Datasets:

notaphoenix

/

debateorg_w_effect_for_conservative_subset

like 0

There are 364 days in a year. What makes Christmas special?

KittyEmPhilosophy

There are 364 days in a year. What makes Christmas special?

Miscellaneous

christmas-is-in-essense-a-comercial-holiday/1/

Hello! And my apologies for not clearly stating my case. Although I agree with every single term definition, when I referred to "Christmas", I was thinking more along the lines of the public holiday, corrupted with "Santa Claus" and no longer the pure day of worship it was created to be. Now, even people who have nothing to do with Christ, go out and spend money on pointless items, and cling to useless traditions that have no true meaning.

KittyEmPhilosophy

Hello! And my apologies for not clearly stating my case. Although I agree with every single term definition, when I referred to "Christmas", I was thinking more along the lines of the public holiday, corrupted with "Santa Claus" and no longer the pure day of worship it was created to be. Now, even people who have nothing to do with Christ, go out and spend money on pointless items, and cling to useless traditions that have no true meaning.

Miscellaneous

christmas-is-in-essense-a-comercial-holiday/1/

Haha, well done on the days of the year. I obviously was not as informed as I assumed. I just joined two days ago. However, I believe we both have minor things to note on the other persons logic. I know it is formal to refer to your oponent as a "he" but I am in fact a she. As for citations, as my knowledgeable edged opponent states, are indeed crucial for a debte, but sadly impossible for me to utilize, given my current access to insufficient technology. I encourage my opponent to not take my word for each thing I say, and see for theirself weather my brain catches up to my speech. But alas, we must return to the debate at hand. Christmas was begun as a holy day to honor the birth of Jesus Christ. But, the modern day Christmas is a cold mockery of such. Many people end up let down or upset, depressed and even suicidal around the holidays. And as for the Santa Clause argument: I would not lie to my child in order to, or under the excuse of, making them smarter.

KittyEmPhilosophy

Haha, well done on the days of the year. I obviously was not as informed as I assumed. I just joined two days ago. However, I believe we both have minor things to note on the other persons logic. I know it is formal to refer to your oponent as a "he" but I am in fact a she. As for citations, as my knowledgeable edged opponent states, are indeed crucial for a debte, but sadly impossible for me to utilize, given my current access to insufficient technology. I encourage my opponent to not take my word for each thing I say, and see for theirself weather my brain catches up to my speech. But alas, we must return to the debate at hand. Christmas was begun as a holy day to honor the birth of Jesus Christ. But, the modern day Christmas is a cold mockery of such. Many people end up let down or upset, depressed and even suicidal around the holidays. And as for the Santa Clause argument: I would not lie to my child in order to, or under the excuse of, making them smarter.

Miscellaneous

christmas-is-in-essense-a-comercial-holiday/1/

I'll accept this debate. For the first round I think it would be best to clarify and define a few terms. Biotechnology is here taken to mean "the discipline of science concerned the experimentation and manipulation of organisms and organic matter in order to create new applications and products", and cloning is taken to mean "the creation of genetically identical living organisms from existing organisms". This is not the true definition of cloning; the actual definition is much broader, and includes methods which occur naturally. However, the reference to biotechnology implies that only the form of cloning defined above is relevant to the debate. Further context: both living animals and dead animals have been successfully cloned, in the latter case at times many years after the creature's death. The process is very expensive currently, and is often not successful. Often it can take many hundreds of attempts. Cloning does not, repeat, DOES NOT result in an identical copy - only a genetically identical copy. Human cloning is a controversial issue. The cloning of a human for reproductive purposes - that is, for it to grow to be a person, is almost universally condoned and banned. However, cloning to create embryos is much less prohibited, and can be used to aid other areas of research, i.e. Stem cell research.

Generic

I'll accept this debate. For the first round I think it would be best to clarify and define a few terms. Biotechnology is here taken to mean "the discipline of science concerned the experimentation and manipulation of organisms and organic matter in order to create new applications and products", and cloning is taken to mean "the creation of genetically identical living organisms from existing organisms". This is not the true definition of cloning; the actual definition is much broader, and includes methods which occur naturally. However, the reference to biotechnology implies that only the form of cloning defined above is relevant to the debate. Further context: both living animals and dead animals have been successfully cloned, in the latter case at times many years after the creature's death. The process is very expensive currently, and is often not successful. Often it can take many hundreds of attempts. Cloning does not, repeat, DOES NOT result in an identical copy - only a genetically identical copy. Human cloning is a controversial issue. The cloning of a human for reproductive purposes - that is, for it to grow to be a person, is almost universally condoned and banned. However, cloning to create embryos is much less prohibited, and can be used to aid other areas of research, i.e. Stem cell research.

Miscellaneous

clonin-with-biotech/1/

Succinctly put.

Generic

Succinctly put.

Miscellaneous

clonin-with-biotech/1/

Buddha hates clones.

Generic

Buddha hates clones.

Miscellaneous

clonin-with-biotech/1/

So did Ghandi. Vote Con.

Generic

So did Ghandi. Vote Con.

Miscellaneous

clonin-with-biotech/1/

bio technology should be used for cloning

aidan.mcconnell

bio technology should be used for cloning

Miscellaneous

clonin-with-biotech/1/

0. By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to all the rules already posted. This debate poses off of another debate that I found. 1. Rules created hold power over all rules posted later, and no later rule can contradict an earlier rule. 2. Both players should still have the ability to post rules in their turn. 3. A violation of a rule that is not null and void will result in the rule-breaker losing this debate. 4. A player may only do something besides make rules to discuss whether one has broken a rule, or whether a rule is null. 5. Not counting these foundation rules, each player can only create 3 rules per turn. 6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit. 7. Rules cannot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule without forfeiting. 8. If neither player breaks a rule, CON is the default winner (End Foundation Rules) 1. CON must not restrict PROS speech any in way. 2. CON must not use the following words: opponent, pro, con, instagator, contender, opposition and must. 3. CON must use correct spelling and grammar.

mikesully99

0. By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to all the rules already posted. This debate poses off of another debate that I found. 1. Rules created hold power over all rules posted later, and no later rule can contradict an earlier rule. 2. Both players should still have the ability to post rules in their turn. 3. A violation of a rule that is not null and void will result in the rule-breaker losing this debate. 4. A player may only do something besides make rules to discuss whether one has broken a rule, or whether a rule is null. 5. Not counting these foundation rules, each player can only create 3 rules per turn. 6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit. 7. Rules cannot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule without forfeiting. 8. If neither player breaks a rule, CON is the default winner (End Foundation Rules) 1. CON must not restrict PROS speech any in way. 2. CON must not use the following words: opponent, pro, con, instagator, contender, opposition and must. 3. CON must use correct spelling and grammar.

Miscellaneous

con-will-break-a-rule/2/

As pro cannot switch to con mid-debate, rule 4 and 5 are null 7. Con must not use the names "logical-master" or "mikesully99" 8. Con must change his avatar 9. Con must change his name to "oldlady12345"

mikesully99

As pro cannot switch to con mid-debate, rule 4 and 5 are null 7. Con must not use the names "logical-master" or "mikesully99" 8. Con must change his avatar 9. Con must change his name to "oldlady12345"

Miscellaneous

con-will-break-a-rule/2/

my opponent failed to realize what i meant, the title of PRO cant be changed look under my avatar, it still says PRO therefore i must be PRO. my opponents 10th rule broke my 1st rule my opponent broke both my 8th and 9th rule my name is not mikesully99 so those rules do not apply to me. 13. my opponent must not say anything except when he makes rules or says bonerific 14. my opponent must not use the word bonerific 15. my opponent must put "megan fox is bonerific" as his display name

mikesully99

my opponent failed to realize what i meant, the title of PRO cant be changed look under my avatar, it still says PRO therefore i must be PRO. my opponents 10th rule broke my 1st rule my opponent broke both my 8th and 9th rule my name is not mikesully99 so those rules do not apply to me. 13. my opponent must not say anything except when he makes rules or says bonerific 14. my opponent must not use the word bonerific 15. my opponent must put "megan fox is bonerific" as his display name

Miscellaneous

con-will-break-a-rule/2/

Dude that is a pro, you are supposed to be cons. Cool car's are awesome because they are cool. Especially the Chevy Malibu. INTERNET IN A CAR!! I think that is awesome

AidenH

Dude that is a pro, you are supposed to be cons. Cool car's are awesome because they are cool. Especially the Chevy Malibu. INTERNET IN A CAR!! I think that is awesome

Cars

cool-cars/1/

Some cool cars are Lamborghini, Chevy Silverado and the Ford Mustang

AidenH

Some cool cars are Lamborghini, Chevy Silverado and the Ford Mustang

Cars

cool-cars/1/

No need to say more

AidenH

No need to say more

Cars

cool-cars/1/

me dad has a cool car what about yours beach i mean i am for this what about you

chasedoy123456789

me dad has a cool car what about yours beach i mean i am for this what about you

Cars

cool-cars/1/

my car is a truck

chasedoy123456789

my car is a truck

Cars

cool-cars/1/

AFF Case More than 13 million kids were victims of cyber bullying this last year. 1/3 of all teens have had mean, threatening or embarrassing things said about them online. 10 percent were threatened with physical harm. 16 percent of these teens told no one. 30 percent told their parents but there was nothing their parents could do. 8 percent committed suicide. Resolved: Cyber bullying should be a criminal offense According the cyber bullying research organization Cyber bullying: someone willfully and repeatedly harasses, mistreats, makes fun of, through the use of the computers, cell phones and other electronic devices. Criminal offense: an act punishable by law, usually considered an evil act. My partner and I are in firm affirmation of this resolution for 3 reasons: It can result in suicide, it should be considered a hate crime, is a form of harassment and personal privacy. First, suicide is the fourth leading cause of death of teens in the US. Bullying is the number one cause of suicide in teens in the United States. Bullying is the same whether using harmful words online or spoken in person. Thousands of teenagers commit suicide each year. Phoebe Prince was cyber bullied by nine teens that constantly harassed her by writing derogatory remarks and posting degrading photos of her on the internet. It escalated to the point where the teens confronted Phoebe in person and physically abused her and raped her. Phoebe's parents knew that this harassment on line was happening and they tried to help by talking to the school, yet the teens did not stop harassing Phoebe. On January 14th, 2010, Phoebe hung herself in her room. If there was a law against harassment like "Cyber Bulling", then those in authority could act before the harassment escalates to physical abuse and rape. Phoebe's life could have been saved if this had been stopped at cyber bullying. Let's save lives. Second, cyber bullying should be considered a hate crime. Hate crime, as described by the US Legal Department web site, is "one that involves threats, harassment, or physical harm, and is motivated by prejudice against someone's race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sex, or physical or mental disability". When someone cyber bullies they don't target any random person for no reason, they bully someone because of hate or have prejudice towards them. Harassment, as described by US Legal Department, is the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. They can just hate the person, their race, their religion, whatever! Females are more likely to be cyber bullied then males are, according to the research done by the "Cyber Bulling Research Organization. There are laws against hate crimes of which you can be put in jail for up to 15 years for committing the crime. Cyber bullies are harassing because of prejudice and hate; therefore, they should be getting the same consequence as any others who commit hate crimes. Third, cyber bulling is harassment by invading someone's personal privacy. When someone posts or sends degrading pictures or comments of someone, they are invading that person's personal privacy and is against the law. Personal privacy is protected in the Declaration of Human rights, the international covenant on Civil and political rights. Personal Privacy, is the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information about themselves and thereby reveal themselves selectively. Bullying online is in fact harassment, because it is unwanted by the victim and can be threatening towards the victim. In conclusion cyber bullying is very real and very harmful. It threatens thousands of kids and teens each year and causes some teens to commit suicide. Let's stop cyber bullying before it gets to the point of physical abuse. I and my partner are in firm affirmation of this resolution because It can result in suicide, it can be considered a hate crime, and it may be considered a form of harassment of personal privacy.

blondebrunette101

AFF Case More than 13 million kids were victims of cyber bullying this last year. 1/3 of all teens have had mean, threatening or embarrassing things said about them online. 10 percent were threatened with physical harm. 16 percent of these teens told no one. 30 percent told their parents but there was nothing their parents could do. 8 percent committed suicide. Resolved: Cyber bullying should be a criminal offense According the cyber bullying research organization Cyber bullying: someone willfully and repeatedly harasses, mistreats, makes fun of, through the use of the computers, cell phones and other electronic devices. Criminal offense: an act punishable by law, usually considered an evil act. My partner and I are in firm affirmation of this resolution for 3 reasons: It can result in suicide, it should be considered a hate crime, is a form of harassment and personal privacy. First, suicide is the fourth leading cause of death of teens in the US. Bullying is the number one cause of suicide in teens in the United States. Bullying is the same whether using harmful words online or spoken in person. Thousands of teenagers commit suicide each year. Phoebe Prince was cyber bullied by nine teens that constantly harassed her by writing derogatory remarks and posting degrading photos of her on the internet. It escalated to the point where the teens confronted Phoebe in person and physically abused her and raped her. Phoebe's parents knew that this harassment on line was happening and they tried to help by talking to the school, yet the teens did not stop harassing Phoebe. On January 14th, 2010, Phoebe hung herself in her room. If there was a law against harassment like "Cyber Bulling", then those in authority could act before the harassment escalates to physical abuse and rape. Phoebe's life could have been saved if this had been stopped at cyber bullying. Let's save lives. Second, cyber bullying should be considered a hate crime. Hate crime, as described by the US Legal Department web site, is "one that involves threats, harassment, or physical harm, and is motivated by prejudice against someone's race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sex, or physical or mental disability". When someone cyber bullies they don't target any random person for no reason, they bully someone because of hate or have prejudice towards them. Harassment, as described by US Legal Department, is the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. They can just hate the person, their race, their religion, whatever! Females are more likely to be cyber bullied then males are, according to the research done by the "Cyber Bulling Research Organization. There are laws against hate crimes of which you can be put in jail for up to 15 years for committing the crime. Cyber bullies are harassing because of prejudice and hate; therefore, they should be getting the same consequence as any others who commit hate crimes. Third, cyber bulling is harassment by invading someone's personal privacy. When someone posts or sends degrading pictures or comments of someone, they are invading that person's personal privacy and is against the law. Personal privacy is protected in the Declaration of Human rights, the international covenant on Civil and political rights. Personal Privacy, is the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information about themselves and thereby reveal themselves selectively. Bullying online is in fact harassment, because it is unwanted by the victim and can be threatening towards the victim. In conclusion cyber bullying is very real and very harmful. It threatens thousands of kids and teens each year and causes some teens to commit suicide. Let's stop cyber bullying before it gets to the point of physical abuse. I and my partner are in firm affirmation of this resolution because It can result in suicide, it can be considered a hate crime, and it may be considered a form of harassment of personal privacy.

Politics

cyber-bullying-should-be-a-criminal-offense/2/

I accept, present your case.

Rational_Thinker9119

I accept, present your case.

Science

do-aliens-exist/2/

This debate is not about UFOs it's about the existence of aliens somewhere in outer space. Aliens can exist without visiting earth so basing your whole argument around UFOs isn't really helping you too much considering there could be alien life that exists out there that is too primitive to travel space. Rebutting my opponents arguments: "1] the UFO may not be alien spacecraft. it may be any of the following: 1. Human aircraft 2. Unmanned spacecraft. 3. Misidentification of atmospheric phenomena. 4. Misidentification of astronomical phenomena. 5. Hallucinations. 6. Hoaxes. 7. Birds" You are correct that UFOs may be 1 of the 7 things above, they may also be alien space craft too so I'm not sure what your point is. Unless you can brush off every single UFO spotted as 1 of the 7 things listed above (which you can't) then you have no bases for saying it couldn't be an alien space craft. "2] All of the reports about the UFO are based on subjective impression of size, distance and speed. Therefore, the judgement that they are performing "impossible activities" has no useful evidentiary basis" I'm not understanding your point here, if there is an object doing things that none of the 7 things you mentioned can explain then it's only rational to leave the extra-terrestrial option on the table. "3] Notice how real the UFO foto looks later in the video and how easy it was for him to fake it." Yes we all know that many (if not most) UFO photos are fake, this does not mean all of them are fake. "4] there is no other clue/evidence other than UFO that aliens exist." Wrong. We are life on a planet so we are evidence that life can arise on a planet. If life can arise on planets then aliens most likely exist somewhere in the universe because there are many planets in a habitable zone in the universe just like Earth is. Presenting a case for alien life existing somewhere in the universe: The most current estimates guess that there are 100,000,000,000 to 200,000,000,000 galaxies in the Universe, each of which has hundreds of billions of stars. As far as planets go, there are around 50,000,000,000 in our milky way galaxy alone. The Kepler mission revealed 1,235 planet candidates, while 54 of them were orbiting their host star in the so-called goldilocks zone. So I'm going to do some rough math to try an determine how many planets in the universe may be habitable for life like earth is. So if 54 out of 1,235 planets observed are in the habitable zone, this means that 4.<PHONE>% of these planets are potentially habitable. What I'm going to do is calculate how many planets there are in the universe, and come up with an estimate to the total number of habitable planets there may be in the universe and draw a conclusion regarding the possibility of alien life existing based on those rough figures. This galaxy has 50,000,000,000 planets, this means that roughly 218,6234,800 of the planets in the galaxy may be habitable for life. If we took 2,186,234,800 and multiplied it by 150,000,000,000 (between 100,000,000,000 and 200,000,000,000) to get a rough estimate of the total number of habitable planets in the universe, we would get 3.2793522e+20 planets in a Goldilocks zone. If we look at our own solar system though, there are 3 planets in the Goldilocks zone but only 1 supports life that we know of. So if we took 3.2793522e+20 and divided it by 3 you would get 1.093117e+20 planets that are most likely habitable and have inhabitants based on all available evidence we can gather about the universe. The chances of having 1.093117e+20 habitable planets, with 0 inhabitants is so close to 0 that I can't even think of a rational number to describe it at the point (even though I'm basing these numbers on what we see in our own galaxy and solar system along with the Keplar mission, and the numbers may not be 100% accurate when describing the whole universe, the picture I'm painting as a whole is still very accurate as a concept even if mathematical figures may not be totally correct). This means that it is more likely that aliens exist somewhere in the universe, then not (even if only primitive life like bacteria exists, it is still alien life) Conclusion: Even though me and my opponent may both be operating under false assumptions, he is basing his entire argument regarding whether Aliens exist or not on UFO sightings (I'm skeptical myself when it comes to alien visitation claims, but this is a debate about aliens existing not about them travelling to Earth). Not only did I refute his whole argument, but I have provided a pretty solid case proving that it is more likely that aliens do exist somewhere in the universe, than the alternative. Sources: <URL>... <URL>...

