text
stringlengths 1
80.7k
| label
int64 0
1
| author
stringlengths 2
25
| original_text
stringlengths 7
90.9k
| category
stringclasses 23
values | round
int64 0
8
| debate_id
stringlengths 8
103
| idx
int64 4
82.5k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
schools should force healthy eating or we will get fat like john howard by the way did you know homer simpson is obese | 0 | vaclav |
schools should force healthy eating or we will get fat like john howard by the way did you know homer simpson is obese | Education | 1 | schools-should-not-enforce-healthy-eating/1/ | 79,630 |
scream in my opinion should be encouraged. id like to see what the con would say. if you up for a challenge accept this | 0 | anh090 |
scream in my opinion should be encouraged. id like to see what the con would say. if you up for a challenge accept this | Music | 0 | scream-music-should-be-encouraged/1/ | 79,677 |
should Australia change its government to a republic | 0 | Table_lover |
should Australia change its government to a republic | Politics | 0 | should-Australia-be-a-republic/1/ | 79,757 |
Firstly I would like to thank "Table-lover" for bringing this debate forth. I stand to negate Pro's statements that Australia should become a Republic. | 0 | joza |
Firstly I would like to thank "Table-lover" for bringing this debate forth. I stand to negate Pro's statements that Australia should become a Republic. | Politics | 0 | should-Australia-be-a-republic/1/ | 79,758 |
Although my opponent has not put forth their arguments for this round, I will continue. Australia should not become a republic, there are a multitude of reasons which show that the ends would not justify the means if Australia were to become a republic. I will provide reasoning behind why Australia does not require change, how majority of Australians stand on modelling Australia into a republic, why it is illogical and why legally, it is near impossible for Australia to become a republic. 1. Why Australia does not require change: The main concern of those who believe that Australia should be shifted towards being a republic is that there is a false ideology that Australians and Australia as a whole is stripped of more rights than what they could possibly have. However, this is far from the case. The Governor-General, who makes Bills passed in Parliament official Acts of the nation, is elected in the long run by the people. Yet have I heard a compelling argument which shows that Australia becoming a republic would justify the little flaws which are current in the current Government. "If it's not broke, don't fix it". As a nation, Australia is doing well, with substantial protections to the rights of its people. 2. How majority of Australians stand on Australia becoming a republic: Only 39.4% of Australians believe in forming a republic, compared to 41.6% of Australians who are against a republic, whilst 19% have no standing on the matter. <URL>... Whilst the gap between the percentages of those who do and don't support a republic may be considered slim, the fact that 19% of the Australian population have no position on the matter exemplify that such a matter is the least of worries for a large population of Australians. This is simply because the current system shows no trouble or inconveniences for the average Australian, which further nullifies any requirement for a republic. 3. Why a republic is illogical: As aforementioned, the ends do not justify the means through the process of installing a republic. Stop, and consider all the changes (both time and financially consuming) that would have to be enacted in the process of creating a republic. Forming a republic would involve alterations to things such as the Australian flag, anthem, money and legal system. (A legal system which also involves the doctrine of separation of powers, separating the powers into three separate bodies in order to prevent one whole individual ruling the nation, thus a possible dictatorship). Such processes would prove to be costly, this financing can go towards other areas of genuine Australian concern such as education and healthcare rather than an unnecessary shift of system which many people do not see as being required. 4. It is illegal for Australia to become a republic: Under current provisions of the Australian Constitution, it is made clear that not only is such a move as installing a republic is illegal, but the Monarch would have a mandatory obligation to annul such moves. This is evident in Section 59 of the Constitution <URL>... VOTING ISSUES: PRO has failed to raise an argument to back up any reasoning behind Australia becoming a republic, CON has provided reasonable evidence which negates Australia becoming a republic. Therefore, you ought to vote CON Although PRO has not brought any reasoning behind a republic, CON has assumed possible reasoning and has answered such reasons, further nullifying any arguments that may have been raised and proving that a republic is unnecessary. Therefore, you ought to vote CON. | 0 | joza |
Although my opponent has not put forth their arguments for this round, I will continue. Australia should not become a republic, there are a multitude of reasons which show that the ends would not justify the means if Australia were to become a republic. I will provide reasoning behind why Australia does not require change, how majority of Australians stand on modelling Australia into a republic, why it is illogical and why legally, it is near impossible for Australia to become a republic. 1. Why Australia does not require change: The main concern of those who believe that Australia should be shifted towards being a republic is that there is a false ideology that Australians and Australia as a whole is stripped of more rights than what they could possibly have. However, this is far from the case. The Governor-General, who makes Bills passed in Parliament official Acts of the nation, is elected in the long run by the people. Yet have I heard a compelling argument which shows that Australia becoming a republic would justify the little flaws which are current in the current Government. "If it's not broke, don't fix it". As a nation, Australia is doing well, with substantial protections to the rights of its people. 