | PRO | 87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00171-000 |
Should Hunting be legal. Yes hunting certain animals like wolves, tigers, and lions is bad but you don't have to worry about elk, deer,and moose going extinct. There are so many of them that if we didn't control the population of them they would start running out into highways way to constantly, and when car hits moose the moose usually survives but the car is totaled. For this reason I think hunting certain animals is good and helps keep a steady balance in the population of large game. Also trail heads and other outdoor parks get most there money from hunters buying there hunting supplies. Now poaching is wrong yes and killing an animal and not using its meat is wrong, but you have to keep in mind some people depend on hunting and if certain animals get to over populated then highway and back roads would be very dangerous places. Thanks for reading this. | PRO | 34bb5735-2019-04-18T16:14:48Z-00001-000 |
God is be both omnipotent and omniscient. If god were omniscient, He would be able to use the state of the universe at any given time to predict the state at any future time. However, If he were omnipotent, He could change that future in which case his prediction was wrong and he would not be omniscient. If he was unable to change the future, He would not be omnipotent. Another way to put this would be to say that, If God were truly omniscient, He would already know how we was going to alter the course of events in the future using his omnipotence. However, This means that he can't change *that* change, Which means he isn't omnipotent. | CON | ca9fcf3-2019-04-18T11:19:36Z-00006-000 |
The FCC should substantially increase its investment in the National Broadcast plan. Broadband is decreasing now, claimed to help the economy bla bla bla, (Vikki S. Katz, Matthew D. Matsaganis, and Sandra J. ball-Rokeach, Ph.D., University of Southern California, ETHNIC MEDIA AS PARTNERS FOR INCREASING BROADBAND ADOPTION AND SOCIAL INCLUSION, Published 2012. PDF pg. 79-102.) but it means that minoritys which depend on cheap public broadband will not be able to send their radio and TV news at all. But it also means that because most people get their news from public TV and radio which is corrupt with racist ideas (Chucks Amajor, Mark Sanders, DeRonnie Pitts, http://www.stanford.edu..., )in turn influences just about everyone which is the reason racism hangs on in America. By increasing broadband we give the local minoritys a voice, and that will help aleaviate peoples thoughts about violent minorities. The best and only way to help mend the wounds that have been made is to give these minorities a voice, (Vikki Katz, ETHNIC MEDIA AS PARTNERS FOR INCREASING BROADBAND ADOPTION AND SOCIAL INCLUSION, Published 2012. PDF pg. 79-102) While many might make the argument that the reason for the decrease in radio broadcasts is because much of news these days has shifted over to the internet, the system is strained and doesn't access everyone, what must be done is invest in radio broadcasts to solve, (Darrell M. http://dspace.cigilibrary.org...) | PRO | 34496b5d-2019-04-18T18:15:41Z-00003-000 |
Fallout 4 (Yes) or Fallout 3 (No). Yes i agree with the larger Arsenal of fallout 4 but there were a lot of interesting guns in fallout three, where I fallout 4 there are a lot of guns but they are just so repetitive and it gets kinda boring. I for one am a melee man and there are a lot of different and unique melee weapons. It seems like in fallout 4 they focus on certain areas, for example it looks like Bethesda put a lot of more effort in the melee weapons than they did actual guns. | CON | fbe31f36-2019-04-18T14:04:33Z-00001-000 |
The future presented in Fallout 3 is possible. Ugh...I'm going to say this again, I'm honestly tired of all of these people who accept my debates and then give up without even saying "Pass" or anything. It's a main reason I don't use this site anymore is because people either just accept a debate with no intent to finish, accept to troll, or accept, see a wall of text, and then give up. And yes, I know what you might say, "Oh, Lulzy, quit whining, you're making debates in the "Games" section." To that, I say, "So?" I'm in the Games section making debates and making long responses to them, so there has to be people out there who will feel as strongly about some of this.Anyway, enough of my my ranting, I'll get back to my debate.-ahem-Argument One: MutationsThrough the general gameplay of Fallout 3, the player will encounter characters that, without a doubt, are not human. These creatures can range from anything from robots, to super mutants, to Fire Ants that ACTUALLY breathe fire. You're also likely to come across things like Rad-Roaches, Rad-Scorpions, and the wasp creature whose name I cannot remember. All of these creatures are the result of mutations caused by the massive amount of radioactivity in the areas that they inhabit. In most cases, nothing very surprising happens with mutations, minus the fact that the mutated specimen is significantly larger than it's not nuclear counterpart. For example, I as a human am 5'11". If you stood a Radroach up in game next to me as my real high, the Radroach could easily be about as high as my neck area, whereas the Radscorpion would be even larger. My aim is to prove that mutations in general are possible, not these mutations in particular, so here goes. If you go back to the Chernobyl incident in Ukraine, you can take a look at the area surrounding the ex-nuclear facility now and see that animals have returned, and apparently, so have some people. However, it wasn't always so nice to return. In fact, during one point soon after the reactor meltdown, there were pictures taken of animals mutated, such as a dog that appears to have changed physically to the point where there is a body, but only the back legs seem to show.Whether you as a judge choose to argue the validity of the picture mentioned, which can be found here: [1], the fact stands that this is possible, and can happen in Fallout 3, especially if you consider the fact that, according the scientists, the meltdown of Chernobyl is equal to the power of 20 Hiroshima bombs, what would happen if that number was increased to a number high enough to decimate the entirety of the United States, and make it an uninhabitable Wasteland.Ending: Since I typed this in a hurry before boarding a plane, I unfortunately cannot give anymore arguments right now. I give it back to Con in hopes that they reply.1 - http://www.sickchirpse.com... | PRO | 7dd516a9-2019-04-18T14:43:39Z-00001-000 |
Menstrual products should be free. From what I understand, You want menstrual products to be completely free because they are necessary for women. I disagree with that so let's begin the debate. First of all, Using the logic that "people need that for hygiene" doesn't mean that we should make that free. People need dental products for hygiene, But do you make dental products free? People need toilet paper for hygiene, But do you make toilet paper free? If you went around and made things free just because "people need that for hygiene", You would have to make a lot of things free. Such as: menstual products, Dental products, Toilet paper, Soap, Shampoo, Tissues, Deodorants, Etc. Second, Nothing is free. The only organization that can provide free things is the government. Companies don't produce anything for free. Which means that you will have to pay taxes to get free menstrual products, Which is completely pointless. And should men have to pay these taxes too, Or only women? Most women enter menopause at about 50, Would they have to pay such a tax too? Taxing others just because you don't want to spend a few bucks is ridicolous. | CON | 4f3508bf-2019-04-18T11:08:26Z-00004-000 |