Rational_Thinker9119

This debate is not about UFOs it's about the existence of aliens somewhere in outer space. Aliens can exist without visiting earth so basing your whole argument around UFOs isn't really helping you too much considering there could be alien life that exists out there that is too primitive to travel space. Rebutting my opponents arguments: "1] the UFO may not be alien spacecraft. it may be any of the following: 1. Human aircraft 2. Unmanned spacecraft. 3. Misidentification of atmospheric phenomena. 4. Misidentification of astronomical phenomena. 5. Hallucinations. 6. Hoaxes. 7. Birds" You are correct that UFOs may be 1 of the 7 things above, they may also be alien space craft too so I'm not sure what your point is. Unless you can brush off every single UFO spotted as 1 of the 7 things listed above (which you can't) then you have no bases for saying it couldn't be an alien space craft. "2] All of the reports about the UFO are based on subjective impression of size, distance and speed. Therefore, the judgement that they are performing "impossible activities" has no useful evidentiary basis" I'm not understanding your point here, if there is an object doing things that none of the 7 things you mentioned can explain then it's only rational to leave the extra-terrestrial option on the table. "3] Notice how real the UFO foto looks later in the video and how easy it was for him to fake it." Yes we all know that many (if not most) UFO photos are fake, this does not mean all of them are fake. "4] there is no other clue/evidence other than UFO that aliens exist." Wrong. We are life on a planet so we are evidence that life can arise on a planet. If life can arise on planets then aliens most likely exist somewhere in the universe because there are many planets in a habitable zone in the universe just like Earth is. Presenting a case for alien life existing somewhere in the universe: The most current estimates guess that there are 100,000,000,000 to 200,000,000,000 galaxies in the Universe, each of which has hundreds of billions of stars. As far as planets go, there are around 50,000,000,000 in our milky way galaxy alone. The Kepler mission revealed 1,235 planet candidates, while 54 of them were orbiting their host star in the so-called goldilocks zone. So I'm going to do some rough math to try an determine how many planets in the universe may be habitable for life like earth is. So if 54 out of 1,235 planets observed are in the habitable zone, this means that 4.3724696% of these planets are potentially habitable. What I'm going to do is calculate how many planets there are in the universe, and come up with an estimate to the total number of habitable planets there may be in the universe and draw a conclusion regarding the possibility of alien life existing based on those rough figures. This galaxy has 50,000,000,000 planets, this means that roughly 218,6234,800 of the planets in the galaxy may be habitable for life. If we took 2,186,234,800 and multiplied it by 150,000,000,000 (between 100,000,000,000 and 200,000,000,000) to get a rough estimate of the total number of habitable planets in the universe, we would get 3.2793522e+20 planets in a Goldilocks zone. If we look at our own solar system though, there are 3 planets in the Goldilocks zone but only 1 supports life that we know of. So if we took 3.2793522e+20 and divided it by 3 you would get 1.093117e+20 planets that are most likely habitable and have inhabitants based on all available evidence we can gather about the universe. The chances of having 1.093117e+20 habitable planets, with 0 inhabitants is so close to 0 that I can't even think of a rational number to describe it at the point (even though I'm basing these numbers on what we see in our own galaxy and solar system along with the Keplar mission, and the numbers may not be 100% accurate when describing the whole universe, the picture I'm painting as a whole is still very accurate as a concept even if mathematical figures may not be totally correct). This means that it is more likely that aliens exist somewhere in the universe, then not (even if only primitive life like bacteria exists, it is still alien life) Conclusion: Even though me and my opponent may both be operating under false assumptions, he is basing his entire argument regarding whether Aliens exist or not on UFO sightings (I'm skeptical myself when it comes to alien visitation claims, but this is a debate about aliens existing not about them travelling to Earth). Not only did I refute his whole argument, but I have provided a pretty solid case proving that it is more likely that aliens do exist somewhere in the universe, than the alternative. Sources: http://www.universetoday.com... http://www.space.com...

Science

do-aliens-exist/2/

Rebutting my opponents arguments: "so there is probability that aliens exist." I'm glad that you concede this point. I cannot prove that aliens exist and you cannot prove that they don't exist, if this was the case one of us would be millionaires by now..All we can do is present cases back and forth regarding which option is most likely. Since you agree with the high probability of alien life, then it's clear that this debate is leaning in my favor. "but it is only a probability math. it may not be true. we need more sound proof. " Once more, if I could prove aliens existed I would either be killed by the government or become a millionaire. All I can do is present a case that they most likely exist, rather than most likely do not exist. "none of the spaceship we send had ever found any traces of alien. nor they got any signal." This point is moot really, mainly because human inventions have a limited range. Considering how large the universe is it's not surprising that we haven't found much of anything yet. As far as signals go, what reason is there to believe that they use radio signals like we do? "our scientists on earth did not get any signal from an intellectual being from outer space." Once more, there is no reason to think they would use radio signals and no reason to think that not finding much in our limited range indicates aliens don't exist. "now my opponent is not accepting UFO based argument but these UFOs are only evidence that gives us a probability that aliens might exist." Wrong. Scientists know what the building blocks of life are, therefore if a planet potentially has some of these elements present then it raises the probability of alien life existing. Therefore, this provides evidence leaning in the direction of aliens existing without having to invoke UFOs. "without UFO it is just a probability math having no solid base." Wrong. Planets/ moons in a habitable zone with elements on it which are the building blocks of life are actually more evidence that aliens most likely exist than UFOs, because we can't conclude what each UFO actually is. We can conclude however what it takes for life to form, and if there is a potential match, that constitutes as evidence of alien life being more likely than the alternative. "can you give a solid case that aliens do exist?" I have presented a solid case that aliens most likely exist somewhere in the vast universe, even if only simple life like bacteria. You however have provided no solid case that aliens do not exist, and until you do that I don't think you have any grounds whats so ever in this debate. Continuing my case for alien life: Europa Europa is the 6th closest moon of Jupiter, and was discovered in 1610 by Galileo Galilei. This moon most likely has a water ocean underneath a smooth layer of ice which the moon was confrimed having many years ago. This moon's atmosphere is mostly oxygen. Scientists believe there most definetly is an ocean at least hundreds if not thousands of miles deep. All of this is evidence leaning towards the likelyhood of alien life existing even if only simple non-intelligent life, and this is just in our very own solar system. Not all life needs sunlight to thrive In the depths of the ocean, there are organisms which will never see sunlight yet thrive. For life liquid water plays a role, then you need an energy source. For us this energy source is the sun, for a long time scientists believed this is the only way life could thrive. This was until a diver who was sent on a mission regarding the titanic found whole ecosystems of life thriving without being exposed to any sunlight. So what is the energy fueling the life in the deep waters? It comes form the Earth's core, hydrothermal vents provide all the energy needed for ecosystems to thrive without the sun. This is even more evidence of alien life existing somewhere (perhaps on Europa), because this means a body like a moon or a planet doesn't even have to be in a Goldilocks zone to support life! Conclusion I have provided evidence leaning towards the likelihood of alien life existing somewhere in the universe, even if only primitive life. My opponent however, has not provided any evidence (besides irrelevant UFO arguments) leaning towards the likelihood of alien life not existing somewhere in the universe. Based on this, I believe I have the advantage in this debate. Sources <URL>... <URL>...

Rational_Thinker9119

Rebutting my opponents arguments: "so there is probability that aliens exist." I'm glad that you concede this point. I cannot prove that aliens exist and you cannot prove that they don't exist, if this was the case one of us would be millionaires by now..All we can do is present cases back and forth regarding which option is most likely. Since you agree with the high probability of alien life, then it's clear that this debate is leaning in my favor. "but it is only a probability math. it may not be true. we need more sound proof. " Once more, if I could prove aliens existed I would either be killed by the government or become a millionaire. All I can do is present a case that they most likely exist, rather than most likely do not exist. "none of the spaceship we send had ever found any traces of alien. nor they got any signal." This point is moot really, mainly because human inventions have a limited range. Considering how large the universe is it's not surprising that we haven't found much of anything yet. As far as signals go, what reason is there to believe that they use radio signals like we do? "our scientists on earth did not get any signal from an intellectual being from outer space." Once more, there is no reason to think they would use radio signals and no reason to think that not finding much in our limited range indicates aliens don't exist. "now my opponent is not accepting UFO based argument but these UFOs are only evidence that gives us a probability that aliens might exist." Wrong. Scientists know what the building blocks of life are, therefore if a planet potentially has some of these elements present then it raises the probability of alien life existing. Therefore, this provides evidence leaning in the direction of aliens existing without having to invoke UFOs. "without UFO it is just a probability math having no solid base." Wrong. Planets/ moons in a habitable zone with elements on it which are the building blocks of life are actually more evidence that aliens most likely exist than UFOs, because we can't conclude what each UFO actually is. We can conclude however what it takes for life to form, and if there is a potential match, that constitutes as evidence of alien life being more likely than the alternative. "can you give a solid case that aliens do exist?" I have presented a solid case that aliens most likely exist somewhere in the vast universe, even if only simple life like bacteria. You however have provided no solid case that aliens do not exist, and until you do that I don't think you have any grounds whats so ever in this debate. Continuing my case for alien life: Europa Europa is the 6th closest moon of Jupiter, and was discovered in 1610 by Galileo Galilei. This moon most likely has a water ocean underneath a smooth layer of ice which the moon was confrimed having many years ago. This moon's atmosphere is mostly oxygen. Scientists believe there most definetly is an ocean at least hundreds if not thousands of miles deep. All of this is evidence leaning towards the likelyhood of alien life existing even if only simple non-intelligent life, and this is just in our very own solar system. Not all life needs sunlight to thrive In the depths of the ocean, there are organisms which will never see sunlight yet thrive. For life liquid water plays a role, then you need an energy source. For us this energy source is the sun, for a long time scientists believed this is the only way life could thrive. This was until a diver who was sent on a mission regarding the titanic found whole ecosystems of life thriving without being exposed to any sunlight. So what is the energy fueling the life in the deep waters? It comes form the Earth's core, hydrothermal vents provide all the energy needed for ecosystems to thrive without the sun. This is even more evidence of alien life existing somewhere (perhaps on Europa), because this means a body like a moon or a planet doesn't even have to be in a Goldilocks zone to support life! Conclusion I have provided evidence leaning towards the likelihood of alien life existing somewhere in the universe, even if only primitive life. My opponent however, has not provided any evidence (besides irrelevant UFO arguments) leaning towards the likelihood of alien life not existing somewhere in the universe. Based on this, I believe I have the advantage in this debate. Sources http://www.solarviews.com... http://www.theglobeandmail.com...

Science

do-aliens-exist/2/

Rebutting my opponent's arguments: My opponent forfeited a round, so there is nothing to rebut. Continuing my case for alien life: Kepler 22b Kepler 22b is a planet that was discovered 600 light years (approximately 3,550,000,000,000,000 miles) and it would take about 22 million years to travel there was far as we as humans are concerned. Kepler 22b has an average tempetare of 72 degrees fahrenheit, is roughly the same distance from it's sun that we are from ours, and it's year (270 days) is even close to our year as well. The planet is mostly ocean though so life on surfaces is probably not likely, however life in the ocean is more than probable, even if only single celled organisms. My opponents definition of alien "alien= extra terrestrial being coming from outer space." Being is defined as conscious life, but single celled organisms don't have consciousness as far as we know, but we do know that micro-organisms evolve into macro-organisms with consciousness because natural selection takes effect and these organisms develop brains to store more information and become aware of themselves and the world for survival. With 1.093117e 20 planets with potential inhabitants I have calculated (even though it's possible that this number is extremely inaccurate, it still has not been refuted by any counter math), it's more than likely that at least a few of the organisms developed a consciousness if not entire civilizations, and therefore counts as "beings." This means that until it goes refuted, I have provided a solid case that extra-terrestrial beings most likely exist. What about "coming from outer space" though? This was not specified entirely in a specific manner, and could mean a variety of different things which could easily fit with any of my arguments. Why I believe I have the upper hand in this debate: Even though I have not provided evidence that alien life exists, I have provided evidence that alien life most likely exists, somewhere in the vastness of space, even if only simple non intelligent life. With enough time and survival, these simple organisms will evolve, adapt, and grow brains to store information and gain consciousness to continue it's survival. This means that I have shown, that extra-terrestrial beings coming from outer space (however you chose to give meaning to "coming from outer space) is more than likely. Why I believe my opponent does not have the upper hand in this debate: My opponent has not provided any evidence that even simple organisms existing somewhere in this large universe is not probable, or that they would not have enough time to develop consciousness. He also has not provided evidence that these alien beings could not "come from outer space". My opponent forfeited a round Conclusion: So far in this debate, I have provided a more solid case than my opponent regarding the existence of alien life. Sources: <URL>... <URL>... <URL>...

Rational_Thinker9119

Rebutting my opponent's arguments: My opponent forfeited a round, so there is nothing to rebut. Continuing my case for alien life: Kepler 22b Kepler 22b is a planet that was discovered 600 light years (approximately 3,550,000,000,000,000 miles) and it would take about 22 million years to travel there was far as we as humans are concerned. Kepler 22b has an average tempetare of 72 degrees fahrenheit, is roughly the same distance from it's sun that we are from ours, and it's year (270 days) is even close to our year as well. The planet is mostly ocean though so life on surfaces is probably not likely, however life in the ocean is more than probable, even if only single celled organisms. My opponents definition of alien "alien= extra terrestrial being coming from outer space." Being is defined as conscious life, but single celled organisms don't have consciousness as far as we know, but we do know that micro-organisms evolve into macro-organisms with consciousness because natural selection takes effect and these organisms develop brains to store more information and become aware of themselves and the world for survival. With 1.093117e 20 planets with potential inhabitants I have calculated (even though it's possible that this number is extremely inaccurate, it still has not been refuted by any counter math), it's more than likely that at least a few of the organisms developed a consciousness if not entire civilizations, and therefore counts as "beings." This means that until it goes refuted, I have provided a solid case that extra-terrestrial beings most likely exist. What about "coming from outer space" though? This was not specified entirely in a specific manner, and could mean a variety of different things which could easily fit with any of my arguments. Why I believe I have the upper hand in this debate: Even though I have not provided evidence that alien life exists, I have provided evidence that alien life most likely exists, somewhere in the vastness of space, even if only simple non intelligent life. With enough time and survival, these simple organisms will evolve, adapt, and grow brains to store information and gain consciousness to continue it's survival. This means that I have shown, that extra-terrestrial beings coming from outer space (however you chose to give meaning to "coming from outer space) is more than likely. Why I believe my opponent does not have the upper hand in this debate: My opponent has not provided any evidence that even simple organisms existing somewhere in this large universe is not probable, or that they would not have enough time to develop consciousness. He also has not provided evidence that these alien beings could not "come from outer space". My opponent forfeited a round Conclusion: So far in this debate, I have provided a more solid case than my opponent regarding the existence of alien life. Sources: http://www.nasa.gov... http://www.washingtonpost.com... http://articles.nydailynews.com...

Science

do-aliens-exist/2/

Due to the fact that my opponent forfeited another round, I will not post an argument for this last round in the name of fairnness. I thank pro for the debate.

Rational_Thinker9119

Due to the fact that my opponent forfeited another round, I will not post an argument for this last round in the name of fairnness. I thank pro for the debate.

Science

do-aliens-exist/2/

in this debate i will be con. i will argue that alien do not exist. the pro will argue that alien do exist. alien= extra terrestrial being coming from outer space.

xxx200

in this debate i will be con. i will argue that alien do not exist. the pro will argue that alien do exist. alien= extra terrestrial being coming from outer space.

Science

do-aliens-exist/2/

1] the UFO may not be alien spacecraft. it may be any of the following: 1. Human aircraft 2. Unmanned spacecraft. 3. Misidentification of atmospheric phenomena. 4. Misidentification of astronomical phenomena. 5. Hallucinations. 6. Hoaxes. 7. Birds 2] All of the reports about the UFO are based on subjective impression of size, distance and speed. Therefore, the judgement that they are performing "impossible activities" has no useful evidentiary basis. 3] Notice how real the UFO foto looks later in the video and how easy it was for him to fake it. <URL>... 4] there is no other clue/evidence other than UFO that aliens exist. so from above reasons it is clear that UFOs are not alien spacecraft. the UFOs are the only evidence regarding the existance of the aliens. since UFo has nothing to do with aliens, then aliens might not exist.

xxx200

1] the UFO may not be alien spacecraft. it may be any of the following: 1. Human aircraft 2. Unmanned spacecraft. 3. Misidentification of atmospheric phenomena. 4. Misidentification of astronomical phenomena. 5. Hallucinations. 6. Hoaxes. 7. Birds 2] All of the reports about the UFO are based on subjective impression of size, distance and speed. Therefore, the judgement that they are performing "impossible activities" has no useful evidentiary basis. 3] Notice how real the UFO foto looks later in the video and how easy it was for him to fake it. http://www.ted.com... 4] there is no other clue/evidence other than UFO that aliens exist. so from above reasons it is clear that UFOs are not alien spacecraft. the UFOs are the only evidence regarding the existance of the aliens. since UFo has nothing to do with aliens, then aliens might not exist.

Science

do-aliens-exist/2/

so there is probability that aliens exist. but it is only a probability math. it may not be true. we need more sound proof. none of the spaceship we send had ever found any traces of alien. nor they got any signal. our scientists on earth did not get any signal from an intellectual being from outer space. now my opponent is not accepting UFO based argument but these UFOs are only evidence that gives us a probability that aliens might exist.without UFO it is just a probability math having no solid base. can you give a solid case that aliens do exist?

xxx200

so there is probability that aliens exist. but it is only a probability math. it may not be true. we need more sound proof. none of the spaceship we send had ever found any traces of alien. nor they got any signal. our scientists on earth did not get any signal from an intellectual being from outer space. now my opponent is not accepting UFO based argument but these UFOs are only evidence that gives us a probability that aliens might exist.without UFO it is just a probability math having no solid base. can you give a solid case that aliens do exist?

Science

do-aliens-exist/2/

Basketball is better because: 1: It is a team effort. 2: You can make the basketball game go at your own pace. 3: You don't get hurt as much in basketball. Thank you.

birdlandmemories

Basketball is better because: 1: It is a team effort. 2: You can make the basketball game go at your own pace. 3: You don't get hurt as much in basketball. Thank you.

Sports

dodgeball-or-backestball/1/

some reason my computer isnt working properly so this would of gone under' opinions' so there is no argument for tbs. jsut vote and state if you think basketabll or dogeball is better. in my opnion i think dodgeball is better because its more competion and way funner than basketball. thanks all

bro20

some reason my computer isnt working properly so this would of gone under' opinions' so there is no argument for tbs. jsut vote and state if you think basketabll or dogeball is better. in my opnion i think dodgeball is better because its more competion and way funner than basketball. thanks all

Sports

dodgeball-or-backestball/1/

god dosnt exist as if he did he surely would have heard the cries of some terrorism's victims and helped them; he wouldn't let us create this divide of religion which becomes the reason of mass destruction many times; he wont let millions pay tributes of food candles or blankets when people die of hunger and cold so often; he would do something to stop people like hitler and send more like buddha or MK gandhi;he ll try to stop killings or subjugation of women or fraud with the sentiments of poor in is name etc.

sonak

god dosnt exist as if he did he surely would have heard the cries of some terrorism's victims and helped them; he wouldn't let us create this divide of religion which becomes the reason of mass destruction many times; he wont let millions pay tributes of food candles or blankets when people die of hunger and cold so often; he would do something to stop people like hitler and send more like buddha or MK gandhi;he ll try to stop killings or subjugation of women or fraud with the sentiments of poor in is name etc.

Religion

does-god-exist/156/

I would like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. However, I would like to emphasize my opponent's argument. Please note, my opponent, please write a much more detailed opening argument and define words and terms in your first round. It is a form of good argumentation to do so... Survival of the Fittest: "the idea that species adapt and change by natural selection with the best suited mutations becoming dominant." [1] The Semantic Argument The term survival of the fittest was chiefly created to describe the process of natural selection, though the general consensus among the scientific community is that the term does not accurately denote such a process. In fact, in The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, Darwin wrote: " This preservation, during the battle for life, of varieties which possess any advantage in structure, constitution, or instinct, I have called Natural Selection; and Mr. Herbert Spencer has well expressed the same idea by the Survival of the Fittes t. The term "natural selection" is in some respects a bad one, as it seems to imply conscious choice; but this will be disregarded after a little familiarity" [2] In this case, the term "survival of the fittest" denotes the change of species in regard to changes to the environment, with the domination of mutations. It is strictly a scientific term, though outdated. Pro suggests that it can be applied to high school students if one considers the common difficulties and challenges a high school student faces. This is true, but only if we conflate the strictly scientific meaning of the phrase, survival of the fittest , to mirror the everyday life of the instigator. I respect the instigator's argument, but assuming that the term 'survival of the fittest' applies to high school students only conflates the general meaning of the word 'fittest', which generally means 'adapted or suited; appropriate' [3], with not only the scientific meaning (most adapted or suited to environmental changes), but the social one (adapted to high school routine or experience). Terminologies have origins, and these origins generally determine the specific usage of the term. That origin in turn also determines its meaning: 'survival of the fittest' was coined by Herbert Spencer, who was, in turn, again referring to the concept of natural selection when he first used the term: " This survival of the fittest... is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection , or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life'." [1] It is clear that Spencer intended, in his book--the Principles of Biology, that this term not be applied to social standards but to biology, specifically the theory of evolution. Natural selection is merely the "nonrandom process by which biologic traits become more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers." [4] There are no social implications that apply to the everyday experiences that Pro was referencing to. Darwin himself merely wrote about variations occurring to species that account for part of evolution. The only ties between evolution and society should be social Darwinism, but that itself is irrelevant to the debate... Recap I have shown that the term 'survival of the fittest' and, partly, 'natural selection', are chiefly scientific in origin and definition. To suggest that they apply to areas of life outside the range of science [such as our high school experiences] would conflate and distort these specific meanings. Secondary Argument/Refutation In addition, I would also like to point out that Pro only considered his high school experience. There are a few problems with this approach: Subjectivity: Pro fails to give examples of other high school environments that might challenge or stimulate students to "fit in and be popular". In addition, Pro is also neglecting the different type of students that enter the high schools, and the different range of tastes and behavior that would cause him/her to be more popular than others. Vagueness: Pro's resolution is very vague in that 'high school students' cover freshmen, sophomore, juniors, and even seniors, all of which may have differing degrees of popularity and adaptation to the school environment. In addition, the resolution is phrased as a question. I suggest Pro not to phrase his resolution like a question, otherwise it can potentially cause confusion--especially upon one's views and stance on the topic presented. With that being said, I will be more than glad to continue the debate. I will, in particular, focus on our high school experiences if Pro concedes to my previous argument. [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>...