2. How majority of Australians stand on Australia becoming a republic: Only 39.4% of Australians believe in forming a republic, compared to 41.6% of Australians who are against a republic, whilst 19% have no standing on the matter. http://news.ninemsn.com.au... Whilst the gap between the percentages of those who do and don't support a republic may be considered slim, the fact that 19% of the Australian population have no position on the matter exemplify that such a matter is the least of worries for a large population of Australians. This is simply because the current system shows no trouble or inconveniences for the average Australian, which further nullifies any requirement for a republic. 3. Why a republic is illogical: As aforementioned, the ends do not justify the means through the process of installing a republic. Stop, and consider all the changes (both time and financially consuming) that would have to be enacted in the process of creating a republic. Forming a republic would involve alterations to things such as the Australian flag, anthem, money and legal system. (A legal system which also involves the doctrine of separation of powers, separating the powers into three separate bodies in order to prevent one whole individual ruling the nation, thus a possible dictatorship). Such processes would prove to be costly, this financing can go towards other areas of genuine Australian concern such as education and healthcare rather than an unnecessary shift of system which many people do not see as being required. 4. It is illegal for Australia to become a republic: Under current provisions of the Australian Constitution, it is made clear that not only is such a move as installing a republic is illegal, but the Monarch would have a mandatory obligation to annul such moves. This is evident in Section 59 of the Constitution http://catallaxyfiles.com... VOTING ISSUES: PRO has failed to raise an argument to back up any reasoning behind Australia becoming a republic, CON has provided reasonable evidence which negates Australia becoming a republic. Therefore, you ought to vote CON Although PRO has not brought any reasoning behind a republic, CON has assumed possible reasoning and has answered such reasons, further nullifying any arguments that may have been raised and proving that a republic is unnecessary. Therefore, you ought to vote CON. | Politics | 1 | should-Australia-be-a-republic/1/ | 79,759 |
- | 0 | joza |
- | Politics | 2 | should-Australia-be-a-republic/1/ | 79,760 |
- | 0 | joza |
- | Politics | 3 | should-Australia-be-a-republic/1/ | 79,761 |
- | 0 | joza |
- | Politics | 4 | should-Australia-be-a-republic/1/ | 79,762 |
Students should be given homework during the weekends. Your not the only one that dislikes it. Practically everyone does. A lot of teachers will give it to you over weekend breaks, so that you have more time to think about your work . Taking that kind of time can let you review your work and ultimately receive a better class grade. Your teacher's mainly give it to you though so that you'll be prepared. I don't know what grade you're in, but being given a little push can prepare you for the your next school whether it be middle school, high school, or college. When you get to the next school and the next standardized tests at those schools, they won't be so difficult because you'll have been training on that work constantly and will be used to getting a larger amount of work even on the weekend. If you're not in it already, trust me, high school won't always be so pretty for you. Life has it's downfalls, but as humans we persevere through the difficult times. As for making bonding time for your family and friends, you've got to make it yourself. Get all your weekend homework done as soon as possible and organize things in advanced. Trust me time management also won't be so kind to you, the older you get. At my middle school we had more homework than most other schools. I was placed in the magnet program there and it wasn't always easy. You just have to work with it though, because in the end you'll probably realizes that it wasn't that much work, and laugh upon it. As Bob Marley said," Every little thing is gunna be all right." And as Jimmy Eat World said," It just takes some time, little girl you're in the middle of the ride, everything, everything will be just fine, everything, everything, will be alright, alright." To conclude, students should be given homework during the weekends. | 0 | Porthos |
Students should be given homework during the weekends. Your not the only one that dislikes it. Practically everyone does. A lot of teachers will give it to you over weekend breaks, so that you have more time to think about your work . Taking that kind of time can let you review your work and ultimately receive a better class grade. Your teacher's mainly give it to you though so that you'll be prepared. I don't know what grade you're in, but being given a little push can prepare you for the your next school whether it be middle school, high school, or college. When you get to the next school and the next standardized tests at those schools, they won't be so difficult because you'll have been training on that work constantly and will be used to getting a larger amount of work even on the weekend. If you're not in it already, trust me, high school won't always be so pretty for you. Life has it's downfalls, but as humans we persevere through the difficult times. As for making bonding time for your family and friends, you've got to make it yourself. Get all your weekend homework done as soon as possible and organize things in advanced. Trust me time management also won't be so kind to you, the older you get. At my middle school we had more homework than most other schools. I was placed in the magnet program there and it wasn't always easy. You just have to work with it though, because in the end you'll probably realizes that it wasn't that much work, and laugh upon it. As Bob Marley said," Every little thing is gunna be all right." And as Jimmy Eat World said," It just takes some time, little girl you're in the middle of the ride, everything, everything will be just fine, everything, everything, will be alright, alright." To conclude, students should be given homework during the weekends. | Education | 0 | should-Students-be-given-homework-during-the-weekends/1/ | 79,803 |
