Datasets:

notaphoenix

/

debateorg_w_effect_for_conservative_subset

like 0

why am i imaginary and false?

vi_spex

why am i imaginary and false?

Religion

god-is-false/7/

it being in my mind, is me being it you have alredy seen the beginning of the pyramid capstone reflection with an eye, just above in an earlier round destruction=turn my back i am true false and truth

vi_spex

it being in my mind, is me being it you have alredy seen the beginning of the pyramid capstone reflection with an eye, just above in an earlier round destruction=turn my back i am true false and truth

Religion

god-is-false/7/

i think guitar hero is better because they have cool attacks such as amp oveload or whammy those are cool and guitar hero has 5 games. guitar hero is for the 360, ps2, ps3 and thats it. also you can play online with other people and also co-op mode and really nice songs please vote for guitar hero!!!!!!!!!!!!!

billbobjoesmithjr23

i think guitar hero is better because they have cool attacks such as amp oveload or whammy those are cool and guitar hero has 5 games. guitar hero is for the 360, ps2, ps3 and thats it. also you can play online with other people and also co-op mode and really nice songs please vote for guitar hero!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Entertainment

guitar-is-better-than-rock-band/1/

yo man you know notin first of all the guitars in rock band have two sets of buttons and one side doesnt really i've tried and the game rock band is easy on drums guitar bass guitar and definetly microphone the songs on guitar hero are challenging and guitar hero is really famous even check on youtube you will find more guitar hero vids than rock band and how many games does rockband made so far so haaaaaaaaaaaaa

billbobjoesmithjr23

yo man you know notin first of all the guitars in rock band have two sets of buttons and one side doesnt really i've tried and the game rock band is easy on drums guitar bass guitar and definetly microphone the songs on guitar hero are challenging and guitar hero is really famous even check on youtube you will find more guitar hero vids than rock band and how many games does rockband made so far so haaaaaaaaaaaaa

Entertainment

guitar-is-better-than-rock-band/1/

First of all, I see this is you're first debate on debate.org, so I'll be the first to say welcome! Haha Ok, now to the debate! Guitar Hero is a great game. However, I don't think how fun it is compares to Rock Band. Guitar Hero can do whammys, online play, and co-op, but Rock Band can do it too. Rock Band can use guitar hero guitars, so anything that a guitar hero guitar can do, Rock Band can. Its awesome, but rock band can do it too What guitar hero DOESN't have is the multiplayer experience. Rock Band has guitar, bass, drums, and vocals, while Guitar hero only has guitar and bass. This means that co-op mode on Rock Band is WAY more fun. Also, Rock Band has a great song list, that anyone can like, because there is variety.

whitesoxfan450

First of all, I see this is you're first debate on debate.org, so I'll be the first to say welcome! Haha Ok, now to the debate! Guitar Hero is a great game. However, I don't think how fun it is compares to Rock Band. Guitar Hero can do whammys, online play, and co-op, but Rock Band can do it too. Rock Band can use guitar hero guitars, so anything that a guitar hero guitar can do, Rock Band can. Its awesome, but rock band can do it too What guitar hero DOESN't have is the multiplayer experience. Rock Band has guitar, bass, drums, and vocals, while Guitar hero only has guitar and bass. This means that co-op mode on Rock Band is WAY more fun. Also, Rock Band has a great song list, that anyone can like, because there is variety.

Entertainment

guitar-is-better-than-rock-band/1/

Ok, so I'll just go in the order my opponent stated things. First of all, I do know something about both games. I have Guitar Hero 2 and 3, AND Rock Band. ok. 1. Yes, there are two sets of buttons, but they do basically the same thing. Are they in the same order? Yes. Are they anything THAT different? No. 2. I never said anything about difficulty, and difficulty doesn't always make a game better. But if we're talking about difficulty, the drums are definitely in question. The drums are DEFINITELY a source of difficulty in the game. Also Harmonix did that ON PURPOSE, so the game is more accessible to people on their first time playing. Because of this, more people can play, which links to my argument of MULTIPLAYER experience. More people play=fun to harmonix standards. 3. This argument of videos makes little sense. You argue that guitar hero has more videos than rock band on youtube, but how does that make guitar hero any BETTER? Just because something has more videos, is it better? No. This means nothing with your resolution.

whitesoxfan450

Ok, so I'll just go in the order my opponent stated things. First of all, I do know something about both games. I have Guitar Hero 2 and 3, AND Rock Band. ok. 1. Yes, there are two sets of buttons, but they do basically the same thing. Are they in the same order? Yes. Are they anything THAT different? No. 2. I never said anything about difficulty, and difficulty doesn't always make a game better. But if we're talking about difficulty, the drums are definitely in question. The drums are DEFINITELY a source of difficulty in the game. Also Harmonix did that ON PURPOSE, so the game is more accessible to people on their first time playing. Because of this, more people can play, which links to my argument of MULTIPLAYER experience. More people play=fun to harmonix standards. 3. This argument of videos makes little sense. You argue that guitar hero has more videos than rock band on youtube, but how does that make guitar hero any BETTER? Just because something has more videos, is it better? No. This means nothing with your resolution.

Entertainment

guitar-is-better-than-rock-band/1/

Well, since my opponent never posted a response: Vote Con because: Rock band is guitar hero times 4 it does everything guitar hero does fame means nothing. Thank you, and please, don't vote on you're game, read our arguments!

whitesoxfan450

Well, since my opponent never posted a response: Vote Con because: Rock band is guitar hero times 4 it does everything guitar hero does fame means nothing. Thank you, and please, don't vote on you're game, read our arguments!

Entertainment

guitar-is-better-than-rock-band/1/

For the record, I am in complete agreement with you and wish that I was on the pro side. For the sake of the debate I will accept the con side in order to point out reasons why society makes it difficult. Your assertion is that "High school dropouts can succeed as much as graduates". The debate hinges on the definition of "succeed". If you mean that a high school dropout can just as easily become a laywer or a doctor then I might have to disagree. If you mean that one can become successful in the eyes of God then I would completely agree. Please define what "success" is from your perspective.

3DCrew

For the record, I am in complete agreement with you and wish that I was on the pro side. For the sake of the debate I will accept the con side in order to point out reasons why society makes it difficult. Your assertion is that "High school dropouts can succeed as much as graduates". The debate hinges on the definition of "succeed". If you mean that a high school dropout can just as easily become a laywer or a doctor then I might have to disagree. If you mean that one can become successful in the eyes of God then I would completely agree. Please define what "success" is from your perspective.

Education

highschool-dropouts-can-succeed-as-much-as-graduates/1/

To become a lawyer or doctor, for example, would be nearly impossible without the proper education. That's not to say that a high school dropout is less intelligent or lacks the ability or potential. These professions are defined by attaining certain levels of education and certification. You simply must go through the effort and expense of higher education in order to obtain that type of "success". Talent is a different matter. One can take their God given talent and with passion, practice, and a great deal of effort become the best in their "field". Take your rapping talent for example. There are many rappers out there. Only those that have the drive and the dream to push past the average rapper will even have a shot at fame. Do you need a high school education to be in the entertainment business? Perhaps not if your talent far outweighs your lack of education in a field where education is not required. Even though there are a few places where a high school dropout can excel, I wouldn't agree with your assertion that high school dropouts can succeed "as much as graduates". If you have such a talent, I would encourage you to strive to be the very best in your field. Be original and push beyond the average consistantly. Still, while you're doing that, you need to also focus on education. Soja Boy might be hot now but their fame and fortune will be short lived. There is much more to life that money. Not having an education in this society is like having a handicap. Yes, you can push past it but the effort to do that far outweighs the effort to stay in school and get a good education. This increases your chances of success greatly and doesn't rely on a fluke MySpace hit like Soja Boy experienced. For every Soja Boy out there you will find a million rappers thinking that they are just as good and ought to be able to make it. Obviously that's not the case as only a few with the right talent at the right time and in the right place get "picked" for fame. In short, don't count on it. Staying in school increases your odds of making a good steady living, owning a home, raising children, and getting them educated. Do that and you can call yourself a "success" every time.

3DCrew

To become a lawyer or doctor, for example, would be nearly impossible without the proper education. That's not to say that a high school dropout is less intelligent or lacks the ability or potential. These professions are defined by attaining certain levels of education and certification. You simply must go through the effort and expense of higher education in order to obtain that type of "success". Talent is a different matter. One can take their God given talent and with passion, practice, and a great deal of effort become the best in their "field". Take your rapping talent for example. There are many rappers out there. Only those that have the drive and the dream to push past the average rapper will even have a shot at fame. Do you need a high school education to be in the entertainment business? Perhaps not if your talent far outweighs your lack of education in a field where education is not required. Even though there are a few places where a high school dropout can excel, I wouldn't agree with your assertion that high school dropouts can succeed "as much as graduates". If you have such a talent, I would encourage you to strive to be the very best in your field. Be original and push beyond the average consistantly. Still, while you're doing that, you need to also focus on education. Soja Boy might be hot now but their fame and fortune will be short lived. There is much more to life that money. Not having an education in this society is like having a handicap. Yes, you can push past it but the effort to do that far outweighs the effort to stay in school and get a good education. This increases your chances of success greatly and doesn't rely on a fluke MySpace hit like Soja Boy experienced. For every Soja Boy out there you will find a million rappers thinking that they are just as good and ought to be able to make it. Obviously that's not the case as only a few with the right talent at the right time and in the right place get "picked" for fame. In short, don't count on it. Staying in school increases your odds of making a good steady living, owning a home, raising children, and getting them educated. Do that and you can call yourself a "success" every time.

Education

highschool-dropouts-can-succeed-as-much-as-graduates/1/

Debates are kind of like High School. Always finish what you start. Stick with it and see what you can learn in the process.

3DCrew

Debates are kind of like High School. Always finish what you start. Stick with it and see what you can learn in the process.

Education

highschool-dropouts-can-succeed-as-much-as-graduates/1/

many students today are struggling from mental problems and family issued at home as finaicial problems, or even peer presure, that have may cause these students to lose their ability to stay in school and urges to find a job to support themselves in their family. But in the long run they have their knowledge that can reach far as they dream to become in life.

chreis2002

many students today are struggling from mental problems and family issued at home as finaicial problems, or even peer presure, that have may cause these students to lose their ability to stay in school and urges to find a job to support themselves in their family. But in the long run they have their knowledge that can reach far as they dream to become in life.

Education

highschool-dropouts-can-succeed-as-much-as-graduates/1/

yes easily to become a doctor lawyer and etc..because most people don't used the knowledge which they should but using though using their talents such as rapping which the known group today the soja boy which they posted their songs on myspace for fun and later became millionaires or celebrities that have sibling which they can easily be spoil and become something in life without paying out of their own pocket,But things dosn't always happend that way

chreis2002

yes easily to become a doctor lawyer and etc..because most people don't used the knowledge which they should but using though using their talents such as rapping which the known group today the soja boy which they posted their songs on myspace for fun and later became millionaires or celebrities that have sibling which they can easily be spoil and become something in life without paying out of their own pocket,But things dosn't always happend that way

Education

highschool-dropouts-can-succeed-as-much-as-graduates/1/

homework sucks and should be banned because some kids have sports after school

Austinh

homework sucks and should be banned because some kids have sports after school

Miscellaneous

homework-should-be-banned/20/

I'll accept this debate. Okay so you say homework should be banned because of after school activities such as sports, however the problem is sports are not as important as education. Homework helps further your education and helps your teachers figure out what you know. Extra school activities simply are not as important as school work and school grades. Core classes are more important, and good grades for those classes are required for graduation.

Blazzered

I'll accept this debate. Okay so you say homework should be banned because of after school activities such as sports, however the problem is sports are not as important as education. Homework helps further your education and helps your teachers figure out what you know. Extra school activities simply are not as important as school work and school grades. Core classes are more important, and good grades for those classes are required for graduation.

Miscellaneous

homework-should-be-banned/20/

A PROLEGOMENON TO THE STUDY OF THE MYSTICAL ELEMENTS IN THE ANTIESSENTIALISM IN POST-STRUCTURALISM, POSTMODERNISM, FEMINISM AND QUEER THEORY I am an English Lit and a History major, I've been teaching ESL for 12 years, I teach English Lit and History..... and I still have no idea what the above title means. I am an native English Speaker from Canada, well read, speak and read English fluently.... and I have no idea what my opponent is trying to say. I would ask my opponent, in one paragraph, in his own words, without quoting, to summarize what this article means. And no, it is not my fault if I do not understand you. It your fault for not making yourself more clear or understandable. In your own words, without quoting, please tell me how lesbians and feminists "imprison" people. Please define what you believe "imprison" to be. Feminists and lesbians are basing their identity on one certain aspect of their personalities without realizing that being gay or a feminist is unimportant to their true selves? It seems like you have a problem with the concept of "reality." Perhaps this should be a debate about what reality is?