Abortion. My opponent says that abortion is always immoral under every circumstance without exceptions. I oppose this resolution. ===DEFINITIONS=== 1. Abortion: An operation or other procedure to terminate pregnancy before the fetus is viable. [1] 2. Fetus: The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal. [2] We shall take into assumption for this debate that a human fetus is what is being referred to. ===ARGUMENTS === 1. A Fetus is not necessarily a human. What is it that makes us human? If being human is simply defined by having human DNA then yes a fetus is a human. But is that really what you believe? Probably not, and rightly so. Our advance and higher level of sentience is a more suitable description for what sets us apart from the animal kingdom. Wouldn't you agree? Now we must ask; does a fetus have this same sentience? The simple answer is no. A fetus has not even yet obtained the ability to feel pain until the third trimester, as described in the Journal of the American Medical Association[3,4]. In other words, the fetus has even less sentience than a common fish. 2. Even if a fetus was human that doesn't make killing it immoral in every circumstance. The right to life is not an absolute. Rights are made by humans to create a generality of better well-being in society caused by those specific rights being established. I contend that in many cases and nearly every case in which the mother seeks an abortion there is a higher potential amount of negative consequences which would result from keeping the fetus than otherwise aborting it. So giving the fetus a right to life would be defeating the purpose of having rights at all. The mother may have been raped or whatever kind of birth-control used may have malfunctioned thus she became pregnant against her will. To force her into not having an abortion would in-effect be forcing her to become pregnant since it was by no fault of her own. Furthermore, the mother's living situation may be entirely unsuitable for taking proper care of a baby. To force her not to have an abortion would in-effect be mandated child abuse. I look forward to my opponent's reply and the rest of this debate. ===SOURCES=== 1. . http://dictionary.reference.com... 2. . http://education.yahoo.com... 3. . http://jama.ama-assn.org... 4. . http://www.msnbc.msn.com... | PRO | 47ca9085-2019-04-18T19:04:23Z-00002-000 |
Interracial relationships/marriage are moral. I. Preface Thanks for the debate Pro, in all honestly I didn't expect such stiff competition. Since Pro didn't offer a substantial first round I will use this round just to summarise my arguments and insert a handful of key rebuttals. II. Burden of Proof Please more the burden of proof is on Pro for this debate, so for him to win this debate his own positive arguments need to stand on their own two feet. Pro has spent most of his time this debate attacking my arguments, but does not defend his own. By doing so he has failed his burden of proof. III. Marriage Marriage legally institutes such emotions of possessiveness and jealousy. I argued against non-platonic relationships too, as the same things occur. Marriage just takes this another step further. Just 'liking' and 'disliking' things is not a good enough qualifier for something to be moral. I like Ferrari's, does that make to moral for me to go steal one? I dislike Mitt Romney, does that make it moral for me to assassinate him? No. I would also argue that the institution if 'trust' after being married is a false one. Why would marriage make you more trusting of your partner? There is no logical reason except for social/pragmatic reasons rather than genuine emotional attachments. To summarize, marriage and monogamous relationships promote harmful behaviour and emotions, and therefore all such relationships, including interracial ones are immoral. Pro has simply not refuted my previous points on this matter. IV. Human Evolution Pro does not contest that prohibiting interracial marriages/relationships would be beneficial for Homo sapiens speciation, mind this human evolution. I have already provided evidence they geographical isolation is a very powerful method for causing such changes, and a mixing population is bad for this. Pro contests only 15% of US marriages is interracial. This is an ENORMOUS number in light of evolutionary timescales (where thousands of generations are needed), especially when compared whit the near 0% interracial marriages that occurred before international travel was possible. This is devastating for human evolution. V. Pro's Positive Arguments Pro has not defended his only two positive lines of argumentation, and therefore appears that he concedes these. VI. Conclusion: Thanks Pro for this debate, the resolution is negated. | CON | c78566d0-2019-04-18T16:04:30Z-00000-000 |
HERE COME THE GIANTS! THEY WILL BEAT NEW ENGLAND, RUIN THEIR PERFECT SEASON, AND WIN THE SUPERBOWL!. You overlook my analysis on this argument that people inherently do better after coming a long way. The Patriots will expect perfection from this game and will work accordingly whereas the NY Giants are going to have to "throw crap (it won't let me use the word synonymous to crap) at the wall and see what sticks at the end of the game." There is no avoiding it, the Giants will be SCARED of the Patriots. | CON | 80b747cf-2019-04-18T19:54:00Z-00002-000 |
Should Dad's be allowed paternity leave from work. It is not necessarily abandoning the money, there are other options out there if money is a concern. The father role is just as important as a mother role and by not having the father close to the baby at the first part of their life is like depriving the poor baby of their father. Paid vacation's are not the target of this debate so I would like to stay focused on the topic at hand. Although the mother does the hard work to grow the child (breastfeeding, changing) the father needs experience and needs to be there. For example, what if because of this the father misses the baby's first steps? How would the mother feel? The father needs to be there for his child. | PRO | beaf9967-2019-04-18T14:43:26Z-00003-000 |
God Can Gain Knowledge While Being Omniscient. The burden of proof will be shared. I will be arguing that there is no explicit contradiction in God gaining knowledge while still being omniscient by definition, like some may think. My opponent will argue it is a contradiction for God to gain knowledge if he is omniscient, because if God knows all there is to know already, then he cannot know more. God For this debate, God is just "an omniscient being". Any other attributes you believe God (omnipotence, perfection, omnibenevolence ect. ) has no relavence to this debate. This debate is essentially about whether its possible or not for a being to be omniscient, as defined, and gain knowledge. | PRO | bb3ebff8-2019-04-18T16:22:54Z-00007-000 |
Are Smartphones Good. Yes: Smartphones are addictive and smartphones are seemingly antisocial in a conventional sense. But perhaps they are meant to be. Maybe it's a significant movement in the evolutionary sequence towards dominant A. I. Possibly there will be a crossover phase, Starting with psychological and physiological dependence on A. I. Devices (smartphones). Moving on quite exponentially into an implant stage and maybe even a hybrid stage. Until such times when sentient intelligent devices are able to take control of the evolutionary sequence for themselves. It might sound like the stuff of sci-fi, But just look back over the last century at the rate of technological development. I would suggest that smartphones were inevitable. Just as we were once inevitable and just as every human led scientific breakthrough and development was inevitable. Universally, Who or what is qualified to say what is good or what is bad? Our own concepts of good and bad are only relative to us, Here and now and tend not to take into account the bigger universal picture. I would therefore propose that "smartphones are good". Good for the role that they are playing in maintaining the evolutionary sequence and good for facilitating the inevitability of the universal progression. | PRO | 9bd5b289-2019-04-18T11:11:29Z-00004-000 |
People shouldn't be allowed to have names longer that 4 letters. First of all I don't know how a bag of chips made you think of why people should have their names be 4 letters or less. I think that is quite strange to say the least. Second of all. The world won't end just because people have longs names. The world has gone on for centuries now and it hasn't ended yet and people have long names. So that proves that the world won't end. A black hole will have to hit the earth for it to end the world. Trust me. You need to stop cursing in your arguments or you will lose points. You've made your point pretty clearly and you don't need to make it more clear by using curse words. That's not going to help you win. | CON | 59fa6fef-2019-04-18T17:29:36Z-00003-000 |