As it appears my opponent has forfeited this round. Her profile says that she was last online three days ago. She made her account three days ago as well. Anything interesting about that? My theory is that she went home on a Friday and was bummed about receiving homework for the weekend. She wanted to share this with the world and at last discovered DDO. She thought this is my chance to rebel against school, for my voice to be heard! And yet it seems as if she gave up. Didn't bother to check back up on the debate. You've got to be committed for things like these though. Sure it's just the internet but how do you think your opponent feels and more importantly the people who want to vote on this matter with your intake in mind. Now they've got to wait forever unless you log on sometime soon. I think it's going to take a while for her to get back on, to get committed folks. You know what? I bet that's how she feels about her homework too. She gets a lot of it, it's too much, too boring. Well what about you who is going to be the next generation to fix America's problems? Can't you put up with a little work for a happier lifestyle in the end? What if your parents said we're not going to work for the rest of our lives. That would mean little or no education for you, little or no food, shelter, phone, etc, for you! Sorry if I'm going at it too hard but common people go through more difficult things in life. I could go on for years telling you those things but, no offense, I'm bumbling you in this competition. So instead I'm going to help you with your problem. This is your entire first argument: there is a 5 working days rule. Students already study 5 days a week leaving only 2 days for breaks and family time. As a student myself I find it really ridiculous when my teachers give me homework over the weekends. Where is the time for bonding with my family and friends? End. First off you say that students study five days a week. You don't say that you receive homework during that time. Bond with your family and friends after school on those days. There you go, I solved you problem. If you do have homework on those days get them done first thing you get home, at school, lunch time, and or on the bus. Two words, time management. Thank you. | 0 | Porthos |
As it appears my opponent has forfeited this round. Her profile says that she was last online three days ago. She made her account three days ago as well. Anything interesting about that? My theory is that she went home on a Friday and was bummed about receiving homework for the weekend. She wanted to share this with the world and at last discovered DDO. She thought this is my chance to rebel against school, for my voice to be heard! And yet it seems as if she gave up. Didn't bother to check back up on the debate. You've got to be committed for things like these though. Sure it's just the internet but how do you think your opponent feels and more importantly the people who want to vote on this matter with your intake in mind. Now they've got to wait forever unless you log on sometime soon. I think it's going to take a while for her to get back on, to get committed folks. You know what? I bet that's how she feels about her homework too. She gets a lot of it, it's too much, too boring. Well what about you who is going to be the next generation to fix America's problems? Can't you put up with a little work for a happier lifestyle in the end? What if your parents said we're not going to work for the rest of our lives. That would mean little or no education for you, little or no food, shelter, phone, etc, for you! Sorry if I'm going at it too hard but common people go through more difficult things in life. I could go on for years telling you those things but, no offense, I'm bumbling you in this competition. So instead I'm going to help you with your problem. This is your entire first argument: there is a 5 working days rule. Students already study 5 days a week leaving only 2 days for breaks and family time. As a student myself I find it really ridiculous when my teachers give me homework over the weekends. Where is the time for bonding with my family and friends? End. First off you say that students study five days a week. You don't say that you receive homework during that time. Bond with your family and friends after school on those days. There you go, I solved you problem. If you do have homework on those days get them done first thing you get home, at school, lunch time, and or on the bus. Two words, time management. Thank you. | Education | 2 | should-Students-be-given-homework-during-the-weekends/1/ | 79,804 |
As you can see my opponent still hasn't posted an argument and has forfeited for the second time. I hope for the next two rounds of this debate to gather more evidence for my case, but in the meantime please watch this video. It supports what I'm saying about the excuses of geenaluvkuromi not participating in our debate: . Also before I forget, for the title of this debate geenaluvkuromi put the title as: should Students be given homework during the weekends. Yes they should so they would know that sentences start with a capital letter for the first word, that students as the second word in a sentence should be lower cased, and that questions end with a question mark. Geenaluvkuromi should have made the title of the debate look a little more like this: Should students be given homework during the weekends? I just wanted to point that out before I forgot, but anyways please go to that link and watch that video. Thank you everyone who is still in on this debate. | 0 | Porthos |