Man-is-good

I would like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. However, I would like to emphasize my opponent’s argument. Please note, my opponent, please write a much more detailed opening argument and define words and terms in your first round. It is a form of good argumentation to do so… Survival of the Fittest: “the idea that species adapt and change by natural selection with the best suited mutations becoming dominant.” [1] The Semantic Argument The term survival of the fittest was chiefly created to describe the process of natural selection, though the general consensus among the scientific community is that the term does not accurately denote such a process. In fact, in The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, Darwin wrote: “ This preservation, during the battle for life, of varieties which possess any advantage in structure, constitution, or instinct, I have called Natural Selection; and Mr. Herbert Spencer has well expressed the same idea by the Survival of the Fittes t. The term "natural selection" is in some respects a bad one, as it seems to imply conscious choice; but this will be disregarded after a little familiarity" [2] In this case, the term “survival of the fittest” denotes the change of species in regard to changes to the environment, with the domination of mutations. It is strictly a scientific term, though outdated. Pro suggests that it can be applied to high school students if one considers the common difficulties and challenges a high school student faces. This is true, but only if we conflate the strictly scientific meaning of the phrase, survival of the fittest , to mirror the everyday life of the instigator. I respect the instigator’s argument, but assuming that the term ‘survival of the fittest’ applies to high school students only conflates the general meaning of the word ‘fittest’, which generally means ‘adapted or suited; appropriate’ [3], with not only the scientific meaning (most adapted or suited to environmental changes), but the social one (adapted to high school routine or experience). Terminologies have origins, and these origins generally determine the specific usage of the term. That origin in turn also determines its meaning: ‘survival of the fittest’ was coined by Herbert Spencer, who was, in turn, again referring to the concept of natural selection when he first used the term: " This survival of the fittest... is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection , or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life'." [1] It is clear that Spencer intended, in his book—the Principles of Biology, that this term not be applied to social standards but to biology, specifically the theory of evolution. Natural selection is merely the “nonrandom process by which biologic traits become more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers.” [4] There are no social implications that apply to the everyday experiences that Pro was referencing to. Darwin himself merely wrote about variations occurring to species that account for part of evolution. The only ties between evolution and society should be social Darwinism, but that itself is irrelevant to the debate… Recap I have shown that the term ‘survival of the fittest’ and, partly, ‘natural selection’, are chiefly scientific in origin and definition. To suggest that they apply to areas of life outside the range of science [such as our high school experiences] would conflate and distort these specific meanings. Secondary Argument/Refutation In addition, I would also like to point out that Pro only considered his high school experience. There are a few problems with this approach: Subjectivity: Pro fails to give examples of other high school environments that might challenge or stimulate students to “fit in and be popular”. In addition, Pro is also neglecting the different type of students that enter the high schools, and the different range of tastes and behavior that would cause him/her to be more popular than others. Vagueness: Pro’s resolution is very vague in that ‘high school students’ cover freshmen, sophomore, juniors, and even seniors, all of which may have differing degrees of popularity and adaptation to the school environment. In addition, the resolution is phrased as a question. I suggest Pro not to phrase his resolution like a question, otherwise it can potentially cause confusion—especially upon one’s views and stance on the topic presented. With that being said, I will be more than glad to continue the debate. I will, in particular, focus on our high school experiences if Pro concedes to my previous argument. [1] http://www.phrases.org.uk... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Education

does-the-term-survival-of-the-fittest-apply-to-students-in-highschool/1/

It appears that my opponent has forfeited his second round, and failed to address my point. Nevertheless, I will make one final argument in regard to the resolution, and also challenge the validity of the resolution itself. Semantic Argument: The instigator apparently is referring to the meanings of the individual words of the phrase 'survival of the fittest'. This allows him to apply the phrase to his high school experiences. However, I will challenge this approach: Phrases are 'groups of words...that function as a single linguistic unit in the syntax of a sentence' [1] In other words, phrases represent a single meaning in the sentence being used. The best approach to understanding phrase is, therefore, not by understanding the constituents in the group.... Imagine a classroom contest, between two students, both of which are carrying dictionaries, who are competing for some remuneration or reward. Both must guess, or at least approximate, the definition of a word or phrase picked out from a box of index cards...In the current round, the teacher picks out a card and cries, out loud, 'Survival of the fittest'...The two students quickly pick up their book and instantly search for the definition. Student A does the following. He finds the definition of the phrase 'survival of the fittest' as: " Natural selection conceived of as a struggle for life in which only those organisms best adapted to existing conditions are able to survive and reproduce" [2]. Student B however chooses a different approach. He defines the meaning of the constituents of the phrase: Survival: n. "the act or fact of surviving, especially under adverse or unusual circumstances." Fittest: the superlative of the word 'fit' [conventional definition assumed from the laws of grammar] Fit: adj, " adapted or suited to" [3] Student B arrives at the conclusion that 'survival of the fittest' means the survival of members best suited or adapted to some 'adverse or unusual' environment and its circumstances. However, this definition fails to acknowledge the biological overtones and regard to life and community in an environment, and thus is false. By the end of the round, Student A has won and receives the renumeration... Refutation of Pro's Argument in Terms of 'High School Experience' My opponent's argument states that students "have to strive to fit in and be popular"...However, he has failed to display, as even in the literal intepretation of the phrase 'survival of the fittest', that the high school environment is at least 'advese or unusual' for the entirety of 'high school students' in the resolution. Therefore, despite the point that students do need to adapt to the typical high school routine, and his/her peers, such a point does not necessarily need to be called a 'survival'. According to the definition I provided above, survival only applies to 'adverse or unusual circumstances' that force the students to strive to survive. My opponent does not display that the high school enviroment is harse or unusual, making his assertion invalid as to whether or not they even apply to the literal definition of 'survival of the fittest'. My opponent has also failed to make a distinction between the distinct, and individual, grades of students, along with their ranks. A typical high school will have: freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors, all of which have varying degrees of experience and attunement to their school. This diversity alone challenges Pro's general assertion that "students have to strive to fit in and be popular"....He again implies that he is referring to the freshman class, but this is not inferred from the resolution: " does the term, 'survival of the fittest apply to students in high school ", which only names 'students', including all of the grades listed above. In addition, my opponent has also failed to name what type of high schools that might potentially challenge or stimulate their students into studying and taking assignments seriously. Generally, the four types of schools in the United States are: public, charter, and magnet schools...: The following are excerpts from descriptions of each type of schools [which, as a note, applies to the institutions of secondary education]: " Public schools get their financing from local, state, and federal government funds. In most cases, they must admit all students who live within the borders of their district. Charter schools and magnet schools are two relatively new kinds of public schools. Charter schools began appearing in the early 90s. They are autonomous, "alternative" public schools started by parents, teachers, community organizations, and for-profit companies. These schools receive tax dollars but the sponsoring group must also come up with private funding. Charter schools must adhere to the basic curricular requirements of the state but are free from many of the regulations that apply to conventional schools and the day-to-day scrutiny of school boards and government authorities.... Considered cutting edge, charter schools usually challenge standard education practices and sometimes specialize in a particular area, such as technology, the arts, or a back-to-basics core-subjects approach. Some charter schools are specifically for gifted or high-risk kids. They usually offer smaller classes and more individual attention than conventional public schools.... Magnet schools are highly competitive, highly selective public schools renowned for their special programs, superior facilities, and high academic standards. They may specialize in a particular area, such as science or the arts. Students who apply to these schools go through a rigorous testing and application process. Some magnet schools have boarding facilities to allow students from out of state to attend...." [4] Note that references and descriptions of the schools' history were cut for issues of length. Clearly, the three types of schools provide different environments, as based on their different curriculum and avaliability. There is no guarentee that students will be forced to strive and be perfect in all such schools. Even the different kinds of students negate the general nature of the resolution: Premise: Students are 'individuals'. Premise two: Individuals have different ways of adapting to their environment. Premise three: A 'high school', regardless of the different kinds, are 'environments'. Conclusion: Students have different ways of adapating to their high school environment. Recap: 1. 'Survival of the fittest' is chiefly a scientific term that, though no longer in technical use, retains its biological and social connotations. Ignoring these connotations, and applying them to fields outside of their intended subject, risks conflating the specific definition of such a term. (Established in round one). 2. 'Survival of the fittest' is a phrase that functions not in individual units...Applying it to "students in highschool" risk assuming that such a phrase can be understand by the sum of the definitions of its part, which, as I showed in the imaginary contest of students A and B, to be untrue. 3. Differences in students and even high school environmens further invalidate the resolution and assertions made by Pro, and further negate the resolution in general. I await my opponent's response...I hope this will be a good way of learning, though competition and debating. In the meantime, I encourage my opponents to vote Con since Pro has failed to give a rebuttal to my claims and cannot introduce new arguments in the final round... Being that Pro is still a relatively new member, I hope he continues to debate and present his views on such issues. After all, the phrase 'practice make perfect' is true in a community like DDO.... 1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... ; definition of the word 'survival' and 'fit' [4] <URL>...

Man-is-good

It appears that my opponent has forfeited his second round, and failed to address my point. Nevertheless, I will make one final argument in regard to the resolution, and also challenge the validity of the resolution itself. Semantic Argument: The instigator apparently is referring to the meanings of the individual words of the phrase ‘survival of the fittest’. This allows him to apply the phrase to his high school experiences. However, I will challenge this approach: Phrases are ‘groups of words…that function as a single linguistic unit in the syntax of a sentence’ [1] In other words, phrases represent a single meaning in the sentence being used. The best approach to understanding phrase is, therefore, not by understanding the constituents in the group…. Imagine a classroom contest, between two students, both of which are carrying dictionaries, who are competing for some remuneration or reward. Both must guess, or at least approximate, the definition of a word or phrase picked out from a box of index cards…In the current round, the teacher picks out a card and cries, out loud, ‘Survival of the fittest’…The two students quickly pick up their book and instantly search for the definition. Student A does the following. He finds the definition of the phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ as: “ Natural selection conceived of as a struggle for life in which only those organisms best adapted to existing conditions are able to survive and reproduce” [2]. Student B however chooses a different approach. He defines the meaning of the constituents of the phrase: Survival: n. “the act or fact of surviving, especially under adverse or unusual circumstances.” Fittest: the superlative of the word ‘fit’ [conventional definition assumed from the laws of grammar] Fit: adj, “ adapted or suited to” [3] Student B arrives at the conclusion that ‘survival of the fittest’ means the survival of members best suited or adapted to some ‘adverse or unusual’ environment and its circumstances. However, this definition fails to acknowledge the biological overtones and regard to life and community in an environment, and thus is false. By the end of the round, Student A has won and receives the renumeration… Refutation of Pro's Argument in Terms of 'High School Experience' My opponent's argument states that students "have to strive to fit in and be popular"...However, he has failed to display, as even in the literal intepretation of the phrase 'survival of the fittest', that the high school environment is at least 'advese or unusual' for the entirety of 'high school students' in the resolution. Therefore, despite the point that students do need to adapt to the typical high school routine, and his/her peers, such a point does not necessarily need to be called a 'survival'. According to the definition I provided above, survival only applies to 'adverse or unusual circumstances' that force the students to strive to survive. My opponent does not display that the high school enviroment is harse or unusual, making his assertion invalid as to whether or not they even apply to the literal definition of 'survival of the fittest'. My opponent has also failed to make a distinction between the distinct, and individual, grades of students, along with their ranks. A typical high school will have: freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors, all of which have varying degrees of experience and attunement to their school. This diversity alone challenges Pro's general assertion that "students have to strive to fit in and be popular"....He again implies that he is referring to the freshman class, but this is not inferred from the resolution: " does the term, 'survival of the fittest apply to students in high school ", which only names 'students', including all of the grades listed above. In addition, my opponent has also failed to name what type of high schools that might potentially challenge or stimulate their students into studying and taking assignments seriously. Generally, the four types of schools in the United States are: public, charter, and magnet schools...: The following are excerpts from descriptions of each type of schools [which, as a note, applies to the institutions of secondary education]: " Public schools get their financing from local, state, and federal government funds. In most cases, they must admit all students who live within the borders of their district. Charter schools and magnet schools are two relatively new kinds of public schools. Charter schools began appearing in the early 90s. They are autonomous, "alternative" public schools started by parents, teachers, community organizations, and for-profit companies. These schools receive tax dollars but the sponsoring group must also come up with private funding. Charter schools must adhere to the basic curricular requirements of the state but are free from many of the regulations that apply to conventional schools and the day-to-day scrutiny of school boards and government authorities.... Considered cutting edge, charter schools usually challenge standard education practices and sometimes specialize in a particular area, such as technology, the arts, or a back-to-basics core-subjects approach. Some charter schools are specifically for gifted or high-risk kids. They usually offer smaller classes and more individual attention than conventional public schools.... Magnet schools are highly competitive, highly selective public schools renowned for their special programs, superior facilities, and high academic standards. They may specialize in a particular area, such as science or the arts. Students who apply to these schools go through a rigorous testing and application process. Some magnet schools have boarding facilities to allow students from out of state to attend...." [4] Note that references and descriptions of the schools' history were cut for issues of length. Clearly, the three types of schools provide different environments, as based on their different curriculum and avaliability. There is no guarentee that students will be forced to strive and be perfect in all such schools. Even the different kinds of students negate the general nature of the resolution: Premise: Students are 'individuals'. Premise two: Individuals have different ways of adapting to their environment. Premise three: A 'high school', regardless of the different kinds, are 'environments'. Conclusion: Students have different ways of adapating to their high school environment. Recap: 1. 'Survival of the fittest' is chiefly a scientific term that, though no longer in technical use, retains its biological and social connotations. Ignoring these connotations, and applying them to fields outside of their intended subject, risks conflating the specific definition of such a term. (Established in round one). 2. 'Survival of the fittest' is a phrase that functions not in individual units...Applying it to "students in highschool" risk assuming that such a phrase can be understand by the sum of the definitions of its part, which, as I showed in the imaginary contest of students A and B, to be untrue. 3. Differences in students and even high school environmens further invalidate the resolution and assertions made by Pro, and further negate the resolution in general. I await my opponent's response...I hope this will be a good way of learning, though competition and debating. In the meantime, I encourage my opponents to vote Con since Pro has failed to give a rebuttal to my claims and cannot introduce new arguments in the final round... Being that Pro is still a relatively new member, I hope he continues to debate and present his views on such issues. After all, the phrase 'practice make perfect' is true in a community like DDO.... 1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com... ; definition of the word ‘survival’ and ‘fit’ [4] http://www.babycenter.com...

Education

does-the-term-survival-of-the-fittest-apply-to-students-in-highschool/1/

Since Pro has forfeited his final round, and has presented no rebuttal or refutation to my case whatsoever, I urge voters to vote for Con. I will give a brief overview of the contentions and cases that I presented in the precious rounds: After Pro posted his first, and only argument, contending that the phrase "survival of the fittest" applies to social experiences in high schools, and possibly other institutions of secondary education, I rebutted his case by making the following contentions: "survival of the fittest" was created chiefly to describe a mechanism in the theory of evolution, and is synonymous with natural selection [as demonstrated by cited passages from "The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication", in a piece written by Darwin himself], and that to use it to apply to "students in high school" would risk conflating that meaning. The implicaton is that by conflating definitions to suit areas outside of their intended designation, one risks generalizing specific meanings into general ones. The promotion of such conflation can lead to more misunderstandings of both the meaning, and even use, of the term. In my secondary argument, I also focused on Pro's ill-defined resolution and how, even by the literal definition of the phrase "survival of the fittest", cannot apply, since Pro failed to designate what type of student or even high school [private, public, magnet, charter, and so on]. All of this was uncontested by Pro, who forfeited two of the three rounds, thereby confining his arguments to his solitary post in the initial round, and giving me ample time to refute and question such claims. I advice Pro to at least set rules and standards, since I was easily able to give my own definitions and phrases, which, in a debate that centers more or less on semanatics, guarentees a victory for Con. In addition, since Pro allowed a character limit of eight thousand, he could have exploited it to write clearer, more fleshed out arguments. In fact, Pro could have contended the risk of conflating definitions and at least questioned the flexibility of word application....As I have stated before in the debate, Pro should continue to debate and share his views, as well as communicating with the members of the community here. It is felicitous for him, as a new debater, to do so, and will be a rewarding experience. Although I was disappointed when Pro's forfeits caused a threat to the integrity of the entire debate, and precluded any chance of a lively discussion, I must thank Pro for creating the topic, as a general mark of sportsmanship...

Man-is-good

Since Pro has forfeited his final round, and has presented no rebuttal or refutation to my case whatsoever, I urge voters to vote for Con. I will give a brief overview of the contentions and cases that I presented in the precious rounds: After Pro posted his first, and only argument, contending that the phrase "survival of the fittest" applies to social experiences in high schools, and possibly other institutions of secondary education, I rebutted his case by making the following contentions: "survival of the fittest" was created chiefly to describe a mechanism in the theory of evolution, and is synonymous with natural selection [as demonstrated by cited passages from "The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication", in a piece written by Darwin himself], and that to use it to apply to "students in high school" would risk conflating that meaning. The implicaton is that by conflating definitions to suit areas outside of their intended designation, one risks generalizing specific meanings into general ones. The promotion of such conflation can lead to more misunderstandings of both the meaning, and even use, of the term. In my secondary argument, I also focused on Pro's ill-defined resolution and how, even by the literal definition of the phrase "survival of the fittest", cannot apply, since Pro failed to designate what type of student or even high school [private, public, magnet, charter, and so on]. All of this was uncontested by Pro, who forfeited two of the three rounds, thereby confining his arguments to his solitary post in the initial round, and giving me ample time to refute and question such claims. I advice Pro to at least set rules and standards, since I was easily able to give my own definitions and phrases, which, in a debate that centers more or less on semanatics, guarentees a victory for Con. In addition, since Pro allowed a character limit of eight thousand, he could have exploited it to write clearer, more fleshed out arguments. In fact, Pro could have contended the risk of conflating definitions and at least questioned the flexibility of word application....As I have stated before in the debate, Pro should continue to debate and share his views, as well as communicating with the members of the community here. It is felicitous for him, as a new debater, to do so, and will be a rewarding experience. Although I was disappointed when Pro's forfeits caused a threat to the integrity of the entire debate, and precluded any chance of a lively discussion, I must thank Pro for creating the topic, as a general mark of sportsmanship...

Education

does-the-term-survival-of-the-fittest-apply-to-students-in-highschool/1/

When entering highschool, I believe there are always the constant fact the the survival of the fittest applies to students in highschool because they have to strive to fit in and be popular.

McNichol

When entering highschool, I believe there are always the constant fact the the survival of the fittest applies to students in highschool because they have to strive to fit in and be popular.

