argument
stringlengths 201
3.55k
| stance
stringclasses 2
values | id
stringlengths 36
39
|
|---|---|---|
FDI retail policy in India. "Instead it will give ample opportunities to the unemployed (lower class)"Corporations predict that a total of 2 million jobs will be created when they infiltrate India's economy. There are 200 million people in India, however, whose jobs depend on the retail sector, which intervention of big business will destroy through forcing small businesses to close and killing local economies. "Improve quality of product"Big businesses will monopolize their respective markets in India by destroying all small competitors, and then they will be in complete control of prices, so it will ultimately come at a cost. Also, after monopolizing, product quality will stop mattering, since all small businesses whose products competed in quality would be destroyed. Also, vegetables and fruits that will be imported from outside India will be not fresh and stale due to long distance transportation and constant refrigeration. My argument is that FDI of major corporations in India will lead to detrimental effects, such as unemployment, destruction of local economies, and the consumers of India will not benefit. Letting India's economy be hijacked by large foreign corporations is a bad idea. Thank you. (http://www.indiafdiwatch.org...) | CON | c96cac1c-2019-04-18T18:34:28Z-00003-000 |
The Universe is ~13.8 Billion Years Old. The evidence that quasars are connected to galaxies is much more than just the amount of times quasars appear near galaxies. There are visible connections between galaxies and quasars despite some scientists ignoring them [1]. So there are reasons to doubt that red shift correlates with distance. My opponent's argument for the big bang also relies the idea that galaxies are moving away from each other, which relies on the idea that red shift accurately measures speed. So as long as the validity of red shift measuring speed and distance is questionable, so is the Big Bang theory. As for the cosmic microwave background, there is way too much interference from the galactic center to accurately measure the cosmic microwave background [2]. Thus it can't be reliable enough to get an accurate age since the Big Bang, even if the Big Bang did happen. My opponent claims that radioactive decay can be used to measure the age of the universe, but radioactive decay is not constant [3] so it can't be used to accurately measure the age of the universe. As for how old I believe the universe is, I really don't know. I don't think there is strong enough evidence to conclude that the universe is any specific age. It could be anywhere from 100 million years to 100 quadrillion years for all I know. I think it is astonishing that scientists admit that a majority of the universe is made of this dark matter they know nothing about and that most energy is dark energy they don't understand, but yet they claim to understand the universe well enough to know its age with 3 significant figures of accuracy. [1] http://youtu.be... [2] [3] | CON | cca9cba4-2019-04-18T15:51:12Z-00004-000 |
The "War on Terrorism" is unwinnable and should be ended. 1) Iraq was stable before we invaded. It was, perhaps, not a great place to live, as Saddam Hussein was murdering innocent civilians, but he is no longer in power, and innocent civilians are still being murdered. We've instated a government, and the people have voted. Now we need to rebuild and get out. 2) The increases in airport security are best described as "security theater". There remain numerous holes in security (a commonly discussed scenario is simply setting off a bomb before the security checkpoint, where numerous people will still be killed and many people will be scared-- the point of terrorism). The security there is serves the purpose of creating an illusion of response ("security theater") and being vary annoying and wasting time (the fact that people, even if only jokingly, advise friends and family to arrive days early, when an hour was all that was needed on busy days, is testament to this). 3) Personally, cameras everywhere make me (and many others) feel less safe. Who watches the watchers? Who can say with certainty that ex post facto laws will never exist? Who can say that wearing an orange hat will not someday become a retroactive law carrying the death sentence (unlikely, I know, but it's just an example)? Furthermore, there are private security cameras covering major cities already. How does installing more help? 4) Then why was Iraq invaded? Wasn't the reason for that because Iraq had nuclear weapons? That evidence certainly wasn't irrefutable because it WAS refuted. Then the reason was changed to "Saddam is a bad person". Saddam was removed from power, captured, and executed (he wasn't even tried in an international court-- the court was US run). Still US forces remained. The excuse was then that we needed to stabilize Iraq. Well, the way to do that is to REDUCE forces and change their mission-- to rebuilding Iraq. 5) We do need to capture terrorists (and give them trials), but more terrorists will always come up. Even if Al-Qaeda ceases to exist, there are other terrorist organizations. If we eliminate all terrorist organizations, then people who have similar ideas will form new ones. Do we really want to play Whack-a-Mole on an international scale, except that each round costs a few million dollars instead of 25 cents, and every time we miss, innocent people die? | PRO | b3700bfa-2019-04-18T19:56:24Z-00005-000 |
Is War necessary for World Peace. I believe that war will lead to World Peace because if one country can destroy all the rest of them would that not lead to Peace. If 1 country can rise up and destroy the rest that makes that country the sole inhabitant of the world which leads to no one to fight against. If that is succeeded than we can focus all of our efforts on things more worthwhile than the constant manufacture of weapons and violence. we can focus on curing Diseases, increasing our knowledge of the Universe, and eventually leaving Earth and terraforming other planets. Which leads to the prosperity and well-being of the Human race. It is necessary for even Innocent people to die for the Greater good of our continuation of our species. If millions and even billions of people have to die to achieve World Peace then I say it is a small price to pay. You can always make more people replace the one that we have lost. Sooner or late the Earth I going to run out of fresh water or space or us all getting blown up by nuclear weapons. Which will lead to War over these things and these things will be used up in our petty struggles for Dominance. Thanks | PRO | 405fdff5-2019-04-18T15:35:37Z-00005-000 |
The Democratic Party has abandoned it's roots and heritage in an attempt to pander to the far-left. It seems clear to me that the modern day Democratic Party has completely lost touch with its heritage and what made it great. The Democratic Party was founded on the belief that the government is their for its people. This originally meant small government and pro-farmer stands, as opposed to the pro-big business and pro-big government views of the Federalists/Whigs/Republicans. These views died off around the turn of the century when the Progressive movement of Woodrow Wilson and Bryan took over the Democratic Party. He believed in a government that helped the people while promoting classical liberalism (Free markets, personal freedom). These views then evolved into New Deal/Paleoliberalism. This ideology believed in a government that actively helped its people, especially the middle class. It also advocated a strong pro-humanitarian and anti-tyrannical foreign policy. It also embraced a wide array of social views, though many of its leaders were strongly Catholic or Evangelical. All of these ideologies held one common thread, the belief in the government standing up for its people. That belief has been pushed to the back by the modern Democratic Party, which has instead focused on issues like Abortion, Gun Control, and Gay Rights. They have taken hard-left stances on each of these issues and thus have driven away many middle-class voters. For the Democratic Party to create a long term majority, it must return to its core issues: Protecting middle class jobs, helping re leave poverty, and providing affordable health care to just name a few. | PRO | ef0457f5-2019-04-18T19:57:42Z-00005-000 |
The Westboro Baptist Church should not have a right to free speech. In America, freedom of speech is protected by the 1st amendment of the United States Constitution. Thus, ones speech may be unpopular, it may be hurtful or clearly misunderstood. It may even be unpatriotic; however, the U.S. Constitution supports their right to make these statements. It is my opinion that the Westboro Baptist Church is a mean cult which only exists to make the lives of ordinary citizens miserable. They protest military funerals, they hailed the mass killing of children as God's will. They hold up derogatory signs which proclaim that "God Hates F***s". Their actions promote anger and discomfort within a civilized society. Their "holier than thou" attitude has sparked counter demonstrations which have the potential for violence. Because of the specific intent of this group to spread a speech of hate, and to degrade our military personnel and other citizens of our society, they should not have a constitutional protection which allows them to hurt people. CON may want to argue that the Constitution is what it is whether we like it or not. Therefore we have to respect the protections that it offers even if people are hurt. CON may argue that, if it is constitutionally permissible to burn the flag (a form of free speech), no one should argue about a group's expression of their ideology. If my opponent believes that it is right for the Constitution to protect hateful ideology, let the debate begin. | PRO | e916e897-2019-04-18T15:27:40Z-00005-000 |
Is racism wrong. Pro clearly said: "I will be tak[ing] the stance that racism is wrong morally and con will be taking the stance that racism has some [...] value"I explained why racism does have value and why it is not morally wrong. Pro, however, failed to give a rebuttal. Hopefully he will not make this mistake again in the next and final round which I will, once again, eagerly await for. | CON | 9cf10e8a-2019-04-18T13:39:30Z-00002-000 |
pc is better than mac. I expected this, but am nonetheless disappointed. And I quote: "5. Don't Ever Forfeit a Round" "Even if you don't have time to leave a full response, DO NOT forfeit a round. Forfeiting a round destroys your credibility and makes it less likely that voters will vote for you. If you can't post a full response, write as much as you can, and leave a simple sentence stating that you are unable to post a full argument and will return for the next round. This lets your opponent know that you still wish to participate in the debate and allows them to elaborate their argument." http://www.debate.org... Allow me to point out that forfeiting rounds is a terrible strategy for winning debates. This debate has been a major disappointment for me, for when I took it I believed that my opponent actually wanted to debate. Obviously he was not serious about this at all, having given no effort to convincing us that his position is correct. My arguments stand unaltered. I ask that my opponent, out of courtesy for the voters no less than myself, make the effort to post something in his final round. | CON | a44c4d83-2019-04-18T19:16:09Z-00002-000 |
I support Ayurvedic medicine for the ailments of every disease.... which one do you support. Yeah as my co debator said... chineese medicine is almost the same as Indian Ayurveda. Chineese medicines has been researched and practiced for like the last 2500 years. That is quite a large chunk of time indeed. yet, ayurveda in india has been researched, expirimented and is being practiced for more than 5000 years. There is not much arguments that i can provide to you in this field coz am not soo aware about the TCM. visit www.mannalilayurvedahospital.com for info about ayurvedic treatments | PRO | 3e3d918b-2019-04-18T12:37:26Z-00002-000 |
The West has demonstrated that hiding behind China is a viable strategy. An ineffective message in this case might well have been worse than no message. Had the West attempted to intervene, either by setting up a no-fly zone or even sending in ground troops, and the killings not stopped, it would have sent a message that Western threats and Western power are a paper tiger. Worse, if the genocide had reversed itself after Western intervention, the West would have found itself with both the moral and the political responsibility for the violence, and accusations of Western bias and even complicity would spread rapidly. | CON | 26f61f10-2019-04-15T20:24:43Z-00011-000 |
Mentally healthy adults have the right to use guns for lawful reasons. My argument is that the right to defend one's self shouldn't depend on mental health. After all, a right is not a right if it is denied to 1 in 5 people. Not to mention an attack on veterans, who often experience mental illness after active service. 31 Percent of them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://www.nami.org... https://www.rand.org... | CON | 9a80a998-2019-04-18T11:49:58Z-00006-000 |
Scientology (Pro) makes more sense than Hindu (Con). As you know, Hindus are polytheistic. And a polytheistic religion is impossible because that would imply that the god's limit eachother and that a god has a certain domain. By definition, a god is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipresent, but if a god is only bound to one domain of life, (e.g. god of wind, god of fire) then that destroys the definition of god. That does not make sense. Also, how could there even be many god to exist logically. Is there just a state of being where there are thousands of deities that suddenly have the urge to limit eachother's infinite power and create an imperfect world. That to me makes no sense what so ever. | PRO | 7bd80941-2019-04-18T14:47:25Z-00003-000 |
Zoophilia/Bestiality should be legal and is not inherently immoral. "You haven't proven anything. Those are animals trying to have sex with other animals! There is nothing wrong with that.".... You know humans are animals too, this whole thing is about animals having sex with animals of another species. So yes I have proven that it's not only humans who think it might work. Humans aren't the only ones who are willing to try.If there is anything unique to humanity on this issue it's our cultural resistance to the idea. It's a relic of religion just like homophobia that remains strong because many people think of their pets as childern, call themselves pet parents. They ignore the fact that these creatures are fully grown and even if they will never reach human intelligence their sexual desires and capabilities do develop.That's not what people want, they just want an eternal psuedo-baby to take care of. They can't imagine that their little puppies could ever see them as objects of sexual interest so they tell themselves absurd stories about how they are just playing or trying to asert dominance.Even though you haven't tried at all to meet the burden of proof I guess we'll see if some good can come of your last round. So I have a question for you, throughout the world artifical vaginas and mounting contraptions are used to collect stallion sperm.What if (as in the story of the minotian queen Pasiphaë and the white bull) you put a human in one of those collection machines? Do you think the stallion would care? When does it become rape and why? | PRO | 3961f6d6-2019-04-18T17:04:44Z-00001-000 |