Rwicks

A PROLEGOMENON TO THE STUDY OF THE MYSTICAL ELEMENTS IN THE ANTIESSENTIALISM IN POST-STRUCTURALISM, POSTMODERNISM, FEMINISM AND QUEER THEORY I am an English Lit and a History major, I've been teaching ESL for 12 years, I teach English Lit and History..... and I still have no idea what the above title means. I am an native English Speaker from Canada, well read, speak and read English fluently.... and I have no idea what my opponent is trying to say. I would ask my opponent, in one paragraph, in his own words, without quoting, to summarize what this article means. And no, it is not my fault if I do not understand you. It your fault for not making yourself more clear or understandable. In your own words, without quoting, please tell me how lesbians and feminists "imprison" people. Please define what you believe "imprison" to be. Feminists and lesbians are basing their identity on one certain aspect of their personalities without realizing that being gay or a feminist is unimportant to their true selves? It seems like you have a problem with the concept of "reality." Perhaps this should be a debate about what reality is?

Philosophy

how-some-people-use-Buddhist-insights-about-identity-and-reality-to-imprison-other-people/1/

This scholar shows how some people ie feminists lesbians etc use Buddhist insights about the identity and reality to imprison other people A PROLEGOMENON TO THE STUDY OF THE MYSTICAL ELEMENTS IN the ANTI-ESSENTIALISM IN POST-STRUCTURALISM, POSTMODERNISM, FEMINISM AND QUEER THEORY <URL>... "It is as if the theorists have discovered the Buddhist insights [anatman samvriti] but rather than help release people from conventional reality they infact create propaganda and mind control techniques to keep people from the realizations that will free them from the conventional realities these theorist acknowledge themselves. These theorists from a Buddhist point of view are trying to construct identities based on their ideologies rather than deconstruct identities based upon their insight of dencentered selves and reality. They turn around their insights to use for political and power politics against the people as no more than ideological propaganda to control " he states "As we can see the whole edifice of these theories come crashing down if the idea that underpin them is invalidated. All these theories sit upon the one premises that language constructs reality and there is no reality outside language. From these premises all the sophistications of the theorists flow. In effect a small thing indeed from which monstrous growths and tangled jungles have germinated. Kill the seed [the premises]and the growths withers and dies."

shakuntala

This scholar shows how some people ie feminists lesbians etc use Buddhist insights about the identity and reality to imprison other people A PROLEGOMENON TO THE STUDY OF THE MYSTICAL ELEMENTS IN the ANTI-ESSENTIALISM IN POST-STRUCTURALISM, POSTMODERNISM, FEMINISM AND QUEER THEORY http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com... "It is as if the theorists have discovered the Buddhist insights [anatman samvriti] but rather than help release people from conventional reality they infact create propaganda and mind control techniques to keep people from the realizations that will free them from the conventional realities these theorist acknowledge themselves. These theorists from a Buddhist point of view are trying to construct identities based on their ideologies rather than deconstruct identities based upon their insight of dencentered selves and reality. They turn around their insights to use for political and power politics against the people as no more than ideological propaganda to control " he states "As we can see the whole edifice of these theories come crashing down if the idea that underpin them is invalidated. All these theories sit upon the one premises that language constructs reality and there is no reality outside language. From these premises all the sophistications of the theorists flow. In effect a small thing indeed from which monstrous growths and tangled jungles have germinated. Kill the seed [the premises]and the growths withers and dies."

Philosophy

how-some-people-use-Buddhist-insights-about-identity-and-reality-to-imprison-other-people/1/

it is said "I am an English Lit and a History major, I've been teaching ESL for 12 years, I teach English Lit and History..... and I still have no idea what the above title means. I am an native English Speaker from Canada, well read, speak and read English fluently.... and I have no idea what my opponent is trying to say. I would ask my opponent, in one paragraph, in his own words, without quoting, to summarize what this article means." "A PROLEGOMENON TO THE STUDY OF THE MYSTICAL ELEMENTS IN the ANTI-ESSENTIALISM IN POST-STRUCTURALISM, POSTMODERNISM, FEMINISM AND QUEER THEORY" A beginning critical or discursive study of the mystical aspects ie that humans have no essence [anti-essentialism] that are found in the arguments of post-modernism post structuralism feminism and queer theory In other words post-modernism post structuralism feminism and queer theory have in them argument that say humans have no essence ie anti-existentialism and these arguments are the same as found in mysticism, and this work is a beginning to the study of such similarities it is said "Feminists and lesbians are basing their identity on one certain aspect of their personalities without realizing that being gay or a feminist is unimportant to their true selves? It seems like you have a problem with the concept of "reality." Perhaps this should be a debate about what reality is?" it is said "being gay or a feminist is unimportant to their true selves? Some feminist and gay writers-if you have read the work- argue like Buddhists that there is no true self -the self or ego is a construction it is said "Perhaps this should be a debate about what reality is" Some feminist and gay writers-if you have read the work- argue like Buddhists that reality is conventional based upon agreement Some argue that reality is textual ie just words So if you change the words and you change reality if you change the conventions and you change reality: where Buddhist use these insights ie reality is just conventional and there is no essence to humans to deconstruct the conventional selves or ego feminists etc instead use these insights to construct selves or egos as such this PROLEGOMENON is meant to be a beginning in the study of the similarities in Buddhist ideas and these same ideas present in feminism queer theory post postmodernism and post structuralism

shakuntala

it is said "I am an English Lit and a History major, I've been teaching ESL for 12 years, I teach English Lit and History..... and I still have no idea what the above title means. I am an native English Speaker from Canada, well read, speak and read English fluently.... and I have no idea what my opponent is trying to say. I would ask my opponent, in one paragraph, in his own words, without quoting, to summarize what this article means." "A PROLEGOMENON TO THE STUDY OF THE MYSTICAL ELEMENTS IN the ANTI-ESSENTIALISM IN POST-STRUCTURALISM, POSTMODERNISM, FEMINISM AND QUEER THEORY" A beginning critical or discursive study of the mystical aspects ie that humans have no essence [anti-essentialism] that are found in the arguments of post-modernism post structuralism feminism and queer theory In other words post-modernism post structuralism feminism and queer theory have in them argument that say humans have no essence ie anti-existentialism and these arguments are the same as found in mysticism, and this work is a beginning to the study of such similarities it is said "Feminists and lesbians are basing their identity on one certain aspect of their personalities without realizing that being gay or a feminist is unimportant to their true selves? It seems like you have a problem with the concept of "reality." Perhaps this should be a debate about what reality is?" it is said "being gay or a feminist is unimportant to their true selves? Some feminist and gay writers-if you have read the work- argue like Buddhists that there is no true self -the self or ego is a construction it is said "Perhaps this should be a debate about what reality is" Some feminist and gay writers-if you have read the work- argue like Buddhists that reality is conventional based upon agreement Some argue that reality is textual ie just words So if you change the words and you change reality if you change the conventions and you change reality: where Buddhist use these insights ie reality is just conventional and there is no essence to humans to deconstruct the conventional selves or ego feminists etc instead use these insights to construct selves or egos as such this PROLEGOMENON is meant to be a beginning in the study of the similarities in Buddhist ideas and these same ideas present in feminism queer theory post postmodernism and post structuralism

Philosophy

how-some-people-use-Buddhist-insights-about-identity-and-reality-to-imprison-other-people/1/

I have made my arguments con has forfeited round 2 thus I must win the debate

shakuntala

I have made my arguments con has forfeited round 2 thus I must win the debate

Philosophy

how-some-people-use-Buddhist-insights-about-identity-and-reality-to-imprison-other-people/1/

The Pro is arguing "I can debate anything" My position is that "The Pro cannot debate anything" The only piece of evidence I am using for this debate is that the Pro cannot debate anything because her profile has been closed for spamming debates and multiaccounting on 14 different occasions..... <URL>... Since the Pro's account is not functional, she cannot debate anything at all. I thank the Pro for this short debate and the voters for reading :)

imabench

The Pro is arguing "I can debate anything" My position is that "The Pro cannot debate anything" The only piece of evidence I am using for this debate is that the Pro cannot debate anything because her profile has been closed for spamming debates and multiaccounting on 14 different occasions..... http://www.debate.org... Since the Pro's account is not functional, she cannot debate anything at all. I thank the Pro for this short debate and the voters for reading :)

Miscellaneous

i-can-debate-anything/1/

I can debate anything i want and that is the truth.

kelsey.elly

I can debate anything i want and that is the truth.

Miscellaneous

i-can-debate-anything/1/

The title (resolution) mentions nothing of weapons. When we judge fighters we don't generally judge how fighter A would do vs fighter B assuming fighter A had nunchaku. We should assume that both fighters are unarmed, but could potentially pick up something laying around the street. The fact is, there are rarely knives and guns laying around on the street and when we introduce weapons or guns into it, it becomes much more random. So, this leaves us with two options: a) We talk about how the fighters would compare using largely their own martial arts/boxing skills. b) We allow for the use of weapons which would introduce a huge element of unpredictability in in the debate if for example Lee found a sword or Ali used a gun or vice versa. I would suggest option A as it would greatly cut down on speculation, and could be argued with more precision.

OMGJustinBieber

The title (resolution) mentions nothing of weapons. When we judge fighters we don't generally judge how fighter A would do vs fighter B assuming fighter A had nunchaku. We should assume that both fighters are unarmed, but could potentially pick up something laying around the street. The fact is, there are rarely knives and guns laying around on the street and when we introduce weapons or guns into it, it becomes much more random. So, this leaves us with two options: a) We talk about how the fighters would compare using largely their own martial arts/boxing skills. b) We allow for the use of weapons which would introduce a huge element of unpredictability in in the debate if for example Lee found a sword or Ali used a gun or vice versa. I would suggest option A as it would greatly cut down on speculation, and could be argued with more precision.

Entertainment

in-their-prime.....Bruce-Lee-would-have-a-better-chance-of-beating-Mohammad-Ali-in-street-fight/1/

Ok, a few reasons why Ali has the upper hand. 1. Ali was one of the best heavyweight boxers in history. The man's professional record is ridiculous. He's knocked out men around 100 lbs. heavier than Bruce Lee, and is widely considered to be one of the best boxers in history. 2. Ali has an enormous size advantage on Lee. Ali was 6'3, 230 lbs. while Lee's height and weight is a little less clear. We can place it in a range of 5'6-5'8 and weighing 130-140. You simply don't see fighters Bruce's size nowadays take down heavyweights, never mind championship winning heavyweights. Additionally Ali's reach was 80 inches which would dominate Lee and leave him constantly vulnerable to Ali's punches. Make no mistake, Ali was a knockout artist who finished 37 of his 61 fights in them, with KOs for men 100 lbs heavier than Lee. One wrong move and Lee is in a world of pain. 3. Lee has largely escaped professional evaluation This has led to plenty of myth being attributed to Lee. We wouldn't think of any other fighters of Lee's size being able to beat one of the greatest heavyweight boxers ever, but Lee has this mystique around him. What Lee performs in movies are not his real abilities. 4. All else being equal, Muhammad Ali would destroy Lee. Lee has essentially no way of knocking out Ali, while Lee is constantly in danger of being KO'd. Ali has advantages in size, reach, boxing technique, and probably speed and strength although I can't get definitive measurements. It's pretty uncertain as to where Lee has any advantage besides kicks, which even then still leave him in Ali's reach. Any statement claiming a 135 lb. fighter could defeat a 230 lb. legendary heavyweight is going to require an immense amount of proof. Good luck trying to prove this. I'm going to be very critical of sources here because a lot of Bruce Lee/Chuck Norris fanboys tend to exaggerate the abilities of their idols immensely.

OMGJustinBieber

Ok, a few reasons why Ali has the upper hand. 1. Ali was one of the best heavyweight boxers in history. The man's professional record is ridiculous. He's knocked out men around 100 lbs. heavier than Bruce Lee, and is widely considered to be one of the best boxers in history. 2. Ali has an enormous size advantage on Lee. Ali was 6'3, 230 lbs. while Lee's height and weight is a little less clear. We can place it in a range of 5'6-5'8 and weighing 130-140. You simply don't see fighters Bruce's size nowadays take down heavyweights, never mind championship winning heavyweights. Additionally Ali's reach was 80 inches which would dominate Lee and leave him constantly vulnerable to Ali's punches. Make no mistake, Ali was a knockout artist who finished 37 of his 61 fights in them, with KOs for men 100 lbs heavier than Lee. One wrong move and Lee is in a world of pain. 3. Lee has largely escaped professional evaluation This has led to plenty of myth being attributed to Lee. We wouldn't think of any other fighters of Lee's size being able to beat one of the greatest heavyweight boxers ever, but Lee has this mystique around him. What Lee performs in movies are not his real abilities. 4. All else being equal, Muhammad Ali would destroy Lee. Lee has essentially no way of knocking out Ali, while Lee is constantly in danger of being KO'd. Ali has advantages in size, reach, boxing technique, and probably speed and strength although I can't get definitive measurements. It's pretty uncertain as to where Lee has any advantage besides kicks, which even then still leave him in Ali's reach. Any statement claiming a 135 lb. fighter could defeat a 230 lb. legendary heavyweight is going to require an immense amount of proof. Good luck trying to prove this. I'm going to be very critical of sources here because a lot of Bruce Lee/Chuck Norris fanboys tend to exaggerate the abilities of their idols immensely.