Encourages a culture of respect for human rights. If anything, abolition could be a seen as a distraction of progress. Even in retentionist criminal justice systems, only a small number of those who go through the criminal justice system are sentenced to death or executed. Behind the smokescreen of reform, things can be hidden. While Russia abolished capital punishment shortly after the end of the Soviet Union, politically motivated prosecutions continue, such as those of the members of Pussy Riot. As for the rankings, correlation is not causation. | CON | 1e6179a9-2019-04-15T20:24:42Z-00007-000 |
Local, State, and Federal Governments should not tax tabacco products. Alright, let's get started. The whole principal behind tobacco tax is flawed. The government taxes it because they can make money off of it. If they we're truly that much against it; they'd just outlaw it. Which doesn't happen in any state. Also, is it the job of the government to influence our health decisions? That's all for now...GOOD LUCK! | PRO | 8b6435a5-2019-04-18T19:24:04Z-00005-000 |
The Office (US) is funnier than _______. Humor is subjective to a certain point, as different people find different things funny. For example if I laugh at something that someone else doesn't than I may have a different taste. However there are certain guidelines to determine what is funny. How else would we determine what is comedy and what isn't. SAW clearly isn't funny but that doesn't mean that someone won't laugh. Some guidelines for comedy may be found here: "The incongruity theory states that humor is perceived at the moment of realization of incongruity between a concept involved in a certain situation and the real objects thought to be in some relation to the concept. " . https://en.m.wikipedia.org... The incongruity theory says that funniness is caused by the realization that what you thought is true for a situation is actually different from what is true in the situation. The office best exemplifies this because of the ridiculous nature of it's characters and the seemingly normal situations where you'd expect combined with wacky occurrences and dialogue. Seinfeld has some moments like these, but their lessened with outdated laugh tacks and stale situations. As I have proved the office is funnier in almost every respect. My opponent claimed that since more people thought that Seinfeld was funny, it is therefore more humorous. This is not true. First of all my opponent uses only one poll to prove his point ( and he can't introduce new polls late in the round because I can no longer debate them. The poll that he uses is actually not reliable because of a couple of reasons: The percentage that Seinfeld won with is within the margin of error (only one by 1%) and because THE OFFICE wasn't in the poll. How were fans of the office supposed to win if their choices were limited to old white people shows. I would have voted for the office had those been my only choices too (cheers, friends, etc. ) So just to recap, we can't be sure if Seinfeld won and the office wasn't even on the poll. So that poll is now irrelevant and P2 of their argument collapses, bringing down p3. So to lay it out to the voters: Humor is subjective to a point, but Seinfeld falls to The office in the non subjective parts as well as the subjective parts Since my opponent's poll does not cover the data that we are discussing, it is deemed irrelevant No record exists in this debate that proves a majority consensus thinks one show is funnier than another. I have proved that the office is funnier, my opponent has relinquished my arguments. | PRO | 4b8860cc-2019-04-18T13:09:20Z-00001-000 |
Horoscopes are False. I agree with almost everything my opponent says, however, I don't think that he is proving that all horoscopes are false. He is only proving that horoscopes are false much of the time, but not all of the time. He says: "if you debate that horoscope are sometimes true and sometimes false would mean that there is no logic behind it and that horoscopes are false. .. " That doesn't make a shred of sense. If horoscopes are false sometimes, then they are false all the time? That doesn't make any sense. "Sometimes" is not logically the same as "all the time". Even if they are misleading, that doesn't mean they are always wrong. | PRO | 5f07f27e-2019-04-18T19:33:47Z-00002-000 |
I deserve to burn in Hell. My opponent's "belief" " I believe nobody deserves to burn in hell because of religion, that is a stupid reason for you to want to burn in hell"I'm not sure what is meant by this. My opponent believes nobody deserves to burn in hell because of religion? Does that mean she knows of an infallible religion that teaches that nobody goes to hell? Does that mean religion is to blame if people burn in Hell? Does that mean religion keeps everybody or anybody out of Hell? I have to ask my opponent to clarify this statement of her belief. She says she has no religion, so I have to ask if she is an animal who lives only by instinct and cannot speak of God?In my opponent's statement of her belief, she says something is a stupid reason for you to want to burn in hell. I'm not sure what she means by this. Who wants to burn in Hell? Does religion make people want to burn in Hell? Does my opponent think I want to burn in Hell? My opponent seems to be confused and not focused on the debate. Combined with all of the giggling she is displaying, I have to wonder if she is smoking marijuana. She obviously is not qualified to handle this debate in a mature manner. If marijuana is involved here, that explains her behaviour. If it's simply childish poor conduct, I hope she grows up some before this debate is over.I know without a doubt that I deserve to burn in Hell. I am unholy like the devil. I do not deserve to kick up dust on God's earth, and I do not deserve to be spared from the devil's Hell fire. I have broken every one of God's commandments except for murder. I stopped short of murdering a man because I knew I would get in trouble if I finished him off, so I let him go. I know my heart is full of evil and prone to self-satisfaction. I have broke a lot of hearts and done a lot of damage and caused a lot of pain in the world. I know I deserve to burn in Hell...and I know my opponent deserves to burn in Hell also because I know she has broken God's law. | PRO | 2d7a6646-2019-04-18T15:50:39Z-00003-000 |
Punitive Justice is Never Justified. 1. I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. What I mean is that since crime is predictable at a certain rate, there is no reason to suggest that a person is totally at fault. Crime is social deviation. Social deviation shows a psychological problem. If someone has a psychological problem, punishing them for it is undesirable- that includes white collar crime. 2. I don't just think so, I provided sources. The most effective method of operant conditioning (behavior changing) is negative reinforcement. The least effective is punishment. It would be cruel for us to do either and more cruel to use negative reinforcement, however, at least a system that uses negative reinforcement would be more likely to be effective. The punitive system is both cruel and ineffective. 3. Has been conceded by the opponent. 4. I'm not suggesting that we do nothing, I'm suggesting punishment is not the way to change them. Social deviation is what crime is. Social deviation is behavior. Punishment is ineffective in changing behavior. Ergo It is unrealistic to change A and B via punishment. 5. Or perhaps it is because 3 people ate 4 donuts in Norway that day. My opponent has used the after-this-therefore-because-of-this fallacy (ad hoc ergo propter hoc). It could have been the prison system, or it could have been any number of other causes. Just because one happened after the other doesn't mean the first caused the second. However, let's give it a response anyway. It is unlikely that the prison system caused the bombing because Norway also has a much lower crime rate (1) than the United States, so all other things being equal, it would appear the opposite- that Norway's prison system prevents crime, not the other way around. (1) http://dev.prenhall.com... | PRO | 15ec114a-2019-04-18T18:38:09Z-00005-000 |