As you can see my opponent still hasn't posted an argument and has forfeited for the second time. I hope for the next two rounds of this debate to gather more evidence for my case, but in the meantime please watch this video. It supports what I'm saying about the excuses of geenaluvkuromi not participating in our debate: . Also before I forget, for the title of this debate geenaluvkuromi put the title as: should Students be given homework during the weekends. Yes they should so they would know that sentences start with a capital letter for the first word, that students as the second word in a sentence should be lower cased, and that questions end with a question mark. Geenaluvkuromi should have made the title of the debate look a little more like this: Should students be given homework during the weekends? I just wanted to point that out before I forgot, but anyways please go to that link and watch that video. Thank you everyone who is still in on this debate. | Education | 4 | should-Students-be-given-homework-during-the-weekends/1/ | 79,805 |
Since this debate is coming to a closing and we"re at round four, I though I should introduce new evidence to my case. As I've been researching why we should have homework on the weekends, I realized mainly that we should have it because it provides extra brain training over your two-day break so that you will remember what you"ve learned during to week. To begin here is a list of ten benefits from homework in general. 1.It improves your thinking and memory 2.It helps you develop positive study skills and habits that will serve you well throughout life 3.Homework encourages you to use time wisely 4.It teaches you to work independently 5.Homework teaches you to take responsibility for your work 6.It allows you to review and practice what has been covered in class 7.Homework helps you learn to use resources, such as libraries, reference materials, and computer Web sites to find information 8.It encourages you to explores subjects more fully than classroom time permits 9.It allows you to extend learning by applying skills to new situations 10.It helps you integrate learning by applying many different skills to a single task, such as book reports or science projects (Brought to you by <URL>... ) I would like to thank the people at <URL>... . That list states an excellent set of benefits from doing homework. Overall it"s saying that homework prepares you through difficulties in life. With the skills and good habits you obtain from homework it becomes easier to overcome your problems. "In a study conducted by Hill, Spencer, Alston and Fitzgerald (1986), homework was positively linked to student achievement. They indicate that homework is an inexpensive method of improving student academic preparation without increasing staff or modifying curriculum. "So, as the pressure to improve test scores continues to increase, so does the emphasis on homework"" (Brought to you by <URL>... ) There is the evidence folks, and like I said before it helps people overcome their problems and to achieve goals such as higher test score (also known as growth in education) to help society function correctly, and with a wise mind. If you don"t believe me about this test here is another test conducted carried out by the researchers at Duke University. " DURHAM, N.C. - It turns out that parents are right to nag: To succeed in school, kids should do their homework. Duke University researchers have reviewed more than 60 research studies on homework between 1987 and 2003 and concluded that homework does have a positive effect on student achievement. Harris Cooper, a professor of psychology and director of Duke's Program in Education, said the research synthesis that he led showed the positive correlation was much stronger for secondary students --- those in grades 7 through 12 --- than those in elementary school. "With only rare exception, the relationship between the amount of homework students do and their achievement outcomes was found to be positive and statistically significant," the researchers report in a paper that appears in the spring 2006 edition of "Review of Educational Research."" Cooper is the lead author; Jorgianne Civey Robinson, a Ph.D. student in psychology, and Erika Patall, a graduate student in psychology, are co-authors. (Brought to you by <URL>... ) Once again readers, there is the evidence that homework is beneficial. Therefore, there is no reason for it not to be beneficial on weekends. Ultimately, homework given to students on the weekend is beneficial. If I still do not have you on board with my side I suggest reading this extra evidence. Homework set prior to a lesson can aid understanding later in class. Homework also provides opportunities for reinforcement of work learned during school time and for children to develop their research skills. Children will need to seek information for themselves from reference materials such as encyclopaedias, books, CD ROMs and by doing so, are helped along the path to becoming independent learners. Having the responsibility of needing to meet deadlines promotes self-discipline, an attribute that will impact on schoolwork and beyond. (Brought to you by <URL>... ) Thank you everyone for staying tuned in on my side of the case for: whether or not students should have homework over the weekends. Yes they should. Hey, I appreciate everything you guys and hope to for the final round of this debate to wrap up my argument with an overall conclusion of my case and how this, being my first debate, has been. Once again thank you. | 0 | Porthos |
Since this debate is coming to a closing and we"re at round four, I though I should introduce new evidence to my case. As I've been researching why we should have homework on the weekends, I realized mainly that we should have it because it provides extra brain training over your two-day break so that you will remember what you"ve learned during to week. To begin here is a list of ten benefits from homework in general.