Another Abortion Debate. I'm not saying absolutely no women would do this. I'm saying less would than before. True, illegitimate births are on the rise, but there isn't the social stigma that comes with a bastard child that there used to be. Teenage mothers are more and more common and therefore there is less and less pressure on the mother to feel the need to go to extreme lengths. Furthermore, we shouldn't legitimize millions of 'safe' abortions in the name of saving a small number of radicalized mother, potentially. Because abortion is sanctioned, there are millions more deaths a year than there would be if abortion was illegal. True, we run the risk of mothers hurting themselves, but this is a risk we NEED to take in order to stop millions of deaths a year. I'm not saying you sanction drug legalization. I'm merely making an analogy. Saying that since something is inherently going to happen, so therefore we should legalize it is bad. It leads to more widespread use of the undesirable act. If we legalize abortion simply because a small number of mothers are going to risk the coathanger approach, we are sanctioning and indirectly causing millions more abortions each year. Our current abortion laws attempt to walk on eggshells between two heated groups. The fact that they recognize the potential for the child absent its cognition is proof that this should be extrapolated to conception. If the government protects children 3 months from birth because of the future child, they have an equal burden to protect a child 9 months from birth. There is no reason to draw the line, only politics. You mean to say fallible. I agree that the Constitution is not always right, but I think the basic ideals that our country is built on should be followed. I'm not talking about some small clause in the document. I'm referencing the prime principle of rights infringement that have been cited throughout history. Slavery is actually a perfect example. The federal government ammended the Constitution (which didn't directly sanction slavery) in order to disallow the states from making their own decisions on such an atrocity. The federal government felt that slavery was so wrong that no states should condone it. This should be the same as abortion, because it is a massive rights violation and a severe breach of constitutional values. Having compromise on an issue like this would be similar to allowing some states to still condone slavery. It shouldn't be left up to the states because it is such a massive wrong. | PRO | 1f94dca0-2019-04-18T19:54:07Z-00001-000 |
If the blade of an axe is replaced, and then its handle, it is still the same axe. Thanks for challenging me to this debate! Sorry about the delay in accepting; I wasn't able to log on for a couple days. While most people would agree that replacing the tire on a bike doesn't make it a new bike, that situation isn't completely analogous to that of the axe. Replacing the wheels doesn't change the bike, but (I believe) most people would agree that replacing the entire rest of the bike does. The reason for this is that one part of the bike (or axe) is seen as the core, main part of the object; all the other parts are replaceable without changing the object, but replacing the core part would change it. In the case of the axe, the head would be the "core," because once you separate it from the handle, it still retains its purpose and is obviously part of an axe. Once the handle is separated, it becomes just a piece of wood, and is no longer recognizable as a part of an axe; it loses its identity as the starting axe. Pro's argument is based on the assumption that the handle will be perceived as not having changed after the head is separated from it. This assumption is unfounded; thus, Pro's argument falls flat. Thanks again for challenging me; I look forward to continuing with this debate. | CON | 34629083-2019-04-18T19:07:28Z-00004-000 |
Gandalf would beat Dumbledore in a duel to the death. "Disarm wands. Furthermore, Gandalf can protect himself from the magic of others (such as saruman) and could easily prevent himself from being disarmed."Frist that spell is never said to be bound to wands and also your assuming that magic(like that of saruman) is the same as magic of the HP universe, Gandalf has never encountered this type of magic befor. Sorry it was my fault to be so undescriptive. By regonal I didn't mean could not affect vast areas I mean the were more based on fight other cretures or entities within Middle-earth (like a spot light that scares Nazgul) while Dumbledore spells are bassed off of mostly phisical thing, like disarming, stuning. And I under stand Gandalf does have some spells that aren't like that(fire or lighting).The Phineixs can be reborn can the eagles?You can't deny the fact that gandalf does seem to smoke alot pipe-weed and this clearly has some sort of effect on him. Gandalf If not addicted is atleast high during non war times from what we can tell from the canon. If gandalf was high it would give Dumbledore and advantage.Dumble has been know go invisable with a cloak, summon a massive fire storm, fly(broom stick) and Since your get Gandalf in his most powerful form I can assum the Dumbledore would pocces all his magical iteams that were later given to harry as his magical skills were perfected when he was a child. | CON | cdc13384-2019-04-18T16:48:24Z-00001-000 |
There Law in the US ensures that the currenly unemployed may never again be employed. This debate asserts that US law, specifically Title 15 USC, prevents the unemployed from getting employment. The relevant portion of the applicable Statute concerns Investigative Consumer Reports. Title 15 USC goes by the colloquial “Fair Debt Collection Practices Act”. The term "investigative consumer report" means a consumer report or portion thereof in which information on a consumer's character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living is obtained through personal interviews with neighbors, friends, or associates of the consumer reported on or with others with whom he is acquainted or who may have knowledge concerning any such items of information. However, such information shall not include specific factual information on a consumer's credit record obtained directly from a creditor of the consumer or from a consumer reporting agency when such information was obtained directly from a creditor of the consumer or from the consumer. (FDIC §603(e)) Every employer was given the authority to attach employment, promotions, etc. to the results of an ICR. There are requirements purportedly to protect the individual, not the least of which is you are under no obligation, legally, to sign the required form granting the employer permission. The ICR as used prevents any long term unemployed from getting a job because, as currently used, outside agencies gather the information based on criteria provided by the employers and failure to provide your information to the third party results in one not being permitted to even get an application. The methods in place for the “consumers” protection all involve remedies at Law. The burden is on the consumer to establish, in the preponderance, that the consumers failure to waive his rights is the reason he was not employed and/or promoted. If, however, he waives his rights, he may, and usually does, not have any remedy at Law. Ergo, the Law has created an unemployed class of those who do not use credit cards, support privacy, and choose to retain all Creator given inalienable Rights. (Declaration of Independence) | PRO | ede56e2-2019-04-18T18:35:33Z-00004-000 |
God Is Real. Ahh..My Opponent makes some good points and breaks down my statements to make them seem useless. Science does indeed disprove Miracles, but just because something happens at a time in which is good for someone's use doesnt mean it was done by some external being. The fact that a volcano errupted and in turn a river miles away turned red does not mean that some "God" used nature to do his bidding. If thats the case, does this mean that his bidding is to kill people all over the world? This proccess happens in random places near inactive volcano's around once every fifty years. As to your idea's that (:A. Everything that exists has a beginning. B. The Universe exists. C. Thus, the universe has a beginning.:) This is true but it being a fact that due to its own existance, a external being must have made it, that does not neccassarily have to line up. Ever heard of the Big Bang Theory? In the begginning, there was darkness, then slowly, atoms and began to form. As they began to form, they made up two parts of the known Element Table. After many of what we of the now, call years, the atoms multiplied and evolved, and after many of what we call Billions, of years, there was many elements and some began to react with each other, due to this imbalance, they began to implode upon themselves. When the implosion was complete, the now destroyed atoms began to fuse with other destroyed atoms and shot out across the darkness. Then, after a few more billion years, planets and suns were made. This is part of the theory which describes how the universe came to exist. Now, on to your Science comments. Science is "ever-changing" so if you look in every corner you can find everything can be shown if you turn to science. Sorry for that extremely short answer, but i am running low on time so I will try to finish my point. My Opponent stats that God is atemporal and aphysical. That is to say, if there really is a god then he would have to be of that sense to have such things made about him without being around for people to see. Some people that say they see god and then they get put into some kind of medical facility and are usually found to have some kind of illness: mentally or physically. As for your Final Conclusion "God is needed for the creation of the universe, thus our existence as a universe proves his existence." I have to say that science proves the creation of the universe could happen naturally, and thus a naturally formed universe would destroy your point. God is just the thing people think of or "see" when they lose someone or something or get "lucky" and have to praise something. Time for a Rebutle? | CON | b1df4c-2019-04-18T19:32:10Z-00002-000 |
Resolved: If you say "pretty please with a cherry on top" you can get anything you want. Alas! The challenge hath been answered! I call upon Hor, god of political trickery to assist me in my battle against this here fool! His name shall be smitten! Now, enough with the jib-jab. I will be presenting a logical argument for my position. Necessity of ice cream: P1: Desert is subjectively awesome. P2: Ice cream is subjectively the best desert there is. P3: Subjectivity can be objective if the subject formulating the opinion is based in truth. P4: I am the prophet of Morgan Freeman who always speaks truth. P5: Points 1 and 2 are my opinion. C: Ice cream is the best desert. Necessity of cherries: P1: The best desert in existence necessarily exists. P2: Cherries necessarily top ice cream. C: Cherries are necessary for the best desert in existence. Desert's command on the issue: P1: The best desert is necessary for prettiness. P2: Please falls under the category of desert. C: Cherries are necessary for the existence of please. Necessity of fulfillment P1: People say please to politely ask for something. P2: People should accept polite requests. P3: Hypothetically everything that should happen must happen. C: Saying "pretty please with a cherry on top" is necessary for acceptance and must always be accepted. I look forward to my opponents arguments in the following rounds :D | PRO | 8f492387-2019-04-18T16:35:33Z-00002-000 |
Compulsory physical education risks unnecessary and costly injury. A compulsory rather than voluntary sports program is a risk for both students and schools. More and more schools are avoiding team games (e.g. rugby, soccer, hockey, football) for the (realistic) fear of lawsuits when injuries and disputes occur. In one example, a defendant was awarded £100,000 by the school of a student who tackled dangerously and caused both neck and ligament injuries to his opponent opponent[1]. Furthermore, injuries sustained through school sport and the psychological trauma of being bullied for sporting ineptitude can mark people for years after they have left school. Furthermore, psychological injuries occur to those who would not otherwise do sport if not forced, these injuries tend to be the longest and most damaging. Voluntary physical education would avoid such traumatic episodes. [1]BBC News (2001, August 8). Rugby injury wins £100,000 damages. Retrieved May 18, 2011. | PRO | b84774d-2019-04-19T12:44:40Z-00043-000 |
Freedom of Expression Is Equivalent to Freedom. "Freedom of expression" taken in a highly literal sense does mean general freedom. Everything I intentionally do is an expression of myself, my wants, and thus who I am as a person.As can be seen from sense 1a of the Merriam-Webster online dictionary's definition of "expression," found at https://www.merriam-webster.com..., expression is related to representing in any way. However I represent myself, that representation is an expression of myself. Everything I intentionally do affects my identity and thus my representation. If I move my arm, for example, that small action is nevertheless an expression of myself, as it expresses my desire to move my arm and it affects my identity and representation in reality.Having the freedom to get whatever lunch you want is a freedom of expression. In having whatever lunch you want, you are expressing your desire of what you want for lunch. You are registering yourself, your feelings, and your wants in reality. | PRO | e25ad784-2019-04-18T12:05:27Z-00003-000 |
animal abuse bad or good. Well, a question is not really an argument but what the heck. If an animal is attacking you, then it is the only time to abuse them. However, any other time it is not morally justified. Same with humans, since they are animals. If the animal is attacking you, then go ahead and abuse them to save yourself. Thus, animal abuse is good in that situation. Or if your trying to save a group of people from an animal. | PRO | 8a5a957-2019-04-18T15:17:12Z-00002-000 |
Nike or Under Armour. Well You see Under Armour and Nike have been competing for one of the top spots on most popular sports wear, However I prefer Under Armour. Under Armour seems to have the same quality as Nike just a different emblem and it is cheaper. Nowadays price can be one of the primary factors when buying things. I personally have bought both Nike and Under Armour and have found really no difference in quality but I have found one in price. | CON | 4986eec7-2019-04-18T17:35:27Z-00002-000 |
Dependable payday for businesses. Whilst Valentines Day does provide a big payday for many companies, this is not necessarily a totally negative thing. For one, it helps to ensure consumer spending which aids the general health of national economies – never more of a concern than now. It also helps to bring money into developing countries, who have become dependant on the 14th of February to keep their economies stable - ‘South American countries…export huge quantities of flowers on the occasion of Valentine's Day’ (1) (1)http://www.theydeserveit.com/valentines-day/valentin es-day-facts.html | CON | 2eb55dd0-2019-04-19T12:47:00Z-00007-000 |
god is evil or uncaring. I only have about ten minutes, but fortunately my opponent is so horrible that I could forfeit this round and be okay. ( no offense, statement if fact not insult). Following numbers are the responses to the same numbers my opponent used. 1. If God obly made us feel love or joy it takes away our free will to feel otgwr emotions. Duh SMH. Also without pain there would be nothing to weigh joy against to even know it is good. An omniscient God in a freewill scenario knows every possible future, but given that his creations have freewill, would not know what decisions they would make, necessarily. 2.I'm not even sure what my opponent is saying here. Maybe his reading comprehension skills are so low it prevents him from understanding what I wrote, so he puts random crap. I'll just answer C. U mean seriohsly WTF is he talking about? C) no supernatural entities can have free will just like humans in that scenario. This has nothing to do with interference by God. I hope I answered that vorrectly because ut was mostly rubbish and hard to figure out what you meant. 3. WTF? Thua guy just seriously googled a rebuttal for the Ontological argument. The worse part is that he googled a rebuttal to the wrong Ontological argument. I gave the modal Ontological argument guven in Godel's proof fro the 1970s, not the one from the 13th crntury. This is a dropped argument on his part. I provided premises, and did not define God into existence. Whatever my opponent is so bad this 5 minute rebuttal will do. | CON | 189a19b2-2019-04-18T13:38:10Z-00002-000 |