The drinking age should be lowered to 18 years old and driving age to 18. The drinking age in the United States should be lowered to 18 since it is 21 right now. I think that it will help prevent less accidents and people will learn a lot earlier from their bad actions with drinking. The United States should be equal with the other countries when it comes to the drinking age. If the other countries aren't having as many problems as us with drinking, then we need to try what those other countries are doing. | PRO | b1a95672-2019-04-18T15:27:05Z-00001-000 |
beauty pagents are very bad for kids 2-7 yrs old. First of all, my opponent never defined beauty pagents. Of course, we know what's she's talking about. She's talking about obviously... I will define the major words. After this, there will be no redefining of the definitions. Definitions: Pagent: I will assume she's talking about "pagans". Pagans are: "Ones who have no religion." http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Beauty: I'm assuming she's talking about beautiful. Beautiful is defined by Dictionary.Com as attractive. Bad: "adverse, unlucky, unhappy." http://dictionary.reference.com... Thus being an pagan is very unlucky for Children 2-7. She has two contentions. Her 1st contention is that "can ruin a kids life because there already wearing makeup at such a young age that can ruin there skin". First of all, why would the kid need to wear makeup? And how is that even related to an pagan? I have no idea!!! Pro thinks that kids wearing makeup ruins skin but what does that have to do with anything? As far as I can tell, there is nothing about being an pagan, there is nothing about luck or unluck, there is nothing any of the main subjects. All she has to say is a bunch of unrelated things about a kid's life being ruined because of wearing makeup at such a young age. I have no idea how any of it is related to pagans being unlucky towards kids 2-7. Her 2nd contention talks about "there parents put in there minds that there beautiful or pretty which can leave to low self-esteem when they grow up". I assume she's talking about a kid that's 2-7 having a parent who's an pagan. Well, my opponent is assuming that pagan parents put in their kid's minds that they're beautiful or pretty but that's not backed up by any facts. She's assuming all pagan parents tell their kids they're beautiful or pretty when they usually kick their kids out at 18 years old (Ex: My friend's dad) or are abusive. It's extremely wrong to assume such things. Also the self-esteem thing also goes along. How do you know there is low self-esteem when they grow up without any FACTS? I would also like to say the BOP is on Pro to show that pagans are very bad for kids 2-7. Thus I don't need to prove anything except that my opponent's case is false. Thank you for coming with me. As I've said "This just doesn't line up." | CON | 772ca1f1-2019-04-18T18:21:42Z-00004-000 |
Affirmative Action is Good. Look, I have a busy schedule, so I'm going to make this argument short. Between giving minorities bonus points on SATs and required percentage of minorities in a company, with the same thing occurring for women, affirmative action somehow manages to be racist to all races. Racist/sexist to minorities and women because it is based on the thinking that they aren't smart enough, so they need help; also racist/sexist to men and majorities and by giving them a disadvantage in the market for jobs and in the SATs. | CON | ba7df4ca-2019-04-18T12:28:17Z-00001-000 |
Once Wenger retires/leaves, Arsenal will be able to attract any manager in the world. My opponent makes a very flattering case for how good he thinks Arsenal football club are, but offers very little in way of argument to uphold his resolution, Which isOnce Arsene Wenger retires/leaves, Arsenal will be able to attract any manager in the world, I believe my opponent fails to recognise that gravity of his staement and how difficult it is to fulfill such a bold claim, My opponent has failed to take in a great many factors, Such as1; Managers who simply don't want to live and manage a team in EnglandAndre Vilas Boas who was manager of Chelasea and Tottenham hotspur for brief spells, has claimed he will never manage another club in England again.Andre Villas-Boas: I’ll never manage in England again after Chelsea and Spurs sackingshttp://metro.co.uk...2: Fear of flyingDennis Bergamp who is an assistant manager at Ajax F.C and is also an iconic figure in Arsenals footbal history and would be a fan favorite who is tipped to fulfill the post left by Arsene Wenger, Has brazenly stated, He will never manage Arsenal due to his fear of flying.In terms of flying, I've seen and done it all and I'm simply not flying again. Ever.' Dennis Bergamphttp://www.dailymail.co.uk...The belief that any mananger would want to jump at the chance to manage Arsenal is unsubstantited, And I have given statements by two Managers, one who has plainly stated He will not manage another English premiership side again and another who has also clearly stated he won't take the job due to his fear of flying.The reolution has been negated. | CON | 14d3b2ad-2019-04-18T14:21:16Z-00001-000 |
Poetry battle: Truth_seeker vs. LogicalLunatic. The secondary black gold, with a lustrous shine The Satanical influence which looks oh so fine Coffee leaves you devastated with every sip Every limb of yours will be torn off rip by rip It drags you to the pit of Hell and doesn't let go It shows you every single thing that Hell has to show It makes you it's slave and your bondage is complete It strips away each last ounce of your humanity It leaves behind a wasteland where life was once lush Your hair it will fall out and your brain will be mush Your thoughts will dwell only upon a frappucino And over time your utter addiction will only grow First you'll drink a "harmless" one cup a day My friend, I guarantee you it will not stay that way Soon you will be drinking three cups to stay awake But your appetite no quantity will ever slake A dead man walking's what you are when you are enslaved You'll think no good, only evil 'cause you're so depraved The ultimate price is what you'll one day pay So take my advice and from coffee stay away | CON | e8caea0e-2019-04-18T15:53:56Z-00004-000 |
Lonzo Ball was/is a NBA draft bust. LeBron James 20.9 points, 5.5 rebounds, and 5.9 assists per game. He became the first Cavalier to receive the honor and just the third player in NBA history to average at least 20 points, 5 rebounds, and 5 assists per game as a rookie. Their was also a lot of better rookies in the 2018 draft that have a lot of better stats then Lonzo Ball Donavan Mitchell is averaging 20 points, 3.7 assists 1.5 steals, and 0.3 blocks. I am not saying he is bad, I am just saying he shouldn't have been picked second overall | PRO | 535a7558-2019-04-18T11:34:27Z-00001-000 |
White Democrats are more racist in general than white Republicans. Con said the "N" word, so conduct to Pro. * White Conservatives oppose all of the b.s. benefits and perks given to minorities. Why? They see them as equals and not as special needs children. They assume minorities are as smart as anyone else and can buck up like anyone else. You can try to claim there is some invisible wall keeping minorities from success, but reality says this is a lie. Many minorities have become successful by working hard. A racism in America that will keep a minority from achieving the American dream cannot be shown or pointed to because it does not exist. I am proof of this. These minorities voted culture vs culture with their feet. They left. They come to America. They stay. Why? You know why. Ironically, minorities who come from countries overseas have had astonishing success. Skin color doesn't hold you down in America. It's a lie presented by the Democratic party to keep the minorities "in their place". They pat the minority on the head, make empty promises, wink and nod to one another, buy votes, and walk back to the plantation mansion content that the minority workers are still "in the fields" right where they belong. This isn't just racism. It's blatant racism. Hillary says we should "build bridges, not walls". http://www.thegatewaypundit.com... -The Dems built a 4 mile long, 8 foot high wall around the DNC to "keep out undesirables." http://www.theamericanmirror.com... -And building a wall is racist. http://www.zerohedge.com... -And then even put a wall around the stage. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com... So there you have it. The Democrat leader, Hillary Clinton, is not only a racist but a full blown hypocrite. Bronto exits thread. (Bronto theme music plays) http://youtu.be... | PRO | f94753b0-2019-04-18T12:59:11Z-00003-000 |