Entertainment

in-their-prime.....Bruce-Lee-would-have-a-better-chance-of-beating-Mohammad-Ali-in-street-fight/1/

Lee's strikes were certainly not as hard as Ali's. Force = Mass * Acceleration, and Lee's mass limited his output. Even in 135 lb. MMA matches, there are much less KOs than in heavyweight matches, and this is largely due to the size of the fighters. Lee would have little to no KO potential against Ali. My opponent cites Royce Gracie, and while Royce Gracie is an incredible fighter he also had around 40 lbs. on Bruce Lee and was unrivaled at his ground game. Bruce Lee had no ground game, especially not against Ali who would have been very difficult to take down. Gracie's insane ability in BJJ gave him an edge against larger fighters who had no ground game, but Lee is not Gracie. Gracie would never have been able to take his 220-230 lb. opponent's to the mat (nevermind keep them there) with a weight of 135. Additionally, yes, Bruce Lee had kicks and elbows. However, throwing an elbow requires being on the "inside" and these elbows could have only hit Ali's chest. Bruce Lee would have had to have got their in the first place through dodging or deflecting blows from Ali, which is easier said than done. Lastly, I don't think Bruce Lee's kicks even fall outside Ali's reach, and even if they did Ali would be able to close the gap relatively quickly if he could time it right. The main factor here is that Ali has a tremendous amount of KO power vs. a much smaller opponent, and Bruce Lee has never seriously fought anyone approaching Ali's level. I would lastly like to add that Ali has more fighting experience with 100+ amateur fighters and 60+ professional bouts...all with men atleast 80 lbs. heavier than Lee.

OMGJustinBieber

Lee's strikes were certainly not as hard as Ali's. Force = Mass * Acceleration, and Lee's mass limited his output. Even in 135 lb. MMA matches, there are much less KOs than in heavyweight matches, and this is largely due to the size of the fighters. Lee would have little to no KO potential against Ali. My opponent cites Royce Gracie, and while Royce Gracie is an incredible fighter he also had around 40 lbs. on Bruce Lee and was unrivaled at his ground game. Bruce Lee had no ground game, especially not against Ali who would have been very difficult to take down. Gracie's insane ability in BJJ gave him an edge against larger fighters who had no ground game, but Lee is not Gracie. Gracie would never have been able to take his 220-230 lb. opponent's to the mat (nevermind keep them there) with a weight of 135. Additionally, yes, Bruce Lee had kicks and elbows. However, throwing an elbow requires being on the "inside" and these elbows could have only hit Ali's chest. Bruce Lee would have had to have got their in the first place through dodging or deflecting blows from Ali, which is easier said than done. Lastly, I don't think Bruce Lee's kicks even fall outside Ali's reach, and even if they did Ali would be able to close the gap relatively quickly if he could time it right. The main factor here is that Ali has a tremendous amount of KO power vs. a much smaller opponent, and Bruce Lee has never seriously fought anyone approaching Ali's level. I would lastly like to add that Ali has more fighting experience with 100+ amateur fighters and 60+ professional bouts...all with men atleast 80 lbs. heavier than Lee.

Entertainment

in-their-prime.....Bruce-Lee-would-have-a-better-chance-of-beating-Mohammad-Ali-in-street-fight/1/

Cutting and pasting is not a legitimate form of argument. Besides, you cut and pasted internal citations without even providing the source. I told you I was going to be anal about sources, and sure enough I found a lot of these quotes on forums and Yahoo Answers. Yeah, it's all from wikipedia. I can do this too. "Nicknamed "The Greatest", Ali was involved in several historic boxing matches. Notable among these are three with rival Joe Frazier and one with George Foreman, whom he beat by knockout to win the world heavyweight title for the second time. He suffered only five losses (four decisions and one TKO by retirement from the bout) with no draws in his career, while amassing 56 wins (37 knockouts and 19 decisions).[2] Ali was well known for his unorthodox fighting style, which he described as "float like a butterfly, sting like a bee", and employing techniques such as the rope-a-dope.[3] He was also known for his pre-match hype, where he would "trash talk" opponents on television and in person some time before the match, often with rhymes. These personality quips and idioms, along with an unorthodox fighting technique, made him a cultural icon. In later life, Ali developed Parkinson's disease. In 1999, Ali was crowned "Sportsman of the Century" by Sports Illustrated and "Sports Personality of the Century" by the BBC.[4]"

OMGJustinBieber

Cutting and pasting is not a legitimate form of argument. Besides, you cut and pasted internal citations without even providing the source. I told you I was going to be anal about sources, and sure enough I found a lot of these quotes on forums and Yahoo Answers. Yeah, it's all from wikipedia. I can do this too. "Nicknamed "The Greatest", Ali was involved in several historic boxing matches. Notable among these are three with rival Joe Frazier and one with George Foreman, whom he beat by knockout to win the world heavyweight title for the second time. He suffered only five losses (four decisions and one TKO by retirement from the bout) with no draws in his career, while amassing 56 wins (37 knockouts and 19 decisions).[2] Ali was well known for his unorthodox fighting style, which he described as "float like a butterfly, sting like a bee", and employing techniques such as the rope-a-dope.[3] He was also known for his pre-match hype, where he would "trash talk" opponents on television and in person some time before the match, often with rhymes. These personality quips and idioms, along with an unorthodox fighting technique, made him a cultural icon. In later life, Ali developed Parkinson's disease. In 1999, Ali was crowned "Sportsman of the Century" by Sports Illustrated and "Sports Personality of the Century" by the BBC.[4]"

Entertainment

in-their-prime.....Bruce-Lee-would-have-a-better-chance-of-beating-Mohammad-Ali-in-street-fight/1/

You literally copied and pasted wikipedia. I did a little bit of background research, and I can't find "Gary Elms" under any list of British boxing champions. I'm not going to look through all of your sources, because this response should be brief as yours was. Regardless of whether or not Lee had a budding ground game, using a ground game requires closing the gap with a professional heavyweight. I'm sorry I didn't ask this earlier, but what takedown would Lee use on Ali? You don't just do a takedown, you need to prepare for it and it often comes through close contact (or clinch) with your opponent. Anyway, I'm not writing much more. Nothing in your cut and paste article suggested that he could beat Ali. Lee never fought anybody near Ali, and his professional record is dubious and much is based on hearsay. If I wanted, I could have posted sources saying that Ali backed away from professional fights and at times failed to defeat similar-sized opponents, but I did not because I did not have the extreme degree of reliability that I demand from sources. Even the statement from Dan Inosanto, as bold as it is claiming Lee could have been a top ranked lightweight fighter (lightweight is 135 in boxing) still doesn't make the cut because lightweights (135) never beat legendary heavyweights. They simply lack the power, it's a mismatch. I feel my opponent has not satisfied the burden of proof. The burden of proof was that he would have to provide solid evidence that a 135 lb. actor/fitness-guru could defeat one of the best heavyweight fighters in history. It was an incredibly difficult task, given there is no historical precedent in terms of fights that my opponent could cite, and Lee's dubious history as a fighter. I encourage a vote for Con.

OMGJustinBieber

You literally copied and pasted wikipedia. I did a little bit of background research, and I can't find "Gary Elms" under any list of British boxing champions. I'm not going to look through all of your sources, because this response should be brief as yours was. Regardless of whether or not Lee had a budding ground game, using a ground game requires closing the gap with a professional heavyweight. I'm sorry I didn't ask this earlier, but what takedown would Lee use on Ali? You don't just do a takedown, you need to prepare for it and it often comes through close contact (or clinch) with your opponent. Anyway, I'm not writing much more. Nothing in your cut and paste article suggested that he could beat Ali. Lee never fought anybody near Ali, and his professional record is dubious and much is based on hearsay. If I wanted, I could have posted sources saying that Ali backed away from professional fights and at times failed to defeat similar-sized opponents, but I did not because I did not have the extreme degree of reliability that I demand from sources. Even the statement from Dan Inosanto, as bold as it is claiming Lee could have been a top ranked lightweight fighter (lightweight is 135 in boxing) still doesn't make the cut because lightweights (135) never beat legendary heavyweights. They simply lack the power, it's a mismatch. I feel my opponent has not satisfied the burden of proof. The burden of proof was that he would have to provide solid evidence that a 135 lb. actor/fitness-guru could defeat one of the best heavyweight fighters in history. It was an incredibly difficult task, given there is no historical precedent in terms of fights that my opponent could cite, and Lee's dubious history as a fighter. I encourage a vote for Con.

Entertainment

in-their-prime.....Bruce-Lee-would-have-a-better-chance-of-beating-Mohammad-Ali-in-street-fight/1/

increasing taxes, as a practical matter, is necessary for the financial well being of the USA,,, aside from utilizing government health care to save money. where are the cuts going to come from to balance the budget, if there are no tax increases? background, we have a seventeen trillion dollar debt, and a deficit that fluctuates up to a trillion a year. everyone worth their salt as an expert says we need to do something about the deficit. about ten percent of the budget is spent on the poor, so even if you cut that in half, it wouldn't make much of a difference. even if you privatized social security, we'd still have current expenditures to maintain our promise to current retirees, which almost everyone agrees should be done. and most people dont want it privatized anywaays. perhaps gutting medicare and medicaid would us from having to increase taxes, but is that really what we want, and really necessary? health care is a basic necesssity, a basic right, if you aren't just lazy, no? plus we should be going in the direction of government health care, or tightly regulated private insurance. all other countries spend around ten percent GDP on healthcare, whereas we spend around 17 percent. that's a savings of a trillion dollars in itself. in fact, if we dont want to increase taxes, or gut government health care, the only other way to save the country's finances is via government health care. where else would we cut anything of signfiicance? sure there's plenty of waste and fraud and abuse out there, but as far as i can see, the only structurally significant reform is government health care or increasing taxes. to put it in perspective, roughly, we got 500 billion on defense, 500 billion on interest and debt payments, 500 billion in social security, 500 billion on general government expenses, and 500 billion going on a trillion in health care. most "poor' people and general government expenditures, which are often a rallying cry of conservatives, is not much in way of significance. historically, we had much higher tax rates, and other counties do too, and they all show how a country can do just fine that way. <URL>... i grant that im not sure how superfluous government pensions and perks are factored into the whole budget, there's surely places of mention in these areas. as per "growing" ourselves out of the problem, historically the government's revenue is only 18% of GDP, which is back to its historical average. i dont see how one could expect to do much better. so aside from government health care, i dont see how else we can balance the budget other than by increasing taxes.

dairygirl4u2c

increasing taxes, as a practical matter, is necessary for the financial well being of the USA,,, aside from utilizing government health care to save money. where are the cuts going to come from to balance the budget, if there are no tax increases? background, we have a seventeen trillion dollar debt, and a deficit that fluctuates up to a trillion a year. everyone worth their salt as an expert says we need to do something about the deficit. about ten percent of the budget is spent on the poor, so even if you cut that in half, it wouldn't make much of a difference. even if you privatized social security, we'd still have current expenditures to maintain our promise to current retirees, which almost everyone agrees should be done. and most people dont want it privatized anywaays. perhaps gutting medicare and medicaid would us from having to increase taxes, but is that really what we want, and really necessary? health care is a basic necesssity, a basic right, if you aren't just lazy, no? plus we should be going in the direction of government health care, or tightly regulated private insurance. all other countries spend around ten percent GDP on healthcare, whereas we spend around 17 percent. that's a savings of a trillion dollars in itself. in fact, if we dont want to increase taxes, or gut government health care, the only other way to save the country's finances is via government health care. where else would we cut anything of signfiicance? sure there's plenty of waste and fraud and abuse out there, but as far as i can see, the only structurally significant reform is government health care or increasing taxes. to put it in perspective, roughly, we got 500 billion on defense, 500 billion on interest and debt payments, 500 billion in social security, 500 billion on general government expenses, and 500 billion going on a trillion in health care. most "poor' people and general government expenditures, which are often a rallying cry of conservatives, is not much in way of significance. historically, we had much higher tax rates, and other counties do too, and they all show how a country can do just fine that way. http://newsjunkiepost.com... i grant that im not sure how superfluous government pensions and perks are factored into the whole budget, there's surely places of mention in these areas. as per "growing" ourselves out of the problem, historically the government's revenue is only 18% of GDP, which is back to its historical average. i dont see how one could expect to do much better. so aside from government health care, i dont see how else we can balance the budget other than by increasing taxes.

Politics

increasing-taxes-as-a-practical-matter-is-necessary-for-the-financial-well-being-of-the-USA/2/

those were my arguments. i had wished you would have started your arguments from the get go, but please, go ahead and respond to my arguments, and then expand on your own.

dairygirl4u2c

those were my arguments. i had wished you would have started your arguments from the get go, but please, go ahead and respond to my arguments, and then expand on your own.

Politics

increasing-taxes-as-a-practical-matter-is-necessary-for-the-financial-well-being-of-the-USA/2/

you definitely do well in stressing that tax cuts can make a signifiant improvement on the deficit. which i never contested, id rather have a balanced approach in cuts and increases. but the cuts do not seem politically feasible, and i question the math. feasibiity. i could go through and just criticizse most of them in this regard. fraud isnt always easy to just crack down on, it's never so obvious. eliminating department of commerce, or department of energy etc definitely isnt, they do a lot of good, not to get into whether they are worth it. just politially it aint gonna happen. you said your cuts weren't really that contestable, but they are actually hugely contestable. math. adding up the specific numbers you showed didnt total what i see. id have to trust your reference or assume the vague references that dont specify numbers made up for it. this is too much to assume, and just looking at the overall budget id have to question you could make it happen the way you say i will go along though that cuts can contribute significantly to a balanced budget. im even a lot more libertarian in this regard than most people, i just dont see it as happening all with cuts.

dairygirl4u2c

you definitely do well in stressing that tax cuts can make a signifiant improvement on the deficit. which i never contested, id rather have a balanced approach in cuts and increases. but the cuts do not seem politically feasible, and i question the math. feasibiity. i could go through and just criticizse most of them in this regard. fraud isnt always easy to just crack down on, it's never so obvious. eliminating department of commerce, or department of energy etc definitely isnt, they do a lot of good, not to get into whether they are worth it. just politially it aint gonna happen. you said your cuts weren't really that contestable, but they are actually hugely contestable. math. adding up the specific numbers you showed didnt total what i see. id have to trust your reference or assume the vague references that dont specify numbers made up for it. this is too much to assume, and just looking at the overall budget id have to question you could make it happen the way you say i will go along though that cuts can contribute significantly to a balanced budget. im even a lot more libertarian in this regard than most people, i just dont see it as happening all with cuts.

