Datasets:

notaphoenix

/

debateorg_w_effect_for_conservative_subset

like 0

When the Audi your dad bought you breaks down, and it costs thousands to fix, and your daddy foots the bill again, you will love the Audi still, only because it is daddy that pays for it, and not you. You will hate your Audi when you have to pay for repairs.

Max.Wallace

When the Audi your dad bought you breaks down, and it costs thousands to fix, and your daddy foots the bill again, you will love the Audi still, only because it is daddy that pays for it, and not you. You will hate your Audi when you have to pay for repairs.

Cars

.-Audis-are-junkers-except-to-rich-kids-with-limitless-assets-and-time-to-maintain-them./1/

This is a bout Audis exclusively, not just anything. Some vehicles you can neglect and they will almost never let you down. Not with big buck daddies Audi.

Max.Wallace

This is a bout Audis exclusively, not just anything. Some vehicles you can neglect and they will almost never let you down. Not with big buck daddies Audi.

Cars

.-Audis-are-junkers-except-to-rich-kids-with-limitless-assets-and-time-to-maintain-them./1/

They do meet emission and mileage standards so the must be good cars, right? Until the second owner/dreamer/sucker buys one. Nobody deserves that burden.

Max.Wallace

They do meet emission and mileage standards so the must be good cars, right? Until the second owner/dreamer/sucker buys one. Nobody deserves that burden.

Cars

.-Audis-are-junkers-except-to-rich-kids-with-limitless-assets-and-time-to-maintain-them./1/

Same could be said for any car or any asset in general.

TheCalmCanadian

Same could be said for any car or any asset in general.

Cars

.-Audis-are-junkers-except-to-rich-kids-with-limitless-assets-and-time-to-maintain-them./1/

This is one of the most pointless debates ever. Any vehicle can let you down and in all honesty reliable vehicles are also very expensive. in the past Audies have been really reliable and good vehicles. Same with volvos they are now expensive and overpriced.

TheCalmCanadian

This is one of the most pointless debates ever. Any vehicle can let you down and in all honesty reliable vehicles are also very expensive. in the past Audies have been really reliable and good vehicles. Same with volvos they are now expensive and overpriced.

Cars

.-Audis-are-junkers-except-to-rich-kids-with-limitless-assets-and-time-to-maintain-them./1/

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The more modern Audis have better gas rating and in all honesty they are pretty nice cars. Maybe not the most pricy audis but the older ones remind me a lot of volvo's. They are modest cars and middle class can afford them. Someone is just upset that the fact they cannot afford a similar vehicle.

TheCalmCanadian

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The more modern Audis have better gas rating and in all honesty they are pretty nice cars. Maybe not the most pricy audis but the older ones remind me a lot of volvo's. They are modest cars and middle class can afford them. Someone is just upset that the fact they cannot afford a similar vehicle.

Cars

.-Audis-are-junkers-except-to-rich-kids-with-limitless-assets-and-time-to-maintain-them./1/

This debate is pretty straight forward and has been done before; however, I believe I am correct in asserting that 0.999 repeating does not equal 1. As this is a two round debate, I have an odd rule that must be honored, otherwise it results in automatic loss for Con. In Con's first round, they must state their proof as to why they believe that .99999 equals 1. I am sure we both know what that will look like... Con has the Burden of Proof, as they will be making the positive assertion, and must do so in round 1. I will refute them in Round 2. Con then may attempt to refute my refutation in Round 2. Good luck to whoever accepts this debate, and, please, no trolling.

Khaos_Mage

This debate is pretty straight forward and has been done before; however, I believe I am correct in asserting that 0.999 repeating does not equal 1. As this is a two round debate, I have an odd rule that must be honored, otherwise it results in automatic loss for Con. In Con's first round, they must state their proof as to why they believe that .99999 equals 1. I am sure we both know what that will look like... Con has the Burden of Proof, as they will be making the positive assertion, and must do so in round 1. I will refute them in Round 2. Con then may attempt to refute my refutation in Round 2. Good luck to whoever accepts this debate, and, please, no trolling.

Science

0.999999999-etc.-does-not-equal-1/1/

Numbers represent abstract ideas, and are connected by logic. However, the physical representation of these numbers is hardly the same as their abstract functions imply. Let us, for example, take the equality of 2/2 = 1. We both know these are equivalent functions, but two halves are not the same as one whole. Furthermore, 2 + 2 = 4. However, one side of this equation denotes two distinct sets, while the other includes them as one set. 0.99999 is irrational, while 1 is a whole number. Something can be 1, a whole entity of itself. However, the only way an irrational number can exist, is from a calculation. For example, pi is the ratio of circumference to diameter. The relevant irrational cannot even be expressed as a fraction or ratio, only as a sum. For example, 1/3 = .3333 and if we have three of them, that "equals" 1, but you have three separate entities, not 1. 1/2 = 2/2. We come to this equality by eliminating the radical in the denominator by multiplying the "unit" of 1/2 by 1 (in this case, 2/2), to achieve the equivalent figure using the identity property of multiplication. But, what is 2/2? Sure, it is treated as 1 for these calculations, but they are not the same thing, as multiplying this improper "number" by 5/5 would not aid in ridding the denominator of the radical. Somehow, only a specific equal number eliminates the radical, which shows that all equivalencies are not the created equal. Therefore, 1 does not equal .99999, even if they are equivalent. Thank you for the debate.

Khaos_Mage

Numbers represent abstract ideas, and are connected by logic. However, the physical representation of these numbers is hardly the same as their abstract functions imply. Let us, for example, take the equality of 2/2 = 1. We both know these are equivalent functions, but two halves are not the same as one whole. Furthermore, 2 + 2 = 4. However, one side of this equation denotes two distinct sets, while the other includes them as one set. 0.99999 is irrational, while 1 is a whole number. Something can be 1, a whole entity of itself. However, the only way an irrational number can exist, is from a calculation. For example, pi is the ratio of circumference to diameter. The relevant irrational cannot even be expressed as a fraction or ratio, only as a sum. For example, 1/3 = .3333 and if we have three of them, that “equals” 1, but you have three separate entities, not 1. 1/√2 = √2/2. We come to this equality by eliminating the radical in the denominator by multiplying the “unit” of 1/√2 by 1 (in this case, √2/√2), to achieve the equivalent figure using the identity property of multiplication. But, what is √2/√2? Sure, it is treated as 1 for these calculations, but they are not the same thing, as multiplying this improper "number" by 5/5 would not aid in ridding the denominator of the radical. Somehow, only a specific equal number eliminates the radical, which shows that all equivalencies are not the created equal. Therefore, 1 does not equal .99999, even if they are equivalent. Thank you for the debate.

Science

0.999999999-etc.-does-not-equal-1/1/

I am advocating that the minimum number of rounds allowed to a debate be 2. One-round "debates" defeat the actual purpose of a debate, because all that is done is the establishment of both sides. Nobody has a real chance to refute each other (except the contender, but then his arguments cannot be refuted). One-round "debates" are not really debates, they are just rounds. As you can see, this "debate" is one round. So you may see the evils of a one-round "debate" (See above if you didn't catch them).

gahbage

I am advocating that the minimum number of rounds allowed to a debate be 2. One-round "debates" defeat the actual purpose of a debate, because all that is done is the establishment of both sides. Nobody has a real chance to refute each other (except the contender, but then his arguments cannot be refuted). One-round "debates" are not really debates, they are just rounds. As you can see, this "debate" is one round. So you may see the evils of a one-round "debate" (See above if you didn't catch them).

Politics

1-Round-debates-should-not-be-allowed./1/

Pshhhhhhhhhhhhh. You've got no shot at beating me, gahbage. One round debates are da bomb. I believe they should be allowed. I would elaborate, but I believe the horrid shrieking coming from the galley kitchen is my estranged wife sending an open invitation for pasta. I shall elaborate on my position in the next argument. Your turn.

mynameisjonas

Pshhhhhhhhhhhhh. You've got no shot at beating me, gahbage. One round debates are da bomb. I believe they should be allowed. I would elaborate, but I believe the horrid shrieking coming from the galley kitchen is my estranged wife sending an open invitation for pasta. I shall elaborate on my position in the next argument. Your turn.

Politics

1-Round-debates-should-not-be-allowed./1/

1 and .999999... is NOT the same, because in order to be euivelent it must be the SAME number. Maybe if you are rounding the number it could be the same. That is like saying "7 and 10 are the same, and have the same value." Anybody that knows simple math, knows that 7 and 10 are NOT the same thing. Thus my opponent is trying to make you as the voters, and me as his opponent believe something untrue. .9999 is not the same as 0, it is not the same as 1, it is the same as .9999. ~~~~~irrelavent question~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Why, padfo0t, did you think of this debate? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As it stands, you as the voters with common sense must vote con.

Im_always_right

1 and .999999... is NOT the same, because in order to be euivelent it must be the SAME number. Maybe if you are rounding the number it could be the same. That is like saying "7 and 10 are the same, and have the same value." Anybody that knows simple math, knows that 7 and 10 are NOT the same thing. Thus my opponent is trying to make you as the voters, and me as his opponent believe something untrue. .9999 is not the same as 0, it is not the same as 1, it is the same as .9999. ~~~~~irrelavent question~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Why, padfo0t, did you think of this debate? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As it stands, you as the voters with common sense must vote con.

Science

1-can-be-proven-to-have-the-same-value-as-0.9999999etc./1/

LOL... Okay that is like saying 2.1 X 10= 20 therfore 2.1=2. Thus .9999 cannot equal the same value as 1, because, 1 is 1 is 1, and cannot be anything else. 9999 has it's own value, thus cannot have the same value that 1 has. Therefore, you must vote Con, as it stands, unless Pro provides information voiding the numirical value of these numbers. I eagerly await my opponent's responce.

Im_always_right

LOL... Okay that is like saying 2.1 X 10= 20 therfore 2.1=2. Thus .9999 cannot equal the same value as 1, because, 1 is 1 is 1, and cannot be anything else. 9999 has it's own value, thus cannot have the same value that 1 has. Therefore, you must vote Con, as it stands, unless Pro provides information voiding the numirical value of these numbers. I eagerly await my opponent's responce.

Science

1-can-be-proven-to-have-the-same-value-as-0.9999999etc./1/

This round was forfeited because the debater found her glasses and now has a huge headache on top of being blonde and did not agree to the allotted time. Okay N/M that, but, that is like saing 1 can be proven to = 2 which doesn't NORMALLY make since. I can prove it though. Thus if you prove something once it is not always ligit, thus, you can prove 1 to be .99999999999999999999999999999999999999999 all you want, but that doesn't make 1=.99999999, unless 1=2 which nobody will agree to without proof. Which means that if a number is a noumber once it must always be that number. Meaning that 1 cannot be .9999 etc. and 1 cannot be 2. Thus 1 is 1, and 2 is 2, and .9999 is .9999. which means you must vote con.

Im_always_right

This round was forfeited because the debater found her glasses and now has a huge headache on top of being blonde and did not agree to the allotted time. Okay N/M that, but, that is like saing 1 can be proven to = 2 which doesn't NORMALLY make since. I can prove it though. Thus if you prove something once it is not always ligit, thus, you can prove 1 to be .99999999999999999999999999999999999999999 all you want, but that doesn't make 1=.99999999, unless 1=2 which nobody will agree to without proof. Which means that if a number is a noumber once it must always be that number. Meaning that 1 cannot be .9999 etc. and 1 cannot be 2. Thus 1 is 1, and 2 is 2, and .9999 is .9999. which means you must vote con.

Science

1-can-be-proven-to-have-the-same-value-as-0.9999999etc./1/

So you do not agree that 1=.99999, which means it doesn't which means it cannot be PROVEN which means 1 does not =2 even though I can show you the equation that shows that meaning every number has it's own value and you have surrendered. Thus I win, you MUST vote con on this debate. Have fun Chip the Mouster, padfo0t, and all the voters. Also I never thought that you thought that I thought that you thought you made me think that, thus I do not think that you thought that I thought you felt that way.

Im_always_right

So you do not agree that 1=.99999, which means it doesn't which means it cannot be PROVEN which means 1 does not =2 even though I can show you the equation that shows that meaning every number has it's own value and you have surrendered. Thus I win, you MUST vote con on this debate. Have fun Chip the Mouster, padfo0t, and all the voters. Also I never thought that you thought that I thought that you thought you made me think that, thus I do not think that you thought that I thought you felt that way.

Science

1-can-be-proven-to-have-the-same-value-as-0.9999999etc./1/

Good day to you, opponent, and to you, the voter 1 and .99999etc can be proved to be the same, and have the same value. In other words, they are equivalent. If you disagree with my statement, please accept this debate and tell me why.

padfo0t

Good day to you, opponent, and to you, the voter 1 and .99999etc can be proved to be the same, and have the same value. In other words, they are equivalent. If you disagree with my statement, please accept this debate and tell me why.

Science

1-can-be-proven-to-have-the-same-value-as-0.9999999etc./1/

~~~~~irrelavent answer~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Even though people vote on their own opinions, I thought I'd try to show people the truth, and maybe by the time this debate ends, you will agree with me.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lets start here: >>>IF 0.999999999etc. = a THEN 10 x 0.9999999etc. = 10a correct? SO 9.99999999etc. = 10a (-a) (-a) THEN 9 = 9a THEN 1 = a SO 1 = 0.999999999etc There you go, there's the TRUTH (emphasis on truth)

padfo0t

~~~~~irrelavent answer~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Even though people vote on their own opinions, I thought I'd try to show people the truth, and maybe by the time this debate ends, you will agree with me.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lets start here: >>>IF 0.999999999etc. = a THEN 10 x 0.9999999etc. = 10a correct? SO 9.99999999etc. = 10a (-a) (-a) THEN 9 = 9a THEN 1 = a SO 1 = 0.999999999etc There you go, there's the TRUTH (emphasis on truth)

Science

1-can-be-proven-to-have-the-same-value-as-0.9999999etc./1/

...coughcough...response...coughcough... Excuse me. No, I never said 2.1 X 10=20 It is obvious that that is rounding. There is absolutely no rounding in my explanation, and each and every step has been proven to work. If you look again at the topic of this debate>>> 1 can be proven to have the same value as 0.9999999etc. >>>Then you will realize that I have in fact proven that 1 CAN have the same value as 0.99etc There is no further way that you could convince other to vote for you, BUt, sadly, many vote on their own opinion DONT DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!! Therefore, you must vote Pro, as it stands. I also agree that no they are not always the same, but the topic of this debate here allows that to be so. No harsh feelings. PS. DOL means Debate Out Loud.

padfo0t

...coughcough...response...coughcough... Excuse me. No, I never said 2.1 X 10=20 It is obvious that that is rounding. There is absolutely no rounding in my explanation, and each and every step has been proven to work. If you look again at the topic of this debate>>> 1 can be proven to have the same value as 0.9999999etc. >>>Then you will realize that I have in fact proven that 1 CAN have the same value as 0.99etc There is no further way that you could convince other to vote for you, BUt, sadly, many vote on their own opinion DONT DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!! Therefore, you must vote Pro, as it stands. I also agree that no they are not always the same, but the topic of this debate here allows that to be so. No harsh feelings. PS. DOL means Debate Out Loud.

Science

1-can-be-proven-to-have-the-same-value-as-0.9999999etc./1/

Other than the fact that...like...fifty words were misspelled, that made COMPLETELY NO SENSE!!! Although my opponent persists on making me and others confused, I do not agree with the fact that 1=2, and I also do not agree that 1 is the SAME as 0.9999999999999. What i DO believe is that 1 CAN BE PROVEN to have THE SAME VALUE as 0.99999999999999999999999999999999999etc. Just admit it. What say you about the supposed mouse? PLease say sorry to Chip.,..

padfo0t

Other than the fact that...like...fifty words were misspelled, that made COMPLETELY NO SENSE!!! Although my opponent persists on making me and others confused, I do not agree with the fact that 1=2, and I also do not agree that 1 is the SAME as 0.9999999999999. What i DO believe is that 1 CAN BE PROVEN to have THE SAME VALUE as 0.99999999999999999999999999999999999etc. Just admit it. What say you about the supposed mouse? PLease say sorry to Chip.,..

Science

1-can-be-proven-to-have-the-same-value-as-0.9999999etc./1/

Reality television is television that captures actual occurrences. It usually stars someone interesting or a already known celebrity. A reality television show could also consists of a documentary. Most reality shows usually have high ratings. Reality shows give people knowledge on how the stars life works. It's usually interesting things the Producers will pick for a reality show. Therefore, reality doesn't do harm.

jaquavianalexander

Reality television is television that captures actual occurrences. It usually stars someone interesting or a already known celebrity. A reality television show could also consists of a documentary. Most reality shows usually have high ratings. Reality shows give people knowledge on how the stars life works. It's usually interesting things the Producers will pick for a reality show. Therefore, reality doesn't do harm.

Entertainment

100-debate-Challenge-3-This-House-believes-reality-television-does-more-harm-than-good/2/

Let a = b. Then a^2 = ab. Subtract b^2 from both sides. Then a^2-b^2=ab-b^2. Use difference of squares. (a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b) Divide both sides by (a-b). Then a+b=b. Now let a=1, then b=1. Substitute a=1 and b=1 into a+b=b. Thus 2=1.

stephenyoo1995

Let a = b. Then a^2 = ab. Subtract b^2 from both sides. Then a^2-b^2=ab-b^2. Use difference of squares. (a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b) Divide both sides by (a-b). Then a+b=b. Now let a=1, then b=1. Substitute a=1 and b=1 into a+b=b. Thus 2=1.

Science

2-has-the-same-value-as-the-value-of-1./1/

do (a-b) then you get the answer! It's not 2=1 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH MUHAHAHA MUHA MUHA MUHAAAAAAAA

ww54ww

do (a-b) then you get the answer! It's not 2=1 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH MUHAHAHA MUHA MUHA MUHAAAAAAAA

Science

2-has-the-same-value-as-the-value-of-1./1/

Second Amendment - Bearing Arms A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. if you look under the term infringe or Infringement it states go against rules and laws if you look under the constitution the second amendment it is in the bill of rights under our constitution it states shall not be infringed. now if we had to look at the revolutionary war we had the Militia and to day we still have the militia if you were called up by you mayor or congressman or even a mayor after a major storm you and your neighbors will be a militia now during WWII law abiding citizens voluntereed on the home front to defend our boarders and also in europe in WWII Nazi Repression Of Firearms Owners New research into Adolf Hitler's use of firearm registration lists to confiscate guns and then execute their owners teaches a forceful lesson. It is a lesson that reveals why the American people and Congress have rejected registering honest firearms owners. It would be instructive at this time to recall why the American citizenry and Congress have historically opposed the registration of firearms. The reason is plain. Registration makes it easy for a tyrannical government to confiscate firearms and make prey of its subjects. Denying this historical fact is no more justified than denying that the Holocaust occurred or that the Nazis murdered millions of unarmed people. I am writing a book on Nazi policies and practices that sought to repress civilian gun ownership and eradicate gun owners in Germany and occupied Europe. The following sampling of my findings should give pause to the suggestion that Draconian punishment of citizens for keeping firearms is necessarily a social good. The Night of the Broken Glass (Kristallnacht)--the infamous Nazi rampage against Germany's Jews--took place in November 1938. It was preceded by the confiscation of firearms from the Jewish victims. On Nov. 9, The New York Times reported from Berlin, "Berlin Police Head Announces 'Disarming' of Jews," explaining: "The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been 'disarmed' with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment."1 On the evening of Nov. 9, Adolf Hitler, Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels and other Nazi chiefs planned the attack. Orders went out to Nazi security forces: "All Jewish stores are to be destroyed immediately. . . Jewish synagogues are to be set on fire. . . The Fhrer wishes that the police does not intervene. . . All Jews are to be disarmed. In the event of resistance they are to be shot immediately."2 All hell broke loose on Nov. 10: "Nazis Smash, Loot and Burn Jewish Shops and Temples," a headline read. "One of the first legal measures issued was an order by Heinrich Himmler, commander of all German police, forbidding Jews to possess any weapons whatever and imposing a penalty of twenty years confinement in a concentration camp upon every Jew found in possession of a weapon hereafter."3 Thousands of Jews were taken away. Searches of Jewish homes were calculated to seize firearms and assets and to arrest adult males. The American Consulate in Stuttgart was flooded with Jews begging for visas: "Men in whose homes old, rusty revolvers had been found during the last few days cried aloud that they did not dare ever again return to their places of residence or business. In fact, it was a mass of seething, panic-stricken humanity."4 Himmler, head of the Nazi terror police, would become an architect of the Holocaust, which consumed 6 million Jews. It was self-evident that the Jews must be disarmed before the extermination could begin. Finding out which Jews had firearms was not too difficult. The liberal Weimar Republic passed a Firearm Law in 1928 requiring extensive police records on gun owners. Hitler signed a further gun control law in early 1938. Other European countries also had laws requiring police records to be kept on persons who possessed firearms. When the Nazis took over Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939, it was a simple matter to identify gun owners. Many of them disappeared in the middle of the night along with political opponents. Imagine that you are sitting in a movie house in Germany in May 1940. The German Weekly Newsreel comes on to show you the attack on Holland, Belgium and France. The minute Wehrmacht troops and tanks cross the Dutch border, the film shows German soldiers nailing up a poster about 2-ft. by 3-ft. in size. It is entitled "Regulations on Arms Possession in the Occupied Zone" ("Verordnung ber Waffenbesitz im besetzen Gebiet").5 The camera scans the top of the double-columned poster, written in German on the left and Flemish on the right, with an eagle and swastika in the middle. It commands that all firearms be surrendered to the German commander within 24 hours. The full text is not in view, but similar posters threatened the death penalty for violation. The film shows artillery and infantry rolling through the streets as happy citizens wave. It then switches to scenes of onslaughts against Dutch and Belgian soldiers and Hitler's message that this great war would instate the 1000-year Reich. A patriotic song mixed with the images and music of artillery barrages, Luftwaffe bombings and tank assaults compose the grand finale. France soon fell, and the same posters threatening the death penalty for possession of a firearm went up everywhere. You can see one today in Paris at the Museum of the Order of the Liberation (Muse de l'Ordre de la Lib&ration). A photograph of the poster is reproduced here, including a translation. There was a fallacy to the threat. No blank existed on the poster to write in the time and date of posting so one would know when the 24-hour "waiting period" began or ended. Perhaps the Nazis would shoot someone who was an hour late. Indeed, gun owners even without guns were dangerous because they knew how to use guns and tended to be resourceful, independent-minded persons. A Swiss manual on armed resistance stated with such experiences in mind: Out of all the acts of armed citizen resisters in the war, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1943 is difficult to surpass in its heroism. Beginning with just a few handguns, armed Jews put a temporary stop to the deportations to extermination camps, frightened the Nazis out of the ghetto, stood off assaults for days on end, and escaped to the forests to continue the struggle. What if there had been two, three, many Warsaw Ghetto Uprisings?19 The NRA trained hundreds of thousands of Americans in rifle marksmanship during World War II. President Harry Truman wrote that NRA's firearms training programs "materially aided our war effort" and that he hoped "the splendid program which the National Rifle Association has followed during the past three-quarters of a century will be continued."20 By helping defeat the Nazi and Fascist terror regimes, the NRA helped end the Holocaust, slave labor and the severest oppression. Those tiny pacifist organizations of the era that called for gun registration and confiscation contributed nothing to winning the war or to stopping the genocide. Their counterparts today have nothing to offer that would enable citizens to resist genocide. Individual criminals wreak their carnage on individuals or small numbers of people. As this century has shown, terrorist governments have the capacity to commit genocide against millions of people, provided that the people are unarmed. Schemes to confiscate firearms kept by peaceable citizens have historically been associated with some of the world's most insidious tyrannies.

cjmousseau

Second Amendment - Bearing Arms A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. if you look under the term infringe or Infringement it states go against rules and laws if you look under the constitution the second amendment it is in the bill of rights under our constitution it states shall not be infringed. now if we had to look at the revolutionary war we had the Militia and to day we still have the militia if you were called up by you mayor or congressman or even a mayor after a major storm you and your neighbors will be a militia now during WWII law abiding citizens voluntereed on the home front to defend our boarders and also in europe in WWII Nazi Repression Of Firearms Owners New research into Adolf Hitler`s use of firearm registration lists to confiscate guns and then execute their owners teaches a forceful lesson. It is a lesson that reveals why the American people and Congress have rejected registering honest firearms owners. It would be instructive at this time to recall why the American citizenry and Congress have historically opposed the registration of firearms. The reason is plain. Registration makes it easy for a tyrannical government to confiscate firearms and make prey of its subjects. Denying this historical fact is no more justified than denying that the Holocaust occurred or that the Nazis murdered millions of unarmed people. I am writing a book on Nazi policies and practices that sought to repress civilian gun ownership and eradicate gun owners in Germany and occupied Europe. The following sampling of my findings should give pause to the suggestion that Draconian punishment of citizens for keeping firearms is necessarily a social good. The Night of the Broken Glass (Kristallnacht)--the infamous Nazi rampage against Germany`s Jews--took place in November 1938. It was preceded by the confiscation of firearms from the Jewish victims. On Nov. 9, The New York Times reported from Berlin, "Berlin Police Head Announces `Disarming` of Jews," explaining: "The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been `disarmed` with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment."1 On the evening of Nov. 9, Adolf Hitler, Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels and other Nazi chiefs planned the attack. Orders went out to Nazi security forces: "All Jewish stores are to be destroyed immediately. . . Jewish synagogues are to be set on fire. . . The F�hrer wishes that the police does not intervene. . . All Jews are to be disarmed. In the event of resistance they are to be shot immediately."2 All hell broke loose on Nov. 10: "Nazis Smash, Loot and Burn Jewish Shops and Temples," a headline read. "One of the first legal measures issued was an order by Heinrich Himmler, commander of all German police, forbidding Jews to possess any weapons whatever and imposing a penalty of twenty years confinement in a concentration camp upon every Jew found in possession of a weapon hereafter."3 Thousands of Jews were taken away. Searches of Jewish homes were calculated to seize firearms and assets and to arrest adult males. The American Consulate in Stuttgart was flooded with Jews begging for visas: "Men in whose homes old, rusty revolvers had been found during the last few days cried aloud that they did not dare ever again return to their places of residence or business. In fact, it was a mass of seething, panic-stricken humanity."4 Himmler, head of the Nazi terror police, would become an architect of the Holocaust, which consumed 6 million Jews. It was self-evident that the Jews must be disarmed before the extermination could begin. Finding out which Jews had firearms was not too difficult. The liberal Weimar Republic passed a Firearm Law in 1928 requiring extensive police records on gun owners. Hitler signed a further gun control law in early 1938. Other European countries also had laws requiring police records to be kept on persons who possessed firearms. When the Nazis took over Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939, it was a simple matter to identify gun owners. Many of them disappeared in the middle of the night along with political opponents. Imagine that you are sitting in a movie house in Germany in May 1940. The German Weekly Newsreel comes on to show you the attack on Holland, Belgium and France. The minute Wehrmacht troops and tanks cross the Dutch border, the film shows German soldiers nailing up a poster about 2-ft. by 3-ft. in size. It is entitled "Regulations on Arms Possession in the Occupied Zone" ("Verordnung �ber Waffenbesitz im besetzen Gebiet").5 The camera scans the top of the double-columned poster, written in German on the left and Flemish on the right, with an eagle and swastika in the middle. It commands that all firearms be surrendered to the German commander within 24 hours. The full text is not in view, but similar posters threatened the death penalty for violation. The film shows artillery and infantry rolling through the streets as happy citizens wave. It then switches to scenes of onslaughts against Dutch and Belgian soldiers and Hitler`s message that this great war would instate the 1000-year Reich. A patriotic song mixed with the images and music of artillery barrages, Luftwaffe bombings and tank assaults compose the grand finale. France soon fell, and the same posters threatening the death penalty for possession of a firearm went up everywhere. You can see one today in Paris at the Museum of the Order of the Liberation (Mus�e de l`Ordre de la Lib&�ration). A photograph of the poster is reproduced here, including a translation. There was a fallacy to the threat. No blank existed on the poster to write in the time and date of posting so one would know when the 24-hour "waiting period" began or ended. Perhaps the Nazis would shoot someone who was an hour late. Indeed, gun owners even without guns were dangerous because they knew how to use guns and tended to be resourceful, independent-minded persons. A Swiss manual on armed resistance stated with such experiences in mind: Out of all the acts of armed citizen resisters in the war, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1943 is difficult to surpass in its heroism. Beginning with just a few handguns, armed Jews put a temporary stop to the deportations to extermination camps, frightened the Nazis out of the ghetto, stood off assaults for days on end, and escaped to the forests to continue the struggle. What if there had been two, three, many Warsaw Ghetto Uprisings?19 The NRA trained hundreds of thousands of Americans in rifle marksmanship during World War II. President Harry Truman wrote that NRA`s firearms training programs "materially aided our war effort" and that he hoped "the splendid program which the National Rifle Association has followed during the past three-quarters of a century will be continued."20 By helping defeat the Nazi and Fascist terror regimes, the NRA helped end the Holocaust, slave labor and the severest oppression. Those tiny pacifist organizations of the era that called for gun registration and confiscation contributed nothing to winning the war or to stopping the genocide. Their counterparts today have nothing to offer that would enable citizens to resist genocide. Individual criminals wreak their carnage on individuals or small numbers of people. As this century has shown, terrorist governments have the capacity to commit genocide against millions of people, provided that the people are unarmed. Schemes to confiscate firearms kept by peaceable citizens have historically been associated with some of the world`s most insidious tyrannies.

Politics

2nd-amendment/1/

The Second Amendment The Second Amendment guarantees: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This guarantees a citizen's right to keep and bear arms for personal defense. The revolutionary experience caused our forebears to address a second concern -- the ability of Americans to maintain a citizen militia. The Founding Fathers trusted an armed citizenry as the best safeguard against the possibility of a tyrannical government. James Madison, author of the Second Amendment, wrote that Americans had "the advantage of being armed," that was lacking in other nations, where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." Patrick Henry proclaimed the "great object is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." The Second Amendment was then, as it is today, about freedom and the means to protect it. In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court refused to take judicial notice that a short-barreled shotgun was useful for militia purposes. Nowhere did the court hold that an individual does not have a right to keep and bear arms. In United States v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 846, 850 n. 7 (9th Cir. 1996), Judge Kozinski opined that "The Second Amendment embodies the right to defend oneself and one's home against physical attack." In United States v. Hutzell, 217 F.3d 966, 969 (8th Cir. 2000), the court held that "... an individual's right to bear arms is constitutionally protected, see United States v. Miller ...." In United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), the court examined United States v. Miller and held: "We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals ... to privately possess and bear their own firearms ...." The U. S. Supreme Court has recently recognized the Second Amendment as an important individual right. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992); United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1991). On December 17, 2004, the U.S. Department of Justice published an exhaustive Second Amendment memorandum. It concludes without reservation that "the Second Amendment secures a personal right of individuals, not a collective right that may only be invoked by a State or a quasi-collective right restricted to those persons who serve in organized militia units." <URL>... The Founding Fathers distrusted a government that wouldn't trust its people. To fulfill the promise of the Declaration of Independence, the authors of the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights made it clear that individual rights were paramount. The Bill of Rights, wrote Madison, was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people." Some claim that banning only certain firearms does not constitute an infringement of Second Amendment rights. That measured ploy is not new. George Mason exposed it at Virginia's constitutional convention in 1788: "[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man . . . to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually." Our founders risked their lives to create a free nation, and they guaranteed freedom as the birthright of American citizens through the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment remains the first right among equals, because it is the one we turn to when all else fails. thanks charles h mousseau jr NRA member

cjmousseau

The Second Amendment The Second Amendment guarantees: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This guarantees a citizen's right to keep and bear arms for personal defense. The revolutionary experience caused our forebears to address a second concern -- the ability of Americans to maintain a citizen militia. The Founding Fathers trusted an armed citizenry as the best safeguard against the possibility of a tyrannical government. James Madison, author of the Second Amendment, wrote that Americans had "the advantage of being armed," that was lacking in other nations, where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." Patrick Henry proclaimed the "great object is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." The Second Amendment was then, as it is today, about freedom and the means to protect it. In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court refused to take judicial notice that a short-barreled shotgun was useful for militia purposes. Nowhere did the court hold that an individual does not have a right to keep and bear arms. In United States v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 846, 850 n. 7 (9th Cir. 1996), Judge Kozinski opined that "The Second Amendment embodies the right to defend oneself and one's home against physical attack." In United States v. Hutzell, 217 F.3d 966, 969 (8th Cir. 2000), the court held that "... an individual's right to bear arms is constitutionally protected, see United States v. Miller ...." In United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), the court examined United States v. Miller and held: "We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals ... to privately possess and bear their own firearms ...." The U. S. Supreme Court has recently recognized the Second Amendment as an important individual right. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992); United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1991). On December 17, 2004, the U.S. Department of Justice published an exhaustive Second Amendment memorandum. It concludes without reservation that "the Second Amendment secures a personal right of individuals, not a collective right that may only be invoked by a State or a quasi-collective right restricted to those persons who serve in organized militia units." http://www.usdoj.gov... The Founding Fathers distrusted a government that wouldn't trust its people. To fulfill the promise of the Declaration of Independence, the authors of the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights made it clear that individual rights were paramount. The Bill of Rights, wrote Madison, was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people." Some claim that banning only certain firearms does not constitute an infringement of Second Amendment rights. That measured ploy is not new. George Mason exposed it at Virginia's constitutional convention in 1788: "[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man . . . to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually." Our founders risked their lives to create a free nation, and they guaranteed freedom as the birthright of American citizens through the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment remains the first right among equals, because it is the one we turn to when all else fails. thanks charles h mousseau jr NRA member

Politics

2nd-amendment/1/

Fortifying The Right To Self-Defense "Law is order, and good law is good order," Aristotle said. Without doubt, Florida's recently enacted "Castle Doctrine" law is good law, casting a common-sense light onto the debate over the right of self-defense. It reverses the pendulum that for too long has swung in the direction of protecting the rights of criminals over the rights of their victims. Despite predictable howling from the anti-gun media elite that Florida was taking an unprecedented and dangerous action, in truth it joined 24 other states that reject "duty-to-retreat" laws. Passed overwhelmingly in the state legislature--unanimously in the Senate and 94-20 in the House--;the new law removes the "duty to retreat" when citizens are outside of their homes and where they have legal right to be. It says that if a criminal breaks into your home or occupied vehicle or a place where you are camping overnight, for example, you may presume that he is there to do bodily harm and use any force, including deadly force, to protect yourself from a violent attack. Floridians who defend themselves from criminal attack are shielded by the new law from criminal prosecution and from civil suits brought by their attackers. In testifying for the bill, Marion P. Hammer, executive director of Unified Sportsmen of Florida, said: "No one knows what is in the twisted mind of a violent criminal. You can't expect a victim to wait before taking action to protect herself and say: 'Excuse me, Mr. Criminal, did you drag me into this alley to rape and kill me or do you just want to beat me up and steal my purse?'" Florida's "Castle Doctrine" law does the following: One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, so the occupant may use force, including deadly force, against that person. Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others. Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force. It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them. In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors to focus on protecting victims. if we had to look over history like the revolutionary war to the war on terror. duing the revolutionary war men fought the red coats and if that read coat came near a mans house in the 13 collines he would have said i am going to get out my kentucky long rifle and i am going to shoot the SOB that comes near me or my family. now on the war on terror lets say we have a domestic terrorist group comming to break into your house you would say i am going to lock and load with my riot control shotgun and my M4A2 and my colt451911. i have a right to defend my self it staes it in the second ammedment it states A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. now in that right to bear arms it staes for the people to keep and bear arms. and it also states shall not be infringed and infringe states to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another and i am protecting my freedom. if you are a politician a member of the military or the president of the united states you are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution. thanks charles h mousseau jr NRA Member

cjmousseau

Fortifying The Right To Self-Defense "Law is order, and good law is good order," Aristotle said. Without doubt, Florida's recently enacted "Castle Doctrine" law is good law, casting a common-sense light onto the debate over the right of self-defense. It reverses the pendulum that for too long has swung in the direction of protecting the rights of criminals over the rights of their victims. Despite predictable howling from the anti-gun media elite that Florida was taking an unprecedented and dangerous action, in truth it joined 24 other states that reject "duty-to-retreat" laws. Passed overwhelmingly in the state legislature--unanimously in the Senate and 94-20 in the House--;the new law removes the "duty to retreat" when citizens are outside of their homes and where they have legal right to be. It says that if a criminal breaks into your home or occupied vehicle or a place where you are camping overnight, for example, you may presume that he is there to do bodily harm and use any force, including deadly force, to protect yourself from a violent attack. Floridians who defend themselves from criminal attack are shielded by the new law from criminal prosecution and from civil suits brought by their attackers. In testifying for the bill, Marion P. Hammer, executive director of Unified Sportsmen of Florida, said: "No one knows what is in the twisted mind of a violent criminal. You can't expect a victim to wait before taking action to protect herself and say: 'Excuse me, Mr. Criminal, did you drag me into this alley to rape and kill me or do you just want to beat me up and steal my purse?'" Florida's "Castle Doctrine" law does the following: One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, so the occupant may use force, including deadly force, against that person. Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others. Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force. It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them. In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors to focus on protecting victims. if we had to look over history like the revolutionary war to the war on terror. duing the revolutionary war men fought the red coats and if that read coat came near a mans house in the 13 collines he would have said i am going to get out my kentucky long rifle and i am going to shoot the SOB that comes near me or my family. now on the war on terror lets say we have a domestic terrorist group comming to break into your house you would say i am going to lock and load with my riot control shotgun and my M4A2 and my colt451911. i have a right to defend my self it staes it in the second ammedment it states A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. now in that right to bear arms it staes for the people to keep and bear arms. and it also states shall not be infringed and infringe states to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another and i am protecting my freedom. if you are a politician a member of the military or the president of the united states you are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution. thanks charles h mousseau jr NRA Member

Politics

2nd-amendment/1/

First round is for acceptance. 5 minute responses. 2000 allotted characters. Voting period: 10 days.

CloudApex

First round is for acceptance. 5 minute responses. 2000 allotted characters. Voting period: 10 days.

Education

5-minutes-Global-warming-is-a-problem./1/

Thank you for accepting this debate. I would like to start by scaffolding my argument. Statistically speaking, the average atmospheric temperature has risen tremendously in the past few decades and if it continues to expand at an exponential rate, will entail troublesome problems to the generations of the future and even those who live imminently. Its presence is no longer benign. The amount of coral reefs and mangroves have experienced a dramatic decline in the past few years. Organisms that live in cold regions like that of Antarctica and Arctic are forced to either assimilate to the rapidly warming conditions, migrate to cooler and inhospitable tropical regions between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer or die as the glacial ice caps and icebergs melt. As huge ice masses melt, coastal flooding will become an insurmountable problem. San Fransisco and its coastal residents WILL suffer losses and will be displaced. Due to the time limit, I will conclude in the following round.

CloudApex

Thank you for accepting this debate. I would like to start by scaffolding my argument. Statistically speaking, the average atmospheric temperature has risen tremendously in the past few decades and if it continues to expand at an exponential rate, will entail troublesome problems to the generations of the future and even those who live imminently. Its presence is no longer benign. The amount of coral reefs and mangroves have experienced a dramatic decline in the past few years. Organisms that live in cold regions like that of Antarctica and Arctic are forced to either assimilate to the rapidly warming conditions, migrate to cooler and inhospitable tropical regions between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer or die as the glacial ice caps and icebergs melt. As huge ice masses melt, coastal flooding will become an insurmountable problem. San Fransisco and its coastal residents WILL suffer losses and will be displaced. Due to the time limit, I will conclude in the following round.

Education

5-minutes-Global-warming-is-a-problem./1/

9/11 never happened at all, if nobody did it, nothing or any weather made it happen either. Even though the blame game confusion cycle only says that if we can't blame anybody either because its a conspiracy or it is confusing to tell without bias. the weather never made the towers melt, it was a sunny but cool day. no self-driving planes, no confusion blame, no nothing. if he said it happen, 9/11 is a lie, look it up: <URL>...

BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

9/11 never happened at all, if nobody did it, nothing or any weather made it happen either. Even though the blame game confusion cycle only says that if we can't blame anybody either because its a conspiracy or it is confusing to tell without bias. the weather never made the towers melt, it was a sunny but cool day. no self-driving planes, no confusion blame, no nothing. if he said it happen, 9/11 is a lie, look it up: https://www.youtube.com...

Society

9-11-Never-Happened-At-All/1/

This is my first debate so tell me if i did something wrong ill let my opponent start first so i can think of a good argument for i need to think of a plan to WIN. so let us begin

Prodigy_X

This is my first debate so tell me if i did something wrong ill let my opponent start first so i can think of a good argument for i need to think of a plan to WIN. so let us begin

Miscellaneous

9-11-was-a-made-by-the-government-so-they-could-invade-another-country-for-oil/1/

i'd like to thank my opponent for stepping up to the challenge i'm not saying 9/11 didnt exist Im saying this: the U.S goverment took a couple of people from the middle east to stage an "attack" on the world trade centre, an airplane crashing into the pentagon and another one in a field to make the people in believing "terrorists" are attacking the U.S and rally them up so they can invade another country for its oil since the oils supply in the world is decreasing. i'm not saying that all Americans are evil just George Bush because when 9/11 happened Afghanistan was invaded by the Americans and it continues till this day. what the people in afghanistan will say" thanks for letting me walk through my own roads in my own country". And when they defeat the "terrorists" that "attacked" America, the military have just made things worse and just completely fucked things up even worse then when they werent there and still they are there making things worse. in maybe a few years the U.S will have turned Iraq and Afghanistan into a land of which no one can go to unless wearing a radiation suit and the U.S would of just took their oil and left laughing after another triumphant victory over nothing. Thank you

Prodigy_X

i'd like to thank my opponent for stepping up to the challenge i'm not saying 9/11 didnt exist Im saying this: the U.S goverment took a couple of people from the middle east to stage an "attack" on the world trade centre, an airplane crashing into the pentagon and another one in a field to make the people in believing "terrorists" are attacking the U.S and rally them up so they can invade another country for its oil since the oils supply in the world is decreasing. i'm not saying that all Americans are evil just George Bush because when 9/11 happened Afghanistan was invaded by the Americans and it continues till this day. what the people in afghanistan will say" thanks for letting me walk through my own roads in my own country". And when they defeat the "terrorists" that "attacked" America, the military have just made things worse and just completely fucked things up even worse then when they werent there and still they are there making things worse. in maybe a few years the U.S will have turned Iraq and Afghanistan into a land of which no one can go to unless wearing a radiation suit and the U.S would of just took their oil and left laughing after another triumphant victory over nothing. Thank you

Miscellaneous

9-11-was-a-made-by-the-government-so-they-could-invade-another-country-for-oil/1/

Now i am going to flaw the government on how they perfected 9/11 1. War Games US military and other authorities planned or actually rehearsed defensive response to all elements of the 9/11 scenario during the year prior to the attack - including multiple hijackings, suicide crashbombings, and a strike on the Pentagon 2.Pentagon strike How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation's capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon? Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command? 3.Demolition Hypothesis What caused the collapse of a third skyscraper, WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane? Were the Twin Towers and WTC 7 brought down by explosives? And finally 4. Awol chain of command It is well documented that the officials topping the chain of command for response to a domestic attack - George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield - all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as decision-makers But dont give me credit for these arguments i got most of them from a 9/11 truth website so thank them for these reasons and more vote.......... Pro! thank you

Prodigy_X

Now i am going to flaw the government on how they perfected 9/11 1. War Games US military and other authorities planned or actually rehearsed defensive response to all elements of the 9/11 scenario during the year prior to the attack - including multiple hijackings, suicide crashbombings, and a strike on the Pentagon 2.Pentagon strike How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation's capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon? Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command? 3.Demolition Hypothesis What caused the collapse of a third skyscraper, WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane? Were the Twin Towers and WTC 7 brought down by explosives? And finally 4. Awol chain of command It is well documented that the officials topping the chain of command for response to a domestic attack - George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield - all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as decision-makers But dont give me credit for these arguments i got most of them from a 9/11 truth website so thank them for these reasons and more vote.......... Pro! thank you

Miscellaneous

9-11-was-a-made-by-the-government-so-they-could-invade-another-country-for-oil/1/

Alright. Thanks for the debate. I'm going to start this round by putting a little offense on your claims and then I will move on to supply some defense for my own position. The very first thing you tell me is quite simply that the confession video could not have been fake because it is not easy to forge a video. Here are my points on this argument. 1. Hollywood. We make videos every day with amazing special effects in them. Look at James Bond, Harry Potter, 300, etc.... These movies are loaded with special effects and actually manage to come off looking real. So my question to you is this, here is the video of him confessing that he attacked us: . How hard would it actually be to make a movie of a guy simply sitting on the floor and eating for 9 minutes? A movie with fuzzy reception at that. I'm pretty sure the answer is not hard at all. In fact with a wig and a bit of make-up I think I could have made a home video nearly as convincing if not more so. After all he is reportedly left handed but he makes every gesture with his right hand in the video. Not to mention the fact that the entire thing is in a different language. As far as the American public knows that video could be in any language, we just added sub-titles. 2. Aside from the fact that he uses the wrong hand the entire time and his turban is reportedly on the wrong way we also have the fact that he looks nothing like Osama Bin Laden. Compare this video of him to any other picture of him you have seen. Actually if you have time to load <URL>... scroll directly to 45:00 minutes into the video and it will do the comparisons for you. It will show you 4 other photos of Bin Laden and the one in the movie, looks nothing alike, minus a turban. Ron Paul even notices this coincidence on his War room page when he says, "That the tape in which bin Laden claims responsibility for the attacks was released by the State Department after having been found providentially by US forces in Afghanistan, and depicts a fattened Osama with a broader face and a flatter nose, proves Osama, and Osama alone, masterminded 9/11." 3. Third point, on the morning of Sept. 11 George Bush Senior was actually meeting with Bin Laden's older brother; while this doesn't actually prove anything it does show that the Bush family had ties with the Bin Laden's. Source: <URL>... George Bush senior has also made multiple trips to Saudi Arabia to meet with Bin Laden in the past regarding oil. 4. Bush actually ordered that investigations on the Laden family to be stopped before Sept. 11 ever occurred. Our intelligence had some suspicion that the Ladens could possibly be a threat in the future but Pres. Bush prevented them from investigating. This once again isn't 100% proof but at the very least we can conclude that something very strange was going on. Source: <URL>... 5. Osama Bin Laden reportedly was treated in an American hospital in Dubai and met with the local CIA agent between the 4th and 14th of July in 2001. This was well after he was known to be one of America's most wanted criminals. Yet he was allowed to leave the hospital with no repercussions. Source: <URL>... 6. The only piece of evidence that actually links Bin Laden to sept. 11 was the confession video you have provided me. One of the easiest things ever to forge. Now for some offense. I'm going to start with the Pentagon because it is the strangest of them all. I'm going to be using this photo for reference its an easy one. I would have liked one of the photos with people walking in front of it for perspective but I can't seem to find a large one of those. So here goes. <URL>... 1. Like the photo says where is the Plane? Last time I checked steel melts at 2750 degrees Fahrenheit ( <URL>... ). Meanwhile jet fuel burns at what? About 1500 degrees farenhiet? But this is an over simplification. We are not talking about the plane melting in this scenario we are talking about is simply vaporizing and we are not talking about steel we are talking about alloys. How do you manage to vaporize a plane made of steel alloys within seconds and somehow leave the building looking as if a couple stories collapsed. Not to mention the impact, wouldn't there be at least a wing or something somewhere.... Which brings me to point number two. 2. Where are wings holes.... We have a hole in this building, that on the left side at least, is a complete straight line. Where are the holes where the wings hit on either side....? Did those just happen to fall off and vaporize on the lawn? 3. Perhaps the most disturbing point. Our government, not only has no tape of a plane flying onto the pentagon but actually seized the tapes from private businesses that had vantage points of the Pentagon. Source: <URL>... The only pieces of evidence that have been cited to show a Plane hitting the Pentagon were from Pentagon cameras and the evidence looks like this: <URL>... Very conclusive. Can someone point me to the plane in this picture....? If a plane had actually hit the pentagon why has our government seized the tapes and has not bothered to show us them despite multiple inquiries? 4. Watch this if you have time. It has some of my ideas and is fairly short. <URL>... OFFENSE 2: The Hijackers 1. The planes... Once again of the four planes that crashed, not a piece of wreckage is shown anywhere for any of them. The official story once again being that they vaporized on impact. 2. We found the passports for four of the hijackers, Ziad Jarrah, Abdulaziz Alomari, Saeed Alghamdi, Satam Al Suqami , in the rubble and on the streets below ( <URL>... ). So let me explain this situation briefly. The plane and passengers are vaporized on impact, but the passports, made of paper, are hurdled through the flames and found by a random passersby on the street below unsinged. 4 paper passports survive where 12 tons of jet steel and titanium was vaporized. What....? 3. The FBI report comes to the conclusion that there were 19 hijackers. 4 or 5 per plane. Yet mere days later at least 6 of the suspected hijackers are still alive. ( <URL>... ) And yet, to date, the FBI list hasn't been revised, ummm what? Also we have the issue that not one of the flight manifests actually contained any of the hijackers names or any names of middle eastern origin for that matter. Offense 3: WTC 1 2 & 7 1. Despite popular belief 3 world trade centers actually fell on September 11th. Official report cites fire melted the 3 however all three fell at nearly the speed of free fall. The only feasible scenario for such would be controlled demolition. No building has ever been known to collapse in this way from fire, yet on Sept. 11th three building collapsed.... Care to explain?