Building 7 was a controlled demolition. Since the firefighters knew it was going to happen approximately three hours prior to it finally collapsing (1), for it to have been demolition the fire department would have needed to be in on it; meaning any that died that day would have been willing martyrs under the same mentality as suicide bombers. Doubtful to the point of moronicy.The majority on listings on your source were shorter in direction, and none have similar cause. Most in fact had active battles with the fire department. Plus of the six total, not all of which even used the same support type; hardly "many" as claimed. These facts line up to make the source utterly useless. This is aside from the entire point being a huge logical fallacy. To quote one of the contributors of LiveLeaks.com talking about this very issue "just because something does not always happen does not mean it will never happen just because something does not always happen does not mean it will never happenRead more at http://www.liveleak.com... just because something does not always happen does not mean it will never happenRead more at http://www.liveleak.com... just because something does not always happen does not mean it will never happenRead more at http://www.liveleak.com... " (2).However as you have pointed out, the building collapsing the way it did would be "something impossible due to fire." Please explain the method of demolition that did not employ fire.Sources:(2) http://www.liveleak.com... | CON | fd8275ca-2019-04-18T17:02:15Z-00006-000 |
Ones surroundings give you certain knowledge of the existence of a Deity. Ones surroundings give you certain knowledge of the existence of a Deity. In this thread ->Bible... a question - http://www.debate.org... <- (post #164), user annehasle claimed that from her surroundings she could prove the existence (or lack) of a Deity. "My surroundings can definitely prove biology or physics but not a divine being." This debate is annehasle's chance to prove this statement. | CON | b0e96190-2019-04-18T19:03:51Z-00005-000 |
The Death Penalty. I would first like to refer my opponent to the case of Ryan Matthews who at the age 17 was charged and sentenced to death, but was exonerated years later after DNA evidence indicated that he was in face innocent. The most concerning aspect of this is what if he wasn't exonerated, the answer of course being that the state would have convicted and killed an innocent man. People are on death row sometimes as long as 15 or 20 years, before DNA testing was reliable or used. The use of the death penalty as a deterrent is not an effective method because the act of murder is an act of passion meaning when a murderer kills they don't weight the pros and cons of the action they are about to undertake, and those who commit pre-meditated murder they assume that they wont get caught so a deterrent such as the death penalty. In fact studies have shown most effective way to deter crime is to simply employ more police officers to patorl the street. The idea of nationally broadcasted execution at 8:00pm is utterly insane, as these period of time is considered prime time, a time when many families sit down together and watch their favorite television shows as a family. The last thing any country needs are thousands of traumatized children! And as for your citations of the bible for reasons to sentence others to death it is unfair and unjust. People are of different religions and some don't believe in the bible. How would you like it if you were sentenced to death because of what the Qur'an says? Not to mention the fact that punishment based on what the bible says is unconstitutional because of the separation between church and state laid out within it. | CON | 9a30aca3-2019-04-18T19:20:37Z-00000-000 |
Pop Culture Rap Debate. Hey, Leethal, thanks for the challenge! I really like the idea of "themed" rap battles, so this should be fun... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rookie of the Year - that's you - I'm a tried and true veteran. You flow so cold I caught swine flu - I'ma need socialized medicine. See if this debate's a plane, then I'm the muthafvckin snake on it! In this Modern Warfare, once you're gone you can't re-spawn or quit. Gonna make you crash and burn like it's 9/11 day at the World Trade, Your lyrics blow harder than your father at the Gay Pride Parade. Gonna take your Australia sh1t down under cuz my way is best. Steal your thunder like you're Taylor Swift and I am Kanye West. Please, my skills have already passed you like Drew Brees. I'll have your a-ss on your knees like you're a little boy and I'm a priest. You say you're gonna smoke me, but you fake getting high like Balloon Boy. I'm more dope than the heroin on the spoon they're illin' for in Illinois! We're not equal; See "L" stands for lethal - and you stand for bleeding sodomy. This battle will leave you needing a hand out - don't bail out like the economy. I'm so outta this world you'd think that my name was astronomy. Played so many girls deep in the game but I swear I'm not into misogyny. So don't validate the stupidity of bringing your girl to hang around near me, Cuz I'll really clearly demonstrate the validity of the Big Bang theory. Don't frown or be fretting when you see how I break your tramp in - Going down like a lead zeppelin; leave like a Queen singing "I am the Champion!" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I'm just getting warmed up so let me kick it back to MC Leethal for now :p | CON | 25d95466-2019-04-18T19:13:51Z-00003-000 |
Poetry Battle. There was a poetry battle on this site that I saw and rather enjoyed, I would like to have one of my own. To my opponent; just post any type of poem that you like. It must be completely original and all written by yourself. Please vote based on the creativity and poetic elements included in the poems. Thank you. My first poem: Hiding Places A hiding place, a hiding place... You ducked out from me and found one, It was fine before, but now what have you done? Tell me when you're ready, I'll need to know... A secret place, a secret place... Inside your mind you stay far away from me, This is absolutely not what we should be! I'll tell you now love, this isn't the answer... A beautiful place, a beautiful place... It didn't exist yet, but we both had claimed it, I wish you made more effort, just a little bit... But now you're looking to give the joy away... A darkened place, a darkened place... I have to fall down to its depths for now, Because I messed things up somehow? But I pray that it's not true, you'll come back... A hopeful place, a hopeful place... I still have you here with me in my mind, Will you go there with me? Are you that kind? I'm really not so sure but I'm not giving up just yet... A hiding place, a hiding place... Now I've found mine and it'll keep me safe, For now while you're confused and disgraced. I want to let you know, that I still adore you... | PRO | 654117ac-2019-04-18T19:07:51Z-00003-000 |
Athenian Democracy. What about women? You're a woman so I'm sure you understand how it feels to just be forgotten. I know that in our democracy woman weren't always allowed to vote, but we eventually got to that point. Athenian "Democracy" never got to the point of women being able to vote. Also, their government should in fact be called an oligarchy. Which means, a form of government in which a small group of people have power and control. I think that 12% is definitely a small amount of people. Also, what the heck is up with voting people out of office every year? They would be executed for ten years! how is that a democracy? Just because the people with higher power don't like what person has to say or they don't agree with their opinion. Everyone should get a say in freedom of speech. Not just oh we don't like your opinion so you're being sent to an island for ten years! Happy Vacation! | CON | 89b9ae07-2019-04-18T15:38:42Z-00001-000 |