Current illegal drugs (besides marihuana) should not be legalized. We are doing all the current drugs that are illegal and can get you "High". (Including hallucigens).Federal and ecomomic point of view I. Will cause decline in econmy. (As shown by New Hampshire and Vermont) Vermont and New Hampshire has one of the Highest Illict drug problems in the U.S.Yet, its not suprising that they have one of the Lowest GSP. Now, I am not implying that illict drug use is the sole cause for a decrease of GSP. But, rather it is more than a mere coincdidence. From a logical (as well as statistical) standpoint, it is safe to assume an increased drug rate will lead to an unstable society which the risk alone is not worth taking. Also, drug legalization advocates claimed that the money used to legalize drugs can be used for the good. Here is the DEA's response “Ask legalization proponents if the alleged profits from drug legalization would be enough to pay for the increased fetal defects, loss of workplace productivity, increased traffic fatalities and industrial accidents, increased domestic violence and the myriad other problems that would not only be high-cost items but extremely expensive in terms of social decay." II. Drugs tied to terrisom During the aftermath, of 9/11, the DEA, performed research through drug trafficking. Regarding the train boming in madrid, according to the DEA, "The bombers swapped hashish and ecstasy for the 440 pounds of dynamite used in the blasts, which killed 191 people and injured more than 1,400 others. Money from the drugs also paid for an apartment hideout, a car, and the cell phones used to detonate the bombs". III. Drugs and crime There is no doubt that drugs relate to crime. Drug crimes often involve murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny/theft, serious motor vehicle offenses with dangerous consequences, arson and hate crimes. We need to break the chain between drug and crime, not make it stronger. 80% of offenders abuse drugs or alcohol. Nearly 50% of jail and prison inmates are clinically addicted. Approximately 60% of individuals arrested for most types of crimes test positive for illegal drugs at arrest. We have one of the higest incaraction rates, and 60 - 80% of drug abusers commit a new crime (typically a drug-driven crime) after release from prison. Approximately 95% return to drug abuse after release from prison. IV. Jobs that require drug tests Many jobs do not require drug tests, but that is a big exception when it comes to federal and transportaion jobs. However, one out of five employees were reported for drug tests in Colorado. It is not very shocking that many buisness owners prefere a drug free envirment. It is not unlikly to get fired if you are caught getting drugs in the workplace. This is all for my Federal standpoint. I will do rebuttals in the next round, and include morality in my Bop | CON | c6588e53-2019-04-18T15:32:38Z-00004-000 |
If you can eat tree you eco fren fren. I do eat trees. I eat leaves and twigs routinely. I love eating trees, and shrubs and flowers and grass. I eat grass as compensation for not brushing my teeth - every. eating branches and leaves as I walk through the wilderness is a must for me. I enjoy it very much. however, the economy does not distinctly benefit from it at all. | CON | 1d5b37d8-2019-04-18T15:45:36Z-00002-000 |
Men should prefer gays to lesbians. Tell me this: IF someone takes potential prey away from a predator what does it do to them? Makes them angry, especially if the thing is a prey itself that means TWO have gone out of bounds.If someone takes potential competition away it is likable ESPECIALLY if it is potential competition itself.Lesbians might know more about being a woman but gays thrash them in knowledge of what makes a man hot or not. Also gays are usually feminine-minded and understand the female brain better than lesbians who usually are very masculine-minded in the sense that they think more about systems than people, which is a male trait. | PRO | b1e0e666-2019-04-18T17:57:28Z-00003-000 |
Providing Material Aid to Impoverished Communities/Nations/Individuals Promotes Poverty. You have established a dichotomy of what we could do for these hypothetical 10,000 impoverished people. Although it's somewhat inaccurate, let's continue with absolute statements. Without intervention, these 10,000 people will starve. If we continue to follow my preceding argument, however, sustaining them for a year of life will result in an increase of population. Since you have not denied this I'll assume that you agree with it. The following year, instead of having 10,000 impoverished people you'll have 10,000 + X impoverished people, where X = number of newborn. This will just continue to snowball until the caregivers themselves are impoverished. As for your point on counting me as one of those 10,000 impoverished people: Of course I would want the help. We're ultimately selfish when our lives are at stake. But the question is not whether a starving individual wants help, but whether or not we should give it to him/her. It's an important distinction to make. "…we may have more and better means of helping those people." That's a big ‘may'. We ‘may' also have no means of helping even a single one of them. On the subject of your remarks about fishing: A place to fish does not count as material aid. How would you provide this to anyone? As for your remark about giving them the tools as means to provide for their own subsistence, you've got a good point there. Tools could certainly help an impoverished community get up on its feet. Unfortunately, tools that help us feed ourselves don't control our food supply. If there are 10,000 of you but only enough wild boars to feed 1,000 then there will be 9,000 left to starve. My following point has much to do with my above concept of supply and demand, and is in response to your comment about providing food, water and shelter. Much like food, our dependence on water relies on its availability. If a community exists in a location where water is scarce, then it is a futile endeavor to deliver them water. They will quench their thirst for a year and continue to reproduce, and then there will be even more dehydrated people for you to cater to. Sustaining a doomed community is cruel. Any form of teaching is not a part of this debate. I made this explicitly clear in my first post by elucidating what I meant by ‘material aid'. My argument is not that we make it illegal to make charitable donations. I don't believe in petty laws that infringe on a person's right to do as they please with their possessions. The question at hand is not whether or not we should make it illegal to donate but rather about whether or not we should bother. PS: The ice cream statistic was a nice addition, and it certainly helps to put our lives in perspective. It's a shame that our chances at life are typically dictated by where we're born. | PRO | 7333d04d-2019-04-18T18:44:21Z-00003-000 |
Arming citizens with guns is an ideal action to take to defend against the threat of criminals. Thank you Misty for putting this together. For the record my name is Robert. Please feel free to use that or my screen name, whichever you prefer. Of course I gladly accept the debate challenge and look forward to it. I accept the terms of the debate and I therefore yield to you. You have the floor and the first argument. Good luck. | PRO | 8395dc46-2019-04-18T17:18:08Z-00008-000 |
A long face is better than a wide face, physically. Yet again, that is simply your opinion. I don't know what you mean by "admit", I'm stating that beauty is only opinion, and even if I did think that that a particular face was more attractive, it still wouldn't matter. Please present an actual argument for why long or slim faces are more attractive, instead of just stating your opinion. | CON | 2e18fe5d-2019-04-18T13:19:41Z-00006-000 |
Do people achieve greatness by finding out what they r good at and develop that skill above all else. You are only thinking in one direction. I could knock off your entire argument by simply stating... what if the person was extremely good at being bad? Look at Adolf Hitler. He was a persuading leader and he was too good at what he was doing (in a bad way).However, did that allow him to achieve greatness? No, it didn't. You can't simply achieve greatness by being good at what you are doing. Again, as I stated in my first argument, greatness is where one is recognized because he has provided a beneficial cause to the public and is looked up on. Hitler was good at being an evil tyrant. Did he provide a benefical cause to the public? No. Actually the quite opposite in fact. Advocates of Hitler firmly believed that he was the ultimate leader and together, they murdered about 11 million people during the Holocaust. Hitler built his reputation as a leader well enough to lead an attack that killed 11 million, innocent people. Developing his skill as an influential leader did not make Hitler a great person but instead brought him infamy and led to total destruction of innocent people. Your definition of greatness was where a person achieved "extreme professional success". What does "extreme professional success" mean??? This is an opinion of yours so it's different for everyone. A garbage man could view his promotion in his job as extreme profession success. Very different than what you had in mind. By the way you didn't answer the question. The question was whether you achieve greatness by finding out what you are especially good at and developing that skill solely. What you did was give me a "How-To" on becoming an expert which is to work your butt off for 10,000 hours. Totally irrelevant. lol | CON | b79271e6-2019-04-18T15:25:31Z-00002-000 |
Abortion is immoral. 'cause countless of women to suffer for no good reason' Fail, continuation of the species is a good reason. Also, our economy is in danger due to Old people outnumbering the young, causing the source for social security to collapse http://www.usnews.com... Explain how it is irrational to classify what we are while still in the vagina as human, or ending its growth as death | PRO | 353580d2-2019-04-18T19:09:52Z-00006-000 |
I will not contradict myself. My opponent has contradicted herself a couple of times, let me list them;1. To sing can mean to tattle on someone; to betray someone. http://thesaurus.com...In question 10 she said she is singing right now, but in question 11 she said that she would never betray a friend.2. In question 4 my opponent said that she has never 'mooted' before. Moot is a synonym for bringing up a topic to debate. Since she created this challenge, she mooted, which means she contradicted herself.http://thesaurus.com...3. In question 5 my opponent answered '8 minutes ago' when asked when was the last time she bit herself. In question 15 my opponent said that she never takes notice of the time. This is another contradiction.I think that 3 contradictions are enough to prove that my opponent was unable to not contradict herself. I thank my opponent for this interesting and fun debate.Vote Con, as my opponent contradicted herself 3 times. Oh and, she doesn't like walruses.... | CON | 489cc643-2019-04-18T18:46:22Z-00000-000 |
Yahoo Answers is better for politics than Debate.org. Wait that is the only reason why you think Yahoo Answers is better than this site? Just because you happen to find this site liberal bias? I really don't know too much about this site since it is my first day, but how could Yahoo Answers be better? Yahoo Answer is a very bad site for politics. It is nothing but bashing, trolling, and flame wars with no facts behind them. The only good section of Yahoo Answer is Martial Arts but other than that most sections is nothing but trolling and fighting. Do you have any other reasons why Yahoo Answers is better other than you're claim of liberal bias of this site? | CON | c9810ad4-2019-04-18T18:38:59Z-00006-000 |
Morality is subjective. =Rules= 1. No semantics; use your own common sense to know that this means. 2. No vulgarity; keep it clean 3. Arguments cannot be based solely on evidence. This is a philosophical debate, not an evidence debate. That said, evidence may be used so long as it is not the driving Factor 4. A breach in round structure will be counted as a forfeit of the debate. 5. Multiple breaches in character limitation beyond the grace area are grounds for a loss of conduct point. =Structure= This debate will take place in LD Style Round 1: NEG Clarifications; AFF Constructive arguments (6,000 Character Limit) Round 2: NEG Constructive and arguments against opponents s case (7,000 Character Limit); AFF Argument rebuttal, and defenses on own case (4,000 Character Limit) Round 3: Neg, Rebuttals, and Voters (6,000 Character Limit); Aff Voters (3,000 Character Limit) Each speech will have a 100 character Grace period. | CON | b6c9dc87-2019-04-18T18:46:59Z-00005-000 |
All nuclear waste storage dangerous; no good option. Jeremy Shere. "What Is The Best Way To Dispose Of Nuclear Waste?" Moment of Science. March 23rd, 2010: "There have been a few other interesting ideas–such as burying nuclear waste beneath the ocean floor. Scientists have also thought about putting waste in really deep holes, burying it in polar ice sheets, and stashing it beneath uninhabited islands. [...] But there are problems with each of these ideas. For example, it would be difficult to monitor nuclear waste under the ocean floor. Waste buried deep in the earth, meanwhile, might contaminate ground water. And as ice sheets continue to melt, it’s hard to say how long nuclear waste would remain buried, or where it would end up if it floated away. Plans to store waste produced in the United States in Yucca Mountain, in Utah, have been put on hold. So for now almost all nuclear waste is kept above ground in special containers at a few hundred different sites around the country. So far the containers seem safe, but there’s always the possibility of corrosion. So, basically, there is no best way to store nuclear waste." | PRO | d24f411a-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00028-000 |
Atheist Epistemology. I apologize for the late response and unfortunately I will have to keep this response short. Con asks how the non-material can exist from the material. He says that I cannot prove I am nothing more than a machine that only thinks because of my physical makeup. I will try to show how a materialist can handle this question, but I also wish to ask him a similar question. How can you prove that you are not a machine that only "thinks" due to your physical makeup being acted upon by the laws of nature? He would need to show how immaterial things could interact with the physical, which would break the laws of conservation of matter and energy. For, if the cause of actions is some immaterial mind that moves matter in the brain as a prime mover of a chain of events, then energy is being added out of nowhere. If materialism is not true, con has to show how this is possible. To answer con's question, I will answer in terms of beliefs, since knowledge is seen as justified true belief. I must show how it is plausible that physical things could generate beliefs. Imagine a painting. It is made of thousands of individual brush strokes. If one looked at these strokes in themselves, they would be pretty mundane. However, they can all come together in specific patterns to create new properties not present in the individual strokes, like texture and beauty. These properties are not at all held by each brush stroke, but they become present when the strokes are put together in a certain manner. Similarly, it seems possible that neurons do not hold mental properties, but when they come together in a specific form, these properties are the result. However, without these neurons mental properties could not exist. A good mind "supervenes" on the physical make up of the mind. Beliefs emerge due to a specific pattern of matter in a hierarchy leading up to mental properties. Beliefs (or any cognitive activity) may seem to exist in another realm of things, but they are the result of a specific structure of matter. This is how a materialist can account for knowledge. This seems to be a necessary consequence of a closed physics. I now ask con to provide an argument in defense of the immaterial properties of the mind. I ask, again, the two questions above: how can immaterial substances interact with the physical and how does this not violate basic laws of physics? I also ask for evidence which seems to show how a dualist view of the mind seems more likely than a monist one. | PRO | f11cef8e-2019-04-18T13:54:50Z-00004-000 |