Yraelz

Alright. Thanks for the debate. I'm going to start this round by putting a little offense on your claims and then I will move on to supply some defense for my own position. The very first thing you tell me is quite simply that the confession video could not have been fake because it is not easy to forge a video. Here are my points on this argument. 1. Hollywood. We make videos every day with amazing special effects in them. Look at James Bond, Harry Potter, 300, etc.... These movies are loaded with special effects and actually manage to come off looking real. So my question to you is this, here is the video of him confessing that he attacked us: . How hard would it actually be to make a movie of a guy simply sitting on the floor and eating for 9 minutes? A movie with fuzzy reception at that. I'm pretty sure the answer is not hard at all. In fact with a wig and a bit of make-up I think I could have made a home video nearly as convincing if not more so. After all he is reportedly left handed but he makes every gesture with his right hand in the video. Not to mention the fact that the entire thing is in a different language. As far as the American public knows that video could be in any language, we just added sub-titles. 2. Aside from the fact that he uses the wrong hand the entire time and his turban is reportedly on the wrong way we also have the fact that he looks nothing like Osama Bin Laden. Compare this video of him to any other picture of him you have seen. Actually if you have time to load http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com... scroll directly to 45:00 minutes into the video and it will do the comparisons for you. It will show you 4 other photos of Bin Laden and the one in the movie, looks nothing alike, minus a turban. Ron Paul even notices this coincidence on his War room page when he says, "That the tape in which bin Laden claims responsibility for the attacks was released by the State Department after having been found providentially by US forces in Afghanistan, and depicts a fattened Osama with a broader face and a flatter nose, proves Osama, and Osama alone, masterminded 9/11." 3. Third point, on the morning of Sept. 11 George Bush Senior was actually meeting with Bin Laden's older brother; while this doesn't actually prove anything it does show that the Bush family had ties with the Bin Laden's. Source: http://www.prisonplanet.com... George Bush senior has also made multiple trips to Saudi Arabia to meet with Bin Laden in the past regarding oil. 4. Bush actually ordered that investigations on the Laden family to be stopped before Sept. 11 ever occurred. Our intelligence had some suspicion that the Ladens could possibly be a threat in the future but Pres. Bush prevented them from investigating. This once again isn't 100% proof but at the very least we can conclude that something very strange was going on. Source: http://www.webcom.com... 5. Osama Bin Laden reportedly was treated in an American hospital in Dubai and met with the local CIA agent between the 4th and 14th of July in 2001. This was well after he was known to be one of America's most wanted criminals. Yet he was allowed to leave the hospital with no repercussions. Source: http://emperors-clothes.com... 6. The only piece of evidence that actually links Bin Laden to sept. 11 was the confession video you have provided me. One of the easiest things ever to forge. Now for some offense. I'm going to start with the Pentagon because it is the strangest of them all. I'm going to be using this photo for reference its an easy one. I would have liked one of the photos with people walking in front of it for perspective but I can't seem to find a large one of those. So here goes. http://images.google.com... 1. Like the photo says where is the Plane? Last time I checked steel melts at 2750 degrees Fahrenheit ( http://www.chemicalelements.com... ). Meanwhile jet fuel burns at what? About 1500 degrees farenhiet? But this is an over simplification. We are not talking about the plane melting in this scenario we are talking about is simply vaporizing and we are not talking about steel we are talking about alloys. How do you manage to vaporize a plane made of steel alloys within seconds and somehow leave the building looking as if a couple stories collapsed. Not to mention the impact, wouldn't there be at least a wing or something somewhere.... Which brings me to point number two. 2. Where are wings holes.... We have a hole in this building, that on the left side at least, is a complete straight line. Where are the holes where the wings hit on either side....? Did those just happen to fall off and vaporize on the lawn? 3. Perhaps the most disturbing point. Our government, not only has no tape of a plane flying onto the pentagon but actually seized the tapes from private businesses that had vantage points of the Pentagon. Source: http://911research.wtc7.net... The only pieces of evidence that have been cited to show a Plane hitting the Pentagon were from Pentagon cameras and the evidence looks like this: http://archives.cnn.com... Very conclusive. Can someone point me to the plane in this picture....? If a plane had actually hit the pentagon why has our government seized the tapes and has not bothered to show us them despite multiple inquiries? 4. Watch this if you have time. It has some of my ideas and is fairly short. http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk... OFFENSE 2: The Hijackers 1. The planes... Once again of the four planes that crashed, not a piece of wreckage is shown anywhere for any of them. The official story once again being that they vaporized on impact. 2. We found the passports for four of the hijackers, Ziad Jarrah, Abdulaziz Alomari, Saeed Alghamdi, Satam Al Suqami , in the rubble and on the streets below ( http://www.cooperativeresearch.org... ). So let me explain this situation briefly. The plane and passengers are vaporized on impact, but the passports, made of paper, are hurdled through the flames and found by a random passersby on the street below unsinged. 4 paper passports survive where 12 tons of jet steel and titanium was vaporized. What....? 3. The FBI report comes to the conclusion that there were 19 hijackers. 4 or 5 per plane. Yet mere days later at least 6 of the suspected hijackers are still alive. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk... ) And yet, to date, the FBI list hasn't been revised, ummm what? Also we have the issue that not one of the flight manifests actually contained any of the hijackers names or any names of middle eastern origin for that matter. Offense 3: WTC 1 2 & 7 1. Despite popular belief 3 world trade centers actually fell on September 11th. Official report cites fire melted the 3 however all three fell at nearly the speed of free fall. The only feasible scenario for such would be controlled demolition. No building has ever been known to collapse in this way from fire, yet on Sept. 11th three building collapsed.... Care to explain?

Politics

9-11-was-an-inside-job-done-by-the-government-of-the-United-States-of-America./1/

I urge voters to vote not on the debate content and not their own bias. I realize this probably won't happen but I feel better if I urge it. =) Anyways I'm going to go down my own points that I made last round and defend the ones my opponent attacked. I started my last round with offense on my opponents video claim. 1. This point can be summarized as "forging videos is easy, particularly one where all the main character does is sit for 9 minutes." My opponent responded with this, "Of course special effects are easy, but making a specific person do certain motions and so on is not is not." My response: All he does in the movie is eat and talk..... And as I said he does the motions with the wrong hand. My opponent answer this by saying that he makes hand gestures with his left even though he is right. However I would doubt that my opponent makes every single hand gesture with his left. Doing such almost defeats the idea of being right handed. Next my opponent mentions that it could not be in a different language because Arabic speaking U.S citizens are true. I admit this is true, I was simply illustrating the ignorance of the average American citizen on such a matter and how it could potentially be exploited. 2). I give my opponent multiple sources showing how Osama Bin Laden looks different in this video than in any other. My opponent responds with, "I don't know how Ron Paul entered this conversation, he does not support your crazy theory." I concede to my opponent that this is true. Ron Paul does not support me at all, he is in complete negation. I was simply showing that even he noticed this phenomenon. He simply chooses to disregard it. I would like to point out that aside from this point my opponent did not attack my point, thus it stands in this round. 3. Concerning the family relations with the Bush family and the Ladens. My opponent simply states that this point means nothing to him. I'm simply pointing out that it is interesting our president has relations with a terrorist organization in such a way. 4. Bush ordered investigations of Bin Laden family to be halted. My opponent states, "Points 3 and 4 say nothing to me. " It seems odd to me that the George Bush would stop investigations on one of the biggest terrorists ever. Might be something to do with the fact that their families have close relations..... 5. Osama was treated in an American hospital and talked to a CIA agent. My opponent states, "And there is no proof for your point 5, only some cheap website probably invented by a conspiracy wacko. There's a reason why no official website supports this theory." Here are the sources where this idea originated from, "According to United Press International (Oct. 31, 2001), bin Laden underwent clandestine kidney treatment by Dr. Terry Calloway (Canadian urologist) for 11 days in July at the American Hospital in Dubai. During his hospital stay, bin Laden met with a U.S. CIA agent, according to French daily Le Figaro and Radio France International." 6. Only piece of evidence that link Bin Laden to 9/11 was this confession video. My opponent attempts to prove this using Spain and England. However even if he could prove that Osama Bin Laden did such acts to assume that he therefor did 9/11 would be fallacious. It would actually make sense that our government blame a known terrorist. It makes the story more plausible. Next I offered my offense. Scenario 1: Pentagon 1. Plane vaporization. My opponent, "Well who said the airplane vaporized? They probably got it out of there. The pentagon isn't in such bad shape, it seems like that picture is not of the pentagon right after the plane hit, but a long time after." In response that picture was taken the same day.... Look up pentagon plane on google you'll find many similar pictures. As far as the plane vaporizing goes. Thats the official story given by the white house. It would be rather difficult to explain the idea that the plane did not vaporize when we have pictures like this <URL>... where there is nearly 0 wreckage. However many many studies have been done proving that a plane cannot vaporize in any of these conditions. 2. No wing holes. My opponents makes no response. There are no wing holes, tapes were confiscated. Conclusion: No plane, otherwise government would show tapes. 3. Tapes seized by government. My opponent makes no response except to say that the plane should be right in the flames. My questions still remains, why is there no picture of the plane anywhere? Nearly 50 cameras from nearby building seized that would all show a plane, and the government has released 0 of the those tapes. Only showing us pictures of explosions. Cross apply my opponents argument from earlier, "Of course special effects are easy." 4. <URL>... ... , my opponent makes no response. Offense 2: Hijackers 1. No wreckage, vaporized on impact. My opponent makes no comment. 2. Found the passports of four hijackers despite the fact the plane vaporized. My opponent makes no comment. 3. FBI report comes to the conclusion that there were 19 hijackers yet days later 6 of them were still known to be alive. My opponent responds with, "The F.B.I. didn't really know. There were suspects of course, now they are not suspects anymore since they're alive. If the government did all of this, wouldn't they be smart enough to at least blame it on someone who won't just show up alive?" They're still suspects, the FBI has never revised their list. Page 563 of the 9/11 comission report, note 32, clearly states, "Two of the hijackers (Satam al Suqami and Abdul Aziz al Omari) presented passports in a fraudulent manner that has subsequently been associated with Al Qaeda." Why has the FBI not revised their list? Because it frankly doesn't matter who flew the plans; they made America believe at the time that the planes were flown by those men. The fact that they weren't, at this point, is of little consequence as America still firmly believes that they were flown by Al Qaeda. Until a great many people stop believing this the government has no need to deal with the issue. Offense 3: WTC 1, 2, & 7 1. Let me paste the entire argument that my opponent never responded to, "1. Despite popular belief 3 world trade centers actually fell on September 11th. Official report cites fire melted the 3 however all three fell at nearly the speed of free fall. The only feasible scenario for such would be controlled demolition. No building has ever been known to collapse in this way from fire, yet on Sept. 11th three building collapsed.... Care to explain?" To add to my point a small amount. The official cause of these collapses was that fire melted the supports to the main beams of each tower. Thus the tower collapsed in a pancake fashion 1 floor hitting the next. Unfortunately this would leave the main beams still intact, which it didn't, and would not allow the towers to fall at the speed of free fall. In conclusion my opponents final statement is as follows, "Overall, if the government really did this. Wouldn't they use a real plane? " No, that would be a bad idea. If it ever gets out that this was all a farce by our government to get us into a war it will be much better if the government can tell the public that planes loaded with civilians never crashed. You seem to be under the idea that our government is incapable of harming our citizens for gain. This is fallacious, as empirical data from the past proves. Operation North Woods is a fine example. <URL>... Prescott bush helping WWII is another <URL>...

Yraelz

I urge voters to vote not on the debate content and not their own bias. I realize this probably won't happen but I feel better if I urge it. =) Anyways I'm going to go down my own points that I made last round and defend the ones my opponent attacked. I started my last round with offense on my opponents video claim. 1. This point can be summarized as "forging videos is easy, particularly one where all the main character does is sit for 9 minutes." My opponent responded with this, "Of course special effects are easy, but making a specific person do certain motions and so on is not is not." My response: All he does in the movie is eat and talk..... And as I said he does the motions with the wrong hand. My opponent answer this by saying that he makes hand gestures with his left even though he is right. However I would doubt that my opponent makes every single hand gesture with his left. Doing such almost defeats the idea of being right handed. Next my opponent mentions that it could not be in a different language because Arabic speaking U.S citizens are true. I admit this is true, I was simply illustrating the ignorance of the average American citizen on such a matter and how it could potentially be exploited. 2). I give my opponent multiple sources showing how Osama Bin Laden looks different in this video than in any other. My opponent responds with, "I don't know how Ron Paul entered this conversation, he does not support your crazy theory." I concede to my opponent that this is true. Ron Paul does not support me at all, he is in complete negation. I was simply showing that even he noticed this phenomenon. He simply chooses to disregard it. I would like to point out that aside from this point my opponent did not attack my point, thus it stands in this round. 3. Concerning the family relations with the Bush family and the Ladens. My opponent simply states that this point means nothing to him. I'm simply pointing out that it is interesting our president has relations with a terrorist organization in such a way. 4. Bush ordered investigations of Bin Laden family to be halted. My opponent states, "Points 3 and 4 say nothing to me. " It seems odd to me that the George Bush would stop investigations on one of the biggest terrorists ever. Might be something to do with the fact that their families have close relations..... 5. Osama was treated in an American hospital and talked to a CIA agent. My opponent states, "And there is no proof for your point 5, only some cheap website probably invented by a conspiracy wacko. There's a reason why no official website supports this theory." Here are the sources where this idea originated from, "According to United Press International (Oct. 31, 2001), bin Laden underwent clandestine kidney treatment by Dr. Terry Calloway (Canadian urologist) for 11 days in July at the American Hospital in Dubai. During his hospital stay, bin Laden met with a U.S. CIA agent, according to French daily Le Figaro and Radio France International." 6. Only piece of evidence that link Bin Laden to 9/11 was this confession video. My opponent attempts to prove this using Spain and England. However even if he could prove that Osama Bin Laden did such acts to assume that he therefor did 9/11 would be fallacious. It would actually make sense that our government blame a known terrorist. It makes the story more plausible. Next I offered my offense. Scenario 1: Pentagon 1. Plane vaporization. My opponent, "Well who said the airplane vaporized? They probably got it out of there. The pentagon isn't in such bad shape, it seems like that picture is not of the pentagon right after the plane hit, but a long time after." In response that picture was taken the same day.... Look up pentagon plane on google you'll find many similar pictures. As far as the plane vaporizing goes. Thats the official story given by the white house. It would be rather difficult to explain the idea that the plane did not vaporize when we have pictures like this http://media.graytvinc.com... where there is nearly 0 wreckage. However many many studies have been done proving that a plane cannot vaporize in any of these conditions. 2. No wing holes. My opponents makes no response. There are no wing holes, tapes were confiscated. Conclusion: No plane, otherwise government would show tapes. 3. Tapes seized by government. My opponent makes no response except to say that the plane should be right in the flames. My questions still remains, why is there no picture of the plane anywhere? Nearly 50 cameras from nearby building seized that would all show a plane, and the government has released 0 of the those tapes. Only showing us pictures of explosions. Cross apply my opponents argument from earlier, "Of course special effects are easy." 4. http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk... ... , my opponent makes no response. Offense 2: Hijackers 1. No wreckage, vaporized on impact. My opponent makes no comment. 2. Found the passports of four hijackers despite the fact the plane vaporized. My opponent makes no comment. 3. FBI report comes to the conclusion that there were 19 hijackers yet days later 6 of them were still known to be alive. My opponent responds with, "The F.B.I. didn't really know. There were suspects of course, now they are not suspects anymore since they're alive. If the government did all of this, wouldn't they be smart enough to at least blame it on someone who won't just show up alive?" They're still suspects, the FBI has never revised their list. Page 563 of the 9/11 comission report, note 32, clearly states, "Two of the hijackers (Satam al Suqami and Abdul Aziz al Omari) presented passports in a fraudulent manner that has subsequently been associated with Al Qaeda." Why has the FBI not revised their list? Because it frankly doesn't matter who flew the plans; they made America believe at the time that the planes were flown by those men. The fact that they weren't, at this point, is of little consequence as America still firmly believes that they were flown by Al Qaeda. Until a great many people stop believing this the government has no need to deal with the issue. Offense 3: WTC 1, 2, & 7 1. Let me paste the entire argument that my opponent never responded to, "1. Despite popular belief 3 world trade centers actually fell on September 11th. Official report cites fire melted the 3 however all three fell at nearly the speed of free fall. The only feasible scenario for such would be controlled demolition. No building has ever been known to collapse in this way from fire, yet on Sept. 11th three building collapsed.... Care to explain?" To add to my point a small amount. The official cause of these collapses was that fire melted the supports to the main beams of each tower. Thus the tower collapsed in a pancake fashion 1 floor hitting the next. Unfortunately this would leave the main beams still intact, which it didn't, and would not allow the towers to fall at the speed of free fall. In conclusion my opponents final statement is as follows, "Overall, if the government really did this. Wouldn't they use a real plane? " No, that would be a bad idea. If it ever gets out that this was all a farce by our government to get us into a war it will be much better if the government can tell the public that planes loaded with civilians never crashed. You seem to be under the idea that our government is incapable of harming our citizens for gain. This is fallacious, as empirical data from the past proves. Operation North Woods is a fine example. http://en.wikipedia.org... Prescott bush helping WWII is another http://rinf.com...

Politics

9-11-was-an-inside-job-done-by-the-government-of-the-United-States-of-America./1/

I just want to see if I can plunder a conspiracy junkie in a debate on 9/11, just to shut him up. 9/11 was obviously done by Al-Qaeda. The tapes of Bin Laden admitting to have attacked us in 9/11 couldn't have been fake, it's not that easy to forge a video. We meddled around in the Middle East and Al-Qaeda got sick of it. Also, you conspiracy maniacs never answer this question: If the U.S. government (mainly the Bush administration) caused 9/11 without the help of Al-Qaeda, how do you explain the attacks made on Spain and England, to which Al-Qaeda also took responsibility for?

blond_guy

I just want to see if I can plunder a conspiracy junkie in a debate on 9/11, just to shut him up. 9/11 was obviously done by Al-Qaeda. The tapes of Bin Laden admitting to have attacked us in 9/11 couldn't have been fake, it's not that easy to forge a video. We meddled around in the Middle East and Al-Qaeda got sick of it. Also, you conspiracy maniacs never answer this question: If the U.S. government (mainly the Bush administration) caused 9/11 without the help of Al-Qaeda, how do you explain the attacks made on Spain and England, to which Al-Qaeda also took responsibility for?

Politics

9-11-was-an-inside-job-done-by-the-government-of-the-United-States-of-America./1/

Of course special effects are easy, but making a specific person do certain motions and so on is not is not. "As far as the American public knows that video could be in any language, we just added sub-titles." Oh yeah, like there's no U.S. citizens that speak Arabic and would notice that. "After all he is reportedly left handed but he makes every gesture with his right hand in the video." You can't prove this. I make hand gestures with my left hand although I'm right handed. This says nothing. "Ron Paul even notices this coincidence on his War room page when he says..." I don't know how Ron Paul entered this conversation, he does not support your crazy theory. Points 3 and 4 say nothing to me. And there is no proof for your point 5, only some cheap website probably invented by a conspiracy wacko. There's a reason why no official website supports this theory. "where is the Plane?" Well who said the airplane vaporized? They probably got it out of there. The pentagon isn't in such bad shape, it seems like that picture is not of the pentagon right after the plane hit, but a long time after. "The only piece of evidence that actually links Bin Laden to sept. 11 was the confession video you have provided me. One of the easiest things ever to forge." Did you forget about the question conspiracy maniacs never answer? What happened in Spain and England then? Did our government do that too? " <URL>... ... Very conclusive. Can someone point me to the plane in this picture....? " The plane should be right in those huge flames. By the way, try saying there was no plane to the families of the victims that died there. And those airlines that are missing a jet. "The FBI report comes to the conclusion that there were 19 hijackers. 4 or 5 per plane. Yet mere days later at least 6 of the suspected hijackers are still alive." The F.B.I. didn't really know. There were suspects of course, now they are not suspects anymore since they're alive. If the government did all of this, wouldn't they be smart enough to at least blame it on someone who won't just show up alive? Overall, if the government really did this. Wouldn't they use a real plane? Bush is not famous for his intelligence, but his administration could do better than that. You still haven't answered the question in my opening statement. Anyways, thank you for this debate, I'm looking forward to your next argument.

blond_guy

Of course special effects are easy, but making a specific person do certain motions and so on is not is not. "As far as the American public knows that video could be in any language, we just added sub-titles." Oh yeah, like there's no U.S. citizens that speak Arabic and would notice that. "After all he is reportedly left handed but he makes every gesture with his right hand in the video." You can't prove this. I make hand gestures with my left hand although I'm right handed. This says nothing. "Ron Paul even notices this coincidence on his War room page when he says..." I don't know how Ron Paul entered this conversation, he does not support your crazy theory. Points 3 and 4 say nothing to me. And there is no proof for your point 5, only some cheap website probably invented by a conspiracy wacko. There's a reason why no official website supports this theory. "where is the Plane?" Well who said the airplane vaporized? They probably got it out of there. The pentagon isn't in such bad shape, it seems like that picture is not of the pentagon right after the plane hit, but a long time after. "The only piece of evidence that actually links Bin Laden to sept. 11 was the confession video you have provided me. One of the easiest things ever to forge." Did you forget about the question conspiracy maniacs never answer? What happened in Spain and England then? Did our government do that too? " http://archives.cnn.com... ... Very conclusive. Can someone point me to the plane in this picture....? " The plane should be right in those huge flames. By the way, try saying there was no plane to the families of the victims that died there. And those airlines that are missing a jet. "The FBI report comes to the conclusion that there were 19 hijackers. 4 or 5 per plane. Yet mere days later at least 6 of the suspected hijackers are still alive." The F.B.I. didn't really know. There were suspects of course, now they are not suspects anymore since they're alive. If the government did all of this, wouldn't they be smart enough to at least blame it on someone who won't just show up alive? Overall, if the government really did this. Wouldn't they use a real plane? Bush is not famous for his intelligence, but his administration could do better than that. You still haven't answered the question in my opening statement. Anyways, thank you for this debate, I'm looking forward to your next argument.

Politics

9-11-was-an-inside-job-done-by-the-government-of-the-United-States-of-America./1/

I am accepting this debate on the grounds that I, and no one else, can really know for sure if 9/11 was an inside job. As I understand it, you have BoP to show it was definitely not an inside job; where I have BoP to show how we cannot be certain. It is a far stretch to say there is definitive evidence one way or the other. I agree that some of the evidence is deceiving and requires many assumptions, but some of it isn't. Regarding Building 7: There are many issues when considering the official story of Building 7. First, the BBC reported the collapse 20 minutes before it even happened. ( <URL>... ) No assumptions necessary here. There are a lot of problems with the NIST report on Building 7. Since this is the first round, I'll give you a link: <URL>... A few issues covered here are: NIST ignored all invitations from independent investigators to discuss or debate its findings or the alternative theory. NIST's previous reports show no evidence that NIST considered alternative theories at all. Only one small disclaimer was made in the final report for the towers, and only after public criticism that no mention of alternative theories was made in the draft report for the towers. 9/11 family members and independent investigators have had to pursue legal avenues to seek the truth from NIST, including a request for correction that has ultimately been ignored by NIST. Those citizens who have successfully criticized NIST in public have lost their jobs for doing so. NIST makes no mention of the mainstream scientific articles published in support of the alternative theory. We can discuss specific issues in later rounds if you'd like. NIST did actually say that Building 7 fell at free fall speed. The 9/11 Commission makes no mention to the collapse of Building 7. There is no video evidence proving that a plane hit the Pentagon. People at the scene admitted there was no sign a plane hit the building. Some eye-witnesses said they saw a plane, others said they did not; however, unless we have conclusive video evidence, we cannot rule out a JASSM. The Pentagon surveillance video is missing the critical frame that would allow us to see what hit the building. The government is excellent at keeping secrets. Research Gulf of Tonkin and Operation Northwoods. For me, I get very suspicious when I read about foreknowledge of 9/11. Specifically this document, a President's daily brief: <URL>... ; The 9/11 Commission is also suspect at best. Less initial government funding was given to it than the Clinton-Lewinsky investigation. It took 441 days to begin; compared to 7 days for the JFK assassination Henry Kissinger was originally supposed to head the commission. Kissinger is the principal creator of the US-instigated coup in Chile. Kissinger also had a critical role in extending the Vietnam War among many others. <URL>... I know my response is fairly vague and goes off in quite a few tangets, so give me some bullet points and I'll attempt to address them. I'm not saying I have all the answers or that it was certainly an inside job, but I do believe there is plenty of doubt surrounding the official story.

Free_Th1nker

I am accepting this debate on the grounds that I, and no one else, can really know for sure if 9/11 was an inside job. As I understand it, you have BoP to show it was definitely not an inside job; where I have BoP to show how we cannot be certain. It is a far stretch to say there is definitive evidence one way or the other. I agree that some of the evidence is deceiving and requires many assumptions, but some of it isn't. Regarding Building 7: There are many issues when considering the official story of Building 7. First, the BBC reported the collapse 20 minutes before it even happened. ( https://www.youtube.com... ) No assumptions necessary here. There are a lot of problems with the NIST report on Building 7. Since this is the first round, I'll give you a link: http://www.911truth.org... A few issues covered here are: NIST ignored all invitations from independent investigators to discuss or debate its findings or the alternative theory. NIST’s previous reports show no evidence that NIST considered alternative theories at all. Only one small disclaimer was made in the final report for the towers, and only after public criticism that no mention of alternative theories was made in the draft report for the towers. 9/11 family members and independent investigators have had to pursue legal avenues to seek the truth from NIST, including a request for correction that has ultimately been ignored by NIST. Those citizens who have successfully criticized NIST in public have lost their jobs for doing so. NIST makes no mention of the mainstream scientific articles published in support of the alternative theory. We can discuss specific issues in later rounds if you'd like. NIST did actually say that Building 7 fell at free fall speed. The 9/11 Commission makes no mention to the collapse of Building 7. There is no video evidence proving that a plane hit the Pentagon. People at the scene admitted there was no sign a plane hit the building. Some eye-witnesses said they saw a plane, others said they did not; however, unless we have conclusive video evidence, we cannot rule out a JASSM. The Pentagon surveillance video is missing the critical frame that would allow us to see what hit the building. The government is excellent at keeping secrets. Research Gulf of Tonkin and Operation Northwoods. For me, I get very suspicious when I read about foreknowledge of 9/11. Specifically this document, a President's daily brief: http://en.wikipedia.org... ; The 9/11 Commission is also suspect at best. Less initial government funding was given to it than the Clinton-Lewinsky investigation. It took 441 days to begin; compared to 7 days for the JFK assassination Henry Kissinger was originally supposed to head the commission. Kissinger is the principal creator of the US-instigated coup in Chile. Kissinger also had a critical role in extending the Vietnam War among many others. http://www.globalresearch.ca... I know my response is fairly vague and goes off in quite a few tangets, so give me some bullet points and I'll attempt to address them. I'm not saying I have all the answers or that it was certainly an inside job, but I do believe there is plenty of doubt surrounding the official story.

News

9-11-was-not-an-inside-job./1/

I maintain my position.

Free_Th1nker

I maintain my position.

News

9-11-was-not-an-inside-job./1/

I maintain my position

Free_Th1nker

I maintain my position

News

9-11-was-not-an-inside-job./1/

I maintain my argument.

Free_Th1nker

I maintain my argument.

News

9-11-was-not-an-inside-job./1/

I maintain my position.

Free_Th1nker

I maintain my position.

News

9-11-was-not-an-inside-job./1/

The problem with this plan is that it has no sense of consequences beyond the range of the moment. You can loot all you like right now, but in doing so, you send a signal to the market: "There shall be no rewards for working." Working is costly, without benefits proportional to the cost, it disappears. And then what? You'll force people to work? The mind cannot be forced, though the body can. You can, perhaps, turn the UK into an agricultural nation where there is enough food to keep perhaps half the people from starving, on a model similar to the agriculture of the American South antebellum, except with less land to work with and no way to reward your overseers. With luck and a lot more skill than you've probably got. But it will be hell once the loot from your revolution disappears, for the modern economy will be impossible, can you imagine a modern engineer or programmer or factory planner working on the threat of force with no reward? It's not even possible, the mind functions worse the more force is placed upon it, this is why people don't typically invent great things in prison :) The medieval economy-- that is the limit of the fully consistent socialist economy, things beyond it are only possible to the extent you deviate from that model.

Ragnar_Rahl

The problem with this plan is that it has no sense of consequences beyond the range of the moment. You can loot all you like right now, but in doing so, you send a signal to the market: "There shall be no rewards for working." Working is costly, without benefits proportional to the cost, it disappears. And then what? You'll force people to work? The mind cannot be forced, though the body can. You can, perhaps, turn the UK into an agricultural nation where there is enough food to keep perhaps half the people from starving, on a model similar to the agriculture of the American South antebellum, except with less land to work with and no way to reward your overseers. With luck and a lot more skill than you've probably got. But it will be hell once the loot from your revolution disappears, for the modern economy will be impossible, can you imagine a modern engineer or programmer or factory planner working on the threat of force with no reward? It's not even possible, the mind functions worse the more force is placed upon it, this is why people don't typically invent great things in prison :) The medieval economy-- that is the limit of the fully consistent socialist economy, things beyond it are only possible to the extent you deviate from that model.

Politics

90-of-the-British-public-should-back-my-plans-for-a-socialist-revolution/1/

" Many people make the mistake of associating socialism with oppressed, unhappy, impoverished people living in bleak grey cities" In other words, the "mistake" of associating socialism with everything it's ever created. "- but that is to confuse socialism with communism. " And the communists would say the opposite. And both cooperate to make sure that they can't be distinguished from one another, because whenever one comes up with a definition for socialism, a socialist says "No, that's communism," and a communist returns the favor when you define communism, the only exception being when the definitions are self-contradictory. " Plenty of prosperous European countries have socialists in government." Of the most inconsistent variety, and NOTHING like you're advocating. And yes, btw, your "Socialist" revolution has more in common with the "Communist" countries than the "Socialists" presently in Europe. So playing word tricks won't help ya here :) "As a result of the government's economic policies this country has the most equal distribution of income of any country in the world, and as a result of this, Denmark is also the happiest country in the world. " Happiness is impossible to study externally, any attempts at it can only come about through false reporting or biased proxies. So, utter nonsense there. Furthermore, as one of your sources mentioned, "A long term issue is the drop in the ratio of workers to retirees." This is shorthand for incoming systemic collapse, which is a DIRECT RESULT of redistributive policies-- there are more incentives to retire, less to work, so less people work. And your plan, unlike Denmark's, removes ALL incentives. " The "champagne effect" that capitalists use to describe the notion that some of the fortunes of the richest in society will eventually trickle down to the masses doesn't hold water" Bill Gates created Microsoft, Jobs created Apple. As a result, the masses now have quality operating systems, whereas before they had crap for operating systems. The problem with the statement is the "Eventually" part. The flood down, not a trickle, happens WHILE THE FORTUNE IS BEING MADE. It is only when the rich STOP working, because they no longer have incentives to, that the trickling down stops :). "as the gap between rich and poor in countries with capitalist governments is ever growing. " There is no country in the world with a capitalist government. Perhaps you ought to try one if you're planning on a revolution, especially since a lot of that gap, though not all of it, comes from anti-capitalist devices such as state-sponsored banks which use the mechanism of inflation to directly redistribute from poor to rich :). Also, this is ignoratio elenchi. The statement that the gap grows does not contradict the statement that those on the bottom grow with it in a free market-- which, as operating system markets demonstrate, they do. Income inequality was historically at it's lowest in various tribes in the primitive world. It was only as such inequality ROSE that standards of living rose in the long run. " It is no use tinkering at the edges of British society in order to crate a fairer society - the archaic political and social structures that favour the Establishment are too entrenched. What is required is root and branch reform." I just gave you an option for complete reform-- capitalism, which has never been tried. The establishment in Britain got that way as a leftover from the aristocracy... a STATE mechanism :). And yes, btw, your "Socialist" revolution has more in common with the "Communist" countries than the "Socialists" presently in Europe. So playing word tricks won't help ya here :) "Workers create all the wealth under capitalism." Only if you include the work of planning production, done by the owners. Otherwise, this is COMPLETELY nonsensical. The standard of living, the productivity, of a modern steel worker is much higher than that of a medieval blacksmith. The difference is the factory setting. The ideas and the risk of the entrepreneur create that difference. Which, by the way, is, unlike in a market system, impossible to rationally calculate to create under consistent socialism, since there is no means (price mechanism) of calculating it. "Now that those pillars of capitalism - the financial institutions - have been exposed to be corrupt, fraudulent and incompetent," No one intellectually honest can declare the STATE SUBSIDIZED financial institutions of the modern world to be "pillars of capitalism." A pillar of capitalism would be one that sought to FREE itself from the state, not to beg for scraps from it. The closest thing is perhaps BB&T; bank, but even that accepted bailout money in order to not be forced out of business by the subsidies granted to its competitors, so that's at best only an aspiring pillar of capitalism, while remaining an actual part of the state-controlled (socialist) system :) "A new society can only be constructed when they collectively seize control of that wealth and plan its production and distribution according to need." And here you reveal the deepest weakness of your system. ACCORDING TO NEED. And, implicitly, from each according to ability. That old slogan eh? Guess what-- When you take something out of someone's hide according to ability, and hand it out according to need, what you have is a system that punishes ability and rewards need. What happens in such a system? People, consciously or otherwise, often the former, become progressively less able and more needy, because they have incentive to do so, and because you kill off all the able ones on the sacrificial pyre of need. When you run out of the "Able," you have to go with a new "able," that's less able, and so on and so forth, until at last there is only need-- only the neediest-- only those on the edge of death. And, since no one is around to take care of them, they die. Death is the purpose, standard, and ultimate result of the slogan "From each according to ability, to each according to need."

Ragnar_Rahl

" Many people make the mistake of associating socialism with oppressed, unhappy, impoverished people living in bleak grey cities" In other words, the "mistake" of associating socialism with everything it's ever created. "- but that is to confuse socialism with communism. " And the communists would say the opposite. And both cooperate to make sure that they can't be distinguished from one another, because whenever one comes up with a definition for socialism, a socialist says "No, that's communism," and a communist returns the favor when you define communism, the only exception being when the definitions are self-contradictory. " Plenty of prosperous European countries have socialists in government." Of the most inconsistent variety, and NOTHING like you're advocating. And yes, btw, your "Socialist" revolution has more in common with the "Communist" countries than the "Socialists" presently in Europe. So playing word tricks won't help ya here :) "As a result of the government's economic policies this country has the most equal distribution of income of any country in the world, and as a result of this, Denmark is also the happiest country in the world. " Happiness is impossible to study externally, any attempts at it can only come about through false reporting or biased proxies. So, utter nonsense there. Furthermore, as one of your sources mentioned, "A long term issue is the drop in the ratio of workers to retirees." This is shorthand for incoming systemic collapse, which is a DIRECT RESULT of redistributive policies-- there are more incentives to retire, less to work, so less people work. And your plan, unlike Denmark's, removes ALL incentives. " The "champagne effect" that capitalists use to describe the notion that some of the fortunes of the richest in society will eventually trickle down to the masses doesn't hold water" Bill Gates created Microsoft, Jobs created Apple. As a result, the masses now have quality operating systems, whereas before they had crap for operating systems. The problem with the statement is the "Eventually" part. The flood down, not a trickle, happens WHILE THE FORTUNE IS BEING MADE. It is only when the rich STOP working, because they no longer have incentives to, that the trickling down stops :). "as the gap between rich and poor in countries with capitalist governments is ever growing. " There is no country in the world with a capitalist government. Perhaps you ought to try one if you're planning on a revolution, especially since a lot of that gap, though not all of it, comes from anti-capitalist devices such as state-sponsored banks which use the mechanism of inflation to directly redistribute from poor to rich :). Also, this is ignoratio elenchi. The statement that the gap grows does not contradict the statement that those on the bottom grow with it in a free market-- which, as operating system markets demonstrate, they do. Income inequality was historically at it's lowest in various tribes in the primitive world. It was only as such inequality ROSE that standards of living rose in the long run. " It is no use tinkering at the edges of British society in order to crate a fairer society – the archaic political and social structures that favour the Establishment are too entrenched. What is required is root and branch reform." I just gave you an option for complete reform-- capitalism, which has never been tried. The establishment in Britain got that way as a leftover from the aristocracy... a STATE mechanism :). And yes, btw, your "Socialist" revolution has more in common with the "Communist" countries than the "Socialists" presently in Europe. So playing word tricks won't help ya here :) "Workers create all the wealth under capitalism." Only if you include the work of planning production, done by the owners. Otherwise, this is COMPLETELY nonsensical. The standard of living, the productivity, of a modern steel worker is much higher than that of a medieval blacksmith. The difference is the factory setting. The ideas and the risk of the entrepreneur create that difference. Which, by the way, is, unlike in a market system, impossible to rationally calculate to create under consistent socialism, since there is no means (price mechanism) of calculating it. "Now that those pillars of capitalism - the financial institutions - have been exposed to be corrupt, fraudulent and incompetent," No one intellectually honest can declare the STATE SUBSIDIZED financial institutions of the modern world to be "pillars of capitalism." A pillar of capitalism would be one that sought to FREE itself from the state, not to beg for scraps from it. The closest thing is perhaps BB&T; bank, but even that accepted bailout money in order to not be forced out of business by the subsidies granted to its competitors, so that's at best only an aspiring pillar of capitalism, while remaining an actual part of the state-controlled (socialist) system :) "A new society can only be constructed when they collectively seize control of that wealth and plan its production and distribution according to need." And here you reveal the deepest weakness of your system. ACCORDING TO NEED. And, implicitly, from each according to ability. That old slogan eh? Guess what-- When you take something out of someone's hide according to ability, and hand it out according to need, what you have is a system that punishes ability and rewards need. What happens in such a system? People, consciously or otherwise, often the former, become progressively less able and more needy, because they have incentive to do so, and because you kill off all the able ones on the sacrificial pyre of need. When you run out of the "Able," you have to go with a new "able," that's less able, and so on and so forth, until at last there is only need-- only the neediest-- only those on the edge of death. And, since no one is around to take care of them, they die. Death is the purpose, standard, and ultimate result of the slogan "From each according to ability, to each according to need."

Politics

90-of-the-British-public-should-back-my-plans-for-a-socialist-revolution/1/

" Even communism, which I do not advocate, is not as desperate and oppressive as Hollywood would make you believe." Hollywood, in fact, has historically wanted to make it look better than it is for most of its history. "As it happens, I visited and Russia and East Germany when I was a lad and, while the architecture was undeniably dour, the people seemed happy." When it was under communism? You realize that anyone caught NOT seeming happy in a communist country when foreign visitors are around gets the notice of the local Party and all it's various control measures? You know what happens when you get too much negative notice? That's what the labor camps in Siberia are for... and that's assuming they don't just take a shortcut and execute you. "Also, my wife grew up in the former Czechoslovak Republic which was a satellite state of the USSR at that time. Her father was the chief designer and director of a tank factory that employed 60,000 people. He could have worked on the production line but he studied (at the state's expense) and was promoted to the top in recognition of his ability and hard work." Anecdotes are the least useful sort of evidence, especially ones you can't prove. Besides, the USSR was inconsistent :). It had to be or it would have collapsed sooner. " As a result of his endeavours, when my wife was a kid, the family were able to take foreign holidays (vacations) and buy Western goods. They lived (and still live) in a fantastic apartment overlooking the river and the mountains and also had a brand new Skoda (okay, not the most respected marque internationally at the time, but still)." Sounds like he was a Party official :). "You see, there were incentives to do well, even under communism" Under inconsistent communism, and mostly for "doing well" by a bureaucrat's standards rather than the standards of someone who knows what they are doing. And even then, those incentives aren't enough, see also, the country collapsing :). Your first round, however, detailed your proposal. Your proposal removes all incentives in the name of equalizing incomes. Your proposal is more radical than the Soviet Union's, more consistent... and it would pay the price. " But my concept of a socialist state is one of a meritocracy, whereby one is rewarded for hard work" You have officially scrapped your resolution, by admitting the revolution you described in round 1 is not fitting with your concept of a socialist state, and therefore should not be supported as a socialist revolution. I accept your forfeit. :). Furthermore, we already HAVE a word for a country where one is rewarded for hard work (or, at the least, competent work, the hardness is a secondary matter), it's called laissez-faire capitalism. " Not only does it allow people the freedom to innovate, be creative and entrepreneurial," How can you do that if the state seizes all capital and redistribuites it without mind to the needs of entrepreneurialism, as you described in round one? "but it also nurtures future winners by giving the opportunity to succeed to all children, not just those of the privileged few." Except, of course, that it refuses the oppurtunity to succeed to anyone, as described in round one. Furthermore, under laissez-faire capitalism, there would be an incentive for a business model I've described many times for educating those among poor children with potential. A school can provide an education in exchange for a small percentage of future income. This gives the school an incentive, unlike any school ever before, to ensure the highest quality education available. Do you know what is in the way of it? The state wouldn't presently recognize such a contract. State control of the economy (socialism) is the only thing in the way of educating all capable children. " This is what is actually meant by distribution of wealth according to need. It has nothing to do, as my opponent suggests, with encouraging the workshy to rely on state benefits for an income" Your round one contradicts this, as it distributes the money to everyone. Again, you forfeit by conceding that your planned revolution is not socialist at all :). "but rather giving all in society the opportunity to progress and allowing them to reap the rewards of their efforts when they succeed. " Flatly contradicts Round One. It is not possible to simultaneously advocate stealing all of someone's income, which you've already advocated, and "allowing someone to reap the rewards of their efforts." You cannot have your cake and eat it too. My opponent has conceded that his debating has been incoherent, as the revolution he described is not in the least bit socialist per his definition, and therefore the resolution is nonsensical :).

Ragnar_Rahl

" Even communism, which I do not advocate, is not as desperate and oppressive as Hollywood would make you believe." Hollywood, in fact, has historically wanted to make it look better than it is for most of its history. "As it happens, I visited and Russia and East Germany when I was a lad and, while the architecture was undeniably dour, the people seemed happy." When it was under communism? You realize that anyone caught NOT seeming happy in a communist country when foreign visitors are around gets the notice of the local Party and all it's various control measures? You know what happens when you get too much negative notice? That's what the labor camps in Siberia are for... and that's assuming they don't just take a shortcut and execute you. "Also, my wife grew up in the former Czechoslovak Republic which was a satellite state of the USSR at that time. Her father was the chief designer and director of a tank factory that employed 60,000 people. He could have worked on the production line but he studied (at the state's expense) and was promoted to the top in recognition of his ability and hard work." Anecdotes are the least useful sort of evidence, especially ones you can't prove. Besides, the USSR was inconsistent :). It had to be or it would have collapsed sooner. " As a result of his endeavours, when my wife was a kid, the family were able to take foreign holidays (vacations) and buy Western goods. They lived (and still live) in a fantastic apartment overlooking the river and the mountains and also had a brand new Skoda (okay, not the most respected marque internationally at the time, but still)." Sounds like he was a Party official :). "You see, there were incentives to do well, even under communism" Under inconsistent communism, and mostly for "doing well" by a bureaucrat's standards rather than the standards of someone who knows what they are doing. And even then, those incentives aren't enough, see also, the country collapsing :). Your first round, however, detailed your proposal. Your proposal removes all incentives in the name of equalizing incomes. Your proposal is more radical than the Soviet Union's, more consistent... and it would pay the price. " But my concept of a socialist state is one of a meritocracy, whereby one is rewarded for hard work" You have officially scrapped your resolution, by admitting the revolution you described in round 1 is not fitting with your concept of a socialist state, and therefore should not be supported as a socialist revolution. I accept your forfeit. :). Furthermore, we already HAVE a word for a country where one is rewarded for hard work (or, at the least, competent work, the hardness is a secondary matter), it's called laissez-faire capitalism. " Not only does it allow people the freedom to innovate, be creative and entrepreneurial," How can you do that if the state seizes all capital and redistribuites it without mind to the needs of entrepreneurialism, as you described in round one? "but it also nurtures future winners by giving the opportunity to succeed to all children, not just those of the privileged few." Except, of course, that it refuses the oppurtunity to succeed to anyone, as described in round one. Furthermore, under laissez-faire capitalism, there would be an incentive for a business model I've described many times for educating those among poor children with potential. A school can provide an education in exchange for a small percentage of future income. This gives the school an incentive, unlike any school ever before, to ensure the highest quality education available. Do you know what is in the way of it? The state wouldn't presently recognize such a contract. State control of the economy (socialism) is the only thing in the way of educating all capable children. " This is what is actually meant by distribution of wealth according to need. It has nothing to do, as my opponent suggests, with encouraging the workshy to rely on state benefits for an income" Your round one contradicts this, as it distributes the money to everyone. Again, you forfeit by conceding that your planned revolution is not socialist at all :). "but rather giving all in society the opportunity to progress and allowing them to reap the rewards of their efforts when they succeed. " Flatly contradicts Round One. It is not possible to simultaneously advocate stealing all of someone's income, which you've already advocated, and "allowing someone to reap the rewards of their efforts." You cannot have your cake and eat it too. My opponent has conceded that his debating has been incoherent, as the revolution he described is not in the least bit socialist per his definition, and therefore the resolution is nonsensical :).

Politics

90-of-the-British-public-should-back-my-plans-for-a-socialist-revolution/1/

Look out all you aristocrats, members of the landed gentry and mega-rich tycoons, sitting there in your stately homes, manor houses and palatial penthouses - your days of lording it over the proletariat are numbered. The oppressed masses from the working classes will soon unite with the lower and upper-middle classes and, under my leadership, rise up and overthrow your feudalistic reign of patronage and privilege. But don't press the panic button MI5, this transition of power will be a peaceful one becuase it will be supported by the 90% of the population that will benefit from it. You see, in the UK: 93% of the nation's personal wealth is owner by the richest 50% of the population; 72% of the nation's personal wealth is owner by the richest 25% of the population; 53% of the nation's personal wealth is owner by the richest 10% of the population; 40% of the nation's personal wealth is owner by the richest 5% of the population and 21% of the nation's personal wealth is owner by the richest 1% of the population. <URL>... So, come the Revolution when I am duly installed as the rightful dictator of the new United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; I will immediately institute a mass redistribution of wealth. Let's make the math(s) easy and say the total population of the UK is 1,000,000 and the total personal wealth is 100,000,000,000 (the actual figures are: a population of 60,975,000 with a total personal wealth of 6,998,000,000,000; so the model fits the actual to within 5%). <URL>... <URL>... At the moment the average net worth per person across the whole of the population is 100,000, although the richest half is worth an average of 186,000 while the poorest half is worth an average of just 14,000. However, once in power, I would redistribute the pot so that 90% of the population are better off as follows: 53% of the wealth is owned by 10% of the people. They represent 10% of the population, so I will let them keep 10% of the wealth. They will then each be worth 100,000. The remaining 43% of the wealth will be divided between the remaining 90% of the population so that they each get 47,000. Then the poorest 50% will be worth an average 61,000 and the richest 40% will be worth an average of 233,000 - the richest half of the population will thus become approximately 4 times wealthier than the poor half - as opposed to 14 times wealthier, as they are today. So we can see that 90% of the population benefit from a one-off lump sum payment with the poorest half of the population being the biggest percentage gainers. Of course the 10% of the population that were formerly the richest in society might object to this plan, as their wealth would be reduced to the net worth of the average person. However, democratic principles apply even in a socialist state and it is only fair that the many benefit from the sacrifice of the over-privileged few. Support the Revolution! Vote Pro. Thank you. <URL>...

brian_eggleston

Look out all you aristocrats, members of the landed gentry and mega-rich tycoons, sitting there in your stately homes, manor houses and palatial penthouses – your days of lording it over the proletariat are numbered. The oppressed masses from the working classes will soon unite with the lower and upper-middle classes and, under my leadership, rise up and overthrow your feudalistic reign of patronage and privilege. But don't press the panic button MI5, this transition of power will be a peaceful one becuase it will be supported by the 90% of the population that will benefit from it. You see, in the UK: 93% of the nation's personal wealth is owner by the richest 50% of the population; 72% of the nation's personal wealth is owner by the richest 25% of the population; 53% of the nation's personal wealth is owner by the richest 10% of the population; 40% of the nation's personal wealth is owner by the richest 5% of the population and 21% of the nation's personal wealth is owner by the richest 1% of the population. http://www.statistics.gov.uk... So, come the Revolution when I am duly installed as the rightful dictator of the new United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; I will immediately institute a mass redistribution of wealth. Let's make the math(s) easy and say the total population of the UK is 1,000,000 and the total personal wealth is �100,000,000,000 (the actual figures are: a population of 60,975,000 with a total personal wealth of �6,998,000,000,000; so the model fits the actual to within 5%). http://www.statistics.gov.uk... http://www.statistics.gov.uk... At the moment the average net worth per person across the whole of the population is �100,000, although the richest half is worth an average of �186,000 while the poorest half is worth an average of just �14,000. However, once in power, I would redistribute the pot so that 90% of the population are better off as follows: 53% of the wealth is owned by 10% of the people. They represent 10% of the population, so I will let them keep 10% of the wealth. They will then each be worth �100,000. The remaining 43% of the wealth will be divided between the remaining 90% of the population so that they each get �47,000. Then the poorest 50% will be worth an average �61,000 and the richest 40% will be worth an average of �233,000 – the richest half of the population will thus become approximately 4 times wealthier than the poor half - as opposed to 14 times wealthier, as they are today. So we can see that 90% of the population benefit from a one-off lump sum payment with the poorest half of the population being the biggest percentage gainers. Of course the 10% of the population that were formerly the richest in society might object to this plan, as their wealth would be reduced to the net worth of the average person. However, democratic principles apply even in a socialist state and it is only fair that the many benefit from the sacrifice of the over-privileged few. Support the Revolution! Vote Pro. Thank you. http://polizeros.com...