ID cards will help combat illegal working and reduce illegal immigration to the UK. There are an estimated 430,000 illegal migrants living in the UK, and employers currently have no reliable way of establishing whether or not a job applicant has a right to work here. The National Identity Scheme will help employers find out about the immigration status of job applicants and about any visa restrictions which mean they cannot legally work in the UK. This will speed up the checking process and could be an advantage to those immigrants who are entitled to work. It could also help to identify people who try to work here illegally and could deter potential illegal immigrants from coming to the UK. | PRO | 131fbffb-2019-04-19T12:45:15Z-00050-000 |
"god". if god existed there should be no hurt or war or violence or crimes in the perfect universe. if anything the way our world is going it's ran by 'satan' not that i believe in that either. i just don't believe in god and would like to see you try to make me or agree with me. although this is my first time on the site so go easy. no not really, tell me how you feel. | CON | 54c896fa-2019-04-18T18:41:26Z-00002-000 |
Life experience is more useful than education. so most of the billionaires hadn't an education exept school and for example Bill Gates or Donald Trump and etc. It is not true. Donald Trump have high education. Trump attended Fordham University for two years before transferring to the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He graduated in 1968 with a Bachelor of Science in economics http://www.biography.com... By the work of accountant you couldn't achieve your goals or dreams and you should try everything and have risk everytime instead of just sitting in university or college It depends on what dreams have a person. Maybe his dream is to be chief accountant or financial director of big international company. All big things are starts of little things. | CON | a23436f0-2019-04-18T17:49:26Z-00002-000 |
It Is Not Always Necessary To Stop at "Stop" Signs. You see, I didn't really allocate myself enough time to make my argument as accessible as you did. This is my first debate and I really did enjoy it! Going in, I didn't think the people I would be debating would be so, well, uninternet-like. They use esoteric language, sure, but at least they are words!( haha, as if uninternet-like is) I still believe you are missing my point. I have made your resolution unnecessary by offering an alternate scenario in which not stopping at a stop sign where one is not supposed to is non-existent. Replace stop signs with "yield" signs if the driver really doesn't need to always stop. Stop signs are not a suggestion and should not be treated as such. I honestly believe that anyone who creates a debate in defense of the fact that it is not always necessary to stop at stop signs would not put anyone in danger. I honestly feel you have the judgement to make that call. I do not, however, believe that everyone will.In my future debates I will spend more time creating my case! I really didn't spend more than a few minutes and it shows! Good debate! I still believe with my single argument, I have won. | CON | 232eb0b3-2019-04-18T18:10:58Z-00000-000 |
Belief in the Christian god is logical. I need not reply to most of that, your argument basically hinges on this point: "The main problem with my opponents contention is the fact that he commits the fallacy of composition. In other words my opponent takes logical characteristics of god (power, knowledge, love) and thereby jumps straight to the conclusion that belief in god is logical." The logic (sound reason/judgment) I am referring to is not on the part of the primitive human developing religious ideas. The logic is referring to the anthropologist studying the primitive human. It's much like saying "It is logical for stupid people to believe in stupid things". The logic here is not on the part of the stupid person. It is on the part of me, the observer, saying that stupid people do stupid things. Similarly, I am saying it is logical for humans to believe in the Christian God. The logic here is not on the part of the person believing in god. It is on the part of me, the contender. The examples you provided all show that the beliefs themselves are illogical because they are derived fallaciously. I am saying that it is logical for primitive beings to develop those flawed beliefs given their status and background. Hence, they are not quite relevant to my point. | PRO | 48691a11-2019-04-18T19:49:44Z-00002-000 |
America does not have a drinking problem. The Pro position, (mine) is that the citizens of the United States do not have a problem with alcohol. As always my main source is the Bible. But Con is welcome to use any source and good luck Con. "Be not drunk with wine where in is excess. But be ye filled with the Spirit." Saul of Tarsus The Bible has so much to say about alcohol that it could be described as excessive. Jesus turned water into wine. He is our example and no one else. | PRO | e6fa9f40-2019-04-18T15:30:39Z-00007-000 |
Language is for communication. Due to this untimely turn of events, i am unable to post a conclusion, i will renounce my satus so far in respect for Con as i have now missed two rounds. I did wish to contribute more on this debate; however i am in no way a warden of time. I thankyou for the opportunity to debate and apologise for the lack of consistency that was required by signing up to this debate. Thankyou. ~Kryptic | PRO | d061a1b4-2019-04-18T14:39:06Z-00000-000 |
Resolved: Creationism is not appropriate for children. My opponent makes it very clear that if a child cannot be an archaeologist, or a microbiologist, then the theory of creationism is somehow not for the child's well being. "Other than an Ad Hominem attack on Bill Nye, and a list of personal experiences my opponent has failed to make an argument. " To my opponent, a recognition of Bill Nye's biased opinions is an example of Ad Hominem. I simply pointed out that engineering did not the require a belief in evolution. Which. .. my opponent agreed with. .. "perhaps not engineering but nevertheless it is an incompatible belief system. " My opponents ONLY argument was that creationism is detrimental to a child because it is an incompatible belief system. This argument "could" be made if my opponent proved his theory of evolution, but he didn't, and it remains a theory. I must ask my voters to look at this objectively, my opponent didn't give a valid example of how a belief in creationism could harm their well being. | CON | fd9f66d4-2019-04-18T17:51:47Z-00000-000 |
Newspapers wont die, they’ll adapt. It’s nonsense to suggest newspapers will die. The form they are delivered in might change but people will always want to read news and they’ll want it delivered by a trusted source. The paper form might eventually end (though there’s a lot of life in that old dog just yet), but news is a long way from shuffling off this mortal coil. Blogs and forums, for all their great points, do not have the weight of a well-established newspaper. They doesn’t have the columnists or the credibility, they can’t put correspondents in all four corners of the globe, can’t allow reporters to spend weeks researching a story and don’t have the ability to pay photographers for that photograph worth a thousand words. | PRO | d40a78d-2019-04-19T12:46:48Z-00015-000 |