Education

does-the-term-survival-of-the-fittest-apply-to-students-in-highschool/1/

if somone spits on you if your like most people you'll get in there face and why not, they just spit on you they invaded your personal body space and insalted you if this was me i would be up in there face because they would deserve it.so i say this don't respect others if they don't respect you

jester108

if somone spits on you if your like most people you'll get in there face and why not, they just spit on you they invaded your personal body space and insalted you if this was me i would be up in there face because they would deserve it.so i say this don't respect others if they don't respect you

Society

don-t-respect-others-when-they-don-t-respect-you/1/

well i think i was misunderstude i would get in there face and confront them about there comment but i wouldnt hit them

jester108

well i think i was misunderstude i would get in there face and confront them about there comment but i wouldnt hit them

Society

don-t-respect-others-when-they-don-t-respect-you/1/

Responding to others is one of the primary elements of civilization. Without it, we would be no better than the animals. your right its how you confront if you do it with hitting the n yes you'll end up in jail but if you give them no respect thenthat doesnt mean hitting them it means no respect

jester108

Responding to others is one of the primary elements of civilization. Without it, we would be no better than the animals. your right its how you confront if you do it with hitting the n yes you'll end up in jail but if you give them no respect thenthat doesnt mean hitting them it means no respect

Society

don-t-respect-others-when-they-don-t-respect-you/1/

well i am sorry you feel this way i have only stated that give no respect to those who dont give it to you not giving respect does not mean hitting them!!!

jester108

well i am sorry you feel this way i have only stated that give no respect to those who dont give it to you not giving respect does not mean hitting them!!!

Society

don-t-respect-others-when-they-don-t-respect-you/1/

The drinking age should not be lowered because alcohol is a dangerous substance and causes many problems for adults let alone minors. Alcohol can cause brain cells to become damaged and at 21 your brain cells are not completely developed so even then it can cause harm to the drinker, and it will only cause more harm to the brain of a younger person.

Creamecicle2014

The drinking age should not be lowered because alcohol is a dangerous substance and causes many problems for adults let alone minors. Alcohol can cause brain cells to become damaged and at 21 your brain cells are not completely developed so even then it can cause harm to the drinker, and it will only cause more harm to the brain of a younger person.

Politics

drinking-age-being-lowered/1/

Drinking can affect more people than just yourself. If you start drinking at an earlier age, you become more likely to be an alcoholic and alcoholism can affect your family, friends, loved ones, and other people around you who are strangers. Almost the same as suicide, the government should try to intervene in the event that you make such a poor decision as to ruin your life with alcohol.

Creamecicle2014

Drinking can affect more people than just yourself. If you start drinking at an earlier age, you become more likely to be an alcoholic and alcoholism can affect your family, friends, loved ones, and other people around you who are strangers. Almost the same as suicide, the government should try to intervene in the event that you make such a poor decision as to ruin your life with alcohol.

Politics

drinking-age-being-lowered/1/

Who would benefit when the teens are openly drinking without fear of punishment? The officer who has to report the death of the kid to his/her parents when he/she was driving home drunk after the party that he/she was openly drinking at? Or how about the parents of the kid who now have to pay for a funeral of their 17 or 18 year old child who is now dead because they made a poor decision to attempt to drive while intoxicated. there is no benefit in this situation at all save the crime systems being less cluttered with petty under age drinking arrests.

Creamecicle2014

Who would benefit when the teens are openly drinking without fear of punishment? The officer who has to report the death of the kid to his/her parents when he/she was driving home drunk after the party that he/she was openly drinking at? Or how about the parents of the kid who now have to pay for a funeral of their 17 or 18 year old child who is now dead because they made a poor decision to attempt to drive while intoxicated. there is no benefit in this situation at all save the crime systems being less cluttered with petty under age drinking arrests.

Politics

drinking-age-being-lowered/1/

the drinking age should be lowered because kids are drinking anyways and getting away with it, so lets at least let them do it safely instead of the way there drinking sneaking around and stuff.

Lil_b_from_the_pack

the drinking age should be lowered because kids are drinking anyways and getting away with it, so lets at least let them do it safely instead of the way there drinking sneaking around and stuff.

Politics

drinking-age-being-lowered/1/

that doesent matter, if a person wants to hurt themselves thats there own privilege, the government should not have any say in what age ti should drink, if i wanna drink then im going too

Lil_b_from_the_pack

that doesent matter, if a person wants to hurt themselves thats there own privilege, the government should not have any say in what age ti should drink, if i wanna drink then im going too

Politics

drinking-age-being-lowered/1/

but if you lower the drinking age then kids wont have parties unsupervised and then it will be safer, kids have parties without supervision because parents wont let them drink because its illegal, it would benefit everyone

Lil_b_from_the_pack

but if you lower the drinking age then kids wont have parties unsupervised and then it will be safer, kids have parties without supervision because parents wont let them drink because its illegal, it would benefit everyone

Politics

drinking-age-being-lowered/1/

economic growth is not the only reason or the development of a country because nowadys green growth is equally important . As our industries are developing the number of trees is decreasing , if we do not give equal importance to green growth , one day we will really face a situation like the film 'Avatar' ( in this film humans invade another planet and try to destroy it in search of resources as all the resources on earth ran out) . we also need to support the growth of traditional arts , as now arts are not given the importance they deserve , the various art forms are neglected as if they never existed .Preserving traditions and traditional growth is important because every region is known for its traditions . Imagine someone asking you 'what are the special things or traditions of your region ?' you'll answer ' I have IT industries , and skyscrapers' and if he'll ask you about traditions you will have no answer becasue traditions were never preserved and they died and all you have is internet and big structures of concrete steel iron and glass but what else? If you have no traditions you will not have a proper way of life because traditions give us a way to live life . I think archeological growth is also important which means preserving of monuments ,if we wiil not preserve our monuments ,which 7 wonders of the world we will have ? The burj khalifa , empire state building ,burj al arab ,taipei 101, OR what? that is why I think economic growth is not the only reason for the development of a country

bluetaurus

economic growth is not the only reason or the development of a country because nowadys green growth is equally important . As our industries are developing the number of trees is decreasing , if we do not give equal importance to green growth , one day we will really face a situation like the film `Avatar` ( in this film humans invade another planet and try to destroy it in search of resources as all the resources on earth ran out) . we also need to support the growth of traditional arts , as now arts are not given the importance they deserve , the various art forms are neglected as if they never existed .Preserving traditions and traditional growth is important because every region is known for its traditions . Imagine someone asking you `what are the special things or traditions of your region ?` you`ll answer ` I have IT industries , and skyscrapers` and if he`ll ask you about traditions you will have no answer becasue traditions were never preserved and they died and all you have is internet and big structures of concrete steel iron and glass but what else? If you have no traditions you will not have a proper way of life because traditions give us a way to live life . I think archeological growth is also important which means preserving of monuments ,if we wiil not preserve our monuments ,which 7 wonders of the world we will have ? The burj khalifa , empire state building ,burj al arab ,taipei 101, OR what? that is why I think economic growth is not the only reason for the development of a country

Education

economic-growth-is-only-reason-for-the-growth-of-a-country/1/

As I stated in the first argument, economic growth is not the only reason for the development of a country ,other types growth are also important .If we just focus on economic growth , the other sectors like environment , arts , traditions ,etc. would be neglected and people who work in this sectors would not progress as their means of income would be no more. Moreover the traditions and arts would be lost as no one would be there to preserve them. Environment ,if neglected , would neglect us if we do not try to save it . If we pay attention in all the sectors and not just economy we would develop fast as every sector is progressing.

bluetaurus

As I stated in the first argument, economic growth is not the only reason for the development of a country ,other types growth are also important .If we just focus on economic growth , the other sectors like environment , arts , traditions ,etc. would be neglected and people who work in this sectors would not progress as their means of income would be no more. Moreover the traditions and arts would be lost as no one would be there to preserve them. Environment ,if neglected , would neglect us if we do not try to save it . If we pay attention in all the sectors and not just economy we would develop fast as every sector is progressing.

Education

economic-growth-is-only-reason-for-the-growth-of-a-country/1/

I think you're definition of the word 'economy' has been greatly misconstrued. Every sector of industy ties in with the economy and if the economy isn't thriving, then neither will any apsect of the country. You've essentially shot yourself on the foot, because the sectors you've mentioned that you believe should be focussed on in alternation to the economy, are in fact, branches of the economy. The creative industries and the environmental sector are part of the economy! For example, the creative industries (arts, television, music, radio etc.) are all funded by the government or private companies, and the amount of funding is subsequently based on how well the economy is doing. You state that if we just focussed on the economy then then progression in the green sector would decline - this is wrong. Economic growth is one of the most crucial tacklers of environmental issues, such as climate change. Bjorn Lomborg, Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and adjunct professor at Copenhagen Business School, stated that the only way the world is going to progress in terms of green energy is through further investment, and that with a stronger economy, emissions could easily be reduced (1). This is evidence from one of the world's top economists that the only way to improve certain parts of the industry, is through economic growth. The richer a country, the better the industries. (1) <URL>...

frankdavie2

I think you're definition of the word 'economy' has been greatly misconstrued. Every sector of industy ties in with the economy and if the economy isn't thriving, then neither will any apsect of the country. You've essentially shot yourself on the foot, because the sectors you've mentioned that you believe should be focussed on in alternation to the economy, are in fact, branches of the economy. The creative industries and the environmental sector are part of the economy! For example, the creative industries (arts, television, music, radio etc.) are all funded by the government or private companies, and the amount of funding is subsequently based on how well the economy is doing. You state that if we just focussed on the economy then then progression in the green sector would decline - this is wrong. Economic growth is one of the most crucial tacklers of environmental issues, such as climate change. Bjorn Lomborg, Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and adjunct professor at Copenhagen Business School, stated that the only way the world is going to progress in terms of green energy is through further investment, and that with a stronger economy, emissions could easily be reduced (1). This is evidence from one of the world's top economists that the only way to improve certain parts of the industry, is through economic growth. The richer a country, the better the industries. (1) http://globalenergyinitiative.org...

Education

economic-growth-is-only-reason-for-the-growth-of-a-country/1/

Extend previous arguments.

frankdavie2

Extend previous arguments.

Education

economic-growth-is-only-reason-for-the-growth-of-a-country/1/

education along with sports and arts are necessary for the over all development of a child.

pupullama4

education along with sports and arts are necessary for the over all development of a child.

Education

education-once-considered-a-3-legged-tool-comprising-of-academics-arts-and-sports-are-the-key-to-the/1/

I accept your debate. Pro has expounded on quite a utopian ideal for farming, with everything very "fair" including pay, price, environment, working conditions, and management, etc. I hope Pro can find time to define "fair", where this farming is taking place, and help me understand how his/her vision is unlike reality. Good luck, Pro.

ax123man

I accept your debate. Pro has expounded on quite a utopian ideal for farming, with everything very "fair" including pay, price, environment, working conditions, and management, etc. I hope Pro can find time to define "fair", where this farming is taking place, and help me understand how his/her vision is unlike reality. Good luck, Pro.

Economics

fair-trade/1/

Hmmm, uou haven't really presented any evidence, so I've taken it upon myself to review the FLO website and read up on Fair Trade in general. <URL>... Basically what you have here is socialism. I'll try to summarize briefly what the FLO is all about. The FLO believes that free trade hurts the poor because only the rich benefit. Food produced under this system is labeled with an FLO trademark. The products command a price premium as consumers feel assured there has not been any slave/child labor, unfair.... well, you get the picture. The FLO chooses a limited subset of producers that meet their criteria. Mainly they must be small, not have much hired labor, not use slave or child labor. And directly from their web site: "Profits should be equally distributed among the producers". The FLO also sets minimum prices to be paid producers. This is all a pretty big deal apparently (and I've learned a lot in this debate) so I thank my opponent for that. In the end, it appears the topic of this debate is "Free Trade vs Socialism". The following is a review of Fair Trade by the Adam Smith Institute: <URL>... I'll try to summarize some of the more interesting bits from that document. In a paragraph comparing Free Trade and Fair Trade, the author writes: However, free trade proponents also seek to open up the economies of poor countries so that their citizens can participate in the world economy; Fair Trade proponents seek special protectionist measures for the poor to isolate them from the world economy. It's bad enough the FLO is fixing prices and having producers distribute profits equally, but it appears to me they are also preventing producers from plugging into the vary system that the "rich" have access to. One important point the paper brings out is how much effort is put into marketing and sales. That all sounds great but if they really wanted to help producers wouldn't it make sense to put effort into studying the economics of why these farmers are poor in the first place? Is the land viable for farming? Are the logistics and transportation viable? What farming tools are being used? The FLO doesn't seem terribly concerned with economics. I'll mention just a couple points regarding the price fixing and economics. One, only 20% of Fair Trade certified crops end up in Fair Trade labeled products. Two, only 10% of the premium paid for those products goes to the producer. Ouch. I doubt if consumers know that when they purchase the product based on the label. Another interesting point is that the Fair Trade movement is involved in setting primary education program. The following is from Fair Trade education document: Explain that more and more people are keen to support Fair Trade because it really makes a difference to the lives of the people who grow or make the goods we consume. Shouldn't we rather desire to teach our children to think critically about such matters so that, whatever the truth might be, it can be found out as generations pass? But in the end, we must ask whether the Fair Trade programs are affective. The paper points out that there is little hard evidence. Fair Trade instead tends to rely on anecdotal evidence.

ax123man

Hmmm, uou haven't really presented any evidence, so I've taken it upon myself to review the FLO website and read up on Fair Trade in general. http://www.fairtrade.net... Basically what you have here is socialism. I'll try to summarize briefly what the FLO is all about. The FLO believes that free trade hurts the poor because only the rich benefit. Food produced under this system is labeled with an FLO trademark. The products command a price premium as consumers feel assured there has not been any slave/child labor, unfair…. well, you get the picture. The FLO chooses a limited subset of producers that meet their criteria. Mainly they must be small, not have much hired labor, not use slave or child labor. And directly from their web site: "Profits should be equally distributed among the producers". The FLO also sets minimum prices to be paid producers. This is all a pretty big deal apparently (and I've learned a lot in this debate) so I thank my opponent for that. In the end, it appears the topic of this debate is "Free Trade vs Socialism". The following is a review of Fair Trade by the Adam Smith Institute: http://www.adamsmith.org... I'll try to summarize some of the more interesting bits from that document. In a paragraph comparing Free Trade and Fair Trade, the author writes: However, free trade proponents also seek to open up the economies of poor countries so that their citizens can participate in the world economy; Fair Trade proponents seek special protectionist measures for the poor to isolate them from the world economy. It's bad enough the FLO is fixing prices and having producers distribute profits equally, but it appears to me they are also preventing producers from plugging into the vary system that the "rich" have access to. One important point the paper brings out is how much effort is put into marketing and sales. That all sounds great but if they really wanted to help producers wouldn't it make sense to put effort into studying the economics of why these farmers are poor in the first place? Is the land viable for farming? Are the logistics and transportation viable? What farming tools are being used? The FLO doesn't seem terribly concerned with economics. I'll mention just a couple points regarding the price fixing and economics. One, only 20% of Fair Trade certified crops end up in Fair Trade labeled products. Two, only 10% of the premium paid for those products goes to the producer. Ouch. I doubt if consumers know that when they purchase the product based on the label. Another interesting point is that the Fair Trade movement is involved in setting primary education program. The following is from Fair Trade education document: Explain that more and more people are keen to support Fair Trade because it really makes a difference to the lives of the people who grow or make the goods we consume. Shouldn't we rather desire to teach our children to think critically about such matters so that, whatever the truth might be, it can be found out as generations pass? But in the end, we must ask whether the Fair Trade programs are affective. The paper points out that there is little hard evidence. Fair Trade instead tends to rely on anecdotal evidence.

Economics

fair-trade/1/

I appreciate Pro taking the time to respond on this important topic. Pro's heart is certainly in the right place, however I don't feel like Pro really addressed my points from round 2. Regardless, I will address Pro's points in round 3: Firstly, Fair Trade is trade farmers can count on. Fair Trade is committed to strengthening direct partnerships between buyers and producers. This sounds great, but what does it mean? If farmers want something to count on, they should consider the free market. A truly sustainable producer does not need socialist intervention as advocated by the FLO. In economics, prices are set by a supply/demand curve [1]. Producers are willing to produce more when prices are higher while consumers will purchase less at a higher prices. These two opposing forces meet at the market clearing price. Artificial distortions in this process are not only unnecessary but disruptive. If prices are artificially raised, there will a tendency toward surplus which has downward pressure on prices. That is one reason the FLO spends so much of it's resources on marketing the FLO label. One of the interesting points made in Adam Smith paper [2] is that Fair Trade movement arose from the coffee crisis of the 1990's. Governments tried to fix this market through the International Coffee Agreement. The result was over-production and a crash in prices. These partnerships provide an avenue for buyers to purchase quality products from people they trust, and offer a sustainable and reliable way for farmers, artisans and their families to improve their livelihood I agree that one of the functions of the FLO is essentially a food broker. This is an important function for farmers. All producers rely on brokers, logistics and other sources for the sale of their products. However, the FLO masquerades itself as a charitable organization and tends to put great emphasis on it's labeling program. The fact that the FLO puts so much emphasis on marketing it's label and so little emphasis on real agricultural development is an indication that their primary concern is not with producers. That Fair Trade also means sustainable local economies. Fair Trade gives farmers and artisans control of their own future. They can build their own businesses, rather than working for a middle man, and the profits stay in their communities and go back into their businesses. There is really nothing magical about the FLO. As I've shown, they are effectively a middle man, a food broker. In addition, the labeling program effectively makes them a sort of pseudo-brand of product. I've also shown that the FLO adds very little profit for producers while at the same time impacting a fraction of the farmers in the countries they focus on. In fact, the FLO injects additional fees into the equation by charging packers of products a fee for the Fair Trade label. The FLO uses most of this fee money for marketing. Fair Trade also means what you buy matters. By choosing Fair Trade products, you are not only accessing high quality products, you are making a difference in the lives of the people who grow the food you eat and the goods you use. Is that not true of products I purchase from non-Fair Trade farmers? I've seen no real proof that the Fair Trade farmers deserve special treatment. While the FLO claims that they ensure no child or slave labor is used for farming, do they really follow up on this? Am I to believe that all or most non-Fair Trade farmers do use slave and child labor? Closing, Fair Trade connects you with other cultures. Fair Trade products are unique to the places they come from and the people who make them. Farmers and artisans are involved in the entire process, and Fair Trade products reflect the people and cultures they come from. Again, is this not true of non-Fair Trade products? In the coffee market, which is FLO's largest segment, Fair Trade products only make up five percent of the market [2]. Am I not helping the other 95% of farmers when I buy non-Fair Trade coffee? I thank Pro for this enlightening debate. However, I feel that Pro's arguments generally rely more on heart, hope and faith. I have shown that Fair Trade has little real impact on producers. In addition, true sustainability and success for producers in poor countries will more likely come from free market trade. [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>...

ax123man

I appreciate Pro taking the time to respond on this important topic. Pro's heart is certainly in the right place, however I don't feel like Pro really addressed my points from round 2. Regardless, I will address Pro's points in round 3: Firstly, Fair Trade is trade farmers can count on. Fair Trade is committed to strengthening direct partnerships between buyers and producers. This sounds great, but what does it mean? If farmers want something to count on, they should consider the free market. A truly sustainable producer does not need socialist intervention as advocated by the FLO. In economics, prices are set by a supply/demand curve [1]. Producers are willing to produce more when prices are higher while consumers will purchase less at a higher prices. These two opposing forces meet at the market clearing price. Artificial distortions in this process are not only unnecessary but disruptive. If prices are artificially raised, there will a tendency toward surplus which has downward pressure on prices. That is one reason the FLO spends so much of it's resources on marketing the FLO label. One of the interesting points made in Adam Smith paper [2] is that Fair Trade movement arose from the coffee crisis of the 1990's. Governments tried to fix this market through the International Coffee Agreement. The result was over-production and a crash in prices. These partnerships provide an avenue for buyers to purchase quality products from people they trust, and offer a sustainable and reliable way for farmers, artisans and their families to improve their livelihood I agree that one of the functions of the FLO is essentially a food broker. This is an important function for farmers. All producers rely on brokers, logistics and other sources for the sale of their products. However, the FLO masquerades itself as a charitable organization and tends to put great emphasis on it's labeling program. The fact that the FLO puts so much emphasis on marketing it's label and so little emphasis on real agricultural development is an indication that their primary concern is not with producers. That Fair Trade also means sustainable local economies. Fair Trade gives farmers and artisans control of their own future. They can build their own businesses, rather than working for a middle man, and the profits stay in their communities and go back into their businesses. There is really nothing magical about the FLO. As I've shown, they are effectively a middle man, a food broker. In addition, the labeling program effectively makes them a sort of pseudo-brand of product. I've also shown that the FLO adds very little profit for producers while at the same time impacting a fraction of the farmers in the countries they focus on. In fact, the FLO injects additional fees into the equation by charging packers of products a fee for the Fair Trade label. The FLO uses most of this fee money for marketing. Fair Trade also means what you buy matters. By choosing Fair Trade products, you are not only accessing high quality products, you are making a difference in the lives of the people who grow the food you eat and the goods you use. Is that not true of products I purchase from non-Fair Trade farmers? I've seen no real proof that the Fair Trade farmers deserve special treatment. While the FLO claims that they ensure no child or slave labor is used for farming, do they really follow up on this? Am I to believe that all or most non-Fair Trade farmers do use slave and child labor? Closing, Fair Trade connects you with other cultures. Fair Trade products are unique to the places they come from and the people who make them. Farmers and artisans are involved in the entire process, and Fair Trade products reflect the people and cultures they come from. Again, is this not true of non-Fair Trade products? In the coffee market, which is FLO's largest segment, Fair Trade products only make up five percent of the market [2]. Am I not helping the other 95% of farmers when I buy non-Fair Trade coffee? I thank Pro for this enlightening debate. However, I feel that Pro's arguments generally rely more on heart, hope and faith. I have shown that Fair Trade has little real impact on producers. In addition, true sustainability and success for producers in poor countries will more likely come from free market trade. [1] http://www.investopedia.com... [2] http://www.adamsmith.org...