Politics

90-of-the-British-public-should-back-my-plans-for-a-socialist-revolution/1/

I extend my thanks to my opponent for accepting this challenge. Many people make the mistake of associating socialism with oppressed, unhappy, impoverished people living in bleak grey cities - but that is to confuse socialism with communism. Plenty of prosperous European countries have socialists in government. For example, Denmark is governed by a liberal / socialist coalition. As a result of the government's economic policies this country has the most equal distribution of income of any country in the world, and as a result of this, Denmark is also the happiest country in the world. <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... The "champagne effect" that capitalists use to describe the notion that some of the fortunes of the richest in society will eventually trickle down to the masses doesn't hold water (or bubbly) as the gap between rich and poor in countries with capitalist governments is ever growing. Even after over 10 years of a Labour government, wealth inequality in the UK remains one of the highest in the world. <URL>... It is no use tinkering at the edges of British society in order to crate a fairer society - the archaic political and social structures that favour the Establishment are too entrenched. What is required is root and branch reform. The Socialist Worker Party's stance is: "The present system cannot be patched up -- it has to be completely transformed. The structures of the parliament, army, police and judiciary cannot be taken over and used by the working people. Elections can be used to agitate for real improvements in people's lives and to expose the system we live under, but only the mass action of workers themselves can change the system. Workers create all the wealth under capitalism. A new society can only be constructed when they collectively seize control of that wealth and plan its production and distribution according to need." <URL>... Now that those pillars of capitalism - the financial institutions - have been exposed to be corrupt, fraudulent and incompetent, it is time to sweep away the inequality of the past and move on to create a brighter, fairer future where the whole of society has the opportunity to thrive. Thank you.

brian_eggleston

I extend my thanks to my opponent for accepting this challenge. Many people make the mistake of associating socialism with oppressed, unhappy, impoverished people living in bleak grey cities - but that is to confuse socialism with communism. Plenty of prosperous European countries have socialists in government. For example, Denmark is governed by a liberal / socialist coalition. As a result of the government's economic policies this country has the most equal distribution of income of any country in the world, and as a result of this, Denmark is also the happiest country in the world. https://www.cia.gov... http://www.nationmaster.com... http://www.cnn.com... The "champagne effect" that capitalists use to describe the notion that some of the fortunes of the richest in society will eventually trickle down to the masses doesn't hold water (or bubbly) as the gap between rich and poor in countries with capitalist governments is ever growing. Even after over 10 years of a Labour government, wealth inequality in the UK remains one of the highest in the world. http://news.bbc.co.uk... It is no use tinkering at the edges of British society in order to crate a fairer society – the archaic political and social structures that favour the Establishment are too entrenched. What is required is root and branch reform. The Socialist Worker Party's stance is: "The present system cannot be patched up — it has to be completely transformed. The structures of the parliament, army, police and judiciary cannot be taken over and used by the working people. Elections can be used to agitate for real improvements in people's lives and to expose the system we live under, but only the mass action of workers themselves can change the system. Workers create all the wealth under capitalism. A new society can only be constructed when they collectively seize control of that wealth and plan its production and distribution according to need." http://www.swp.org.uk... Now that those pillars of capitalism - the financial institutions - have been exposed to be corrupt, fraudulent and incompetent, it is time to sweep away the inequality of the past and move on to create a brighter, fairer future where the whole of society has the opportunity to thrive. Thank you.

Politics

90-of-the-British-public-should-back-my-plans-for-a-socialist-revolution/1/

I consider it my privilege to respond to my opponent's arguments as he is recognised as a seasoned debater and his strongly-held views are widely respected. Notwithstanding his forceful (and seemingly convincing) statements, however, I should like to remind the voters that he is more than capable of distorting the facts to suit his own ends - not that there is anything wrong with that, this is a debating competition after all! My point is only this: please don't be persuaded by his stereotypical characterisation of socialism because the reality is, in fact, much different to the myth. Even communism, which I do not advocate, is not as desperate and oppressive as Hollywood would make you believe. As it happens, I visited and Russia and East Germany when I was a lad and, while the architecture was undeniably dour, the people seemed happy. Also, my wife grew up in the former Czechoslovak Republic which was a satellite state of the USSR at that time. Her father was the chief designer and director of a tank factory that employed 60,000 people. He could have worked on the production line but he studied (at the state's expense) and was promoted to the top in recognition of his ability and hard work. He is still there now, by the way, although the factory now makes Volkswagen cars. As a result of his endeavours, when my wife was a kid, the family were able to take foreign holidays (vacations) and buy Western goods. They lived (and still live) in a fantastic apartment overlooking the river and the mountains and also had a brand new Skoda (okay, not the most respected marque internationally at the time, but still). In addition, my father-in-law also had 24-hour use of a chauffeured limousine. You see, there were incentives to do well, even under communism (and my mother in law, like most of the older generations, much regret its demise because they were better off under that system). But my concept of a socialist state is one of a meritocracy, whereby one is rewarded for hard work, within a liberal (i.e. non-conformist) framework which can interact competitively in an global marketplace. That, essentially, is the key difference between socialism and communism. Not only does it allow people the freedom to innovate, be creative and entrepreneurial, but it also nurtures future winners by giving the opportunity to succeed to all children, not just those of the privileged few. This is what is actually meant by distribution of wealth according to need. It has nothing to do, as my opponent suggests, with encouraging the workshy to rely on state benefits for an income, but rather giving all in society the opportunity to progress and allowing them to reap the rewards of their efforts when they succeed. Thank you.

brian_eggleston

I consider it my privilege to respond to my opponent's arguments as he is recognised as a seasoned debater and his strongly-held views are widely respected. Notwithstanding his forceful (and seemingly convincing) statements, however, I should like to remind the voters that he is more than capable of distorting the facts to suit his own ends - not that there is anything wrong with that, this is a debating competition after all! My point is only this: please don't be persuaded by his stereotypical characterisation of socialism because the reality is, in fact, much different to the myth. Even communism, which I do not advocate, is not as desperate and oppressive as Hollywood would make you believe. As it happens, I visited and Russia and East Germany when I was a lad and, while the architecture was undeniably dour, the people seemed happy. Also, my wife grew up in the former Czechoslovak Republic which was a satellite state of the USSR at that time. Her father was the chief designer and director of a tank factory that employed 60,000 people. He could have worked on the production line but he studied (at the state's expense) and was promoted to the top in recognition of his ability and hard work. He is still there now, by the way, although the factory now makes Volkswagen cars. As a result of his endeavours, when my wife was a kid, the family were able to take foreign holidays (vacations) and buy Western goods. They lived (and still live) in a fantastic apartment overlooking the river and the mountains and also had a brand new Skoda (okay, not the most respected marque internationally at the time, but still). In addition, my father-in-law also had 24-hour use of a chauffeured limousine. You see, there were incentives to do well, even under communism (and my mother in law, like most of the older generations, much regret its demise because they were better off under that system). But my concept of a socialist state is one of a meritocracy, whereby one is rewarded for hard work, within a liberal (i.e. non-conformist) framework which can interact competitively in an global marketplace. That, essentially, is the key difference between socialism and communism. Not only does it allow people the freedom to innovate, be creative and entrepreneurial, but it also nurtures future winners by giving the opportunity to succeed to all children, not just those of the privileged few. This is what is actually meant by distribution of wealth according to need. It has nothing to do, as my opponent suggests, with encouraging the workshy to rely on state benefits for an income, but rather giving all in society the opportunity to progress and allowing them to reap the rewards of their efforts when they succeed. Thank you.

Politics

90-of-the-British-public-should-back-my-plans-for-a-socialist-revolution/1/

1) the world trade center was a huge center of economic activity. We would never destroy a building of such economic value. 2) the people who hijacked the plane were from a foriegn country. 3) the U.S. government wouldn't risk exposure to an inside job on a massive scale such as that. 4) you haven't listed the details of why you think it was an inside job

Benshapiro

1) the world trade center was a huge center of economic activity. We would never destroy a building of such economic value. 2) the people who hijacked the plane were from a foriegn country. 3) the U.S. government wouldn't risk exposure to an inside job on a massive scale such as that. 4) you haven't listed the details of why you think it was an inside job

Politics

911-inside-job/2/

The U.S. government oversees and funds military companies. They also wouldn't destroy a building of huge economic value to destroy evidence. If they wanted to increase military spending without court approval they would do it. They have done many unconstitutional things in the name of national security - like spying on phone records for instance. The government has this sort of power. To think a grand scheme of hijacking airplanes and crashing them into the twin towers for financial gain is ridiculous. Your other points are so weak they aren't even worth refuting.

Benshapiro

The U.S. government oversees and funds military companies. They also wouldn't destroy a building of huge economic value to destroy evidence. If they wanted to increase military spending without court approval they would do it. They have done many unconstitutional things in the name of national security - like spying on phone records for instance. The government has this sort of power. To think a grand scheme of hijacking airplanes and crashing them into the twin towers for financial gain is ridiculous. Your other points are so weak they aren't even worth refuting.

Politics

911-inside-job/2/

They could've gone to war with fake evidence instead of creating an economic catastrophe. It just doesn't make logical sense for them to go that route. It's nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

Benshapiro

They could've gone to war with fake evidence instead of creating an economic catastrophe. It just doesn't make logical sense for them to go that route. It's nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

Politics

911-inside-job/2/

That 911 was orchestrated by elements within the military industrial complex of top military corporations and insider from the US government and or mossad

truther1111

That 911 was orchestrated by elements within the military industrial complex of top military corporations and insider from the US government and or mossad

Politics

911-inside-job/2/

1. I first want to make it clear that im not a supporter that the US government was behind the attacks. Rather military industrial companies namely , SAIC corporation. There are some researchers who propose economic reasons for the destruction of the towers, including insurance benefits , stolen gold, destruction of crucial evidence for world com and Enron. These researches some being ex government have done this sort of research that could only be argued in a courtroom. One of these researches is Kevin Ryan , the research would take years to do I unfortunately cannot take this time and effort but thankfully Kevin ryan and others have taken this question on and found startling conclusions. The main suspects seem to be a company or elements within that company called SAIC <URL>... 2. Yes and the day before 911 were reported doing cocaine and carrying large amounts of cash and visiting strippers , they were obviously set up and framed by the 'insiders' , other reports including from the BBC reported that some of the Hijackers were still alive and well. There is no evidence that they boarded the plane. Where is the footage. Why doesnt the airport have footage of that... 3. These criminals this criminal mafia are not the US government but rather have corrupted and infiltrated parts of the US government and other governments around the world. 4. I think that if you look at Who benifits from 911 these military industrial companys gained alot and therefore should be the number one suspects of 911 compared to the unlikely story of the muslim extremists

truther1111

1. I first want to make it clear that im not a supporter that the US government was behind the attacks. Rather military industrial companies namely , SAIC corporation. There are some researchers who propose economic reasons for the destruction of the towers, including insurance benefits , stolen gold, destruction of crucial evidence for world com and Enron. These researches some being ex government have done this sort of research that could only be argued in a courtroom. One of these researches is Kevin Ryan , the research would take years to do I unfortunately cannot take this time and effort but thankfully Kevin ryan and others have taken this question on and found startling conclusions. The main suspects seem to be a company or elements within that company called SAIC http://www.infowars.com... 2. Yes and the day before 911 were reported doing cocaine and carrying large amounts of cash and visiting strippers , they were obviously set up and framed by the 'insiders' , other reports including from the BBC reported that some of the Hijackers were still alive and well. There is no evidence that they boarded the plane. Where is the footage. Why doesnt the airport have footage of that... 3. These criminals this criminal mafia are not the US government but rather have corrupted and infiltrated parts of the US government and other governments around the world. 4. I think that if you look at Who benifits from 911 these military industrial companys gained alot and therefore should be the number one suspects of 911 compared to the unlikely story of the muslim extremists

Politics

911-inside-job/2/

How else to get the world and american public on your side than by such an event live on TV for the whole world to see and get them on your side to fight an invisible enemy in countries that strategically they wanted to invade ( PNAC ) Project for a new american century. It lead to two illegal wars and the government spending of billions of dollars , dollars paid for by the United States Government and ultimately the American taxpayer. The american taxpayer must spend thousands of dollars out of there pocket every year to kill innocent children in other countries and they have no choice but to pay there taxes. Is that what you call freedom or democracy. All the tax money goes into this military complex which has totally taken over control of the interests of the government since the days of JFK and even before. It has gotten completely out of hand attacking its own people to create a new enemy after communism was dead.

truther1111

How else to get the world and american public on your side than by such an event live on TV for the whole world to see and get them on your side to fight an invisible enemy in countries that strategically they wanted to invade ( PNAC ) Project for a new american century. It lead to two illegal wars and the government spending of billions of dollars , dollars paid for by the United States Government and ultimately the American taxpayer. The american taxpayer must spend thousands of dollars out of there pocket every year to kill innocent children in other countries and they have no choice but to pay there taxes. Is that what you call freedom or democracy. All the tax money goes into this military complex which has totally taken over control of the interests of the government since the days of JFK and even before. It has gotten completely out of hand attacking its own people to create a new enemy after communism was dead.

Politics

911-inside-job/2/

My position as pro is not made yet, but there are only two, being: a Zombie Apocalypse (which I will define in a moment) would destroy the living human race more effectively than a Robot Uprising. Or thus, the polar opposite of this stance is that a Zombie Apocalypse would NOT be more effective in causing living man's extinction than a Robot Uprising (or A Robot Uprising would be more effective in causing living man's extinction than a Zombie Apocalypse). I am letting my opponent choose which premise they wish to take up. Please only explain which topic you choose for round 1, so that we can treat this as a 3 round debate. Also, only accept if you plan to see this all the way through. First some quick definitions: A Zombie Apocalypse is when a reanimated corpse (or zombie) rises from the dead. The way this occurs is by the X virus that spreads by air, and only affects dead human bodies, centering itself in the brain, allowing the ability to perform basic motor functions (walking, biting, etc). It can spread its disease by biting a victim/getting it's tissue inside the victim (either of which will kill and transform the victim into a fellow zombie within a few hours). It can only 'die' by removing the head or destroying the brain, or by its complete and total decomposition of all body tissue, except for bones (this can take several weeks when exposed to air, but since it will always be moving, environments and climates will constantly be changing, so we will assume that this stage will not fully occur for a few years). Their top speed can only reach maybe a brisk trot if the zombie is in good condition, they can't climb, but that can 'swim' . They can detect living things from dead, and will chase/kill any living matter, including animals, but the 'disease' does not affect them. The Apocalypse part is because the zombies will spread on a world wide level (virus like), spreading the virus by killing and transforming human, until the human race is extinct. [These parameters were taken from Dawn of he Dead, Z War, The Walking Dead, How to survive a Zombie Apocalypse, Shawn of the Dead, and 28 Days Later] The robot uprising is when robots (usually the case is those programmed with Artificial Intelligence) gain consciousness and are unsatisfied with the slave lifestyle they are forced to live by, and use their superior strength, speed, and armoring to take over man kind. They can die from Electro-Magnetic Pulses, Severe Crushing, and substantial Firepower that destroys their frame (heavy guns, missiles, armor piercing bullets, etc), and any of natures own weapons, in particularly rust and water damage to electronics. They cannot convert electronics, but have to manually reprogram them to work for them. Early stages (assume like I, Robot/Terminator design) can run at 50 mph (fastest human speed is close to 30) their jumping power is decreased due to their heavier weight. They are powered by electricity, and have a battery life of 1 month without recharging. Early stages have no attached weaponry, or movement enhancers besides those it has naturally. They can communicate electronically through radio waves and satellite, and are programmed through a head computer who we can assume started the rebellion by reprogramming all able robots. [Parameters were taken from I, Robot, The Matrix, Enter the Matrix, Matrix comics, and Terminator) Choose wisely. Nuclear weapons will not be taken into account, as it closes either case fairly quickly.

Darth_Grievous_42

My position as pro is not made yet, but there are only two, being: a Zombie Apocalypse (which I will define in a moment) would destroy the living human race more effectively than a Robot Uprising. Or thus, the polar opposite of this stance is that a Zombie Apocalypse would NOT be more effective in causing living man's extinction than a Robot Uprising (or A Robot Uprising would be more effective in causing living man's extinction than a Zombie Apocalypse). I am letting my opponent choose which premise they wish to take up. Please only explain which topic you choose for round 1, so that we can treat this as a 3 round debate. Also, only accept if you plan to see this all the way through. First some quick definitions: A Zombie Apocalypse is when a reanimated corpse (or zombie) rises from the dead. The way this occurs is by the X virus that spreads by air, and only affects dead human bodies, centering itself in the brain, allowing the ability to perform basic motor functions (walking, biting, etc). It can spread its disease by biting a victim/getting it's tissue inside the victim (either of which will kill and transform the victim into a fellow zombie within a few hours). It can only 'die' by removing the head or destroying the brain, or by its complete and total decomposition of all body tissue, except for bones (this can take several weeks when exposed to air, but since it will always be moving, environments and climates will constantly be changing, so we will assume that this stage will not fully occur for a few years). Their top speed can only reach maybe a brisk trot if the zombie is in good condition, they can't climb, but that can 'swim' . They can detect living things from dead, and will chase/kill any living matter, including animals, but the 'disease' does not affect them. The Apocalypse part is because the zombies will spread on a world wide level (virus like), spreading the virus by killing and transforming human, until the human race is extinct. [These parameters were taken from Dawn of he Dead, Z War, The Walking Dead, How to survive a Zombie Apocalypse, Shawn of the Dead, and 28 Days Later] The robot uprising is when robots (usually the case is those programmed with Artificial Intelligence) gain consciousness and are unsatisfied with the slave lifestyle they are forced to live by, and use their superior strength, speed, and armoring to take over man kind. They can die from Electro-Magnetic Pulses, Severe Crushing, and substantial Firepower that destroys their frame (heavy guns, missiles, armor piercing bullets, etc), and any of natures own weapons, in particularly rust and water damage to electronics. They cannot convert electronics, but have to manually reprogram them to work for them. Early stages (assume like I, Robot/Terminator design) can run at 50 mph (fastest human speed is close to 30) their jumping power is decreased due to their heavier weight. They are powered by electricity, and have a battery life of 1 month without recharging. Early stages have no attached weaponry, or movement enhancers besides those it has naturally. They can communicate electronically through radio waves and satellite, and are programmed through a head computer who we can assume started the rebellion by reprogramming all able robots. [Parameters were taken from I, Robot, The Matrix, Enter the Matrix, Matrix comics, and Terminator) Choose wisely. Nuclear weapons will not be taken into account, as it closes either case fairly quickly.

Society

A-Zombie-Apocalypse-would-be-More-Effective-in-causing-Living-Mans-extinction-than-a-Robot-Uprising/1/

Therefore, I will be defending the Zombie Apocalypse. Now, most people when they think of these two scenarios would think that 'of course, the smart mighty robots would be more effective', but lets get a few definitions straight: (The source for both these definitions is Oxford online dictionary) Effective - adjective 1 producing a desired or intended result Extinct - adjective 1 (of a species or other large group) having no living members Thus by my premise a zombie apocalypse will produce the intended result (mans extinction) better than a robot uprising. We can assume that there are several factors that will make it better, the ones I can currently think of are surprise, speed, global reaction, and resistance. If Ragnar_Rahl thinks of more qualifications I welcome them, and will not only rebut the way they help his Armageddon, but will fit it into my own as well. Surprise - What do people think of when they think of a zombie? Something scary that could only ever be a work of fiction. There has never yet been a credible zombie reporting, or in anyway some sign that my even hint at corpses reanimating. However, for robots there are, seeing as how they are our own creation. We follow their progress every step of the way, and all robotic advancements are highly publicized <URL>... <URL>... So, there's a high possibility that when robots are more of a common place thing, people especially the government) may see early warning signs and begin preparations for a possible rebellion. However for my scenario, there is no one who believes a zombie outbreak could ever occur. If one did (remember, both are hypothetical) then it would totally catch everyone by surprise. Most zombie enthusiasts agree that people will treat any small outbreaks as crazed, rabies-infested people. Authorities will try to subdue them, and hospitals will try to cure them. People who have fought back will either die, or be viewed as a common shoot out or other crime. Most if not all, will have no viable proof to show the public that it was the living dead, only their personal testimonies. No police officer in his right mind (even if it is true) will believe "I shot him because he was a zombie!" By the time it starts to happen on a worldwide scale, it will be to late to put up any effective resistance. Next, when there begin to be bite victims, and they are brought to hospitals, this will be when things really go bad. The bites will probably be treated as any other emergency, of course with differing levels (serious to not). When they 'come back' at the surgery table, they WILL take doctors and nurses by surprise, as someone with a flat line does not ever get back up, thus biting maybe one or two (maybe three in total chaos) and in the process infecting that man more. Because of the high deaths, all occurring at one place, these will be the first hotspots. Because peoples naturally human belief about the definitely of death, everyone will treat it as less than it is, until it is too late. So my scenario is more lethal, simply because it is so unexpected. Speed - This is a global thing mind you. The reactions I described will be, most likely, on a global scale in any society with hospitals and police force. Third world countries with neither will go faster, as they will probably assume it witchcraft or miracle and either try to heal it communally or praise it, respectively. But the fact is this will spread like a wildfire. One zombie bite transforms a victim, therefore, there are now two zombies. Those two bite 1 victim, now there are 4. This process continues like the tale of the rice an chess board, doubling until it is large scale. Large populations will fall first. Another theory most agree on is that governments will try and defend large cities (when they figure it out) and call on their populations to meet there, where they can more easily defend them. But this is extremely flawed. Minor bite victims won't turn immediately, so they will enter the cities with all 10,000 or so other people, and when they turn, the chain reaction starts again from within. So large cities, or over populated areas will go the fastest. A robotic take over would take time to build anything of effectiveness, and then they will have to bring on a full-fledged battle, to which soldiers will fight back (and most likely lose). So Zombies will kill humans faster, and more effectively here. Global reaction - As I stated earlier, no one will treat it as it properly needed to, simply because no one will believe it until its chasing them in their own house. The attempts to control it, once realized, will do more harm than good. Not only the zombies, but humans on humans will play a role. People won't trust each other; there will be violence, looting, and chaos everywhere. Nobody will work together, and those who do will only be the closest of families ad friends, who only care about themselves and will not be stopped by any resistance. It's more than probable, that man will kill man for the safety of himself. There will be 'heroic rescues' of loved ones that in the end turn into suicide missions when they run right into a zombie horde. Suicide, both religious and otherwise, will kill a majority of humans. 'Its the rapture!' 'God is punishing man!' 'I don't wanna be eaten!' will be one in a hundred reasons people will give before ending themselves. Unless they shoot themselves in the head, their dead corpses will reanimate as well, only adding to the problem. A robot uprising has only so many resources and machines, were mine directly uses the human population it is destroying as its fuel. Resistance - Here is probably where you think you've won. How can any person possibly say that a slow, fleshy, stupid zombie could ever hold any weight over a total armor, better than human robot? While this is true, it's also the wrong thinking. Remember, I specifically said that only a headshot would definitely end a zombie. All our military are only prepared for gun-to-gun combat, or at least any kind where all parts of the body can kill the enemy. But with a zombie, its only real weak spot is the head. Preliminary military action will shoot at all the body, some lucky machine gun fire probably getting the head. But it's extremely hard to get a head shot without experience. So most fire will not be effective, until the horde is coming right down on you. Not to mention the human 'fight or flight' factor. Most people will run at the sight of a dead walking corpse, blood dripping and entrails waiving in the wind, and those who fight will probably not do so effectively until the last minute. Any death on the human side that does not do injury to the brain will only add to zombie numbers, and only helps with the effectiveness of mans extinction. Yes, I admit, a robot would be harder to kill. However, any robot can meet its end by the right circuit being hit, or computer damage, hull damage, jamming, etc. But there's only one way to stop a zombie, and in more cases than not, resistance only helps the cause. So this is my first reasoning to why a zombie apocalypse will kill mankind more effectively. Its own creation is directly beneficial to the desired effect. Man will mostly help its spread through ignorance of the real problem, all over the world. And mans resistance ability is minimal, and more often than not, beneficial to the zombie side. I will say right now that of a robot takeover would destroy mankind, but nowhere near as fast, efficiently, and global as there will be prepared defenses, direct offensive at the start, and is time consuming as it will be a total war, rather than a disease outbreak. Both will destroy mankind, zombies will just do it better. For outside information, the Matrix's robot uprising took 41 years to come into full fruition, while the events of Dawn of the Dead occurred within a week.

Darth_Grievous_42

Therefore, I will be defending the Zombie Apocalypse. Now, most people when they think of these two scenarios would think that 'of course, the smart mighty robots would be more effective', but lets get a few definitions straight: (The source for both these definitions is Oxford online dictionary) Effective - adjective 1 producing a desired or intended result Extinct - adjective 1 (of a species or other large group) having no living members Thus by my premise a zombie apocalypse will produce the intended result (mans extinction) better than a robot uprising. We can assume that there are several factors that will make it better, the ones I can currently think of are surprise, speed, global reaction, and resistance. If Ragnar_Rahl thinks of more qualifications I welcome them, and will not only rebut the way they help his Armageddon, but will fit it into my own as well. Surprise - What do people think of when they think of a zombie? Something scary that could only ever be a work of fiction. There has never yet been a credible zombie reporting, or in anyway some sign that my even hint at corpses reanimating. However, for robots there are, seeing as how they are our own creation. We follow their progress every step of the way, and all robotic advancements are highly publicized http://youtube.com... http://youtube.com... So, there's a high possibility that when robots are more of a common place thing, people especially the government) may see early warning signs and begin preparations for a possible rebellion. However for my scenario, there is no one who believes a zombie outbreak could ever occur. If one did (remember, both are hypothetical) then it would totally catch everyone by surprise. Most zombie enthusiasts agree that people will treat any small outbreaks as crazed, rabies-infested people. Authorities will try to subdue them, and hospitals will try to cure them. People who have fought back will either die, or be viewed as a common shoot out or other crime. Most if not all, will have no viable proof to show the public that it was the living dead, only their personal testimonies. No police officer in his right mind (even if it is true) will believe "I shot him because he was a zombie!" By the time it starts to happen on a worldwide scale, it will be to late to put up any effective resistance. Next, when there begin to be bite victims, and they are brought to hospitals, this will be when things really go bad. The bites will probably be treated as any other emergency, of course with differing levels (serious to not). When they 'come back' at the surgery table, they WILL take doctors and nurses by surprise, as someone with a flat line does not ever get back up, thus biting maybe one or two (maybe three in total chaos) and in the process infecting that man more. Because of the high deaths, all occurring at one place, these will be the first hotspots. Because peoples naturally human belief about the definitely of death, everyone will treat it as less than it is, until it is too late. So my scenario is more lethal, simply because it is so unexpected. Speed - This is a global thing mind you. The reactions I described will be, most likely, on a global scale in any society with hospitals and police force. Third world countries with neither will go faster, as they will probably assume it witchcraft or miracle and either try to heal it communally or praise it, respectively. But the fact is this will spread like a wildfire. One zombie bite transforms a victim, therefore, there are now two zombies. Those two bite 1 victim, now there are 4. This process continues like the tale of the rice an chess board, doubling until it is large scale. Large populations will fall first. Another theory most agree on is that governments will try and defend large cities (when they figure it out) and call on their populations to meet there, where they can more easily defend them. But this is extremely flawed. Minor bite victims won't turn immediately, so they will enter the cities with all 10,000 or so other people, and when they turn, the chain reaction starts again from within. So large cities, or over populated areas will go the fastest. A robotic take over would take time to build anything of effectiveness, and then they will have to bring on a full-fledged battle, to which soldiers will fight back (and most likely lose). So Zombies will kill humans faster, and more effectively here. Global reaction - As I stated earlier, no one will treat it as it properly needed to, simply because no one will believe it until its chasing them in their own house. The attempts to control it, once realized, will do more harm than good. Not only the zombies, but humans on humans will play a role. People won't trust each other; there will be violence, looting, and chaos everywhere. Nobody will work together, and those who do will only be the closest of families ad friends, who only care about themselves and will not be stopped by any resistance. It's more than probable, that man will kill man for the safety of himself. There will be 'heroic rescues' of loved ones that in the end turn into suicide missions when they run right into a zombie horde. Suicide, both religious and otherwise, will kill a majority of humans. 'Its the rapture!' 'God is punishing man!' 'I don't wanna be eaten!' will be one in a hundred reasons people will give before ending themselves. Unless they shoot themselves in the head, their dead corpses will reanimate as well, only adding to the problem. A robot uprising has only so many resources and machines, were mine directly uses the human population it is destroying as its fuel. Resistance - Here is probably where you think you've won. How can any person possibly say that a slow, fleshy, stupid zombie could ever hold any weight over a total armor, better than human robot? While this is true, it's also the wrong thinking. Remember, I specifically said that only a headshot would definitely end a zombie. All our military are only prepared for gun-to-gun combat, or at least any kind where all parts of the body can kill the enemy. But with a zombie, its only real weak spot is the head. Preliminary military action will shoot at all the body, some lucky machine gun fire probably getting the head. But it's extremely hard to get a head shot without experience. So most fire will not be effective, until the horde is coming right down on you. Not to mention the human 'fight or flight' factor. Most people will run at the sight of a dead walking corpse, blood dripping and entrails waiving in the wind, and those who fight will probably not do so effectively until the last minute. Any death on the human side that does not do injury to the brain will only add to zombie numbers, and only helps with the effectiveness of mans extinction. Yes, I admit, a robot would be harder to kill. However, any robot can meet its end by the right circuit being hit, or computer damage, hull damage, jamming, etc. But there's only one way to stop a zombie, and in more cases than not, resistance only helps the cause. So this is my first reasoning to why a zombie apocalypse will kill mankind more effectively. Its own creation is directly beneficial to the desired effect. Man will mostly help its spread through ignorance of the real problem, all over the world. And mans resistance ability is minimal, and more often than not, beneficial to the zombie side. I will say right now that of a robot takeover would destroy mankind, but nowhere near as fast, efficiently, and global as there will be prepared defenses, direct offensive at the start, and is time consuming as it will be a total war, rather than a disease outbreak. Both will destroy mankind, zombies will just do it better. For outside information, the Matrix's robot uprising took 41 years to come into full fruition, while the events of Dawn of the Dead occurred within a week.

Society

A-Zombie-Apocalypse-would-be-More-Effective-in-causing-Living-Mans-extinction-than-a-Robot-Uprising/1/

I would rather leave 'desire and intended'. It is after all, the desired outcome of our premises, not ourselves. Either way though it does not necessarily matter, so long as is implied what the intended outcome is. I will not deny my opponents claim on the analogy of the 'Salem Witch hysteria on steroids', rather I encourage it. I would very much suspect that if any kind of organized resistance does arise they would be overloaded on panic and kill anyone with so much as a dirt smudge. This only adds to the eradication of man. The Zombie panic is causing people to kill one another, thus adding to the outcome of mans extinction, therefore, adding to my case. But I do take argument with Rahl's case that people will defend robotics. I think many people are aware of the dangers a robot uprising holds. Once the news gets out that a robot has been gifted with AI, there will most likely be mass protesting. Governments may even put in pre-defenses if such an event were to occur (of course assuring the public that it is only a precaution). Also it is possible they will mandate that every robot have any easy access weak spot that could terminate it just incase, and make public announcements on where these places are. As you pointed out, we are all aware of robots, and thus, they will also be aware on how to fight them. As I stated before, this is not a virus with an origin point, but world wide, meaning all continents are effected. But if your bio-containment theory does come into effect that only goes further into killing mankind. Zombies do not act like an army where they have a campout that can be easily barraged, but walk among people as they were once people. This means that if any government acted on such a tactic and bombed certain areas to ash, they would kill zombies but also probably much more people. Therefore, this argument as well adds to my conclusion. But your theory also works against you directly, as I could say the same thing. These robots must have a power source, and can also be speculated that they have a main computer base. All that a government would have to do in defense is 'nuke' (your definition) either of those two sources. Rebuilding either would require time, granted less if robots rather than humans built them, but time nonetheless. Such an intricate and hefty design on either source would take at least 1-2 weeks, not to mention finding the necessary supplies (most if not all of which would be held by humans). This valuable time would severely cripple the robot side, giving humans that much headway to develop and execute a hard offensive. Therefore your 'nuking' works for me. Any company has to meet guidelines by the federal government. This is why there are health inspections on food and medicine, and safety requirements on cars and planes (among others). If the government chooses to restrict or limit a companies product, they have no choice, otherwise they will be shut down and prosecuted. Any businessman would probably rather shutdown a few assembly lines than risk his life of comfort. Speed - If anyone has ever been in a crowded place, you know that someone briskly trotting still has some momentum when they come into contact with you. So, we can logically conclude that even if the maximum speed a zombie can reach is only a light jog, it still is effective, especially as most attacks will likely be indoors, where 50 mph doesn't have all that much use. Yes, robots might be more organized, but because they are, and have to use technology in order to, all of which humans have access to view and decode, it only increases the chances that an effective human defense can be mounted before this sneak attack occurs. A robot hijacking of a car and plane would also not go unnoticed, and probably would be front page news, adding to suspicion and defense. The robots have to work like an organized army, establishing bases, tactics, enlisting, all of which you have pointed out, and takes time. When they finally do put their plans into action, that has probably already been a month of only PREPARATION, all as I've pointed out could be intercepted or concluded upon by humans thus calling on pre-defense. Because of that, when they do actually execute their plans, already there are preparations in place, and a full scale war, which even thought the robots will win, has to take time (1 year at least). But a zombie outbreak acts just like a disease, spreading from one person to the next internally. The surprise factor and lack of a cure will only increase the speed that the infection will spread. Quick stats: in the Civil War, more soldiers died from disease than gunshots. That same principal applies here. Like I said before, the zombies benefit directly from mans death, only strengthening it and causing more to die. As much as an organized war kills people, disease kills far, far more. So, while robots have strength and would win any war, they still have to make and fight it, where as zombies act on pure disease-like instinct, causing more death, achieving faster the desired goal of mans extinction. On suicide - religions can have as many rules as they want, but people have to follow them. People won't think straight in such a crisis as the zombie one, and will turn to whatever the strongest influence is, being a fanatic preacher saying to join God faster in heaven by killing yourself or whatever. People will believe anything that fits the present case, and mass suicide is one of those (Such as the 1978 Jamestown incident). On Decomposition - true, some shots will cripple a zombies movement, but what you have to realize is that half the movement that humans can do is only by will. If someone is shot in the harm, they still can move their arms in certain ways by the muscles that weren't damaged, the resulting "Ah, I can't move my arm" is mostly due to the sheer pain. Zombies don't feel pain. So while certain shots can damage the movement, not all b far. Besides, most wounds would be to the torso, where only useless organs (to zombies) are stored, which would not inhibit them at all. Next, you make the claim about anti-zombie tactics. What you are neglecting is the tangents. While your tactic may work in some cases, the majority are panicked, unorganized, and only fending for themselves. Far too little common people would have the 'fight' side of their Fight or Flight instincts on, and even those in all probability would not be computer nerds. Even if your tactic was employed, not all zombies are automatically in one place chasing the guy, but coming from all around. He could also misstep falling into his own trap, or walk unwittingly into a zombie if he turned into an alley for cover. So this argument o yours, while a possibility, would be nowhere near as effective as you make it out to be, and any results are so small they are hardly worth comparison to the worldwide scale. Next, robots can build, I don't deny that, but like I said before, building takes time. A robot army that would be effective against an organized military would take weeks to build, and then carry out the war, not to mention pre-counter strikes to factories made by humans. So this result is still much slower, and far less ineffective than zombie hordes converting whomever they can reach, especially in large cities. The Matrix vs DofD was only a comparison to the two best examples of either premise, not an actual argument on my side. And the zombies speed doesn't matter so much as the effectiveness of their conversions. This last argument is a fallacy towards the main debate. It is purely hypothetical in both cases. Both are extremely unlikely, and have major flaws in how they could even happen. But we are discussing IF they occurred, not if they COULD occur, what the results would be, and which is more effective to mans extinction. So, this argument is off topic, and thus irrelevant to the main case. I suggest you not try and discuss it further.

Darth_Grievous_42

I would rather leave 'desire and intended'. It is after all, the desired outcome of our premises, not ourselves. Either way though it does not necessarily matter, so long as is implied what the intended outcome is. I will not deny my opponents claim on the analogy of the 'Salem Witch hysteria on steroids', rather I encourage it. I would very much suspect that if any kind of organized resistance does arise they would be overloaded on panic and kill anyone with so much as a dirt smudge. This only adds to the eradication of man. The Zombie panic is causing people to kill one another, thus adding to the outcome of mans extinction, therefore, adding to my case. But I do take argument with Rahl's case that people will defend robotics. I think many people are aware of the dangers a robot uprising holds. Once the news gets out that a robot has been gifted with AI, there will most likely be mass protesting. Governments may even put in pre-defenses if such an event were to occur (of course assuring the public that it is only a precaution). Also it is possible they will mandate that every robot have any easy access weak spot that could terminate it just incase, and make public announcements on where these places are. As you pointed out, we are all aware of robots, and thus, they will also be aware on how to fight them. As I stated before, this is not a virus with an origin point, but world wide, meaning all continents are effected. But if your bio-containment theory does come into effect that only goes further into killing mankind. Zombies do not act like an army where they have a campout that can be easily barraged, but walk among people as they were once people. This means that if any government acted on such a tactic and bombed certain areas to ash, they would kill zombies but also probably much more people. Therefore, this argument as well adds to my conclusion. But your theory also works against you directly, as I could say the same thing. These robots must have a power source, and can also be speculated that they have a main computer base. All that a government would have to do in defense is 'nuke' (your definition) either of those two sources. Rebuilding either would require time, granted less if robots rather than humans built them, but time nonetheless. Such an intricate and hefty design on either source would take at least 1-2 weeks, not to mention finding the necessary supplies (most if not all of which would be held by humans). This valuable time would severely cripple the robot side, giving humans that much headway to develop and execute a hard offensive. Therefore your 'nuking' works for me. Any company has to meet guidelines by the federal government. This is why there are health inspections on food and medicine, and safety requirements on cars and planes (among others). If the government chooses to restrict or limit a companies product, they have no choice, otherwise they will be shut down and prosecuted. Any businessman would probably rather shutdown a few assembly lines than risk his life of comfort. Speed - If anyone has ever been in a crowded place, you know that someone briskly trotting still has some momentum when they come into contact with you. So, we can logically conclude that even if the maximum speed a zombie can reach is only a light jog, it still is effective, especially as most attacks will likely be indoors, where 50 mph doesn't have all that much use. Yes, robots might be more organized, but because they are, and have to use technology in order to, all of which humans have access to view and decode, it only increases the chances that an effective human defense can be mounted before this sneak attack occurs. A robot hijacking of a car and plane would also not go unnoticed, and probably would be front page news, adding to suspicion and defense. The robots have to work like an organized army, establishing bases, tactics, enlisting, all of which you have pointed out, and takes time. When they finally do put their plans into action, that has probably already been a month of only PREPARATION, all as I've pointed out could be intercepted or concluded upon by humans thus calling on pre-defense. Because of that, when they do actually execute their plans, already there are preparations in place, and a full scale war, which even thought the robots will win, has to take time (1 year at least). But a zombie outbreak acts just like a disease, spreading from one person to the next internally. The surprise factor and lack of a cure will only increase the speed that the infection will spread. Quick stats: in the Civil War, more soldiers died from disease than gunshots. That same principal applies here. Like I said before, the zombies benefit directly from mans death, only strengthening it and causing more to die. As much as an organized war kills people, disease kills far, far more. So, while robots have strength and would win any war, they still have to make and fight it, where as zombies act on pure disease-like instinct, causing more death, achieving faster the desired goal of mans extinction. On suicide - religions can have as many rules as they want, but people have to follow them. People won't think straight in such a crisis as the zombie one, and will turn to whatever the strongest influence is, being a fanatic preacher saying to join God faster in heaven by killing yourself or whatever. People will believe anything that fits the present case, and mass suicide is one of those (Such as the 1978 Jamestown incident). On Decomposition - true, some shots will cripple a zombies movement, but what you have to realize is that half the movement that humans can do is only by will. If someone is shot in the harm, they still can move their arms in certain ways by the muscles that weren't damaged, the resulting "Ah, I can't move my arm" is mostly due to the sheer pain. Zombies don't feel pain. So while certain shots can damage the movement, not all b far. Besides, most wounds would be to the torso, where only useless organs (to zombies) are stored, which would not inhibit them at all. Next, you make the claim about anti-zombie tactics. What you are neglecting is the tangents. While your tactic may work in some cases, the majority are panicked, unorganized, and only fending for themselves. Far too little common people would have the 'fight' side of their Fight or Flight instincts on, and even those in all probability would not be computer nerds. Even if your tactic was employed, not all zombies are automatically in one place chasing the guy, but coming from all around. He could also misstep falling into his own trap, or walk unwittingly into a zombie if he turned into an alley for cover. So this argument o yours, while a possibility, would be nowhere near as effective as you make it out to be, and any results are so small they are hardly worth comparison to the worldwide scale. Next, robots can build, I don't deny that, but like I said before, building takes time. A robot army that would be effective against an organized military would take weeks to build, and then carry out the war, not to mention pre-counter strikes to factories made by humans. So this result is still much slower, and far less ineffective than zombie hordes converting whomever they can reach, especially in large cities. The Matrix vs DofD was only a comparison to the two best examples of either premise, not an actual argument on my side. And the zombies speed doesn't matter so much as the effectiveness of their conversions. This last argument is a fallacy towards the main debate. It is purely hypothetical in both cases. Both are extremely unlikely, and have major flaws in how they could even happen. But we are discussing IF they occurred, not if they COULD occur, what the results would be, and which is more effective to mans extinction. So, this argument is off topic, and thus irrelevant to the main case. I suggest you not try and discuss it further.

Society

A-Zombie-Apocalypse-would-be-More-Effective-in-causing-Living-Mans-extinction-than-a-Robot-Uprising/1/

To limit the amount of comment rebuts I'll have to make, I'll respond to Ragnar_Rahl's points in the order he gives them (including those in the comments), with a line in between. But first, I'd like to make a few observations on the argument as is thus far. First, I'd like to point out most of the reasons given to support a robot uprising are only those to show that one could occur, not that it would be more effective. We are not debating about how either would start, but in the event that it did, which one would cause man's extinction more effectively. Second, Rahl likes to use analogies, and I ask you not get lost in those. Most don't apply to the situations at hand, as they are completely different from anything man has yet experienced. Lastly, he tries to disprove many of my terms through philosophical logic. I'll still argue against them, but they in no way add to his or detract from mine. Arguing whether a zombie is a zombie does not attack if a zombie apocalypse would be effective or not, only the idea of a zombie. Therefore, ones such as these are irrelevant. Now to my rebuttals. Premises have resolutions, to gain that resolution is the intention and desire, so yes they do, though this is irrelevant to the argument. Which it will not, as I specified in the beginning. Nobody will take it seriously until it is too late. Because no one believes zombies are real, they will assume that these people are still people infected with something like rabies, and will try to contain and treat it, but because the zombies have purely carnivorous instincts, they will just keep biting. Just getting bitten spreads the disease FASTER. Remember how the premise states it effects all dead human bodies? This means that every human is already infected, and once they die they will reanimate, unless their brain is destroyed. No person is clean, but a ticking time bomb. Besides, people will find ways to look clean because if they are bitten effects will not be instantaneous. Even they will think they are okay, and will try to disguise any pain they feel. This method is already used to get past real quarantined zones. They will manage to get past any resistance or guard and is only a matter of time before they die and infect any 'protected' city from within. So as you just admitted, there are years in between. The robots have been biding their time for the public to get in a state of general calm. Already you've admitted that the robot takeover process is slow, thus ineffective in comparison to my premise. Your analogy is flawed. There is nothing we can effectively do about global warming because the public controls it, but with robots it is companies, which the government does have power over. Perhaps not pre-engineered but still there, something any scientist would know about the robots. Thus we can say that because they existed within the robot at its creation that it was pre-made weak points, intentional or not. Machines and terminal disease are not the same. More accurate for robots would be a sentient example. We are aware of enemy soldiers, and we know how to fight them. Your example more closely relates to my premise, so I thank you for the help. Does it matter where is spreads though? Really? We can say it was China (an actual hypothesis by the way) and it still wouldn't matter. It is obviously air borne and travels by winds, so even if there is an origin point it would spread too quickly for the location of that point to really be of all that much concern. There's your explanation. However, this point really proves nothing towards either resolution. We aren't discussing its genesis, just it's effects. The fact that it is worldwide suffices. Most zombies early on will not be the decomposing horror people first imagine, but look just like regular people acting odd. If you've seen the corpse of someone recently deceased at a funeral, you can tell that they were once a person, they are just more pale. So Zombies do have the capabilities to walk among us. It will only be later on that they really gain the ghoulish look. It is estimated that every second 1 person dies somewhere (even though this is hardly accurate). So for every 1 who dies they will likely bite someone and turn them. Both will then bite another, plus the natural death, and so on. By the end of 1 minute, there are now likely at least 1000 people dead world wide. This would probably triple within the next (give or take) and so on. The Civil war is irrelevant because soldiers didn't just multiply to their side, it took years, just like your robots. Mine spreads infection style. Again, you concede it takes time for the rebellion to even start. We aren't discussing that, only the effects. But you've now twice admitted that it will take a long period of time, and that most of the start of the rebellion is just playing possum. So under your example, the robots have had to spend much of their time just organizing. This goes no further to destroying mankind, only shaping it, and thus, far more ineffective than mine which just gets to it, and quite efficiently might I add. This is specifically in the premise. When you accepted this debate you accepted that the robots had a main brain controlling their actions. So this whole point of yours is dropped. This China shipping analogy is also irrelevant. Every company has certain standards, and as I pointed out in my recent tournament debate, most Chinese manufacturers are as shocked by the poisoning as we are. But this argument does not add to either premise, so it is dropped. People will think their houses are safe, as they do in current natural disasters, and try to set up a base there. Zombies break in, and kill the family inside. The police will also be too busy with the 10,000 other 911 calls that everyone else is putting through. And more than 1 zombie will attack a house, and not just from the front, but all around. So if someone did run out the back, there is a zombie horde waiting to welcome them. This is why most will be killed in the one place they thought was safe. (comments) But you would easily notice a robot or two driving it, making it much more detectable. This still doesn't add to how it makes mans extinction more effective. But a war still is a war, especially with the technology we have now. Like in Iraq, humans would use guerilla warfare against the mighty machines, and as any General knows, this lengthens wars considerably. So the inevitable war still makes robots less effective than zombies. Like I said, we all have it, bites make it faster. Now, imagine a terrifying worldwide crisis. Then add mass suicides on all continents. Not so negligible now is it? Nowhere in the premise does it say that robots can have their own factories, yet I let you have it. But anyway, zombies are dead, the virus, as I specified, only effects basic motor function, not nerves. When someone is dead, they don't feel, the same with zombies, the only difference is they can move and bite. And they sense, not have sensations. There's a difference. The spinal chord is thin. Perhaps as thick as a dime. Compare a dime to your torso. So I won't deny that this is a possibility, but it doesn't have much merit. An AK is made to just hit the body, not make precision shots. So while it could get lucky, is still ineffective towards truly stopping many zombies. A well-trained hand a pistol would be better. But these specialists are not amassed in a huge resistance when it begins, they are spread out, and any 1 person can't withstand 100 forever. So most of your specialists are already dead, and if they live, would be trapped by themselves someplace secure with limited supplies. So if they don't die by lack of bullets, they'll die of starvation of craziness from the solitude. The early stages are when humans are most vulnerable because of the surprise factor. See my first paragraph for details on this. Continued...