Politics

increasing-taxes-as-a-practical-matter-is-necessary-for-the-financial-well-being-of-the-USA/2/

My argument is against your position that "infants born alive by accident during partial birth should be murdered" I believe that all murder is wrong, as well as illegal. By definition, there is absolutely no plausible reason as to why we should allow murder to occur, infant or not.

Kleptin

My argument is against your position that "infants born alive by accident during partial birth should be murdered" I believe that all murder is wrong, as well as illegal. By definition, there is absolutely no plausible reason as to why we should allow murder to occur, infant or not.

Politics

infants-born-alive-by-accident-during-partial-birth-should-be-murdered/1/

My opponent isn't responding... I'll repeat my argument: My opponent suggests that infants born alive by accident during PBA should be murdered. I am narrowing the scope to my opponent's notion that murder should be performed. I argue that based on the definition of murder, an unjustified and purposeful ending of innocent human life, should not ever be performed. Just by its definition.

Kleptin

My opponent isn't responding... I'll repeat my argument: My opponent suggests that infants born alive by accident during PBA should be murdered. I am narrowing the scope to my opponent's notion that murder should be performed. I argue that based on the definition of murder, an unjustified and purposeful ending of innocent human life, should not ever be performed. Just by its definition.

Politics

infants-born-alive-by-accident-during-partial-birth-should-be-murdered/1/

Nothing much to add. It's pretty much my opponent's job to prove something. The only argument my opponent makes is something along the lines of "one inch inside, one inch outside". I don't quite understand it. Murder is wrong and illegal one inch inside, one inch outside, right in the middle, above, below, between, through, beyond, to the left, to the right, in a house, with a mouse, in a box, with a fox, etc. By definition, murder is unjustified and wrong. My opponent cannot win. Vote me, night night.

Kleptin

Nothing much to add. It's pretty much my opponent's job to prove something. The only argument my opponent makes is something along the lines of "one inch inside, one inch outside". I don't quite understand it. Murder is wrong and illegal one inch inside, one inch outside, right in the middle, above, below, between, through, beyond, to the left, to the right, in a house, with a mouse, in a box, with a fox, etc. By definition, murder is unjustified and wrong. My opponent cannot win. Vote me, night night.

Politics

infants-born-alive-by-accident-during-partial-birth-should-be-murdered/1/

i would like a rhetorical debate. i am actually against this. but, i want someone who is for partial birth abortion but say they are against this to debate me. what's the difference between an inch in and an inch out of the mother? i say, it's a techincal difference, so the doctor should just kill it right then outside of the womb. or if we want to add some level of respectiviblity, assuming putting the baby back in and then killing it wouldn't count as to respectability..... we can just transport teh baby to a killing room made and sanctified for that sort of purpose. or, we could wait a few days or weeks if the baby is viable until a govenor gives the okay, and then kill it. it's all the same difference.

dairygirl4u2c

i would like a rhetorical debate. i am actually against this. but, i want someone who is for partial birth abortion but say they are against this to debate me. what's the difference between an inch in and an inch out of the mother? i say, it's a techincal difference, so the doctor should just kill it right then outside of the womb. or if we want to add some level of respectiviblity, assuming putting the baby back in and then killing it wouldn't count as to respectability..... we can just transport teh baby to a killing room made and sanctified for that sort of purpose. or, we could wait a few days or weeks if the baby is viable until a govenor gives the okay, and then kill it. it's all the same difference.

Politics

infants-born-alive-by-accident-during-partial-birth-should-be-murdered/1/

-thermodynamics (or general laws of energy if i'm stating thermodynaics wrong) and uncaused cause. energy.... it goes from high to low. our universe is going to the low end. it started at the high end. where did that high end come from? from something other than a higher energy? and the same goes for the uncaused cause. something coming from something else makes more sense than something coming from nothing. is GOd the uncaused cause? if he is, why can't the uinverse? well, the universe is like a clock that was set to tick. something had to set it.... that's what it looks like. or a cue ball that is rolling to break the balls... it looks like there had to be a stick. the stick begs the question of where it came from, but we have to draw a line and say there's a mystery.... we infer the stick simply because somehitng coming from something else makes more sense than something coming from nothing. there was nothing then something happened to hte nothingness. that's what it looks like. for energy or the uncaused cause, as far as we can see there was nothing, then something. we can have theoeries about multiple universes etc or an accordian universe but these are just theories. what we see is that it was nothing then something.,,, that's our best observation. id say energy and uncaused causes both lend itself to saying there is a God to explain it. -Near death experiences. most atheists are no longer atheist after these. it strikes me as the most straightforward explanation to say a person died and went to the after life if that's what they say happened, cause that's what looks like it happened. ive seen atheists who insist the most straightforward explaination is that there is a chemical thing going on. i dont agree. i dont think there's a version of the afterlife inbedded in people's genes, but that's what happens on a common scale. it'd be one thing if only some people experienced it that way, but everyone who has the eperience says the same thing. there's tunnels, people say "it's not your time to die" etc. how is this imbedded in our DNA? how is this common? some people say ketamine gives NDE's. but they dont. they give example which sometimes are like NDEs. so it's not reproducable as far as we know. -what appear to be miracles. these things dont happen to atheists. the burden is on them to show similar things happening to them. -complexity. look at an eye, or a watch, etc. this is the weakest point but it is evidence nonetheless. i realize evolution and billions of years could cause complexity that we see.

dairygirl4u2c

-thermodynamics (or general laws of energy if i'm stating thermodynaics wrong) and uncaused cause. energy.... it goes from high to low. our universe is going to the low end. it started at the high end. where did that high end come from? from something other than a higher energy? and the same goes for the uncaused cause. something coming from something else makes more sense than something coming from nothing. is GOd the uncaused cause? if he is, why can't the uinverse? well, the universe is like a clock that was set to tick. something had to set it.... that's what it looks like. or a cue ball that is rolling to break the balls... it looks like there had to be a stick. the stick begs the question of where it came from, but we have to draw a line and say there's a mystery.... we infer the stick simply because somehitng coming from something else makes more sense than something coming from nothing. there was nothing then something happened to hte nothingness. that's what it looks like. for energy or the uncaused cause, as far as we can see there was nothing, then something. we can have theoeries about multiple universes etc or an accordian universe but these are just theories. what we see is that it was nothing then something.,,, that's our best observation. id say energy and uncaused causes both lend itself to saying there is a God to explain it. -Near death experiences. most atheists are no longer atheist after these. it strikes me as the most straightforward explanation to say a person died and went to the after life if that's what they say happened, cause that's what looks like it happened. ive seen atheists who insist the most straightforward explaination is that there is a chemical thing going on. i dont agree. i dont think there's a version of the afterlife inbedded in people's genes, but that's what happens on a common scale. it'd be one thing if only some people experienced it that way, but everyone who has the eperience says the same thing. there's tunnels, people say "it's not your time to die" etc. how is this imbedded in our DNA? how is this common? some people say ketamine gives NDE's. but they dont. they give example which sometimes are like NDEs. so it's not reproducable as far as we know. -what appear to be miracles. these things dont happen to atheists. the burden is on them to show similar things happening to them. -complexity. look at an eye, or a watch, etc. this is the weakest point but it is evidence nonetheless. i realize evolution and billions of years could cause complexity that we see.

Philosophy

inferring-the-existence-of-God-is-reasonable/1/

to us it's a mystery. that anything exists is amazing. but i just gave a bunch of arguments. id expect a little more from con.

dairygirl4u2c

to us it's a mystery. that anything exists is amazing. but i just gave a bunch of arguments. id expect a little more from con.

Philosophy

inferring-the-existence-of-God-is-reasonable/1/

sdf

dairygirl4u2c

sdf

Philosophy

inferring-the-existence-of-God-is-reasonable/1/

how is god real? it makes no sense I mean how did he create the earth and all its people?

shopkin

how is god real? it makes no sense I mean how did he create the earth and all its people?

Philosophy

inferring-the-existence-of-God-is-reasonable/1/

just kidding i completly believe in god i thought you might know more information than i do

shopkin

just kidding i completly believe in god i thought you might know more information than i do

Philosophy

inferring-the-existence-of-God-is-reasonable/1/

no I mean he isn't that great of a trainer to begin with he uses methods that just about everyone uses oh put then here oh now let them back out oh back inside bad doggy

itsagodthing

no I mean he isn't that great of a trainer to begin with he uses methods that just about everyone uses oh put then here oh now let them back out oh back inside bad doggy

Society

is-Cesar-Millan-the-dog-whisper-a-good-dog-trainer-for-aggressive-dogs/1/

people say Cesar is a horrible dog trainer because he uses the dominate position towards aggressive dogs. i have reviewed videos and i believe he is using good training skills to rehabilitate the aggressive dogs. i believe he is using effective skills and not hurting the dog in any way.

kperez13

people say Cesar is a horrible dog trainer because he uses the dominate position towards aggressive dogs. i have reviewed videos and i believe he is using good training skills to rehabilitate the aggressive dogs. i believe he is using effective skills and not hurting the dog in any way.

Society

is-Cesar-Millan-the-dog-whisper-a-good-dog-trainer-for-aggressive-dogs/1/

I accept. BOP is on PRO.

ResponsiblyIrresponsible

I accept. BOP is on PRO.

Education

is-Hendersons-Boys-books-better-than-cherub-books/1/

PRO offers nothing more than an assertion--he basically restates the resolution without providing any substantive argument or reason he believes that to be true, nor an objective criteria by which we can gauge whether one is better. He was affirming that one was better than the other, while in order to win I only needed to negate--I did not need to defend the counter that Cherub books are better, but if that option remained on the table, or if the option that they are equal in worth remains, you vote CON by default. Therefore, you vote to negate because PRO has given us no reason to think that one is objectively better than the other, or that there's any objective means by which to weigh that.

ResponsiblyIrresponsible

PRO offers nothing more than an assertion--he basically restates the resolution without providing any substantive argument or reason he believes that to be true, nor an objective criteria by which we can gauge whether one is better. He was affirming that one was better than the other, while in order to win I only needed to negate--I did not need to defend the counter that Cherub books are better, but if that option remained on the table, or if the option that they are equal in worth remains, you vote CON by default. Therefore, you vote to negate because PRO has given us no reason to think that one is objectively better than the other, or that there's any objective means by which to weigh that.

Education

is-Hendersons-Boys-books-better-than-cherub-books/1/

This is for Henderson's Boys, they are better

seanbird3

This is for Henderson's Boys, they are better

Education

is-Hendersons-Boys-books-better-than-cherub-books/1/

Henderson's boys books are WAY better than Cherub

seanbird3

Henderson's boys books are WAY better than Cherub

Education

is-Hendersons-Boys-books-better-than-cherub-books/1/

America's food supply is not unsafe to eat. In fact, it is unsafe to NOT eat, due to the risk of starvation. Thus, I must negate, America's food supply is quite safe to eat. First, I would point out that my opponent has not shown anything that is unsafe about it. Let us consider, too, that most of the potentially dangerous substances in food are neutralized in the cooking process. One can safely eat a piece of chicken that happens to have salmonella. One must simply cook it first, and not be irresponsible in causing cross-contamination through utensils or cutting boards. Also, let us consider that we would die without food. There is nothing inferior about America's cropland or livestock, so there is no reason to suggest that eating food from other nations is less risky. And since it is more safe to eat than to not eat, it cannot be said that it is unsafe to eat. And now I'll wait for my opponent to explain why the food supply of America is unsafe to eat.

beem0r

America's food supply is not unsafe to eat. In fact, it is unsafe to NOT eat, due to the risk of starvation. Thus, I must negate, America's food supply is quite safe to eat. First, I would point out that my opponent has not shown anything that is unsafe about it. Let us consider, too, that most of the potentially dangerous substances in food are neutralized in the cooking process. One can safely eat a piece of chicken that happens to have salmonella. One must simply cook it first, and not be irresponsible in causing cross-contamination through utensils or cutting boards. Also, let us consider that we would die without food. There is nothing inferior about America's cropland or livestock, so there is no reason to suggest that eating food from other nations is less risky. And since it is more safe to eat than to not eat, it cannot be said that it is unsafe to eat. And now I'll wait for my opponent to explain why the food supply of America is unsafe to eat.