1.It improves your thinking and memory
2.It helps you develop positive study skills and habits that will serve you well throughout life
3.Homework encourages you to use time wisely
4.It teaches you to work independently
5.Homework teaches you to take responsibility for your work
6.It allows you to review and practice what has been covered in class
7.Homework helps you learn to use resources, such as libraries, reference materials, and computer Web sites to find information
8.It encourages you to explores subjects more fully than classroom time permits
9.It allows you to extend learning by applying skills to new situations
10.It helps you integrate learning by applying many different skills to a single task, such as book reports or science projects
(Brought to you by http://blog.eskool.ca... )
I would like to thank the people at http://blog.eskool.ca... . That list states an excellent set of benefits from doing homework. Overall it"s saying that homework prepares you through difficulties in life. With the skills and good habits you obtain from homework it becomes easier to overcome your problems.
"In a study conducted by Hill, Spencer, Alston and Fitzgerald (1986), homework was positively linked to student achievement. They indicate that homework is an inexpensive method of improving student academic preparation without increasing staff or modifying curriculum. "So, as the pressure to improve test scores continues to increase, so does the emphasis on homework""
(Brought to you by http://www.studentpulse.com... )
There is the evidence folks, and like I said before it helps people overcome their problems and to achieve goals such as higher test score (also known as growth in education) to help society function correctly, and with a wise mind. If you don"t believe me about this test here is another test conducted carried out by the researchers at Duke University.
" DURHAM, N.C. - It turns out that parents are right to nag: To succeed in school, kids should do their homework.
Duke University researchers have reviewed more than 60 research studies on homework between 1987 and 2003 and concluded that homework does have a positive effect on student achievement.
Harris Cooper, a professor of psychology and director of Duke's Program in Education, said the research synthesis that he led showed the positive correlation was much stronger for secondary students --- those in grades 7 through 12 --- than those in elementary school.
"With only rare exception, the relationship between the amount of homework students do and their achievement outcomes was found to be positive and statistically significant," the researchers report in a paper that appears in the spring 2006 edition of "Review of Educational Research.""
Cooper is the lead author; Jorgianne Civey Robinson, a Ph.D. student in psychology, and Erika Patall, a graduate student in psychology, are co-authors.
(Brought to you by http://today.duke.edu... )
Once again readers, there is the evidence that homework is beneficial. Therefore, there is no reason for it not to be beneficial on weekends. Ultimately, homework given to students on the weekend is beneficial. If I still do not have you on board with my side I suggest reading this extra evidence.
Homework set prior to a lesson can aid understanding later in class. Homework also provides opportunities for reinforcement of work learned during school time and for children to develop their research skills. Children will need to seek information for themselves from reference materials such as encyclopaedias, books, CD ROMs and by doing so, are helped along the path to becoming independent learners.
Having the responsibility of needing to meet deadlines promotes self-discipline, an attribute that will impact on schoolwork and beyond.