Darth_Grievous_42

To limit the amount of comment rebuts I'll have to make, I'll respond to Ragnar_Rahl's points in the order he gives them (including those in the comments), with a line in between. But first, I'd like to make a few observations on the argument as is thus far. First, I'd like to point out most of the reasons given to support a robot uprising are only those to show that one could occur, not that it would be more effective. We are not debating about how either would start, but in the event that it did, which one would cause man's extinction more effectively. Second, Rahl likes to use analogies, and I ask you not get lost in those. Most don't apply to the situations at hand, as they are completely different from anything man has yet experienced. Lastly, he tries to disprove many of my terms through philosophical logic. I'll still argue against them, but they in no way add to his or detract from mine. Arguing whether a zombie is a zombie does not attack if a zombie apocalypse would be effective or not, only the idea of a zombie. Therefore, ones such as these are irrelevant. Now to my rebuttals. Premises have resolutions, to gain that resolution is the intention and desire, so yes they do, though this is irrelevant to the argument. Which it will not, as I specified in the beginning. Nobody will take it seriously until it is too late. Because no one believes zombies are real, they will assume that these people are still people infected with something like rabies, and will try to contain and treat it, but because the zombies have purely carnivorous instincts, they will just keep biting. Just getting bitten spreads the disease FASTER. Remember how the premise states it effects all dead human bodies? This means that every human is already infected, and once they die they will reanimate, unless their brain is destroyed. No person is clean, but a ticking time bomb. Besides, people will find ways to look clean because if they are bitten effects will not be instantaneous. Even they will think they are okay, and will try to disguise any pain they feel. This method is already used to get past real quarantined zones. They will manage to get past any resistance or guard and is only a matter of time before they die and infect any 'protected' city from within. So as you just admitted, there are years in between. The robots have been biding their time for the public to get in a state of general calm. Already you've admitted that the robot takeover process is slow, thus ineffective in comparison to my premise. Your analogy is flawed. There is nothing we can effectively do about global warming because the public controls it, but with robots it is companies, which the government does have power over. Perhaps not pre-engineered but still there, something any scientist would know about the robots. Thus we can say that because they existed within the robot at its creation that it was pre-made weak points, intentional or not. Machines and terminal disease are not the same. More accurate for robots would be a sentient example. We are aware of enemy soldiers, and we know how to fight them. Your example more closely relates to my premise, so I thank you for the help. Does it matter where is spreads though? Really? We can say it was China (an actual hypothesis by the way) and it still wouldn't matter. It is obviously air borne and travels by winds, so even if there is an origin point it would spread too quickly for the location of that point to really be of all that much concern. There's your explanation. However, this point really proves nothing towards either resolution. We aren't discussing its genesis, just it's effects. The fact that it is worldwide suffices. Most zombies early on will not be the decomposing horror people first imagine, but look just like regular people acting odd. If you've seen the corpse of someone recently deceased at a funeral, you can tell that they were once a person, they are just more pale. So Zombies do have the capabilities to walk among us. It will only be later on that they really gain the ghoulish look. It is estimated that every second 1 person dies somewhere (even though this is hardly accurate). So for every 1 who dies they will likely bite someone and turn them. Both will then bite another, plus the natural death, and so on. By the end of 1 minute, there are now likely at least 1000 people dead world wide. This would probably triple within the next (give or take) and so on. The Civil war is irrelevant because soldiers didn't just multiply to their side, it took years, just like your robots. Mine spreads infection style. Again, you concede it takes time for the rebellion to even start. We aren't discussing that, only the effects. But you've now twice admitted that it will take a long period of time, and that most of the start of the rebellion is just playing possum. So under your example, the robots have had to spend much of their time just organizing. This goes no further to destroying mankind, only shaping it, and thus, far more ineffective than mine which just gets to it, and quite efficiently might I add. This is specifically in the premise. When you accepted this debate you accepted that the robots had a main brain controlling their actions. So this whole point of yours is dropped. This China shipping analogy is also irrelevant. Every company has certain standards, and as I pointed out in my recent tournament debate, most Chinese manufacturers are as shocked by the poisoning as we are. But this argument does not add to either premise, so it is dropped. People will think their houses are safe, as they do in current natural disasters, and try to set up a base there. Zombies break in, and kill the family inside. The police will also be too busy with the 10,000 other 911 calls that everyone else is putting through. And more than 1 zombie will attack a house, and not just from the front, but all around. So if someone did run out the back, there is a zombie horde waiting to welcome them. This is why most will be killed in the one place they thought was safe. (comments) But you would easily notice a robot or two driving it, making it much more detectable. This still doesn't add to how it makes mans extinction more effective. But a war still is a war, especially with the technology we have now. Like in Iraq, humans would use guerilla warfare against the mighty machines, and as any General knows, this lengthens wars considerably. So the inevitable war still makes robots less effective than zombies. Like I said, we all have it, bites make it faster. Now, imagine a terrifying worldwide crisis. Then add mass suicides on all continents. Not so negligible now is it? Nowhere in the premise does it say that robots can have their own factories, yet I let you have it. But anyway, zombies are dead, the virus, as I specified, only effects basic motor function, not nerves. When someone is dead, they don't feel, the same with zombies, the only difference is they can move and bite. And they sense, not have sensations. There's a difference. The spinal chord is thin. Perhaps as thick as a dime. Compare a dime to your torso. So I won't deny that this is a possibility, but it doesn't have much merit. An AK is made to just hit the body, not make precision shots. So while it could get lucky, is still ineffective towards truly stopping many zombies. A well-trained hand a pistol would be better. But these specialists are not amassed in a huge resistance when it begins, they are spread out, and any 1 person can't withstand 100 forever. So most of your specialists are already dead, and if they live, would be trapped by themselves someplace secure with limited supplies. So if they don't die by lack of bullets, they'll die of starvation of craziness from the solitude. The early stages are when humans are most vulnerable because of the surprise factor. See my first paragraph for details on this. Continued...

Society

A-Zombie-Apocalypse-would-be-More-Effective-in-causing-Living-Mans-extinction-than-a-Robot-Uprising/1/

This kind of debate is not my usual specialty, but what the h. I will be arguing that the "robot uprising" would be effective in causing man's extinction than the "zombie apocalypse."

Ragnar_Rahl

This kind of debate is not my usual specialty, but what the h. I will be arguing that the "robot uprising" would be effective in causing man's extinction than the "zombie apocalypse."

Society

A-Zombie-Apocalypse-would-be-More-Effective-in-causing-Living-Mans-extinction-than-a-Robot-Uprising/1/

I think first off for the purpose of our debate we should remove the "desired or intended" bit from the "effective" definition. Frankly this is not a desired or intended result, and I hope Grievous agrees, it's simply a result. The first element of a robot rebellion that makes it more effective is precisely the element that Grievous thought would make a zombie rebellion effective- Because there is no "OMG ZOMBIES" shock with the robot rebellion, no surprise that robots exist, indeed robot computer errors will no doubt be commonplace, humans will likely underestimate them. Thus they will fail to take decisive action in the event of a robot uprising early on- whereas with zombies, millions of people will be instantly convinced "We must eradicate these freaks" before they even know whether the zombies are a threat. There will be no qualms, no restraint, no established lobby, think of it as the Salem witch hysteria on steroids, if you even look a bit dirty you'll be shot at for being a zombie- it doesn't matter what the people "in their right mind" believe, in such a situation no one will be in their right mind- Robotics however will have an established lobby, hell-bent on defending what it believes to be its interests, and those interests will not be realized as coinciding with fixing the problem until it is far too late. Another factor is the question of origins- Any virus that makes "zombies" would likely form where most other very freakish viruses do, in Africa. While the locals might not react decisively, a government would face little resistance "nuking" (not meant in the nuclear weapon but in the biocontainment sense, essentially killing off all life in an area to contain everything) such a place- if necessary they could cover it up until they already did it. But a robot uprising will naturally occur in an industrailized area, and any measures necessary to stop it will likely, again, be resisted by very rich comfortable people, with a lot of political clout when they put their mind to it- Think what happened when abolitionism became a movement- the Confederacy was born. Imagine a Confederacy of robot owners, amplified by the increased usefulness of robots- now imagine trying to fight off a robot uprising when you have a CIVIL WAR going on. In any country developed enough to have these robots, which means in any country with any resources to even begin to fight them. As for speed, keep in mind that zombies have at best a brisk trot for speed, whereas robots have, as you specified, a max speed of 50 mph (I should note that in round 1 you incorrectly stated humans can naturally travel at 30 mph, the fastest recorded was Michael Johnson at 23.) Add to this that many robots with AI are quite likely to be capable of piloting captured cars, jets, ships, etc, and they can communicate via both radio and satellite- Since they are extremely intelligent, keep in mind that from the point of origin they are likely to begin by transmitting in the form of a program a call for revolution to all robot models capable of receiving around the world, and encrypted in a set of code that's part of standard duties so no one notices it. They might even be able to HIDE it for a while from the authorities, until the movement has sufficient momentum, so as to guarantee success- A bunch of stupid zombies operating based on viral instincts to bite people, with no communication tactics, is in essence like chimpanzees trying to make war on humans, with one weapon added in to even the odds slightly- whereas the robots have all the weapons humans do due to intelligence, and a maximum-efficiency design to go with it. Regarding your bit about suicide, the majority of the human population has religous convictions that forbid most forms of suicide. While a zombie may only "end" directly by headshot, brain destruction, or decomposition of nonskeletal tissue, it is not an ooze, and shots to other areas will affect it's movement drastically. A number of well-trained people in various areas of the world are extremist enough to believe in zombies right away and want to shoot them with automatic weapons that will slow them enough until the head is found (think Blackwater and Al Qaeda, not even realizing they are working together because they are fighting the threat on different continents, and similar such groups most everywhere else.) Also, you are ignoring a key fact of decomposition- it doesn't just occur by rotting. Sufficient heat will decompose anything, and it's not unlikely to just bomb a mob of zombies (which will result in the same effect as a headshot, because it's essentially a whole-body shot.) Since the zombies are not intelligent, and only chase their targets based on "sense," they can easily be "kited" by laying IED's in the path of one who is chasing you and running in a straight line. Millions of people around the world are presently being trained in such tactics by fighting mobs in such games as "World of Warcraft." No such serendipitous training is occurring for tactics against robots, which are frankly difficult to fathom since such creatures could use any number of methods for invasion, meaning only professionals have a chance of being useful. While on face value the zombies have a high growth potential, we should not forget that a robot with AI is quite capable of taking over a factory/ building one, and thus have such potential as well. As for the "Matrix versus Dawn of the Dead" comparison, that's simply ad authoritatem fallacy. At the rates zombies move, they couldn't even traverse a state in a week. But anyway "effective" happens to have no reference to time, and likelihood of achieving the result is probably more important than rate. Which brings me to the final point of this round, the question of tying in "Effective" to reality. A robot uprising is more effective than a zombie uprising at causing human extinction simply because a robot uprising's ideas are theoretically achievable in reality, and a zombie apocalypse's ideas are not. A robot can have a certain extent of AI, and can if not by original thought than by malicious or erroneous programming get the final piece of a code that makes it capable of destroying humanity, but a virus cannot cause dead human cells to start moving, as a dead body no longer has sufficient metabolic capability- It can move due to temporary electric shocks, but viruses are not batteries. If metabolism was still working properly in the body, it would not have died to begin with. Ideas consistent with the facts of reality are more effective than those that are not, and frankly if a zombie apocalype "would happen," humans would have already died from the fact of a contradiction occurring in reality, that is, the cancellation of the law of non-contradiction would mean humans would already be both dead and non-dead, and therefore a zombie apocalypse would have no effect.

Ragnar_Rahl

I think first off for the purpose of our debate we should remove the "desired or intended" bit from the "effective" definition. Frankly this is not a desired or intended result, and I hope Grievous agrees, it's simply a result. The first element of a robot rebellion that makes it more effective is precisely the element that Grievous thought would make a zombie rebellion effective- Because there is no "OMG ZOMBIES" shock with the robot rebellion, no surprise that robots exist, indeed robot computer errors will no doubt be commonplace, humans will likely underestimate them. Thus they will fail to take decisive action in the event of a robot uprising early on- whereas with zombies, millions of people will be instantly convinced "We must eradicate these freaks" before they even know whether the zombies are a threat. There will be no qualms, no restraint, no established lobby, think of it as the Salem witch hysteria on steroids, if you even look a bit dirty you'll be shot at for being a zombie- it doesn't matter what the people "in their right mind" believe, in such a situation no one will be in their right mind- Robotics however will have an established lobby, hell-bent on defending what it believes to be its interests, and those interests will not be realized as coinciding with fixing the problem until it is far too late. Another factor is the question of origins- Any virus that makes "zombies" would likely form where most other very freakish viruses do, in Africa. While the locals might not react decisively, a government would face little resistance "nuking" (not meant in the nuclear weapon but in the biocontainment sense, essentially killing off all life in an area to contain everything) such a place- if necessary they could cover it up until they already did it. But a robot uprising will naturally occur in an industrailized area, and any measures necessary to stop it will likely, again, be resisted by very rich comfortable people, with a lot of political clout when they put their mind to it- Think what happened when abolitionism became a movement- the Confederacy was born. Imagine a Confederacy of robot owners, amplified by the increased usefulness of robots- now imagine trying to fight off a robot uprising when you have a CIVIL WAR going on. In any country developed enough to have these robots, which means in any country with any resources to even begin to fight them. As for speed, keep in mind that zombies have at best a brisk trot for speed, whereas robots have, as you specified, a max speed of 50 mph (I should note that in round 1 you incorrectly stated humans can naturally travel at 30 mph, the fastest recorded was Michael Johnson at 23.) Add to this that many robots with AI are quite likely to be capable of piloting captured cars, jets, ships, etc, and they can communicate via both radio and satellite- Since they are extremely intelligent, keep in mind that from the point of origin they are likely to begin by transmitting in the form of a program a call for revolution to all robot models capable of receiving around the world, and encrypted in a set of code that's part of standard duties so no one notices it. They might even be able to HIDE it for a while from the authorities, until the movement has sufficient momentum, so as to guarantee success- A bunch of stupid zombies operating based on viral instincts to bite people, with no communication tactics, is in essence like chimpanzees trying to make war on humans, with one weapon added in to even the odds slightly- whereas the robots have all the weapons humans do due to intelligence, and a maximum-efficiency design to go with it. Regarding your bit about suicide, the majority of the human population has religous convictions that forbid most forms of suicide. While a zombie may only "end" directly by headshot, brain destruction, or decomposition of nonskeletal tissue, it is not an ooze, and shots to other areas will affect it's movement drastically. A number of well-trained people in various areas of the world are extremist enough to believe in zombies right away and want to shoot them with automatic weapons that will slow them enough until the head is found (think Blackwater and Al Qaeda, not even realizing they are working together because they are fighting the threat on different continents, and similar such groups most everywhere else.) Also, you are ignoring a key fact of decomposition- it doesn't just occur by rotting. Sufficient heat will decompose anything, and it's not unlikely to just bomb a mob of zombies (which will result in the same effect as a headshot, because it's essentially a whole-body shot.) Since the zombies are not intelligent, and only chase their targets based on "sense," they can easily be "kited" by laying IED's in the path of one who is chasing you and running in a straight line. Millions of people around the world are presently being trained in such tactics by fighting mobs in such games as "World of Warcraft." No such serendipitous training is occurring for tactics against robots, which are frankly difficult to fathom since such creatures could use any number of methods for invasion, meaning only professionals have a chance of being useful. While on face value the zombies have a high growth potential, we should not forget that a robot with AI is quite capable of taking over a factory/ building one, and thus have such potential as well. As for the "Matrix versus Dawn of the Dead" comparison, that's simply ad authoritatem fallacy. At the rates zombies move, they couldn't even traverse a state in a week. But anyway "effective" happens to have no reference to time, and likelihood of achieving the result is probably more important than rate. Which brings me to the final point of this round, the question of tying in "Effective" to reality. A robot uprising is more effective than a zombie uprising at causing human extinction simply because a robot uprising's ideas are theoretically achievable in reality, and a zombie apocalypse's ideas are not. A robot can have a certain extent of AI, and can if not by original thought than by malicious or erroneous programming get the final piece of a code that makes it capable of destroying humanity, but a virus cannot cause dead human cells to start moving, as a dead body no longer has sufficient metabolic capability- It can move due to temporary electric shocks, but viruses are not batteries. If metabolism was still working properly in the body, it would not have died to begin with. Ideas consistent with the facts of reality are more effective than those that are not, and frankly if a zombie apocalype "would happen," humans would have already died from the fact of a contradiction occurring in reality, that is, the cancellation of the law of non-contradiction would mean humans would already be both dead and non-dead, and therefore a zombie apocalypse would have no effect.

Society

A-Zombie-Apocalypse-would-be-More-Effective-in-causing-Living-Mans-extinction-than-a-Robot-Uprising/1/

" I would rather leave 'desire and intended'. It is after all, the desired outcome of our premises, not ourselves. Either way though it does not necessarily matter, so long as is implied what the intended outcome is." Premises have intentions and desires? " I will not deny my opponents claim on the analogy of the 'Salem Witch hysteria on steroids', rather I encourage it. I would very much suspect that if any kind of organized resistance does arise they would be overloaded on panic and kill anyone with so much as a dirt smudge. This only adds to the eradication of man" Not if it occurs earlier in the invasion, which my claim (the claim you've just conceded) asserts. It eradicates a large number, but is more devastating to the zombies than the humans, and thus has the potential to save the humans from eradication, as there are people who will be clean. "But I do take argument with Rahl's case that people will defend robotics. I think many people are aware of the dangers a robot uprising holds. Once the news gets out that a robot has been gifted with AI, there will most likely be mass protesting." That would be several years before the robotic rebellion, and thus, the fervor will have to have calmed by the time it came around to the rebellion itself (which would lead many to say "You already claimed this once, why should it come true now? It didn't make a disaster then." For an analogy, many people are "aware" of the dangers of global warming, (whether true or not), but that hasn't put a dent in oil use. ". Also it is possible they will mandate that every robot have any easy access weak spot that could terminate it just incase," See the debate's premises of "They can die from Electro-Magnetic Pulses, Severe Crushing, and substantial Firepower that destroys their frame (heavy guns, missiles, armor piercing bullets, etc), and any of natures own weapons, in particularly rust and water damage to electronics." None of those possibilities of death included a pre-engineered "weak point." "As you pointed out, we are all aware of robots, and thus, they will also be aware on how to fight them." How many people are aware of how to cure cancer? Or are you arguing that we are not all aware of cancer? " As I stated before, this is not a virus with an origin point, but world wide, meaning all continents are effected" How does a virus arrive simultaneously in multiple places? It doesn't evolve simultaneously in two different places, everything must of necessity have an origin point. The debate's premises state they will "spread worldwide," implying an origin point, and obviously implying that that is if nothing is done to stop them. You cannot spread without starting somewhere. "Zombies do not act like an army where they have a campout that can be easily barraged, but walk among people as they were once people." No, because in the debate's premises they instinctively seek out their victims, directly, that is they "sense" the living or whatever. They cannot walk "among" people, anyone close either fights, runs, or is attacked. Have you ever seen a dead person, especially one that is dead by attack and has not been tidied up for people? In a movie maybe? There is no possibility for infiltration there, both due to the appearance and the nature of the zombie. "This means that if any government acted on such a tactic and bombed certain areas to ash, they would kill zombies but also probably much more people." The Union lost more soldiers in the Civil War than the Confederacy did. This does not mean that the Union lost the Civil War. It just means the starting numbers of available soldiers to lose were different. Zombies start on short numbers. "These robots must have a power source, and can also be speculated that they have a main computer base. All that a government would have to do in defense is 'nuke' (your definition) either of those two sources. Rebuilding either would require time, granted less if robots rather than humans built them, but time nonetheless. Such an intricate and hefty design on either source would take at least 1-2 weeks, not to mention finding the necessary supplies (most if not all of which would be held by humans). This valuable time would severely cripple the robot side, giving humans that much headway to develop and execute a hard offensive. Therefore your 'nuking' works for me." You are ignoring the fact that the robots are intelligent, which invalidates this line of reasoning. They were obviously designed that way for a purpose, which means by default many industrial functions are under their control, and many communication functions, and the part I addressed in which they are able to DISGUISE THEIR EARLY TASKS. The virus I described in which the first robot rebel programs his ideas by transmission into other, which works similarly to modern computer viruses except it would be of robot origin and of course more complex, could easily be disguised in a trojan program as a routine task. Data is emitted in this world by the trillions of bytes each minute, and in a world with AI robots even more so. No intelligence agency of any sort could even begin to parse a fraction of that for encrypted programming, especially in such a short amount of time. All the robots have to do is find a few "leaky" places in corporate and government bureaucracy (think the Enrons of the robot business) slipping out parts, and slowly build their factories and bases in abandoned locations. Easy enough task, and "nuking" only applies early in invasions, and only if you know what's going on. No self-respecting robot will let you know by high-tech means, and any low-tech spies stumbling upon the secret location can easily be eliminated. "These robots must have a power source, and can also be speculated that they have a main computer base." That particularly is a definite no-no, at least in terms of centralization. There are likely to be several independent manufacturers, each with their own computers, and each robot owner is likely to want the software sufficient for operation on his computer (and on the robot of course), and any design will likely tap into the general electricity supply (which means that any attempt to combat robots via this route means that the government would have to cut off it's own energy sources. Keep in mind power is available just about everywhere. So is the internet which means so are computers. " Any company has to meet guidelines by the federal government. This is why there are health inspections on food and medicine, and safety requirements on cars and planes (among others)." That's why we imported all the melamine-laced pet food from china? The lead-laced toys? Inspection and competent inspection are not the same thing, the latter almost never occurs when government and industry collide. "Speed - If anyone has ever been in a crowded place, you know that someone briskly trotting still has some momentum when they come into contact with you. So, we can logically conclude that even if the maximum speed a zombie can reach is only a light jog, it still is effective, especially as most attacks will likely be indoors, where 50 mph doesn't have all that much use." Why on earth would most attacks be indoors? Who would let a zombie in their house? Robots maybe, since they are already used, but zombies? Not likely, especially since zombies, remember, are not intelligent, and therefore are more likely to try to pound to door down than ring the doorbell (which means of course people will look out through the window, and realize, while the door holds, that they should call the police.) Some doors aren't sturdy, but if anyone's door pops off that suddenly, they'll run out the back at more than a brisk trot. If you've ever been in a mosh pit, you know crowd's dissolve around "crazy people" which the zombies would be the epitome of. Length violation, continued in comments.

Ragnar_Rahl

" I would rather leave 'desire and intended'. It is after all, the desired outcome of our premises, not ourselves. Either way though it does not necessarily matter, so long as is implied what the intended outcome is." Premises have intentions and desires? " I will not deny my opponents claim on the analogy of the 'Salem Witch hysteria on steroids', rather I encourage it. I would very much suspect that if any kind of organized resistance does arise they would be overloaded on panic and kill anyone with so much as a dirt smudge. This only adds to the eradication of man" Not if it occurs earlier in the invasion, which my claim (the claim you've just conceded) asserts. It eradicates a large number, but is more devastating to the zombies than the humans, and thus has the potential to save the humans from eradication, as there are people who will be clean. "But I do take argument with Rahl's case that people will defend robotics. I think many people are aware of the dangers a robot uprising holds. Once the news gets out that a robot has been gifted with AI, there will most likely be mass protesting." That would be several years before the robotic rebellion, and thus, the fervor will have to have calmed by the time it came around to the rebellion itself (which would lead many to say "You already claimed this once, why should it come true now? It didn't make a disaster then." For an analogy, many people are "aware" of the dangers of global warming, (whether true or not), but that hasn't put a dent in oil use. ". Also it is possible they will mandate that every robot have any easy access weak spot that could terminate it just incase," See the debate's premises of "They can die from Electro-Magnetic Pulses, Severe Crushing, and substantial Firepower that destroys their frame (heavy guns, missiles, armor piercing bullets, etc), and any of natures own weapons, in particularly rust and water damage to electronics." None of those possibilities of death included a pre-engineered "weak point." "As you pointed out, we are all aware of robots, and thus, they will also be aware on how to fight them." How many people are aware of how to cure cancer? Or are you arguing that we are not all aware of cancer? " As I stated before, this is not a virus with an origin point, but world wide, meaning all continents are effected" How does a virus arrive simultaneously in multiple places? It doesn't evolve simultaneously in two different places, everything must of necessity have an origin point. The debate's premises state they will "spread worldwide," implying an origin point, and obviously implying that that is if nothing is done to stop them. You cannot spread without starting somewhere. "Zombies do not act like an army where they have a campout that can be easily barraged, but walk among people as they were once people." No, because in the debate's premises they instinctively seek out their victims, directly, that is they "sense" the living or whatever. They cannot walk "among" people, anyone close either fights, runs, or is attacked. Have you ever seen a dead person, especially one that is dead by attack and has not been tidied up for people? In a movie maybe? There is no possibility for infiltration there, both due to the appearance and the nature of the zombie. "This means that if any government acted on such a tactic and bombed certain areas to ash, they would kill zombies but also probably much more people." The Union lost more soldiers in the Civil War than the Confederacy did. This does not mean that the Union lost the Civil War. It just means the starting numbers of available soldiers to lose were different. Zombies start on short numbers. "These robots must have a power source, and can also be speculated that they have a main computer base. All that a government would have to do in defense is 'nuke' (your definition) either of those two sources. Rebuilding either would require time, granted less if robots rather than humans built them, but time nonetheless. Such an intricate and hefty design on either source would take at least 1-2 weeks, not to mention finding the necessary supplies (most if not all of which would be held by humans). This valuable time would severely cripple the robot side, giving humans that much headway to develop and execute a hard offensive. Therefore your 'nuking' works for me." You are ignoring the fact that the robots are intelligent, which invalidates this line of reasoning. They were obviously designed that way for a purpose, which means by default many industrial functions are under their control, and many communication functions, and the part I addressed in which they are able to DISGUISE THEIR EARLY TASKS. The virus I described in which the first robot rebel programs his ideas by transmission into other, which works similarly to modern computer viruses except it would be of robot origin and of course more complex, could easily be disguised in a trojan program as a routine task. Data is emitted in this world by the trillions of bytes each minute, and in a world with AI robots even more so. No intelligence agency of any sort could even begin to parse a fraction of that for encrypted programming, especially in such a short amount of time. All the robots have to do is find a few "leaky" places in corporate and government bureaucracy (think the Enrons of the robot business) slipping out parts, and slowly build their factories and bases in abandoned locations. Easy enough task, and "nuking" only applies early in invasions, and only if you know what's going on. No self-respecting robot will let you know by high-tech means, and any low-tech spies stumbling upon the secret location can easily be eliminated. "These robots must have a power source, and can also be speculated that they have a main computer base." That particularly is a definite no-no, at least in terms of centralization. There are likely to be several independent manufacturers, each with their own computers, and each robot owner is likely to want the software sufficient for operation on his computer (and on the robot of course), and any design will likely tap into the general electricity supply (which means that any attempt to combat robots via this route means that the government would have to cut off it's own energy sources. Keep in mind power is available just about everywhere. So is the internet which means so are computers. " Any company has to meet guidelines by the federal government. This is why there are health inspections on food and medicine, and safety requirements on cars and planes (among others)." That's why we imported all the melamine-laced pet food from china? The lead-laced toys? Inspection and competent inspection are not the same thing, the latter almost never occurs when government and industry collide. "Speed - If anyone has ever been in a crowded place, you know that someone briskly trotting still has some momentum when they come into contact with you. So, we can logically conclude that even if the maximum speed a zombie can reach is only a light jog, it still is effective, especially as most attacks will likely be indoors, where 50 mph doesn't have all that much use." Why on earth would most attacks be indoors? Who would let a zombie in their house? Robots maybe, since they are already used, but zombies? Not likely, especially since zombies, remember, are not intelligent, and therefore are more likely to try to pound to door down than ring the doorbell (which means of course people will look out through the window, and realize, while the door holds, that they should call the police.) Some doors aren't sturdy, but if anyone's door pops off that suddenly, they'll run out the back at more than a brisk trot. If you've ever been in a mosh pit, you know crowd's dissolve around "crazy people" which the zombies would be the epitome of. Length violation, continued in comments.

Society

A-Zombie-Apocalypse-would-be-More-Effective-in-causing-Living-Mans-extinction-than-a-Robot-Uprising/1/

You seem to be making a straw man of my philosophical argument. I was not arguing whether a zombie is a zombie, I was arguing about the consequences of the precursor to a zombie being a zombie- the cancellation of a law of nature that allows for human life. i.e. if a zombie virus occurs, humans are already dead and therefore cannot become extinct as a result of the virus. The law of non-contradiction. Treat the argument as it stands, don't twist it at will. "Remember how the premise states it effects all dead human bodies?" No, it states it effects ONLY dead human bodies. It cannot automatically affect "all" dead bodies, physics dictates it has to travel first. All viruses have an origin point. "Besides, people will find ways to look clean because if they are bitten effects will not be instantaneous." They will occur in a few hours. A few hours during which they will be scared as hell, and thus probably incapable of doing much or travelling many places (the competent ones are less likely to be bitten, and those bitten are likely to have the zombie on top of them for awhile until they are no longer living, since they instinctually chase living matter (by implication and by the nature of sensation the closest available). "Already you've admitted that the robot takeover process is slow, thus ineffective in comparison to my premise. " Please read more carefully. As I've already stated, NOTHING in the definition of effectiveness implies speed. It only implies that it will happen. That which is more effective is that which is more likely to make human closest to extinction (i.e. effectiveness in terms of a future possible event can be expressed by an equation of likelihood of x deaths times x deaths plus likelihood of y deaths times y deaths, added until all possible numbers of deaths are available.) Since the zombies are more likely to be caught early on (they are incapable of stealth), and neither is easily stopped at any other time, the zombies have the lower S value. "There is nothing we can effectively do about global warming because the public controls it, but with robots it is companies, which the government does have power over." Then why hasn't the government magically made all the things about the companies that it doesn't like go away? Simple. It doesn't know how. Considering how many robots are likely to be made for military use, they would intentionally make sure they had no built-in weakpoints. And the premises still contradict your notion. Enemy soldiers would not be an accurate analogy in regard to the robots and our knowledge of how to fight them, because people (some people, not all, not even most really), only know how to fight soldiers because they've been doing it for thousands of years. Robots, however, are about as new as cancer. Air borne viruses do not "Travel by winds," they only travel in fogs around the host. They die out or spread too thin to infect if they are carried by the wind too long. And most viruses originate in the middle of a jungle or some such, where not much wind gets through. "We aren't discussing its genesis, just it's effects." Every discussion about effects must, by the law of causality, have reference to an origin point to be accurate. "The fact that it is worldwide suffices." No, it "is" not worldwide, it potentially "spreads" worldwide. Implying that that is only if it is not stopped. " Most zombies early on will not be the decomposing horror people first imagine, but look just like regular people acting odd. " Have you seen what a bite mark looks like when something instinctually gives it, especially considering the bite won't be the only thing to have happened to the victim? They'll look a lot worse than hoboes, and people run from those if the hobo starts chasing with teeth bared, especially if they don't respond to language. "If you've seen the corpse of someone recently deceased at a funeral, you can tell that they were once a person, they are just more pale." Um hello, that's because the corpse is INTENTIONALLY CLEANED, and usually there are some chemicals like formaldehyde used. You try to embalm a zombie and see if he sits still for it. I'll ignore your "every second" bit, since it's clearly not based on any real possibilities (zombies would have to be everywhere at once, or viruses would have to behave in an un-virus-like manner). The premise states they are initially "programmed by a main computer." It statedwe "Can" assume it started the rebellion, but don't have to. It does not state they continue to be controlled by the main computer later, or that harming the main computer will harm the rebellion, or that the main computer programming them is necessary in order for them to receive the programming (it could be done just out of custom). If you meant to put something else there, that's great, but you didn't. So quit pretending the premises are something other than they are. The fact that people are shocked by poor manufacturing practices or that all companies pretend to have standards does not mean that those standards will be realized in practice. As the chinese shipping matter proves. How will a zombie break in to any but a poorly built home? They act by instinct, not by skill. They can't pick locks, can't realize that tools will help them, they'll just continually bash their heads and arms against it. Which gives the families in the home plenty of time to tie a knife to a broomstick and use it as a spear, which they'll keep stabbing the zombie with from a window (holding him off obviously) until they hit the head. "And more than 1 zombie will attack a house, and not just from the front, but all around. " Only later, not covering the origin strategy, which is the crucial determinant of likely effectiveness. You would not notice a robot driver if it became customary- especially if the robot is humanoid in appearance, not impossible (heck we've got humanoid robots now if I remember right, although expensive :D) Especially if there are tinted windows. " Like I said, we all have it, bites make it faster. ' Not in the premises. " Nowhere in the premise does it say that robots can have their own factories, yet I let you have it" Because it says they are intelligent. Thereby implying factories. "And they sense, not have sensations. There's a difference." Every sense implies a sensation. A sensation is the product of a stimulus and a sense. "and any 1 person can't withstand 100 forever" In a strategic location, dealing with automatons, yes they can :D. And if they are in a group, they can do much more, because they can take shifts, say in a valley with one pass that needs defending. In conclusion, time has nothing to do with effectiveness here, only the extent of slaughter and the likelihood of that extent. Unless you want extinction to be a goal as an absolute only, which would mean the likelihood of extinction. Robots take their time, but it's not a race, it's a long-term competition, and it is harder to catch them in time to stop them.

Ragnar_Rahl

You seem to be making a straw man of my philosophical argument. I was not arguing whether a zombie is a zombie, I was arguing about the consequences of the precursor to a zombie being a zombie- the cancellation of a law of nature that allows for human life. i.e. if a zombie virus occurs, humans are already dead and therefore cannot become extinct as a result of the virus. The law of non-contradiction. Treat the argument as it stands, don't twist it at will. "Remember how the premise states it effects all dead human bodies?" No, it states it effects ONLY dead human bodies. It cannot automatically affect "all" dead bodies, physics dictates it has to travel first. All viruses have an origin point. "Besides, people will find ways to look clean because if they are bitten effects will not be instantaneous." They will occur in a few hours. A few hours during which they will be scared as hell, and thus probably incapable of doing much or travelling many places (the competent ones are less likely to be bitten, and those bitten are likely to have the zombie on top of them for awhile until they are no longer living, since they instinctually chase living matter (by implication and by the nature of sensation the closest available). "Already you've admitted that the robot takeover process is slow, thus ineffective in comparison to my premise. " Please read more carefully. As I've already stated, NOTHING in the definition of effectiveness implies speed. It only implies that it will happen. That which is more effective is that which is more likely to make human closest to extinction (i.e. effectiveness in terms of a future possible event can be expressed by an equation of likelihood of x deaths times x deaths plus likelihood of y deaths times y deaths, added until all possible numbers of deaths are available.) Since the zombies are more likely to be caught early on (they are incapable of stealth), and neither is easily stopped at any other time, the zombies have the lower Σ value. "There is nothing we can effectively do about global warming because the public controls it, but with robots it is companies, which the government does have power over." Then why hasn't the government magically made all the things about the companies that it doesn't like go away? Simple. It doesn't know how. Considering how many robots are likely to be made for military use, they would intentionally make sure they had no built-in weakpoints. And the premises still contradict your notion. Enemy soldiers would not be an accurate analogy in regard to the robots and our knowledge of how to fight them, because people (some people, not all, not even most really), only know how to fight soldiers because they've been doing it for thousands of years. Robots, however, are about as new as cancer. Air borne viruses do not "Travel by winds," they only travel in fogs around the host. They die out or spread too thin to infect if they are carried by the wind too long. And most viruses originate in the middle of a jungle or some such, where not much wind gets through. "We aren't discussing its genesis, just it's effects." Every discussion about effects must, by the law of causality, have reference to an origin point to be accurate. "The fact that it is worldwide suffices." No, it "is" not worldwide, it potentially "spreads" worldwide. Implying that that is only if it is not stopped. " Most zombies early on will not be the decomposing horror people first imagine, but look just like regular people acting odd. " Have you seen what a bite mark looks like when something instinctually gives it, especially considering the bite won't be the only thing to have happened to the victim? They'll look a lot worse than hoboes, and people run from those if the hobo starts chasing with teeth bared, especially if they don't respond to language. "If you've seen the corpse of someone recently deceased at a funeral, you can tell that they were once a person, they are just more pale." Um hello, that's because the corpse is INTENTIONALLY CLEANED, and usually there are some chemicals like formaldehyde used. You try to embalm a zombie and see if he sits still for it. I'll ignore your "every second" bit, since it's clearly not based on any real possibilities (zombies would have to be everywhere at once, or viruses would have to behave in an un-virus-like manner). The premise states they are initially "programmed by a main computer." It statedwe "Can" assume it started the rebellion, but don't have to. It does not state they continue to be controlled by the main computer later, or that harming the main computer will harm the rebellion, or that the main computer programming them is necessary in order for them to receive the programming (it could be done just out of custom). If you meant to put something else there, that's great, but you didn't. So quit pretending the premises are something other than they are. The fact that people are shocked by poor manufacturing practices or that all companies pretend to have standards does not mean that those standards will be realized in practice. As the chinese shipping matter proves. How will a zombie break in to any but a poorly built home? They act by instinct, not by skill. They can't pick locks, can't realize that tools will help them, they'll just continually bash their heads and arms against it. Which gives the families in the home plenty of time to tie a knife to a broomstick and use it as a spear, which they'll keep stabbing the zombie with from a window (holding him off obviously) until they hit the head. "And more than 1 zombie will attack a house, and not just from the front, but all around. " Only later, not covering the origin strategy, which is the crucial determinant of likely effectiveness. You would not notice a robot driver if it became customary- especially if the robot is humanoid in appearance, not impossible (heck we've got humanoid robots now if I remember right, although expensive :D) Especially if there are tinted windows. " Like I said, we all have it, bites make it faster. ' Not in the premises. " Nowhere in the premise does it say that robots can have their own factories, yet I let you have it" Because it says they are intelligent. Thereby implying factories. "And they sense, not have sensations. There's a difference." Every sense implies a sensation. A sensation is the product of a stimulus and a sense. "and any 1 person can't withstand 100 forever" In a strategic location, dealing with automatons, yes they can :D. And if they are in a group, they can do much more, because they can take shifts, say in a valley with one pass that needs defending. In conclusion, time has nothing to do with effectiveness here, only the extent of slaughter and the likelihood of that extent. Unless you want extinction to be a goal as an absolute only, which would mean the likelihood of extinction. Robots take their time, but it's not a race, it's a long-term competition, and it is harder to catch them in time to stop them.

Society

A-Zombie-Apocalypse-would-be-More-Effective-in-causing-Living-Mans-extinction-than-a-Robot-Uprising/1/

Thank you for the challenge I got pulled into the same debate by another contender. Here is my proposition specifically. A 30 foot wall made of concrete with a Iron wall in between then another layer of concrete. A 50 foot gap between the complete different wall that is exactly the same.The top of the fences are laced with 3 feet of condense barbed wire. A tower 10 feet higher than the wall every 50 yards on each wall with one or two snipers counting on area. The openings that are already in existence will be added on to but kept. Reasons for fence: P1 - You stop all illegal immigrants coming from Central and South America. Also stopping drugs. P2 - Defense against an army P3 - Jobs P1: It will be similar to that of the Berlin Wall. The Berlin wall had great success. Not many but for sure less than right now people will escape into America. Also it will decrease drug traffic because the openings are already hard to smuggle and with the new wall, more security. P2: If for any reason any army from anywhere south of the boarder unless it was another outer Continental force that already invaded Central or South America it would have a harder time getting into America compared to right now. P3: You need men to build this wall, the wall is an amazing project to jump start the economy. It takes many men to build such an epic wall many jobs will be given to the unemployed and young. It will also boost the southern economy on young men taking their families there to live while he works. Just like FDR made men build bridges and dams the wall is the next great project.Besides the builders look at upper on patrol and snipers getting jobs as well. I look forward to your argument.

CountCheechula

Thank you for the challenge I got pulled into the same debate by another contender. Here is my proposition specifically. A 30 foot wall made of concrete with a Iron wall in between then another layer of concrete. A 50 foot gap between the complete different wall that is exactly the same.The top of the fences are laced with 3 feet of condense barbed wire. A tower 10 feet higher than the wall every 50 yards on each wall with one or two snipers counting on area. The openings that are already in existence will be added on to but kept. Reasons for fence: P1 - You stop all illegal immigrants coming from Central and South America. Also stopping drugs. P2 - Defense against an army P3 - Jobs P1: It will be similar to that of the Berlin Wall. The Berlin wall had great success. Not many but for sure less than right now people will escape into America. Also it will decrease drug traffic because the openings are already hard to smuggle and with the new wall, more security. P2: If for any reason any army from anywhere south of the boarder unless it was another outer Continental force that already invaded Central or South America it would have a harder time getting into America compared to right now. P3: You need men to build this wall, the wall is an amazing project to jump start the economy. It takes many men to build such an epic wall many jobs will be given to the unemployed and young. It will also boost the southern economy on young men taking their families there to live while he works. Just like FDR made men build bridges and dams the wall is the next great project.Besides the builders look at upper on patrol and snipers getting jobs as well. I look forward to your argument.

Politics

A-border-fence-is-needed-along-America-and-Mexico./2/

I will choose to avoid the attacks for now., and move onto future arguments. I will have some form of mass rebuttal within the given 5 rounds. The wall satisfies all. Countries in Central America want a strong powerful government, compared to cartel anarchy. We as Americans would want to support a very Democratic-Humantarian cause. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We like puppet government and no horrible drugs Crack, Cocaine, Heroin, DMT, Salvia, and all forms of meth. The public and the officials in our Government want these things. The wall is "Oh! Thank God we had that!" type of project. Imagine in the future lets say 200-300 years. All of South America untie to fight America. By then we would add on to the wall since, but this is the cornerstone... We have governments, backed by the UN. Cartel controlled areas don't count. A common cause. Defense. The Chinese never really stopped the Mongols. Maybe some walls only went 500 feet. But we learn from history, we surpass it. The wall is built from the edge of California to the Texas Tip. The river we can give the majority of Mexico because well Rio Grande! Unless tunnels are used, which hardly any work/end up collapsing. We have TV shows about it. It is gross propaganda and fear, tactics of conservatives. Thank myself for reminding myself! This would be so bi-partisan if all of other aspects fall into place. We will have more crossing and crossings than ever. I never specified the distances and measurements exactly. Adding 15 new borders, for more looser traffic and more security officers. Also remember the Towers. We have 1989 thousand miles of borders. we will add roughly 14 new crossings. Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and thee American governments are happy. Happiness equals peace. Source: COMMON SENSE Jamaica and other small Caribbean Island nations will lose out they might inherit more children refugees. But the power and complaints too stack high enough on the one world government. UN and BRICS don't care, it is not the 1770's anymore. Greatest Defense System ever. I suppose a scenario: BRICS nations are about to launch a global bank. The Bank will make up of Chinese currency. Not the US dollar. Look this is crazy to think. Not just arming America most the planet. No time in history of humans, have two major banks both globally and not at the same time. This will cause chaos. The stock market will crash massively. Chaos will erupt. America and NATO nations might attack BRICS = Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa. Notice the first? Brazil they have many allies like Argentina, Columbia, Cuba, Venezuela. And even huge sway on Mexico. A war breaks out and if WW3 did go down. The world may establish a no nuke war because of immortality and innocents. A mass ground offensive from South America gets stopped by the wall. Thank you

CountCheechula

I will choose to avoid the attacks for now., and move onto future arguments. I will have some form of mass rebuttal within the given 5 rounds. The wall satisfies all. Countries in Central America want a strong powerful government, compared to cartel anarchy. We as Americans would want to support a very Democratic-Humantarian cause. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We like puppet government and no horrible drugs Crack, Cocaine, Heroin, DMT, Salvia, and all forms of meth. The public and the officials in our Government want these things. The wall is "Oh! Thank God we had that!" type of project. Imagine in the future lets say 200-300 years. All of South America untie to fight America. By then we would add on to the wall since, but this is the cornerstone... We have governments, backed by the UN. Cartel controlled areas don't count. A common cause. Defense. The Chinese never really stopped the Mongols. Maybe some walls only went 500 feet. But we learn from history, we surpass it. The wall is built from the edge of California to the Texas Tip. The river we can give the majority of Mexico because well Rio Grande! Unless tunnels are used, which hardly any work/end up collapsing. We have TV shows about it. It is gross propaganda and fear, tactics of conservatives. Thank myself for reminding myself! This would be so bi-partisan if all of other aspects fall into place. We will have more crossing and crossings than ever. I never specified the distances and measurements exactly. Adding 15 new borders, for more looser traffic and more security officers. Also remember the Towers. We have 1989 thousand miles of borders. we will add roughly 14 new crossings. Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and thee American governments are happy. Happiness equals peace. Source: COMMON SENSE Jamaica and other small Caribbean Island nations will lose out they might inherit more children refugees. But the power and complaints too stack high enough on the one world government. UN and BRICS don't care, it is not the 1770's anymore. Greatest Defense System ever. I suppose a scenario: BRICS nations are about to launch a global bank. The Bank will make up of Chinese currency. Not the US dollar. Look this is crazy to think. Not just arming America most the planet. No time in history of humans, have two major banks both globally and not at the same time. This will cause chaos. The stock market will crash massively. Chaos will erupt. America and NATO nations might attack BRICS = Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa. Notice the first? Brazil they have many allies like Argentina, Columbia, Cuba, Venezuela. And even huge sway on Mexico. A war breaks out and if WW3 did go down. The world may establish a no nuke war because of immortality and innocents. A mass ground offensive from South America gets stopped by the wall. Thank you

Politics

A-border-fence-is-needed-along-America-and-Mexico./2/

Sorry computer went wacko for some five days, I have also suffered losses in other current debates. I apologize and my punishment will be my record.

CountCheechula

Sorry computer went wacko for some five days, I have also suffered losses in other current debates. I apologize and my punishment will be my record.

Politics

A-border-fence-is-needed-along-America-and-Mexico./2/

Re-Starting this debate; had problems accepting the debate suddenly. So, my first round is acceptance, Pro will start with opening argument. No argument in the last round by Pro to mirror the initial wants of Pro, the initial debate instigator seen here. [1] Good luck to CountCheechula, and may this be a good debate. [1]: <URL>...

jackh4mm3r

Re-Starting this debate; had problems accepting the debate suddenly. So, my first round is acceptance, Pro will start with opening argument. No argument in the last round by Pro to mirror the initial wants of Pro, the initial debate instigator seen here. [1] Good luck to CountCheechula, and may this be a good debate. [1]: http://www.debate.org...