Je ne vais pas me contredire (I will not contradict myself). Has my opponent made his first mistake? The first contradiction that I have found (even though I wasn't really expecting it) was that my opponent said in the second round that they don't believe in supernatural events but in the third round they said that they are not an atheist. Well according to the definition of atheist which is "a" meaning "not" and "theism" meaning "belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world [1]" we must see that if my opponent doesn't believe in supernatural events, then they cannot believe that a god created the world and/or mankind (which are supernatural events) and as a result, my opponent is an atheist revealing the first contradiction of this debate. Have I broken any rules in this debate? Is it permissable to kill yourself? Do you support PETA? Is it possible for an amino acid to become a functioning cell? (please sight the source) Do you like animals? Do you like cherry pie? Do you support euthenasia? Do you live in the United States? Do you pay taxes to the government? | CON | a178e845-2019-04-18T18:31:40Z-00004-000 |
Following divine law on contraceptives is hard but necessary. Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI - Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife. | PRO | d8150fb5-2019-04-17T11:47:48Z-00054-000 |
Many voters enlist the government to commit injustices they would not commit personally. "Many voters enlist the government to commit injustices they would not commit personally." Despite your best attempt to generate a topic of debate that does not so much qualify as a topic of debate and more a topic on which you can rant, I'll take the matter up for debate nevertheless. Since you've done such an abysmal job of manufacturing the topic and position, allow me to clarify. You believe people form democracy (according to your first line on the voting booth) in order to commit injustice against other citizens against whom they would not have acted against otherwise. My 2 counter arguments are as follows 1) Democracy in America was formed to PROTECT other citizens against injustice, and does so successfully 2) These injustices would have taken place regardless and it is because of democracy that these injustices do not. In fact, these ARE injustices they would commit personally. 1) Read up on your study of American History. The Electoral college, the selection of Senators through State Legislatures, the establishment of a strong federal government following the Shays Rebellion are all reasons for the formation of the present day government of America. The system as a whole was designed to keep Order in order to protect the wealth and property of the upper class from the underprivileged, armed, and rather discontent masses. 2) The premise that these voters would have required a middle man and would only act through a secret ballot is absurd in the extreme. In American history, before the establishment of our present government, we had the as mentioned Shays Rebellion. Let's look at this logically for a moment, Imagine for an instant there was NO GOVERNMENT. Your neighbor has food, water, and luxuries. You and your 12 unemployed buddies have nothing. According to Handsoff, you and your 12 buddies needed a government to rob (and murder) your wealthy neighbor because this would not be an injustice you would commit personally. Looking at Louisiana during Katrina where there was an absence of government, I must strongly lodge my disagreement. | CON | eac20fe-2019-04-18T19:51:16Z-00004-000 |
Dirty Jokes!. "Jane" was becoming frustrated with her husband's insistence that they have sex in the dark. Hoping to free her husband from his inhibitions, during a passionate evening, she flipped on the lamp -- only to discover a cucumber in his hand. Is THIS what you've been using on me for the past 10 years!?!" "Honey! Let me explain!" "Why you sneaky bastard!" she screamed. "You impotent S.O.B.!!!" "Speaking of sneaky!" he interrupted, "Maybe you'd care to explain our two kids!!! *********** A guy and a girl are lying in a dorm-room bed after just having sex. The guy lies on his side of the bed and rests. The girl rolls to her side of the bed and says to herself, "I finally did it! I'm no longer a virgin." The guy overhears her talking to herself and asks, "Are you saying you lost your virginity to me?" "Well," the girl explains, "I always wanted to wait until I was with the man I love to lose my virginity." Astounded, the guy replies, "So you really love me?" "Oh God no!" the girl says. "I just got sick of waiting." *********** Two college roommates are about to go to bed. The guy in the top bunk has his girlfriend sleeping over. To try and keep quiet, they devise a code. His girlfriend will say "tomato" if she wants him to go slower and "lettuce" for him to go faster. As they begin to have sex, the girl starts to moan, "Lettuce, lettuce, tomato, tomato!" The roommate on the bottom bunk wakes up the next morning and says, "Stop making sandwiches at night. You got mayonnaise in my eye!" | CON | 8b4941a3-2019-04-18T17:51:29Z-00001-000 |
Great physicists were deist. Your argument is total based on the fact that because all physicists you listed are deists therefore there must be a god, which is as much as all great physicists have hair therefore hair must be god. And the fact that these things are too complicated to be left to chance. So bascially you are going to use the argument that because these great scientists think these are too unlikely to happen on its own therefore there is a creator, when there is a huge lacking of empirical evidence, data, research, peer-review. Just because from our perception that everything that exists must be created, doesn't mean that is absolutely true. We used to think Earth was flat, man cannot fly in the sky, the moon was made of cheese, and there is no way for man to get to the moon. And your watch argument, if 'god' exists he would be immaterial, time would not matter, in fact nothing we percieve would matter. And you say that god intervenes when the watch is broken, okay, define broken ? Or needs to be fixed. Don't say mircales because that would undermine your creditbility and turn this debate into a circular argument. | CON | dbeb2d09-2019-04-19T12:44:58Z-00051-000 |
Resolved: There is no such thing as reality. My opponent invokes the sense of touch, and cognitive ability as evidence of reality, but they are neither. Consider that humans will likely one day have the ability to stimulate nerves in such a way that it fools the brain into thinking a computer generated object is real. Would simulation itself be real? When you, "touch," gold, to the best of our knowledge, what happens is that a force field between tiny energy balls repel your finger, keeping your finger from passing through the gold. Just ask any quantum physicist. They'd also tell you that where you perceive gold, there's actually hardly anything at all there but empty space. The minuscule amount that is, "there," is merely energy, that provably can be in two places at once, and can't even be pinned down to a location and a speed or rotation. My opponent so far can't even define reality in any way that makes sense. If it can't be defined, then it doesn't exist. This is an obvious tautology. Quod Erat Demonstrandum. | PRO | e49f50ab-2019-04-18T19:36:58Z-00003-000 |
All good schools are hard to get into. Often parents move, paying more for a house just to be close... In theory, a selective school is meritocratic – children from all social backgrounds can go there if they are bright enough. In reality, class plays a big part, with most selective school students coming from well-off families. This is because wealthier parents often pay for extra lessons to help their children in the entrance exams. So selective schools are not after all giving bright children from all backgrounds equal chances in life. They even make existing class divisions worse by giving extra opportunities to those from better-off families. The state should not be spending tax-payers’ money on a system like this. | CON | 50cd0646-2019-04-19T12:44:10Z-00016-000 |
The ontological argument. Someone had to take this. I make the following argument with the utmost respect for Pro and his beliefs: 1) Santa Clause’s existence is either logically impossible or logically necessary.2) Santa Clause’s existence is not logically impossible.3) Therefore, Santa Clause necessarily exists. Premise 1 is true because I will define Santa Clause in a way that does not allow for any contingencies. Premise 2 is true because it is possible to define Santa Clause using only negative properties; such properties that I will simply make up are necessarily logically compatible. Conclusion Pro claims that this argument can not be used to show that something which isn't godlike exists. Pro is confusing his argument with his definition. His definition is of a godlike being, so of course it would not fit anything other then a godlike being. However the logic of the argument is not dependant on the definition he chose. There is no dispute over premise 2 that God is logically possible. However Premise 1 basically states that because he is possible he is necessary. Such an argument can be used to assume the existence of anything, that does not prove that that which is being argued for does in fact exist. One can easily say that God is logically possible but may not exist. Pro offered nothing to dispute this obvious truth. Therefore the argument laid out above does not in fact prove the existence of God as Pro claims, it simply assumes it. The resolution is negated. | CON | 3ec42466-2019-04-18T18:16:55Z-00000-000 |
The Kalam cosmological argument is sound. Objections to premise 1Your first objection was that there are "particle-antiparticle pairs that come into existence in otherwise empty space for very brief periods of time, in agreement with the Heisenberg uncertainty relations".I have two objections to this.Firstly, this is only one of many interpretations of quantum physics, a field we know very little about. For example, in Bohm's theory of quantum mechanics everything is deterministic.Secondly, even if we accept this interpretation then it doesn't mean that something comes from nothing, this is a misunderstanding. According to the Copenhagen interpretation which you presented, "nothing" is really a sea of fluctuating energy. Every so often particles come into existence from that energy for a brief time, before dissolving back into it. So clearly this is not something coming from nothing.Your second objection was that "apart from things such as virtual particles, nothing comes into existence". However this just proves my point. In nature nothing new can come into existence, and so for something to come into existence at the big bang is a violation of nature's laws. Objections to premise 2You said "Accepted, although the expansion of the Universe and background radiation is proof of the Big Bang, i do believe. Pre-Big Bang, there as a containment of matter in a super-condensed space.". However there is no "pre-big bang" as time came into existence at the big bang. Therefore matter can't have existed before the big bang, and so must have come into existence at the big bang.Objections to the conclusion My opponent's objection is that the argument doesn't prove that god has all the attributes associated with the christian god, which I agree with. However it does in my opinion prove that there is a personal creator of the universe, and one who at least fits the basic characteristics of the christian god. | PRO | 66b7665-2019-04-18T18:34:07Z-00001-000 |
There should be no signs that prohibit walking on grass. I must admit that this is a bit of an unusual topic. Hopefully we can come to some kind of a consensus towards the end of the debate. Contention 1: Red Herring Contention 2: My opponent points out that walking on grass won't reduce it to a "dry, arid desert". However, walking on grass does wear it out over time. This occurs often when lots of people travel on it every day in one specific pattern. Yes, this is a very minor consequence of walking on grass, but it still reduces the aesthetic quality of the grass itself. Moreover, wearing out large patches of grass by having lots of people continually walk over it isn't a very nice thing to do to the poor groundskeepers that have to fix it. Contention 3: My opponent points out that rules regarding walking on grass are, in practice, hard to enforce. However, there are all sorts of rules that are difficult to enforce in practice. For example, there are hundreds of thousands of Stop signs in the United States. And it would be nearly impossible to put a police cruiser at every one of them so that people don't drive straight through them. However, the mere fact that they are there helps people conform to driving safety standards –for good reason I might add. Likewise, the fact that there are signs discouraging people from walking on grass is a good way to get them to conform to such standards. Moreover, rules don't always need to be enforced for them to be effective. ::Conclusion:: In summary, grass signs represent an easy means to encourage people not to walk on grass. By doing this, these signs promote the aesthetic value of college campuses and other public venues. Additionally, these signs help make life easier for the groundskeepers that have to repair damaged grass that has been worn out by lots of people walking on it. In total, the signs are a good idea, and they should remain with us. | CON | b4f9b65e-2019-04-18T19:08:42Z-00002-000 |
Gay marriage ought to be legalized in the U.S. When we examine this issue, it's vital to look at it from both an ethical and legal point of view. Only after examining them will we discover it is morally justified and logically proven to legalize gay marriage in the U.S. My value for this debate is EQUALITY. First, why don't we begin with the legal viewpoint. To do this, we need only to look at our Declaration of Independence in which it was claimed "all men [and now we know, women] are created equal" and then later elaborates on how we all have the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Clearly the created equally part is fairly self-explanatory. We are all equal, so one's homosexual/heterosexual tendencies are irrelevant to whatever marriage one wants to have. Next is the life, liberty, and happiness part. When one is denied marriage to their partner, this is denying them the pursuit of happiness they deserve. It is unjustified and legally reprehensible to prohibit a marriage. Time and time again in the past, we have partaken in closed-minded, bigoted tendencies only to repeal said tendencies later on when the truth revealed itself. Just look at our ban prohibiting inter-racial marriages. And today, I am assuming we all are under the same opinion that banning it is not morally correct. We can compare the inter-racial marriage issue to the one we have now concerning gay marriage. Furthermore, in American is the separation of church and state. This means that no religion may be brought into political affairs, which is exactly what gay marriage has become. Therefore any and all arguments concerning religion is irrelevant. But next, let's move on to the ethical standpoint. Homosexuals marrying each other will not lead to a third world war. It will not lead to a disease that will spread across America. It will not lead to bestiality. Nor will affect YOU in any way, shape or form. Because when it comes down to it, if you don't like gay marriage, then don't get gay married. That's it. See, trying to ban gay marriage is akin you being on a diet and telling others not to eat cake because it offends you. Which, we all know, is preposterous. Clearly, under both legal and ethical standpoints, gay marriage ought to be legalized in all of America. Not only is it a right that ought to be guaranteed, but there are no logical contentions on why it ought to be banned. | PRO | b561ef57-2019-04-18T16:28:46Z-00003-000 |