Health

is-america-s-food-supply-to-unsafe-to-eat/1/

You are no doubt an American. You no doubt eat food which resides in America [and is therefore part of the American food supply]. Do you consider this unsafe? Would you stop doing this, due to safety issues? One person died last year from contaminated spinach. Does that mean it's not safe to eat spinach? More people than that died walking on sidewalks due to being hit by drunk drivers. Walking on sidewalks is not unsafe. Sure, that batch of spinach might have been unsafe to eat. But overall, the fod supply in America is VERY safe to eat. We have better food safety regulations than most countries, and most countries have foodborne illness much more often. Also, consider that the contaminations you speak of are in the past, whereas the resolution is set in the present "IS america's food supply to unsafe to eat". Since there are presently no major contaminations, the food supply IS indeed safe to eat, by any standards. The only significant problem we have with food in America is people eating too MUCH of it. And in this case, the food isn't unsafe to eat, the amount is.

beem0r

You are no doubt an American. You no doubt eat food which resides in America [and is therefore part of the American food supply]. Do you consider this unsafe? Would you stop doing this, due to safety issues? One person died last year from contaminated spinach. Does that mean it's not safe to eat spinach? More people than that died walking on sidewalks due to being hit by drunk drivers. Walking on sidewalks is not unsafe. Sure, that batch of spinach might have been unsafe to eat. But overall, the fod supply in America is VERY safe to eat. We have better food safety regulations than most countries, and most countries have foodborne illness much more often. Also, consider that the contaminations you speak of are in the past, whereas the resolution is set in the present "IS america's food supply to unsafe to eat". Since there are presently no major contaminations, the food supply IS indeed safe to eat, by any standards. The only significant problem we have with food in America is people eating too MUCH of it. And in this case, the food isn't unsafe to eat, the amount is.

Health

is-america-s-food-supply-to-unsafe-to-eat/1/

Oh, believe me, I quiver with fright each time I sit at the dinner table. Will I get sick this time? Should I eat it? Actually, I just lied very blatantly. Of course I feel safe eating food from America. America is the most prosperous nation in the world. One would think, as I said before, that other nations have much worse problems with their food supply, something my opponent has made no counter to. Hundreds of millions of meals are eaten each day in America, and from this vast number, only a handful result in sickness, or anything harmful to health. And all of them [or at least almost all of them] result in positive health benefits, due to nutritional value inherent in food, including America's. It is not unsafe to eat America's food supply. Rather, it is quite safe, and indeed a wise idea.

beem0r

Oh, believe me, I quiver with fright each time I sit at the dinner table. Will I get sick this time? Should I eat it? Actually, I just lied very blatantly. Of course I feel safe eating food from America. America is the most prosperous nation in the world. One would think, as I said before, that other nations have much worse problems with their food supply, something my opponent has made no counter to. Hundreds of millions of meals are eaten each day in America, and from this vast number, only a handful result in sickness, or anything harmful to health. And all of them [or at least almost all of them] result in positive health benefits, due to nutritional value inherent in food, including America's. It is not unsafe to eat America's food supply. Rather, it is quite safe, and indeed a wise idea.

Health

is-america-s-food-supply-to-unsafe-to-eat/1/

i think america's food is too unsafe to eat. please tell me your opinion!

cami

i think america's food is too unsafe to eat. please tell me your opinion!

Health

is-america-s-food-supply-to-unsafe-to-eat/1/

actually i ask you this because i am doing a servey. but i will say that i strongly believe that america's food supply is contaminated. just last week 11 different states had to turn down meat due to how contaminated it was, and your telling me thats safe? E. coli was found in spinach last year and some one died. and your telling me that's safe? there has been complaints of ssalmenelia in peanut butter... so yes you could starve if you dont eat but you can eat things that are not carrying illnesses.

cami

actually i ask you this because i am doing a servey. but i will say that i strongly believe that america's food supply is contaminated. just last week 11 different states had to turn down meat due to how contaminated it was, and your telling me thats safe? E. coli was found in spinach last year and some one died. and your telling me that's safe? there has been complaints of ssalmenelia in peanut butter... so yes you could starve if you dont eat but you can eat things that are not carrying illnesses.

Health

is-america-s-food-supply-to-unsafe-to-eat/1/

so you would tell me that even though only 2% of America's food is actually inspected u would still feel safe eating it?

cami

so you would tell me that even though only 2% of America's food is actually inspected u would still feel safe eating it?

Health

is-america-s-food-supply-to-unsafe-to-eat/1/

Hello, PRO. I assume you are talking about 'The Flash' and 'Green Arrow' from the DC comics. I accept this debate. Your thesis is: 'The Flash is better than the Green Arrow,' because you are pro/for. My thesis is: 'The Flash is not better than the Green Arrow,' because I am CON. The burden of proof is on PRO--(s)he has to prove that The Flash is indeed better than the Green Arrow to win this debate. I don't have to prove that The Green Arrow is better than The Flash, but by the bare minimum, to win this debate, I have to prove that The Flash is no better than the Green Arrow. In other words, PRO has to prove that The Flash > Green Arrow to win this debate, where I have to prove that The Flash = Green Arrow or The Flash < Green Arrow. I'd like to point out that PRO is arguing that The Flash is better than Green Arrow, but (s)he states the following: 'the flash can run fast but arrow is awesome with a bow' (S)He says that 'the flash can run fast,' but doesn't explain why running fast makes The Flash better than Green Arrow. (S)He then goes on to agree with my thesis, saying: 'but arrow is awesome with a bow.' Because PRO agreed with my thesis that The Flash is not better than the Green Arrow. Because PRO agreed with my thesis, this debate is over. Therefore, vote CON.

EAT_IT_SUKA

Hello, PRO. I assume you are talking about 'The Flash' and 'Green Arrow' from the DC comics. I accept this debate. Your thesis is: 'The Flash is better than the Green Arrow,' because you are pro/for. My thesis is: 'The Flash is not better than the Green Arrow,' because I am CON. The burden of proof is on PRO--(s)he has to prove that The Flash is indeed better than the Green Arrow to win this debate. I don't have to prove that The Green Arrow is better than The Flash, but by the bare minimum, to win this debate, I have to prove that The Flash is no better than the Green Arrow. In other words, PRO has to prove that The Flash > Green Arrow to win this debate, where I have to prove that The Flash = Green Arrow or The Flash < Green Arrow. I'd like to point out that PRO is arguing that The Flash is better than Green Arrow, but (s)he states the following: 'the flash can run fast but arrow is awesome with a bow' (S)He says that 'the flash can run fast,' but doesn't explain why running fast makes The Flash better than Green Arrow. (S)He then goes on to agree with my thesis, saying: 'but arrow is awesome with a bow.' Because PRO agreed with my thesis that The Flash is not better than the Green Arrow. Because PRO agreed with my thesis, this debate is over. Therefore, vote CON.

Entertainment

is-flash-better-than-arrow/1/

Extend. Because PRO fully forfeited this debate, I urge you to vote CON. Thank you.

EAT_IT_SUKA

Extend. Because PRO fully forfeited this debate, I urge you to vote CON. Thank you.

Entertainment

is-flash-better-than-arrow/1/

the flash can run fast but arrow is awesome with a bow

pennfield_246

the flash can run fast but arrow is awesome with a bow

Entertainment

is-flash-better-than-arrow/1/

I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. Since this is a five round debate, I will simply ask my opponent to refrain/add more argument. I am a little confused about the resolution. Please see source (1) before posting your next argument. Source (1) will be main point for future arguments. Thank you

Koopin

I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. Since this is a five round debate, I will simply ask my opponent to refrain/add more argument. I am a little confused about the resolution. Please see source (1) before posting your next argument. Source (1) will be main point for future arguments. Thank you

Religion

is-life-fair-or-not-fair/1/

I agree with your statement that life is not Fair. It is unfair that millions of people die of hunger while I stuff my face full of KFC. It is unfair that people live out in the cruel cold streets while you sleep in the comfort of your own home. It is unfair that I left that link for you to click on in source 1. It is unfair that I accepted this debate and are playing on your mistake of being PRO. I say life is unfair because I am CON on the subject "life is fair." You say life is fair because you are PRO on the "subject "life is fair." I look forward to your arguments.

Koopin

I agree with your statement that life is not Fair. It is unfair that millions of people die of hunger while I stuff my face full of KFC. It is unfair that people live out in the cruel cold streets while you sleep in the comfort of your own home. It is unfair that I left that link for you to click on in source 1. It is unfair that I accepted this debate and are playing on your mistake of being PRO. I say life is unfair because I am CON on the subject "life is fair." You say life is fair because you are PRO on the "subject "life is fair." I look forward to your arguments.

Religion

is-life-fair-or-not-fair/1/

Yes, it is sad that people are hungry. And yes we should try to help them. But hunger is not the only thing that is unfair. Even where you live (Australia) there are people who need help. People who are losing their job or cannot find a place to stay. We can try to help them as much as we can, but sadly we cannot help everyone. Therefore life is unfair.

Koopin

Yes, it is sad that people are hungry. And yes we should try to help them. But hunger is not the only thing that is unfair. Even where you live (Australia) there are people who need help. People who are losing their job or cannot find a place to stay. We can try to help them as much as we can, but sadly we cannot help everyone. Therefore life is unfair.

Religion

is-life-fair-or-not-fair/1/

Agreed.

Koopin

Agreed.

Religion

is-life-fair-or-not-fair/1/

Ha ha, thank you for the compliment. Audience, we have both agreed life is unfair.

Koopin

Ha ha, thank you for the compliment. Audience, we have both agreed life is unfair.

Religion

is-life-fair-or-not-fair/1/

I chose this topic to see if really life is fare or is not fair. and it's a bit hard for me to decide that life is fair or not because example: if life was fair no one would would be so poor and all of would be rich and wealthy. we wouldn't be worried about money because and if I bought something every one would do exactly the same thing, because we are all equally rich and have the same amount of money so that's why life would be fair. and another example is that if life wasn't' fair and not exactly everyone was rich we wouldn't be treating each other equally there's one short story that I want to say I don't know if you will understand but just try. it's about life being not fair. okay in y religion we have prophets. the last prophet was Muhammad (S.A.W) and in his time god made him as he's messenger and some people accepted to go to the straight path but the rich and needy said no and were trying to kill him. but god but god gave him iman(faith) so he protected him from the rich people because they were so cruel and punishing for doing nothing others so that's why I say life isn't fair to those people.......... and my opponent should be strong and think before he/she speaks. and I a sorry if I had any spelling mistakes. thank you.

sonikiza

I chose this topic to see if really life is fare or is not fair. and it's a bit hard for me to decide that life is fair or not because example: if life was fair no one would would be so poor and all of would be rich and wealthy. we wouldn't be worried about money because and if I bought something every one would do exactly the same thing, because we are all equally rich and have the same amount of money so that's why life would be fair. and another example is that if life wasn't' fair and not exactly everyone was rich we wouldn't be treating each other equally there's one short story that I want to say I don't know if you will understand but just try. it's about life being not fair. okay in y religion we have prophets. the last prophet was Muhammad (S.A.W) and in his time god made him as he's messenger and some people accepted to go to the straight path but the rich and needy said no and were trying to kill him. but god but god gave him iman(faith) so he protected him from the rich people because they were so cruel and punishing for doing nothing others so that's why I say life isn't fair to those people.......... and my opponent should be strong and think before he/she speaks. and I a sorry if I had any spelling mistakes. thank you.

Religion

is-life-fair-or-not-fair/1/

I chose this topic to see if really life is fare or is not fare. and it's a bit hard for me to decide that life is fair or not because . example: if life was fair no one would would be so poor and all us of would be rich and wealthy. we wouldn't be worried about money because and if I bought something like a huge king bed, every one would do exactly the same thing, because we are all equally rich and have the same amount of money so that's why life would be fair. and another example is that if life wasn't' fair and some people were rich we wouldn't be treating each other equally there's one short story that I want to say I don't know if you will understand but just try to. it's about life not being fair. okay in my religion we have (prophets)messenger of god. the last prophet was Muhammad (S.A.W) peace be upon him. and in his time god made him as he's messenger and some people accepted to go to the straight path but the rich and needy said no and were trying to kill him. but god gave him iman(faith) so he protected him from the rich people because they were so cruel and punishing the poor, I say life isn't fair to those people.......... and my opponent should be strong and think before he/she speaks. and I a sorry if I had any spelling mistakes. thank you.

sonikiza

I chose this topic to see if really life is fare or is not fare. and it's a bit hard for me to decide that life is fair or not because . example: if life was fair no one would would be so poor and all us of would be rich and wealthy. we wouldn't be worried about money because and if I bought something like a huge king bed, every one would do exactly the same thing, because we are all equally rich and have the same amount of money so that's why life would be fair. and another example is that if life wasn't' fair and some people were rich we wouldn't be treating each other equally there's one short story that I want to say I don't know if you will understand but just try to. it's about life not being fair. okay in my religion we have (prophets)messenger of god. the last prophet was Muhammad (S.A.W) peace be upon him. and in his time god made him as he's messenger and some people accepted to go to the straight path but the rich and needy said no and were trying to kill him. but god gave him iman(faith) so he protected him from the rich people because they were so cruel and punishing the poor, I say life isn't fair to those people.......... and my opponent should be strong and think before he/she speaks. and I a sorry if I had any spelling mistakes. thank you.