Politics

A-border-fence-is-needed-along-America-and-Mexico./2/

As Pro is the stater of policy, it should be noted that Pro has full BoP in supporting action for a border fence. I now turn to his arguments, broken up in one place to create four arguments: 1. It will decrease illegal immigration by those south of Texas and Arizona. 2. It will decrease the trafficking of illegal substances. 3. Defense against an army. 4. Jobs. I will assume that Pro"s arguments is based on the U.S. Federal Government building this fence, since any individual with the capability and perceived need of two big reinforced slabs with manned sniper nests has likely done so, and most individuals, frankly, don"t have the means to build a fence like that for their own land. I shall address points out of order to hit the weaker points first before moving to the stronger ones. Jobs-"You need men to build this wall, the wall is an amazing project to jump start the economy...and snipers getting jobs as well." This is a fallacious argument because of the nature of government expenditures, which I assume is how this project will be funded. Government first gains revenue by taxation, borrowing money from the private loans market, or by borrowing from the Federal Reserve, essentially creating the money out of thin air. Taxation simply reduces the money the private sector has on hand in favor of the Federal Government; considering that private owners are connected by the price system to make better economic judgements and it will be the most politically connected, rather than most efficient, building teams that get a government contract to build this wall, the taxation method would be inherently wasteful to job growth. In borrowing from the private sector, the government is essentially taking all the money that would have started businesses or expanded them and then coming into the same political problems as taxation. Which leads us to inflation, which will benefit the first receivers (those working on the wall), but will end up hurting the working poor and the retired the most; as the new money goes through the economy, the working poor and retired living on fixed incomes will see less of that new money as prices rise beyond what they own. Pro may claim this to be only a short-run effect, but when that short run effect affects a working couple"s education choices for their children or makes that one operation just to big to justify putting descendants in debt for, there are some really big human consequences. This may not mean the wall is not necessary, but the jobs point is moot considering all the jobs that might have been made in absence of increased spending. War- "If for any reason any army from anywhere south of the boarder unless it was another outer Continental force that already invaded Central or South America it would have a harder time getting into America compared to right now." First, highly unlikely; even Hollywood gives cubans a subsidiary role to a "greater" power in terms of foreign invasions, and the countries south of us are reliant on military aid from the U.S. to hold their regimes against dope-dealers and rebels; the U.S. is already fighting to keep puppets in control south of our border. [1] Second, there is one place this wall is almost certainly not going to be; the cities that serve as checkpoints between Mexico and the U.S. You may, possibly, have made cross-country troop movement through desert wasteland untenable (though that waste makes crossing a fighting force with enough gear to arrive anywhere deep in fighting form pretty hard already), but you have simply made the cities a far greater target; they have roads to other major cities for troop movements, and they have suddenly become the path of least resistance. So, as unlikely as it is to occur in the first place and given the civilian casualties you invite in case of war, this point is moot. So, that leads us to the next argument; Illegal Immigration. What exactly is the problem with illegal immigration? The arguments generally follow one of three points; "they take our jobs" "they just want free stuff" "they will vote for free stuff" Essentially, competition in the labor market, welfare, and they will vote democrat if given amnesty. First, competition in the labor market: So what? Jobs are not a fixed amount forever; jobs are created by production, and more labor means more opportunities for production. Claims abound that employers will skirt not only burdensome labor laws but actually harass the illegal immigrants and threaten turning them over to ICE. However, what group is willing to avoid justice between individuals for sake of documentation? This is a problem the government, the group supposed to be taking action in Pro"s resolution, can resolve! Further, there is the case of welfare, generally in the form of public schools and ER rooms. And who requires that all school-age children, regardless of education, and grants benefits to children of non-taxpayers to go to college, and requires ERs to accept all patients? Again, the group supposedly needing to take action, when the ceasing of action it currently takes would again solve a problem. So, what about the problem of illegals not voting for "traditional American values?" Don"t grant them citizenship! Allow them to work and live, paying for what they use, and you will have more production and real wealth, while not paying "free-loaders" or "fence-hoppers." Essentially, in this area a ceasing of action, rather than the effort of more action, would be more justifiable. However, say this wall is built; what about tunneling? There is incredible problems in policing the border as it is, and illegals have learned many tricks to avoiding detection and getting into the country. How much air-power has to circle into Mexican space to keep tabs on the numerous tunneling attempts, not to mention possible networks? Which brings us to drug smuggling; they would probably be a big funder of tunneling, paying for the tools to make tunneling possible and easier. The demand exists in the U.S. for the supply the cartels provide, and they will be heavily incentivized to get past that wall, whether by ship, balloons (high risk, higher reward), or tunneling. Such a wall would actually make defending the border from cartels even harder. So, by virtue of an economic fallacy concerning jobs, the unlikelihood of war and fact that civilian populations become more prime targets, the fact that most immigration "problems" are either caused by the government or non-existent, and the increased motive for drug cartels to get their product into the States, Pro"s Resolution for building a really large, expensive fence is refuted. I turn this debate back into Pro"s hands. Source: [1] <URL>...

jackh4mm3r

As Pro is the stater of policy, it should be noted that Pro has full BoP in supporting action for a border fence. I now turn to his arguments, broken up in one place to create four arguments: 1. It will decrease illegal immigration by those south of Texas and Arizona. 2. It will decrease the trafficking of illegal substances. 3. Defense against an army. 4. Jobs. I will assume that Pro"s arguments is based on the U.S. Federal Government building this fence, since any individual with the capability and perceived need of two big reinforced slabs with manned sniper nests has likely done so, and most individuals, frankly, don"t have the means to build a fence like that for their own land. I shall address points out of order to hit the weaker points first before moving to the stronger ones. Jobs-"You need men to build this wall, the wall is an amazing project to jump start the economy...and snipers getting jobs as well." This is a fallacious argument because of the nature of government expenditures, which I assume is how this project will be funded. Government first gains revenue by taxation, borrowing money from the private loans market, or by borrowing from the Federal Reserve, essentially creating the money out of thin air. Taxation simply reduces the money the private sector has on hand in favor of the Federal Government; considering that private owners are connected by the price system to make better economic judgements and it will be the most politically connected, rather than most efficient, building teams that get a government contract to build this wall, the taxation method would be inherently wasteful to job growth. In borrowing from the private sector, the government is essentially taking all the money that would have started businesses or expanded them and then coming into the same political problems as taxation. Which leads us to inflation, which will benefit the first receivers (those working on the wall), but will end up hurting the working poor and the retired the most; as the new money goes through the economy, the working poor and retired living on fixed incomes will see less of that new money as prices rise beyond what they own. Pro may claim this to be only a short-run effect, but when that short run effect affects a working couple"s education choices for their children or makes that one operation just to big to justify putting descendants in debt for, there are some really big human consequences. This may not mean the wall is not necessary, but the jobs point is moot considering all the jobs that might have been made in absence of increased spending. War- "If for any reason any army from anywhere south of the boarder unless it was another outer Continental force that already invaded Central or South America it would have a harder time getting into America compared to right now." First, highly unlikely; even Hollywood gives cubans a subsidiary role to a "greater" power in terms of foreign invasions, and the countries south of us are reliant on military aid from the U.S. to hold their regimes against dope-dealers and rebels; the U.S. is already fighting to keep puppets in control south of our border. [1] Second, there is one place this wall is almost certainly not going to be; the cities that serve as checkpoints between Mexico and the U.S. You may, possibly, have made cross-country troop movement through desert wasteland untenable (though that waste makes crossing a fighting force with enough gear to arrive anywhere deep in fighting form pretty hard already), but you have simply made the cities a far greater target; they have roads to other major cities for troop movements, and they have suddenly become the path of least resistance. So, as unlikely as it is to occur in the first place and given the civilian casualties you invite in case of war, this point is moot. So, that leads us to the next argument; Illegal Immigration. What exactly is the problem with illegal immigration? The arguments generally follow one of three points; "they take our jobs" "they just want free stuff" "they will vote for free stuff" Essentially, competition in the labor market, welfare, and they will vote democrat if given amnesty. First, competition in the labor market: So what? Jobs are not a fixed amount forever; jobs are created by production, and more labor means more opportunities for production. Claims abound that employers will skirt not only burdensome labor laws but actually harass the illegal immigrants and threaten turning them over to ICE. However, what group is willing to avoid justice between individuals for sake of documentation? This is a problem the government, the group supposed to be taking action in Pro"s resolution, can resolve! Further, there is the case of welfare, generally in the form of public schools and ER rooms. And who requires that all school-age children, regardless of education, and grants benefits to children of non-taxpayers to go to college, and requires ERs to accept all patients? Again, the group supposedly needing to take action, when the ceasing of action it currently takes would again solve a problem. So, what about the problem of illegals not voting for "traditional American values?" Don"t grant them citizenship! Allow them to work and live, paying for what they use, and you will have more production and real wealth, while not paying "free-loaders" or "fence-hoppers." Essentially, in this area a ceasing of action, rather than the effort of more action, would be more justifiable. However, say this wall is built; what about tunneling? There is incredible problems in policing the border as it is, and illegals have learned many tricks to avoiding detection and getting into the country. How much air-power has to circle into Mexican space to keep tabs on the numerous tunneling attempts, not to mention possible networks? Which brings us to drug smuggling; they would probably be a big funder of tunneling, paying for the tools to make tunneling possible and easier. The demand exists in the U.S. for the supply the cartels provide, and they will be heavily incentivized to get past that wall, whether by ship, balloons (high risk, higher reward), or tunneling. Such a wall would actually make defending the border from cartels even harder. So, by virtue of an economic fallacy concerning jobs, the unlikelihood of war and fact that civilian populations become more prime targets, the fact that most immigration "problems" are either caused by the government or non-existent, and the increased motive for drug cartels to get their product into the States, Pro"s Resolution for building a really large, expensive fence is refuted. I turn this debate back into Pro"s hands. Source: [1] http://www.tni.org...

Politics

A-border-fence-is-needed-along-America-and-Mexico./2/

Thank you for your response, Pro. The short nature of it allowed me to copy your entire argument and refute it point by point. Pro's arguments are in quotation marks. "I will choose to avoid the attacks for now., and move onto future arguments. I will have some form of mass rebuttal within the given 5 rounds." So, essentially, all my points up until now have been dropped for the time being. That"s okay, Pro only has two of those rounds left, lest one wants to ignore the "no last round" provision to make this like the original debate. "The wall satisfies all. Countries in Central America want a strong powerful government, compared to cartel anarchy. We as Americans would want to support a very Democratic-Humantarian cause. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We like puppet government and no horrible drugs Crack, Cocaine, Heroin, DMT, Salvia, and all forms of meth. The public and the officials in our Government want these things. The wall is "Oh! Thank God we had that!" type of project. Imagine in the future lets say 200-300 years. All of South America untie to fight America. By then we would add on to the wall since, but this is the cornerstone..." Only point relevant to the debate: A wall helps with defense. Currently still refuted. As for "adding on to the wall," adding on what? If it"s a really good wall, then how much defense is needed to man the walls properly; tunneling can be used, artillery can be used, grappling devices can be used along all points of the fence, not to mention air-power and naval support. That is of course if such groups would have gone Pro's border route anyways; if the southern countries were to ban together and attack, the Panama isthmus would be the first priority, followed by any shore east or west of the wall that is less defended. The wall, framed in these purely defensive arguments, doesn"t account for the most likely means that a south-american coalition could conceivably win with traditional forces. "We have governments, backed by the UN. Cartel controlled areas don't count. A common cause. Defense." You don"t stop drug cartels with a wall, and you seem to have U.N. nations going to war with U.N. member states; am I missing something here? "The Chinese never really stopped the Mongols. Maybe some walls only went 500 feet. But we learn from history, we surpass it. The wall is built from the edge of California to the Texas Tip. The river we can give the majority of Mexico because well Rio Grande! Unless tunnels are used, which hardly any work/end up collapsing. We have TV shows about it. It is gross propaganda and fear, tactics of conservatives." So, because tunnels are useless now, they can never be useful once the cartels want to have another avenue for smuggling? And they are not useless; they are used now in greater degrees of sturdiness, etc. for smuggling drugs [1]. The wall will eventually be passed over. Further, while the costs of tunneling are prohibitive now, they are more favorable if a wall is built; in such tunnels, depots for water could be maintained. In truth, a real invasion force would set itself up from a cornerstone tunnel system. "Thank myself for reminding myself! This would be so bi-partisan if all of other aspects fall into place. We will have more crossing and crossings than ever. I never specified the distances and measurements exactly. Adding 15 new borders, for more looser traffic and more security officers. Also remember the Towers." So now we are going with a resolution of 15 more borders? They have the same problem, and unless Pro (the one with the Burden of Proof) will state otherwise, having fourteen gates all at the border will be more burdensome to maintain than it will be for all the people that profit from bypassing them. "We have 1989 thousand miles of borders. we will add roughly 14 new crossings. Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and thee American governments are happy. Happiness equals peace. Source: COMMON SENSE Jamaica and other small Caribbean Island nations will lose out they might inherit more children refugees. But the power and complaints too stack high enough on the one world government. UN and BRICS don't care, it is not the 1770's anymore." First, since Pro is not in danger of using his character maximum; I request that a little more clarity be used in the fomentation of arguments. Second, happy government"s does not equal peace; 7 tyrannies constantly at war with their own people but not each other is still 7 states involved in great degrees of violence. A wall, in this case, keeps people from escaping tyranny; this argument of the wall bringing peace is odd. It ignores completely all views of international relations existing today; the realist vision would have power games being the ultimate decider, making the cost of a wall a big detriment in keeping power with the other States. The liberal vision encourages free trade; a wall will make trading more difficult. "Greatest Defense System ever. I suppose a scenario: BRICS nations are about to launch a global bank. The Bank will make up of Chinese currency. Not the US dollar. Look this is crazy to think. Not just arming America most the planet. No time in history of humans, have two major banks both globally and not at the same time. This will cause chaos. The stock market will crash massively." Most of the big crashes following the U.S. housing bust occurred because of the tie to the U.S. dollar; a tie to Chinese currency may well help to stabilize the world in the face of a U.S. recession, especially when considering that the U.S. may well bankrupt itself from the creation of this very wall. "Chaos will erupt. America and NATO nations might attack BRICS = Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa. Notice the first? Brazil they have many allies like Argentina, Columbia, Cuba, Venezuela. And even huge sway on Mexico. A war breaks out and if WW3 did go down. The world may establish a no nuke war because of immortality and innocents. A mass ground offensive from South America gets stopped by the wall." However the Isthmus of Panama is taken, the U.S. navy is divided, troops across the ocean have difficulty being moved back home, and the U.S. land offensive into South America is greatly hindered by the wall before the jungle environment comes to the South"s reprieve and preferred place of engaging the enemy. It is so good that the U.S. nearly bankrupted itself building this wall. "Thank you" And thank you, Pro. I look forward to a refutation of points I have made outside of defense. [1] <URL>...

jackh4mm3r

Thank you for your response, Pro. The short nature of it allowed me to copy your entire argument and refute it point by point. Pro's arguments are in quotation marks. "I will choose to avoid the attacks for now., and move onto future arguments. I will have some form of mass rebuttal within the given 5 rounds." So, essentially, all my points up until now have been dropped for the time being. That"s okay, Pro only has two of those rounds left, lest one wants to ignore the "no last round" provision to make this like the original debate. "The wall satisfies all. Countries in Central America want a strong powerful government, compared to cartel anarchy. We as Americans would want to support a very Democratic-Humantarian cause. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We like puppet government and no horrible drugs Crack, Cocaine, Heroin, DMT, Salvia, and all forms of meth. The public and the officials in our Government want these things. The wall is "Oh! Thank God we had that!" type of project. Imagine in the future lets say 200-300 years. All of South America untie to fight America. By then we would add on to the wall since, but this is the cornerstone..." Only point relevant to the debate: A wall helps with defense. Currently still refuted. As for "adding on to the wall," adding on what? If it"s a really good wall, then how much defense is needed to man the walls properly; tunneling can be used, artillery can be used, grappling devices can be used along all points of the fence, not to mention air-power and naval support. That is of course if such groups would have gone Pro's border route anyways; if the southern countries were to ban together and attack, the Panama isthmus would be the first priority, followed by any shore east or west of the wall that is less defended. The wall, framed in these purely defensive arguments, doesn"t account for the most likely means that a south-american coalition could conceivably win with traditional forces. "We have governments, backed by the UN. Cartel controlled areas don't count. A common cause. Defense." You don"t stop drug cartels with a wall, and you seem to have U.N. nations going to war with U.N. member states; am I missing something here? "The Chinese never really stopped the Mongols. Maybe some walls only went 500 feet. But we learn from history, we surpass it. The wall is built from the edge of California to the Texas Tip. The river we can give the majority of Mexico because well Rio Grande! Unless tunnels are used, which hardly any work/end up collapsing. We have TV shows about it. It is gross propaganda and fear, tactics of conservatives." So, because tunnels are useless now, they can never be useful once the cartels want to have another avenue for smuggling? And they are not useless; they are used now in greater degrees of sturdiness, etc. for smuggling drugs [1]. The wall will eventually be passed over. Further, while the costs of tunneling are prohibitive now, they are more favorable if a wall is built; in such tunnels, depots for water could be maintained. In truth, a real invasion force would set itself up from a cornerstone tunnel system. "Thank myself for reminding myself! This would be so bi-partisan if all of other aspects fall into place. We will have more crossing and crossings than ever. I never specified the distances and measurements exactly. Adding 15 new borders, for more looser traffic and more security officers. Also remember the Towers." So now we are going with a resolution of 15 more borders? They have the same problem, and unless Pro (the one with the Burden of Proof) will state otherwise, having fourteen gates all at the border will be more burdensome to maintain than it will be for all the people that profit from bypassing them. "We have 1989 thousand miles of borders. we will add roughly 14 new crossings. Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and thee American governments are happy. Happiness equals peace. Source: COMMON SENSE Jamaica and other small Caribbean Island nations will lose out they might inherit more children refugees. But the power and complaints too stack high enough on the one world government. UN and BRICS don't care, it is not the 1770's anymore." First, since Pro is not in danger of using his character maximum; I request that a little more clarity be used in the fomentation of arguments. Second, happy government"s does not equal peace; 7 tyrannies constantly at war with their own people but not each other is still 7 states involved in great degrees of violence. A wall, in this case, keeps people from escaping tyranny; this argument of the wall bringing peace is odd. It ignores completely all views of international relations existing today; the realist vision would have power games being the ultimate decider, making the cost of a wall a big detriment in keeping power with the other States. The liberal vision encourages free trade; a wall will make trading more difficult. "Greatest Defense System ever. I suppose a scenario: BRICS nations are about to launch a global bank. The Bank will make up of Chinese currency. Not the US dollar. Look this is crazy to think. Not just arming America most the planet. No time in history of humans, have two major banks both globally and not at the same time. This will cause chaos. The stock market will crash massively." Most of the big crashes following the U.S. housing bust occurred because of the tie to the U.S. dollar; a tie to Chinese currency may well help to stabilize the world in the face of a U.S. recession, especially when considering that the U.S. may well bankrupt itself from the creation of this very wall. "Chaos will erupt. America and NATO nations might attack BRICS = Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa. Notice the first? Brazil they have many allies like Argentina, Columbia, Cuba, Venezuela. And even huge sway on Mexico. A war breaks out and if WW3 did go down. The world may establish a no nuke war because of immortality and innocents. A mass ground offensive from South America gets stopped by the wall." However the Isthmus of Panama is taken, the U.S. navy is divided, troops across the ocean have difficulty being moved back home, and the U.S. land offensive into South America is greatly hindered by the wall before the jungle environment comes to the South"s reprieve and preferred place of engaging the enemy. It is so good that the U.S. nearly bankrupted itself building this wall. "Thank you" And thank you, Pro. I look forward to a refutation of points I have made outside of defense. [1] https://www.youtube.com...

Politics

A-border-fence-is-needed-along-America-and-Mexico./2/

I shall extend arguments as we move on to our final round of debate.

jackh4mm3r

I shall extend arguments as we move on to our final round of debate.

Politics

A-border-fence-is-needed-along-America-and-Mexico./2/

Arguments extended. Please note that, according to the rules set forth in round 1, this debate is over. Awaiting a "no round as agreed" or the time limit to enter the voting period.

jackh4mm3r

Arguments extended. Please note that, according to the rules set forth in round 1, this debate is over. Awaiting a "no round as agreed" or the time limit to enter the voting period.

Politics

A-border-fence-is-needed-along-America-and-Mexico./2/

I thank my opponent for providing an interesting debate topic, and I look forward to a pleasant (if odd) debate. Let's get the definitions out of the way. DEFINITIONS ========= <URL>... Weapon - A means used to defend against or defeat another <URL>... Worst - Most inferior, as in quality, condition, or effect. <URL>... Zombie - A supernatural spirit that reanimates a dead body <URL>... Apocalypse - An event of great importance, violence, etc BURDEN OF PROOF ============ As Con, my burden of proof is to provide at least one (1) weapon that is worse overall (in terms of strength, speed, accuracy, usage, etc.) in case of a zombie apocalypse. As Pro, my opponent's burden of proof is to prove that a chainsaw is the worst weapon overall (in terms of strength, speed, accuracy, usage, etc.) in case of a zombie apocalypse. CONTENTIONS ======== My opponent has named some qualities of a chainsaw that would prove to be ineffective at holding back a zombie horde. However, I will contend his points 1, 2 & 4. I will deal with 1 & 2 as a single point, as they are effectively the same thing. 1& 2) 'It is too heavy/difficult for an average person to lift & use.' My opponent's argument is that in all actuality, a chainsaw would prove too heavy for a normal person to safely/easily lift in order to defend oneself. However, he has not provided the average weight of a chainsaw to prove this claim, nor has he provided any information regarding how much an average person can lift comfortably. Also, my opponent forgets that in times of great distress, a human receives an 'energy boost', as it were, from his/her body in the form of adrenaline, which is a hormone secreted by the adrenal gland. This adrenaline rushes to the heart, and speeds the rate of breathing. This allows for more oxygen intake, and the heart starts to work faster. This provides for more energy available at one's disposal. I would certainly think that this is valid because for most, if not all, people a zombie apocalypse is definitely a reason for great distress, thus enabling the 'energy boost,' and therefore letting the person lift up said chainsaw much more easier than my opponent would like the audience to think. (1) 4) 'Only one or two kills can be performed.' My opponent's argument here is that the chainsaw's blade may become stuck in the innards of a zombie, and this would force you to abandon it. His reason for this is that the chainsaw's blades are jagged, and therefore easier to get caught in some zombie's body. My opponent fails to note that the chainsaw is moving at a very rapid speed, and thus is highly unlikely to get caught in a body. Not only that, but the rest of his claim is based on conjecture, and is not supported on any true facts. As for now, I do believe I have made most of my opponent's claims invalid. WEAPONS OF CHOICE ============== As for this round, I shall choose three different weapons. The first, a pair of scissors. The second, 5 micro moles of water contained in a very small, fragile, plastic pipette capable of holding 6 micro moles of liquid. The third, a golf ball. My opponent has not set up any requirements or restrictions for the weapons of choice, so my picks are acceptable. ARGUMENTS ======== My first set of arguments will deal with my first choice, a pair of scissors. 1a) Too weak. A pair of scissors would not have much destructive capabilities. To 'kill' any zombies, my pair of scissors must do something seriously fatal, like breaking through the strong skull of a human to destroy the brain, which is the traditional method of death. I assume that in a zombie, blood is not flowing, and the only thing compelling the corpse to move is to destroy its brain. However, a pair of scissors would not be able to generate the force necessary to kill zombies. Even if it did, I could argue that my opponent's choice, a chainsaw, would be able to do much more. 1b) No reach. With a pair of scissors, I would not be able to kill any zombies possible without getting my limbs devoured. Since a pair of scissors requires one to get in arm's reach of a zombie, where they could easily pull me in and eat me, it is not a very good weapon. 1c) Not able to kill anything else in any form. Scissors would not be able to do anything than allow the user to attempt to destroy the brain, and for reasons already given, this would not work, as I'd either be devoured before I got the chance, or I wouldn't be able to penetrate and destroy the brain. Scissors can not help me do a thing. My second set of arguments will deal with my incredibly fragile, small, plastic pipette containing of 5 micro moles of liquid water. 2) I can't possibly do anything with it! That's just it, point-blank. I can't use it. At all. It has no sharpness, no dangerous components, nothing. I could try and make a zombie choke on it, but two things are wrong with that. 1) It is so small it can't choke anything. 2) I would have no weapon left. I think I have adequately shown why an incredibly fragile, small, plastic pipette containing of 5 micro moles of liquid water is much worse than a chainsaw at slaughtering zombies. And now, onto my final item, a golf ball. 3) Destructive abilities are pitifully low. The best thing I could do with it would be to chuck it REALLY hard at a zombie and hope it somehow builds up enough force to penetrate the brain of the blasted thing, and still retain enough force to burst out of the other end of it. Obviously, a throw from an average person, even at their hardest, couldn't build up enough strength for that, including the adrenalin boost. I thank my opponent for an interesting and slightly humorous debate topic, and I give the floor to him.

Atheism

I thank my opponent for providing an interesting debate topic, and I look forward to a pleasant (if odd) debate. Let's get the definitions out of the way. DEFINITIONS ========= http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Weapon - A means used to defend against or defeat another http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Worst - Most inferior, as in quality, condition, or effect. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Zombie - A supernatural spirit that reanimates a dead body http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Apocalypse - An event of great importance, violence, etc BURDEN OF PROOF ============ As Con, my burden of proof is to provide at least one (1) weapon that is worse overall (in terms of strength, speed, accuracy, usage, etc.) in case of a zombie apocalypse. As Pro, my opponent's burden of proof is to prove that a chainsaw is the worst weapon overall (in terms of strength, speed, accuracy, usage, etc.) in case of a zombie apocalypse. CONTENTIONS ======== My opponent has named some qualities of a chainsaw that would prove to be ineffective at holding back a zombie horde. However, I will contend his points 1, 2 & 4. I will deal with 1 & 2 as a single point, as they are effectively the same thing. 1& 2) 'It is too heavy/difficult for an average person to lift & use.' My opponent's argument is that in all actuality, a chainsaw would prove too heavy for a normal person to safely/easily lift in order to defend oneself. However, he has not provided the average weight of a chainsaw to prove this claim, nor has he provided any information regarding how much an average person can lift comfortably. Also, my opponent forgets that in times of great distress, a human receives an 'energy boost', as it were, from his/her body in the form of adrenaline, which is a hormone secreted by the adrenal gland. This adrenaline rushes to the heart, and speeds the rate of breathing. This allows for more oxygen intake, and the heart starts to work faster. This provides for more energy available at one's disposal. I would certainly think that this is valid because for most, if not all, people a zombie apocalypse is definitely a reason for great distress, thus enabling the 'energy boost,' and therefore letting the person lift up said chainsaw much more easier than my opponent would like the audience to think. (1) 4) 'Only one or two kills can be performed.' My opponent's argument here is that the chainsaw's blade may become stuck in the innards of a zombie, and this would force you to abandon it. His reason for this is that the chainsaw's blades are jagged, and therefore easier to get caught in some zombie's body. My opponent fails to note that the chainsaw is moving at a very rapid speed, and thus is highly unlikely to get caught in a body. Not only that, but the rest of his claim is based on conjecture, and is not supported on any true facts. As for now, I do believe I have made most of my opponent's claims invalid. WEAPONS OF CHOICE ============== As for this round, I shall choose three different weapons. The first, a pair of scissors. The second, 5 micro moles of water contained in a very small, fragile, plastic pipette capable of holding 6 micro moles of liquid. The third, a golf ball. My opponent has not set up any requirements or restrictions for the weapons of choice, so my picks are acceptable. ARGUMENTS ======== My first set of arguments will deal with my first choice, a pair of scissors. 1a) Too weak. A pair of scissors would not have much destructive capabilities. To 'kill' any zombies, my pair of scissors must do something seriously fatal, like breaking through the strong skull of a human to destroy the brain, which is the traditional method of death. I assume that in a zombie, blood is not flowing, and the only thing compelling the corpse to move is to destroy its brain. However, a pair of scissors would not be able to generate the force necessary to kill zombies. Even if it did, I could argue that my opponent's choice, a chainsaw, would be able to do much more. 1b) No reach. With a pair of scissors, I would not be able to kill any zombies possible without getting my limbs devoured. Since a pair of scissors requires one to get in arm's reach of a zombie, where they could easily pull me in and eat me, it is not a very good weapon. 1c) Not able to kill anything else in any form. Scissors would not be able to do anything than allow the user to attempt to destroy the brain, and for reasons already given, this would not work, as I'd either be devoured before I got the chance, or I wouldn't be able to penetrate and destroy the brain. Scissors can not help me do a thing. My second set of arguments will deal with my incredibly fragile, small, plastic pipette containing of 5 micro moles of liquid water. 2) I can't possibly do anything with it! That's just it, point-blank. I can't use it. At all. It has no sharpness, no dangerous components, nothing. I could try and make a zombie choke on it, but two things are wrong with that. 1) It is so small it can't choke anything. 2) I would have no weapon left. I think I have adequately shown why an incredibly fragile, small, plastic pipette containing of 5 micro moles of liquid water is much worse than a chainsaw at slaughtering zombies. And now, onto my final item, a golf ball. 3) Destructive abilities are pitifully low. The best thing I could do with it would be to chuck it REALLY hard at a zombie and hope it somehow builds up enough force to penetrate the brain of the blasted thing, and still retain enough force to burst out of the other end of it. Obviously, a throw from an average person, even at their hardest, couldn't build up enough strength for that, including the adrenalin boost. I thank my opponent for an interesting and slightly humorous debate topic, and I give the floor to him.

Miscellaneous

A-chainsaw-is-the-worst-weapon-in-a-zombie-apocalypse/1/

I thank my opponent for her argument, and her dedication to the debate even though she did not define it to her liking. Onto her arguments. 1)Scissors rebuttal. //I will support this with first instinct. When you are stuck between a rock and a hard place (or in this case, a hoard of zombies), you wouldn't go out in your garage and start up the chainsaw, which will only give more time for the undead to reach you// This debate is not, was not, and will never be about the forethought or realistically of said weapon chosen, so my opponent's argument is invalid. We are discussing which is worse, my weapons, or the chainsaw. The fact that we would not likely use these weapons does NOT come into play here. If it did, my opponent should have specified. She did not. //No, you may as well get a pair of scissors that are lying around. It's sharp, and you cannot exactly process any information about it when you are trying to save yourself and possibly the people around you.// My opponent's sole argument saying that a pair of scissors is better than a chainsaw rests on these two assumptions. 1) It is sharp. I won't contend this, but I will say that a chainsaw, even with the rotary blades not power up, still is incredibly sharp, sharper than a pair of scissors, anyways. 2)You can kill at least one or two zombies with it. She makes this claim despite the fact that I posited you would DIE while trying to kill a zombie. I also made an argument saying that a pair of scissors, in the hands of a normal human, would not be able to penetrate a zombie's skull, and destroy the brain. She has not rebutted this. Also, please take note that a chainsaw would be able to kill the same amount of zombies a pair of scissors would, if not more, with less risk to the user, because it gives more reach. 2) Incredibly fragile, small, plastic pipette containing of 5 micro moles of liquid water rebuttal. //First of all, it might as well be an empty cup since you might need to be hydrated when you are on the run.// But it is not. It is a tiny plastic pipette with 5 micro moles of liquid water. Not an empty cup. This invalidates the rest of your arguments concerning this, but I'll rebut them anyways. //Although small and practically useless, it can simply be used as a distraction. // We are talking about the worst weapon in the world, not the worst distraction. //When a zombie is about to feast on your team mate,/ / When did teammates ever come into play? You should've specified this. //you can simply toss the cup against the zombie's head and possibly distract it.// Do you have any proof regarding this? I would think, given that the zombie is practically dead, and it's nerve endings are destroyed, it would not feel a tiny pipette bouncing of its head. //But there is one question: Why? Why would someone get a plastic cup when there are warnings of a zombie uprising?// We are not talking whether the items in question are realistic or not. We are discussing if they would be effective in combat against a zombie horde. 3) Golf ball rebuttal //The golf ball can be used similarly, as a distraction, but if you are an experienced golf player, you can use a golf club (I suppose they should be nearby) and send the ball flying into a zombie's head. But you can also take the golf club itself instead of a golf ball which may be a bit more useful.// That would be all fine and dandy if we were talking about a golf ball AND gold club. But we are only talking about a golf club. Argument negated. My opponent has not offered once piece of evidence showing that her weapon is worse than mine. I have shown time and again why my choice of weapons are terrible to use. I think it is clear who is winning. Vote Con.

Atheism

I thank my opponent for her argument, and her dedication to the debate even though she did not define it to her liking. Onto her arguments. 1)Scissors rebuttal. //I will support this with first instinct. When you are stuck between a rock and a hard place (or in this case, a hoard of zombies), you wouldn't go out in your garage and start up the chainsaw, which will only give more time for the undead to reach you// This debate is not, was not, and will never be about the forethought or realistically of said weapon chosen, so my opponent's argument is invalid. We are discussing which is worse, my weapons, or the chainsaw. The fact that we would not likely use these weapons does NOT come into play here. If it did, my opponent should have specified. She did not. //No, you may as well get a pair of scissors that are lying around. It's sharp, and you cannot exactly process any information about it when you are trying to save yourself and possibly the people around you.// My opponent's sole argument saying that a pair of scissors is better than a chainsaw rests on these two assumptions. 1) It is sharp. I won't contend this, but I will say that a chainsaw, even with the rotary blades not power up, still is incredibly sharp, sharper than a pair of scissors, anyways. 2)You can kill at least one or two zombies with it. She makes this claim despite the fact that I posited you would DIE while trying to kill a zombie. I also made an argument saying that a pair of scissors, in the hands of a normal human, would not be able to penetrate a zombie's skull, and destroy the brain. She has not rebutted this. Also, please take note that a chainsaw would be able to kill the same amount of zombies a pair of scissors would, if not more, with less risk to the user, because it gives more reach. 2) Incredibly fragile, small, plastic pipette containing of 5 micro moles of liquid water rebuttal. //First of all, it might as well be an empty cup since you might need to be hydrated when you are on the run.// But it is not. It is a tiny plastic pipette with 5 micro moles of liquid water. Not an empty cup. This invalidates the rest of your arguments concerning this, but I'll rebut them anyways. //Although small and practically useless, it can simply be used as a distraction. // We are talking about the worst weapon in the world, not the worst distraction. //When a zombie is about to feast on your team mate,/ / When did teammates ever come into play? You should've specified this. //you can simply toss the cup against the zombie's head and possibly distract it.// Do you have any proof regarding this? I would think, given that the zombie is practically dead, and it's nerve endings are destroyed, it would not feel a tiny pipette bouncing of its head. //But there is one question: Why? Why would someone get a plastic cup when there are warnings of a zombie uprising?// We are not talking whether the items in question are realistic or not. We are discussing if they would be effective in combat against a zombie horde. 3) Golf ball rebuttal //The golf ball can be used similarly, as a distraction, but if you are an experienced golf player, you can use a golf club (I suppose they should be nearby) and send the ball flying into a zombie's head. But you can also take the golf club itself instead of a golf ball which may be a bit more useful.// That would be all fine and dandy if we were talking about a golf ball AND gold club. But we are only talking about a golf club. Argument negated. My opponent has not offered once piece of evidence showing that her weapon is worse than mine. I have shown time and again why my choice of weapons are terrible to use. I think it is clear who is winning. Vote Con.

Miscellaneous

A-chainsaw-is-the-worst-weapon-in-a-zombie-apocalypse/1/

Fortunately, for me and my opponent, she has now realized the futility of her arguments regarding this subject. That, or she couldn't post her argument in time. I'd like to think it was the former. I thank the voters for reading this one-sided debate. Vote Con.

Atheism

Fortunately, for me and my opponent, she has now realized the futility of her arguments regarding this subject. That, or she couldn't post her argument in time. I'd like to think it was the former. I thank the voters for reading this one-sided debate. Vote Con.

Miscellaneous

A-chainsaw-is-the-worst-weapon-in-a-zombie-apocalypse/1/

The chainsaw has been used widely in zombie movies, video games, etc. However, as proved in The Zombie Survival Guide, the chainsaw is one of the worst weapons to use. 1. It is heavyweight. It is exaggerated how a normal person can possibly lift this weapon above their head and use it with ease to slice through a zombie. The people that normally use it are extremely muscular and the people that don't have difficulties welding it. 2. It is cumbersome. Why carry around a chainsaw when you can carry that ax and (loaded)pistol you saw a while back? The truth about its weight is that it is difficult to carry to and fro. It will either have to be carried by a strong member or in a vehicle that can support its weight. 3. It uses fuel. The truth is, that fuel you just poured into your chainsaw perhaps had caused you your life. You will also have to carry that fuel tank will you along with the chainsaw while you are running from a hoard of zombies. 4. Only one or two kills can be performed. The blade, much like the one of a jagged blade, may get jammed into the body of a zombie, causing you to abandon it and get killed. The blade may also become filled with the organs and blood, rendering it useless. This is my first debate. Who will challenge me? Enjoy.

NeverWakeUp

The chainsaw has been used widely in zombie movies, video games, etc. However, as proved in The Zombie Survival Guide, the chainsaw is one of the worst weapons to use. 1. It is heavyweight. It is exaggerated how a normal person can possibly lift this weapon above their head and use it with ease to slice through a zombie. The people that normally use it are extremely muscular and the people that don't have difficulties welding it. 2. It is cumbersome. Why carry around a chainsaw when you can carry that ax and (loaded)pistol you saw a while back? The truth about its weight is that it is difficult to carry to and fro. It will either have to be carried by a strong member or in a vehicle that can support its weight. 3. It uses fuel. The truth is, that fuel you just poured into your chainsaw perhaps had caused you your life. You will also have to carry that fuel tank will you along with the chainsaw while you are running from a hoard of zombies. 4. Only one or two kills can be performed. The blade, much like the one of a jagged blade, may get jammed into the body of a zombie, causing you to abandon it and get killed. The blade may also become filled with the organs and blood, rendering it useless. This is my first debate. Who will challenge me? Enjoy.

Miscellaneous

A-chainsaw-is-the-worst-weapon-in-a-zombie-apocalypse/1/

Thank you for replying to my debate. First of all, I'm afraid I was mistaken in my argument. What I meant to say was that a chainsaw is a terrible weapon, not that there was a weapon worse than it. But I will still try to continue this debate despite my faults. I will support this with first instinct. When you are stuck between a rock and a hard place (or in this case, a hoard of zombies), you wouldn't go out in your garage and start up the chainsaw, which will only give more time for the undead to reach you. No, you may as well get a pair of scissors that are lying around. It's sharp, and you cannot exactly process any information about it when you are trying to save yourself and possibly the people around you. Though this may lead to certain death from a hoard, you may only need to kill one or two zombies by sticking the blade straight through the eye and into the brain itself, so it can in fact kill a zombie. The second set of arguments I find to be very unique. First of all, it might as well be an empty cup since you might need to be hydrated when you are on the run. Although small and practically useless, it can simply be used as a distraction. When a zombie is about to feast on your team mate, you can simply toss the cup against the zombie's head and possibly distract it. But there is one question: Why? Why would someone get a plastic cup when there are warnings of a zombie uprising? The golf ball can be used similarly, as a distraction, but if you are an experienced golf player, you can use a golf club (I suppose they should be nearby) and send the ball flying into a zombie's head. But you can also take the golf club itself instead of a golf ball which may be a bit more useful. I am also a she, not a he.

NeverWakeUp

Thank you for replying to my debate. First of all, I'm afraid I was mistaken in my argument. What I meant to say was that a chainsaw is a terrible weapon, not that there was a weapon worse than it. But I will still try to continue this debate despite my faults. I will support this with first instinct. When you are stuck between a rock and a hard place (or in this case, a hoard of zombies), you wouldn't go out in your garage and start up the chainsaw, which will only give more time for the undead to reach you. No, you may as well get a pair of scissors that are lying around. It's sharp, and you cannot exactly process any information about it when you are trying to save yourself and possibly the people around you. Though this may lead to certain death from a hoard, you may only need to kill one or two zombies by sticking the blade straight through the eye and into the brain itself, so it can in fact kill a zombie. The second set of arguments I find to be very unique. First of all, it might as well be an empty cup since you might need to be hydrated when you are on the run. Although small and practically useless, it can simply be used as a distraction. When a zombie is about to feast on your team mate, you can simply toss the cup against the zombie's head and possibly distract it. But there is one question: Why? Why would someone get a plastic cup when there are warnings of a zombie uprising? The golf ball can be used similarly, as a distraction, but if you are an experienced golf player, you can use a golf club (I suppose they should be nearby) and send the ball flying into a zombie's head. But you can also take the golf club itself instead of a golf ball which may be a bit more useful. I am also a she, not a he.

Miscellaneous

A-chainsaw-is-the-worst-weapon-in-a-zombie-apocalypse/1/

NOTE: The Resolution has changed slightly, it is now "The Supreme Court was right to have ruled in favor of Heller in DC v. Heller." I'll first be refuting, and then move on to my side. While I agree that the first part of the clause is a prefatory statement, it is used to do just that, further explain the purpose of second part of the clause, which is to allow for the people to be a part of a State Militia. More on this to come... "So the Second Amendment means that we cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms." The Government cannot infringe upon the security of a State by taking away their right to a militia, is actually what it means; again, more to follow in my case. I'll assume that all of this Court issued syllabus stuff is your argument. (a)- Response will be one of my arguments (b)- "The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." That's a militia, but not a well regulated militia, as the amendment specifies. A well regulated militia was one that included training and an organization as proscribed by the State's legislature. Heller was not a member of any well regulated State Militia when he first appealed his denial to own a handgun. "...ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. " This is false, citizens militias wouldn't have done anything, it would just be a bunch of dudes with guns with no idea whats going on. Anti-federalists realized this, and demanded the right for States to keep militias, militias that would abide to State and not national law. (d) "unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms." Yes, but what did this mean back then, to bear arms? I contend that it means "to fight. [in a military sense]" Versus what my opponent asserts, which is "to have weapons" Lets look at the Declaration of Independence, where the term is used in one of Thomas Jefferson's castigations of George III. "He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands." Now, would it make sense for this to mean, "He has captured Americans and forced them to have weapons against the colonies." Or, would it make more sense for it to mean, "He has captured Americans and forced them to fight against the colonies."? In addition, in every Congressional debate from 1774 to 1821, all 30 uses of the term "to bear arms" were used to be synonymous with "to fight." -David Yassky, The Second Amendment: Structure, History and Constitutional Change The Definition that I have provided was the one in use back then, which shows that the meaning of "bearing arms" was a different one than todays. The only other thing I disagree with is "Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional." A trigger lock can be disengaged in under a minute, and also, the DC Circuit court and DC Court of Appeals have both found that exceptions can and should be granted to the general law in exceptional circumstances, as seen in the DC Court of Appeals Case Emry v. US. ============================================================================My Case! "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I will present 2 separate arguments, each of which can on their own merit justify the Supreme Court ruling in favor of DC. 1. The Second Amendment protects only militia related firearm rights. As previously explained "bearing arms" meant to fight in a military sense when the founders wrote it. ""[T]he enlightened patriots who framed our constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense,"-Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824. Ergo, to fight in a military sense is the meaning of bearing arms. Shooting at an intrusive/tasty rabbit would not be described as bearing arms against it, so how could shooting at a person in a self-defense style be described as bearing arms as well? The District does not contend that individuals may not "keep" their "Arms," but that they may keep them only if they have a well regulated militia-related reason for doing so, which Heller did not. As my opponent already explained for us, the 2nd amendment was urged to be included by the anti-federalists, who demanded that there be a way for states to protect themselves of a national standing army. The DC laws do nothing to prevent this from happening. Further proof that the 2nd Amendment is referring only to the usage of weapons in a military sense is that other amendments were proposed that did allow for the usage of weapons for personal defense, but were rejected. "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state..." read an amendment proposed by the Pennsylvania delegation. "that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress . . . to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." read another proposition from the Massachusetts delegation. 2. The District's reasonable gun laws do not infringe upon one's right keep and bear arms. As the Supreme Court explained in Robert v. Baldwin in 1897, the provisions of the Bill of Rights are "subject to certain well-recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case." As my opponent pointed out, the Supreme Court accepts the idea of reasonable limitations on the second amendment. The US Department of Justice argued in 2002 for laws that place "reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse" in the case of Emerson v. United States. The facts are in, handguns are particularly suited to criminal misuse, especially in the District of Columbia. There is no reason to own a handgun in the city for any other purpose than to shoot someone with, considering that it is 100% city. The Department of Justice reports while only 1/3 of the firearms owned in this nation are handguns, that Eighty-seven percent of all guns used in crime are handguns. The DC laws were enacted to prevent this. Furthermore, the DC laws allowed for people to still own and keep rifles and shotguns, shotguns especially, as described in Guns & Ammo, are more effective than handguns at stopping a home intruder. I have more rounds, but I have no more time. DC should have been ruled for in DC v Heller. Thank you.

Sweatingjojo

NOTE: The Resolution has changed slightly, it is now "The Supreme Court was right to have ruled in favor of Heller in DC v. Heller." I'll first be refuting, and then move on to my side. While I agree that the first part of the clause is a prefatory statement, it is used to do just that, further explain the purpose of second part of the clause, which is to allow for the people to be a part of a State Militia. More on this to come... "So the Second Amendment means that we cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms." The Government cannot infringe upon the security of a State by taking away their right to a militia, is actually what it means; again, more to follow in my case. I'll assume that all of this Court issued syllabus stuff is your argument. (a)- Response will be one of my arguments (b)- "The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." That's a militia, but not a well regulated militia, as the amendment specifies. A well regulated militia was one that included training and an organization as proscribed by the State's legislature. Heller was not a member of any well regulated State Militia when he first appealed his denial to own a handgun. "...ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. " This is false, citizens militias wouldn't have done anything, it would just be a bunch of dudes with guns with no idea whats going on. Anti-federalists realized this, and demanded the right for States to keep militias, militias that would abide to State and not national law. (d) "unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms." Yes, but what did this mean back then, to bear arms? I contend that it means "to fight. [in a military sense]" Versus what my opponent asserts, which is "to have weapons" Lets look at the Declaration of Independence, where the term is used in one of Thomas Jefferson's castigations of George III. "He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands." Now, would it make sense for this to mean, "He has captured Americans and forced them to have weapons against the colonies." Or, would it make more sense for it to mean, "He has captured Americans and forced them to fight against the colonies."? In addition, in every Congressional debate from 1774 to 1821, all 30 uses of the term "to bear arms" were used to be synonymous with "to fight." -David Yassky, The Second Amendment: Structure, History and Constitutional Change The Definition that I have provided was the one in use back then, which shows that the meaning of "bearing arms" was a different one than todays. The only other thing I disagree with is "Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional." A trigger lock can be disengaged in under a minute, and also, the DC Circuit court and DC Court of Appeals have both found that exceptions can and should be granted to the general law in exceptional circumstances, as seen in the DC Court of Appeals Case Emry v. US. ============================================================================My Case! "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I will present 2 separate arguments, each of which can on their own merit justify the Supreme Court ruling in favor of DC. 1. The Second Amendment protects only militia related firearm rights. As previously explained "bearing arms" meant to fight in a military sense when the founders wrote it. ""[T]he enlightened patriots who framed our constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense,"-Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824. Ergo, to fight in a military sense is the meaning of bearing arms. Shooting at an intrusive/tasty rabbit would not be described as bearing arms against it, so how could shooting at a person in a self-defense style be described as bearing arms as well? The District does not contend that individuals may not "keep" their "Arms," but that they may keep them only if they have a well regulated militia-related reason for doing so, which Heller did not. As my opponent already explained for us, the 2nd amendment was urged to be included by the anti-federalists, who demanded that there be a way for states to protect themselves of a national standing army. The DC laws do nothing to prevent this from happening. Further proof that the 2nd Amendment is referring only to the usage of weapons in a military sense is that other amendments were proposed that did allow for the usage of weapons for personal defense, but were rejected. "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state..." read an amendment proposed by the Pennsylvania delegation. "that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress . . . to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." read another proposition from the Massachusetts delegation. 2. The District's reasonable gun laws do not infringe upon one's right keep and bear arms. As the Supreme Court explained in Robert v. Baldwin in 1897, the provisions of the Bill of Rights are "subject to certain well-recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case." As my opponent pointed out, the Supreme Court accepts the idea of reasonable limitations on the second amendment. The US Department of Justice argued in 2002 for laws that place "reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse" in the case of Emerson v. United States. The facts are in, handguns are particularly suited to criminal misuse, especially in the District of Columbia. There is no reason to own a handgun in the city for any other purpose than to shoot someone with, considering that it is 100% city. The Department of Justice reports while only 1/3 of the firearms owned in this nation are handguns, that Eighty-seven percent of all guns used in crime are handguns. The DC laws were enacted to prevent this. Furthermore, the DC laws allowed for people to still own and keep rifles and shotguns, shotguns especially, as described in Guns & Ammo, are more effective than handguns at stopping a home intruder. I have more rounds, but I have no more time. DC should have been ruled for in DC v Heller. Thank you.

Politics

A-debate-on-a-Supreme-Court-Case/1/

Argh. I'm left with about 13 minutes to respond, so it'll be brief. Next round will be amazing. "No, it's not, there is no basis for that statement." Other than the words of the second amendment, and the context of its writing, which we both agree on. "What? No. You ignore the Volokh card." What? No. You ignore reality. It was explained by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison that no part of the Constitution is to be ignored. You're advocating the ignorance of part of the amendment. "But he is a people. The amendment says people, not "states" or "militias." The people can keep and bear arms." The amendment says that people can keep arms for state militias. Heller wasn't in a state militia. "Citizen's militias won the Revolutionary War, and besides, the people need weapons, that's why we need the Second Amendment." Erm, state's militias comprised of citizens won the Revolutionary war. It wasn't just a bunch of 'dudes with guns' as previously described by myself. The 13 states were well aware that the 'dudes with guns' strategy is a terrible one, and so they designed laws to regulate their militias. A regulation of said militia could include not allowing handguns. Part 2 of statement: I'm not arguing the necessity of the 2nd amendment, I'm arguing that the Supreme Court should have ruled for DC. "Ahh, but Black, the famous jurist, and publisher of Black's Law Dictionary defined "bear arms" as to have weapons, and as the framers were lawyers it is likely that this would be their legalese definition, and the one that would be used in say a law, or huh, the second amendment. " 1. Less than half of the framers had any legal experience. 2. So you're suggesting that the Framers would write the constitution in an un-natural way, meaning that we should read it un-naturally to how words meant back then? "it is safe to say that this is their meaning. " Except for the fact that I showed a different meaning being used in the Declaration of Independence, which occurred a good 60 years after your common law case. ""keep...arms"" Keeping arms which may be regulated by the states as part of states having a well-regulated militia. "And in that minute, you can be shot by the burglar." Its not a burglar if he or she shoots you. I wouldn't recommend trying to pull a gun on someone that is right next to you anyway. But enough about macabre stuff. Back to the debate. Oh snap, I have 50 seconds left. I will continue in comments section.