Economics

fair-trade/1/

By fair trade I mean A movement which strives for fair treatment for farmers. In a fair trade agreement, farmers, who in other situations might be more susceptible to the will of the purchaser, will negotiate with the purchasers in order to receive a fair price for their products. Farmers who engage in fair trade also aim to pay their workers a fair price, and engage in environmentally-friendly practices. Fisrtly Fair Trade means fair pay and working conditions for farmers and producers. Fair Trade products are made in safe and healthy working conditions, where farmers and producers receive a fair price and have a voice in how their workplace is run. Fair Trade is also safe. It actively promotes integrated farm management systems that improve soil fertility and preserve valuable ecosystems, and limit the use of harmful agrochemicals that present dangers to farmers" health. That means food that"s safer for you and for the people who grow it.

theodora

By fair trade I mean A movement which strives for fair treatment for farmers. In a fair trade agreement, farmers, who in other situations might be more susceptible to the will of the purchaser, will negotiate with the purchasers in order to receive a fair price for their products. Farmers who engage in fair trade also aim to pay their workers a fair price, and engage in environmentally-friendly practices. Fisrtly Fair Trade means fair pay and working conditions for farmers and producers. Fair Trade products are made in safe and healthy working conditions, where farmers and producers receive a fair price and have a voice in how their workplace is run. Fair Trade is also safe. It actively promotes integrated farm management systems that improve soil fertility and preserve valuable ecosystems, and limit the use of harmful agrochemicals that present dangers to farmers" health. That means food that"s safer for you and for the people who grow it.

Economics

fair-trade/1/

By fair I mean something right and based on rules, logic and ethics. Farming takes place in many poor contries, where the farmers are used for one person's profit when fair trade mark doesn't exists! FLO (Fair trade International) makes sure that more money reaches the farmers. Waiting for your arguments, Pro

theodora

By fair I mean something right and based on rules, logic and ethics. Farming takes place in many poor contries, where the farmers are used for one person's profit when fair trade mark doesn't exists! FLO (Fair trade International) makes sure that more money reaches the farmers. Waiting for your arguments, Pro

Economics

fair-trade/1/

dear Con, thank you for your arguments, let me now present you some more arguments. Firstly, Fair Trade is trade farmers can count on. Fair Trade is committed to strengthening direct partnerships between buyers and producers. These partnerships provide an avenue for buyers to purchase quality products from people they trust, and offer a sustainable and reliable way for farmers, artisans and their families to improve their livelihood. Fair Trade also means sustainable local economies. Fair Trade gives farmers and artisans control of their own future. They can build their own businesses, rather than working for a middle man, and the profits stay in their communities and go back into their businesses. Fair Trade also means what you buy matters. By choosing Fair Trade products, you are not only accessing high quality products, you are making a difference in the lives of the people who grow the food you eat and the goods you use. Closing, Fair Trade connects you with other cultures. Fair Trade products are unique to the places they come from and the people who make them. Farmers and artisans are involved in the entire process, and Fair Trade products reflect the people and cultures they come from.

theodora

dear Con, thank you for your arguments, let me now present you some more arguments. Firstly, Fair Trade is trade farmers can count on. Fair Trade is committed to strengthening direct partnerships between buyers and producers. These partnerships provide an avenue for buyers to purchase quality products from people they trust, and offer a sustainable and reliable way for farmers, artisans and their families to improve their livelihood. Fair Trade also means sustainable local economies. Fair Trade gives farmers and artisans control of their own future. They can build their own businesses, rather than working for a middle man, and the profits stay in their communities and go back into their businesses. Fair Trade also means what you buy matters. By choosing Fair Trade products, you are not only accessing high quality products, you are making a difference in the lives of the people who grow the food you eat and the goods you use. Closing, Fair Trade connects you with other cultures. Fair Trade products are unique to the places they come from and the people who make them. Farmers and artisans are involved in the entire process, and Fair Trade products reflect the people and cultures they come from.

Economics

fair-trade/1/

No, I think that Facebook is not what you call a time pass. I think that Facebook Let say that you have a friend that is half way across the world and you cant contact them through the phone so you have Facebook to communicate with them.

hd1997

No, I think that Facebook is not what you call a time pass. I think that Facebook Let say that you have a friend that is half way across the world and you cant contact them through the phone so you have Facebook to communicate with them.

Technology

fb-is-a-time-pass-or-not/1/

I love that Facebook lets you connect with fiends that you havent seen in ages and want to say hey to them. I love that facebook has bought instagram and Whatsapp.

hd1997

I love that Facebook lets you connect with fiends that you havent seen in ages and want to say hey to them. I love that facebook has bought instagram and Whatsapp.

Technology

fb-is-a-time-pass-or-not/1/

I love Facebook and I will always love it

hd1997

I love Facebook and I will always love it

Technology

fb-is-a-time-pass-or-not/1/

In my thinking fb is also useful not only for timepass and also for gathering info and we learn hoe to talk with frnd by chatting and how to behave with others and one more thing is what are the new things happened sourrounding like that we learn from it.

srivishnu

In my thinking fb is also useful not only for timepass and also for gathering info and we learn hoe to talk with frnd by chatting and how to behave with others and one more thing is what are the new things happened sourrounding like that we learn from it.

Technology

fb-is-a-time-pass-or-not/1/

kids should be able to play games in school

blueghost

kids should be able to play games in school

Games

games-in-school/1/

My opponent has automatically conceded this debate to me. He says that kids should be able to play games in school, when his side or position is that they should not play games at school. Because Con is arguing in my position, Pro, when he is actually in the Con position that games should not be played in school, vote for Pro.

fire_wings

My opponent has automatically conceded this debate to me. He says that kids should be able to play games in school, when his side or position is that they should not play games at school. Because Con is arguing in my position, Pro, when he is actually in the Con position that games should not be played in school, vote for Pro.

Games

games-in-school/1/

As I said my opponent had already conceded to me, and he forfeited, which is a double concession. Vote for Pro.

fire_wings

As I said my opponent had already conceded to me, and he forfeited, which is a double concession. Vote for Pro.

Games

games-in-school/1/

EXTEND, VOTE FOR PRO!!!!!

fire_wings

EXTEND, VOTE FOR PRO!!!!!

Games

games-in-school/1/

extend----------

fire_wings

extend----------

Games

games-in-school/1/

Gay and Bisexual men who engage in regular sexual activity with other men (referred to as MSM) account for nearly half of the people living with HIV or AIDS in the US, which is some 580,000 of the 1.2 million with HIV in 2009. Furthermore, they accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections in that year as well. They account for only 4% of the US population, yet have such a disproportionately high rate of carrying these STIs. They are even more likely to be infected with HIV than drug users who share needles. <URL>... (I used to have a full link to the entire CDC report but they seem to have moved it, so you might have to dig around a little to find all the relevant statistics. If they've removed from the CDC website try Google, or simply disregard what I said as unproven.) To add to that, a relatively new but rising "subculture" within the gay club scene actually encourages STI infection, colloquially known as "bug chasing". Although there's barely enough data to indicate whether "bug chasers" make up more than simply a minority of all gay males, it is still an alarming trend that has only been found in LGBT communities. <URL>... The above is probably the most compelling and rational argument against homosexuality, though not necessarily a counter to gay marriage specifically. Other arguments you might also use but are less easily backed by evidence could be: * It creates disunity within society. A sexually homogeneous society would seem ideal in order to prevent conflicts, which we see often enough in Western society when it comes to dealing with homosexuality. * Homosexual couples are a genetic dead end. They cannot reproduce, and the ones that decide to use surrogate mothers/ sperm donors are only a minority within the currently active gay marriages in countries such as Canada. And before you say it, no, the planet is not suffering under an overpopulation crisis; it is more of a population distribution crisis. Most highly developed, highly educated nations are actually suffering an underpopulation crisis due to low natural birth rates, which explains why they have to turn to mass immigration to fill up gaps in their labour force. Unfortunately, mass immigration brings its own problems, ranging from a depression of wages, to cultural clashes, to imbalances in sectors of the labour force, etc. That's all I can think of in the back of my head.

Topkek

Gay and Bisexual men who engage in regular sexual activity with other men (referred to as MSM) account for nearly half of the people living with HIV or AIDS in the US, which is some 580,000 of the 1.2 million with HIV in 2009. Furthermore, they accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections in that year as well. They account for only 4% of the US population, yet have such a disproportionately high rate of carrying these STIs. They are even more likely to be infected with HIV than drug users who share needles. http://www.cdc.gov... (I used to have a full link to the entire CDC report but they seem to have moved it, so you might have to dig around a little to find all the relevant statistics. If they've removed from the CDC website try Google, or simply disregard what I said as unproven.) To add to that, a relatively new but rising "subculture" within the gay club scene actually encourages STI infection, colloquially known as "bug chasing". Although there's barely enough data to indicate whether "bug chasers" make up more than simply a minority of all gay males, it is still an alarming trend that has only been found in LGBT communities. http://en.wikipedia.org... The above is probably the most compelling and rational argument against homosexuality, though not necessarily a counter to gay marriage specifically. Other arguments you might also use but are less easily backed by evidence could be: * It creates disunity within society. A sexually homogeneous society would seem ideal in order to prevent conflicts, which we see often enough in Western society when it comes to dealing with homosexuality. * Homosexual couples are a genetic dead end. They cannot reproduce, and the ones that decide to use surrogate mothers/ sperm donors are only a minority within the currently active gay marriages in countries such as Canada. And before you say it, no, the planet is not suffering under an overpopulation crisis; it is more of a population distribution crisis. Most highly developed, highly educated nations are actually suffering an underpopulation crisis due to low natural birth rates, which explains why they have to turn to mass immigration to fill up gaps in their labour force. Unfortunately, mass immigration brings its own problems, ranging from a depression of wages, to cultural clashes, to imbalances in sectors of the labour force, etc. That's all I can think of in the back of my head.

People

gay-marriage-is-not-bad/1/

First off, I'd like you to cite your sources please. Only 25% of gay men have anal sex? Seriously? That is the most ludicrous thing ever read. What sort of sex is left for sexually active homosexual couples to have if they don't have penetrative sex? Even disregarding the lack of citation I can tell that "fact" is absolute bull. Yes I know heterosexuals have anal sex too, that isn't the point. It's the fact that homosexuals exclusively have anal sex, whilst heterosexual couples have it much, much less frequently. According to your survey, which is still lacking proper citation, around ~35% of men and women "engage in heterosexual anal sex". But it isn't clear if that simply means they've tried anal sex before, or if they have anal sex regularly. Most likely, it seems that it counts couples who've done it once or twice. On the other hand, gay men have anal sex far more often. You don't even need a study to prove that, it's like trying to survey the % of straight marriages that have consummated their relationship. My point was never that being homosexual guaranteed STIs. But you cannot argue against the statistics, which show that HIV/AIDS spreads within male homosexuals at a magnitude far greater than heterosexuals. That is the point I am making. And finally, again you miss my point on the population distribution issue. We don't necessarily have a shortage of people on Earth, but we do in developed nations in the West, which also happens to hold a far larger portion of the world's openly gay people.

Topkek

First off, I'd like you to cite your sources please. Only 25% of gay men have anal sex? Seriously? That is the most ludicrous thing ever read. What sort of sex is left for sexually active homosexual couples to have if they don't have penetrative sex? Even disregarding the lack of citation I can tell that "fact" is absolute bull. Yes I know heterosexuals have anal sex too, that isn't the point. It's the fact that homosexuals exclusively have anal sex, whilst heterosexual couples have it much, much less frequently. According to your survey, which is still lacking proper citation, around ~35% of men and women "engage in heterosexual anal sex". But it isn't clear if that simply means they've tried anal sex before, or if they have anal sex regularly. Most likely, it seems that it counts couples who've done it once or twice. On the other hand, gay men have anal sex far more often. You don't even need a study to prove that, it's like trying to survey the % of straight marriages that have consummated their relationship. My point was never that being homosexual guaranteed STIs. But you cannot argue against the statistics, which show that HIV/AIDS spreads within male homosexuals at a magnitude far greater than heterosexuals. That is the point I am making. And finally, again you miss my point on the population distribution issue. We don't necessarily have a shortage of people on Earth, but we do in developed nations in the West, which also happens to hold a far larger portion of the world's openly gay people.

People

gay-marriage-is-not-bad/1/

Did you get the wrong source? It makes no mention of your statement earlier that only 25% of gay men have anal sex. I'm just going to assume you pulled that one out of your a** then. You also haven't explained to me why my argument doesn't make sense, other than simply stating it doesn't. You have to back up your points with a reasonable explanation. The notion that HIV will simply be contained within the gay community is ludicrous. The source that you provided just now show that bisexual men are more likely to carry or be infected with HIV/AIDS. As that disease spreads around gay males, they also spread it to bisexual men too. This would undoubtedly spread to bisexual women too once they come in sexual contact with bisexual men, and eventually affect people like me who date women. So there's a real risk of infection for even straight people. See where I'm going? HIV isn't going to be magically quarantined within gay males only; it can easily spread to other people of different sexual orientations. Not to mention that HIV/AIDS treatment comes at a cost to healthcare facilities and taxpayers like you and me.

Topkek

Did you get the wrong source? It makes no mention of your statement earlier that only 25% of gay men have anal sex. I'm just going to assume you pulled that one out of your a** then. You also haven't explained to me why my argument doesn't make sense, other than simply stating it doesn't. You have to back up your points with a reasonable explanation. The notion that HIV will simply be contained within the gay community is ludicrous. The source that you provided just now show that bisexual men are more likely to carry or be infected with HIV/AIDS. As that disease spreads around gay males, they also spread it to bisexual men too. This would undoubtedly spread to bisexual women too once they come in sexual contact with bisexual men, and eventually affect people like me who date women. So there's a real risk of infection for even straight people. See where I'm going? HIV isn't going to be magically quarantined within gay males only; it can easily spread to other people of different sexual orientations. Not to mention that HIV/AIDS treatment comes at a cost to healthcare facilities and taxpayers like you and me.

People

gay-marriage-is-not-bad/1/

If you think that, then you are very much in the wrong. There is nothing wrong with marrying someone of the same sex. Look at the definition of marriage..."a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other" there is nothing there about a man and a woman, or man and man, or woman and woman... Second, people get married because they love each other. Love is not limited to man and woman...it goes much farther beyond. Think about it like this, How would you like it if you were prevented from marrying the one you love because of something so petty as she's a certain race or religion? It's the same thing. It's not fair that a woman/man cannot get married to the person they love because that person is of the same sex! Third, not everyone believes in God. So to them, it doesn't matter if He approves or not. Besides, if he is such a loving God, then don't you think He would want us as his creation to be happy?

AJmartinez

If you think that, then you are very much in the wrong. There is nothing wrong with marrying someone of the same sex. Look at the definition of marriage..."a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other" there is nothing there about a man and a woman, or man and man, or woman and woman... Second, people get married because they love each other. Love is not limited to man and woman...it goes much farther beyond. Think about it like this, How would you like it if you were prevented from marrying the one you love because of something so petty as she's a certain race or religion? It's the same thing. It's not fair that a woman/man cannot get married to the person they love because that person is of the same sex! Third, not everyone believes in God. So to them, it doesn't matter if He approves or not. Besides, if he is such a loving God, then don't you think He would want us as his creation to be happy?

Politics

gay-marriage/12/

I apologize about the previous round, but I would like to sum up my arguments. I will not add any more, because that would be unfair to ojmartinez. First, as I stated before, marraige is the union of two people who are in love. And love is not limited to a man and a woman...it can go any way. Second, If people wanted to have god in their lives, then all they have to do is go to church and read the bible right? What difference does it make if they're married or not? And Oj, in your argument about AZ supreme court you stated yourself "A seemingly arbitrary decision from this poster's purview, as I don't see a legal distinction between homosexual and heterosexual couples." There is no difference between hetero and homosexual couples. Your entire argument in round two supports my entire case. Case and point; gay marraige is not wrong. People should be allowed to marry whomever they choose.

AJmartinez

I apologize about the previous round, but I would like to sum up my arguments. I will not add any more, because that would be unfair to ojmartinez. First, as I stated before, marraige is the union of two people who are in love. And love is not limited to a man and a woman...it can go any way. Second, If people wanted to have god in their lives, then all they have to do is go to church and read the bible right? What difference does it make if they're married or not? And Oj, in your argument about AZ supreme court you stated yourself "A seemingly arbitrary decision from this poster's purview, as I don't see a legal distinction between homosexual and heterosexual couples." There is no difference between hetero and homosexual couples. Your entire argument in round two supports my entire case. Case and point; gay marraige is not wrong. People should be allowed to marry whomever they choose.

Politics

gay-marriage/12/

I think that god a man and a women to get marry, not a womwn and a women or a man with a man. So We US citizen have to stop it now.

ojmartinez25

I think that god a man and a women to get marry, not a womwn and a women or a man with a man. So We US citizen have to stop it now.

Politics

gay-marriage/12/

Homosexual marriage is illegal in Arizona, though the state defeated the referendum to make it illegal in our state constitution, the Arizona Supreme Court has upheld the decision to keep homosexual marriage illegal in the state in three separate court cases. A seemingly arbitrary decision from this poster's purview, as I don't see a legal distinction between homosexual and heterosexual couples. This is a prime example of something many people would decry as unjust, being upheld by the state and city government. You might respond that people have the ability to fight this sort of injustice (if we can agree that this situation is unjust) with legal action, however as the AZ supreme court has already shown, legal action has proven useless and the majority of people in the state find homosexuality itself distasteful and thus feel that the legalization of it is wrong. We can see from this view that there are few if any options left to homosexuals who would like to be married in the state of Arizona. They are a prime example of people who would benefit from civil disobedience.

ojmartinez25

Homosexual marriage is illegal in Arizona, though the state defeated the referendum to make it illegal in our state constitution, the Arizona Supreme Court has upheld the decision to keep homosexual marriage illegal in the state in three separate court cases. A seemingly arbitrary decision from this poster's purview, as I don't see a legal distinction between homosexual and heterosexual couples. This is a prime example of something many people would decry as unjust, being upheld by the state and city government. You might respond that people have the ability to fight this sort of injustice (if we can agree that this situation is unjust) with legal action, however as the AZ supreme court has already shown, legal action has proven useless and the majority of people in the state find homosexuality itself distasteful and thus feel that the legalization of it is wrong. We can see from this view that there are few if any options left to homosexuals who would like to be married in the state of Arizona. They are a prime example of people who would benefit from civil disobedience.

Politics

gay-marriage/12/

I accept and look forward to my opponent's arguments.

Hayd

I accept and look forward to my opponent's arguments.

Miscellaneous

gay-marriage/336/

Gay marriage should be legalized because being gay is a natural part of life.

Hayd

Gay marriage should be legalized because being gay is a natural part of life.

Miscellaneous

gay-marriage/336/

If you use god in an argument, you have to prove god exists first.Thank you!