Evolution vs Creationism. Evolution is the better explanation for the diversity of life on Earth than creationism. The evidence for evolution is extensive: DNA, fossils, endogenous retroviruses, and to the average person like me the most convincing and easiest piece of evidence is the vestigial organ. Creationism on the other hand only points out unexplained phenomena or certain features of animals that evolution has not explained yet, or has explained and ingnores the claim entirely to proof their case. | PRO | b3be4fd7-2019-04-18T17:55:19Z-00009-000 |
Modern threats of global warming is unnecessarily high. It is true that appliances cause at least minor harm to the environment...but may I ask, what is your proof that they cause harm to humans, physically? We are already working on solutions to the environmental problems, and our technology advances more each day. It's not the least bit unfathomable that within the next decade or so, we will find a solution that makes our everyday objects environmentally friendly. | CON | 630f91c5-2019-04-18T16:03:43Z-00000-000 |
Migrants ought to have a right to family reunification. The proposed right of family reunification is too much of a burden on receiving countries, making it an obstacle to a migrant rights treaty. Indeed, states have levelled as an argument against the Migrant Workers Convention, and against other possible international migrant treaties, concerns about a robust right of family reunification to all migrant workers present in migrant-receiving countries. This could offer family members a right to migrate into the state in question, resulting in large increases in population size. And, there is no doubt that the text of the Migrant Workers Convention aims to create a "right" to family reunification. Even if it provides flexibility on how a nation attempts to facilitate reunification, it still requires that states reunite families in some way. Under this treaty, therefore, any migrant could sue the state for not allowing his family (and perhaps extended family) to immigrate as well. In overpopulated and strained migrant-receiving countries, particularly in Western Europe, such a proposition is untenable, which is why so many migrant-receiving nations oppose the treaty. | CON | 50591168-2019-04-15T20:22:27Z-00012-000 |
Gay Marraige should be legal and accepted in all USA states. Before I begin my argument, I would like to ask everyone who is voting in this debate to vote not based upon your own opinion. Please do not vote for one of us just because your opinions support one of us. Vote for the person who advanced their arguements better and rebutted their opponent's arguments better. Thank you. Now to the actual debate. My first argument is that gay people are still people. Just because one part of them is different, and they prefer people of the same gender, does not mean that we can shun them from society. We don't shun people from marrying people of different religions, or of different races. Then why should we shun people from marrying people of the same gender? | PRO | a0e86849-2019-04-18T19:56:08Z-00005-000 |
In The BBC Science Fiction Program Doctor Who, The Fourth Doctor Is Cooler Than The Tenth Doctor. This is just something that popped into my head as a debate topic. Personally, I love both. The Doctor is the Doctor, but I have to pick a side. This debate is completely un-serious (if that is a word) and will not involve big words and lengthy responses if you do not want it to. I do require that my opponent is familiar with at least Tom Baker and David Tennant in the roles of the Doctor, so his or her arguments won't be biased or unsupported based on lack of knowledge about either character. Round one will be just for acceptance so everything can stay nice and even round-wise. I peachfully await my opponent's acceptance! | PRO | 7f065108-2019-04-18T17:56:43Z-00005-000 |
Captain America would beat Batman in a fight. My first argument is that Captain America has the physical edge. Let's look at both of their stats:Batman can bench-press an average of 1,000 lbs. Impressive, but Cap can easily lift 100 lbs. more than that; and that's not even his best.Batman can run as fast as the best Olympic athletes, which is about 27.44 mph (that's Usain Bolt's time). But Cap is way faster, with a speed of about 50mph.Batman recovered from having his back broken, which is an incredible feat for a human. However, Captain America has fallen from an airplane 200 ft. above the ground onto a car, and landed without a scratch.So Cap is stronger, faster, and more durable. You might make the argument that Batman has been able to defeat opponents physically more powerful than himself. And while this is true, it would be irrelevant in this instance for three reasons:1. Cap doesn't have an exploitable weakness like Kryptonite, so Batman wouldn't be able to take advantage of that.2. Most of the super-powered characters Batman faces are really dumb and can easily be outsmarted. But Captain America has peak-human menal faculties, and is a great strategist and tactician.3. Batman doesn't have prep time in this situation, which is almost always the way he defeats people with superpowers.Sources: http://www.planet-science.com...http://marvel.wikia.com...http://www.comicvine.com... | PRO | dde991d1-2019-04-18T15:19:22Z-00003-000 |
Resolved: Canada should be pro global warming. I'll go through this a bit more slowly since Pro doesn't believe I'm smart enough to understand his arguments. 1. Opening of the Northwest Passage: There's no reason to believe that doing so will make Canada a global shipping hub and center for international trade. Ships don't need ports unless they're going to take on or discharge cargo and there's nothing along the extreme northern coast of Canada that requires that service. Whether there might be in the future is purely conjecture. We can see, today, that simply having a lot of shipping passing your coast is no guarantee of economic success. An enormous amount of shipping, for example, goes through the Suez Canal and down the East coast of Africa and those places never became shipping hubs or centers of international trade even before their recent troubles. Back in the 19th century having good port facilities helped make you a trade center, but today it's being centers of banking, finance, and corporate headquarters is what does it. As regards the confrontation with Russian interests you might take notice that regardless of the "wrath of the rest of the world", Russia was not deterred from it's seizure of some of Georgia, it's annexation of the Crimea, and is still interfering in Ukrainian internal affairs. The "wrath" Pro is counting on doesn't seem very effective. 2. More natural resources for Canada. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Everything has it's cost and the cost for more oil, coal, and gas extraction is environmental damage. Are the profits from that activity worth the cost? That would be up to the Canadians to decide but I think that anybody whose seen what oil sand extraction or open pit coal mines have done to the landscape would have doubts. 3. Resources plus forests. I wouldn't expect palms to replace conifers but you will see species that thrive in more southerly zones to move north. See http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us... That in itself will produce major ecosystem changes. Also, as Pro has pointed out, the existing forests will expand North. When that happens they won't be moving into a lifeless area but will be displacing the flora that's there now and the animals that depend upon it. 4. Refugees. Does anyone truly believe that the mass migration of billions of people worldwide will have no adverse effect upon any nation? That Russia and the US will, somehow absorb them all? The world is tightly connected. This ain't the 19th Century. Finally, let me point out that it's reasonable to assume that the sea level rise and the loss of sea life associated with global warming will cause a great increase in global instability. A number of the nations immediately affected like China, India, Pakistan are nuclear armed. Will this increase in instability make Canada safer, even with it's presumed increase access to oil, gas, and coal? I think not. | CON | 6ef9b3f1-2019-04-18T14:26:27Z-00002-000 |
Atheism is more appropriate than agnosticism. "Athiesm has probably been around since when? I mean a collective form, not some random guy sitting in his little hut is 1000BC wondering when Jesus is going to get here." First, I never talked about atheism as a 'collective form' but as an hypothesis. Second, why is this what you are saying an argument. "Also, can you practivce absitnence? How can you practice something that you don't do, right?" What does practicing something has to do with it? And again, agnostics and atheists both don't practice a religion (if they don't have to) please try to give counterarguments to my arguments or at least tell me which of my (imlicit) premises are wrong. | PRO | fc4c7d76-2019-04-18T19:43:30Z-00001-000 |
Water Is Wet. Also, Nice source. "Water can not be wet, Because it can not contain, Be covered by, Or soaked with water that is not itself. " -- I will reuse my previous point. Water is wet because of tetra-hydro hydrogen bonding. <--Water does stick to itself in the same way that it sticks to other molecules. Water is water molecules stuck onto other water molecules, In other words, Not only does water make objects wet, But water itself makes water wet. Water wouldn't be present without it's trillions of molecules. Furthermore, An ocean, Puddle, Lake, Or any body of water is wet. <--In closing: This was a good debate. Again, You have my thanks. I noticed you just joined this website, The same as I. May we have a great experience on debate. OrgRound 3 response submitted. | PRO | 9cba07e7-2019-04-18T11:14:04Z-00000-000 |
By a Biblical Body Count, Satan is More Moral than God. I suppose my opponent's definition of moral will work... Again, we are back to the notion of whether or not killing people is right or wrong. It is clearly wrong, so my opponent cannot get off the hook by stating that killing people is moral only when God does it. That simply sounds silly. Responses: >> "What you call circular reasoning is simply giving you a chance to use sarcasm to embarrass me with your coke can remark." Your comment about God being moral because his purpose is to be moral does not need my help with a coke can to be embarrassing. >> "God never says killing is wrong or immoral he says don't do it because VENGANCE is his." Was there some part of "Thou shalt not kill" that you didn't understand? And if vengeance is God's alone, doesn't that indicate that it's morally wrong according to God for man to take revenge on man? Furthermore, most of God's killings are not revenge - they are simply wanton murder and disregard for human life. >> "If Satan was so moral why would he sentence men to their doom to make them suffer for all eternity in a fiery prison?" Two problems here - first, I never said that Satan was moral - just that he was more moral than God. And furthermore, it is not Satan that condemns people to hell - judgment is reserved for God. GOD sends people to hell, not Satan. >> "God however gives us hope of following his laws we will dwell and prosper in a place that we will forever be happy." Considering some of God's laws include taking the women of conquered nations for your harem, keeping slaves, and killing homosexuals, this doesn't seem like such a moral God... >> "If one man will kill a million but knowing this you commit murder and kill him have you not saved millions from death and emotional torment?" Well this would definitely be an example of a moral action. However, God spends a good deal of time smiting babies... who are fairly unlikely to go kill a million people. God smites with wanton disregard, not just the evil ones. >> "I will tell you that your argument was solely based on death caused by the greater power but the main focus was that Satan was more moral than god. Which is clearly wrong Satan simply does not have the means to harm people physically or even more would be dead." My opponent contends that my argument is incorrect because Satan doesn't have the means to physically harm people, even though he is capable of possessing them with demons, and in the book of Job, kills 10 people. Seems to me there is a problem with his line of reasoning. ********************************************************** The body count still stands: God: 2,301,427 Satan: 0 If killing people is immoral, then God is more immoral than Satan by a Biblical Body Count. AFFIRMED | PRO | fc5b5b77-2019-04-18T19:32:43Z-00001-000 |
Iran should be allowed to develop a nuclear arsenal. Basic Reasons to kick start discussion - Iran is a Shia Theocracy and by allowing them this you grant them more power and influence (sharia law will spread), alarm Sunnis' (who'd make a prime target), Endanger both Israel and more so Iraq (war could start up again). - The ayatollah is tyrant who can't be trusted. - Rouhanni can't be trusted either even though he's supposedly liberal: since not only is he subordinate to the conservative ayatollah; he also is a holocaust denier, and the mastermind behind the deplorable response to the student protests of 1999! - Iran sponsor and support many insidious regimes and appealing terrorist groups - this will only catalyse that. - Nuclear weapons are obsolete deterrents, necessary in the Cold War - we shouldn't be encouraging and endorsing furthering of the Manhattan project. - They're run by dogma not rationale doctrine. - A global mantra forms which Will allow other countries to enrich their own WMD arsenal. (bad economically, socially, environmental and philanthropically) "We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita... "Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." "There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors." Oppenheimer | CON | f81b8c0f-2019-04-18T16:57:22Z-00005-000 |
3 P's in a pod. I challenge my opponent to come up with absolutely any political, philosophical or psychological resolution. They can also dictate which side I take on the resolution.Note: Philosophy does not include religious scripture debates that require specialist knowledge of scriptured texts.It must be given with fully written definitions and must not be a troll debate of any kind.If I can prove the resolution to be too bias to one side, my opponent shall forfeit all 7 points unless they can substantially prove it to be a fair one.This is a twofold debate as there is one attack on the resolution my opponent and another on the side I have been assigned on it, once I accept it.This can get as crazy and as unfair to my side as my opponent wishes insofar as there is a plausible way for me to win it within the constraints of the resolution's wording and the definitions my opponent provided.If specific words are not defined by my opponent, I withhold the right to dictate whatever definition I wish in round 2 and my opponent must accept it. If they post a definition in round one that is sourced to a valid dictionary of some kind (i.e. not Urban dictionary or some other troll dictionary site of that kind) then I am obligated to accept their definitions of key words. Defining connectives and conjunctions is not required, only the key words for the debate that are of significance to the resolution and how to interpret it.Best of luck, opponent.P.S. amending the resolution is illegal. | PRO | 18cea011-2019-04-18T16:24:16Z-00005-000 |