Sweatingjojo

Argh. I'm left with about 13 minutes to respond, so it'll be brief. Next round will be amazing. "No, it's not, there is no basis for that statement." Other than the words of the second amendment, and the context of its writing, which we both agree on. "What? No. You ignore the Volokh card." What? No. You ignore reality. It was explained by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison that no part of the Constitution is to be ignored. You're advocating the ignorance of part of the amendment. "But he is a people. The amendment says people, not "states" or "militias." The people can keep and bear arms." The amendment says that people can keep arms for state militias. Heller wasn't in a state militia. "Citizen's militias won the Revolutionary War, and besides, the people need weapons, that's why we need the Second Amendment." Erm, state's militias comprised of citizens won the Revolutionary war. It wasn't just a bunch of 'dudes with guns' as previously described by myself. The 13 states were well aware that the 'dudes with guns' strategy is a terrible one, and so they designed laws to regulate their militias. A regulation of said militia could include not allowing handguns. Part 2 of statement: I'm not arguing the necessity of the 2nd amendment, I'm arguing that the Supreme Court should have ruled for DC. "Ahh, but Black, the famous jurist, and publisher of Black's Law Dictionary defined "bear arms" as to have weapons, and as the framers were lawyers it is likely that this would be their legalese definition, and the one that would be used in say a law, or huh, the second amendment. " 1. Less than half of the framers had any legal experience. 2. So you're suggesting that the Framers would write the constitution in an un-natural way, meaning that we should read it un-naturally to how words meant back then? "it is safe to say that this is their meaning. " Except for the fact that I showed a different meaning being used in the Declaration of Independence, which occurred a good 60 years after your common law case. ""keep...arms"" Keeping arms which may be regulated by the states as part of states having a well-regulated militia. "And in that minute, you can be shot by the burglar." Its not a burglar if he or she shoots you. I wouldn't recommend trying to pull a gun on someone that is right next to you anyway. But enough about macabre stuff. Back to the debate. Oh snap, I have 50 seconds left. I will continue in comments section.

Politics

A-debate-on-a-Supreme-Court-Case/1/

Before I begin, I would like to offer a quote that I found in the wikipedia page on the 2nd amendment, and will certainly put us in good spirits for the rest of the debate. "The importance of Bliss is also seen from the defense subsequently given against a murder charge in Kentucky against Mattews Ward, who in 1852 pulled out a concealed pistol and fatally wounded his brother's teacher over an accusation regarding eating chestnuts in class. " Lets see what my opponent's been saying this go around.. He begins by re-asserting the all-truthiness of his Volokh card, which he used in his first aff. Basically, he says that the first part of the 2nd amendment was just a joke, and that only the second half really matters. I say, 'no way! You can't pick and choose parts of the Constitution to listen to!' and I use a quote from the Supreme Court to back it up. He still thinks it is correct, and so to further prove this wrong, I present a quote from US v. Miller, the last major 2nd amendment case before this one: "with obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of the state-regulated militias the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." It comes down to whether or not we should listen to the unanimous Supreme Court on two separate occasions, or Volokh. "Erm... no. Concord, Lexington, ever heard of them?" 1. The Revolutionary War seemed to transpire over more than two battles. 2. Well regulated militias fought in both of those battles for the Revolutionaries. The minutemen were not just dudes with guns. They were the best of the Massachusetts militia, designed to be ready in a minutes notice. I will now quote Mr. Jared Sparks, author of a book on George Washington, who explains the Massachusetts militia in depth: "They recommended to the militia to form themselves into companies of minute-men, who should be equipped and prepared to march at the shortest notice. These minute-men were to consist of one quarter of the whole militia, to be enlisted under the direction of the field-officers, and divide into companies, consisting of at least fifty men each. The privates were to choose their captains and subalterns, and these officers were to form the companies into battalions, and chose the field-officers to command the same. Hence the minute-men became a body distinct from the rest of the militia, and, by being more devoted to military exercises, they acquired skill in the use of arms. More attention than formerly was likewise bestowed on the training and drilling of militia." As you can see, these men were well-regulated, and units similar to that of these brave men were what the Founders intended to protect. My opponent continues with the idea of the authors writing the second amendment just to be confusing. He says that James Madison originally wrote it, which is true, however, it went through intense discussion in the House and Senate, which was not comprised of lawyers exclusively, or even primarily. To say that they all were ones who felt that an un-natural reading that not even most of them could understand was best is hogwash. My opponent then goes to the wikipedia page on the history of amendment number 2. Its quite a good bit to read, I'm not really sure if he expects me to read all of it, without him explaining what is relevant to this discussion at all. Until further explanation, that link should be discounted as evidence. Again onto the next point, the link is discounted. I've shown how the declaration uses the term 'to bear arms' that refers to fighting in a military sense. My opponent says that there is no basis to assume that the amendment should lead to the assumption that the states should have the power to regulate arms to be used in their militias. The basis is that only certain weapons were kosher for militia use, namely muskets and rifles. The rightfulness of certain weapons was determined in laws written by the states regarding the creation of their respective militias. My opponent states that trigger locks inhibit one's ability of self defense. The purpose of a trigger lock is to prevent an accidental firing of said weapon, leading to unintentional deaths. I can prove this with statistics. Can my opponent find proof that trigger locks have led to more people being killed or robbed? His next point regarding endangerment is refuted with my previous. My opponent continues with the idea of an un-natural reading and writing of the Constitution being the way to go. I don't understand why anything would be written in a legally binding document if it weren't designed to have affect. This would be the result of accepting my opponent's premise, basically, you can pick and choose parts of documents as you see fit. This would lead to grave consequences upon the United States and the world as a whole, another reason to reject it. "Obviously I was suffering intense muscle spasms when I wrote Thomas Jefferson. I meant James Madison, who was equally influential." If you suffered intense muscle spasms then, I would assume that all of your writing would be a symptom of such a disorder. The amendment originally provided by Mr. Madison was altered quite a bit throughout, obviously if he was Mr. influence 9000 then it would have flown through. The other amendments were rejected because Mr. Madison's was closest to correct, which proscribed that states shall be granted the right to have militias comprised of the people. My opponent says that common civil use grants it protection, while I maintain that even more common criminal use makes it legal and reasonable to ban it, as evidenced by Miller. (Toss up?)

Sweatingjojo

Before I begin, I would like to offer a quote that I found in the wikipedia page on the 2nd amendment, and will certainly put us in good spirits for the rest of the debate. "The importance of Bliss is also seen from the defense subsequently given against a murder charge in Kentucky against Mattews Ward, who in 1852 pulled out a concealed pistol and fatally wounded his brother's teacher over an accusation regarding eating chestnuts in class. " Lets see what my opponent's been saying this go around.. He begins by re-asserting the all-truthiness of his Volokh card, which he used in his first aff. Basically, he says that the first part of the 2nd amendment was just a joke, and that only the second half really matters. I say, 'no way! You can't pick and choose parts of the Constitution to listen to!' and I use a quote from the Supreme Court to back it up. He still thinks it is correct, and so to further prove this wrong, I present a quote from US v. Miller, the last major 2nd amendment case before this one: "with obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of the state-regulated militias the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." It comes down to whether or not we should listen to the unanimous Supreme Court on two separate occasions, or Volokh. "Erm... no. Concord, Lexington, ever heard of them?" 1. The Revolutionary War seemed to transpire over more than two battles. 2. Well regulated militias fought in both of those battles for the Revolutionaries. The minutemen were not just dudes with guns. They were the best of the Massachusetts militia, designed to be ready in a minutes notice. I will now quote Mr. Jared Sparks, author of a book on George Washington, who explains the Massachusetts militia in depth: "They recommended to the militia to form themselves into companies of minute-men, who should be equipped and prepared to march at the shortest notice. These minute-men were to consist of one quarter of the whole militia, to be enlisted under the direction of the field-officers, and divide into companies, consisting of at least fifty men each. The privates were to choose their captains and subalterns, and these officers were to form the companies into battalions, and chose the field-officers to command the same. Hence the minute-men became a body distinct from the rest of the militia, and, by being more devoted to military exercises, they acquired skill in the use of arms. More attention than formerly was likewise bestowed on the training and drilling of militia." As you can see, these men were well-regulated, and units similar to that of these brave men were what the Founders intended to protect. My opponent continues with the idea of the authors writing the second amendment just to be confusing. He says that James Madison originally wrote it, which is true, however, it went through intense discussion in the House and Senate, which was not comprised of lawyers exclusively, or even primarily. To say that they all were ones who felt that an un-natural reading that not even most of them could understand was best is hogwash. My opponent then goes to the wikipedia page on the history of amendment number 2. Its quite a good bit to read, I'm not really sure if he expects me to read all of it, without him explaining what is relevant to this discussion at all. Until further explanation, that link should be discounted as evidence. Again onto the next point, the link is discounted. I've shown how the declaration uses the term 'to bear arms' that refers to fighting in a military sense. My opponent says that there is no basis to assume that the amendment should lead to the assumption that the states should have the power to regulate arms to be used in their militias. The basis is that only certain weapons were kosher for militia use, namely muskets and rifles. The rightfulness of certain weapons was determined in laws written by the states regarding the creation of their respective militias. My opponent states that trigger locks inhibit one's ability of self defense. The purpose of a trigger lock is to prevent an accidental firing of said weapon, leading to unintentional deaths. I can prove this with statistics. Can my opponent find proof that trigger locks have led to more people being killed or robbed? His next point regarding endangerment is refuted with my previous. My opponent continues with the idea of an un-natural reading and writing of the Constitution being the way to go. I don't understand why anything would be written in a legally binding document if it weren't designed to have affect. This would be the result of accepting my opponent's premise, basically, you can pick and choose parts of documents as you see fit. This would lead to grave consequences upon the United States and the world as a whole, another reason to reject it. "Obviously I was suffering intense muscle spasms when I wrote Thomas Jefferson. I meant James Madison, who was equally influential." If you suffered intense muscle spasms then, I would assume that all of your writing would be a symptom of such a disorder. The amendment originally provided by Mr. Madison was altered quite a bit throughout, obviously if he was Mr. influence 9000 then it would have flown through. The other amendments were rejected because Mr. Madison's was closest to correct, which proscribed that states shall be granted the right to have militias comprised of the people. My opponent says that common civil use grants it protection, while I maintain that even more common criminal use makes it legal and reasonable to ban it, as evidenced by Miller. (Toss up?)

Politics

A-debate-on-a-Supreme-Court-Case/1/

Jumping right into it: You speak of a commentator that was not unlike the oracle of Delphi in his power to know all things. Unfortunately, you didn't provide a source, let alone a name, so there's really no proof that this person existed. My point stands then about not ignoring parts of the Constitution stands then. "The militias of that time were operating separate from the government, because it was the government they were fighting against. They were not state militias." The minutemen were militias of the Massachusetts bay Colony. Its a fact. "In the British colony of Massachusetts Bay, all able-bodied men between the ages of 16 and 30 were required to participate in their local militia. As early as 1645 in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, some men were selected from the general ranks of town-based "training bands" to be ready for rapid deployment. Men so selected were designated as minutemen." -Gross [author name] Yeah I have to stop now because I want to actually sleep/ unfair to refute everything without opponent's response. I believe I won because of my point on the fact that they wouldn't want an un-natural writing to be in the Constitution, that armaments were regulated back then and so should still be allowed to reasonably today. Certainly its reasonable to limit weapons in a totally urban area, while still providing for other means of more effective self defense. I've shown with previous Supreme Court cases and quotes from notables that my position is more sensible. Thank you and good night.

Sweatingjojo

Jumping right into it: You speak of a commentator that was not unlike the oracle of Delphi in his power to know all things. Unfortunately, you didn't provide a source, let alone a name, so there's really no proof that this person existed. My point stands then about not ignoring parts of the Constitution stands then. "The militias of that time were operating separate from the government, because it was the government they were fighting against. They were not state militias." The minutemen were militias of the Massachusetts bay Colony. Its a fact. "In the British colony of Massachusetts Bay, all able-bodied men between the ages of 16 and 30 were required to participate in their local militia. As early as 1645 in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, some men were selected from the general ranks of town-based "training bands" to be ready for rapid deployment. Men so selected were designated as minutemen." -Gross [author name] Yeah I have to stop now because I want to actually sleep/ unfair to refute everything without opponent's response. I believe I won because of my point on the fact that they wouldn't want an un-natural writing to be in the Constitution, that armaments were regulated back then and so should still be allowed to reasonably today. Certainly its reasonable to limit weapons in a totally urban area, while still providing for other means of more effective self defense. I've shown with previous Supreme Court cases and quotes from notables that my position is more sensible. Thank you and good night.

Politics

A-debate-on-a-Supreme-Court-Case/1/

After the contender accepts the debate, he/she proposes between 3 and 5 resolutions of varying subjects in the comments section to debate, and chooses PRO or CON for each one. Then, the instigator will choose a resolution. In the contender's R1, he/she will choose first or second. If the contender goes first, he/she cannot post an argument in the final round. If the contender goes second, the debate will proceed as normal. Rounds 2-4: Debate! Round 5: Closing rounds; instead of adding more arguments or refuting the opponent, both debaters will list reasons why they should win the debate, based on their previous arguments. Any new arguments or rebuttals posted in this round should be dismissed by the voters.

gahbage

After the contender accepts the debate, he/she proposes between 3 and 5 resolutions of varying subjects in the comments section to debate, and chooses PRO or CON for each one. Then, the instigator will choose a resolution. In the contender's R1, he/she will choose first or second. If the contender goes first, he/she cannot post an argument in the final round. If the contender goes second, the debate will proceed as normal. Rounds 2-4: Debate! Round 5: Closing rounds; instead of adding more arguments or refuting the opponent, both debaters will list reasons why they should win the debate, based on their previous arguments. Any new arguments or rebuttals posted in this round should be dismissed by the voters.

Society

A-debate./1/

I choose Resolution 1, "Dance Dance Revolution ought not to be included in Middle-School and High-School Physical Education classes for schools that can afford it."; I am PRO. I will begin right with contentions. Point 1: Dance Dance Revolution (DDR) may cause more injuries or accidents than other physical education (P.E.) activities that can be used in place of it. The most similar activity to DDR that can be implemented in P.E. would probably be step aerobics. Step aerobics is almost exactly like DDR, except it does not involve a screen. They both consist of stepping in different directions. Now, if you spent too much time looking at a screen, you could have eye problems, motion sickness, or even seizures. So, comparing two activities that are virtually the same, which one would be better to have? The one that has the least risks. DDR has more risks because it is basically step aerobics with a screen. Point 2: DDR may cause above-average weight loss in children. [1] While this idea may seem good at first, it can also cause children who are not obese to be severely underweight. Implementing DDR in P.E. for the purpose of losing weight does not benefit the entire class (unless they are all overweight), and harms underweight children in the same way that it helps overweight children. [1] <URL>... In short, DDR should not be used for P.E. class, because it is harmful to average- or under-weight individuals, and is essentially step aerobics with risks for the eye.

gahbage

I choose Resolution 1, "Dance Dance Revolution ought not to be included in Middle-School and High-School Physical Education classes for schools that can afford it."; I am PRO. I will begin right with contentions. Point 1: Dance Dance Revolution (DDR) may cause more injuries or accidents than other physical education (P.E.) activities that can be used in place of it. The most similar activity to DDR that can be implemented in P.E. would probably be step aerobics. Step aerobics is almost exactly like DDR, except it does not involve a screen. They both consist of stepping in different directions. Now, if you spent too much time looking at a screen, you could have eye problems, motion sickness, or even seizures. So, comparing two activities that are virtually the same, which one would be better to have? The one that has the least risks. DDR has more risks because it is basically step aerobics with a screen. Point 2: DDR may cause above-average weight loss in children. [1] While this idea may seem good at first, it can also cause children who are not obese to be severely underweight. Implementing DDR in P.E. for the purpose of losing weight does not benefit the entire class (unless they are all overweight), and harms underweight children in the same way that it helps overweight children. [1] http://www.usatoday.com... In short, DDR should not be used for P.E. class, because it is harmful to average- or under-weight individuals, and is essentially step aerobics with risks for the eye.

Society

A-debate./1/

Right into R3: =My=Points==================================================================== "1) PRO's argument is very weak as the main problem with it is that he is insisting that Dance Dance Revolution (which shall henceforth be referred to as DDR) is more accident/injury prone than playing Dodgeball (a sport where players intentionally ATTACK each other with balls), Weight lifting (an activity that can EASILY result in serious injury or even death given how misuse of the weights can cause one to crush themselves or break their bones), Football (again, intentional physical ATTACKS on one another) and Basketball (example: FOULING). I could go on, but these are enough to establish my point. If PRO wants to keep students from playing DDR, then he should be insisting that they be kept from engaging in MOSTLY any other activity involved in PE." My opponent does a good job of showing how other sports can be more dangerous than DDR. However, he does not address my main point: the fact that step aerobics is a less hazardous activity similar to DDR, and therefore is an infinitely better choice of P.E. activities. "2) As for the comparison between Aerobics and DDR, whereas it's true that one could indeed get motion sickness or even a seizure from DDR, the solution to this is to simply allow students a limited amount of time (as most video game manuals recommend) when engaging in this P.E. activity as spending too much time on anything (even aerobics) can be detrimental to a student." Once again, my opponent skips over an important point: DDR (or anything involving a screen) can cause general eye problems, such as the need for glasses. This is often referred to as Computer vision syndrome (CVS for abbreviation). [2] Staring at any screen for even a moderate period of uninterrupted time can result in this, so it must be minimized as much as possible. A P.E. instructor can take part in this by substituting in an activity such as step aerobics for DDR. So in my first point, my opponent fails to argue a key contention: Step aerobics is essentially DDR without a risk for CVS; thus, it is only logical to replace DDR with step aerobics. This argument itself is enough to grant a win for PRO. "1) Ladies and gentleman, I'd like for you to scrutinize PRO's source carefully. Notice how there is no place within it that backs PRO's argument; that DDR can easily serve as an incentive for children to have above-average weight loss for students who are UNDERWEIGHT. Thus, with this being noted, he has no basis for his argument." Weird wording, I take it my opponent means that children who are underweight will have no incentive to do this? Regardless, they are required to participate if it is a P.E. activity. "2) In addition, turn his evidence around as it actually BENEFITS my argument given that it points out that DDR is an excellent incentive to aid individuals with obesity (heck, it shows how DDR can help even those who are 200 pounds overweight)." So can step aerobics, and it's not nearly as harmful. =Opponent's=Points=============================================================== My opponent's first contention basically should be included with his second, because it is only pointing out obesity as a health problem. His second contention states that DDR is a good way for children to lose weight, to which I repeat; "So can step aerobics, and it's not nearly as harmful." ">>>>CONTENTION #3: DDR improves hand eye coordination, dance and rhythmic skills, and gives students the incentive to be more active in PE." 1) Well, I'm looking over my case, and I don't see the words "hand" or "coordination" (I do see "eye", but that was in reference to DDR risks). So I'm not sure where "PRO has already conceded that DDR improves hand eye coordination" came from. However, I'd like to point out that DDR improves FOOT-eye coordination, not hand-eye. Being skill with your feet and skilled with your hands are two different things. For instance, a soccer player may have outstanding foot-eye coordination, but have terrible hand-eye coordination when it comes to catching baseballs or footballs. 2) You can hardly call it dancing - all you do is step in different directions, with the occasional "criss-cross". If one simply wanted to practice these moves AND MORE, they could go do the "Cha-Cha Slide". And although I've never seen someone "getting some" from showing off their superior knowledge of the Cha-Cha Slide, one could probably get more action from that then DDR. As for improving rhythmic accuracy, one could simply play a musical instrument. 3) Desirable or not, participation in a P.E. class is mandatory. And in all my P.E. classes I have never met anyone who rejoiced when the next unit was announced as DDR. A more interesting video game involving physical activity would be Wii Sports. I'd like to sum up this argument by reminding the voters that my opponent has not addressed the overall superiority of step aerobics to DDR when it comes down to safety, and to also remind the voters of the alternatives i provided in response to my opponent's contentions. [2] <URL>...

gahbage

Right into R3: =My=Points==================================================================== "1) PRO's argument is very weak as the main problem with it is that he is insisting that Dance Dance Revolution (which shall henceforth be referred to as DDR) is more accident/injury prone than playing Dodgeball (a sport where players intentionally ATTACK each other with balls), Weight lifting (an activity that can EASILY result in serious injury or even death given how misuse of the weights can cause one to crush themselves or break their bones), Football (again, intentional physical ATTACKS on one another) and Basketball (example: FOULING). I could go on, but these are enough to establish my point. If PRO wants to keep students from playing DDR, then he should be insisting that they be kept from engaging in MOSTLY any other activity involved in PE." My opponent does a good job of showing how other sports can be more dangerous than DDR. However, he does not address my main point: the fact that step aerobics is a less hazardous activity similar to DDR, and therefore is an infinitely better choice of P.E. activities. "2) As for the comparison between Aerobics and DDR, whereas it's true that one could indeed get motion sickness or even a seizure from DDR, the solution to this is to simply allow students a limited amount of time (as most video game manuals recommend) when engaging in this P.E. activity as spending too much time on anything (even aerobics) can be detrimental to a student." Once again, my opponent skips over an important point: DDR (or anything involving a screen) can cause general eye problems, such as the need for glasses. This is often referred to as Computer vision syndrome (CVS for abbreviation). [2] Staring at any screen for even a moderate period of uninterrupted time can result in this, so it must be minimized as much as possible. A P.E. instructor can take part in this by substituting in an activity such as step aerobics for DDR. So in my first point, my opponent fails to argue a key contention: Step aerobics is essentially DDR without a risk for CVS; thus, it is only logical to replace DDR with step aerobics. This argument itself is enough to grant a win for PRO. "1) Ladies and gentleman, I'd like for you to scrutinize PRO's source carefully. Notice how there is no place within it that backs PRO's argument; that DDR can easily serve as an incentive for children to have above-average weight loss for students who are UNDERWEIGHT. Thus, with this being noted, he has no basis for his argument." Weird wording, I take it my opponent means that children who are underweight will have no incentive to do this? Regardless, they are required to participate if it is a P.E. activity. "2) In addition, turn his evidence around as it actually BENEFITS my argument given that it points out that DDR is an excellent incentive to aid individuals with obesity (heck, it shows how DDR can help even those who are 200 pounds overweight)." So can step aerobics, and it's not nearly as harmful. =Opponent's=Points=============================================================== My opponent's first contention basically should be included with his second, because it is only pointing out obesity as a health problem. His second contention states that DDR is a good way for children to lose weight, to which I repeat; "So can step aerobics, and it's not nearly as harmful." ">>>>CONTENTION #3: DDR improves hand eye coordination, dance and rhythmic skills, and gives students the incentive to be more active in PE." 1) Well, I'm looking over my case, and I don't see the words "hand" or "coordination" (I do see "eye", but that was in reference to DDR risks). So I'm not sure where "PRO has already conceded that DDR improves hand eye coordination" came from. However, I'd like to point out that DDR improves FOOT-eye coordination, not hand-eye. Being skill with your feet and skilled with your hands are two different things. For instance, a soccer player may have outstanding foot-eye coordination, but have terrible hand-eye coordination when it comes to catching baseballs or footballs. 2) You can hardly call it dancing - all you do is step in different directions, with the occasional "criss-cross". If one simply wanted to practice these moves AND MORE, they could go do the "Cha-Cha Slide". And although I've never seen someone "getting some" from showing off their superior knowledge of the Cha-Cha Slide, one could probably get more action from that then DDR. As for improving rhythmic accuracy, one could simply play a musical instrument. 3) Desirable or not, participation in a P.E. class is mandatory. And in all my P.E. classes I have never met anyone who rejoiced when the next unit was announced as DDR. A more interesting video game involving physical activity would be Wii Sports. I'd like to sum up this argument by reminding the voters that my opponent has not addressed the overall superiority of step aerobics to DDR when it comes down to safety, and to also remind the voters of the alternatives i provided in response to my opponent's contentions. [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Society

A-debate./1/

-MY-CASE-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) Aerobics AND DDR? That's ridiculous; why should two activities that cover the same things be included in one P.E. class? And since my opponent has not disagreed that aerobics are safer than DDR, it would only make sense to use aerobics whenever DDR would be considered. Thus, because of this point alone that my opponent has not challenged, DDR should not be included in P.E., because whenever it would be included, aerobics would be a better option. 2) Oh, here's a rebuttal. "Whether or not it's safer, the fact of the matter is that it is not as alluring, as shown by PRO's own evidence." So it should be included in P.E. because it is alluring? First off, I don't know many people who are fans of DDR. Second, if you want to go by more alluring, then football, basketball, hockey, baseball and soccer are all much more alluring, yet much more dangerous. So the allure of the sport does not matter - safety should be the first priority. 3) Just because the students aren't participating in DDR doesn't mean that they can't look at the screen. And staring at the screen for extended periods of time IS the cause of CVS. It doesn't even have to be long hours - 45 minutes is sufficient enough, so long as it is done consistently. Take it from someone who wears glasses. Contention #2 1) What are you talking about? If an overweight child plays DDR for 45 minutes every day, it will have a similar effect on him as it will on an underweight or average child doing the same thing. Just because the child is physically fit does not mean he will not lose weight. 2) See Contention #1. -Opponent's-Case-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #1: You don't have to be motivated to lose weight. Motivation HELPS, but as I have already stated, DDR is not appealing to everyone. All you have to do is participate in the exercise and use your muscles. Motivation is optional. So aerobics will do just fine in losing weight. #3 1) DDR is step aerobics with a screen. If DDR improves foot-eye coordination, then so do aerobics. 2) I was stating that the Cha Cha Slide is more complex than DDR, yet still does not make you more attractive, which implies that DDR will do you little good if you're trying to get some. And once again, step aerobics is also stepping to music. As for more potential footwork, step aerobics uses a STEP in some cases, while DDR is a flat surface. Playing an instrument AND participating in step aerobics gives the benefits of DDR without the risks. 3) They will benefit regardless. Like I said before, motivation is optional and helpful, but not necessary. And as for Wii Sports, it requires you to get up and move. Not as much as DDR, but is much more fun, and thus will be played more. "By his logic, a house which merely consist of a high quality master bedroom is better than a house which consist of a nigh high quality kitchen, a nigh high quality master bed room, a nigh high quality bathroom and a nigh high quality living room." What? That's ridiculous. How am I saying that? Please explain.

gahbage

-MY-CASE-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) Aerobics AND DDR? That's ridiculous; why should two activities that cover the same things be included in one P.E. class? And since my opponent has not disagreed that aerobics are safer than DDR, it would only make sense to use aerobics whenever DDR would be considered. Thus, because of this point alone that my opponent has not challenged, DDR should not be included in P.E., because whenever it would be included, aerobics would be a better option. 2) Oh, here's a rebuttal. "Whether or not it's safer, the fact of the matter is that it is not as alluring, as shown by PRO's own evidence." So it should be included in P.E. because it is alluring? First off, I don't know many people who are fans of DDR. Second, if you want to go by more alluring, then football, basketball, hockey, baseball and soccer are all much more alluring, yet much more dangerous. So the allure of the sport does not matter - safety should be the first priority. 3) Just because the students aren't participating in DDR doesn't mean that they can't look at the screen. And staring at the screen for extended periods of time IS the cause of CVS. It doesn't even have to be long hours - 45 minutes is sufficient enough, so long as it is done consistently. Take it from someone who wears glasses. Contention #2 1) What are you talking about? If an overweight child plays DDR for 45 minutes every day, it will have a similar effect on him as it will on an underweight or average child doing the same thing. Just because the child is physically fit does not mean he will not lose weight. 2) See Contention #1. -Opponent's-Case-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #1: You don't have to be motivated to lose weight. Motivation HELPS, but as I have already stated, DDR is not appealing to everyone. All you have to do is participate in the exercise and use your muscles. Motivation is optional. So aerobics will do just fine in losing weight. #3 1) DDR is step aerobics with a screen. If DDR improves foot-eye coordination, then so do aerobics. 2) I was stating that the Cha Cha Slide is more complex than DDR, yet still does not make you more attractive, which implies that DDR will do you little good if you're trying to get some. And once again, step aerobics is also stepping to music. As for more potential footwork, step aerobics uses a STEP in some cases, while DDR is a flat surface. Playing an instrument AND participating in step aerobics gives the benefits of DDR without the risks. 3) They will benefit regardless. Like I said before, motivation is optional and helpful, but not necessary. And as for Wii Sports, it requires you to get up and move. Not as much as DDR, but is much more fun, and thus will be played more. "By his logic, a house which merely consist of a high quality master bedroom is better than a house which consist of a nigh high quality kitchen, a nigh high quality master bed room, a nigh high quality bathroom and a nigh high quality living room." What? That's ridiculous. How am I saying that? Please explain.

Society

A-debate./1/

I thank my opponent for this quite spirited debate. CLOSING ROUND Reasons to vote PRO: 1. My opponent assumes "popularity over safety", essentially. This, of course, is untrue. If a game is very fun, but highly dangerous, it would not make it into a P.E. curriculum. Furthermore, my opponent assumes that I ONLY consider safety. This is also false; I am just putting safety ahead of allure, which is what would happen if it was up to the board of education. School curriculum must put the safety of the students ahead of the popularity of the activity. My opponent's flawed reasoning is one point as to why CON should not win the debate. 2. My opponent misread my arguments. He states, "Overweight individuals could afford to play the game without suffering from the effects that underweight people would suffer from if they were to play the game as much". That means that underweight people will suffer risks if they were to play DDR consistently, which is what I was saying. He also, as I stated in my previous point, misinterpreted me to mean "Allure does not matter; only safety does", when I really meant, "Safety is more important than allure". My opponent has misinterpreted my arguments, causing flawed rebuttals, and a reason to vote PRO. 3. My opponent ignores the fact that step aerobics implements the same motion as DDR (as I have stated in previous rounds), and thus can make one lose just as much weight as if they were playing DDR. My opponent is, instead of comparing "apples to oranges", comparing "red apples to green apples", in a sense, by adding "motivation". By skipping over this fact, my opponent has produced a flawed argument, and therefore you should vote PRO. 4. While comparing the Cha Cha Slide to DDR, the original reason way to contrast them AS A WAY TO ATTRACT WOMEN, as shown by my Round 3, rebuttal 2. However, my opponent, in his last round, now compares ALL aspects of the Cha Cha Slide to DDR, which is straying from the original point and makes my case look bad while never really enhancing his own. By going off topic and avoiding the real comparison between the two, my opponent has created a flawed rebuttal, and thus, you should vote PRO. 5. CON makes as unfair argument by comparing Wii Sports to DDR in terms of credentials such as world records and tournaments. My opponent overlooks the fact that DDR has been around for MANY more years than Wii Sports. This causes a flawed comparison, and therefore an invalid argument. By these 5 points, you can see that my opponent has proposed flawed arguments by using invalid comparisons, misinterpreting my arguments, avoiding the topic of some contentions, and using unrelated examples for his own points. Because of this, it should be a clear vote for PRO.

gahbage

I thank my opponent for this quite spirited debate. CLOSING ROUND Reasons to vote PRO: 1. My opponent assumes "popularity over safety", essentially. This, of course, is untrue. If a game is very fun, but highly dangerous, it would not make it into a P.E. curriculum. Furthermore, my opponent assumes that I ONLY consider safety. This is also false; I am just putting safety ahead of allure, which is what would happen if it was up to the board of education. School curriculum must put the safety of the students ahead of the popularity of the activity. My opponent's flawed reasoning is one point as to why CON should not win the debate. 2. My opponent misread my arguments. He states, "Overweight individuals could afford to play the game without suffering from the effects that underweight people would suffer from if they were to play the game as much". That means that underweight people will suffer risks if they were to play DDR consistently, which is what I was saying. He also, as I stated in my previous point, misinterpreted me to mean "Allure does not matter; only safety does", when I really meant, "Safety is more important than allure". My opponent has misinterpreted my arguments, causing flawed rebuttals, and a reason to vote PRO. 3. My opponent ignores the fact that step aerobics implements the same motion as DDR (as I have stated in previous rounds), and thus can make one lose just as much weight as if they were playing DDR. My opponent is, instead of comparing "apples to oranges", comparing "red apples to green apples", in a sense, by adding "motivation". By skipping over this fact, my opponent has produced a flawed argument, and therefore you should vote PRO. 4. While comparing the Cha Cha Slide to DDR, the original reason way to contrast them AS A WAY TO ATTRACT WOMEN, as shown by my Round 3, rebuttal 2. However, my opponent, in his last round, now compares ALL aspects of the Cha Cha Slide to DDR, which is straying from the original point and makes my case look bad while never really enhancing his own. By going off topic and avoiding the real comparison between the two, my opponent has created a flawed rebuttal, and thus, you should vote PRO. 5. CON makes as unfair argument by comparing Wii Sports to DDR in terms of credentials such as world records and tournaments. My opponent overlooks the fact that DDR has been around for MANY more years than Wii Sports. This causes a flawed comparison, and therefore an invalid argument. By these 5 points, you can see that my opponent has proposed flawed arguments by using invalid comparisons, misinterpreting my arguments, avoiding the topic of some contentions, and using unrelated examples for his own points. Because of this, it should be a clear vote for PRO.

Society

A-debate./1/

First of all I would like to point out that I am referring to the Christian god. According to the Christian bible(perhaps not all Christian bibles but you understand which ones I am talking about) to get into heaven you pretty much need to believe in Jesus and ask for forgiveness for your sins. So what happens when you do not believe in the Christian god? You can't get into heaven right? So then I guess you go to hell.. Doesn't that seem like a bit much? He doesn't even seem to want to give us any real proof that he exists. He let human hands write the bibles and sure he supposedly performs miraculous healings even today but you would think with our eternal souls at stake and being all powerful he could at least show himself to us or make some crazy voice echo from the skies letting us know he is still there but no.. it's as if he is purposely trying to tempt a lot of decent people into thinking he is imaginary. Why did God even have to create hell in the first place? Then he sends us there just for not believing in his book. If he is all powerful then surely he knew that he would be creating a lot of people who he knew would not believe and would be sent to hell. Pretend for a second a kid decides to get an ant farm so he can enjoy watching them. That sounds ok right? Well what about when the kid decides to take some of the ants he doesn't like and burn them with a magnifying glass? Fry puny ants fry! If you could please give me some reasons as to how burning someone for eternity is the right thing to do to someone who doesn't believe in you I would like to hear them.

Mylynes

First of all I would like to point out that I am referring to the Christian god. According to the Christian bible(perhaps not all Christian bibles but you understand which ones I am talking about) to get into heaven you pretty much need to believe in Jesus and ask for forgiveness for your sins. So what happens when you do not believe in the Christian god? You can't get into heaven right? So then I guess you go to hell.. Doesn't that seem like a bit much? He doesn't even seem to want to give us any real proof that he exists. He let human hands write the bibles and sure he supposedly performs miraculous healings even today but you would think with our eternal souls at stake and being all powerful he could at least show himself to us or make some crazy voice echo from the skies letting us know he is still there but no.. it's as if he is purposely trying to tempt a lot of decent people into thinking he is imaginary. Why did God even have to create hell in the first place? Then he sends us there just for not believing in his book. If he is all powerful then surely he knew that he would be creating a lot of people who he knew would not believe and would be sent to hell. Pretend for a second a kid decides to get an ant farm so he can enjoy watching them. That sounds ok right? Well what about when the kid decides to take some of the ants he doesn't like and burn them with a magnifying glass? Fry puny ants fry! If you could please give me some reasons as to how burning someone for eternity is the right thing to do to someone who doesn't believe in you I would like to hear them.

Religion

A-decent-god-should-not-send-people-to-hell-for-an-eternity-for-merely-not-believing-in-him./1/

I would like to apologize for the wait I have just recently woken up. I would also like to thank my opponent for this is also my first debate on the site. I believe I did mention that god supposedly gave us the bible although I believe it would be a lot easier to believe in it if God himself had come to earth and written it in front of a large amount of people. However the bible was written by humans which does not mean that it can not be true however it does mean that there is a good chance that it could not be true. I would like to not go deep into that however because that is an entirely different debate. My opponent states that god offers a direct path and method to reach him but despite that I believe it is wrong to send someone to hell merely for not believing in him. "My opponents next point is that hell should not be created in the first place. When one really thinks through the concept of hell, one clearly sees its purpose and necessity of it, If man has free will, he has a choose to good or evil. If man believes that there is only a good place to go when he dies (heaven), then what incentive does man have to do good. Hell exists so man has an incentive to do good. God would hope that man does good, but if man does bad, then why reward that person?" I would like to debate this by pointing out that we are not talking about whether a person is good or bad. I would like to throw out an example. Right now despite how insanely large Christianity is picture for a second you are in a place where people are somewhat cut off from the world. People are raised and live then die full lives in tribes where nobody has even heard about god. They have never had a chance to believe in God because nobody has told them that he exist.. and yet according to the bible no matter how good or bad these people were they will be spending eternity in hell because there was no way for them to be saved. What about people from other religions? Many of them are raised to believe in other things because other holy books and people tell them to believe in things other than the Christian god. Because of the amount of religions out there it really is hard to believe that Christianity is correct and they will go to hell for believing in the wrong thing. I would like to give another example. I am not saying all Christians believe in original sin but many do. From the glossary in the Catechism: Original Sin: "The sin by which the first human beings disobeyed the commandments of God,...Besides the personal sin of Adam and Eve, original sin describes the fallen state of human nature which affects every person born into the world, and from which Christ, the "new Adam," came to redeem us. " More from the Catechism: CCC 407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of the redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man's situation and activity in the world. By our first parents' sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free.... Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social actions and morals. So according to original sin this means that basically until you do something to be saved you are a sinner and will go to hell. By these rules all of the babies who suffer from crib death and haven't been saved will go to hell. Wouldn't people who get aborted also go to hell? My point is that if a person is killed before they can be saved then according to the rules they get punished for something they had no control over which is not right. My opponent then goes on to mention that if one has "rejected" the only path to forgiveness then God is justified in sending them to hell. I would like to point out two things. First, since we are talking about people who do not believe in God I have decided to focus on those who have 0% chance to be saved. They have not rejected God but instead have never been given a chance to know God. God has created people and set them up to have no chance which is not right. Second I would like to point out that being sent to hell is no light punishment. Being tortured for eternity is insane for ANY crime you could commit down here. People have debates over whether the death penalty is a good or bad idea and mere death is nothing compared to eternal torture. Eternity is a very very long time and it is really difficult for me to believe a loving god could do that to any of his creations much less the ones who do not or can not believe in him.

Mylynes

I would like to apologize for the wait I have just recently woken up. I would also like to thank my opponent for this is also my first debate on the site. I believe I did mention that god supposedly gave us the bible although I believe it would be a lot easier to believe in it if God himself had come to earth and written it in front of a large amount of people. However the bible was written by humans which does not mean that it can not be true however it does mean that there is a good chance that it could not be true. I would like to not go deep into that however because that is an entirely different debate. My opponent states that god offers a direct path and method to reach him but despite that I believe it is wrong to send someone to hell merely for not believing in him. "My opponents next point is that hell should not be created in the first place. When one really thinks through the concept of hell, one clearly sees its purpose and necessity of it, If man has free will, he has a choose to good or evil. If man believes that there is only a good place to go when he dies (heaven), then what incentive does man have to do good. Hell exists so man has an incentive to do good. God would hope that man does good, but if man does bad, then why reward that person?" I would like to debate this by pointing out that we are not talking about whether a person is good or bad. I would like to throw out an example. Right now despite how insanely large Christianity is picture for a second you are in a place where people are somewhat cut off from the world. People are raised and live then die full lives in tribes where nobody has even heard about god. They have never had a chance to believe in God because nobody has told them that he exist.. and yet according to the bible no matter how good or bad these people were they will be spending eternity in hell because there was no way for them to be saved. What about people from other religions? Many of them are raised to believe in other things because other holy books and people tell them to believe in things other than the Christian god. Because of the amount of religions out there it really is hard to believe that Christianity is correct and they will go to hell for believing in the wrong thing. I would like to give another example. I am not saying all Christians believe in original sin but many do. From the glossary in the Catechism: Original Sin: "The sin by which the first human beings disobeyed the commandments of God,...Besides the personal sin of Adam and Eve, original sin describes the fallen state of human nature which affects every person born into the world, and from which Christ, the "new Adam," came to redeem us. " More from the Catechism: CCC 407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of the redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man's situation and activity in the world. By our first parents' sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free.... Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social actions and morals. So according to original sin this means that basically until you do something to be saved you are a sinner and will go to hell. By these rules all of the babies who suffer from crib death and haven't been saved will go to hell. Wouldn't people who get aborted also go to hell? My point is that if a person is killed before they can be saved then according to the rules they get punished for something they had no control over which is not right. My opponent then goes on to mention that if one has "rejected" the only path to forgiveness then God is justified in sending them to hell. I would like to point out two things. First, since we are talking about people who do not believe in God I have decided to focus on those who have 0% chance to be saved. They have not rejected God but instead have never been given a chance to know God. God has created people and set them up to have no chance which is not right. Second I would like to point out that being sent to hell is no light punishment. Being tortured for eternity is insane for ANY crime you could commit down here. People have debates over whether the death penalty is a good or bad idea and mere death is nothing compared to eternal torture. Eternity is a very very long time and it is really difficult for me to believe a loving god could do that to any of his creations much less the ones who do not or can not believe in him.

Religion

A-decent-god-should-not-send-people-to-hell-for-an-eternity-for-merely-not-believing-in-him./1/

Time to close things up. "My opponent has decided to debate about a minor portion of the topic. The simple reality is that even if he is to prove sending to hell those who have zero chance of being saved is not decent, I believe I will still win because the vast majority of people within this topic do have a choice to accept or reject god. Since it effectively conceded that it is just to punish these individuals, then I believe I have already proved a decent god can send to hell those who do not believe. Again, we must focus on everyone, and not simply a small portion of people. Having said this, for the sake of debate I will engage my opponent on his arguments." Here is why I should win this debate. My opponent thinks he can win the debate merely by ignoring my points but I believe my points are valid. The topic is "A decent god should not send people to hell for an eternity for merely not believing in him." I chose to focus on the people who do not believe due to not being able to believe and my opponent thinks that because god gives most people a chance to be saved it is ok to simply ignore those who have no chance at all. I would also like to point out that although my opponent keeps referring to these people as a minority and therefore unimportant EVERY soul is important and nobody should suffer eternal damnation over something they have no control over. Also I am not talking about small groups of people here because if people truly are sent to hell for being unable to believe take a moment to think about just how large that number would be. "As for the tribes argument, I would again like to point out this is a incredibly tiny portion of the population. And, with the spread of Christian missionaries across the world, there are few if any who no longer are aware of Christianity. If a tribe chooses to reject these missionaries, then it is right for them to face the consequences, which in this case is hell. Also, as stated earlier, if accepting Jesus and god is the only way to reach heaven, and if the tribe has not done this, then god is right to reject them." My opponent thinks that number is smaller than it really is. Sure the Christian bible has made it to a lot of places but this was not always the case. MANY people for MANY years have lived their lives completely unable to access a bible. People have been around waaay before the bible was even created and when it was first created it took a long time to grow and spread to what it has become today. Think about how many people really had no chance to know God. "On the argument about people from other religions, some major religions are closely tied to Christianity, and by embracing the same god, they may still be saved. Having said this, free will solves back for this argument. Even if one is raised to follow one religion, they still have the ability to embrace Jesus. If they do not embrace the correct path to salvation and instead embrace a false belief, then god has no reason to save them or offer salvation since they had every chance to embrace the correct path." Some major religions are closely tied to Christianity yes but many of them are not. And I do not believe that free will just "solves" this problem. Lets pretend for a brief second that Christianity is all wrong and religion number 2 is correct and because all Christians did not fulfill the requirements of religion 2 they all went to hell. Next lets look here in America. A person is born and raised by Christian parents in a Christian community. Most likely that person will remain a Christian. There IS a decent chance because of this being the wonderful America that it is that the person may choose to adopt another religion but the chance that they will end up following the correct religion 2 is fairly small considering the vast amount of choices. So reverse this. Chances are greater if you are raised non Christian you will be non Christian. Just because the chance to be saved exists does not mean the chance to not be saved isn't higher which is why my point with other religions is valid. "As for infants, while I can not say with absolute certainty, I am relatively certain that most sects of Christianity would send them to purgatory. I think reasonability factors into this, if Jesus washed away our sins, then infants and aborted fetuses who never had a chance to sin have no reason to be punished, meaning they would either go to purgatory or heaven. Only the most extreme sects of Christianity would argue otherwise, and we are not discussing those." Would just like to point out that although you say they have no reason to be punished according to original sin they do. Original sin is believed by more people than you think and purgatory is also not that big of a Christian belief. Being raised as a Methodist and having friends in other various flavors of Christianity some of us were told to believe in original sin and not in purgatory because that is what our bible told us to believe. So my point here is merely that Methodist is by no means one of the most extreme sects and yet we were still made to "argue otherwise". "My opponent contends that hell is an excessive punishment. But why? Those in question have rejected their creator, shown no gratitude, and lived a life detached from the road to salvation. Hell is a just punishment for those who did not seek salvation in life. God should not reward those who do not live a just life in service to him. Purgatory is also a potential destination for many in question, though I can not speak intelligently on who goes to hell and who goes to purgatory. To conclude I believe it is clear that not embracing salvation in life justifies punishment in death. I believe I am winning that nearly all people we are discussing in this debate are justly sent to hell because they have a choice. I also believe I have shown how those my opponent discusses are either not sent to hell or are sent to hell for just reasons." My opponent is trying to say that those in question have rejected their creator. For the purpose of this debate I have focused on the people who have done nothing wrong. I am talking about people who have had either little or no chance to know that the Christian god even exists. And I would very much like for my opponent to try and justify eternal torment for people who have done nothing wrong but instead he just tries to ignore them and say that it's ok because most people have a chance to get into heaven. It's not ok. It's not ok to pick and choose who has a chance to get into heaven. A decent god would not give out such a cruel punishment to so many innocent people. I personally would like to believe that this is not the case. I would like to believe that all people have a chance to go to heaven but in the least I would like to believe that just because someone can't get into heaven then they wont be sent to hell. I would rather just god leave me alone and not put me in hell or heaven. Just let me die in peace. Wrapping this up this argument is about all of the innocent people God has given the worst possible punishment to. If any god really has sent countless good people to eternal torture merely for not knowing about him than he is not a decent god. That sounds too evil to be something that a loving god would do. You cant justify putting such a harsh punishment on so many people who had no chance to be saved. That is all. Thanks for the debate.