Hayd

If you use god in an argument, you have to prove god exists first.Thank you!

Miscellaneous

gay-marriage/336/

gay marriages .Back from history don't teaching us that a man-man or same sex marriages cannot happen to lead a next generation how can a man produce a child only a female and man can produce and that what the natures teaches us .we are disturbing the fundamentals of nature so i am against the topice thank you

albinstany

gay marriages .Back from history don't teaching us that a man-man or same sex marriages cannot happen to lead a next generation how can a man produce a child only a female and man can produce and that what the natures teaches us .we are disturbing the fundamentals of nature so i am against the topice thank you

Miscellaneous

gay-marriage/336/

my opposite didn't put any point whether he is for or opposite. due this the tradition changes and child needs both a father and mother .we can't changes things which god has done naturally thank you

albinstany

my opposite didn't put any point whether he is for or opposite. due this the tradition changes and child needs both a father and mother .we can't changes things which god has done naturally thank you

Miscellaneous

gay-marriage/336/

My posistion is clear. Gay people ought to have rights. I will take pro, my opponent will take the con and hopefully present compelling arguments.

frozen_eclipse

My posistion is clear. Gay people ought to have rights. I will take pro, my opponent will take the con and hopefully present compelling arguments.

Society

gay-people-ought-to-have-rights/1/

In this debate I will be defending That gay people should have rights. The backbone of my case will be the case of human rights. The other aspects of my case will be explained systematically. Human rights advances this resolution. All humans deserve to have egalitarian human rights. Be the person gay or heterosexual because all of these orientations as relating to humans are in fact human. Thus, Homosexuals ought to be entitled to human rights. I will define human rights by quoting the fist line of the preamble of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UDOHR) ---" Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,"........ <URL>... So Gay people according to the UDOHR are entitled to freedom, justice, and peace e. These rights are to be guaranteed regardless of social status, race, sex, or religion etc..... Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Conclusion of this point---Human rights guarantees equal rights among humans because all humans deserve to have rights. Since homosexuals are human, they deserve to have rights. Denying marriage to homosexuals contradicts equality pertaining to human rights. Article 16. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. Natural- Present in or produced by nature Fundamental- serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation <URL>... Obviously gay people fit these two definitions. They are present in nature and are produced by nature therefore there natural. Gay people serve in our society by getting jobs. Every job contributes to the foundation of society so gay people fit the definition of fundamental as well. Thus denying gay people of the right to marriage is a violation of the UDOHR. Conclusion of this point--By denying gay people of the rights stated in the UDOHR, in this particular case marriage states violate the principles of equality in the UDOHR witch is to be enforced internationally. Gay people should have to right to donate blood. Gay people, men in particular arnt allowed to give blood..... <URL>... I understand that there is this argument where people believe that gay people have stds. "a 1983 prohibition meant to prevent the spread of HIV through transfusions. " This prohibition is illogical. So what this tells us is that they plan to prevent the spread of aids via denying gay people the option of donating blood. First of all, I think its absolutely absurd to allow anyone to give blood without testing the blood. Which they don't do even if your straight. They also fail to realize that straight people carry hiv as well. If we are truly to apply there line of logic, then straight people ought not to give blood either because they carry hiv as well. We ought to test all the blood given. Back to my point,Gay people are no different blood wise than any other normal person. Thus I believe it is unethical to deny gay people the option to give blood. conclusion of this point--Since gay people and straight people alike can get hiv, we should not exclude gay people from this. Thus, gay people should have the right of the option of giving blood, and to not be discriminated on by social status. Case conclusion---Human rights guarantees equal rights among humans because all humans deserve to have rights. Since homosexuals are human, they deserve to have rights, By denying gay people of the rights stated in the UDOHR, in this particular case marriage states violate the principles of equality in the UDOHR witch is to be enforced internationally, Since gay people and straight people alike can get hiv, we should not exclude gay people from this. Thus, gay people should have the right of the option of giving blood, and to not be discriminated on by social status.

frozen_eclipse

In this debate I will be defending That gay people should have rights. The backbone of my case will be the case of human rights. The other aspects of my case will be explained systematically. Human rights advances this resolution. All humans deserve to have egalitarian human rights. Be the person gay or heterosexual because all of these orientations as relating to humans are in fact human. Thus, Homosexuals ought to be entitled to human rights. I will define human rights by quoting the fist line of the preamble of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UDOHR) ---" Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,"........ http://www.un.org... So Gay people according to the UDOHR are entitled to freedom, justice, and peace e. These rights are to be guaranteed regardless of social status, race, sex, or religion etc..... Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Conclusion of this point---Human rights guarantees equal rights among humans because all humans deserve to have rights. Since homosexuals are human, they deserve to have rights. Denying marriage to homosexuals contradicts equality pertaining to human rights. Article 16. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. Natural- Present in or produced by nature Fundamental- serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation http://dictionary.reference.com... Obviously gay people fit these two definitions. They are present in nature and are produced by nature therefore there natural. Gay people serve in our society by getting jobs. Every job contributes to the foundation of society so gay people fit the definition of fundamental as well. Thus denying gay people of the right to marriage is a violation of the UDOHR. Conclusion of this point--By denying gay people of the rights stated in the UDOHR, in this particular case marriage states violate the principles of equality in the UDOHR witch is to be enforced internationally. Gay people should have to right to donate blood. Gay people, men in particular arnt allowed to give blood..... http://www.msnbc.msn.com... I understand that there is this argument where people believe that gay people have stds. "a 1983 prohibition meant to prevent the spread of HIV through transfusions. " This prohibition is illogical. So what this tells us is that they plan to prevent the spread of aids via denying gay people the option of donating blood. First of all, I think its absolutely absurd to allow anyone to give blood without testing the blood. Which they don't do even if your straight. They also fail to realize that straight people carry hiv as well. If we are truly to apply there line of logic, then straight people ought not to give blood either because they carry hiv as well. We ought to test all the blood given. Back to my point,Gay people are no different blood wise than any other normal person. Thus I believe it is unethical to deny gay people the option to give blood. conclusion of this point--Since gay people and straight people alike can get hiv, we should not exclude gay people from this. Thus, gay people should have the right of the option of giving blood, and to not be discriminated on by social status. Case conclusion---Human rights guarantees equal rights among humans because all humans deserve to have rights. Since homosexuals are human, they deserve to have rights, By denying gay people of the rights stated in the UDOHR, in this particular case marriage states violate the principles of equality in the UDOHR witch is to be enforced internationally, Since gay people and straight people alike can get hiv, we should not exclude gay people from this. Thus, gay people should have the right of the option of giving blood, and to not be discriminated on by social status.

Society

gay-people-ought-to-have-rights/1/

I will begin by further analyzing cons case. I will underline my opponents quotes to make this debate more easy to read. It seems my opponent hasn't really described why gay people shouldn't have rights. "My stance is simply that gay people already have rights, and therefore the resolution is vague and doesn't have much of a point." The point of debating is to argue if something should stay the same or change or if something is right or wrong. Just because a resolution may possibly already be enacted it doesnt mean that the topic is nondebateable. Thus this resolution stands to be valid to debate. My opponent needs to prove why gay people ought not have rights. While I have already proven why gay people ought to have rights. So there is a point to this debate. Obviously Con is against this resolution but gives no compelling arguments or reasons as to why such a stand is logical. Thus I urge the voters to consider pro as winner of this debate. "Aside from one right Pro described, gays generally have the exact same rights as straights." This sentence is boldly a contradiction. First my opponent says that I have pointed out a right that gay and straight people don't share. Then he says they have the same rights. Contradiction this is a fallacy. "Thus, technically I have already won, lawyer style." A little bit cocky arnt we? According to the UDOHR, gays are entitled to freedom, justice, and peace. Since gays already have freedom, justice, and peace, this isn't very relevant. Gays may be entitled to freedom, justice, and peace but the facts are that gay people do not have the same freedom, justice or peace as straight people. Below is a list of things gay people do not have a right to. I urge all who read this to look up my source to get a detailed description of each thing listed and how these rights or freedoms are denied to gay people, but are given to straight people. The right to have the option to give blood marriage adoption Hospital Visitation Rights Health insurance Spousal Privilege Family leave Pensions Nursing homes Home protection Retirement savings Taxes Social Security benefits <URL>... So as we can see gay people do not have the same freedom,justice or peace as straight people. We are America. Who is based on the principles of equality. It is a contradiction to our own moral values as a country to deny any human being within our jurisdiction the right to equal rights. Thus gay people ought to have rights as is guaranteed in the 14th amendment. "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." <URL>... We are denying gay people of the right to pursue happiness by not allowing them these rights especially the right to marry whichever sex they want to pursue happiness. So because of the reasons of witch I've made in this debate and for America to not contradict its own principles, gay people ought to have rights. By declaration, I assume you really meant constitution. The declaration doesn't have much to do with American law, and it doesn't contain a bunch of articles. It seems my opponent is confused of what I meant by declaration. I have never said the word declaration alone. The words my opponent is confused about is this...... The Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UDOHR). When I say declaration, I mean declaration and nothing else. If you need more information on what that is please look at this source..... <URL>... ... Also my opponent is dangerously wrong when he states the UDOHR doesnt have to do with American law. This is a international law my friend. The UN follows these laws. SO yes these laws count as being included in American law. "and as I stated previously, gays already have the exact same rights as straights. " You also said this statement witch contradicts this idea , "Aside from one right Pro described, gays generally have the exact same rights as straights." So once again, this is basically repeating what you already said, and as I stated previously, gays already have the exact same rights as straights. Marriage is allowed too - it's just that they would have to marry to the opposite sex. This isnt right. Gay people obviously are not attracted to the opposite sex. So putting an impossible condition on marriage for them to marry the sex there not attracted to denies them equal rights. In addition the right to pursue happiness. lastly I want to ask my opponent as to what influenced his opinion? "First of all, you seem to have skipped the first part, where it said "men and women of full age." This clearly means that in the constitution, men are allowed to marry women. It doesn't say that men are allowed to marry men, or that women are allowed to marry women. Back when the constitution was written, it was clear to the founding fathers that gay marriage was unnatural, and possibly even unthinkable. So they didn't put it in the constitution. " First let me make it clear that this is not the constitution. This is United Nations Laws. The words men and women of full age does not imply man to a woman. This statement is saying women have the right to marry, and men also have the right to marry. There is not exclusive texts that say only opposite sexes may marry. The issue of the naturally of homosexuality There is this one study that comes to the conclusion that homosexual men's brains are synonymous to a females brain as is the same effect for lesbians......... <URL>... ... This added with the additional findings in this study promote the possibility that homosexuality may be an effect of hormone imbalances,and a different brain anatomically, Also lets plug in the fact that who would willingly choose a gay life style? No one while growing up says they want to be gay. I mean why would they? gay people especially during teen years are confused about who, what, and why they are what they are. They have to face ridicule and prosecution for the rest of there lives. Though gay people accept who they are and embrace it. I'm sure every single gay person wishes they were straight because it would be a easier life for them. So with these facts being stated, I is highly probable that homosexuality is present at birth. Also homosexuality occurs in animals as well. So this supports the fact that homosexuality is natural. ..... <URL>... Also in that debate I cited this evidence where scientists deleted a gene in mice and afterwards they became attracted to the same sex......... <URL>... ... Also obviously gay people fit the definitions of natural, and fundamental. In addition all sex can be unsanitary and is not exclusive to gay people. Girls lick guys anuses. Is that healthy or sanitary? Gay people can produce children. maybe not with the same sex but still can produce children by artificial insemination, donating sperm, turkey basters etc.... About gays donating blood I do believe that the rule of not allowing gays to donate blood is discriminatory, because the first person to have aids was a gay person they think that aids came from gay people witch is so stupid. Just because you were found fist doesnt mean you are the first to contract the disease. Also not every vile is tested for disease. I've ran a blood drive for red cross, I no.....lol. I need not go on any further since my opponent affirms this point. My opponent agrees that gays ought to give blood, and that they should have rights.

frozen_eclipse

I will begin by further analyzing cons case. I will underline my opponents quotes to make this debate more easy to read. It seems my opponent hasn't really described why gay people shouldn't have rights. "My stance is simply that gay people already have rights, and therefore the resolution is vague and doesn't have much of a point." The point of debating is to argue if something should stay the same or change or if something is right or wrong. Just because a resolution may possibly already be enacted it doesnt mean that the topic is nondebateable. Thus this resolution stands to be valid to debate. My opponent needs to prove why gay people ought not have rights. While I have already proven why gay people ought to have rights. So there is a point to this debate. Obviously Con is against this resolution but gives no compelling arguments or reasons as to why such a stand is logical. Thus I urge the voters to consider pro as winner of this debate. "Aside from one right Pro described, gays generally have the exact same rights as straights." This sentence is boldly a contradiction. First my opponent says that I have pointed out a right that gay and straight people don't share. Then he says they have the same rights. Contradiction this is a fallacy. "Thus, technically I have already won, lawyer style." A little bit cocky arnt we? According to the UDOHR, gays are entitled to freedom, justice, and peace. Since gays already have freedom, justice, and peace, this isn't very relevant. Gays may be entitled to freedom, justice, and peace but the facts are that gay people do not have the same freedom, justice or peace as straight people. Below is a list of things gay people do not have a right to. I urge all who read this to look up my source to get a detailed description of each thing listed and how these rights or freedoms are denied to gay people, but are given to straight people. The right to have the option to give blood marriage adoption Hospital Visitation Rights Health insurance Spousal Privilege Family leave Pensions Nursing homes Home protection Retirement savings Taxes Social Security benefits http://www.republicoft.com... So as we can see gay people do not have the same freedom,justice or peace as straight people. We are America. Who is based on the principles of equality. It is a contradiction to our own moral values as a country to deny any human being within our jurisdiction the right to equal rights. Thus gay people ought to have rights as is guaranteed in the 14th amendment. "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." http://www.14thamendment.us... We are denying gay people of the right to pursue happiness by not allowing them these rights especially the right to marry whichever sex they want to pursue happiness. So because of the reasons of witch I've made in this debate and for America to not contradict its own principles, gay people ought to have rights. By declaration, I assume you really meant constitution. The declaration doesn't have much to do with American law, and it doesn't contain a bunch of articles. It seems my opponent is confused of what I meant by declaration. I have never said the word declaration alone. The words my opponent is confused about is this...... The Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UDOHR). When I say declaration, I mean declaration and nothing else. If you need more information on what that is please look at this source..... http://www.un.org... ... Also my opponent is dangerously wrong when he states the UDOHR doesnt have to do with American law. This is a international law my friend. The UN follows these laws. SO yes these laws count as being included in American law. "and as I stated previously, gays already have the exact same rights as straights. " You also said this statement witch contradicts this idea , "Aside from one right Pro described, gays generally have the exact same rights as straights." So once again, this is basically repeating what you already said, and as I stated previously, gays already have the exact same rights as straights. Marriage is allowed too - it's just that they would have to marry to the opposite sex. This isnt right. Gay people obviously are not attracted to the opposite sex. So putting an impossible condition on marriage for them to marry the sex there not attracted to denies them equal rights. In addition the right to pursue happiness. lastly I want to ask my opponent as to what influenced his opinion? "First of all, you seem to have skipped the first part, where it said "men and women of full age." This clearly means that in the constitution, men are allowed to marry women. It doesn't say that men are allowed to marry men, or that women are allowed to marry women. Back when the constitution was written, it was clear to the founding fathers that gay marriage was unnatural, and possibly even unthinkable. So they didn't put it in the constitution. " First let me make it clear that this is not the constitution. This is United Nations Laws. The words men and women of full age does not imply man to a woman. This statement is saying women have the right to marry, and men also have the right to marry. There is not exclusive texts that say only opposite sexes may marry. The issue of the naturally of homosexuality There is this one study that comes to the conclusion that homosexual men's brains are synonymous to a females brain as is the same effect for lesbians......... http://www.guardian.co.uk... ... This added with the additional findings in this study promote the possibility that homosexuality may be an effect of hormone imbalances,and a different brain anatomically, Also lets plug in the fact that who would willingly choose a gay life style? No one while growing up says they want to be gay. I mean why would they? gay people especially during teen years are confused about who, what, and why they are what they are. They have to face ridicule and prosecution for the rest of there lives. Though gay people accept who they are and embrace it. I'm sure every single gay person wishes they were straight because it would be a easier life for them. So with these facts being stated, I is highly probable that homosexuality is present at birth. Also homosexuality occurs in animals as well. So this supports the fact that homosexuality is natural. ..... http://www.debate.org... Also in that debate I cited this evidence where scientists deleted a gene in mice and afterwards they became attracted to the same sex......... http://www.telegraph.co.uk... ... Also obviously gay people fit the definitions of natural, and fundamental. In addition all sex can be unsanitary and is not exclusive to gay people. Girls lick guys anuses. Is that healthy or sanitary? Gay people can produce children. maybe not with the same sex but still can produce children by artificial insemination, donating sperm, turkey basters etc.... About gays donating blood I do believe that the rule of not allowing gays to donate blood is discriminatory, because the first person to have aids was a gay person they think that aids came from gay people witch is so stupid. Just because you were found fist doesnt mean you are the first to contract the disease. Also not every vile is tested for disease. I've ran a blood drive for red cross, I no.....lol. I need not go on any further since my opponent affirms this point. My opponent agrees that gays ought to give blood, and that they should have rights.