(Brought to you by http://www.topmarks.co.uk... )
Thank you everyone for staying tuned in on my side of the case for: whether or not students should have homework over the weekends. Yes they should. Hey, I appreciate everything you guys and hope to for the final round of this debate to wrap up my argument with an overall conclusion of my case and how this, being my first debate, has been. Once again thank you. | Education | 6 | should-Students-be-given-homework-during-the-weekends/1/ | 79,806 |
Hey everyone thank you for staying tuned too this debate for my first debate I supposed I enjoyed it pretty well, it was easy. I believe students should be given homework during the weekends because so many benefits come with it, education-wise. Once again thank you everyone, please vote pro. Thank you. | 0 | Porthos |
Hey everyone thank you for staying tuned too this debate for my first debate I supposed I enjoyed it pretty well, it was easy. I believe students should be given homework during the weekends because so many benefits come with it, education-wise. Once again thank you everyone, please vote pro. Thank you. | Education | 8 | should-Students-be-given-homework-during-the-weekends/1/ | 79,807 |
there is a 5 working days rule. Students already study 5 days a week leaving only 2 days for breaks and family time. As a student myself i find it really ridiculous when my teachers give me homework over the weekends. Where is the time for bonding with my family and friends? | 0 | geenaluvkuromi |
there is a 5 working days rule. Students already study 5 days a week leaving only 2 days for breaks and family time. As a student myself i find it really ridiculous when my teachers give me homework over the weekends. Where is the time for bonding with my family and friends? | Education | 0 | should-Students-be-given-homework-during-the-weekends/1/ | 79,808 |
Please explain why you think tobacco should be legal for 15 year olds. My reasoning against the notion is that the use of tobacco (including "chew") has been proven to cause cancer. By allowing minors to legally put these deadly chemicals in their mouths, we are increasing the likelihood of more nicotine addictions and perpetuating the spread of cancer. I don't like cancer. | 0 | Purple_Potato |
Please explain why you think tobacco should be legal for 15 year olds. My reasoning against the notion is that the use of tobacco (including "chew") has been proven to cause cancer. By allowing minors to legally put these deadly chemicals in their mouths, we are increasing the likelihood of more nicotine addictions and perpetuating the spread of cancer. I don't like cancer. | People | 0 | should-chew-be-aloud-at-the-age-of-15/1/ | 79,894 |
Well... That's all folks. | 0 | Purple_Potato |
Well... That's all folks. | People | 1 | should-chew-be-aloud-at-the-age-of-15/1/ | 79,895 |
I think you should be able chew at the age of 15 | 0 | bryce_mcfarland |
I think you should be able chew at the age of 15 | People | 0 | should-chew-be-aloud-at-the-age-of-15/1/ | 79,896 |
I hate it | 0 | Austinh |
I hate it | Miscellaneous | 0 | should-homework-be-banned-in-schools/1/ | 80,004 |
well you should try doing it every night and weekend | 0 | Austinh |
well you should try doing it every night and weekend | Miscellaneous | 1 | should-homework-be-banned-in-schools/1/ | 80,005 |
Just because you hate it, doesn't mean that the school should ban it. Homework is supposed to help with the lesson that was learned in class that day. It helps further your education rather than being a waste of time. | 0 | adombrowiak |
Just because you hate it, doesn't mean that the school should ban it. Homework is supposed to help with the lesson that was learned in class that day. It helps further your education rather than being a waste of time. | Miscellaneous | 0 | should-homework-be-banned-in-schools/1/ | 80,006 |
I'm a senior in high school with all honors/AP classes. You think I don't do it every day and weekend. Well I do. So instead of sitting here complaining about it, actually try it and maybe you'll learn something new. | 0 | adombrowiak |
I'm a senior in high school with all honors/AP classes. You think I don't do it every day and weekend. Well I do. So instead of sitting here complaining about it, actually try it and maybe you'll learn something new. | Miscellaneous | 1 | should-homework-be-banned-in-schools/1/ | 80,007 |
do you think so say yes or say no | 0 | 2006041 |
do you think so say yes or say no | Education | 0 | should-middle-schools-have-mcdonalds-as-a-chioce-at-lunch/1/ | 80,078 |
I do not believe that middle schools should not have McDonalds as a choice in school lunches. Schools should not allow McDonalds (or for that matter any other 'fast food') into their school lunch curriculum. The students should have healthy choices to choose from. Schools should not offer fast food EVEN AS A CHOICE. Because, especially children, do not have the complete mental capacity to know that they are choosing something so bad for them. They only want McDonalds cause they want something that they think 'tastes good'. And I will admit that many school lunch choices are not always 'up-scale' in the terms of taste, but they are generally much healthier than McDonalds. Fast food consumption is currently something that is causing a lot of health problems in America today. Childhood obesity rates have more than doubled and the obesity rates among adolescents have tripled in the past 30 years. Since 1980, the percentage of obese children went from 7% to an alarming 18%. That means that about 1 out of 5 of every 6-11 year old in America is obese. Similarly, in 12-19 year-olds, the percentage was 5% in 1980 and skyrocketed to, again, 18%. In 2010 more than 1/3 of children AND adolescents were OVERWEIGHT or OBESE. Health Effects: There are immediate health effects that would impact these middle schoolers if they were subjected to McDonalds as a lunch choice. Obese children are far more likely to have risk factors for cardiovascular disease. About 70% of obese youth had AT LEAST one risk factor. There are also long-term effects that these obese children may face when they are an adult. Children and adolescents who are obese are likely to be obese as adults as well and are, in turn, more prone to be at risk for other, even more serious, health problems such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke and MANY types of cancer. Another big problem with the fact of letting McDonalds in schools is, obviously, the fact of advertising in schools. We wouldn't want tobacco companies able to put of Pro-Cigarettes and Pro-Chewing tobacco posters in school. So that is basically what providing a product like McDonalds is doing. It is telling the children that it is even more okay to eat tons of fast food because there schools are offering it to them daily. It is the parents choice of what they want their kids to eat at home, but at schools, it is the schools responsibility to provide healthy choices to the students and provide them with a healthy diet. Whether or not these kids are getting out of school and go to McDonalds for food is what they want, but allowing it into schools will ruin our nations health even more than it already has. So, should middle schools (or in my opinion any school), have McDonalds as a lunch choice? No. | 0 | Devonal |
I do not believe that middle schools should not have McDonalds as a choice in school lunches.