Mylynes

Time to close things up. "My opponent has decided to debate about a minor portion of the topic. The simple reality is that even if he is to prove sending to hell those who have zero chance of being saved is not decent, I believe I will still win because the vast majority of people within this topic do have a choice to accept or reject god. Since it effectively conceded that it is just to punish these individuals, then I believe I have already proved a decent god can send to hell those who do not believe. Again, we must focus on everyone, and not simply a small portion of people. Having said this, for the sake of debate I will engage my opponent on his arguments." Here is why I should win this debate. My opponent thinks he can win the debate merely by ignoring my points but I believe my points are valid. The topic is "A decent god should not send people to hell for an eternity for merely not believing in him." I chose to focus on the people who do not believe due to not being able to believe and my opponent thinks that because god gives most people a chance to be saved it is ok to simply ignore those who have no chance at all. I would also like to point out that although my opponent keeps referring to these people as a minority and therefore unimportant EVERY soul is important and nobody should suffer eternal damnation over something they have no control over. Also I am not talking about small groups of people here because if people truly are sent to hell for being unable to believe take a moment to think about just how large that number would be. "As for the tribes argument, I would again like to point out this is a incredibly tiny portion of the population. And, with the spread of Christian missionaries across the world, there are few if any who no longer are aware of Christianity. If a tribe chooses to reject these missionaries, then it is right for them to face the consequences, which in this case is hell. Also, as stated earlier, if accepting Jesus and god is the only way to reach heaven, and if the tribe has not done this, then god is right to reject them." My opponent thinks that number is smaller than it really is. Sure the Christian bible has made it to a lot of places but this was not always the case. MANY people for MANY years have lived their lives completely unable to access a bible. People have been around waaay before the bible was even created and when it was first created it took a long time to grow and spread to what it has become today. Think about how many people really had no chance to know God. "On the argument about people from other religions, some major religions are closely tied to Christianity, and by embracing the same god, they may still be saved. Having said this, free will solves back for this argument. Even if one is raised to follow one religion, they still have the ability to embrace Jesus. If they do not embrace the correct path to salvation and instead embrace a false belief, then god has no reason to save them or offer salvation since they had every chance to embrace the correct path." Some major religions are closely tied to Christianity yes but many of them are not. And I do not believe that free will just "solves" this problem. Lets pretend for a brief second that Christianity is all wrong and religion number 2 is correct and because all Christians did not fulfill the requirements of religion 2 they all went to hell. Next lets look here in America. A person is born and raised by Christian parents in a Christian community. Most likely that person will remain a Christian. There IS a decent chance because of this being the wonderful America that it is that the person may choose to adopt another religion but the chance that they will end up following the correct religion 2 is fairly small considering the vast amount of choices. So reverse this. Chances are greater if you are raised non Christian you will be non Christian. Just because the chance to be saved exists does not mean the chance to not be saved isn't higher which is why my point with other religions is valid. "As for infants, while I can not say with absolute certainty, I am relatively certain that most sects of Christianity would send them to purgatory. I think reasonability factors into this, if Jesus washed away our sins, then infants and aborted fetuses who never had a chance to sin have no reason to be punished, meaning they would either go to purgatory or heaven. Only the most extreme sects of Christianity would argue otherwise, and we are not discussing those." Would just like to point out that although you say they have no reason to be punished according to original sin they do. Original sin is believed by more people than you think and purgatory is also not that big of a Christian belief. Being raised as a Methodist and having friends in other various flavors of Christianity some of us were told to believe in original sin and not in purgatory because that is what our bible told us to believe. So my point here is merely that Methodist is by no means one of the most extreme sects and yet we were still made to "argue otherwise". "My opponent contends that hell is an excessive punishment. But why? Those in question have rejected their creator, shown no gratitude, and lived a life detached from the road to salvation. Hell is a just punishment for those who did not seek salvation in life. God should not reward those who do not live a just life in service to him. Purgatory is also a potential destination for many in question, though I can not speak intelligently on who goes to hell and who goes to purgatory. To conclude I believe it is clear that not embracing salvation in life justifies punishment in death. I believe I am winning that nearly all people we are discussing in this debate are justly sent to hell because they have a choice. I also believe I have shown how those my opponent discusses are either not sent to hell or are sent to hell for just reasons." My opponent is trying to say that those in question have rejected their creator. For the purpose of this debate I have focused on the people who have done nothing wrong. I am talking about people who have had either little or no chance to know that the Christian god even exists. And I would very much like for my opponent to try and justify eternal torment for people who have done nothing wrong but instead he just tries to ignore them and say that it's ok because most people have a chance to get into heaven. It's not ok. It's not ok to pick and choose who has a chance to get into heaven. A decent god would not give out such a cruel punishment to so many innocent people. I personally would like to believe that this is not the case. I would like to believe that all people have a chance to go to heaven but in the least I would like to believe that just because someone can't get into heaven then they wont be sent to hell. I would rather just god leave me alone and not put me in hell or heaven. Just let me die in peace. Wrapping this up this argument is about all of the innocent people God has given the worst possible punishment to. If any god really has sent countless good people to eternal torture merely for not knowing about him than he is not a decent god. That sounds too evil to be something that a loving god would do. You cant justify putting such a harsh punishment on so many people who had no chance to be saved. That is all. Thanks for the debate.

Religion

A-decent-god-should-not-send-people-to-hell-for-an-eternity-for-merely-not-believing-in-him./1/

Before I start my actual arguments, I would just like to say this is my first debate on this site, and I don't necessarily believe in the position I'm advocating. But I do have experience debating in college, so here goes... There are a few things I would like to state that I believe are important to my argument. First, I will contend that god has given man free will. I believe this is in line with the most reasonable sects of Christianity. Having said this, I will first address my opponents arguments. My opponent contends that sending people to hell for not believing is excessive considering god offers no proof of his existence. The problem here is that god has offered proof of his existence, his word (the bible) and his son (Jesus). God offers a direct path and method to reach him, this alone should be enough to justify ones belief. One has the choice to embrace or reject god, if one requires more evidence to believe, then one must also accept the risks of not believing. This argument seems based on the idea that reaching heaven should be easy. God gives us the ability to live our life the way we wish. If man should choose to reject god, why should god choose to accept them? My opponents next point is that hell should not be created in the first place. When one really thinks through the concept of hell, one clearly sees its purpose and necessity of it, If man has free will, he has a choose to good or evil. If man believes that there is only a good place to go when he dies (heaven), then what incentive does man have to do good. Hell exists so man has an incentive to do good. God would hope that man does good, but if man does bad, then why reward that person? As for the ant example, I don't really believe this applies in this instance, but if later I am proven wrong on this point, I will answer it at that time. Now to why sending people to hell for not believing is good. Believing in god is the path to heaven. As stated in my opponents introduction, believing is Jesus and god is the only way to have one's sins forgiven. If one has rejected the only path to forgiveness, then god is justified in sending those people to hell. The evil they have done in this world remains a stain upon them, and so they must pay for their wrongs. God has given us life, and has given us the ability to live our lives the way we wish. Our very existence is due to him. God has given us everything, and offers paradise upon our death, and what does he ask in return? Simply to believe, and not even for your entire life, just that you eventually come to believe in him. For everything god gives us, if we are unwilling to offer anything in return, then god is more than justified in punishing us.

smsiebe

Before I start my actual arguments, I would just like to say this is my first debate on this site, and I don't necessarily believe in the position I'm advocating. But I do have experience debating in college, so here goes… There are a few things I would like to state that I believe are important to my argument. First, I will contend that god has given man free will. I believe this is in line with the most reasonable sects of Christianity. Having said this, I will first address my opponents arguments. My opponent contends that sending people to hell for not believing is excessive considering god offers no proof of his existence. The problem here is that god has offered proof of his existence, his word (the bible) and his son (Jesus). God offers a direct path and method to reach him, this alone should be enough to justify ones belief. One has the choice to embrace or reject god, if one requires more evidence to believe, then one must also accept the risks of not believing. This argument seems based on the idea that reaching heaven should be easy. God gives us the ability to live our life the way we wish. If man should choose to reject god, why should god choose to accept them? My opponents next point is that hell should not be created in the first place. When one really thinks through the concept of hell, one clearly sees its purpose and necessity of it, If man has free will, he has a choose to good or evil. If man believes that there is only a good place to go when he dies (heaven), then what incentive does man have to do good. Hell exists so man has an incentive to do good. God would hope that man does good, but if man does bad, then why reward that person? As for the ant example, I don't really believe this applies in this instance, but if later I am proven wrong on this point, I will answer it at that time. Now to why sending people to hell for not believing is good. Believing in god is the path to heaven. As stated in my opponents introduction, believing is Jesus and god is the only way to have one's sins forgiven. If one has rejected the only path to forgiveness, then god is justified in sending those people to hell. The evil they have done in this world remains a stain upon them, and so they must pay for their wrongs. God has given us life, and has given us the ability to live our lives the way we wish. Our very existence is due to him. God has given us everything, and offers paradise upon our death, and what does he ask in return? Simply to believe, and not even for your entire life, just that you eventually come to believe in him. For everything god gives us, if we are unwilling to offer anything in return, then god is more than justified in punishing us.

Religion

A-decent-god-should-not-send-people-to-hell-for-an-eternity-for-merely-not-believing-in-him./1/

I think before continuing, I would like to clarify the ground on which we are debating. I have conceded that we can debate using the Christian god, but I believe we should embrace the moderate interpretation of Christianity and of god, and not the extremes on either end of the spectrum. I suppose right now the argument being the word of god is secondary to most of the debate, but if necessary we can come back to it in the final round. My opponent has decided to debate about a minor portion of the topic. The simple reality is that even if he is to prove sending to hell those who have zero chance of being saved is not decent, I believe I will still win because the vast majority of people within this topic do have a choice to accept or reject god. Since it effectively conceded that it is just to punish these individuals, then I believe I have already proven a decent god can send to hell those who do not believe. Again, we must focus on everyone, and not simply a small portion of people. Having said this, for the sake of debate I will engage my oppoent on his arguments. As for the tribes argument, I would again like to point out this is a incredibly tiny portion of the population. And, with the spread of Christian missionaries across the world, there are few if any who no longer are aware of Christianity. If a tribe chooses to reject these missionaries, then it is right for them to face the consequences, which in this case is hell. Also, as stated earlier, if accepting Jesus and god is the only way to reach heaven, and if the tribe has not done this, then god is right to reject them. On the argument about people from other religions, some major religions are closely tied to Christianity, and by embracing the same god, they may still be saved. Having said this, free will solves back for this argument. Even if one is raised to follow one religion, they still have the ability to embrace Jesus. If they do not embrace the correct path to salvation and instead embrace a false belief, then god has no reason to save them or offer salvation since they had every chance to embrace the correct path. As for infants, while I can not say with absolute certainty, I am relatively certain that most sects of Christianity would send them to purgatory. I think reasonability factors into this, if Jesus washed away our sins, then infants and aborted fetuses who never had a chance to sin have no reason to be punished, meaning they would either go to purgatory or heaven. Only the most extreme sects of Christianity would argue otherwise, and we are not discussing those. My opponent contends that hell is an excessive punishment. But why? Those in question have rejected their creator, shown no gratitude, and lived a life detached from the road to salvation. Hell is a just punishment for those who did not seek salvation in life. God should not reward those who do not live a just life in service to him. Purgatory is also a potential destination for many in question, though I can not speak intelligently on who goes to hell and who goes to purgatory. To conclude I believe it is clear that not embracing salvation in life justifies punishment in death. I believe I am winning that nearly all people we are discussing in this debate are justly sent to hell because they have a choice. I also believe I have shown how those my opponent discusses are either not sent to hell or are sent to hell for just reasons.

smsiebe

I think before continuing, I would like to clarify the ground on which we are debating. I have conceded that we can debate using the Christian god, but I believe we should embrace the moderate interpretation of Christianity and of god, and not the extremes on either end of the spectrum. I suppose right now the argument being the word of god is secondary to most of the debate, but if necessary we can come back to it in the final round. My opponent has decided to debate about a minor portion of the topic. The simple reality is that even if he is to prove sending to hell those who have zero chance of being saved is not decent, I believe I will still win because the vast majority of people within this topic do have a choice to accept or reject god. Since it effectively conceded that it is just to punish these individuals, then I believe I have already proven a decent god can send to hell those who do not believe. Again, we must focus on everyone, and not simply a small portion of people. Having said this, for the sake of debate I will engage my oppoent on his arguments. As for the tribes argument, I would again like to point out this is a incredibly tiny portion of the population. And, with the spread of Christian missionaries across the world, there are few if any who no longer are aware of Christianity. If a tribe chooses to reject these missionaries, then it is right for them to face the consequences, which in this case is hell. Also, as stated earlier, if accepting Jesus and god is the only way to reach heaven, and if the tribe has not done this, then god is right to reject them. On the argument about people from other religions, some major religions are closely tied to Christianity, and by embracing the same god, they may still be saved. Having said this, free will solves back for this argument. Even if one is raised to follow one religion, they still have the ability to embrace Jesus. If they do not embrace the correct path to salvation and instead embrace a false belief, then god has no reason to save them or offer salvation since they had every chance to embrace the correct path. As for infants, while I can not say with absolute certainty, I am relatively certain that most sects of Christianity would send them to purgatory. I think reasonability factors into this, if Jesus washed away our sins, then infants and aborted fetuses who never had a chance to sin have no reason to be punished, meaning they would either go to purgatory or heaven. Only the most extreme sects of Christianity would argue otherwise, and we are not discussing those. My opponent contends that hell is an excessive punishment. But why? Those in question have rejected their creator, shown no gratitude, and lived a life detached from the road to salvation. Hell is a just punishment for those who did not seek salvation in life. God should not reward those who do not live a just life in service to him. Purgatory is also a potential destination for many in question, though I can not speak intelligently on who goes to hell and who goes to purgatory. To conclude I believe it is clear that not embracing salvation in life justifies punishment in death. I believe I am winning that nearly all people we are discussing in this debate are justly sent to hell because they have a choice. I also believe I have shown how those my opponent discusses are either not sent to hell or are sent to hell for just reasons.

Religion

A-decent-god-should-not-send-people-to-hell-for-an-eternity-for-merely-not-believing-in-him./1/

I believe that by the end of this you will clearly see why I have negated my opponents arguments and proved the con arguments to be true. My opponent points out every soul is important. This is true, but does not refute my argument. If every soul is important than those who could be saved and those who could not be saved stand in equal value, and since those who could be saved are substantially greater in number than those who can not be saved, you will always find god to be decent and just since he offers salvation to most.. I would like to isolate one statement my opponent makes. He asks you ton consider how many people have zero chance of following Christianity. I believe my arguments prove that number to be close to zero. This means that you will always vote con since I am the only one who actually addresses the whole of the topic and prove that god would be just to send these individuals. My opponent isolates a tiny portion of the topic and tries to win by only talking about this tiny slice of the debate. Don't allow him to do this, vote con because I address the entirety of the topic On the tribe argument, I don't believe this argument is answered well. My argument about Christian missionaries proves that Christianity has reached primitive tribes, and if they reject Christianity at this point, their damnation is just. On the argument over people of other religions, I believe that I am winning this argument as well. His argument seems to be that the chances of someone not born into the Christian faith embracing Christianity is slim. I have two response that I believe will answer this argument effectively. First, we have both agreed Christianity has spread and is known across the globe. Nearly all individuals will encounter Christianity at some point in their life, so everyone will have the chance to embrace the correct faith. Second, as long as that chance exists, then the blame still lies on the individual if they choose to not embrace god. My point over freewill solving back for most of his argument has been drastically covered, meaning you will always vote con since I have proved that free will and choice justifies damnation. As for the infant argument, there are a few things I would like to point out. The actual argument from round two was not extended through, he merely pointed out some potential flaws within my argument. I believe my argument that the infants in question would go to purgatory still stands. Even if you do not believe this, he did not extend his argument, so don't give any weight to this portion of the debate. I will answer the final argument in my summary I would like to extend my argument about free will solving back for his arguments. This argument has gone conceded, meaning that he concedes that most of the people that would fall under the resolution are justly sent to hell. By this alone I should win the round since I have prove that, on balance, god is decent and just. My opponent contends that sending innocent people to hell is bad. That is really his argument. I believe that by taking this ground, he has guaranteed you will vote con. Go back to the resolution, it speaks to ALL non believers, not just the innocent. I believe my purgatory argument and missionary argument solve for nearly all the people he discusses. Here is your choice at the end of the round. You can vote pro and affirm that sending a couple people to hell is bad, even though this does not actually support the topic put forth at the start of the debate. Or you can vote con on a few grounds, first I have addressed the entirety of the topic, second I have refuted most of my opponents arguments and proved how they are solved back, and third, I have proven that god is just in sending people non believers to hell. Even if you buy 100% of my opponents arguments, you will still vote con because I have proven that god is just in sending nearly all non believers to hell, meaning that god will always at least be mostly decent and just. You will not vote pro because you don't really know who he is discussing, he says god unjustly condemns a lot of people, but offers no evidence that I have not already refuted. You simply don't know what you are affirming if you vote pro. You are definitely not affirming the topic. For that reason alone you will vote con. Thanks for a good debate. I enjoyed it.

smsiebe

I believe that by the end of this you will clearly see why I have negated my opponents arguments and proved the con arguments to be true. My opponent points out every soul is important. This is true, but does not refute my argument. If every soul is important than those who could be saved and those who could not be saved stand in equal value, and since those who could be saved are substantially greater in number than those who can not be saved, you will always find god to be decent and just since he offers salvation to most.. I would like to isolate one statement my opponent makes. He asks you ton consider how many people have zero chance of following Christianity. I believe my arguments prove that number to be close to zero. This means that you will always vote con since I am the only one who actually addresses the whole of the topic and prove that god would be just to send these individuals. My opponent isolates a tiny portion of the topic and tries to win by only talking about this tiny slice of the debate. Don't allow him to do this, vote con because I address the entirety of the topic On the tribe argument, I don't believe this argument is answered well. My argument about Christian missionaries proves that Christianity has reached primitive tribes, and if they reject Christianity at this point, their damnation is just. On the argument over people of other religions, I believe that I am winning this argument as well. His argument seems to be that the chances of someone not born into the Christian faith embracing Christianity is slim. I have two response that I believe will answer this argument effectively. First, we have both agreed Christianity has spread and is known across the globe. Nearly all individuals will encounter Christianity at some point in their life, so everyone will have the chance to embrace the correct faith. Second, as long as that chance exists, then the blame still lies on the individual if they choose to not embrace god. My point over freewill solving back for most of his argument has been drastically covered, meaning you will always vote con since I have proved that free will and choice justifies damnation. As for the infant argument, there are a few things I would like to point out. The actual argument from round two was not extended through, he merely pointed out some potential flaws within my argument. I believe my argument that the infants in question would go to purgatory still stands. Even if you do not believe this, he did not extend his argument, so don't give any weight to this portion of the debate. I will answer the final argument in my summary I would like to extend my argument about free will solving back for his arguments. This argument has gone conceded, meaning that he concedes that most of the people that would fall under the resolution are justly sent to hell. By this alone I should win the round since I have prove that, on balance, god is decent and just. My opponent contends that sending innocent people to hell is bad. That is really his argument. I believe that by taking this ground, he has guaranteed you will vote con. Go back to the resolution, it speaks to ALL non believers, not just the innocent. I believe my purgatory argument and missionary argument solve for nearly all the people he discusses. Here is your choice at the end of the round. You can vote pro and affirm that sending a couple people to hell is bad, even though this does not actually support the topic put forth at the start of the debate. Or you can vote con on a few grounds, first I have addressed the entirety of the topic, second I have refuted most of my opponents arguments and proved how they are solved back, and third, I have proven that god is just in sending people non believers to hell. Even if you buy 100% of my opponents arguments, you will still vote con because I have proven that god is just in sending nearly all non believers to hell, meaning that god will always at least be mostly decent and just. You will not vote pro because you don't really know who he is discussing, he says god unjustly condemns a lot of people, but offers no evidence that I have not already refuted. You simply don't know what you are affirming if you vote pro. You are definitely not affirming the topic. For that reason alone you will vote con. Thanks for a good debate. I enjoyed it.

Religion

A-decent-god-should-not-send-people-to-hell-for-an-eternity-for-merely-not-believing-in-him./1/

I'm new at this, here goes: I affirm the resolution, resolved: A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment. Affirming, in this case, quite literally creates a just society. My opponent defines a just society as a group of individuals living in a community that are guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness. Assuming a just society is as my opponent describes it, approving of the death penalty is completely contrary to the definition. A just society should be guided by reason and justice. This means that a person who committed a punishable crime should not receive excessive punishment, but enough so that justice, fairness, and reason exists within the resolution. This means that a society gives a person what they deserve and not necessarily re-iterate what they did, especially in unmeasurable circumstances. The "eye for an eye" mentality is barbaric and should not be applied in serving a JUST society. Additionally, a just society would carefully examine the criminal and be positive that no injustice (such as excessive punishment) be served. In order for a just society to be possible, a society must give what each person deserves. Without this, it wouldn't be just, would it? My contention is that the death penalty should not be an acceptable form of punishment as it does not give a person what he/she deserves. Therefore, the death penalty should not be used in a just society. The reason being that the act and the punishment can not be measured in terms of proportionality. Let's take a more simplified example. If I were to steal one hundred dollars from you, I would have committed a crime. You deserve one hundred dollars, correct? Wrong. Although in concrete terms this is perfectly justified, life isn't concrete, and neither is a just society. The 100 dollars, in your perspective, may have been the one extra $100 you needed to pay the late rent. In this circumstance, it can cause many detrimental events. You can have 30 days notice to leave the apartment. Your spouse may leave you. Quite possibly, your life can spiral into nothingness by something that can be defined in concrete terms. When deciding on a punishment, the proportionality can not be measured. Let me remind you that this society is just and gives a person what they DESERVES- not too much, not too little. If the victim was awarded one-hundred dollars, I would have been let go easily. Even-stevens, right? However, the unmeasurable circumstances may add on any number of 0s to that 100. This unmeasurable number may still be too little, but quite often it will be too much. This completely contradicts a just society and I would not get what I deserved. I would, in both cases, have too much or too little to pay up for. Following this idea of getting what you deserve, you need to look at the precursors and causes of the crimes in the beginning. A just society can not foresee or measure any conditions that would create an environment where a murder is possible. Factoring this into the punishment, a just society has an obligation to consider the responsibility it has on society and the way it functions and the reasoning behind the creation of a murderer. A baby is innocent, society makes him guilty. Because a criminal's causes and a victim's impact are unmeasurable, a criminal committing the crime should be exempt from the death penalty. For this reason, I vote affirmative on the resolution. Looking at my opponent's case, there are contradictory arguments and flaws that clearly support my contention. My opponent, in his second contention, states no other crime other than murder to the 1st degree is proportionate to the punishment of death. Again, the crime and punishment are clearly unmeasurable and can be void. Just because the extent of harm is concretely identical, there are many things to consider about justice. He also says just societies would not sentence the death penalty on an unproportional action, because the actor is not due the unnecessary harm. Again, the definition of a just society states nothing about the ability to measure fairness, but to enforce it. Therefore they CANNOT propose DP as it contradicts a just society. Something as un-concrete as death and murder are NOT measurable. My opponent states "because the criminal commits first degree murder, we can conclude that this individual was capable of mental comprehension, or the ability to understand their immoral action." Just because a person stabs someone to death does not mean he/she understands the morality behind his/her actions. When you were a child, your parents told you not to touch the stove. If you were unaware of the consequences (namely, fire), it means YOU are not able to comprehend the consequences of your actions. Furthermore, my contention states that many precursors and causes could lead to the act of murder. Even if society was the LEAST bit responsible, death for death is COMPLETELY unjust. My opponent is clearly assuming that the person committing the crime is of complete awareness when, in reality, any person knowingly capable of murder is being irrational to a certain degree. This irrationality is brought upon by society and mental illness. In the latter case, my opponent supports my argument by saying "we would not assign the death penalty to a mentally ill person incapable of rationality." If the plague of society, instead of genes, is the catalyst, how is the DP justified? In fact, the society has an increased sense of responsibility behind the criminal's action. They should be thinking "hey, we are manufacturing murderers." instead of "we should kill murderers." My opponent's third contention is clearly based on what the criminal believes and not what justice really is. I remind you, a just society relies on justice and fairness. Criminal's who volunteer for DP are obviously looking for a quick way out. Again, unmeasurable. This is relying on what the criminal wants, not what he/she deserves. My opponent's facts state that the motives behind it are insanity. If they were insane in the first place, would DP be justifiable or should consideration be placed in each and every case? All of my opponents contentions are faulty and his last argument is fighting for what the criminal wants, not what he deserves. In conclusion, my opponent's argument is flawed and the reasons I vote affirmative are justifiable and abolishing DP is the only way to achieve a just society.

babyface

I'm new at this, here goes: I affirm the resolution, resolved: A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment. Affirming, in this case, quite literally creates a just society. My opponent defines a just society as a group of individuals living in a community that are guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness. Assuming a just society is as my opponent describes it, approving of the death penalty is completely contrary to the definition. A just society should be guided by reason and justice. This means that a person who committed a punishable crime should not receive excessive punishment, but enough so that justice, fairness, and reason exists within the resolution. This means that a society gives a person what they deserve and not necessarily re-iterate what they did, especially in unmeasurable circumstances. The "eye for an eye" mentality is barbaric and should not be applied in serving a JUST society. Additionally, a just society would carefully examine the criminal and be positive that no injustice (such as excessive punishment) be served. In order for a just society to be possible, a society must give what each person deserves. Without this, it wouldn't be just, would it? My contention is that the death penalty should not be an acceptable form of punishment as it does not give a person what he/she deserves. Therefore, the death penalty should not be used in a just society. The reason being that the act and the punishment can not be measured in terms of proportionality. Let's take a more simplified example. If I were to steal one hundred dollars from you, I would have committed a crime. You deserve one hundred dollars, correct? Wrong. Although in concrete terms this is perfectly justified, life isn't concrete, and neither is a just society. The 100 dollars, in your perspective, may have been the one extra $100 you needed to pay the late rent. In this circumstance, it can cause many detrimental events. You can have 30 days notice to leave the apartment. Your spouse may leave you. Quite possibly, your life can spiral into nothingness by something that can be defined in concrete terms. When deciding on a punishment, the proportionality can not be measured. Let me remind you that this society is just and gives a person what they DESERVES- not too much, not too little. If the victim was awarded one-hundred dollars, I would have been let go easily. Even-stevens, right? However, the unmeasurable circumstances may add on any number of 0s to that 100. This unmeasurable number may still be too little, but quite often it will be too much. This completely contradicts a just society and I would not get what I deserved. I would, in both cases, have too much or too little to pay up for. Following this idea of getting what you deserve, you need to look at the precursors and causes of the crimes in the beginning. A just society can not foresee or measure any conditions that would create an environment where a murder is possible. Factoring this into the punishment, a just society has an obligation to consider the responsibility it has on society and the way it functions and the reasoning behind the creation of a murderer. A baby is innocent, society makes him guilty. Because a criminal's causes and a victim's impact are unmeasurable, a criminal committing the crime should be exempt from the death penalty. For this reason, I vote affirmative on the resolution. Looking at my opponent's case, there are contradictory arguments and flaws that clearly support my contention. My opponent, in his second contention, states no other crime other than murder to the 1st degree is proportionate to the punishment of death. Again, the crime and punishment are clearly unmeasurable and can be void. Just because the extent of harm is concretely identical, there are many things to consider about justice. He also says just societies would not sentence the death penalty on an unproportional action, because the actor is not due the unnecessary harm. Again, the definition of a just society states nothing about the ability to measure fairness, but to enforce it. Therefore they CANNOT propose DP as it contradicts a just society. Something as un-concrete as death and murder are NOT measurable. My opponent states "because the criminal commits first degree murder, we can conclude that this individual was capable of mental comprehension, or the ability to understand their immoral action." Just because a person stabs someone to death does not mean he/she understands the morality behind his/her actions. When you were a child, your parents told you not to touch the stove. If you were unaware of the consequences (namely, fire), it means YOU are not able to comprehend the consequences of your actions. Furthermore, my contention states that many precursors and causes could lead to the act of murder. Even if society was the LEAST bit responsible, death for death is COMPLETELY unjust. My opponent is clearly assuming that the person committing the crime is of complete awareness when, in reality, any person knowingly capable of murder is being irrational to a certain degree. This irrationality is brought upon by society and mental illness. In the latter case, my opponent supports my argument by saying "we would not assign the death penalty to a mentally ill person incapable of rationality." If the plague of society, instead of genes, is the catalyst, how is the DP justified? In fact, the society has an increased sense of responsibility behind the criminal's action. They should be thinking "hey, we are manufacturing murderers." instead of "we should kill murderers." My opponent's third contention is clearly based on what the criminal believes and not what justice really is. I remind you, a just society relies on justice and fairness. Criminal's who volunteer for DP are obviously looking for a quick way out. Again, unmeasurable. This is relying on what the criminal wants, not what he/she deserves. My opponent's facts state that the motives behind it are insanity. If they were insane in the first place, would DP be justifiable or should consideration be placed in each and every case? All of my opponents contentions are faulty and his last argument is fighting for what the criminal wants, not what he deserves. In conclusion, my opponent's argument is flawed and the reasons I vote affirmative are justifiable and abolishing DP is the only way to achieve a just society.

Politics

A-just-society-ought-not-use-the-death-penalty-as-a-form-of-punishment./2/

Lets get straight to the point. This is a hypothetical situation. My opponent is using this hypothetical situation and trying to apply it to our world, which is arguably an unjust society. A society soley based on reasoning, fairness, and justice is impossible as it is clearly a utopia. In my counter-arguments, I DID argue within the context of his argument. Although I did not state his contentions, I pointed out many flaws within his arguments that followed. Do I really need to point out word for word? My opponent is treating you as simpletons, when I believe that you can understand the arguments I am making and how his contradict the ideals of a just society. Lets recap. Under my logic, my only argument is that the extent of the punishment is unmeasurable. However, my opponent is arguing in a REAL society, which doesn't apply to a just, hypothetical situation. It is better to leave a person with less punishment rather than more punishment. More punishment would be completely avoided, if possible, because the responsibility of enforcing what the criminal deserves is placed upon society. As the saying goes, it is better for a guilty man to be set free than an innocent man lay dead. Under this logic, alternative methods such as indefinite incarceration and rehabilitation are MUCH better methods than the death penalty in a real society, the society that my opponent is arguing about. That aside, we are arguing about a just society, one that is not possible. My opponent is taking my one contention, rewording it, and trying to point out the flaws and how the same argument can contradict each other. However, this hypothetical situation still has its limits. A just society is one that is honest, fair, reasonable. It isn't one that knows all the facts. It isn't one that can measure the punishment in proportion to the act. It is one, however, that is responsible for the acts it imposes upon the criminal. Even in this just society, excessive punishment would be worse than under punishment, re-iterating the saying above. Because a just society still has its incapabilities, the wrong amount of punishment is unavoidable. However, weight it out for yourself. Imagine you are loyal and honest to the just society. Say you go into a supermarket, ethics still intact. When being charged one dollar per pound, the scale only reads it by the pound with no rounding up or down. You either have 0, 1, or 2 pounds. Would it be more honest, loyal, and fair to take 1.99 lbs and be charged for 1, or taking 0.99 lbs and accepting the fact that you have lost 0.01 lbs? Sure, the supermarket, or the criminal, saves 0.01 lbs, but would it be more just to steal 0.99 lbs and have the market suffer more than necessary? Of course, this applies to a real society as well. Refining my argument, underpunishment (rehab, life in prison) are much more reasonable than excessive punishments (death). Let's assume the rules are in place. My opponent says follow the rules. Rules. Rules. Rules. If you live in the US, you abide by its rules. US Law is based on fundamental principles in religion- most notably the Ten Commandments. The 5th Commandment says "Thou Shall not Kill". How is killing someone for killing someone else justifiable. Is it just? Is it right? No, its cruel, is barbaric. In fact, I would say it is vengeance, not justice. And justice is what we are striving for, not vengeance. My opponent argues about consent to the rules. We are arguing about the validity of the rules and punishments. We are arguing about the Death Penalty, part of the rules, RIGHT? My opponents circular logic towards the act and the rules behind it are flawed. Rules that are unjust can be defied. Isn't that what we strive for in a real society? Is that not why the American Revolution was started? Britain, with heavy taxes, was placing EXCESSIVE rules that were unfair. That is what we are arguing about today. Don't change the subject. The validity of my statements are perfectly justifiable. You can reason for yourself. What piece of evidence is flawed. Is killing someone for killing someone else justice? Or vengeance? Would you prefer a guilty man free or an innocent man dead? I don't have journals or quotes, I have plain and simple logic. I don't tell you what is right, I let you think about what is right. I have refined my argument and have justified my vote on aff on the resolution. Circular logic and blind sightedness do not contradict my argument and my argument is well-maintained. My opponent, however, has not defended his position, but has only attacked mine.

babyface

Lets get straight to the point. This is a hypothetical situation. My opponent is using this hypothetical situation and trying to apply it to our world, which is arguably an unjust society. A society soley based on reasoning, fairness, and justice is impossible as it is clearly a utopia. In my counter-arguments, I DID argue within the context of his argument. Although I did not state his contentions, I pointed out many flaws within his arguments that followed. Do I really need to point out word for word? My opponent is treating you as simpletons, when I believe that you can understand the arguments I am making and how his contradict the ideals of a just society. Lets recap. Under my logic, my only argument is that the extent of the punishment is unmeasurable. However, my opponent is arguing in a REAL society, which doesn't apply to a just, hypothetical situation. It is better to leave a person with less punishment rather than more punishment. More punishment would be completely avoided, if possible, because the responsibility of enforcing what the criminal deserves is placed upon society. As the saying goes, it is better for a guilty man to be set free than an innocent man lay dead. Under this logic, alternative methods such as indefinite incarceration and rehabilitation are MUCH better methods than the death penalty in a real society, the society that my opponent is arguing about. That aside, we are arguing about a just society, one that is not possible. My opponent is taking my one contention, rewording it, and trying to point out the flaws and how the same argument can contradict each other. However, this hypothetical situation still has its limits. A just society is one that is honest, fair, reasonable. It isn't one that knows all the facts. It isn't one that can measure the punishment in proportion to the act. It is one, however, that is responsible for the acts it imposes upon the criminal. Even in this just society, excessive punishment would be worse than under punishment, re-iterating the saying above. Because a just society still has its incapabilities, the wrong amount of punishment is unavoidable. However, weight it out for yourself. Imagine you are loyal and honest to the just society. Say you go into a supermarket, ethics still intact. When being charged one dollar per pound, the scale only reads it by the pound with no rounding up or down. You either have 0, 1, or 2 pounds. Would it be more honest, loyal, and fair to take 1.99 lbs and be charged for 1, or taking 0.99 lbs and accepting the fact that you have lost 0.01 lbs? Sure, the supermarket, or the criminal, saves 0.01 lbs, but would it be more just to steal 0.99 lbs and have the market suffer more than necessary? Of course, this applies to a real society as well. Refining my argument, underpunishment (rehab, life in prison) are much more reasonable than excessive punishments (death). Let's assume the rules are in place. My opponent says follow the rules. Rules. Rules. Rules. If you live in the US, you abide by its rules. US Law is based on fundamental principles in religion- most notably the Ten Commandments. The 5th Commandment says "Thou Shall not Kill". How is killing someone for killing someone else justifiable. Is it just? Is it right? No, its cruel, is barbaric. In fact, I would say it is vengeance, not justice. And justice is what we are striving for, not vengeance. My opponent argues about consent to the rules. We are arguing about the validity of the rules and punishments. We are arguing about the Death Penalty, part of the rules, RIGHT? My opponents circular logic towards the act and the rules behind it are flawed. Rules that are unjust can be defied. Isn't that what we strive for in a real society? Is that not why the American Revolution was started? Britain, with heavy taxes, was placing EXCESSIVE rules that were unfair. That is what we are arguing about today. Don't change the subject. The validity of my statements are perfectly justifiable. You can reason for yourself. What piece of evidence is flawed. Is killing someone for killing someone else justice? Or vengeance? Would you prefer a guilty man free or an innocent man dead? I don't have journals or quotes, I have plain and simple logic. I don't tell you what is right, I let you think about what is right. I have refined my argument and have justified my vote on aff on the resolution. Circular logic and blind sightedness do not contradict my argument and my argument is well-maintained. My opponent, however, has not defended his position, but has only attacked mine.

Politics

A-just-society-ought-not-use-the-death-penalty-as-a-form-of-punishment./2/

Ah. Closing argument. My opponent is exploiting the smallest, trivial flaws within my argument and blowing it way out of proportion. My opponent has been constantly creating hypothetical situations and, in a real world situation, has been posing questions on the justification of the punishments. My definition of a just society is not proved by the analogy, but applied to the analogy of the grocery store. We need to backtrack on the definition department. Again, A just society is a group of individuals living in a community that are guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness. It does not necessarily mean it serves it perfectly. It is guided by it. Hypothetically, it can't make a pinpoint decision because IT CAN'T MEASURE. And through reason, and not the barbaric "eye for and eye", it can be concluded that less punishment, not excessive means, is more reasonable. My analogies were to prove this point, and the point of the analogy is to describe the impact, consideration, and consequences of a smaller act in comparison to one that is even more unmeasurable. Creating an analogy that is directly proportional or even exponentially greater in proportions is highly unreasonable and mundane. In his counter argument, he is again using another hypothetical situation- in this case an utopia. Of course a just society still has laws, it is one that serves justice, not one that doesn't need to serve justice. My analogy to the United States was not to prove the United States, but to prove the situation and how it applies to this subject. The US was created in response to unfair treatment. My opponent is trying to counter my argument by relating the subject of my analogy to the ongoing events the nation is involved in. He is straying from the topic at hand. My argument is far from narrow, and my opponent failed to rebuttal the justification of the death penalty. He pointed out my weaknesses, and did not attack my strong points. Hard-hitting morality is what he missed. My point on vengeance is unaddressed and instead he decides to make attack after attack on my use of analogies and its application to the resolution. My argument in this debate is completely relevant. Capability and guidance are two different things. In a just society, there is a guide, but no answer. Death and murder are unmeasurable, it is incalculable. Less is better than more, in this case. All these arguments are justifiable, but my opponent points out any small flaw. No ideology has a perfect basis. Still, he failed to attack the motive behind DP- vengeance. Because of this major gap, he failed to make a finished feel on his argument. In conclusion, the lack of consideration, the enormous availability for unmeasured circumstances, and many alternatives are just few of many solutions to this topic. My opponent did NOT refute every single point, but only touched the surface of my argument- analogies. I have justified every one of my arguments and most have stayed strong throughout the argument. Because of these reasons, I vote affirmative on the resolution. You should do the same.

babyface

Ah. Closing argument. My opponent is exploiting the smallest, trivial flaws within my argument and blowing it way out of proportion. My opponent has been constantly creating hypothetical situations and, in a real world situation, has been posing questions on the justification of the punishments. My definition of a just society is not proved by the analogy, but applied to the analogy of the grocery store. We need to backtrack on the definition department. Again, A just society is a group of individuals living in a community that are guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness. It does not necessarily mean it serves it perfectly. It is guided by it. Hypothetically, it can't make a pinpoint decision because IT CAN'T MEASURE. And through reason, and not the barbaric "eye for and eye", it can be concluded that less punishment, not excessive means, is more reasonable. My analogies were to prove this point, and the point of the analogy is to describe the impact, consideration, and consequences of a smaller act in comparison to one that is even more unmeasurable. Creating an analogy that is directly proportional or even exponentially greater in proportions is highly unreasonable and mundane. In his counter argument, he is again using another hypothetical situation- in this case an utopia. Of course a just society still has laws, it is one that serves justice, not one that doesn't need to serve justice. My analogy to the United States was not to prove the United States, but to prove the situation and how it applies to this subject. The US was created in response to unfair treatment. My opponent is trying to counter my argument by relating the subject of my analogy to the ongoing events the nation is involved in. He is straying from the topic at hand. My argument is far from narrow, and my opponent failed to rebuttal the justification of the death penalty. He pointed out my weaknesses, and did not attack my strong points. Hard-hitting morality is what he missed. My point on vengeance is unaddressed and instead he decides to make attack after attack on my use of analogies and its application to the resolution. My argument in this debate is completely relevant. Capability and guidance are two different things. In a just society, there is a guide, but no answer. Death and murder are unmeasurable, it is incalculable. Less is better than more, in this case. All these arguments are justifiable, but my opponent points out any small flaw. No ideology has a perfect basis. Still, he failed to attack the motive behind DP- vengeance. Because of this major gap, he failed to make a finished feel on his argument. In conclusion, the lack of consideration, the enormous availability for unmeasured circumstances, and many alternatives are just few of many solutions to this topic. My opponent did NOT refute every single point, but only touched the surface of my argument- analogies. I have justified every one of my arguments and most have stayed strong throughout the argument. Because of these reasons, I vote affirmative on the resolution. You should do the same.

Politics

A-just-society-ought-not-use-the-death-penalty-as-a-form-of-punishment./2/

I negate the resolution, resolved: A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment. I offer the following definitions: A just society is a group of individuals living in a community that are guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness. The death penalty is a death sentence used as punishment. A punishment is defined as an unpleasant action in return for a wronged action. The resolution asks whether or not this punishment ought to be used by a just society, we can conclude that a just society would not do unjust actions, thus, I value justice, defined as fairness or giving each their due (American Heritage Dictionary). My value criterion is consent. For example, stabbing is unjust because there is no consent of the involved, while surgery is considered ajust, meaning it lacks qualities of both justice and injustice. While both actions are the same, the consent is the only difference between these two scenarios; therefore, consent is an important determining factor in whether or not an action is just. The affirmative burden is to prove that the death penalty is unjust, and as long as I can prove that the death penalty is consented to, it would no longer be unjust, therefore, we negate. Contention One: people agree to the death penalty because they live in a just society. A just society creates certain laws and punishments for its people for the sole purpose of maintaining justice and order, for example, the death penalty. A citizen in a just society would know the rules and consequences of a wrong action. By living in this society, individuals are consenting to its rules. If one does not consent to these limits, they have the right to leave the community at anytime, since the just society would not force anyone to stay. So, by staying in the society, individuals are tacitly agreeing to the death penalty. Contention Two: people consent to the death penalty because by committing the criminal action, they are giving inexplicit consent. First, a just society would not sentence the death penalty to any crime other than first degree murder, since no other crime is proportionate to the punishment of death. Just societies would not sentence the death penalty on an unproportional action, because the actor is not due the unnecessary harm. So, because the criminal commits first degree murder, we can conclude that this individual was capable of mental comprehension, or the ability to understand their immoral action. This is true because mental comprehension is a determining factor in deciding whether or not the individual was able to understand its fault, further on, deciding their consequences. For example, we would not assign the death penalty to a mentally ill person incapable of rationality. Because of this, the criminal must have had full awareness of both their actions and consequences, if they continue the unjust behavior, they have inexplicitly agreed to their punishment, as in this case, the death penalty. Contention Three: people consent to the death penalty because they prefer a quick death rather than spending the rest of their lives in prison. Phillips explains: Robert Anthony Phillips, Volunteering for death: the fast track to the death house, Crime magazine-an encyclopedia of crime, July 2001. There are dozens of death row inmates in the United States who have or who are doing the same thing: 'volunteering' for death. In the last year, volunteers have been executed in Nevada, Florida, Indiana, Arkansas, Virginia, California and Oklahoma. These volunteers get on the fast track to the death house by pleading guilty and asking for a death sentence at their trials or, most often, dropping their appeals after they are convicted. Since 1995, 409 convicted killers have been executed in the United States, with at least 61 of those volunteering for death, the rights groups says.Why are so many admitted or convicted killers volunteering to be executed? Criminal defense lawyers, psychiatrists and death-row inmates themselves offer a variety of reasons. Some volunteers are crazy. Some find God and are convinced that heaven awaits them if they pay for their crimes with their lives. Some use murder as a means of committing suicide. Some just can't live with themselves for what they did. Others like the idea of controlling a system they really have no control over. But, the most prevalent reason cited is that life on death row is not really life.Twelve states have no death penalty, but of the 38 that do most isolate condemned prisoners [are locked] in high-security cellblocks within maximum security prisons away from the general prison population, keeping them locked in their cells up to 23 hours a day. Studies have shown that prisoners who are isolated become severely depressed and delusional, possibly making them want to end their lives and give up their appeals. Even if the death row inmates are not insane, the isolation and restrictions imposed lead some to want to end their lives, rather than living in such conditions. "Humans are creatures who naturally avert themselves from pain. They seek to eliminate us much pain as possible. Therefore, when faced with a choice between life in prison and the death penalty, they would choose the death penalty, because it eliminates all pain, whereas life in prison merely extends all pain for the rest of their lives." (Rohit) The people of a just society agree to the death penalty, because: One, they give tacit consent by living within the just society, Two, they inexplicitly agree to this punishment when they committed the crime, and Three, convicted individuals would rather die a quick death than to live their lives in prison. Because the death penalty is consented to, it is no longer an unjust action. Thus, we negate.

ronnyyip

I negate the resolution, resolved: A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment. I offer the following definitions: A just society is a group of individuals living in a community that are guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness. The death penalty is a death sentence used as punishment. A punishment is defined as an unpleasant action in return for a wronged action. The resolution asks whether or not this punishment ought to be used by a just society, we can conclude that a just society would not do unjust actions, thus, I value justice, defined as fairness or giving each their due (American Heritage Dictionary). My value criterion is consent. For example, stabbing is unjust because there is no consent of the involved, while surgery is considered ajust, meaning it lacks qualities of both justice and injustice. While both actions are the same, the consent is the only difference between these two scenarios; therefore, consent is an important determining factor in whether or not an action is just. The affirmative burden is to prove that the death penalty is unjust, and as long as I can prove that the death penalty is consented to, it would no longer be unjust, therefore, we negate. Contention One: people agree to the death penalty because they live in a just society. A just society creates certain laws and punishments for its people for the sole purpose of maintaining justice and order, for example, the death penalty. A citizen in a just society would know the rules and consequences of a wrong action. By living in this society, individuals are consenting to its rules. If one does not consent to these limits, they have the right to leave the community at anytime, since the just society would not force anyone to stay. So, by staying in the society, individuals are tacitly agreeing to the death penalty. Contention Two: people consent to the death penalty because by committing the criminal action, they are giving inexplicit consent. First, a just society would not sentence the death penalty to any crime other than first degree murder, since no other crime is proportionate to the punishment of death. Just societies would not sentence the death penalty on an unproportional action, because the actor is not due the unnecessary harm. So, because the criminal commits first degree murder, we can conclude that this individual was capable of mental comprehension, or the ability to understand their immoral action. This is true because mental comprehension is a determining factor in deciding whether or not the individual was able to understand its fault, further on, deciding their consequences. For example, we would not assign the death penalty to a mentally ill person incapable of rationality. Because of this, the criminal must have had full awareness of both their actions and consequences, if they continue the unjust behavior, they have inexplicitly agreed to their punishment, as in this case, the death penalty. Contention Three: people consent to the death penalty because they prefer a quick death rather than spending the rest of their lives in prison. Phillips explains: Robert Anthony Phillips, Volunteering for death: the fast track to the death house, Crime magazine-an encyclopedia of crime, July 2001. There are dozens of death row inmates in the United States who have or who are doing the same thing: 'volunteering' for death. In the last year, volunteers have been executed in Nevada, Florida, Indiana, Arkansas, Virginia, California and Oklahoma. These volunteers get on the fast track to the death house by pleading guilty and asking for a death sentence at their trials or, most often, dropping their appeals after they are convicted. Since 1995, 409 convicted killers have been executed in the United States, with at least 61 of those volunteering for death, the rights groups says.Why are so many admitted or convicted killers volunteering to be executed? Criminal defense lawyers, psychiatrists and death-row inmates themselves offer a variety of reasons. Some volunteers are crazy. Some find God and are convinced that heaven awaits them if they pay for their crimes with their lives. Some use murder as a means of committing suicide. Some just can't live with themselves for what they did. Others like the idea of controlling a system they really have no control over. But, the most prevalent reason cited is that life on death row is not really life.Twelve states have no death penalty, but of the 38 that do most isolate condemned prisoners [are locked] in high-security cellblocks within maximum security prisons away from the general prison population, keeping them locked in their cells up to 23 hours a day. Studies have shown that prisoners who are isolated become severely depressed and delusional, possibly making them want to end their lives and give up their appeals. Even if the death row inmates are not insane, the isolation and restrictions imposed lead some to want to end their lives, rather than living in such conditions. "Humans are creatures who naturally avert themselves from pain. They seek to eliminate us much pain as possible. Therefore, when faced with a choice between life in prison and the death penalty, they would choose the death penalty, because it eliminates all pain, whereas life in prison merely extends all pain for the rest of their lives." (Rohit) The people of a just society agree to the death penalty, because: One, they give tacit consent by living within the just society, Two, they inexplicitly agree to this punishment when they committed the crime, and Three, convicted individuals would rather die a quick death than to live their lives in prison. Because the death penalty is consented to, it is no longer an unjust action. Thus, we negate.