Religion

is-life-fair-or-not-fair/1/

okay you koopin your like my best friend in the hole debate website okay life is unfair because am in Australia and everyone in Africa are so hungry and it's so fair so we need to help em okay

sonikiza

okay you koopin your like my best friend in the hole debate website okay life is unfair because am in Australia and everyone in Africa are so hungry and it's so fair so we need to help em okay

Religion

is-life-fair-or-not-fair/1/

I agree that we can't help everyone and all that so we need to try for example I would go to Kenya and bring some people here but not all of them. okay

sonikiza

I agree that we can't help everyone and all that so we need to try for example I would go to Kenya and bring some people here but not all of them. okay

Religion

is-life-fair-or-not-fair/1/

see that's why your cool man. and wow you know more an me on debate because you have been here longer than me.

sonikiza

see that's why your cool man. and wow you know more an me on debate because you have been here longer than me.

Religion

is-life-fair-or-not-fair/1/

Is there a god?

Joshau

Is there a god?

Funny

is-there-a-ghost-in-the-wight-house/1/

I firmly believe the answer is "Tacos". I base this answer on the fact that a "wight" is a type of spirit ( <URL>... ) therefore it's his house and thus Tacos.

blackkid

I firmly believe the answer is "Tacos". I base this answer on the fact that a "wight" is a type of spirit ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) therefore it's his house and thus Tacos.

Funny

is-there-a-ghost-in-the-wight-house/1/

Boop.

blackkid

Boop.

Funny

is-there-a-ghost-in-the-wight-house/1/

Ole!

blackkid

Ole!

Funny

is-there-a-ghost-in-the-wight-house/1/

all are saying that quran oppose the life outside the earth..But i cant see any proof for that.

AnwarSalahueen

all are saying that quran oppose the life outside the earth..But i cant see any proof for that.

Religion

is-there-any-evidence-in-Holy-Quran-that-the-life-exists-outside-the-eath/1/

Hello AnwarSalahueen, thank you for hosting this debate. I want to review what we know at this point. The question at hand: "is there any evidence in Holy Quran that the life exists outside the eath?" PRO then states " all are saying that quran oppose the life outside the earth..But i cant see any proof for that." I, as CON, state this exact position for myself as well, I do not know of any evidence IN THE HOLY QURAN that life exists outside the earth, and will challenge any assertions to the contrary. As PRO agrees with CON's position and is either unwilling or unable to argue his case, I move to end this debate as PRO has conceded.

wrichcirw

Hello AnwarSalahueen, thank you for hosting this debate. I want to review what we know at this point. The question at hand: "is there any evidence in Holy Quran that the life exists outside the eath?" PRO then states " all are saying that quran oppose the life outside the earth..But i cant see any proof for that." I, as CON, state this exact position for myself as well, I do not know of any evidence IN THE HOLY QURAN that life exists outside the earth, and will challenge any assertions to the contrary. As PRO agrees with CON's position and is either unwilling or unable to argue his case, I move to end this debate as PRO has conceded.

Religion

is-there-any-evidence-in-Holy-Quran-that-the-life-exists-outside-the-eath/1/

PRO has conceded. Vote CON.

wrichcirw

PRO has conceded. Vote CON.

Religion

is-there-any-evidence-in-Holy-Quran-that-the-life-exists-outside-the-eath/1/

Hello, and my name is ET and the topic of this debate is "is tv harmful". Well, here i go. my first reason is: watching late night shows has been connected with poor sleeping patterns in individuals. This result is less concentration by these individuals during daytime, they are less alert and are usually subjected to emotional tramuna. This is my second reason: TV helps proomoting violence in the society. most people cannot differiate between reality and drama. My third reason is that TV can slow down young children's development. It will make students not exercise much. Done!

ETKANG

Hello, and my name is ET and the topic of this debate is "is tv harmful". Well, here i go. my first reason is: watching late night shows has been connected with poor sleeping patterns in individuals. This result is less concentration by these individuals during daytime, they are less alert and are usually subjected to emotional tramuna. This is my second reason: TV helps proomoting violence in the society. most people cannot differiate between reality and drama. My third reason is that TV can slow down young children's development. It will make students not exercise much. Done!

Entertainment

is-tv-harmful/1/

I negate, that 'TV is harmful'. As long as my opponent does not prove that TV is harmful, I win the debate. I shall do that by eliminating his arguments. His first contention discusses late night TV shows and sleeping patterns. However, I don't think that this means that TV is necessarily harmful, as anything can be harmful if it is misused. Paper can be connected with suffocation if you stuff it down your throat, but there's a reason why we don't think of paper as harmful because when you're using it normally, i.e. writing drawing or printing on it, it doesn't really have any harmful effects. The fact that TV can be used late at night and that it disturbs sleeping patterns is irrelevant to TV itself. I'll list a few more items that we don't consider to be harmful but can be harmful next round if my opponent asks. Also, it's conditional, so it doesn't prove that TV in all usage is harmful. Grammar dictates that if a statement is "X is Y" where X is a noun and Y is an adjective, then Y is an attribute of X at all times. Of course, the resolution is in a question form of that statement so I shall modify my example: "The cup is plastic". His argument here is basically that "Sometimes the cup is plastic", and what I'm saying is that the argument doesn't fly if the resolution says that the cup is [always] plastic - or rather, that TV is [always] harmful. The second reason he presents is that TV promotes violence, and a subpoint of that is that most people cannot tell the difference between reality and drama. I respectfully disagree. I think that most people are able to tell the difference between reality and what's on a TV screen, as we all adjust volume, flip through channels and maybe turn on captions once in a while. While I agree that most people also get drawn into certain shows or movies on TV while they're watching it, this isn't a justification to believe that people think what they saw on TV is also part of the real world when they finish watching whatever they were watching. The justification that my opponent uses does not link to the point he is trying to prove. His last argument doesn't work at all. TV slows down children's development? I didn't learn to speak unbroken english until second grade, and guess where I learned most of how to speak english? BILL NYE THE SCIENCE GUY and THE MAGIC SCHOOL BUS. Those are TV shows, by the way. I also learned a lot of science from them at the same time. (You don't need to understand that much english to understand the aforementioned series.) So, there you have it. TV actually speeds up children's development, as for ESL students it will help them learn english, and for pretty much all students it can help them learn many things - in my case, science. His part about exercise doesn't matter, as TV does not necessarily impend on exercise time. Just don't sit down on the couch and watch TV all day. This conditionality was discussed in my second response to his first point. Since his warrant isn't sufficient to affirm, it's conditional, and his justifications don't link to his points, you vote CON.

Rezzealaux

I negate, that 'TV is harmful'. As long as my opponent does not prove that TV is harmful, I win the debate. I shall do that by eliminating his arguments. His first contention discusses late night TV shows and sleeping patterns. However, I don't think that this means that TV is necessarily harmful, as anything can be harmful if it is misused. Paper can be connected with suffocation if you stuff it down your throat, but there's a reason why we don't think of paper as harmful because when you're using it normally, i.e. writing drawing or printing on it, it doesn't really have any harmful effects. The fact that TV can be used late at night and that it disturbs sleeping patterns is irrelevant to TV itself. I'll list a few more items that we don't consider to be harmful but can be harmful next round if my opponent asks. Also, it's conditional, so it doesn't prove that TV in all usage is harmful. Grammar dictates that if a statement is "X is Y" where X is a noun and Y is an adjective, then Y is an attribute of X at all times. Of course, the resolution is in a question form of that statement so I shall modify my example: "The cup is plastic". His argument here is basically that "Sometimes the cup is plastic", and what I'm saying is that the argument doesn't fly if the resolution says that the cup is [always] plastic - or rather, that TV is [always] harmful. The second reason he presents is that TV promotes violence, and a subpoint of that is that most people cannot tell the difference between reality and drama. I respectfully disagree. I think that most people are able to tell the difference between reality and what's on a TV screen, as we all adjust volume, flip through channels and maybe turn on captions once in a while. While I agree that most people also get drawn into certain shows or movies on TV while they're watching it, this isn't a justification to believe that people think what they saw on TV is also part of the real world when they finish watching whatever they were watching. The justification that my opponent uses does not link to the point he is trying to prove. His last argument doesn't work at all. TV slows down children's development? I didn't learn to speak unbroken english until second grade, and guess where I learned most of how to speak english? BILL NYE THE SCIENCE GUY and THE MAGIC SCHOOL BUS. Those are TV shows, by the way. I also learned a lot of science from them at the same time. (You don't need to understand that much english to understand the aforementioned series.) So, there you have it. TV actually speeds up children's development, as for ESL students it will help them learn english, and for pretty much all students it can help them learn many things - in my case, science. His part about exercise doesn't matter, as TV does not necessarily impend on exercise time. Just don't sit down on the couch and watch TV all day. This conditionality was discussed in my second response to his first point. Since his warrant isn't sufficient to affirm, it's conditional, and his justifications don't link to his points, you vote CON.

Entertainment

is-tv-harmful/1/

I negate, that "[U]rbanization is solely responsible for pollution". Urbanization: to make or cause to become urban, as a locality. (dictionary.com) Urban: of, pertaining to, or designating a city or town. (dictionary.com) Solely Responsible: The only cause of (combination of dictionary.com definitions) Pollution: the introduction of harmful substances or products into the environment. (dictionary.com) Observation: Since "pollution" is unspecified, we will assume that it refers to pollution on a global scale. My opponent has the burden of proof of showing that Urbanization is the one and only cause of pollution, as it is the resolution he wrote and put forth as true. Even if I lose all of my arguments and refutations, if he has not proved the resolution true then you default CON because CON lacks such a burden. "i feel yes urbanization is responsible for the pollution...." 1) And I feel no. Who wins? 2) "feelings" in this context are irrelevant to truth. "of course wen it comes of land for increasing people in urban...one goes for deforestation nd contributes in contamination of air." 1) I can't really read what all of this says, so if I miss something I'll respond to it next round. 2) But from what I can figure out, I must disagree. If anything, urbanization SLOWS DOWN deforestation, as it attempts to put more stuff in a lesser amount of space. What causes the most deforestation is FARMING, which requires FLAT LAND - unlike in urban food production methods, which use processes such as Hydroponics. Basically, that argument works for me. 3) Yes, there is "contamination" of air inside big cities... but it's the same in the countryside. I'm pretty sure most of the tractors out there are still running on diesel. I'm also pretty sure that those tractors aren't getting 30+ MPG. Actually, it doesn't matter what their MPG is. They're polluting the air as well, destroying PRO's position that urbanization is the sole cause for pollution. "wen it comes of vehicles there is no escape to the deadly gasses nd the shouting horns." 1) Well, I just talked about an example where vehicles aren't in cities. Cross apply that here. 2) I'm assuming he means sound pollution when he talks about the horns. I'm pretty sure those horns can be used just as well out in the mountains, so it's still nonunique to urban areas. "all kind of pollution exist due to us." 1) Nontopical. We're talking about urbanization's link to pollution, not humanity's link to pollution. 2) Volcanoes throw up lots of stuff into the air. They're not caused by urbanization. 3) Stardust (or rather, remains of meteors) also puts bad stuff into the air. They're not caused by urbanization. "even if v c for agriculture poin if view urban farmers afford to use more nd more of the pesticides nd other chemicals which pollute the soil nd make the land unproductive." 1) I don't know what "v c" means, so if that becomes important I'll respond to it next round. 2) Urban farmers don't have to use pesticides and other chemicals. 3) Rural farmers can use pesticides and other chemicals. 4) Hydroponics doesn't use soil. "so in a way v ourself have created problem for us!" 1) Nontopical. 2) Not an argument. I await an argument from PRO that achieves his burden of proof.

Rezzealaux

I negate, that "[U]rbanization is solely responsible for pollution". Urbanization: to make or cause to become urban, as a locality. (dictionary.com) Urban: of, pertaining to, or designating a city or town. (dictionary.com) Solely Responsible: The only cause of (combination of dictionary.com definitions) Pollution: the introduction of harmful substances or products into the environment. (dictionary.com) Observation: Since "pollution" is unspecified, we will assume that it refers to pollution on a global scale. My opponent has the burden of proof of showing that Urbanization is the one and only cause of pollution, as it is the resolution he wrote and put forth as true. Even if I lose all of my arguments and refutations, if he has not proved the resolution true then you default CON because CON lacks such a burden. "i feel yes urbanization is responsible for the pollution...." 1) And I feel no. Who wins? 2) "feelings" in this context are irrelevant to truth. "of course wen it comes of land for increasing people in urban...one goes for deforestation nd contributes in contamination of air." 1) I can't really read what all of this says, so if I miss something I'll respond to it next round. 2) But from what I can figure out, I must disagree. If anything, urbanization SLOWS DOWN deforestation, as it attempts to put more stuff in a lesser amount of space. What causes the most deforestation is FARMING, which requires FLAT LAND - unlike in urban food production methods, which use processes such as Hydroponics. Basically, that argument works for me. 3) Yes, there is "contamination" of air inside big cities... but it's the same in the countryside. I'm pretty sure most of the tractors out there are still running on diesel. I'm also pretty sure that those tractors aren't getting 30+ MPG. Actually, it doesn't matter what their MPG is. They're polluting the air as well, destroying PRO's position that urbanization is the sole cause for pollution. "wen it comes of vehicles there is no escape to the deadly gasses nd the shouting horns." 1) Well, I just talked about an example where vehicles aren't in cities. Cross apply that here. 2) I'm assuming he means sound pollution when he talks about the horns. I'm pretty sure those horns can be used just as well out in the mountains, so it's still nonunique to urban areas. "all kind of pollution exist due to us." 1) Nontopical. We're talking about urbanization's link to pollution, not humanity's link to pollution. 2) Volcanoes throw up lots of stuff into the air. They're not caused by urbanization. 3) Stardust (or rather, remains of meteors) also puts bad stuff into the air. They're not caused by urbanization. "even if v c for agriculture poin if view urban farmers afford to use more nd more of the pesticides nd other chemicals which pollute the soil nd make the land unproductive." 1) I don't know what "v c" means, so if that becomes important I'll respond to it next round. 2) Urban farmers don't have to use pesticides and other chemicals. 3) Rural farmers can use pesticides and other chemicals. 4) Hydroponics doesn't use soil. "so in a way v ourself have created problem for us!" 1) Nontopical. 2) Not an argument. I await an argument from PRO that achieves his burden of proof.