Schools should not allow McDonalds (or for that matter any other 'fast food') into their school lunch curriculum. The students should have healthy choices to choose from. Schools should not offer fast food EVEN AS A CHOICE. Because, especially children, do not have the complete mental capacity to know that they are choosing something so bad for them. They only want McDonalds cause they want something that they think 'tastes good'. And I will admit that many school lunch choices are not always 'up-scale' in the terms of taste, but they are generally much healthier than McDonalds.
Fast food consumption is currently something that is causing a lot of health problems in America today. Childhood obesity rates have more than doubled and the obesity rates among adolescents have tripled in the past 30 years. Since 1980, the percentage of obese children went from 7% to an alarming 18%. That means that about 1 out of 5 of every 6-11 year old in America is obese. Similarly, in 12-19 year-olds, the percentage was 5% in 1980 and skyrocketed to, again, 18%. In 2010 more than 1/3 of children AND adolescents were OVERWEIGHT or OBESE.
Health Effects:
There are immediate health effects that would impact these middle schoolers if they were subjected to McDonalds as a lunch choice. Obese children are far more likely to have risk factors for cardiovascular disease. About 70% of obese youth had AT LEAST one risk factor.
There are also long-term effects that these obese children may face when they are an adult. Children and adolescents who are obese are likely to be obese as adults as well and are, in turn, more prone to be at risk for other, even more serious, health problems such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke and MANY types of cancer.
Another big problem with the fact of letting McDonalds in schools is, obviously, the fact of advertising in schools. We wouldn't want tobacco companies able to put of Pro-Cigarettes and Pro-Chewing tobacco posters in school. So that is basically what providing a product like McDonalds is doing. It is telling the children that it is even more okay to eat tons of fast food because there schools are offering it to them daily. It is the parents choice of what they want their kids to eat at home, but at schools, it is the schools responsibility to provide healthy choices to the students and provide them with a healthy diet. Whether or not these kids are getting out of school and go to McDonalds for food is what they want, but allowing it into schools will ruin our nations health even more than it already has.
So, should middle schools (or in my opinion any school), have McDonalds as a lunch choice? No. | Education | 0 | should-middle-schools-have-mcdonalds-as-a-chioce-at-lunch/1/ | 80,079 |
Homework is great for kids, because it allows them the practice they need to be more efficient at school. <URL>... One can already click this link, and see that an abundant amount of important people have said that practice lead to perfection. One must note that it is important the kids get the efficient practice they need to become successful in life. | 0 | Ariesx |
Homework is great for kids, because it allows them the practice they need to be more efficient at school. http://www.searchquotes.com...
One can already click this link, and see that an abundant amount of important people have said that practice lead to perfection. One must note that it is important the kids get the efficient practice they need to become successful in life. | Society | 0 | should-no-homework-be-enforced-in-school/1/ | 80,092 |
Forfieture | 0 | Ariesx |
Forfieture | Society | 2 | should-no-homework-be-enforced-in-school/1/ | 80,093 |
no homework stresses out kids after school.kids need time to do what matters not siting at a table for 3 hours studying angels for math. | 0 | Brenda_Sue_love |
no homework stresses out kids after school.kids need time to do what matters not siting at a table for 3 hours studying angels for math. | Society | 0 | should-no-homework-be-enforced-in-school/1/ | 80,094 |
no parents have no right to tell their childs futre | 0 | johnmind |
no parents have no right to tell their childs futre | Education | 0 | should-parents-tell-your-futre/1/ | 80,115 |
my respected opponent .sorry for the usage of double negative. parents have the right to tell childs futre i dindt tell parents cant predict futre but i say that parents can tell students abt their futre its from ur mothers womb u came out .then they have a small right to tell ur futre their seeing u from the day u r born. | 0 | johnmind |
my respected opponent .sorry for the usage of double negative. parents have the right to tell childs futre i dindt tell parents cant predict futre but i say that parents can tell students abt their futre its from ur mothers womb u came out .then they have a small right to tell ur futre their seeing u from the day u r born. | Education | 1 | should-parents-tell-your-futre/1/ | 80,116 |
i think they shouldn't be known | 0 | bunnyhero3335 |
i think they shouldn't be known | Entertainment | 0 | should-spies-be-know-or-not/1/ | 80,235 |
i give up | 0 | bunnyhero3335 |
i give up | Entertainment | 1 | should-spies-be-know-or-not/1/ | 80,236 |
First I'd like to thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate. My opponent sates that spies shouldn not be known. He gave no clear explanation on that but I will try to do my best. Definitions. Known To have knowledge of: To personally be acquainted with someone or something. I say spies should be known. They should be known by their family their friends or the people they work for or with. Therefore spies should be known. I await and look forward to my opponents response. | 0 | phantom |
First I'd like to thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate.