people are born gay. I will close with an example. I've said I am an evangelical Christian. To be more specific, I am Southern Baptist. There was a young man in my church, we'll call him Ryan. He is a wonderful young man, raised in the church all his life. His family is deep rooted in the church. He was very active in church and never showed any rebellion or reason to go against his parents on anything. He has listened to truths from God's word like the following all his life: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality." When Ryan turned 18 he came out that he was gay and had a boyfriend. As far as I know, Ryan and his parents still have a wonderful relationship. But why would he choose to be gay? Think of how scared he must have been. Think of how he cried every night and how he is still probably wondering if God is still going to accept him. Why would he choose that? I agree, the choice to act on his desires is his, but the desires are not a choice. There was something in him that made him desire men. Is it morally right? No. But separate the desire from the action. The action of following through with your homosexual desires is a choice, but I do not see how the desire can be. When a man gets married does his desire for other women go away or does he just at that point choose to not follow through with his desire? Choosing to be faithful to his wife is a choice. Choosing not to act on his desires and protecting his marriage from those desires is a choice. But the desire itself is not. | CON | 83991908-2019-04-18T17:04:39Z-00000-000 |
Abortion Is Murder!. Sorry about that, as I was in a hurry trying to catch a plane to Helsinki. I'm Catholic therefore I believe in God. I find it hard to believe that some people don't think a God exists. I like to see what people say when I'm the one criticizing myself. I'm a Alt Right, Conservative, Trump Republican. I have in fact said all those things. If you would like to debate me on those topics I'd love to as I'm very passionate about them. I strongly welcome you to debate me about whether God exists, and all mathematicians agree 0.999... = 1. It's not absurd at all. The thing I hate about Liberals and Leftists is they yell things with no proof or evidence of why they are correct. 1. I did in fact mean No, abortion is not justified murder. 2. The definition in short is an UNLAWFUL killing. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear earlier. 3. There is in fact a difference. A killing could be lawful and/or justified, a murder is never lawful and/ or justified. 5. Ok fine I'll answer you're strange hypotheticals that make little to no sense. Going down the -'s from round 3. - No - No - No - No From these answers you probably believe I have no morals. I do it's just that I strongly believe that things happen for a reason. And as every single time traveling movie says, changing the past can have disastrous effects on the present. Ex. If Hitler wasn't born WWII probably wouldn't have happened. It's pretty safe to say that if WWII never happened we'd still be in the Great Depression. P.S. Since you call 0.999... = 1 "absurd" I'm starting a debate with you about that. | PRO | fb160203-2019-04-18T11:26:01Z-00001-000 |
iOS 7 is better than Android Kit Kat. While iOS 7 may be a nice operating system, Android Kit Kat is a supior all around alternative. KitKat works on more devices than iOS 7. Spec per spec, Kit Kat runs on more powerful phones and tablets compaired to iOS 7, and KitKat works right out of the box with a similar amount of set up as iOS 7. Android 4.4 Kit Kat has a more open back end compaired to iOS 7 as it is linux based (compaired to iOS being based on a heavilly modified BSD/Unix Shell). This means that users can take full advantage of the additional power in devices such as Samsung's Galaxy S5 and Note 3, HTC's One M8, and Google's Nexus 5. KitKat runs on a wider variety of devices than iOS as Google lets OEM's use it for free or with minimul licenseing requirements. Because KitKat is Android, it can run on multipule types of devices and isn't limited to phones and tablets. Kit Kat can power small ARM based computers, TV set top boxes, watches, augmented reality glasses (Google Glass is powered by Android), and various home appliances such as connected dryers and refridgorators. From a devlopment standpoint, Android uses Java over Objective C for the foundation of it's applications which can be argued either way, though how Android runs applications is supior to iOS as each application runs as a single instance much like web pages in Chrome do. This my transfer into a needing RAM, though it also means an unresponsive applications won't brick your entire phone. Android Runtime, or ART, was introduced with KitKat. ART allows applications to run more nativily on the various types of hardware and reduced RAM ussage and fragmentation while providing a smoother user experance.You'll need to use data to back up your statements that iOS is the number one mobile operating system as well as clearify by what you mean by "switchover rate". Sourceshttp://en.wikipedia.org...(operating_system)https://developer.android.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...developer.apple.com/ios7 | CON | db4b771-2019-04-18T16:27:42Z-00002-000 |
It's not possible for hollywood to make a successful adaptation of an anime. First off con mentions that I fail eloborate on what success really means when I talk about hollywood making a successful adaptation. Well its completely clear that i mean everything about an anime adaptation. No reason to explain myself there. my oponent mentions that there have been a few adaptations that have been successful when it comes to money. Which ones? Because as far as Im concerned none have been successful when it came to making money. Okay, if you think of the matrix maybe because it did have quite a few elements from "Ghost in the shell". Yet even then it wasnt an "anime adaptation" thus, exclude that as a possibile choice in this debate. Nothing has been successful, money or quality, hollywoods attempts to make anime adaptations have never succeded. They just dont appeal to the fans what so ever. Thus it affects the profit production companies expect to make. the studio that did dragon ball expected to do so well that they planned two sequals. Unfortunatley it sucked so bad and pissed of the fan base that they dropped the idea of two sequals and have resorted to a re-boot of the Dragon ball series (which hopefully this time hollywood doesn't mess up). | PRO | 62e95ec3-2019-04-18T19:10:57Z-00004-000 |
Gravity does not exist. This is clearly ridiculous. Gravity works on the basis of 'what goes up, must come down' because we are sitting on a very large planet, that pulls smaller things towards it. Without the concept of gravity, everything would just float around, and a gustof wind would blow your house away. Everything would essentially be weightless. Just as my opponent has asked me a question I would like to ask him; if gravity doesn't exist, why do I have weight? Why am I not floating around right now? Why ar[e]nt all thing[s] stuck together, with [n]o spaces inbetween? I'm assuming that's what you meant, if not please notify me. The answer to this question lies in the size of the earth. If the earth was 3 times heavier, it's gravitational pull would be 3 times harder, and we would weigh 3 times more. That is why on the moon we seem 'weightless' because the moon is so much smaller the gravitational pull is greatly decreased. Because of the earths mass we aren't pulled to earth to the point that it smashes us to it; just to the point where is holds us down. I would like to ask another question: If the the theory of gravity doesn't exist, why do we weigh less on the moon? I would like to remind my opponent that his responsibilty for being on the 'Pro' side of the debate doesn't stand at decreasing the belief in gravity to a point where it shouldn't be a law. It stands at proving that gravity could not be real at all. As that is what's meant in the title of this debate which is: 'Gravity does not exist.' | CON | 83a3276-2019-04-18T19:34:23Z-00004-000 |
Minimum Wage Should Be Abolished. -The vast majority of economists believe the minimum wage law costs the economy thousands of jobs. -Teenagers, workers in training, college students, interns, and part-time workers all have their options and opportunities limited by the minimum wage. -A low-paying job remains an entry point for those with few marketable skills. -Abolishing the minimum wage will allow businesses to achieve greater efficiency and lower prices. -When you force American companies to pay a certain wage, you increase the likelihood that those companies will outsource jobs to foreign workers, where labor is much cheaper. -Non-profit charitable organizations are hurt by the minimum wage. -The minimum wage can drive some small companies out of business. -A minimum wage gives businesses an additional incentive to mechanize duties previously held by humans. -Cost-of-living differences in various areas of the country make a universal minimum wage difficult to set. -The minimum wage creates a competitive advantage for foreign companies, providing yet another obstacle in the ability of American companies to compete globally. -The minimum wage law is just another example of government condescendingly controlling our actions and destroying personal choice. Citizens do have the ability to say no to a lower wage. | PRO | 49479255-2019-04-18T20:00:46Z-00005-000 |