Education

is-urbanization-solely-responsible-for-pollution...../1/

"u jst giving a simple logic for hiding our mistakes...." And ignoring my refutations does not take them out. "i know that urbanization is a realistic approach but dont u think that with such a rapidly growing urbanization ratio we have made this earth more polluted then what it was ears ago!" Well actually on a per capita ratio, I think we're polluting the earth much LESS than we have in the past. In the cities, many things run on ELECTRICITY (which doesn't pollute much) as opposed to in the countryside, where many things run on DIESEL. Reapply the "tractor" and "deforestation" points from my last round here. "i'm saying dont go for direct cause but if you go to grass roots of anything you'll find urbanization is the main cause!" If you go to the bottom of everything, then you'll find that existence is the root cause of all our problems. But I digress. My opponent has thus far still failed to show that urbanization is the sole cause for pollution. He is not meeting the burden of proof and therefore is losing the debate.

Rezzealaux

"u jst giving a simple logic for hiding our mistakes...." And ignoring my refutations does not take them out. "i know that urbanization is a realistic approach but dont u think that with such a rapidly growing urbanization ratio we have made this earth more polluted then what it was ears ago!" Well actually on a per capita ratio, I think we're polluting the earth much LESS than we have in the past. In the cities, many things run on ELECTRICITY (which doesn't pollute much) as opposed to in the countryside, where many things run on DIESEL. Reapply the "tractor" and "deforestation" points from my last round here. "i'm saying dont go for direct cause but if you go to grass roots of anything you'll find urbanization is the main cause!" If you go to the bottom of everything, then you'll find that existence is the root cause of all our problems. But I digress. My opponent has thus far still failed to show that urbanization is the sole cause for pollution. He is not meeting the burden of proof and therefore is losing the debate.

Education

is-urbanization-solely-responsible-for-pollution...../1/

"can u give me out some more points to clearify my doubts..." How many points do I need to make to win this debate? Well, none really. As long as my opponent has not given any positive reason to believe the resolution is true, then you default vote CON due to burden of proof. On top of that, however, I've already made more than enough arguments to show that urbanization isn't solely responsible for pollution: the resolution says solely, meaning all, and that means all I need to do to disprove it is provide just one example. And I've provided tractors, volcanoes, and stardust. (There are plenty more, of course. I just haven't mentioned them.) None of which were responded to. Since my opponent has failed to meet the burden of proof, And since I have given reasons to believe that the resolution is outright false, You vote CON.

Rezzealaux

"can u give me out some more points to clearify my doubts..." How many points do I need to make to win this debate? Well, none really. As long as my opponent has not given any positive reason to believe the resolution is true, then you default vote CON due to burden of proof. On top of that, however, I've already made more than enough arguments to show that urbanization isn't solely responsible for pollution: the resolution says solely, meaning all, and that means all I need to do to disprove it is provide just one example. And I've provided tractors, volcanoes, and stardust. (There are plenty more, of course. I just haven't mentioned them.) None of which were responded to. Since my opponent has failed to meet the burden of proof, And since I have given reasons to believe that the resolution is outright false, You vote CON.

Education

is-urbanization-solely-responsible-for-pollution...../1/

i feel yes urbanization is responsible for the pollution.... of course wen it comes of land for increasing people in urban...one goes for deforestation nd contributes in contamination of air. wen it comes of vehicles there is no escape to the deadly gasses nd the shouting horns. all kind of pollution exist due to us. even if v c for agriculture poin if view urban farmers afford to use more nd more of the pesticides nd other chemicals which pollute the soil nd make the land unproductive. so in a way v ourself have created problem for us!

salluneorock

i feel yes urbanization is responsible for the pollution.... of course wen it comes of land for increasing people in urban...one goes for deforestation nd contributes in contamination of air. wen it comes of vehicles there is no escape to the deadly gasses nd the shouting horns. all kind of pollution exist due to us. even if v c for agriculture poin if view urban farmers afford to use more nd more of the pesticides nd other chemicals which pollute the soil nd make the land unproductive. so in a way v ourself have created problem for us!

Education

is-urbanization-solely-responsible-for-pollution...../1/

u jst giving a simple logic for hiding our mistakes.... i know that urbanization is a realistic approach but dont u think that with such a rapidly growing urbanization ratio we have made this earth more polluted then what it was ears ago! i'm saying dont go for direct cause but if you go to grass roots of anything you'll find urbanization is the main cause!

salluneorock

u jst giving a simple logic for hiding our mistakes.... i know that urbanization is a realistic approach but dont u think that with such a rapidly growing urbanization ratio we have made this earth more polluted then what it was ears ago! i'm saying dont go for direct cause but if you go to grass roots of anything you'll find urbanization is the main cause!

Education

is-urbanization-solely-responsible-for-pollution...../1/

can u give me out some more points to clearify my doubts... i need it for ma debate here...in 'against'

salluneorock

can u give me out some more points to clearify my doubts... i need it for ma debate here...in 'against'

Education

is-urbanization-solely-responsible-for-pollution...../1/

God's existance is has not been ever prooved. The only "evidence" of its existance, it's a book that contradicts itself and says unbeliavable things, starting from the creation of the universe to the end of the world.

alex-rosell98

God's existance is has not been ever prooved. The only "evidence" of its existance, it's a book that contradicts itself and says unbeliavable things, starting from the creation of the universe to the end of the world.

Philosophy

is-was-god-real-and-why/1/

1st round - Acceptance 2nd round - Argument presentation 3rd round - cross-examination 4th round- rebuttals 5th round - Closing arguments

kai11

1st round - Acceptance 2nd round - Argument presentation 3rd round - cross-examination 4th round- rebuttals 5th round - Closing arguments

Philosophy

is-was-god-real-and-why/1/

i would like to thank my opponent for taking me up on this particularly difficult subject for some people and i would also like to thank everybody that judges this debate. now to begin this debate i would like to say GOD IS REAL There have been many miracles worked. one such miracle is The Dog, The Chicken, and The Bomb When David Newkirk, now a youth pastor at Church of the Open Door in Glendora, California, woke up in the middle of the night, he was still exhausted from a college basketball victory the day before. "Twenty minutes after my head hit the pillow, I was catapulted out of the deepest sleep," he writes in the book. Along with his mother and sister, he was jerked awake to pray for his brother Dan. Dan was in Israel. Running out of money, he had chosen to sleep on a park bench for the night. In the wee hours of the morning, a snarling dog woke him up, battling with a chicken under the bench. Unable to break up the animals, Dan found another bench and resumed his rest. The next morning, a bomb exploded right next to the first bench, hurtling it through the air, leaving "a mess of tangled metal and concrete." <URL>... . if you look at the scripture of romans 1:18-32(im posting the verse for you to read by the way) it says, 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. the bible does not contradict itself such as when the bible says do not have a spirit of fear and then says fear the lord thy god it is not contradicting itself but saying that it is bad to constantly live in fear, which is an actual medical case called paranoia which has killed people, it is saying fear the being that created all things according to the christian belief system because a little fear is a good thing because it keeps a person in line. such as a teacher tells you to do something for an assignment you have the fear of not doing good on the assignment or yelling at the teacher , the teacher can do whatever s/he wants so you are usually nice to them.

kai11

i would like to thank my opponent for taking me up on this particularly difficult subject for some people and i would also like to thank everybody that judges this debate. now to begin this debate i would like to say GOD IS REAL There have been many miracles worked. one such miracle is The Dog, The Chicken, and The Bomb When David Newkirk, now a youth pastor at Church of the Open Door in Glendora, California, woke up in the middle of the night, he was still exhausted from a college basketball victory the day before. "Twenty minutes after my head hit the pillow, I was catapulted out of the deepest sleep," he writes in the book. Along with his mother and sister, he was jerked awake to pray for his brother Dan. Dan was in Israel. Running out of money, he had chosen to sleep on a park bench for the night. In the wee hours of the morning, a snarling dog woke him up, battling with a chicken under the bench. Unable to break up the animals, Dan found another bench and resumed his rest. The next morning, a bomb exploded right next to the first bench, hurtling it through the air, leaving "a mess of tangled metal and concrete." http://www.christianpost.com... . if you look at the scripture of romans 1:18-32(im posting the verse for you to read by the way) it says, 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. the bible does not contradict itself such as when the bible says do not have a spirit of fear and then says fear the lord thy god it is not contradicting itself but saying that it is bad to constantly live in fear, which is an actual medical case called paranoia which has killed people, it is saying fear the being that created all things according to the christian belief system because a little fear is a good thing because it keeps a person in line. such as a teacher tells you to do something for an assignment you have the fear of not doing good on the assignment or yelling at the teacher , the teacher can do whatever s/he wants so you are usually nice to them.

Philosophy

is-was-god-real-and-why/1/

1. why is it that you don't believe in god 2. do you have any proof that god isn't real 3. based on the fact that you have read it means that you believed at some point so why'd you stop

kai11

1. why is it that you don't believe in god 2. do you have any proof that god isn't real 3. based on the fact that you have read it means that you believed at some point so why'd you stop

Philosophy

is-was-god-real-and-why/1/

i believe i won this argument because i have been the only one debating

kai11

i believe i won this argument because i have been the only one debating

Philosophy

is-was-god-real-and-why/1/

you say that we come from apes... where is the proof

nires

you say that we come from apes... where is the proof

Religion

islam-is-the-true-religion/1/

does everything, including earth's existence, happen in coincidence

nires

does everything, including earth's existence, happen in coincidence

Religion

islam-is-the-true-religion/1/

if you were to get kidnapped who would you hope for you to save you. you would feel lonely so if there is no creater of this earth and it is an coincdent then it is a oincident that you got kinapped leaning to noone to help you. it is a coincident that i am using this word. don't you think that if someone wasto come to you and say that this car is a coincident. you would think that man is either dumb or is not listening to the fact. if you wre to look at a house. it is well structured and everything is put into exact place. sure the house must have a creater. but something that is as difficult as earth has to have a creater. you say that it is nature but dont you think nature must have a creator. just beccause man cannot create adrop of water it doesnt mean that the water has no creator. the creator is there with many signs to us but people are just too blind to see it. how can a blind man put a jigsaw puzzle altogether perfectly in one go? How came, if earth just happened in a big bang in space, that earth has gravity but space does not? Prove to me that leanardo painted the mona lisa. i want a proof, i think that that painting just happen over the blue... i wnat you to prove to me everything happened in coincidence.... proove to me that gravity exists. i dont belive gravity exict... prove it to me!

nires

if you were to get kidnapped who would you hope for you to save you. you would feel lonely so if there is no creater of this earth and it is an coincdent then it is a oincident that you got kinapped leaning to noone to help you. it is a coincident that i am using this word. don't you think that if someone wasto come to you and say that this car is a coincident. you would think that man is either dumb or is not listening to the fact. if you wre to look at a house. it is well structured and everything is put into exact place. sure the house must have a creater. but something that is as difficult as earth has to have a creater. you say that it is nature but dont you think nature must have a creator. just beccause man cannot create adrop of water it doesnt mean that the water has no creator. the creator is there with many signs to us but people are just too blind to see it. how can a blind man put a jigsaw puzzle altogether perfectly in one go? How came, if earth just happened in a big bang in space, that earth has gravity but space does not? Prove to me that leanardo painted the mona lisa. i want a proof, i think that that painting just happen over the blue... i wnat you to prove to me everything happened in coincidence.... proove to me that gravity exists. i dont belive gravity exict... prove it to me!

Religion

islam-is-the-true-religion/1/

I do not say we come from apes, I say we come from a common ancestor. First off, some scientists long ago in a galaxy far far away noticed the minute differences in the chromosome numbers of apes and humans. (apes having 24 pairs in egg and sperm and humans having 23) This discovery led people to think that they might be closely related and one of the chromosomes fused hence our 23 pairs. And now we know, without a doubt, that this is the case and this clearly points towards common accestory. <URL>... This is just one piece of evidence out of much much more but as to not go over kill on this I will simply leave this for my opponent to try to refute or explain away. I await my opponent's responses on this debate as well as our other.

petersaysstuff

I do not say we come from apes, I say we come from a common ancestor. First off, some scientists long ago in a galaxy far far away noticed the minute differences in the chromosome numbers of apes and humans. (apes having 24 pairs in egg and sperm and humans having 23) This discovery led people to think that they might be closely related and one of the chromosomes fused hence our 23 pairs. And now we know, without a doubt, that this is the case and this clearly points towards common accestory. http://www.gate.net... This is just one piece of evidence out of much much more but as to not go over kill on this I will simply leave this for my opponent to try to refute or explain away. I await my opponent's responses on this debate as well as our other.