R: Treating the US Constitution as a "Living Document" ought to be prohibited. The only thing that I can say to you is HOW DARE YOU. How could you use a character attack in such a way. I know I did not do that well in this debate. You must remember I have not debated sense my tournament in March. If you were the debater you claim to be then you would have just plainly said I win not bash me as a debater because you and be both know when I am at my high and have time to really structure a debate I win trophies. That is another thing where the heck was your structure. You had no organisation in your debate it was like a ball of stuff. Again I KNOW I did not do my best in this it is my first time on here and it is hard coming from intercollegiate debate season where you have 20min prep time and go right then and debate not waiting for hours for a response. Next debate we have will be on my terms and my style of structuring a debate. But being a gracious competitor good game. I tap my knuckles on the table for you. If you do not know what that means you really never debated. LOL | CON | d36ce4f0-2019-04-18T19:38:15Z-00000-000 |
Cannibalism Should Be Allowed. Here are my counters to Pro's arguments: 1. Developing Immunity. Pro is correct that cannibalism selects for certain disease-resistance genes. The logic here is that consuming a poisonous food will ensure future generations can avoid the effects of the poison. However, ceasing cannibalism would also protect future generations from the disease. In other words, Pro's point is not so much incorrect as irrelevant. Any disease resistance conferred by cannibalism could also effected by not consuming dead bodies, thereby avoiding the disease entirely. A behavioral change is also faster and easier than a genetic one, and can bestow its benefits within one generation instead of several. 2. Stable and Easy Access to Food. This is a non-issue for developed countries, as evidenced by our obesity problems. It would only become an issue in the case of famine. The resultant breakdown of law and order would likely lead to cannibalism anyway [2], rendering the question of its legality a non-issue. Either way, this argument doesn't support the case. 3. High Protein Content. Pro linked a video which claimed a 50 kg person could yield 4 kg of protein. This amounts to 80 grams of protein per 1,000 grams of human flesh, or 8.8 grams of protein per 110 grams of flesh. This is less than half the protein content of fish (20 - 25 g protein/110 g flesh), and about 1/3 - 1/4 the amount found in chicken (28 g), lamb (30 g), and beef (36 g top round and 25 g t-bone), as presented in the chart here: https://en.wikipedia.org... [3]. This is why we eat fish, chicken, lamb, and beef instead of other primates. TL;DR, Pro's claim is incorrect. 4. Population Control. Pro's suggestions of human farms or eating death-row prisoners would certainly be effective at killing off large numbers of people. The Nazis managed to kill 11 million people by similar methods, and they weren't even harvesting the meat (prime cuts of Jew, imagine that). However, if killing off large numbers of people is the objective, cannibalism would actually make this process slower, as we'd have to invest resources into processing all that meat, and we'd still have the trouble of disposing of the inedible parts. We could adapt our existing slaughterhouses for humans, but this would require a demand for human meat that simply doesn't exist (outside of some very dark websites). Mass graves are a more efficient way to dispose of bodies. I'm not suggesting we actually emulate the Nazis and kill lots of people. However, the Holocaust remains the gold standard for genocide. That concludes the counter-arguments. We now move on to the conclusions and closing statements. References: [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org... | CON | 751f31f0-2019-04-18T12:51:51Z-00002-000 |
Human rights are subject to interpretation under Migrant Workers Treaty. Some people consider access to the Internet to be a "human right". Others consider the ability to cross borders freely as a "human right". The definition of human rights is constantly expanding. It is for this reason that accepting a Migrant Workers Treaty that protects a migrant's "human rights" is risky. It could mean that these migrant's rights are interpreted by some in the UN to be broader and more inclusive than a state thinks they should be, and makes it possible that these rights only expand over time. | PRO | 40f44a1b-2019-04-17T11:47:22Z-00088-000 |
gay marriage. What if you were right... 1. Your gay friends are possessed! Shouldn't we go help them?! You clearly need to call a priest over to help them, and get the "Dark Angles" out of them, right??? 2. Clearly, if one person claims that most of America is possessed because he "Dreamed of it" means that all of us are possessed. I mean, you even said that you enter a purer realm when you sleep! And I mean, who else feels very comfortable and calm when they sleep? Hmmm... 3. Well, now that this guy in the internet says I'm possessed, my family's possessed, my entire church is possessed, every Christian in my city are possessed and is not as close to God as he is, then I guess he's right. Their's no possible way he could be wrong. Nope. Answer those please. And also, I'll just say this: I'm a Christian, I pray, I'm almost an Eagle Scout, on a student council for our school, volunteer at least a month, (yes a full month, I go to a summer camp and volunteer during my summer) a year , was able to go to a leadership awards thing called "We day" look it up if u want to, I was offered to go, but I decided that I'd be nice and let someone else go who wanted it more, volunteers at an old folks home every year, raised money for children in Haitie, helped build a church, etc... Isn't as close to god as you are and is possessed. because all of these are such evil deeds, right? Clearly, it's the work of the devil. | PRO | 48d111c9-2019-04-18T17:07:06Z-00002-000 |
Rock vs Paper vs Scissors - Fight for Supremacy. Thank you for this debate. Good luck. I will be debating that scissors is the ultimate weapon in the famous game, rock-paper-sccissors. 1)... Rock's have been around sense the creation of the earth. We all know, they are old. They are out of date, out of mind, and out of strength. Scissors have been created by man. Therefor, the technology used is much better, and more powerful than rock. 2) Scissors have blades, almost as sharp as a knife, one could say. When you see someone with a knife, they look dangerous. Scissors show that kind of power. 3) Rocks are old, dull, and small. Basically screaming for mercy. 4) Rock get beat by paper. PAPER. This shows how inconsistent a rock can be. One day it destroys a great power like a scissor, than the next it looses to paper. INCONSISTENT. | CON | cefbc501-2019-04-18T17:31:24Z-00003-000 |
Xbox One is better than Ps4. Xbox Live costs a bit more, but it is also more reliable than playstation network. In December when PlayStation network and Xbox was spammed and players could not log in, Xbox live only took about a day and a half to two days to block the spammers. However, PlayStation network took about 5 1/2 days to fix the spam problem. This is a prime example of why Xbox live is more reliable than Playstation network. Xbox one can stream twitch and so can PlayStation. Off the topic of this Xbox Xbox has a more innovative interface then PlayStation because Xbox has a partnership with the NFL and with Xbox you can have fantasy football. The thing that makes this so cool is that while you are playing a game, you can check your fantasy football with the cool features Xbox has which is multitasking. Finally the connect sensors for the Xbox are more accurate and complex than PlayStation the cameras right now. In the end PlayStation and Xbox are very cool. In the future I hope that the next GEN consoles will be more Advanced an offer where you many more features then they currently do now. | PRO | 84b116dc-2019-04-18T14:50:26Z-00001-000 |
The Ego isn't Emergent. Well that's somewhat of an oversimplification of particles. Not every particle is made of the exact same quarks. In fact, They come in flavors so pretty much every particle has some massive difference from one another. Furthermore, You can't just say the building blocks are the same while not acknowledging that they could function differently when built differently. The same rotor that could make a boat move, Could also be a blender motor, A car motor. Limitless things. Furthermore. You have no proof that other carbon based things don't have egos. How do you know a rock doesn't have an ego? You can't say it's because it doesn't move because I could be paralyzed in a hospital bed and never move and you would still think I had an ego. The ego is our consciousness and you have know what of knowing what is conscious other than the things that make it obvious to you. So you're basing this all on an assumption. We have evidence of the brain causing consciousness. So it's caused by the brain Which is made of particles ergo other things with particles can be conscious. furthermore. Things without brains have consciousness too. You ever heard of an amoeba? No brains and they can navigate and do all kinds of intelligent looking things. Furthermore, Can you show me something in the body that's not particles? Because energy is particles, Mass is particles there's even theories that gravity is most likely caused by a particle. It's all particles dude. Get over it. | CON | 624217c2-2019-04-18T11:07:06Z-00000-000 |
Abortion. That, exactly, is the point. The child does not get a future. There is no future nor a chance at one for an aborted baby. As a completely parallel (in no way equal to) example to the baby being a reminder of rape, I present a theoretical yet plausible scenario. Take the horrific events that happened at the Boston Marathon attack a while ago. People who lost limbs suffered a great loss at the hands of the terrorist simply do not have the right to murder him because he is a reminder of their pain. | CON | b186238a-2019-04-18T15:09:02Z-00002-000 |
Resolved: The US should pass a law prohibiting the personal ownership of firearms. Constitutionality DA- The second amendment was needed when the constitution was written because everyday citizens could be called upon as a militia at any given moment. But times have changed and it is not necessary to have this right anymore. Also, the impact has very low probability. Only two presidents have been impeached in our history and they were not the only administrations that passed theoretically unconstitutional laws. Public Support DA- There have been unfavorable laws that caused tension in the past that did not cause riots. If the government never passed laws that the entire population did not support, we would be in chaos. Therefore this DA has a very low probability threshold. Child Mortality- "Honest tax paying citizens that do not murder their neighbors" should not need to have guns in their homes. Therefore your claim that we are punishing them is unwarranted. Solvency- The Affirmative case did not say jail. This is an overdrawn speculation by the negative and should not be considered in the debate. The case specifically said that individual states will be in charge of how much or how little punishment those found with guns will be subject to. Also, since most gun owners should have a license for their firearms, an order will be sent to licensed owners requiring them to report to the drop off site and turn in their firearms. Those who do not comply will be subject to the judgment of their individual state. CP: The USFG tried an assault weapons band in 1994. Contrary to what it was supposed to do, manufacturing of certain assault weapons actually increased by 114%. http://www.vpc.org... Therefore the CP has no solvency. | PRO | 9823f6e3-2019-04-18T19:11:46Z-00002-000 |
Should Facilitated Research be used to Prevent Teen Suicide/Depression. NO- By making the issue of teen suicide evident to the public, it allows teens to be pressured to "get better" by their peers and family. When the issue is expressed to the World then teens feel trapped and surrounded, being watched by everyone thinking they are going to kill themselves and bystanders think they can help by watching. While this may not be the case for most issues it is on teen suicide. What do you think? Yes or No? | CON | 3e3d5734-2019-04-18T15:13:41Z-00001-000 |
The morality of man has gone astray since the 20th century. In the name of God, Most Beneficent, most MercifulThe topic of the debate I start is the morality of our society nowadays.We see that, most specifically the youth, have no more of ambition.Ambition is defined by Cambridge Dictionary thus:-something you want to achieve in your life-a strong feeling that you want to be successful or powerfulIn the early days (referring to the 19th century and earlier) you had to have ambition to have fun.Drawing is fun, is it not?Well, not for all, thus one could say. Of course not. It has to be an ambition.Writing is fun, is it not?Horseback riding is fun, is it not?Photographing is fun, is it not?All of these have to be an ambition...Since the coming of television and internet, you were not forced to have ambition in order to have fun any longer.But without this ambition, the whole society falls...I am so passionate to say, that is the decision was to be for me to make, I would forbid both television and internet over the entire world.Then change could come... | PRO | c457f74b-2019-04-18T17:26:32Z-00007-000 |
Childhood obesity is a form of child abuse. To compare childhood obesity to child abuse is preposterous. In contradiction to my opponent's views, it is unfair to dictate how a child lives his or her life. Rather than hounding children about what they eat and how much they weigh, we should be encouraging them to feel confident in his or herself. It is agreeable that no, children don't always choose what they would like to eat, some times there are simply no other options. I, myself always being on the go as a child, am aware of the strain it puts on a family. It isn't always possible to sit down at a table and eat a nice, healthy dinner. Not only is it cheaper, but it is also easier to grab something on the go. In opposition of comparing childhood obesity to abuse, we should be making families aware of the dangers of constantly eating unhealthy. And since there are not always alternative options, if it is necessary to eat unhealthy - it should be eaten in moderation. For example, rather than ordering a twenty piece chicken nugget with a large soda and a large fry, perhaps an alternative should be a 6 piece chicken nugget, small fry, and a water. It doesn't matter how hard someone tries to instill good habits in a child, if the child is not motivated it will not happen. Perhaps it would be better to encourage a mandatory physical education class. As my opponent stated, "The fat kid will be teased" because "students will bully him because of his weight." Rather than worrying about this child's weight, we should be concerned with the school. If the school is allowing children to bully one another over something as trivial as weight, then we evidently have a bigger issue on hand. The school should be worried about making both children and their parents aware of bullying issues rather than a child's weight. And even if a child is overweight, why should it matter? Shouldn't we be encouraging children to feel comfortable in their bodies rather than concerning them with not fitting in with society's opinion | CON | b21e001c-2019-04-18T17:10:18Z-00003-000 |
Medea is responsible for her actions. (1)Anger is defined as a desire accompanied by pain, for a conspicuous revenge for a conspicuous slight at the hands of men who have no call to slight oneself or one"s friends. (2)Necessary conditions for anger is it being attached by a certain pleasure that comes from expecting revenge. (3)Everyone is accountable for their own anger issues, blaming someone else for your own anger mishaps is not acceptable. (4)Sometimes one"s anger stems from their family"s generations passed down. (5)Self-empowerment comes from within you. By empowering yourself you take full responsibility for anger actions and the risks they may bring. (6)Your anger is controllable, just as there are ways to get angry there are also ways to calm yourself down so your anger doesn"t control your emotions. (7)Being accountable for one"s anger behaviors is apart of growing up and being a mature adult. (8)Anger is an emotion characterized by antagonism toward someone or something you feel has deliberately done you wrong. (9)Therefore, Medea is responsible for her actions. Non-controversial Premise 1,2 &8 are non controversial because they are simply definitions. Controversial Premises 3,4,5,6& 7 are controversial because my opponent may have different views on the subject. Premises are (4 &5) are true because sometimes if anger runs in your family it will be passed down to you. Premises (3, 6& 7) are true because you control your actions and can prevent yourself from doing certain things. | PRO | bcb9404e-2019-04-18T14:54:43Z-00007-000 |