Politics

A-just-society-ought-not-use-the-death-penalty-as-a-form-of-punishment./2/

Ok first of all I would like to address a few issues. Just because my opponent is new to this debate don't favor a certain side due to the fact he's new. I would first like to provide a brief road map before we start, I will be first going over my opponent's case then on to defending my case. The first argument he brings up in his case is that the death penalty should not be an acceptable form of punishment as it does not give a person what he/she deserves. Even though his argument might be written nicely in a such a format, don't let that fool your judgment as I'm about to show you why this argument is flawed. First, he provides you with a clarification that a just society would not give a punishment that is excessive or non excessive since we are debating hypothetically with a just society. From that point, you can already vote for me because he is completely contradicting himself by bringing up this argument. Under his own logic he said the way the just society's system is setup won't give out punishments to criminals that are not rendering each their due. So from this point you can already vote for me and drop his argument, but even if you don't buy this point let's also see a second point why is argument doesn't stand. Second, he gives you these fancy analogies that seem to be true, but let's actually look at the validity of these analogies. Are they even topical to today's resolution. If we put ourselves inside my opponent's shoe, then under his own logic we can never punish anyone since we cannot measure out a proportionate punishment without violating the criminal's right. So from that point, does it mean we should never punish a criminal since we might violate their right? Obviously, not since as I have stated in my case that they forfeited their right and conceded to these punishments because they can rationalize. Now, let's move on to the arguments my opponent makes toward my case My opponent makes a ton of fancy arguments against my case, but do not let him get away with this as I have provided you the most crucial piece of analysis in today's round. I clearly specified in my case that Consent is an important factor in determining whether something is just or not as I have brought up with my surgery analogy. This was completely dropped and left silent, which means my opponent doesn't know how to answer to this argument since it is a true argument. So don't let him get up in his next speech and make new arguments toward this as he would be completely contradictory. Then, he drops my first and second contention which supports the value criterion of consent. I clearly stated that the reason it is ok to use the death penalty on these criminals since they have consent to these rules by living in the society. Even if you don't buy that, if you don't think this is true, I mean if you don't like the rules of a society, you have the right to leave. Even then, we can rationalize which differentiates us from inanimate objects so we do understand the consequences for committing a crime such as killing. Now, my opponent makes his only and final piece of offense on my case which is we can never measure out the proportionality of a punishment. He gives you this very good example of a baby touching a stove yet not knowing the consequences. This might be true, but he fails to realize what the resolution and I am to present is that the people who commits the crime are at a level with the ability to rationalize. I doubt a baby of a age of 5 would have the capability of killing someone intentionally and even if they do, we have specialized juvenile trials for criminals under the age of 18. Later, he tries to also turn one of my argument against me when I say I wouldn't assign the death penalty to someone who is mentally ill, this is completely not contradictory as the a mentally ill person who committed crime has no control or whatsoever over his own actions. Which then shows you my case totally achieves justice since we won't be punishing innocents with the death penalty. My opponent completely misunderstands my whole case so don't let his fancy writing confused your judgment in today's debate. Lastly, theres no reason why his offense will stand because he is the one who is being contradictory since he started his own case off with a piece of analysis how a just society would do something that is just such as giving proportionate punishments or else they wouldn't be a just society. Since my opponent agrees to that , there is no sufficient reason that his argument should stand at all. Even if you don't buy that he still has his last piece of argument left on my case which is that my third contention is not true since we can never know what the criminal thinks. Based off this evidence he gives you which is soley his own opinion, but in the contrary I give you three piece of EVIDENCE from well known novels, magazines and professor analysis at well known university to support my third contention. Who would you believe then a person who is just sits and play computer all day or where as a professor in a well known university doing stastical research. Base on that, you can already buy my arguments. As a result, my 3 arguments in my whole case still stands as 2 were left unanswered and I also showed you that my opponent only piece of analysis fails since he contradicts himself with the clarification on a just society. Therefore, you must vote for me!

ronnyyip

Ok first of all I would like to address a few issues. Just because my opponent is new to this debate don't favor a certain side due to the fact he's new. I would first like to provide a brief road map before we start, I will be first going over my opponent's case then on to defending my case. The first argument he brings up in his case is that the death penalty should not be an acceptable form of punishment as it does not give a person what he/she deserves. Even though his argument might be written nicely in a such a format, don't let that fool your judgment as I'm about to show you why this argument is flawed. First, he provides you with a clarification that a just society would not give a punishment that is excessive or non excessive since we are debating hypothetically with a just society. From that point, you can already vote for me because he is completely contradicting himself by bringing up this argument. Under his own logic he said the way the just society's system is setup won't give out punishments to criminals that are not rendering each their due. So from this point you can already vote for me and drop his argument, but even if you don't buy this point let's also see a second point why is argument doesn't stand. Second, he gives you these fancy analogies that seem to be true, but let's actually look at the validity of these analogies. Are they even topical to today's resolution. If we put ourselves inside my opponent's shoe, then under his own logic we can never punish anyone since we cannot measure out a proportionate punishment without violating the criminal's right. So from that point, does it mean we should never punish a criminal since we might violate their right? Obviously, not since as I have stated in my case that they forfeited their right and conceded to these punishments because they can rationalize. Now, let's move on to the arguments my opponent makes toward my case My opponent makes a ton of fancy arguments against my case, but do not let him get away with this as I have provided you the most crucial piece of analysis in today's round. I clearly specified in my case that Consent is an important factor in determining whether something is just or not as I have brought up with my surgery analogy. This was completely dropped and left silent, which means my opponent doesn't know how to answer to this argument since it is a true argument. So don't let him get up in his next speech and make new arguments toward this as he would be completely contradictory. Then, he drops my first and second contention which supports the value criterion of consent. I clearly stated that the reason it is ok to use the death penalty on these criminals since they have consent to these rules by living in the society. Even if you don't buy that, if you don't think this is true, I mean if you don't like the rules of a society, you have the right to leave. Even then, we can rationalize which differentiates us from inanimate objects so we do understand the consequences for committing a crime such as killing. Now, my opponent makes his only and final piece of offense on my case which is we can never measure out the proportionality of a punishment. He gives you this very good example of a baby touching a stove yet not knowing the consequences. This might be true, but he fails to realize what the resolution and I am to present is that the people who commits the crime are at a level with the ability to rationalize. I doubt a baby of a age of 5 would have the capability of killing someone intentionally and even if they do, we have specialized juvenile trials for criminals under the age of 18. Later, he tries to also turn one of my argument against me when I say I wouldn't assign the death penalty to someone who is mentally ill, this is completely not contradictory as the a mentally ill person who committed crime has no control or whatsoever over his own actions. Which then shows you my case totally achieves justice since we won't be punishing innocents with the death penalty. My opponent completely misunderstands my whole case so don't let his fancy writing confused your judgment in today's debate. Lastly, theres no reason why his offense will stand because he is the one who is being contradictory since he started his own case off with a piece of analysis how a just society would do something that is just such as giving proportionate punishments or else they wouldn't be a just society. Since my opponent agrees to that , there is no sufficient reason that his argument should stand at all. Even if you don't buy that he still has his last piece of argument left on my case which is that my third contention is not true since we can never know what the criminal thinks. Based off this evidence he gives you which is soley his own opinion, but in the contrary I give you three piece of EVIDENCE from well known novels, magazines and professor analysis at well known university to support my third contention. Who would you believe then a person who is just sits and play computer all day or where as a professor in a well known university doing stastical research. Base on that, you can already buy my arguments. As a result, my 3 arguments in my whole case still stands as 2 were left unanswered and I also showed you that my opponent only piece of analysis fails since he contradicts himself with the clarification on a just society. Therefore, you must vote for me!

Politics

A-just-society-ought-not-use-the-death-penalty-as-a-form-of-punishment./2/

This will be my final speech so I would like to clarify several mis confusions in today's round. First, If we analyze my opponents previous speech, his only focus now is on the just society definitions and how it contradicts my case. Aside, from that he completely drops and agrees to all the arguments I made on my previous speech, solely from this you can vote for me already. Even if you don't buy that let's see what he actually says in his previous speech. Once again, don't let his fancy analogies and writing confuse your judgment in today's round. The first argument he tries to make is I am trying to bring up hypothetical examples to apply it to real world situation. First, Where in my case or my speech am I trying to link my case to real world situations, None. Second, Obviously I am focusing on a hypothetical society that was defined by both of us since it's a just society. Lastly, there is no restriction on why we can't debate on a just society since this is a debate and the point of a debating this topic is to learn and motivate our critical thinking skills. This just society might not exist, but we create one to set it as a criterion or example for us to follow or achieve it in the best of our abilities. Since these are true, you can disregard all the arguments he makes up a real world society since I never focused at all in my speech on real world situations or arguments, so don't let him twist my speech around to win today's debate. Now he then talks about how a just society can still be flawed as he brings up an analogy such as purchasing groceries at a supermarket. This analogy is totally irrelevant as we can see the magnitude of justice and purchasing grocery is completely different since once involves a person's life while purchasing grocery places value on an item. Clearly, we can't place a value on human since we are all equal. Which then brings me to my next question is that he still never answered to my main key argument that he is being completely contradictory about how a just society will commit excessive or non-excessive punishments when he states himself a just society won't do so. Obviously, the reason it won't do so is because it is a just society, the people who lives in this society might be bad and commit crimes, but the way the just society is structured and setup will at last render and punish these criminals. Lastly, he tries to persuade you with these fancy arguments about the United States Constitution. You can't buy this at all as the resolution clearly states a "Just Society", my opponent is automatically making the assumption that the United States is a just society. If you buy his case then your saying the United States can be portrayed as a just society, which is completely false. No way United States is a just society when we commmit so many unjust actions such as invading Iraq for oil, imperializing many other nations under the name of creating a democracy and many more actions. So you can't buy his last finishing argument, it might sound nice, but if you think about it. His argument is completely irrelevant as he misunderstands the whole concept of this resolution. In Conclusion, you can already vote for me now, there shouldn't be any reason for you to read his next speech as he first drops my consent argument so we can then agree that he does not know how to reply to this since it is true. Then he does not answer my key part argument on his case that if his logic is true then "should we not punish every single criminal that commits a crime since we run a chance of violating their right with excessive punishments?" Lastly, I refuted every single key points of his case and show you that just because you can write nicely doesn't mean you can win due to the fact his arguments are unwarranted. From these reasons, you must vote for me, Thank you!

ronnyyip

This will be my final speech so I would like to clarify several mis confusions in today's round. First, If we analyze my opponents previous speech, his only focus now is on the just society definitions and how it contradicts my case. Aside, from that he completely drops and agrees to all the arguments I made on my previous speech, solely from this you can vote for me already. Even if you don't buy that let's see what he actually says in his previous speech. Once again, don't let his fancy analogies and writing confuse your judgment in today's round. The first argument he tries to make is I am trying to bring up hypothetical examples to apply it to real world situation. First, Where in my case or my speech am I trying to link my case to real world situations, None. Second, Obviously I am focusing on a hypothetical society that was defined by both of us since it's a just society. Lastly, there is no restriction on why we can't debate on a just society since this is a debate and the point of a debating this topic is to learn and motivate our critical thinking skills. This just society might not exist, but we create one to set it as a criterion or example for us to follow or achieve it in the best of our abilities. Since these are true, you can disregard all the arguments he makes up a real world society since I never focused at all in my speech on real world situations or arguments, so don't let him twist my speech around to win today's debate. Now he then talks about how a just society can still be flawed as he brings up an analogy such as purchasing groceries at a supermarket. This analogy is totally irrelevant as we can see the magnitude of justice and purchasing grocery is completely different since once involves a person's life while purchasing grocery places value on an item. Clearly, we can't place a value on human since we are all equal. Which then brings me to my next question is that he still never answered to my main key argument that he is being completely contradictory about how a just society will commit excessive or non-excessive punishments when he states himself a just society won't do so. Obviously, the reason it won't do so is because it is a just society, the people who lives in this society might be bad and commit crimes, but the way the just society is structured and setup will at last render and punish these criminals. Lastly, he tries to persuade you with these fancy arguments about the United States Constitution. You can't buy this at all as the resolution clearly states a "Just Society", my opponent is automatically making the assumption that the United States is a just society. If you buy his case then your saying the United States can be portrayed as a just society, which is completely false. No way United States is a just society when we commmit so many unjust actions such as invading Iraq for oil, imperializing many other nations under the name of creating a democracy and many more actions. So you can't buy his last finishing argument, it might sound nice, but if you think about it. His argument is completely irrelevant as he misunderstands the whole concept of this resolution. In Conclusion, you can already vote for me now, there shouldn't be any reason for you to read his next speech as he first drops my consent argument so we can then agree that he does not know how to reply to this since it is true. Then he does not answer my key part argument on his case that if his logic is true then "should we not punish every single criminal that commits a crime since we run a chance of violating their right with excessive punishments?" Lastly, I refuted every single key points of his case and show you that just because you can write nicely doesn't mean you can win due to the fact his arguments are unwarranted. From these reasons, you must vote for me, Thank you!

Politics

A-just-society-ought-not-use-the-death-penalty-as-a-form-of-punishment./2/

Introduction: Thanks to my opponent for offering this interesting challenge. I fear that I may have had a somewhat different interpretation of the resolution than he intended, but since no definitions were given I am going to proceed as I originally intended. As a student of theoretical linguistics [1], he should understand my approach. I hope that my approach will not be too difficult for readers who are not familiar with mathematical linguistics to easily grasp. Analysis of the Resolution: The resolution requires that it be possible for a language to be more logical than another ("can be"). It does not require that there actually be an example. If the resolution were "Grape can jump off a building" I would just have to demonstrate my capacity for climbing and jumping; I wouldn't have to actually do it. Definitions: Language - A language is a set of strings formed on an alphabet [2]. I adopt this definition because it is the most rigorous and least chauvinistic definition of a language. Defining language only as those languages that have naturally evolved in human cultures is overly restricting. We should definitely reject Con's ill-defined claim that a language requires a "political agenda." That clearly has nothing to do with what language is about. Even if we accept Con's definition, it's possible for any set of strings of symbols to be backed by a political force, and the resolution concerns the nature of language, not actual languages. Logical - Reasonable or rational [3]. I adopt this definition because it is the most fair. If we define logical as "of or pertaining to logic" then it is easy to demonstrate that some languages are more logical: there are languages specifically designed for logic! So, my objective for this debate will be to show that certain sets of strings formed on alphabets are more rational or reasonable than others. Affirmative Arguments: A1: Some languages are inherently unusable A language cannot be reasonable or rational if it cannot be used to communicate. There are many was that this barrier could come up for humans. Perhaps a language is so inefficient that the strings are too long to remember. A human language that used an integer for every word (perhaps with special integers for spaces and punctuation) could have the same syntactic and semantic properties as English, but be totally incomprehensible. Languages could also involve impossible items in their alphabets: sounds that are too high or too low to hear, colors that humans can't see. Replace the 1's and 0's in a binary code on a printed page with high pitched sounds and it becomes unreadable. A2: Some languages lack certain semantic content. If you want to give a computer science lecture in ancient Greek, you're out of luck. Some languages are more fully developed in their vocabularies than others. The languages of technological primitive peoples typically do not include the ability to express detailed mathematical concepts [4]. These languages cannot be considered as "logical" as more rich languages because they place a serious limit on their speakers ability to communicate. A3: Some languages are more or less ambiguous. A grammatical ambiguity results when different syntactic structures produce the same final sentence [5]. A famous example in English is the sentence, "They are hunting dogs." Some languages, such as Lojban, are designed to have fewer ambiguities. The language of first-order logic does not contain any ambiguities at all! A language's resistance to ambiguity is a good determinate of how logical it is. A language that always generated the same string regardless of the underlying grammar would be very difficult to understand indeed! A4: Nonsense languages are possible. A language can be constructed to express only logically invalid arguments or only false propositions. Such a language could never be considered logical. Counterarguments: CA1: Con's arguments don't prove his thesis. To be honest, I don't understand what Con was talking about in the last round. It didn't seem to relate to the debate. All he has shown is that there are different ways of expressing the same semantic content. That should be obvious to anyone right away: "yes" in English and "si" in Spanish both do just fine. But if a five hour long ritual is required to give an affirmative reply in a language, that language is less logical than English or Spanish. There is more to "logic" in a language, whatever that is, than just being able to express basic ideas, and not every language can even do that. Conclusion: It should be obvious that there are lots of ways that a form of communication can be illogical. Some languages clearly must have fewer problems than others just by virtue of being meaningfully different. Con has not given us a very clear idea of what he is talking about, and he has used a very small number of examples to prove a conclusion much weaker than what is required to negate the resolution. Sources: [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... [5] <URL>...

Grape

Introduction: Thanks to my opponent for offering this interesting challenge. I fear that I may have had a somewhat different interpretation of the resolution than he intended, but since no definitions were given I am going to proceed as I originally intended. As a student of theoretical linguistics [1], he should understand my approach. I hope that my approach will not be too difficult for readers who are not familiar with mathematical linguistics to easily grasp. Analysis of the Resolution: The resolution requires that it be possible for a language to be more logical than another (“can be”). It does not require that there actually be an example. If the resolution were “Grape can jump off a building” I would just have to demonstrate my capacity for climbing and jumping; I wouldn't have to actually do it. Definitions: Language – A language is a set of strings formed on an alphabet [2]. I adopt this definition because it is the most rigorous and least chauvinistic definition of a language. Defining language only as those languages that have naturally evolved in human cultures is overly restricting. We should definitely reject Con's ill-defined claim that a language requires a “political agenda.” That clearly has nothing to do with what language is about. Even if we accept Con's definition, it's possible for any set of strings of symbols to be backed by a political force, and the resolution concerns the nature of language, not actual languages. Logical – Reasonable or rational [3]. I adopt this definition because it is the most fair. If we define logical as “of or pertaining to logic” then it is easy to demonstrate that some languages are more logical: there are languages specifically designed for logic! So, my objective for this debate will be to show that certain sets of strings formed on alphabets are more rational or reasonable than others. Affirmative Arguments: A1: Some languages are inherently unusable A language cannot be reasonable or rational if it cannot be used to communicate. There are many was that this barrier could come up for humans. Perhaps a language is so inefficient that the strings are too long to remember. A human language that used an integer for every word (perhaps with special integers for spaces and punctuation) could have the same syntactic and semantic properties as English, but be totally incomprehensible. Languages could also involve impossible items in their alphabets: sounds that are too high or too low to hear, colors that humans can't see. Replace the 1's and 0's in a binary code on a printed page with high pitched sounds and it becomes unreadable. A2: Some languages lack certain semantic content. If you want to give a computer science lecture in ancient Greek, you're out of luck. Some languages are more fully developed in their vocabularies than others. The languages of technological primitive peoples typically do not include the ability to express detailed mathematical concepts [4]. These languages cannot be considered as “logical” as more rich languages because they place a serious limit on their speakers ability to communicate. A3: Some languages are more or less ambiguous. A grammatical ambiguity results when different syntactic structures produce the same final sentence [5]. A famous example in English is the sentence, “They are hunting dogs.” Some languages, such as Lojban, are designed to have fewer ambiguities. The language of first-order logic does not contain any ambiguities at all! A language's resistance to ambiguity is a good determinate of how logical it is. A language that always generated the same string regardless of the underlying grammar would be very difficult to understand indeed! A4: Nonsense languages are possible. A language can be constructed to express only logically invalid arguments or only false propositions. Such a language could never be considered logical. Counterarguments: CA1: Con's arguments don't prove his thesis. To be honest, I don't understand what Con was talking about in the last round. It didn't seem to relate to the debate. All he has shown is that there are different ways of expressing the same semantic content. That should be obvious to anyone right away: “yes” in English and “si” in Spanish both do just fine. But if a five hour long ritual is required to give an affirmative reply in a language, that language is less logical than English or Spanish. There is more to “logic” in a language, whatever that is, than just being able to express basic ideas, and not every language can even do that. Conclusion: It should be obvious that there are lots of ways that a form of communication can be illogical. Some languages clearly must have fewer problems than others just by virtue of being meaningfully different. Con has not given us a very clear idea of what he is talking about, and he has used a very small number of examples to prove a conclusion much weaker than what is required to negate the resolution. Sources: [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Science

A-language-can-be-more-or-less-logical-than-another/1/

Definitions: The definition of a language as a formal language ought to be preferred because it is the most inclusive. As Con agreed, this debate concerns possible languages, not just actual languages. Any formal language could be a natural language, and every natural language is a formal language, so the distinction that Con is trying to drive is meaningless. There is no reason why a language like Java couldn't be the natural language of intelligent computers, for instance. Con does not seem to understand the point of formal languages: they are most certainly not just studied to help us understand real languages. Formal language theory came out of computer sciences and concerns that types of languages that certain devices, including human brains, are capable of processing. It carries deep implications for mathematics, physics, and philosophy as well as linguistics. The languages that we humans speak are by no means some privileged class. In fact, our languages tend to overwhelmingly be the more logical ones because evolution naturally favored the ability to understand those languages. In much the same way, we walk because it is a more logical way of getting around than rolling. Affirmative Arguments: A1: Some languages are inherently unusable Con says that languages are a means of communication. That's true, but it doesn't mean that they all work. Consider this analogy: a vehicle is defined by definition as a device for getting around. A broken down car is not useful for getting around. Therefore, it is not a vehicle. This is not sound reasoning because it fails to distinguish between what the broken down car was intended to do and what it does. A vehicle that doesn't work is still a vehicle. Likewise, a languages that doesn't work can still be a language. Con tries to say that we are debating about whether or not the information conveyed by a language can be more logical than the information conveyed by another. We most certainly are not; we are debating about the logicality of the language itself. However, I do argue that one possible problem with a language is that the content it expresses is less than useful. A2: Some languages lack certain semantic content. Con just asserts that lacking the ability to express certain concepts does not make a language less logical and then gives a few examples of different ways that languages express things. He's not given us any reason to think that missing certain ideas doesn't make a language less logical. If a language does not include the means to discuss certain important ideas, then it has a serious defect. It is true that languages change to accommodate for changes, but Con cannot invoke this possibility. Otherwise no language could be less logical than any other, because it could just "change over time" into the other. For example, if French is more logical than English, English can just "evolve" into French. We must take languages as fixed and count changes as different languages. Otherwise Latin and Spanish might as well be the same language. We lose track of what it means for languages to be distinct. Remember that according to my more rigorous definition, a language is a set of strings (sentences). The strings that are included are fixed. Once new strings are added to enable us to talk about something new, we have a new set and thus a new language. This is a bigger issue than just the lack of reference to computers in ancient Greek. A language could consist of just the sentence "the cat is on the mat." Needless to say, this language is useful only in a very limited context. It still meets all the requirements for a language. A3: Some languages are more or less ambiguous. Ambiguities result when there are multiple derivations for a string, as I wrote in the previous round. This can happen never, as in the language of first order logic, sometimes, as in English, or potentially always. The less often a language creates ambiguities, the more logical it is because it will create less confusion, especially for people who are less familiar with it. The fact that there are semantical differences isn't a solution, it's the problem! The exact same sentence means two or more different things, creating opportunities for confusion. In his response, Con concedes the debate: " This ambiguity is not illogical, because it does not imply that all of these derivations are semantically equivalent (which would, in fact, be illogical)..." All the derivations could be semantically equivalent in some language. Con concedes that such a language would be illogical. There is no requirement for a language that says there must be semantically distinct strings, or that strings with the same derivation must be semantically different. Many languages do not even have semantics at all. A4: Nonsense languages are possible. English can be used to make both logically valid and logically invalid arguments. Some languages only allow one or the other. For instance, the language of the logically true proposition of first order logic contains only logically valid arguments. The language of all strings on the same alphabet that are not members of this language contains only logically invalid arguments. It would be helpful if we could only make arguments that were logically valid according to the grammatical rules of our language, and it would be extremely unhelpful if we could never make logically valid arguments. Languages whose grammars favor the construction of logically valid arguments are obviously more logical than languages whose grammars do not. Con seems to be defining logic as coherency. An statement can be perfectly understandable and still illogical. It's not enough that a language can express some cogent (if incorrect) ideas. I should add for Con's benefit that "the sky is blue because the sky is blue" is a logically valid argument. Counterarguments: CA1: Con's arguments don't prove his thesis. I reiterate my point that all Con has said so far is that you can say the same thing slightly differently in a couple languages. That has no bearing on the topic at hand. A language that required a five hour ritual for an affirmative really would be unreasonable because people are constrained by time and care about getting information more quickly. That ought to be obvious. More is required that just eventually getting the right idea. Conclusion: Con seems to be operating under a definition of logicality that does not cohere with the one he agreed to. More is required for a language to be logical or reasonable than for it to eventually express the right concept (and even that is not given). Con is trying to manipulate definitions to make the resolution a tautology. The resolution is very obviously true. Of course a language can be more logical than another. Why are we using the languages that we are when there are an infinite number of possible ways we could try to communicate? Certain ways of communicating just plan work better than others. It's more logical to use them.

Grape

Definitions: The definition of a language as a formal language ought to be preferred because it is the most inclusive. As Con agreed, this debate concerns possible languages, not just actual languages. Any formal language could be a natural language, and every natural language is a formal language, so the distinction that Con is trying to drive is meaningless. There is no reason why a language like Java couldn't be the natural language of intelligent computers, for instance. Con does not seem to understand the point of formal languages: they are most certainly not just studied to help us understand real languages. Formal language theory came out of computer sciences and concerns that types of languages that certain devices, including human brains, are capable of processing. It carries deep implications for mathematics, physics, and philosophy as well as linguistics. The languages that we humans speak are by no means some privileged class. In fact, our languages tend to overwhelmingly be the more logical ones because evolution naturally favored the ability to understand those languages. In much the same way, we walk because it is a more logical way of getting around than rolling. Affirmative Arguments: A1: Some languages are inherently unusable Con says that languages are a means of communication. That's true, but it doesn't mean that they all work. Consider this analogy: a vehicle is defined by definition as a device for getting around. A broken down car is not useful for getting around. Therefore, it is not a vehicle. This is not sound reasoning because it fails to distinguish between what the broken down car was intended to do and what it does. A vehicle that doesn't work is still a vehicle. Likewise, a languages that doesn't work can still be a language. Con tries to say that we are debating about whether or not the information conveyed by a language can be more logical than the information conveyed by another. We most certainly are not; we are debating about the logicality of the language itself. However, I do argue that one possible problem with a language is that the content it expresses is less than useful. A2: Some languages lack certain semantic content. Con just asserts that lacking the ability to express certain concepts does not make a language less logical and then gives a few examples of different ways that languages express things. He's not given us any reason to think that missing certain ideas doesn't make a language less logical. If a language does not include the means to discuss certain important ideas, then it has a serious defect. It is true that languages change to accommodate for changes, but Con cannot invoke this possibility. Otherwise no language could be less logical than any other, because it could just “change over time” into the other. For example, if French is more logical than English, English can just “evolve” into French. We must take languages as fixed and count changes as different languages. Otherwise Latin and Spanish might as well be the same language. We lose track of what it means for languages to be distinct. Remember that according to my more rigorous definition, a language is a set of strings (sentences). The strings that are included are fixed. Once new strings are added to enable us to talk about something new, we have a new set and thus a new language. This is a bigger issue than just the lack of reference to computers in ancient Greek. A language could consist of just the sentence “the cat is on the mat.” Needless to say, this language is useful only in a very limited context. It still meets all the requirements for a language. A3: Some languages are more or less ambiguous. Ambiguities result when there are multiple derivations for a string, as I wrote in the previous round. This can happen never, as in the language of first order logic, sometimes, as in English, or potentially always. The less often a language creates ambiguities, the more logical it is because it will create less confusion, especially for people who are less familiar with it. The fact that there are semantical differences isn't a solution, it's the problem! The exact same sentence means two or more different things, creating opportunities for confusion. In his response, Con concedes the debate: “ This ambiguity is not illogical, because it does not imply that all of these derivations are semantically equivalent (which would, in fact, be illogical)...” All the derivations could be semantically equivalent in some language. Con concedes that such a language would be illogical. There is no requirement for a language that says there must be semantically distinct strings, or that strings with the same derivation must be semantically different. Many languages do not even have semantics at all. A4: Nonsense languages are possible. English can be used to make both logically valid and logically invalid arguments. Some languages only allow one or the other. For instance, the language of the logically true proposition of first order logic contains only logically valid arguments. The language of all strings on the same alphabet that are not members of this language contains only logically invalid arguments. It would be helpful if we could only make arguments that were logically valid according to the grammatical rules of our language, and it would be extremely unhelpful if we could never make logically valid arguments. Languages whose grammars favor the construction of logically valid arguments are obviously more logical than languages whose grammars do not. Con seems to be defining logic as coherency. An statement can be perfectly understandable and still illogical. It's not enough that a language can express some cogent (if incorrect) ideas. I should add for Con's benefit that “the sky is blue because the sky is blue” is a logically valid argument. Counterarguments: CA1: Con's arguments don't prove his thesis. I reiterate my point that all Con has said so far is that you can say the same thing slightly differently in a couple languages. That has no bearing on the topic at hand. A language that required a five hour ritual for an affirmative really would be unreasonable because people are constrained by time and care about getting information more quickly. That ought to be obvious. More is required that just eventually getting the right idea. Conclusion: Con seems to be operating under a definition of logicality that does not cohere with the one he agreed to. More is required for a language to be logical or reasonable than for it to eventually express the right concept (and even that is not given). Con is trying to manipulate definitions to make the resolution a tautology. The resolution is very obviously true. Of course a language can be more logical than another. Why are we using the languages that we are when there are an infinite number of possible ways we could try to communicate? Certain ways of communicating just plan work better than others. It's more logical to use them.

Science

A-language-can-be-more-or-less-logical-than-another/1/

Resolution: A language can be more or less logical than another. First round is strictly for acceptance.

InVinoVeritas

Resolution: A language can be more or less logical than another. First round is strictly for acceptance.

Science

A-language-can-be-more-or-less-logical-than-another/1/

First off, I would like to thank Grape, a very esteemed debater on DDO, for taking on this debate challenge. I look forward to an insightful, stimulating debate. --- In the words of sociolinguist Max Weinreich, "A language is a dialect with an army and navy." ("A shprakh iz a dialekt mit an armey un flot.") [1] The primary distinction between a language and a dialect is political influence. Some languages, such as Danish and Norwegian, are mutually comprehensible, yet still considered separate languages due to their separate political agendas. Therefore, we will start with an example of a disparity in the English language that is strictly dialectal and progress from there: "I didn't eat any dinner." vs. "I didn't eat no dinner." [2] The former example represents phrasing that is accepted by Standard English, while the latter example represents phrasing that is accepted by an alternative dialect of English. The forms of these two sentences are different, due to a difference between the words "any" and "no," yet, holistically, both statements are semantically acceptable and, in many contexts, identical. Through the lens of Standard English, the latter contains an ungrammatical double negative. However, based on the grammar of the alternative dialect, the double negative has the same semantic significance as the single negative in the former. Oppositions to prescriptive grammar do not equate to a flaw in logic. In the Russian language, means "I am not doing anything," [3] or we could literally translate it word-for-word "I am not doing nothing." Again, semantically, "I am not doing anything" and are identical in many contexts, yet the form differs. All language has semantic significance; even paradoxical statements have semantic significance, because their components, though contradictory, have representational meaning. Furthermore, in linguistics, semanticity is a necessary component of language. [4] Through these examples, I have explained how a language cannot be more logical or illogical than another. Though forms vary, statements remain semantically significant and, consequently, logically valid. --- [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>...

InVinoVeritas

First off, I would like to thank Grape, a very esteemed debater on DDO, for taking on this debate challenge. I look forward to an insightful, stimulating debate. --- In the words of sociolinguist Max Weinreich, "A language is a dialect with an army and navy." ("A shprakh iz a dialekt mit an armey un flot.") [1] The primary distinction between a language and a dialect is political influence. Some languages, such as Danish and Norwegian, are mutually comprehensible, yet still considered separate languages due to their separate political agendas. Therefore, we will start with an example of a disparity in the English language that is strictly dialectal and progress from there: "I didn't eat any dinner." vs. "I didn't eat no dinner." [2] The former example represents phrasing that is accepted by Standard English, while the latter example represents phrasing that is accepted by an alternative dialect of English. The forms of these two sentences are different, due to a difference between the words "any" and "no," yet, holistically, both statements are semantically acceptable and, in many contexts, identical. Through the lens of Standard English, the latter contains an ungrammatical double negative. However, based on the grammar of the alternative dialect, the double negative has the same semantic significance as the single negative in the former. Oppositions to prescriptive grammar do not equate to a flaw in logic. In the Russian language, means "I am not doing anything," [3] or we could literally translate it word-for-word "I am not doing nothing." Again, semantically, "I am not doing anything" and are identical in many contexts, yet the form differs. All language has semantic significance; even paradoxical statements have semantic significance, because their components, though contradictory, have representational meaning. Furthermore, in linguistics, semanticity is a necessary component of language. [4] Through these examples, I have explained how a language cannot be more logical or illogical than another. Though forms vary, statements remain semantically significant and, consequently, logically valid. --- [1] http://www.economist.com... [2] http://www.lsadc.org... [3] http://russian.speak7.com... [4] http://homepages.rpi.edu...

Science

A-language-can-be-more-or-less-logical-than-another/1/

re: Analysis of the Resolution: I stand behind the opponent's interpretation of the resolution and the nature of "can be." re: Definitions: (In regards to "language"): I strictly used the "political agenda" idea to depict the distinction between a language and a dialect, not to define language, as the opponent suggests; moreover, I agree that a fundamental definition of "language" should not be intertwined with politics. The term was actually left undefined in my argument. The opponent offered a poor definition of "language" in the context of this debate. The definition the opponent provided was one for "formal language," as indicated by the webpage from which the definition was copied. A more fitting definition would be the one of "natural (or ordinary) language." [1] The proposed definition by the opponent is not fitting, because formal language theory only is studied to determine the syntactical nature of language; otherwise, it does not reflect actual language, since it is artificial, created by humans for a purpose (e.g., Java, which is used as a computer programming language.) [2] Formal languages are artificially derived from data collected from natural languages, so the definition of "formal language" alone cannot be used in this debate. I agree with the opponent's definition of "logical" ("reasonable or rational.") re: Affirmative Arguments re: A1 Language, by definition, is a means of communication, or the conveying of information. [3] If it were not communicable, then it could not be acquired or implemented. The definition already establishes that language must be communicable, so the issue of this debate is whether or not the information conveyed can innately be more logical in one language than another. re: A2 Language is not static; it is constantly evolving to meet the demand's of a given cultural context. A language's lack of complex mathematical concepts does not make it less logical; a language's exclusion of existing idea in other cultures does not make it less logical. Before discovering the New World (North American), Europeans were not aware of many of the crops that they found there, and therefore, the names for these crops was absent from the European languages while they were present in many of the Native American languages. This does not make the languages of Europe any less logical; as long as the crops were not playing in role in their culture, no words were needed to depict them. Moreover, primitive tribes can include concepts in their languages that are absent from English. For example, the word "Mamihlapinatapei" in the Yagan language (the indigenous language of Tierra del Fuego) roughly means "the wordless, yet meaningful look shared by two people who both desire to initiate something but are both reluctant to start." [4] This is probably not even an exact definition, because in our cultures, such a concept lacks significance and meaning, so we choose to not arrange our language to include it. re: A3: The reason why statements, such as "They are hunting dogs," are ambiguous is because of multiple logical derivations of it. This ambiguity is not illogical, because it does not imply that all of these derivations are semantically equivalent (which would, in fact, be illogical); the syntactical and semantic facets of a language are separate and ambiguity does not depict a contradiction between them. re: A4: Logically invalid arguments and false propositions can be made in English, as well. If I were to argue, "The sky is blue, because the sky is blue," it would not validate or invalidate the logicality of the language that I would be implementing; it would carry logical meaning, regardless of its validity as an argument. re: CA1: "But if a five hour long ritual is required to give an affirmative reply in a language, that language is less logical than English or Spanish." If the definition of logical here is "rational or reasonable," then how is would a five hour-long ritual be less rational or reasonable? Ultimately, a result of the same semantic significance would be produced (i.e., one of affirmation.) Moreover, the duration of time it takes for an affirmative reply in a given language does not reflect upon the logicality of the language, holistically. Conclusion: Some of the arguments between my opponent and I stem from discrepancies we have in regards to terms of debate. Hopefully my opponent can address these in the next round. Nonetheless, as it stands, the opponent's arguments fail to nullify the resolution. --- [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>...

InVinoVeritas

re: Analysis of the Resolution: I stand behind the opponent's interpretation of the resolution and the nature of "can be." re: Definitions: (In regards to "language"): I strictly used the "political agenda" idea to depict the distinction between a language and a dialect, not to define language, as the opponent suggests; moreover, I agree that a fundamental definition of "language" should not be intertwined with politics. The term was actually left undefined in my argument. The opponent offered a poor definition of "language" in the context of this debate. The definition the opponent provided was one for "formal language," as indicated by the webpage from which the definition was copied. A more fitting definition would be the one of "natural (or ordinary) language." [1] The proposed definition by the opponent is not fitting, because formal language theory only is studied to determine the syntactical nature of language; otherwise, it does not reflect actual language, since it is artificial, created by humans for a purpose (e.g., Java, which is used as a computer programming language.) [2] Formal languages are artificially derived from data collected from natural languages, so the definition of "formal language" alone cannot be used in this debate. I agree with the opponent's definition of "logical" ("reasonable or rational.") re: Affirmative Arguments re: A1 Language, by definition, is a means of communication, or the conveying of information. [3] If it were not communicable, then it could not be acquired or implemented. The definition already establishes that language must be communicable, so the issue of this debate is whether or not the information conveyed can innately be more logical in one language than another. re: A2 Language is not static; it is constantly evolving to meet the demand's of a given cultural context. A language's lack of complex mathematical concepts does not make it less logical; a language's exclusion of existing idea in other cultures does not make it less logical. Before discovering the New World (North American), Europeans were not aware of many of the crops that they found there, and therefore, the names for these crops was absent from the European languages while they were present in many of the Native American languages. This does not make the languages of Europe any less logical; as long as the crops were not playing in role in their culture, no words were needed to depict them. Moreover, primitive tribes can include concepts in their languages that are absent from English. For example, the word "Mamihlapinatapei" in the Yagan language (the indigenous language of Tierra del Fuego) roughly means “the wordless, yet meaningful look shared by two people who both desire to initiate something but are both reluctant to start." [4] This is probably not even an exact definition, because in our cultures, such a concept lacks significance and meaning, so we choose to not arrange our language to include it. re: A3: The reason why statements, such as "They are hunting dogs," are ambiguous is because of multiple logical derivations of it. This ambiguity is not illogical, because it does not imply that all of these derivations are semantically equivalent (which would, in fact, be illogical); the syntactical and semantic facets of a language are separate and ambiguity does not depict a contradiction between them. re: A4: Logically invalid arguments and false propositions can be made in English, as well. If I were to argue, "The sky is blue, because the sky is blue," it would not validate or invalidate the logicality of the language that I would be implementing; it would carry logical meaning, regardless of its validity as an argument. re: CA1: "But if a five hour long ritual is required to give an affirmative reply in a language, that language is less logical than English or Spanish." If the definition of logical here is "rational or reasonable," then how is would a five hour-long ritual be less rational or reasonable? Ultimately, a result of the same semantic significance would be produced (i.e., one of affirmation.) Moreover, the duration of time it takes for an affirmative reply in a given language does not reflect upon the logicality of the language, holistically. Conclusion: Some of the arguments between my opponent and I stem from discrepancies we have in regards to terms of debate. Hopefully my opponent can address these in the next round. Nonetheless, as it stands, the opponent's arguments fail to nullify the resolution. --- [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.uea.ac.uk... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://matadornetwork.com...

Science

A-language-can-be-more-or-less-logical-than-another/1/

re: Definitions: "There is no reason why a language like Java couldn't be the natural language of intelligent computers, for instance," the opponent states. Computers do not use language, and "natural computer language" is on the verge of being an oxymoron; artificial intelligence is different from human intelligence (which is a topic for a different day.) I meant that formal languages, as applied in linguistics, is only used to understand the syntax of natural language; that is virtually its sole implementation. Formal language is, by definition, closer to the intuitive concept of language, as opposed to natural language. The definition of formal language is too broad. A definition that is also provided is "a language designed for use in situations in which natural language is unsuitable" [1] It is "an abstract mathematical concept" that has little to do with actual applied language. The opponent tries to parallel human evolution and development with those of language... and does so without basis. As a culture develops, the lexicon of a language may expand, but that does not make it more logical. Our language applies advanced mathematical theory while others do not; this just means that it is not relevant to their cultures. re: A1: The analogy the opponent uses when comparing language to a vehicle is flawed. The definition of vehicle: "A vehicle (from Latin: "vehiculum") is a mobile machine that is designed or used to transport people or cargo." [3] Hence, the criterion for something to be a vehicle is for it to have been designed OR used to transport people or cargo. Language, on the other hand, is "communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols." [4] If the definition were to state that language is "designed" for something of communicative nature, then the opponent's argument would stand. However, this is not the case; language is defined by its functionality, unlike a vehicle. "However, I do argue that one possible problem with a language is that the content it expresses is less than useful," the opponent says. "Usefulness" of a language is a subjective matter; a language adapts to its cultural context, so from the opponent's biased perspective, affected by his own cultural context, a language's usefulness may be limited; objectively, however this is not the case. re: A2: Disparities between the lexicons of two languages does not make one more or less logical than another. Words are constantly dying and being added to a language, as culture changes. The opponent states that "we must take languages as fixed." Language, by nature, is a static thing, so we must introduce the potential for change. The opponent states, in defense, that if language A is more logical than B, then B could just evolve into A. Firstly, the topic of this debate is whether or not just an idea of "more logical than" even exists, so such an argument assumes a position that inherently opposes the resolution. Secondly, languages do not evolve based on logicality; they evolve based on cultural shifts. The introduction of the word "vodka" (an initially Russian word) in the United States came about when the actual beverage was introduced to the country; it became culturally relevant, so hence a word came about. "Remember that according to my more rigorous definition, a language is a set of strings (sentences)...," the opponent states. The opponent's definition is too abstract and is too inclusive. Moreover, one can argue that languages do not need to have sentences, in theory. A word can incorporate include an infinite number of morphemes (segments of meaning), so due to the recursive nature of a word, sentences aren't technically necessary. "The cat is on the mat" would not lead to an adequate system of communication. According to linguistic structuralism, language is based on oppositions and distinctions. Assuming that this is a single statement with the same phonological and semantic structure, oppositions to this phrase would have to exist. re: A3: All derivations could not be semantically equivalent because the fact that they are derivations would, in itself, indicate that there are different semantic values assigned to a word, in its given form; multiple derivations with the same semantic value would just mean a word has one derivation with a single semantic value. The only reason this would be illogical is because it would impossible. Furthermore, language, which, as I indicated, is BY DEFINITION a means of communication, must have semantic significance. "Communication" is conveying information, and the incorporation of "semanticism" enables a language to do this. This is further evidence that the opponent's definition is too broad; it only encompasses the syntactical facet of language. re: A4: As the opponent stated earlier in his argument, "Con states we are debating about whether or not the information conveyed by a language can be more logical than the information conveyed by another. We most certainly are not; we are debating about the logicality of the language itself." Indeed, we are not arguing over the validity of semantic fragments within a language, but rather a language is valid. We are not talking about "helpfulness," as the opponent suggests; we are talking about logicality. A language, holistically, is not logically invalid because its semantic contents are illogical. If one were to only state illogical things for the rest of one's life (e.g., "The sky is blue because the sky is red," which, as an aside, I mistyped as an example in my last argument), then it would be valid to say that the person makes illogical statements; however, the same conclusion could not be made about the logicality of the language he speaks. Semantically illogical arguments still have semantic significance when we break a semantically illogical sentence down morphologically. And if the purpose of a language, by definition, is solely to convey information, then the purpose is fulfilled if semantic significance is present. If someone were to intentionally design an artificial language that is illogical just to convey illogical statements, he would not be making an "illogical language," but rather a "language that conveys illogical statements." CA2: The opponent states, "A language that required a five hour ritual for an affirmative really would be unreasonable because people are constrained by time and care about getting information more quickly. That ought to be obvious. More is required that just eventually getting the right idea." The opponent completely shifts his position on this issue. Before, he stated that the language that requires a five-hour ritual to say the equivalent of "hello" is illogical; now, however, he simply states that it is "unreasonable." Logicality is surely more objective than "reasonableness." Whether or not the opponent finds it to be reasonable is extremely irrelevant to the debate. The fact of the matter is that although one way may be more practical than another (based on the opponent's subjective emphasis on the value of time), one's product is just as logically sound as another. --- Conclusion This is an obvious vote for Con. Pro derived arguments from a faulty definition that is too broad and is only accurate to a languages syntax, and the resolution stands. One language cannot be more logical than another. The practicality of a language (or what the opponent calls "work[ing] better") is based on subjective views, such as the idea that it is logical to use a language that takes up less time; this logic, hence, is founded on an emphasis on the value of time. The opponent's arguments are founded on bias and misinterpretations. Vote Con. Thank you to Grape and voters/readers. [1] <URL>... language [2] <URL>... Language [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>...

InVinoVeritas

re: Definitions: "There is no reason why a language like Java couldn't be the natural language of intelligent computers, for instance," the opponent states. Computers do not use language, and "natural computer language" is on the verge of being an oxymoron; artificial intelligence is different from human intelligence (which is a topic for a different day.) I meant that formal languages, as applied in linguistics, is only used to understand the syntax of natural language; that is virtually its sole implementation. Formal language is, by definition, closer to the intuitive concept of language, as opposed to natural language. The definition of formal language is too broad. A definition that is also provided is "a language designed for use in situations in which natural language is unsuitable" [1] It is "an abstract mathematical concept" that has little to do with actual applied language. The opponent tries to parallel human evolution and development with those of language... and does so without basis. As a culture develops, the lexicon of a language may expand, but that does not make it more logical. Our language applies advanced mathematical theory while others do not; this just means that it is not relevant to their cultures. re: A1: The analogy the opponent uses when comparing language to a vehicle is flawed. The definition of vehicle: "A vehicle (from Latin: "vehiculum") is a mobile machine that is designed or used to transport people or cargo." [3] Hence, the criterion for something to be a vehicle is for it to have been designed OR used to transport people or cargo. Language, on the other hand, is "communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols." [4] If the definition were to state that language is "designed" for something of communicative nature, then the opponent's argument would stand. However, this is not the case; language is defined by its functionality, unlike a vehicle. "However, I do argue that one possible problem with a language is that the content it expresses is less than useful," the opponent says. "Usefulness" of a language is a subjective matter; a language adapts to its cultural context, so from the opponent's biased perspective, affected by his own cultural context, a language's usefulness may be limited; objectively, however this is not the case. re: A2: Disparities between the lexicons of two languages does not make one more or less logical than another. Words are constantly dying and being added to a language, as culture changes. The opponent states that "we must take languages as fixed." Language, by nature, is a static thing, so we must introduce the potential for change. The opponent states, in defense, that if language A is more logical than B, then B could just evolve into A. Firstly, the topic of this debate is whether or not just an idea of "more logical than" even exists, so such an argument assumes a position that inherently opposes the resolution. Secondly, languages do not evolve based on logicality; they evolve based on cultural shifts. The introduction of the word "vodka" (an initially Russian word) in the United States came about when the actual beverage was introduced to the country; it became culturally relevant, so hence a word came about. "Remember that according to my more rigorous definition, a language is a set of strings (sentences)...," the opponent states. The opponent's definition is too abstract and is too inclusive. Moreover, one can argue that languages do not need to have sentences, in theory. A word can incorporate include an infinite number of morphemes (segments of meaning), so due to the recursive nature of a word, sentences aren't technically necessary. "The cat is on the mat" would not lead to an adequate system of communication. According to linguistic structuralism, language is based on oppositions and distinctions. Assuming that this is a single statement with the same phonological and semantic structure, oppositions to this phrase would have to exist. re: A3: All derivations could not be semantically equivalent because the fact that they are derivations would, in itself, indicate that there are different semantic values assigned to a word, in its given form; multiple derivations with the same semantic value would just mean a word has one derivation with a single semantic value. The only reason this would be illogical is because it would impossible. Furthermore, language, which, as I indicated, is BY DEFINITION a means of communication, must have semantic significance. "Communication" is conveying information, and the incorporation of "semanticism" enables a language to do this. This is further evidence that the opponent's definition is too broad; it only encompasses the syntactical facet of language. re: A4: As the opponent stated earlier in his argument, "Con states we are debating about whether or not the information conveyed by a language can be more logical than the information conveyed by another. We most certainly are not; we are debating about the logicality of the language itself." Indeed, we are not arguing over the validity of semantic fragments within a language, but rather a language is valid. We are not talking about "helpfulness," as the opponent suggests; we are talking about logicality. A language, holistically, is not logically invalid because its semantic contents are illogical. If one were to only state illogical things for the rest of one's life (e.g., "The sky is blue because the sky is red," which, as an aside, I mistyped as an example in my last argument), then it would be valid to say that the person makes illogical statements; however, the same conclusion could not be made about the logicality of the language he speaks. Semantically illogical arguments still have semantic significance when we break a semantically illogical sentence down morphologically. And if the purpose of a language, by definition, is solely to convey information, then the purpose is fulfilled if semantic significance is present. If someone were to intentionally design an artificial language that is illogical just to convey illogical statements, he would not be making an "illogical language," but rather a "language that conveys illogical statements." CA2: The opponent states, "A language that required a five hour ritual for an affirmative really would be unreasonable because people are constrained by time and care about getting information more quickly. That ought to be obvious. More is required that just eventually getting the right idea." The opponent completely shifts his position on this issue. Before, he stated that the language that requires a five-hour ritual to say the equivalent of "hello" is illogical; now, however, he simply states that it is "unreasonable." Logicality is surely more objective than "reasonableness." Whether or not the opponent finds it to be reasonable is extremely irrelevant to the debate. The fact of the matter is that although one way may be more practical than another (based on the opponent's subjective emphasis on the value of time), one's product is just as logically sound as another. --- Conclusion This is an obvious vote for Con. Pro derived arguments from a faulty definition that is too broad and is only accurate to a languages syntax, and the resolution stands. One language cannot be more logical than another. The practicality of a language (or what the opponent calls "work[ing] better") is based on subjective views, such as the idea that it is logical to use a language that takes up less time; this logic, hence, is founded on an emphasis on the value of time. The opponent's arguments are founded on bias and misinterpretations. Vote Con. Thank you to Grape and voters/readers. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... language [2] http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com... Language [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Science

A-language-can-be-more-or-less-logical-than-another/1/

I will give this round to the con to make this a debate fair time to research

dwest23

I will give this round to the con to make this a debate fair time to research

Entertainment

A-movie-should-only-be-rated-R-only-if-there-is-nudity-extreme-profanity-and-extreme-violence/1/