The Madeline Mccann kidnapping was abused and exaggerated by the media, which led to harm. On. May 4th, 2007 Madeline Mccann was reported snatched from the ground story of her condo at a resort in southern portugal, while her two-year-old twin brothers and her were sleeping, and her parents were out of the condo eating dinner. Immediately, with at first positive help from the parents, aired multiple stories about the kidnapping on british and portuguese television. Soon after, the media attached itself to the story and reported every move by the police, speech by the Mccanns, and remained 24/7 outside the mccann residence, even after the mccanns pleaded for the press to leave, saying that they wanted a better life than this for her two remaining children. There are multiple reasons that prove the media hurt the mccann family, other children in Britain, and possibly madeline herself. 1)according to amnesty international, 1.35 million children get kidnapped a year, but, only .78 million of those are reported. Also, it has been found more likely for a kidnapped child to be killed if the media is aware of the kidnapping. And, this makes sense. if you knew that almost a billion people in the world could recognize the face of the little girl you had in captivity, and you knew that juries in convicting you would have a more corrupted opinion against you, you would want to get rid of the threat to your freedom. 2) The media targeted young children with information on Madeline Mccann. The media and the mccann family placed the story of madeline mccann and her picture in commercials before the child and animated movie "Shrek 3" and on bookmarks inside additions of the final installment of the harry potter series "Harry potter and the deathly hallows" Such targeting according to many parents scared their children and gave them nightmares. The media was targeting an innocent group of children who should of had no connection to the tragedy. These are just some of the reasons why i think i will win this debate | PRO | d80168d5-2019-04-18T20:02:19Z-00005-000 |
Open bigotry was common EVERYWHERE in America, not just the South. You are talking about that racism is spreaded about all U.S, and that's right. But this is focused in that it was created in the south, the bigotry has "it's roots" there , and therefore, many more people have those ideas in the south.I disagree, sir. Racism has its roots in neither the South or in slavery whatsoever. You're under the impression that slavery and racism are they same. They couldn't be more different. Racism has to do with hating other(another) race(s). Slavery is holding people in bondage. The reason racism happened in America is because people bought their beliefs of Western superiority into this country. The Native Americans certainly weren't slaves anymore by the time Abraham Lincoln launched his nasty war against Sioux tribes in Minnesota (http://en.wikipedia.org...). The same Lincoln also appointed a racist named Rowan Hinton Helper (one was racist against Natives; the other was racist against blacks). Yet he was against slavery, and better yet he come from Illinois. There are several others.http://en.wikipedia.org...Now before you go around saying Southerners came there, bringing their cultural racism, and thus causing the lynching, look at when it happened. This is before the Great Exodus of Southerners happened in 1910. This was in 1882, which would mean that North Dakota and South Dakota have a culture of racism themselves, native to the native white population there. Let me not forget the most important aspect of the cultural racism at work here: this lynching was never punished.So cultural racism and other forms of bigotry have been common in all of America. | PRO | 828b4014-2019-04-18T14:50:30Z-00003-000 |
The abrahamic god exists. Thank you for accepting the challenge. You say here that Satan tempted Adam to eat the forbidden fruit. I have a few problems with this. 1) God is all powerful and therefore must allow Satan to exist. Allowing the incarnation of pure evil to exist is obviously contradictory to gods status as all good. 2) god is all knowing and therefore knew Adam would take the fruit. (if he didn't know he is not the abrahamic god.) 3) God put the tree there Another point that I'm sure will be mentioned is that god gave man free will. This simply cannot be true if you believe in the abrahamic god again because he is all knowing. This means he knows every action we will take. Because god is also in control of everything any evil that does exist must be controlled by him and allowed to exist. This means he is not all good and therefore not the abrahamic god. I Understand the definition of god completely and i also understand the definition of evil free will etc. This knowledge allows me (using logic) to disprove the abrahamic version of god. I ask my opponent if he believes evil or pain exists in any way? Because if so an all good god cannot exist. There were "sins" before Jesus, while he lived and after he died. What effect did Jesus dying have. I must also mention that the second part of my opponents argument does not go anywhere towards proving the truth of the existence of god (something he tried to imply that i did.) I am enjoy this debate and hope to hear back from you very soon | CON | 444e7d66-2019-04-18T19:21:36Z-00002-000 |
The pen is mightier than the sword. I disagree. The written or spoken insult is not pathetic compared to the sword. Think of the power of the media. How "gossip," and lies, or indeed the truth can destroy a person's reputation. Something many people would consider to be of the highest importance. The Pen is everything BUT pathetic. Without the pen society would be nothing that it is today. The Laws and theories of scientists such as Newton and Darwin would not exist. Our outlook and knowledge on life, would be entirely different and the work of other scientists, could not have evolved or advanced in the way it has, if it all, without the influence of it's predecessors and the pen. Furthermore, Religion would be entirely different without the Bible, the Qur'an, the Torah or any other holy book you care to name. How different would the lives of millions of religious people be today, without the pen. It is often said, that the root of all wars, is religious. In which case, if our view of religion was altered, as indeed it would be without the religious texts, then perhaps war would not ensue. Then, there would be no need for swords to be drawn. In this way, the pen begins war and provides an opportunity for the use of the sword. Likewise, it ends war, in the form of treaties and so removes the opportunity for the use of the sword. In this sense, the pen has the ultimate power over the sword, dictating it's use. Surely "Mein Kampf" the book Hitler wrote whilst in prison, is indicative of the pen's power. He managed to change the mindsets of millions. Something a sword could not do. How do we know all of this? ! How was it that you were able to recount the story of how the middle finger was invented during the hundred year war? How was it that you were able tell of the Iraq war, Korea's nuclear weapon stockpiling and of the war in Palestine? ! I presume it was because you have read of this or been taught this? In this way you have lost your ignorance through the written word. How was it that you were even able to put forward your argument? Through the pen. It is the pen, that enables a city, a country, a generation, a world to access knowledge that would not be otherwise available to them. A sword does not reap such benefits. Whilst it is the sword that may drive a person to their grave. It is the pen, that enables them to live on, through statistics and history. Even the pen, has the power to defeat death a sword does not. | PRO | d23b94fe-2019-04-18T19:29:55Z-00003-000 |