Society

gay-people-ought-to-have-rights/1/

Just because I'm on the con side doesn't mean I have to argue the exact opposite of your opinion. My opponents job as the con of this debate is to be on the opposite side of the resolution. The resolution is: Gay People Ought To have Rights. The con would have to debate the negative of this witch would be that gay people ought not have rights. Since my opponent refuses to take this position I personally feel that Pro should win. "My stance is that you need to be more specific than that; the only right you specified in your first argument was the right to donate blood. " My opponents stance isnt a valid one. His stance s to prove that gay people ought not have rights witch my opponent has failed to do. My opponent states I only explained one right that gay people should have, witch is denied. This list I posted earlier proves that statement false: The right to have the option to give blood marriage adoption Hospital Visitation Rights Health insurance Spousal Privilege Family leave Pensions Nursing homes Home protection Retirement savings Taxes Social Security benefits I also stated that gay people ought to have human rights witch is synonymous with my first contention witch my opponent never tackled. My statement was not a contradiction. I said that gays have the same rights as straights BESIDES your one example. Im sure everyone sees the contradiction here. You cannot state that someone has the same rights and then admit that he agrees that gay people don't have a shared right. This is a contradiction in itself. I will post the definition below. Contradiction- something illogical: something that has aspects that are illogical or inconsistent with each other. Synonyms: illogically, flaw, inconsistency, paradox, Gays could have these benefits if they pretended to be straight. Not that that's necessarily a good thing, but it's technically true... Of coarse they could. But the fact that they have to be denied there own nature is sad and unjust. even if they did lie and marry the opposite sex, we all know that there going to cheat witch will cause some other problems. marriage As I stated before, both gays and straights are allowed to marry the opposite sex. Their right is the same - it's just that gays aren't happy about it. It's not about marriage of the opposite sex. Homosexuals are denied the right to Mary homosexuals. It seems my opponent has tried to strawman my contention because of his inability to tackle it witch he has also failed to do. My contention was; Denying marriage to homosexuals contradicts equality pertaining to human rights. This argument is specific to homosexual marriages, denial of these marriages contradicts the equality principle witch remains unrefutted and in effect still stands. adoption I didnt provide a source because I thought it was well known enough to not provide one. But I will provide one now..... <URL>... Hospital Visitation Rights,the chances of a hospital completely denying visitation isn't likely. Just because something isnt likely doesnt mean it doesnt, or cant happen or does not happen. ........ <URL>... Health insurance This article explains he issue more in depth ...... <URL>... Spousal privileges " Whether married or not, gay and lesbian same-sex couples are denied many federal benefits that are ... Spousal survivor benefit. A surviving spouse of a worker entitled to ..." ....... <URL>... My rebuttal for the rest of my points will be this since he counters them with the same comment. Even if your against gay marriage it is unethical to deny a citizen a right that other citizens have based on orientation because it contradicts the principal of equality of witch this country is founded. Gay people ought to have rights including these rights that I have listed. So, in conclusion to the above, only one argument you have presented is valid to the resolution: Gay people should be allowed to donate blood. The rest of your arguments have to do with gay marriage being legal. Marriage is a right. Witch homosexual couples are denied. Seeing as the resolution does not specifically say witch rights all rights can be considered. Also not all of my arguments talk about gay marriage. The meat of my position is; Human rights advances this resolution. Witch my opponent has failed to address effectively. Yes, one might think it's not right, but we're not arguing about whether or not gay marriage is right. We're arguing about the resolution, which was: "gay people ought to have rights". Also, the fact that gay marriage is illegal in some places doesn't stop gays from being together if they want to. If they wish to live together, marriage doesn't effect that. Were not arguing if gay marriage is a right because obviously it is a right. Marriage guarantees benefits and security for the mate if they die. Also marriage shows ultimate love and commitment. Gays are denied tat opportunity. So no, they cant be together in the way they want to to show their love like straights. It can't be known at this time that homosexuality is present at birth, and it isn't very likely. However, I know for a fact that many people become gay through a gay experience earlier in their life. <URL>... ... In situations like these, the problem should be fixed through counseling as this is probably what they would want anyway according to you. The evidence witch I have provided shows strong evidence that homosexuality is natural. Homosexuality is present in nature,Gays have a different brain than there sex,The rat example, Also in these rape incidents it usually only happens to guys where there seemingly turned gay. his is because that kind of sex is what they associate the only pleasure to the g-spot. This can be cured by learning other ways to stimulate it. So there not truly gay. Also, the gay mouse thing obviously wasn't natural. The scientists made them gay. This evidence shows that homosexuality may be caused by a gene, or hormone imbalances in nature. Gay people still can't truly produce children. If they used one of the methods you described, the child would only be half their kid. It would be the child of one gay person, and wouldn't genetically be the child of the other one at all. Half there kid? When a straight person had kids aren't they still half there kid? Also it doesnt matter how they get here as long as the person produced the child from there genitals it proves my point that gay people can have kids. About gays donating blood: Nevertheless, the rule isn't discriminated against gays. Its intention is still a safety issue, even if they're wrong. The people that made up the rule aren't thinking "I don't like gays, so let's make it so they can't donate blood. Take THAT stupid gays!" I'm okay with gays giving blood, but they already do have rights. Obviously I win on this point and don't need to refute it anymore. I find that the pro side is more logical and justified while the cons position of, since there are already rights given to gays, rights ought not to be given to gays is extremely illogical and unjustified. Thus I believe pro should win this debate. Next round I will summarize this entire debate. ......................................................................................................................................................................... Please keep in mind that 4th round is dedicated to summarization. Beyond this point no new arguments or contentions are to be introduced. Any new contentions or arguments that hasn't been discussed already being introduced should result in a win for the other person.

frozen_eclipse

Just because I'm on the con side doesn't mean I have to argue the exact opposite of your opinion. My opponents job as the con of this debate is to be on the opposite side of the resolution. The resolution is: Gay People Ought To have Rights. The con would have to debate the negative of this witch would be that gay people ought not have rights. Since my opponent refuses to take this position I personally feel that Pro should win. "My stance is that you need to be more specific than that; the only right you specified in your first argument was the right to donate blood. " My opponents stance isnt a valid one. His stance s to prove that gay people ought not have rights witch my opponent has failed to do. My opponent states I only explained one right that gay people should have, witch is denied. This list I posted earlier proves that statement false: The right to have the option to give blood marriage adoption Hospital Visitation Rights Health insurance Spousal Privilege Family leave Pensions Nursing homes Home protection Retirement savings Taxes Social Security benefits I also stated that gay people ought to have human rights witch is synonymous with my first contention witch my opponent never tackled. My statement was not a contradiction. I said that gays have the same rights as straights BESIDES your one example. Im sure everyone sees the contradiction here. You cannot state that someone has the same rights and then admit that he agrees that gay people don't have a shared right. This is a contradiction in itself. I will post the definition below. Contradiction- something illogical: something that has aspects that are illogical or inconsistent with each other. Synonyms: illogically, flaw, inconsistency, paradox, Gays could have these benefits if they pretended to be straight. Not that that's necessarily a good thing, but it's technically true... Of coarse they could. But the fact that they have to be denied there own nature is sad and unjust. even if they did lie and marry the opposite sex, we all know that there going to cheat witch will cause some other problems. marriage As I stated before, both gays and straights are allowed to marry the opposite sex. Their right is the same - it's just that gays aren't happy about it. It's not about marriage of the opposite sex. Homosexuals are denied the right to Mary homosexuals. It seems my opponent has tried to strawman my contention because of his inability to tackle it witch he has also failed to do. My contention was; Denying marriage to homosexuals contradicts equality pertaining to human rights. This argument is specific to homosexual marriages, denial of these marriages contradicts the equality principle witch remains unrefutted and in effect still stands. adoption I didnt provide a source because I thought it was well known enough to not provide one. But I will provide one now..... http://www.greenwichtime.com... Hospital Visitation Rights,the chances of a hospital completely denying visitation isn't likely. Just because something isnt likely doesnt mean it doesnt, or cant happen or does not happen. ........ http://www.nytimes.com... Health insurance This article explains he issue more in depth ...... http://ezinearticles.com... Spousal privileges " Whether married or not, gay and lesbian same-sex couples are denied many federal benefits that are ... Spousal survivor benefit. A surviving spouse of a worker entitled to ..." ....... http://www.nolo.com... My rebuttal for the rest of my points will be this since he counters them with the same comment. Even if your against gay marriage it is unethical to deny a citizen a right that other citizens have based on orientation because it contradicts the principal of equality of witch this country is founded. Gay people ought to have rights including these rights that I have listed. So, in conclusion to the above, only one argument you have presented is valid to the resolution: Gay people should be allowed to donate blood. The rest of your arguments have to do with gay marriage being legal. Marriage is a right. Witch homosexual couples are denied. Seeing as the resolution does not specifically say witch rights all rights can be considered. Also not all of my arguments talk about gay marriage. The meat of my position is; Human rights advances this resolution. Witch my opponent has failed to address effectively. Yes, one might think it's not right, but we're not arguing about whether or not gay marriage is right. We're arguing about the resolution, which was: "gay people ought to have rights". Also, the fact that gay marriage is illegal in some places doesn't stop gays from being together if they want to. If they wish to live together, marriage doesn't effect that. Were not arguing if gay marriage is a right because obviously it is a right. Marriage guarantees benefits and security for the mate if they die. Also marriage shows ultimate love and commitment. Gays are denied tat opportunity. So no, they cant be together in the way they want to to show their love like straights. It can't be known at this time that homosexuality is present at birth, and it isn't very likely. However, I know for a fact that many people become gay through a gay experience earlier in their life. http://www.biblebelievers.com... ... In situations like these, the problem should be fixed through counseling as this is probably what they would want anyway according to you. The evidence witch I have provided shows strong evidence that homosexuality is natural. Homosexuality is present in nature,Gays have a different brain than there sex,The rat example, Also in these rape incidents it usually only happens to guys where there seemingly turned gay. his is because that kind of sex is what they associate the only pleasure to the g-spot. This can be cured by learning other ways to stimulate it. So there not truly gay. Also, the gay mouse thing obviously wasn't natural. The scientists made them gay. This evidence shows that homosexuality may be caused by a gene, or hormone imbalances in nature. Gay people still can't truly produce children. If they used one of the methods you described, the child would only be half their kid. It would be the child of one gay person, and wouldn't genetically be the child of the other one at all. Half there kid? When a straight person had kids aren't they still half there kid? Also it doesnt matter how they get here as long as the person produced the child from there genitals it proves my point that gay people can have kids. About gays donating blood: Nevertheless, the rule isn't discriminated against gays. Its intention is still a safety issue, even if they're wrong. The people that made up the rule aren't thinking "I don't like gays, so let's make it so they can't donate blood. Take THAT stupid gays!" I'm okay with gays giving blood, but they already do have rights. Obviously I win on this point and don't need to refute it anymore. I find that the pro side is more logical and justified while the cons position of, since there are already rights given to gays, rights ought not to be given to gays is extremely illogical and unjustified. Thus I believe pro should win this debate. Next round I will summarize this entire debate. ......................................................................................................................................................................... Please keep in mind that 4th round is dedicated to summarization. Beyond this point no new arguments or contentions are to be introduced. Any new contentions or arguments that hasn't been discussed already being introduced should result in a win for the other person.

Society

gay-people-ought-to-have-rights/1/

The shift to specialization has influenced the growth of new industries and markets. It has also influenced our lifestyle, career choices and decisions. The need of the hour today is to hone the skill that exists nowhere but in yourself and thereby making oneself indispensable.

tilu

The shift to specialization has influenced the growth of new industries and markets. It has also influenced our lifestyle, career choices and decisions. The need of the hour today is to hone the skill that exists nowhere but in yourself and thereby making oneself indispensable.

Economics

generalization-or-specialization/1/

Well, I can't tell which side Pro has chosen, but it looks like Pro is siding for specialization because of its benefits. But for this round I will simply accept until further clarification from Pro in round 2.

yay842

Well, I can't tell which side Pro has chosen, but it looks like Pro is siding for specialization because of its benefits. But for this round I will simply accept until further clarification from Pro in round 2.

Economics

generalization-or-specialization/1/

Generalization is important because it is a word. We use words everyday, most of us anyway; therefore, generalizations are used everyday. Generalizations are used everyday; generalization is a word; words are use to communicate; therefore, we use generalizations to communicate. Generalization is important and is used to communicate. Communication is important. Generalization is a grand connection of words. GG is what we use when we say good game. Good, game, and generalization all start with the letter g? Coincidence? I don't think so. Words that start with the same letter are in consonance. Consonance is a literary device. Generalization means to generalize. What does it have to do with consonance? Generalization and generalize are in consonance. Now, generalization is in consonance with any words that start with the letter g. Generalization is also important and is used to communicate; therefore, every word that starts with g and is in consonance with generalization is important and is used to communicate since literary devices are used in literature to improve diction in literature. So, literature can be improved by using any number of words that start with g due to the consonance of words that start with g that are in consonance with generalization. People and rulers and dictators are powerful. Powerful people have many connections. Generalization has many connections. Therefore, generalizations are powerful. To be powerful is to be important and have lots of communication since generalization is powerful and is is important and is used in communication; thus, proving that generalizations are powerful. mind blown

yay842

Generalization is important because it is a word. We use words everyday, most of us anyway; therefore, generalizations are used everyday. Generalizations are used everyday; generalization is a word; words are use to communicate; therefore, we use generalizations to communicate. Generalization is important and is used to communicate. Communication is important. Generalization is a grand connection of words. GG is what we use when we say good game. Good, game, and generalization all start with the letter g? Coincidence? I don't think so. Words that start with the same letter are in consonance. Consonance is a literary device. Generalization means to generalize. What does it have to do with consonance? Generalization and generalize are in consonance. Now, generalization is in consonance with any words that start with the letter g. Generalization is also important and is used to communicate; therefore, every word that starts with g and is in consonance with generalization is important and is used to communicate since literary devices are used in literature to improve diction in literature. So, literature can be improved by using any number of words that start with g due to the consonance of words that start with g that are in consonance with generalization. People and rulers and dictators are powerful. Powerful people have many connections. Generalization has many connections. Therefore, generalizations are powerful. To be powerful is to be important and have lots of communication since generalization is powerful and is is important and is used in communication; thus, proving that generalizations are powerful. mind blown

Economics

generalization-or-specialization/1/

This is a sentence.

yay842

This is a sentence.

Economics

generalization-or-specialization/1/

given the sheer size of the universe, the most reasonable view is expecting that alien life exists <URL>... <URL>... there could be, and the most reasonable explanation is, life outside our planet. at least basic life, maybe intelligent, exists. first consider a basic idea in the size of our universe. if an alien life existed and sent us a signal at the speed of light. even at the speed of light, over 186000 miles per second... per second, by the time the signal got to us, that alien civilization probably rose and fell over billions of years. eg, if they sent it from fifty billlion light years away, and a civilization only lasts a few billion... at teh very most... then by deifinition that civilization probably no longer exists. i'm about to show some math in the following argument, a little more than basic math. my point is not to get caught up in the minutia of the math, but to simply establishthe point. i did want the math shown though as i did the calcuations for my own edification, might as well share. a CNN article estimates that the universe is156 billion light years across. (with the article also saying that the universe could be larger, as that figure is only what is known to exist based on the data gathered) the milky way is 100000 light years across. that means volume wise, the milky way is 0.00006% of the universe. (milky way divided by the total universe is the percent). doing the math, comes out to.... our milky way is the size of a ping pong ball, and the universe is the size of a cube, that is 25 miles in all directions. that's a massive cube for a lone ping pong ball, wouldn't ya say? our planet and us individually would be smaller than a speck of dust. granted, however, doing some basic math, we can see the "cup v. ocean" thing is not quite accurate, according to hypertext book online, the ocean is 321,000,000 cubic miles in volume. hopefully i didn't screw up any math.... ---basic algebra: 0.00006% = (X / 321,000,000) *100 ====> x= 193 square miles of ocean is analogous to the equivalent of the milky way and universe. the ocean is hard to grasp itself, so another example could be helpful. (but just look at google maps and see how small 200 miles is in relation, then check out this website to see how small that is, deep <URL>... ) ---more: 0.00006% = (1 inch cubic square/X)*100 ====> x = <PHONE> cubic inches, or 138888 cubic feet, or 25.5 cubic miles.... 1 cubic inch is about the size of a ping pong ball, which would be the equivalent of the milky way, with X being something far larger than any of the largest buildings, cubed. the worlds largest is only half a mile tall... you'd have to stack more than fifty of those on top of each other (make it into a pole), and then make it three dimensional in the other two directions, so drive twenty five miles each direction, setting up another massive pole at each of the four corners of the box, before you put your "cap" on it. look up in the sky twenty five miles, turn left, do some loop de loops in a parking lot, and consider all that in relation to a ping ball ball, and speck of dust. that's a massive cube for a lone ping pong ball, with us smaller than a speck of dust, wouldn't ya say? also, according to chacha answers (maybe not the best source, but still authoritative) and various internet hearsay, only less than one percent of the universe has even been at all significantly explored by telescope. (yet we don't even know enough to say whether there's life in this less than one percent, either) that means our meek neck of the woods is earth, perhaps our ping pong ball the milky way, and maybe what we can see... in relation to the 25 mile cube, one percent is only a quarter of a mile, cubed. --- if we used the explored universe, if we used one percent of the universe to compare, which is the amount of explored universe it's be quite a lot bigger than the 200 miles of ocean. if we used the earth to compare a cup of water to the ocean the cup analogy probably ain't that bad. [[[i couldn't help but do the math on earth's volume in relation to a cup v ocean.... 321000000 cubic miles is <PHONE> cubic inches.... 0.00006% = (X / <PHONE>) *100, X = about 28000 inches, or less than half a cubic mile, represents earth in the ocean universe, still pretty far off from a cup. ]]] some perspective on how big our planet and sun is compared to the largest out there: <URL>... --interesting extra point. if the speed of light is the fastest light can go, how fast can a "car" go on that 25 mile cubic box? light travels 186,000 miles per second, or 5865696000000 trillion miles a year. times that by 156 billion light years in width. that means the universe is 91,504,857,600,000,000,000,000 miles in width. that's 91.5 sextillion miles. sextillion comes quintillion comes after quadrillion, after trillion. so we could say you can only travel 5865696000000 trillion miles a year/91.5 quintillion miles an hour (if the speed of light per second is the max, then per year is also max... and that number is the fraction of the total that can be drove) or 6.4e-11 miles an hour, or 0.<PHONE> miles an hour. how long would it take to travel a mile? 0.<PHONE> = 1/X, x=<PHONE> hours, or 1,780,821 years.... at the speed of light equivalency maximum that we can drive. if we traveled at the fastest that we are currently capable of at 25,000 miles per hour. that comes out to .... very small speed to say the least. to travel the whole 25 miles of one side would take forever let alone all the sides and everywhere... ------ another point. i've heard there are 49 sextillion stars in the universe. that means, if we say just for the sake of argument, that life exists one in a quadrillion (after trillion, which is the largest we ever really ever talk about in most day to day life)... that means life would exist in 49 million of those places. 1 000 000 000 000 000 / 49 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 if we assumed each star and nine planets like our own, we could perhaps consider the number might be even higher, as there's more chances that life could exist.

dairygirl4u2c

given the sheer size of the universe, the most reasonable view is expecting that alien life exists http://www.thegodlessheathen.com... http://articles.cnn.com... there could be, and the most reasonable explanation is, life outside our planet. at least basic life, maybe intelligent, exists. first consider a basic idea in the size of our universe. if an alien life existed and sent us a signal at the speed of light. even at the speed of light, over 186000 miles per second... per second, by the time the signal got to us, that alien civilization probably rose and fell over billions of years. eg, if they sent it from fifty billlion light years away, and a civilization only lasts a few billion... at teh very most... then by deifinition that civilization probably no longer exists. i'm about to show some math in the following argument, a little more than basic math. my point is not to get caught up in the minutia of the math, but to simply establishthe point. i did want the math shown though as i did the calcuations for my own edification, might as well share. a CNN article estimates that the universe is156 billion light years across. (with the article also saying that the universe could be larger, as that figure is only what is known to exist based on the data gathered) the milky way is 100000 light years across. that means volume wise, the milky way is 0.00006% of the universe. (milky way divided by the total universe is the percent). doing the math, comes out to.... our milky way is the size of a ping pong ball, and the universe is the size of a cube, that is 25 miles in all directions. that's a massive cube for a lone ping pong ball, wouldn't ya say? our planet and us individually would be smaller than a speck of dust. granted, however, doing some basic math, we can see the "cup v. ocean" thing is not quite accurate, according to hypertext book online, the ocean is 321,000,000 cubic miles in volume. hopefully i didn't screw up any math.... ---basic algebra: 0.00006% = (X / 321,000,000) *100 ====> x= 193 square miles of ocean is analogous to the equivalent of the milky way and universe. the ocean is hard to grasp itself, so another example could be helpful. (but just look at google maps and see how small 200 miles is in relation, then check out this website to see how small that is, deep http://www.ouramazingplanet.com... ) ---more: 0.00006% = (1 inch cubic square/X)*100 ====> x = 1666666 cubic inches, or 138888 cubic feet, or 25.5 cubic miles.... 1 cubic inch is about the size of a ping pong ball, which would be the equivalent of the milky way, with X being something far larger than any of the largest buildings, cubed. the worlds largest is only half a mile tall... you'd have to stack more than fifty of those on top of each other (make it into a pole), and then make it three dimensional in the other two directions, so drive twenty five miles each direction, setting up another massive pole at each of the four corners of the box, before you put your "cap" on it. look up in the sky twenty five miles, turn left, do some loop de loops in a parking lot, and consider all that in relation to a ping ball ball, and speck of dust. that's a massive cube for a lone ping pong ball, with us smaller than a speck of dust, wouldn't ya say? also, according to chacha answers (maybe not the best source, but still authoritative) and various internet hearsay, only less than one percent of the universe has even been at all significantly explored by telescope. (yet we don't even know enough to say whether there's life in this less than one percent, either) that means our meek neck of the woods is earth, perhaps our ping pong ball the milky way, and maybe what we can see... in relation to the 25 mile cube, one percent is only a quarter of a mile, cubed. --- if we used the explored universe, if we used one percent of the universe to compare, which is the amount of explored universe it's be quite a lot bigger than the 200 miles of ocean. if we used the earth to compare a cup of water to the ocean the cup analogy probably ain't that bad. [[[i couldn't help but do the math on earth's volume in relation to a cup v ocean.... 321000000 cubic miles is 46224000000 cubic inches.... 0.00006% = (X / 46224000000) *100, X = about 28000 inches, or less than half a cubic mile, represents earth in the ocean universe, still pretty far off from a cup. ]]] some perspective on how big our planet and sun is compared to the largest out there: http://1.bp.blogspot.com... --interesting extra point. if the speed of light is the fastest light can go, how fast can a "car" go on that 25 mile cubic box? light travels 186,000 miles per second, or 5865696000000 trillion miles a year. times that by 156 billion light years in width. that means the universe is 91,504,857,600,000,000,000,000 miles in width. that's 91.5 sextillion miles. sextillion comes quintillion comes after quadrillion, after trillion. so we could say you can only travel 5865696000000 trillion miles a year/91.5 quintillion miles an hour (if the speed of light per second is the max, then per year is also max... and that number is the fraction of the total that can be drove) or 6.4e-11 miles an hour, or 0.000000000064 miles an hour. how long would it take to travel a mile? 0.000000000064 = 1/X, x=15625000000 hours, or 1,780,821 years.... at the speed of light equivalency maximum that we can drive. if we traveled at the fastest that we are currently capable of at 25,000 miles per hour. that comes out to .... very small speed to say the least. to travel the whole 25 miles of one side would take forever let alone all the sides and everywhere... ------ another point. i've heard there are 49 sextillion stars in the universe. that means, if we say just for the sake of argument, that life exists one in a quadrillion (after trillion, which is the largest we ever really ever talk about in most day to day life)... that means life would exist in 49 million of those places. 1 000 000 000 000 000 / 49 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 if we assumed each star and nine planets like our own, we could perhaps consider the number might be even higher, as there's more chances that life could exist.