Capitalism is a better economic system then communism. Just because a system can function does not mean that it's a good system. Imagine this you are 18 and just out of school full of ambition and drive. But the government sticks you somewhere and you'll be stuck there for the rest of your life. Pretty soon you just stop trying. Why wouldn't you? If your just going to receive the same amount of money as everyone else regardless of how hard you try then why work hard when you don't have to? This is not a good system. Now capitalism on the other hand is a different story. Lets use the same scenario as before. Instead of being told what to do and how much you'll be paid, you go to college whether public or private, get a degree in law. You grow up to be a very successful and happy lawyer. All with little government intrusion. This is how the world should run, with the freedom to make your own choices about your life. http://listverse.com... | PRO | ae37d364-2019-04-18T15:48:37Z-00001-000 |
There Exists A Non-Mental Reality. A gracious thank you to the rational Thinker for providing this debate topic. I am here to defend the claim that there exists a non-mental reality. In which case I believe Con is insisting, a reality in which the mind cannot have an omnipotency. correct or have I lost by default? @RationalThinker Or perhaps he is indicating the opposite, in which case , Con insists the universe must have an omnipotency:< however I would claim a non-mental reality can still exist within it. and so, the non mental reality, under both conditions exists as my debate. I am eager to defend this. {* in hopes Con will rationally explain the defined parameters of a non-mental reality. | PRO | d8ad49c-2019-04-18T15:43:42Z-00006-000 |
The united states of america was founded under christian values. My first piece of evidence is this quote from article 11 of the treaty of Tripoli 1797: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion...". This quote explicitly states my point and was signed by the founding fathers! Here is the rest of the treaty for context: http://avalon.law.yale.edu... I apologies for not showing much evidence in the second round. I got busy with a standardized state test. | CON | 3d660163-2019-04-18T14:53:33Z-00005-000 |
Smoking. First and for most i would like you to be welcome to this debate and i would ike you to be clear on what you are asking what is your stance on smoking or is smiking bad or ood for you ? Smoking leads to disease and disability and harms nearly every organ of the body.1 More than 16 million Americans are living with a disease caused by smoking. For every person who dies because of smoking, at least 30 people live with a serious smoking-related illness. Smoking causes cancer, heart disease, stroke, lung diseases, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Smoking also increases risk for tuberculosis, certain eye diseases, and problems of the immune system, including rheumatoid arthritis. Smoking is a known cause of erectile dysfunction in males. Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death. Worldwide, tobacco use causes nearly 6 million deaths per year, and current trends show that tobacco use will cause more than 8 million deaths annually by 2030.2 Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including nearly 42,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day.1 On average, smokers die 10 years earlier than nonsmokers.3 If smoking continues at the current rate among U.S. youth, 5.6 million of today"s Americans younger than 18 years of age are expected to die prematurely from a smoking-related illness. This represents about one in every 13 Americans aged 17 years or younger who are alive today.1 Costs and Expenditures | CON | f7a747e8-2019-04-18T12:43:11Z-00000-000 |
Diplomacy is running our world. It is getting ruined. War is beginning and all of that is because of diplomacy. We are just watching. For example, Palestine and Israel. Israel have chosen to declare war on Palestine as they knew that Palestine didn't have the enough power and now it is a disaster. On the other hand Palestine is not helping, they are just going down the street screaming. Some of the people in Palestine are just watching and the other half doesn't even want to discuss anything. They want to get back their lank u | PRO | 68ca9089-2019-04-18T11:32:40Z-00001-000 |
Vegetarianism is better than omnivores. You have good points, but when you see a dog, it can tell you basically how it is feeling. Don't you think cows and chickens have the same level of emotion? If you kick a cow, it's not just going to sit there and let you kick it some more. It's going to either get angry or scared. Those are feelings in my opinion. By the way, I'm catholic and I've heard all of that bible stuff. I am pretty sure that is not sourced very well, nor is it directly stated in the bible. | PRO | 33b817a-2019-04-18T16:22:50Z-00003-000 |
"God Bless America Should stay on our Money. They came and joined forces with a native american tribe to overthrow a different one.The Pilgrams and the Natives Americans both belived in God(s). They were all differernt or might of had more than one we all had a God of some sort. The US currency isnt saying on it the Christian God or Islamic Gods its just saying God, so all religons can work on this. The Pilgrams were accually nice to the Natives and they both helped each other out with living.It would of been acceptable for early americans becuase they were all christians but Now america is full of different people.The United States of America was built of religous foundings. In the Northern States or New England or Middle Colonies they Christians skirmished to the new world to find religous freedom from the English King. Farther South people wanted to settle the land for agracultural uses to grow plants like Tobbacco and Cotton on Plantations. Just Saying. The currency is defianly recuring to the Christian God but the Jewish God Yahweh is still a God too, same with the Native Americans, they belive in some sort Gods as with the Muslims.http://www.catholic.com... | PRO | 6d529cb1-2019-04-18T16:23:08Z-00001-000 |
Gambling promotes unhealthy values. It makes people concentrate of winning money. This implies tha... There is no evidence that gambling makes people not care about others. People do not gamble because they expect to win lots of money. Most gamble as a form of entertainment. There are many areas of life where success is not the result of merit or hard work. Someone born to well-off parents may get many advantages in life without merit or hard work. There are therefore no grounds for thinking that gambling promotes undesirable values. | CON | dad53ac8-2019-04-19T12:44:29Z-00011-000 |
god is an immoral homicidal maniac. Indeed god is far far far worse than Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hong Xiuquan combined. Here's some examples... 3,000 EX 32:27-28, 14,700 NU 16:49, 24,002 NU 25: 1-11, 12,000 JOS 8: 1-25, 10,000 JG 1:4, 120,000 JG 8:7-10, 42,000 JG 12:3-6, 1,000 JD 15:14-15, 3,000 JD 16:27-30, 25,101 JD 16:27-30, 1 SAM 4 34,002, 1 SAM 6:19 50,070, 2 SAM 8 65,850, 1 KI 20: 28-29 100,000, 1 KI 20: 30 27,000, KI 19 35 -37 185,000, 2 CHR 13 17-18 500,000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, 2 CHR 28:6 120,000, Esther 9:5-18 75,813 etc etc etc Yeah god is really so moral huh? There’s no such a thing as “love” within any genocide. Your job as Con will be to validate the killing of innocent babies, children and pregnant mothers for absolutely no reason whatsoever rather than bringing in an era of peace, love and harmony is justified. | PRO | 560ce022-2019-04-18T12:07:38Z-00006-000 |
gun restirictions should be lessened. the problems with increasing gun restictions are.. 1. it disarms those who might be able to stop a shooter before he causes so many deaths 2. shooters are going to get guns anyway 3. guns dont kill people. in the shooting at the theatre a while ago, the shooter was the only person who had a gun on him. we all know how bad this turned out. If someone in the crowd had a gun, they could of dropped the shooter before he caused as much trouble. but as i said before, only one person had a gun, the shooter. this is because of the high restrictions on guns. also if someone is willing to kill dozens of innocent people and often themselves, then they are willing to steal guns, break restrictions, or get guns from gangs or black markets. with the increasing gun restictions, we are only restricting the innocent people who lose the chance to be a hero and save lives because we tried and failed to prevent the shooter from getting a gun. finally guns dont kill people. this is a statement that we hear all of the time. i argue that people kill people because my pencil wont write my homework by itself. this is a smaller example but its the same idea. should we get rid of cars? more people die in car accidents than shootings. because of these points i think that we should lessen the severity of gun restrictions | PRO | a580461b-2019-04-18T16:53:06Z-00003-000 |
The stinking rich should consider people like me a charity. CRAZY CON SAYS: "No. As a fourteen year old [1], it's your parents who should consider you a charity; not anyone else... Unless you end up in prison, then it'd be every taxpayer who has to support you, but the filthy rich rarely pay taxes [2]."Nope, this is wrong.COCKY CON SAYS: "If you want to become an official charity, you can always join Helping Hands Monkeys, where you'd be trained to assist people with your "dexterous hands and amazing fine motor skills" [3]."Con is IGNORANT of the fact that I make a much more convincing lizard.CALAMITY-CAUSING CON SAYS: "ther r not dat many celebripees or peepul hoo wun the lotterie tenn mimmits agooooo"First of all, look at that SLOPPY spelling! How can we trust a nut like that to make convincing arguments? CRATE-INHABITING CON SAYS: "Society already pays too much due to the problems of rape vans." Perhaps, but my idea works. COCKREL-CHASING CON SAYS: "I'm getting ready to throw up."So are our simply fabulous audience, who won't fall for Con's stupid dumb crazy baseless idiotic insane nonsensical dorky wrong biased arguments, alliterative name-calling or being sucked up to.COLD-CALLING CON SAYS: "Which is precisely why the money would be better spent on education, to make no one fall for this..."Con needs to learn that from time to time, people want to do fun and important things, like ride the latest roller coaster or get the NEW iPhone 6.2387609832987. Thanks. | PRO | 4a89b14-2019-04-18T17:17:22Z-00001-000 |
Father Xmas & Pure Orange Juice analogies decimate trinitarian & J.w. ideologies. There's not really much left that I can say, as PRO hasn't even tried to affirm the resolution yet. Putting aside the endless red herrings PRO supplied like an expert fisherman, let us deal with the first analogy. Let us assume that I believe the heretic's comments, as PRO clearly knows what I believe better than I do. Let us assume that the heretic's remarks are completely accurate. Even making these rather gracious assumptions, PRO has not shown how that decimates a Trinitarian ideology in any way, so the resolution is plainly not affirmed on this end. For the second analogy, let us assume that it too is completely sound. Let us assume it is without error. With these equally gracious assumptions, PRO still fails to affirm the resolution, as he has not described how this could possibly decimates a Trinitarian ideology either. In fact, this analogy even contradicts his first analogy, because if a story book character is only pretending to be a human (dressed up as Father Xmas), than that story book character is clearly not 100% human, so PROs argument isn't even internally consistent. If PRO believes he has shown how these analogies decimate a Trinitarian ideology, he is welcome to point out where and how they do so. Conclusion Since PRO hasn't come close to affirming the resolution yet, I see no point in making further arguments at this time. | CON | 839a6979-2019-04-18T17:32:17Z-00003-000 |
Vegan women who swallow their sires' semen are hypocrites. Following the Glorious Revolution when I am duly installed as Britain's rightful dictator I will implement its recommendations in full but, in the meantime, I will explain why it is, indeed, hypocritical for a vegetarian lady to swallow her boyfriend's mess. Firstly, I dispute my opponent's claim that love custard is not a commodity: when a man spills his kids into his girlfriend's mouth the lady enjoys the experience just as much as he does [1]. Obviously she doesn't pay him for this service but, nevertheless, it has value for her, and as such, gentlemen's sauce should be considered a commodity. To underline this point, although girls don't pay for sperm, fertility clinics certainly do. My opponent then referred to Marx's "semenal work". If I hadn't realised this misspelling was an intentional (and very clever) pun I could have pointed out that the correct spelling is "seminal", but I wouldn't do that because I think engaging in seminal sementics is tedious. Moving on to my opponent's argument, whilst it is true that the woman's willingness to gobble her boy off and then "finish the job" by swallowing his muck will "remove antagonism" in their relationship, it nonetheless remains the case that the girl receives sustenance from the semen, which, like most animal products, is very high in protein. [2] A vegan woman's decision not to eat meat for ethical reasons is wholly consistent with socialism but, in developed countries, being a vegetarian is a matter of choice, not a necessity. So, by choosing to swallow her sire's semen vegan women are deliberately breaking their vow not to consume animal products and are, therefore, hypocrites. [1] I expect. [2] Probably. | PRO | e2336800-2019-04-18T17:10:41Z-00001-000 |
How to do Sandboarding. Get a sandboard. Choose sand dunes or sand hills that are open for recreation. Try almost flat terrain and skating exercises if you are a beginner. Practice on a small sand hill with very little drop. On the small hill, try the following drill to improve your ability to board on your heels: Strap both feet in. Go down the hill on your heels. You do this by pulling up on your toes. DonA533;t pull up too much or you're going to fall on your butt. Now let up on your heels so you can go down the hill. If you pick up too much speed or want to stop pull up on your toes again. At the bottom of the hill, unstrap one of your straps. Preferably the one that you strapped up at the top of the hill. Now make your way back up to the top of the hill. Repeat the above exercise, but this time working your toes, rather than your heels. | CON | 8d9bda11-2019-04-18T11:33:41Z-00001-000 |