Religion

islam-is-the-true-religion/1/

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say sure. Are you going to respond to my argument that I now extend?

petersaysstuff

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say sure. Are you going to respond to my argument that I now extend?

Religion

islam-is-the-true-religion/1/

Extend and vote CON!

petersaysstuff

Extend and vote CON!

Religion

islam-is-the-true-religion/1/

Extend and vote Con!

petersaysstuff

Extend and vote Con!

Religion

islam-is-the-true-religion/1/

//if you were to get kidnapped who would you hope for you to save you// My parents....... //you would feel lonely so if there is no creater of this earth// I suggest you don't tell someone how they would feel. I assure you there is no creator of the earth and I am not lonely. //and it is an coincdent then it is a oincident that you got kinapped leaning to noone to help you.// What? Well it may or may not be a coincident that I got kidnapped but that has nothing to do with god... //it is a coincident that i am using this word.// False. You obviously planned this out thus you using a word is NOT a coincident. //don't you think that if someone wasto come to you and say that this car is a coincident. you would think that man is either dumb or is not listening to the fact.// ummmmmm it seems you do not know the definition of coincident. A coincident is as follows: "Occupying the same area in space or happening at the same time:"[1] I think what you mean to say is that "this car came into existence our of nothing." If a man were to say that I would say, "according to quantum mechanics that is possible but the improbability outweighs it." //if you wre to look at a house. it is well structured and everything is put into exact place. sure the house must have a creater.// True. //but something that is as difficult as earth has to have a creater. you say that it is nature but dont you think nature must have a creator.// This is false. Saying this you ignore the facts about how planets are formed. You are like the man in the story you told a moment ago. But you also have completely ignored the evolution argument and thus I win on that alone. //just beccause man cannot create adrop of water it doesnt mean that the water has no creator/ *facepalm* I never said that. The thing is we have a perfect understanding of how water forms. //How came, if earth just happened in a big bang in space, that earth has gravity but space does not?/ Space does have gravity. It just a very small amount due to the very small amount of matter in it (virtual particles) Also, the earth did not happen via a Big Bang, you are mixing up the earth and the universe. You are asking me to prove X painted Y. I cannot prove to you that Leo painted the Mona Lisa but if you look at all the facts and come to a conclusion for your self you can see... You want me to prove gravity? Ok, stand up. Are you on your feet? Now jump in the air. Wait.....wait...wait.. BAM! Your feet have hit the ground. That is due to the Earth's gravitational pull. Do I really need to explain why you should vote Con? Grammar, spelling, dropped arguments, no original arguments ect.... [1] <URL>...

petersaysstuff

//if you were to get kidnapped who would you hope for you to save you// My parents....... //you would feel lonely so if there is no creater of this earth// I suggest you don't tell someone how they would feel. I assure you there is no creator of the earth and I am not lonely. //and it is an coincdent then it is a oincident that you got kinapped leaning to noone to help you.// What? Well it may or may not be a coincident that I got kidnapped but that has nothing to do with god... //it is a coincident that i am using this word.// False. You obviously planned this out thus you using a word is NOT a coincident. //don't you think that if someone wasto come to you and say that this car is a coincident. you would think that man is either dumb or is not listening to the fact.// ummmmmm it seems you do not know the definition of coincident. A coincident is as follows: "Occupying the same area in space or happening at the same time:"[1] I think what you mean to say is that "this car came into existence our of nothing." If a man were to say that I would say, "according to quantum mechanics that is possible but the improbability outweighs it." //if you wre to look at a house. it is well structured and everything is put into exact place. sure the house must have a creater.// True. //but something that is as difficult as earth has to have a creater. you say that it is nature but dont you think nature must have a creator.// This is false. Saying this you ignore the facts about how planets are formed. You are like the man in the story you told a moment ago. But you also have completely ignored the evolution argument and thus I win on that alone. //just beccause man cannot create adrop of water it doesnt mean that the water has no creator/ *facepalm* I never said that. The thing is we have a perfect understanding of how water forms. //How came, if earth just happened in a big bang in space, that earth has gravity but space does not?/ Space does have gravity. It just a very small amount due to the very small amount of matter in it (virtual particles) Also, the earth did not happen via a Big Bang, you are mixing up the earth and the universe. You are asking me to prove X painted Y. I cannot prove to you that Leo painted the Mona Lisa but if you look at all the facts and come to a conclusion for your self you can see... You want me to prove gravity? Ok, stand up. Are you on your feet? Now jump in the air. Wait.....wait...wait.. BAM! Your feet have hit the ground. That is due to the Earth's gravitational pull. Do I really need to explain why you should vote Con? Grammar, spelling, dropped arguments, no original arguments ect.... [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Religion

islam-is-the-true-religion/1/

I don't even have to debate in order to win this one, and I'm not expecting much of a debate from someone that doesn't even speak English as a first(nor second or third for that matter) language. But I will post an argument for the sake of it, although like I said I don't expect Pro to actually debate and I might have to wait out all of the "This round was forfeited"'s. There are only a few incidents of prisoners escaping that I am aware of. In most of them the prisoners had outside help, not help from the guards. But even if the guards helped the prisoners escape, they committed a very different crime than the prisoner and by any modern form of law they would(and should) be prosecuted for the crime they actually committed as it would make no sense otherwise Pro's profile says they're from the Philippines, but it sounds more like they're from somewhere in the middle-east where stealing a loaf of bread would get your hand chopped off. But in this case not only would the thief's hand get chopped off, but the shopkeeper whose bread was stolen too.

Karoz

I don't even have to debate in order to win this one, and I'm not expecting much of a debate from someone that doesn't even speak English as a first(nor second or third for that matter) language. But I will post an argument for the sake of it, although like I said I don't expect Pro to actually debate and I might have to wait out all of the "This round was forfeited"'s. There are only a few incidents of prisoners escaping that I am aware of. In most of them the prisoners had outside help, not help from the guards. But even if the guards helped the prisoners escape, they committed a very different crime than the prisoner and by any modern form of law they would(and should) be prosecuted for the crime they actually committed as it would make no sense otherwise Pro's profile says they're from the Philippines, but it sounds more like they're from somewhere in the middle-east where stealing a loaf of bread would get your hand chopped off. But in this case not only would the thief's hand get chopped off, but the shopkeeper whose bread was stolen too.

Education

jail-guards-suffer-the-same-penalty-as-the-prisoners-escape-during-their-watch/1/

I saw that one coming. (More characters down here so I can get at least 100 characters in length.)

Karoz

I saw that one coming. (More characters down here so I can get at least 100 characters in length.)

Education

jail-guards-suffer-the-same-penalty-as-the-prisoners-escape-during-their-watch/1/

Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah

Karoz

Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah

Education

jail-guards-suffer-the-same-penalty-as-the-prisoners-escape-during-their-watch/1/

they must suffer the same because we know there was conives happening... plz... reply i need your negativeside thought plz please... thank u very much godbless

titz

they must suffer the same because we know there was conives happening... plz... reply i need your negativeside thought plz please... thank u very much godbless

Education

jail-guards-suffer-the-same-penalty-as-the-prisoners-escape-during-their-watch/1/

H. habilis H. erectus H. rudolfensis H. georgicus H. ergaster H. antecessor H. cepranensis H. heidelbergensis H. neanderthalensis H. rhodesiensis H. sapiens idaltu H. floresiensis

dairygirl4u2c

H. habilis H. erectus H. rudolfensis H. georgicus H. ergaster H. antecessor H. cepranensis H. heidelbergensis H. neanderthalensis H. rhodesiensis H. sapiens idaltu H. floresiensis

Philosophy

killing-these-homos-is-not-immoral-they-are-too-different-than-us/1/

duly noted

dairygirl4u2c

duly noted

Philosophy

killing-these-homos-is-not-immoral-they-are-too-different-than-us/1/

so where do you draw the line? how far back on the evolutionary scale is okay to kill and not kill? they are not homo sapien. they might not even be able to breed with homo sapien. are you that familiar with the science of it all that you know they are so similarr as to warrant not killing them say for sport? what makes you so sure about your stance? my guess is that they are homos, and you just don't like kiliing homos.

dairygirl4u2c

so where do you draw the line? how far back on the evolutionary scale is okay to kill and not kill? they are not homo sapien. they might not even be able to breed with homo sapien. are you that familiar with the science of it all that you know they are so similarr as to warrant not killing them say for sport? what makes you so sure about your stance? my guess is that they are homos, and you just don't like kiliing homos.

Philosophy

killing-these-homos-is-not-immoral-they-are-too-different-than-us/1/

No argument has been made. I will make it very simply, killing another sentient self-conscious being involves destroying their future plans, relationships and also killing can also involve pain and misery for both the individual and the relations of that individual. Our pre-ancestors were family and group based, therefore it is not unreasonable to say killing one of their members is both an act of causing suffering and also taking the life of a being who in most cases do not want to die. It seems plain absurd to say the suffering of individuals should not matter because they are 'different'.

dannyc

No argument has been made. I will make it very simply, killing another sentient self-conscious being involves destroying their future plans, relationships and also killing can also involve pain and misery for both the individual and the relations of that individual. Our pre-ancestors were family and group based, therefore it is not unreasonable to say killing one of their members is both an act of causing suffering and also taking the life of a being who in most cases do not want to die. It seems plain absurd to say the suffering of individuals should not matter because they are 'different'.

Philosophy

killing-these-homos-is-not-immoral-they-are-too-different-than-us/1/

Since Pro used their Closing to make more points and inquiries, I will summarise and extend my position. In Conclusion, I argued that suffering and the ability of killing sentient self-conscious beings like our ancestors would be good and reasonable grounds to conclude that in the realm of morality, that is how we should and ought to behave in our individual relations and our broader societal relations, that we can say with a great deal of confidence that there are two overriding reasons to say killing 'homo's' is immoral. Consequence on broader society Pro made one specific argument, that is 'they are too different than us', but pro never clarified difference. Differences in what? Species? Looks? Intelligence? Physical ability? On the simple and singular point of 'difference', it is not a slippy slope fallacy to say that killing based solely on 'difference' with no clarification can lead to destructive and detrimental effects on our broad society. Religious difference, racial difference, physiological difference, and even intelligence gaps or poverty lines as deciders. To me, not only is being 'different' not in and of itself grounds to exclude their consideration for morality, but if we say it is not directly immoral to kill the homo, a point I have not conceded but for my second point. Let's pretend. In that case, my points about broader society would imply that the act of killing 'homo's would lead to suffering of individuals we may under Pro's framework care about. On that note, we can say that the direct consequence on broader society is enough to condemn the action of killing Homo's. Suffering and desires Simply put, these beings can feel pain, they were the precursors to us, and therefore it follows that they had a nervous system identical to us, anyone familiar with evolutionary theory would know, a new or different nervous system takes more than even 25 species. So, these beings suffer, and it would be unfair to cause them needless suffering simply because they are not our species. We would be sickened with someone who killed kittens in front of the mother, and since these species are social animals, the suffering of needlessly slaughtering them in front of each other, or even the lack of presence of one you have murdered in quiet, is enough to condemn the practise. In conclusion Pro made no argument at all, and my original point was not challenged. I made a case and presented multiple reasons for concluding that it is morally wrong to kill Homo's.

dannyc

Since Pro used their Closing to make more points and inquiries, I will summarise and extend my position. In Conclusion, I argued that suffering and the ability of killing sentient self-conscious beings like our ancestors would be good and reasonable grounds to conclude that in the realm of morality, that is how we should and ought to behave in our individual relations and our broader societal relations, that we can say with a great deal of confidence that there are two overriding reasons to say killing 'homo's' is immoral. Consequence on broader society Pro made one specific argument, that is 'they are too different than us', but pro never clarified difference. Differences in what? Species? Looks? Intelligence? Physical ability? On the simple and singular point of 'difference', it is not a slippy slope fallacy to say that killing based solely on 'difference' with no clarification can lead to destructive and detrimental effects on our broad society. Religious difference, racial difference, physiological difference, and even intelligence gaps or poverty lines as deciders. To me, not only is being 'different' not in and of itself grounds to exclude their consideration for morality, but if we say it is not directly immoral to kill the homo, a point I have not conceded but for my second point. Let's pretend. In that case, my points about broader society would imply that the act of killing 'homo's would lead to suffering of individuals we may under Pro's framework care about. On that note, we can say that the direct consequence on broader society is enough to condemn the action of killing Homo's. Suffering and desires Simply put, these beings can feel pain, they were the precursors to us, and therefore it follows that they had a nervous system identical to us, anyone familiar with evolutionary theory would know, a new or different nervous system takes more than even 25 species. So, these beings suffer, and it would be unfair to cause them needless suffering simply because they are not our species. We would be sickened with someone who killed kittens in front of the mother, and since these species are social animals, the suffering of needlessly slaughtering them in front of each other, or even the lack of presence of one you have murdered in quiet, is enough to condemn the practise. In conclusion Pro made no argument at all, and my original point was not challenged. I made a case and presented multiple reasons for concluding that it is morally wrong to kill Homo's.

Philosophy

killing-these-homos-is-not-immoral-they-are-too-different-than-us/1/

The fact that I think, proves that my thoughts exist.

SJM

The fact that I think, proves that my thoughts exist.

Science

know-physical-experience-to-contrast/1/