Science

given-the-sheer-size-of-the-space-the-most-reasonable-view-is-expecting-that-alien-life-exists/1/

I accept. I thank pro for the challenge. ============================ "should all countries do a better job in reducing carbon emissions?" No, they shouldn't. Converting to green energy is realistically 3-5 times more expensive and the energy capacity from green industries yield 3-5 times less than conventional resources. This step is a disastrous move especially for poor countries. The Brandt report ( <URL>... ) illustrates how poor countries managed to only collect 1/5 of the world's income . They cannot afford such expensive technology that yields very little results. Poor countries, or countries in the south are shown below. So the question of ALL countries adopting it is sheer fantasy. I await pro's response.

Relativist

I accept. I thank pro for the challenge. ============================ "should all countries do a better job in reducing carbon emissions?" No, they shouldn't. Converting to green energy is realistically 3-5 times more expensive and the energy capacity from green industries yield 3-5 times less than conventional resources. This step is a disastrous move especially for poor countries. The Brandt report ( http://churchillhigh.wikia.com... ) illustrates how poor countries managed to only collect 1/5 of the world's income . They cannot afford such expensive technology that yields very little results. Poor countries, or countries in the south are shown below. So the question of ALL countries adopting it is sheer fantasy. I await pro's response.

Miscellaneous

global-warming/17/

FF. Extend all arguments.

Relativist

FF. Extend all arguments.

Miscellaneous

global-warming/17/

FF. Extend all arguments.

Relativist

FF. Extend all arguments.

Miscellaneous

global-warming/17/

FF.

Relativist

FF.

Miscellaneous

global-warming/17/

Full Forfeit by Pro.

Relativist

Full Forfeit by Pro.

Miscellaneous

global-warming/17/

should all countries do a better job in reducing carbon emissions?

chrisman8

should all countries do a better job in reducing carbon emissions?

Miscellaneous

global-warming/17/

The biggest problem faced by world is the global warming how to prevent it

usman100

The biggest problem faced by world is the global warming how to prevent it

Entertainment

global-warming/21/

How to improved the living conditions as green enveoment

usman100

How to improved the living conditions as green enveoment

Entertainment

global-warming/21/

Yeah

usman100

Yeah

Entertainment

global-warming/21/

How to implement iit

usman100

How to implement iit

Entertainment

global-warming/21/

1st round is for accpetance The god is one all powerful being.(not zues odin and all those other fun ones) I want someone to logically debate this topic with the rest are for rebuttals and rebuttals to the rebuttals. also if con wants to provide logic to suggest that god does exist he may do so and i will attempt to disprove Also to the voters i want good explinations to the votes. Do not type god rocks as a vote explination. Also for one rule for the con YOU MAY NOT say stuff like pro has failed to disprove this or his pont is invalid. If you think you have disproved somthing than say i believe his logic is flawed wih this point and then explain it.

narmak

1st round is for accpetance The god is one all powerful being.(not zues odin and all those other fun ones) I want someone to logically debate this topic with the rest are for rebuttals and rebuttals to the rebuttals. also if con wants to provide logic to suggest that god does exist he may do so and i will attempt to disprove Also to the voters i want good explinations to the votes. Do not type god rocks as a vote explination. Also for one rule for the con YOU MAY NOT say stuff like pro has failed to disprove this or his pont is invalid. If you think you have disproved somthing than say i believe his logic is flawed wih this point and then explain it.

Religion

god-does-not-exist/18/

First i shall prove that an omnipotent(all powerful) being cannot exist. omnipotent has two definitions. 1st the ability to do anythig logical. ex. one cannot create a square circle as the shape is impossible to create. 2nd the ability to do anything even the logically absurd. ex god can create a square circle. When applied to god the first definition fails because in order to move somthing in the universe two things are needed mass and energy. Ek=1/2mv^2 no mass results in no energy. no energy results in no speed. F=ma no mass results in no force. However if god is made up of matter and energy he cannot be omnipotent as he would have limits based on the matter and energy he is made up of. when we apply the second definition to god it also fail because if he can do anything even than logically absurd than he can create a being that is more powerful than himself. But if there is still somthing that is stronger than god than god is not omnipotent. What we can conclude from this is that it is impossible for an omnipotent being to exist as such god doesnt exist. It is also said that god created the universe. The universe is made up of matter,energy.space and time. The 1st law of thermodynamics states that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. In logic form somthing cannot come from nothing, 0 does not equal 1. we know this to be 100% true. Now if matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed than the only logical conclusion we can draw is that they must have always existed. Both matter and energy exist within time and space so time and space must have always existed. matter,energy,space and time have always existed so therefore the universe has always existed it was not created. if god did not in fact create the universe as it is said in many of the holy books than he has lied. to lie is to steal the truth and to steal is a sin. Tell me if god is supposed to be purely good why does he sin? if we total the deaths he commands in these holy books he has killed more things than anyone or anything on the planet. One such example is the flood he sent to wipe out the earth he had deemed evil. The act of killing is evil so if god kills than he is not good he is evil. But an evil god cannot exist as he is supposed to be purely good so we can conclude again that god does not exist. I know con will probably mention that it is impossible to have an infinite past but there is no evidence to support that claim as our understanding of time is not near complete. furthermore either way there is an infinite past with god or with the universe however the universe is far more likely than god. Nothing can exist outside of time as if something has existed it has existed in some point in time. ex. i have a birthday and eventually i will die so i will have existed in time for x amount of years. And again if god has to obey time the 2nd definition of omnipotent fails again.

narmak

First i shall prove that an omnipotent(all powerful) being cannot exist. omnipotent has two definitions. 1st the ability to do anythig logical. ex. one cannot create a square circle as the shape is impossible to create. 2nd the ability to do anything even the logically absurd. ex god can create a square circle. When applied to god the first definition fails because in order to move somthing in the universe two things are needed mass and energy. Ek=1/2mv^2 no mass results in no energy. no energy results in no speed. F=ma no mass results in no force. However if god is made up of matter and energy he cannot be omnipotent as he would have limits based on the matter and energy he is made up of. when we apply the second definition to god it also fail because if he can do anything even than logically absurd than he can create a being that is more powerful than himself. But if there is still somthing that is stronger than god than god is not omnipotent. What we can conclude from this is that it is impossible for an omnipotent being to exist as such god doesnt exist. It is also said that god created the universe. The universe is made up of matter,energy.space and time. The 1st law of thermodynamics states that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. In logic form somthing cannot come from nothing, 0 does not equal 1. we know this to be 100% true. Now if matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed than the only logical conclusion we can draw is that they must have always existed. Both matter and energy exist within time and space so time and space must have always existed. matter,energy,space and time have always existed so therefore the universe has always existed it was not created. if god did not in fact create the universe as it is said in many of the holy books than he has lied. to lie is to steal the truth and to steal is a sin. Tell me if god is supposed to be purely good why does he sin? if we total the deaths he commands in these holy books he has killed more things than anyone or anything on the planet. One such example is the flood he sent to wipe out the earth he had deemed evil. The act of killing is evil so if god kills than he is not good he is evil. But an evil god cannot exist as he is supposed to be purely good so we can conclude again that god does not exist. I know con will probably mention that it is impossible to have an infinite past but there is no evidence to support that claim as our understanding of time is not near complete. furthermore either way there is an infinite past with god or with the universe however the universe is far more likely than god. Nothing can exist outside of time as if something has existed it has existed in some point in time. ex. i have a birthday and eventually i will die so i will have existed in time for x amount of years. And again if god has to obey time the 2nd definition of omnipotent fails again.

Religion

god-does-not-exist/18/

con: [[[[[[More to the point, he promises to lay out a case demonstrating why omnipotent beings are logically inconsistent. Thereafter, he presents us with a non-sequitor based on a false premise attempting to explain, rather, that an omnipotent being did not create the universe.]]]]] The creation of the universe was a seperate point from the impossibility of an omnipotent being. Con points out a mistake with the ability to move an object as photons are indeed massless however I was refferring to an object such as an apple or a tree etc..... It is because of this god cannot be omnipotent by the 1st definition. As he would be required to made up of matter or energy to move the object which would place limits on him based on the type of energy and matter he is made up of. Furthermore as for moving a photon it still requires energy to do so and energy has a mass equivalent and mass has an energy equivalent. con [[[[[[[After pointing out this small correction, I'd then like to dispense with this entire section of Pro"s case as it makes no substantive effort to establish the aforementioned resolution "god does not exist']]]]]] The rest of my arguments are to prove that god who by definition is suppose to be omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness) doesnt exist. We can prove throgh pure killings he orders and performs in many holy books that an omnibenevolent being doesnt exist as the act of killing is evil. Also if god has infinite knowledge than he knows exactly what his creations would do so when he created hitler he knew that he would end up killing A lot of people that being said it would go to prove once again that an omnibelevolent being does not exist. Omnipotent being has also already been proven to be impossible. One cannot throw away logic in an attempt to describe somthing as without logic one can never arrive at a truth. have you ever been asked hw many fingers am i holding behind my back? why dont you say 11 or 15? The reason for that is we know that most humans have 10 fingers so saying any number higher than 10 wouldnt work (FOR THIS CASE THE DUDE HAS 10 FINGERS). However the only way to narrow the number of fingers down and find the truth is to use logic. if logic is not used any number is possible which means greater chance for error. that being said with logic there is a 1 in 10 chance to get the number correct without logic there is an 1 in infinite chance to get it right. Logic can prove everything that exists as it is based on evidence. a blind man is walking but not moving anywhere why would this happen? There is no way to answer without using logic.however with logic there are a couple of possibilities 1) hes walking into somthing 2). somthing is holding him 3)hes walking on the spot. One of those three is true the reason there are 3 options is because we only know the blind man has stopped moving we do not know whatt is around him. but if i were to mention he was completely alone with nothing around him for miles which one would you say was true? again without logic you can never arrive at truth. And since logic is the only means to reach a truth it is the best way to do so. you can not answer a question without some form of reasoning. if you have 0 apples and someone gives you 5 apples how many apples do you have. Solve this withut using logic which by the way a little heads up is impossible It would appear that con is wanting definite evidence to say god doesnt exist but there is only one thing that we cannot provide definite evidence for and that is imaginary objects. Everything else we can prove exists however we cannot with an imaginary object and since there is absoloutely no definite evidence to say god exists it must mean he is indeed imaginary and does not actually exist. We can only provide evidence to suggest he does not exist. Example. I have a friend that is ethereal and invisible.he is a 932billion year old man named gandhi He has infinite knowledge and gives me ideas for movieshe would like to see. I am the only thing who can perceive him. Can you provide definate evidence to say this man doesnt exist? the answer of course is no as there is no way to determine if he is real or not.

narmak

con: [[[[[[More to the point, he promises to lay out a case demonstrating why omnipotent beings are logically inconsistent. Thereafter, he presents us with a non-sequitor based on a false premise attempting to explain, rather, that an omnipotent being did not create the universe.]]]]] The creation of the universe was a seperate point from the impossibility of an omnipotent being. Con points out a mistake with the ability to move an object as photons are indeed massless however I was refferring to an object such as an apple or a tree etc..... It is because of this god cannot be omnipotent by the 1st definition. As he would be required to made up of matter or energy to move the object which would place limits on him based on the type of energy and matter he is made up of. Furthermore as for moving a photon it still requires energy to do so and energy has a mass equivalent and mass has an energy equivalent. con [[[[[[[After pointing out this small correction, I'd then like to dispense with this entire section of Pro"s case as it makes no substantive effort to establish the aforementioned resolution "god does not exist']]]]]] The rest of my arguments are to prove that god who by definition is suppose to be omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness) doesnt exist. We can prove throgh pure killings he orders and performs in many holy books that an omnibenevolent being doesnt exist as the act of killing is evil. Also if god has infinite knowledge than he knows exactly what his creations would do so when he created hitler he knew that he would end up killing A lot of people that being said it would go to prove once again that an omnibelevolent being does not exist. Omnipotent being has also already been proven to be impossible. One cannot throw away logic in an attempt to describe somthing as without logic one can never arrive at a truth. have you ever been asked hw many fingers am i holding behind my back? why dont you say 11 or 15? The reason for that is we know that most humans have 10 fingers so saying any number higher than 10 wouldnt work (FOR THIS CASE THE DUDE HAS 10 FINGERS). However the only way to narrow the number of fingers down and find the truth is to use logic. if logic is not used any number is possible which means greater chance for error. that being said with logic there is a 1 in 10 chance to get the number correct without logic there is an 1 in infinite chance to get it right. Logic can prove everything that exists as it is based on evidence. a blind man is walking but not moving anywhere why would this happen? There is no way to answer without using logic.however with logic there are a couple of possibilities 1) hes walking into somthing 2). somthing is holding him 3)hes walking on the spot. One of those three is true the reason there are 3 options is because we only know the blind man has stopped moving we do not know whatt is around him. but if i were to mention he was completely alone with nothing around him for miles which one would you say was true? again without logic you can never arrive at truth. And since logic is the only means to reach a truth it is the best way to do so. you can not answer a question without some form of reasoning. if you have 0 apples and someone gives you 5 apples how many apples do you have. Solve this withut using logic which by the way a little heads up is impossible It would appear that con is wanting definite evidence to say god doesnt exist but there is only one thing that we cannot provide definite evidence for and that is imaginary objects. Everything else we can prove exists however we cannot with an imaginary object and since there is absoloutely no definite evidence to say god exists it must mean he is indeed imaginary and does not actually exist. We can only provide evidence to suggest he does not exist. Example. I have a friend that is ethereal and invisible.he is a 932billion year old man named gandhi He has infinite knowledge and gives me ideas for movieshe would like to see. I am the only thing who can perceive him. Can you provide definate evidence to say this man doesnt exist? the answer of course is no as there is no way to determine if he is real or not.

Religion

god-does-not-exist/18/

con keeps calling me con ignore that i a pr0 Con(((. I'd respond, as many debates go here that perhaps such wrongdoings were a necessary evil that actually give rise to some good that we as humans cannot know. A rectification of evil through a divine logic rather than a human one. )))) Con fails to understand that good is good regardless of who its applied to. Evil does not have to be commited for good to arise. If i were to go help an elderly woman shovel her drive way for no reward where is the evil committed before hand to make me do the deed? There is no evil committed i simply helped because i could. Evil is not a cause for someone being good. Con is also using a trick which i postend not to in the rules. he is using my text but taking it out of context to suit his own needs. CON (((((((((Finally, pro remarks: " Can you provide definate evidence to say this man doesnt exist? the answer of course is no as there is no way to determine if he is real or not." And, just like that, con throws away his position by conceding to the impossibility of disproving the existence of some purported entity. As con was to establish, irrefutably, that god does not exist, so he admits that it cannot be done. I need no longer to win this readerships confidence as I should have already won it with this concession. Thank you.)))) It would seem con agrees with my statement that it is impossible to disprove the existance of of an imaginary being and as such claims he should win which means in turn he believes god is indeed imaginary so he cannot be disporved. However if we know somthing is imaginary it also means they do not exist. so by con admitting that he cannot be disproved he is admitting he is imaginary and therefore should lose this debate. The above text was to describe an IMAGINARY man. You cannot provide definate evidence to say he exists. However you can still provide logic to suggest that he doesnt exist. For example i said he was a man and was 932 billion years old but the earth is only 4.5 billion years old. But again that is not definate evidence as i never said he lived on earth for his whole life. ((((((con "One cannot throw away logic in an attempt to describe somthing as without logic one can never arrive at a truth." Yes and I'd agree with pro . The problem is con is the one who's decided to dispense with logic. Tell me how the notion of something more powerful than the most powerful thing isn't as logically invalid as the notion of a square circle? Their both nonsense. Sure if we're calling god an illogical entity it shouldn't be a problem but then what does truth and falsity even mean in that framework. If I can square a circle and make an entity greater than god than why all the fuss about making something false, true and something true, false? It just means that nothing can really be said about god whatsoever. ))))))))) This was an attempt to describe omnipotent by the definition in which an omnipotent being is capable of doing anything even the logically absurd. that being said it is only illogical to surpass infinite but if an omnpotent being can do the logically absurd then he can indeed make something stornger than himself making him not truly omnipotent as there is a level higher than god.

narmak

con keeps calling me con ignore that i a pr0 Con(((. I'd respond, as many debates go here that perhaps such wrongdoings were a necessary evil that actually give rise to some good that we as humans cannot know. A rectification of evil through a divine logic rather than a human one. )))) Con fails to understand that good is good regardless of who its applied to. Evil does not have to be commited for good to arise. If i were to go help an elderly woman shovel her drive way for no reward where is the evil committed before hand to make me do the deed? There is no evil committed i simply helped because i could. Evil is not a cause for someone being good. Con is also using a trick which i postend not to in the rules. he is using my text but taking it out of context to suit his own needs. CON (((((((((Finally, pro remarks: " Can you provide definate evidence to say this man doesnt exist? the answer of course is no as there is no way to determine if he is real or not." And, just like that, con throws away his position by conceding to the impossibility of disproving the existence of some purported entity. As con was to establish, irrefutably, that god does not exist, so he admits that it cannot be done. I need no longer to win this readerships confidence as I should have already won it with this concession. Thank you.)))) It would seem con agrees with my statement that it is impossible to disprove the existance of of an imaginary being and as such claims he should win which means in turn he believes god is indeed imaginary so he cannot be disporved. However if we know somthing is imaginary it also means they do not exist. so by con admitting that he cannot be disproved he is admitting he is imaginary and therefore should lose this debate. The above text was to describe an IMAGINARY man. You cannot provide definate evidence to say he exists. However you can still provide logic to suggest that he doesnt exist. For example i said he was a man and was 932 billion years old but the earth is only 4.5 billion years old. But again that is not definate evidence as i never said he lived on earth for his whole life. ((((((con "One cannot throw away logic in an attempt to describe somthing as without logic one can never arrive at a truth." Yes and I'd agree with pro . The problem is con is the one who's decided to dispense with logic. Tell me how the notion of something more powerful than the most powerful thing isn't as logically invalid as the notion of a square circle? Their both nonsense. Sure if we're calling god an illogical entity it shouldn't be a problem but then what does truth and falsity even mean in that framework. If I can square a circle and make an entity greater than god than why all the fuss about making something false, true and something true, false? It just means that nothing can really be said about god whatsoever. ))))))))) This was an attempt to describe omnipotent by the definition in which an omnipotent being is capable of doing anything even the logically absurd. that being said it is only illogical to surpass infinite but if an omnpotent being can do the logically absurd then he can indeed make something stornger than himself making him not truly omnipotent as there is a level higher than god.

Religion

god-does-not-exist/18/

god can not create life because anything that is constructed or created is a machine, and nature is life, my body is nature

vi_spex

god can not create life because anything that is constructed or created is a machine, and nature is life, my body is nature

Religion

god-is-false/7/

god is imaginary, a creator false=belief=imagination true=know=physical experience truth=knowledge=memory of know

vi_spex

god is imaginary, a creator false=belief=imagination true=know=physical experience truth=knowledge=memory of know

Religion

god-is-false/7/

which god isnt imaginary, and a creator if any truth existed about god, god would necessarily be true, god is false

vi_spex

which god isnt imaginary, and a creator if any truth existed about god, god would necessarily be true, god is false

Religion

god-is-false/7/