Is it possible to love more than one person. Answers: 2) It is true that "People assume different relationships with people allowing them to be built on different aspects and values" that you have stated, but In my premise it states that a genuine REAL IN LOVE feeling can not be duplicated. The specific feeling of being romantically in love with another is something that can not be the same as the original making it from removed from being real. Its almost like having a duplication of the constitution, it may look real and seem real, but its not real. 3) Love triangles do not necessarily mean that the person is in love with both parties they could have held on to the other partner for a plethora of reasons. Just because people are in a love triangle does not mean it is a solidified enough reason to sayr that someone can be in love with more than one person. 4) Passion and very strong feeling are synonomous and that we did include in our definition therefore your reasoning is invalid. 5) Being in love equals fulfillment. Meaning you are being filled with those feelings of strong attachment and pleasure both things that are in fact in our definition of love ! Questions for you 2) Why does being in love not mean an exclusive relationship with two people? this premise is vague and offers no real reason to why my premises are false. 3)But if we agreed upon the definition of what love is, then isn't that what love should look like ? if thats not the case, then all your premise of love must be false as well because they might not "look" like love to someone else 4) Just because people in polygamist relationships are happy does that really mean their in love ? love and happiness are two different things. just because they are happy in their relationships does not mean they are in love with each party in the relationship. 5) again does that mean in love ? yes people have different reasons for loving other people but them having that same in love feeling with each person is a different story. 6) just because something doesn't constitute it, does not mean it is possible? | CON | d3bd2826-2019-04-18T15:16:09Z-00004-000 |
ICC trials violate the due process guarantees of the US constitution. While the ICC operates its own rules of procedure and uses its own formulation for due process rights, it has protections as strong as the top legal systems around the world. While the ICC is unique, it meets the standards accepted for a fair trial. For example, article 66(2) of the Rome Statute guarantees the presumption of innocence, article 54(1) covers disclosure, article 67 includes the right to counsel and a speedy trial. These safeguards are considered more than adequate by human rights campaign groups such as Amnesty International. While the ICC does not use juries, in many cases it would be difficult to find an impartial jury or to transport them, and they would be unlikely to cope with the weighty and complex legal issues that occur in complex international criminal trials. At any rate, many states, even common law ones such as the US, do not use juries at all (such as Israel), and in some circumstances they can be allowed in the US. | CON | 5b11ddfc-2019-04-15T20:24:30Z-00019-000 |
no prisons. on the path of truth comes a sudden transport with impenetrable shields let that which makes us most friends, welcome anyone else.. leaf doors on a gate of flowers and skulls.. truth beats time in prison -------------------------- habitual, love, belief, need government regulation.. for balance, no need for prisons.. responsibility enough negative leverage gravitates actions to a certain low.. predicting the future of sins.. but what will a cake lover do locked in a bakery.. we know how fat he is and how many cakes he eat every day, to many. if its the case we can predict a sinners future based on his negative leverage, how could it be moral to put some one in a prison for their actions? when we therefore know how to treat it and that it needs to be treated.. do we just bring a heavily clothed random man into the presidents office? and why execute a heavily clothed random man that wants to get into the presidents office treament is limitation or options to balance will a certain addict be an addict tomorrow? with enough negative leverage negative leverage.. predictability.. negative emotions.. un natural.. un balanced.. to much love.. holes in my teeth effect negative leverage=disbelief+bad habbits love+cake+sad+lonley crime is predictable by pain of need your hate reflects your love the lack of responsibility breeds the lack of responsibility of all kings, only the intent of a power loving king is evil | PRO | 67645c61-2019-04-18T12:41:16Z-00002-000 |
It makes us lazy. Why would we want to sacrifice easy communication and globalization/globalisation on the off chance it may make children more interested in learning a foreign language? And why would we purposely want to make it difficult for people to understand each other, surely understanding each other is more important than learning about their culture but not being able to converse whatsoever. One-third of the people living in the city of London are from the subcontinent and are at least bilingual(This doesn't take into account the number Chinese,Polish,German,French,etc Londoners). As for the rest of the U.K : Norse languages prevail in rural areas and outside England. There are a huge number of immigrants(second/third-generation included) in Scotland. Relatively fewer but still plenty of immigrants reside in the rest of the Isles. The global spread of English also has the opposite effect on non-native speakers of English - it encourages them to learn a second language. Without English, a second language would only slightly increase the number of people you could communicate with. With English (or, if it ever takes off, Esperanto!) there is a stronger incentive to learn the single language that will dramatically improve your ability to communicate. Far more people are not native English speakers than are, so you could argue that the point falls apart in a wider context than the UK. | CON | 55b0c1f5-2019-04-19T12:44:44Z-00007-000 |
Fun is more important than work. Thank you to whoever accepts this debate Now for my point ~Without fun there would be no work. ~~Work is created to generate an income to pursue fun. ~~~If someone is truly having fun then they would not need to work. ~~~~Even if you are living on the streets with no home, no clothes, no nothing and you are still TRULY having fun. Then you are better off. Game On. | PRO | 8dca202d-2019-04-18T19:12:53Z-00004-000 |
the catholic church has never contradicted itself. I have a feeling by the end that we'll see how not useless my stipulations are. OK, you said that if popes were saying something official, then it counts. I.e., it's not a matter of their personal behaviour, but what they say in an official capacity. OK. That is the definition I'm going to use. Official statements. If a pope or council makes an official statement it counts. If you find a way to say that it doesn't count if the statement is official by an official pope, then you are moving the goalposts. Trust me this will matter. I will concede that it was useless only after we see you not calling an official pope acting officially as "bad."***Very well-Here are some examples of some things Popes have OKed in the past that are not condemned any longer-Burning Witches (http://law2.umkc.edu...)-Worshiping Other Gods (Marcillenus (http://www.allvoices.com...)-Duellinghttp://www.allaboutreligion.org...Things that Popes have previously banned--Reading the Bible (Gregory I)-Physics (Pope John XXI http://en.wikipedia.org...)-Jesuits (Pope Clement )General contradictions--JJoan of Arc was a witch! Pope Eugene (http://www.apologeticspress.org...)No wait she was a saint (Pope Pius X http://en.wikipedia.org...)-The sacking of Constantinople was wrong (Pope John Paul II)***These are all official statements of popes,and none of them have anything to do with the pope being "bad," they were official Catholic doctrine at the time.Here are a few more I can find refs for if you want-Fish on Fridays-Literal Transubstantiation (instead of purely magical)-God intervenes in gravity/fire/movement of planets, etc.-Present day miracles-flat disc shaped world-ghosts are real***See this is why I wanted to clarify. If you're saying none of these are official church doctrine, then I am confused. They were doctrine at the time that contradicts doctrine now. The refs I gave were all official statements of non-bad popes.What exactly is non-contradictory? Are you simply saying that nothing the pope says now contradicts with what the pope also says now? Or a few tiny points of doctrine? How about Jesus was the son of god (nope! Pope St. Leo the Great--http://www.agapebiblestudy.com...) I would challenge pro to come up with any single doctrine of the church that hasn't been contradicted by a pope at least once in an official capacity. I have a feeling I can find one who did. **Apologies if I accidentally violated one of your rules. You are free to ignore any one I missed. | CON | bb1b79fe-2019-04-18T17:41:55Z-00002-000 |
Rap Battle 9. My rhymes are grated? But YOU are cheesy! Mine are sloppy/overrated, yours are pleasing? Absolutely false, I'll shoot you like Eazy Straight Outta DDO, I'm goin' so fast, do you even see me? Cause I'm the Flash, I don't mutter but spit Speed of light melt you like butter, go quit Don't need a rhyme loan, got MY OWN, another, so lit This battle is my gold, my Bowl, brother, I own it The Titanic? Nah bjcth, I'm Captain Jack Sparrow Here to loot your @ss and start slappin' that barrow By barrow, I mean your mom, I'm packin that barrel Full a gunpowder like I pirate, I'm attackin' f@gs, farewell You say I'm gay, but then here's that no-no You go ahead an post a queer @ss photo I'm laughin' so hard it's like a tear gas promo You suck, crowds boo you, you hear that? "Go home!" | CON | e71e86ee-2019-04-18T12:25:27Z-00001-000 |
Minimum wages lead to unemployment. That being said, please note that my opponent provided no sources, so all of his arguments are speculation. As the definition says, workers may not accept a job below minimum wage. This actually works against unskilled workers, who are the very people the minimum wage is supposed to "protect". Because they are unable to out compete more skilled workers, this results in many people not having jobs at all when they could have had at least $10,000 a year. Another ill affect of minimum wage is that is prevents teens from getting jobs, since they can't box out the more skilled adults. This lack of job experience and funds could very well hurt them in the future. We also have to consider the employer's point of view. Many small companies can't afford to pay for increasing minimum wage, destroying many jobs that would have provided at least some money to families. To offset these expenses, the small companies who can afford to pay higher minimum wage would have to raise prices, further hurting low-income or poverty families. Even at the current minimum wage, many marginal family owned companies may struggle to get off the ground. Because of the minimum wage, many people couldn't secure savings to climb the social ladder, as you said. But without minimum wages, they could secure basic income and some job experience to better their future. And because companies need employees to function, the same companies that my struggle due to the minimum wage might work their way up in funds, paying more employees more money to work. This would be virtually guaranteed, because of the competitive nature of wages. For these many reasons, minimum wage would in fact hurt the very people it's meant to benefit. Source(s): . https://www.americanactionforum.org... . http://www.investopedia.com... . https://americansforprosperity.org... | PRO | fda29737-2019-04-18T12:53:53Z-00004-000 |
Schools Should Give Detentions to Students for Speaking Their Mind. My opponent seem to have completely misunderstood my argument. What I said was the 14th amendment protects minor's rights to speech. Law and parents, however, can do things about minor's actions. It is the parent's job to make sure that the child does not say anything rude or offensive, and as I said the importance of a matter does not matter to the supreme court once the case has been accepted. Only the case and the constitution. Teachers are by law forbidden to take away these freedoms, however can speak to the minor or the parent. Just as clarification, I never said minors can do anything they want. Here come my final arguments. Every minor has a parent, foster home, foster parent, or any other type of guardian (or at least most do and the law says they need to). These parents/guardians are the ones responsible for the child's behavior. Detentions are simply saying "Do this or you get expelled," but sometimes students can't be expelled without parent permission. Suppose a minor wants to wear a T-shirt to spread awareness of the most minor thing and it goes to the supreme court or any court, the student will win (unless it is violent, threatening, gang-related, or any other obvious things). They are protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and protected for a reason. In conclusion, most often, parents should have the responsibility of discipline on a disruptive minor. Good Luck! bat9581 | CON | be4be33d-2019-04-18T15:20:22Z-00001-000 |
There is not actually 7 continents. My opponent claims there are six continents.He bases this off of this statement of his, "It could be easily argued that a continent is a large, clearly defined landmass"Throughout this debate I will demonstrate that if this were accepted as the standard it would bring about too much inconsistency, grey-area, and confusion. Thus is not an acceptable paradigm of continental divide.Under this standard the U.K. would not be a part of the continent of Euro-Asia, as it apart from the "large, clearly defined divide."Especially since under the standard of my own opponent the Isthmus of Panama makes a "clearly defined" separation between North and South America, then clearly the English Channel does so also. Therein under his own paradigm, just using one example of the U.K., we are already back to 7 continents. But there are more examples that illustrate inconsistency in the same manner such as Greenland.Physical justifications of continents causes to many dilemmas. Even if you broke it down in plate tectonics, you would have awkward placement such as the Middle East would become it's own continent. Thus the best and simplest way to justify continent is by the way it is today, through a combination of politics and geography. As it becomes possible through this combination that your able to make divides based off of common sense. When physical elements dictate the divides exclusively, the formations of continents become complicated and confusing and greatly inconsistent.This is Round 1 so I'll keep this at a preamble of sorts and hand it over back to Pro: | CON | 270769e1-2019-04-18T18:12:08Z-00004-000 |
It should be illegal to leave your "waste" in the toilet without flushing it in public. Hello future opponent of the future. I am all for making sure innocent victims walk into a public bathroom with a secret brown surprise waiting for them in the toilet. Toilets should be equipped with the latest in "log-detecting" technology. You know the seats in cars where if it detects someone sitting in it, it makes the seatbelt alarm go off if the seatbelt is not fastened? Well, this is how the toilet would detect someone sitting on it. And the toilet would detect the log by having a set water level. When the water level rises just a little tiny bit it sets off a sensor. This sensor would be timestamped. Also the seat would be timestamped. If the person does not flush in 30 minutes, the toilet asks you if you are still alive. If the person is actually there still hanging in there staying strong they would press a red button. If the person is not there, it would set off an alarm. Now there is also a security camera at the doorway seeing who walks out. Along with the timestamps the toilet will figure out who the suspect is and charge them a fine of up to 20 dollars (disturbing the peace). | PRO | 254d49d-2019-04-18T18:45:39Z-00005-000 |
Homework should be optional. I believe that kids should not HAVE TO have homework because most people would rather get things done at school instead of at home. If needed we could even extend school hours so that there is no need for homework. Also, at school there are teachers that can help you if needed, while it is harder to get help at home (for most people.). Some kids have parents that are busy or just plain do not want to help their kids, and they are likely to NOT pick their kids up later after school if tutoring is needed. Even if they do, tutoring cost money 1/2 the time. Sources: Me, myself, and I. | PRO | 49b76b2f-2019-04-18T15:51:00Z-00003-000 |