My opponent sates that spies shouldn not be known.
He gave no clear explanation on that but I will try to do my best.
Definitions. Known
To have knowledge of: To personally be acquainted with someone or something.
I say spies should be known. They should be known by their family their friends or the people they work for or with. Therefore spies should be known.
I await and look forward to my opponents response. | Entertainment | 0 | should-spies-be-know-or-not/1/ | 80,237 |
My opponent has declared he gives up "i give up" Therefore he has declared defeat. Thus as con has given no backing for his argument and has not contested any of my arguments and has declared defeat, I urge the voters to vote pro. | 0 | phantom |
My opponent has declared he gives up
"i give up"
Therefore he has declared defeat.
Thus as con has given no backing for his argument and has not contested any of my arguments and has declared defeat, I urge the voters to vote pro.
| Entertainment | 1 | should-spies-be-know-or-not/1/ | 80,238 |
### O O / """" | 0 | phantom |
###
O O
/
""""
| Entertainment | 3 | should-spies-be-know-or-not/1/ | 80,239 |
I believe that you should have the right to own guns. | 0 | mmmmmmmmmm |
I believe that you should have the right to own guns. | People | 0 | should-there-be-gun-rights/1/ | 80,352 |
We should have the right to protect ourselves if someone is trying to get into our house and they have a gun well we have one to. You are saving not only yourselves but others that could be in danger as well | 0 | mmmmmmmmmm |
We should have the right to protect ourselves if someone is trying to get into our house and they have a gun well we have one to. You are saving not only yourselves but others that could be in danger as well | People | 1 | should-there-be-gun-rights/1/ | 80,353 |
Hello PRO. My Thesis is 'We shouldn't genetically modify the future.' However, it is impossible to genetically modify the future just as it is impossible to genetically modify the past or present, so of course we shouldn't try to. You cannot genetically modify a point in time. If PRO meant for the issue to be 'Should we Genetically Modify in the Future?' he mentions cloning, although cloning and genetic modification are 2 different things. CLONE: NOUN Biology. a. a cell, cell product, or organism that is genetically identical to the unit or individual from which it was derived. b. a population of identical units, cells, or individuals that derive from the same ancestral line. Reference: <URL>... GENETIC MODIFICATION: NOUN any alteration of genetic material, as in agriculture, to make them capable of producing new substances or performing new functions; also called genetic engineering, genetic manipulation, gene splicing, [ gene technology ], recombinant DNA technology Reference: <URL>... If PRO wanted the issue to be: 'Should we clone the future?' we cannot clone the future, and we cannot clone the past or present. We cannot clone, or genetically modify, a point in time. Even if PRO wanted the issue to be: 'Should we Clone in the Future?' he agreed with my thesis, which would be: 'We shouldn't clone in the future.' So, any way you cut it, this debate is over. Thank you. | 0 | EAT_IT_SUKA |
Hello PRO. My Thesis is 'We shouldn't genetically modify the future.' However, it is impossible to genetically modify the future just as it is impossible to genetically modify the past or present, so of course we shouldn't try to. You cannot genetically modify a point in time. If PRO meant for the issue to be 'Should we Genetically Modify in the Future?' he mentions cloning, although cloning and genetic modification are 2 different things.
CLONE: NOUN
Biology.
a. a cell, cell product, or organism that is genetically identical to the unit or individual from which it was derived.
b. a population of identical units, cells, or individuals that derive from the same ancestral line.
Reference: http://dictionary.reference.com...
GENETIC MODIFICATION: NOUN
any alteration of genetic material, as in agriculture, to make them capable of producing new substances or performing new functions; also called genetic engineering, genetic manipulation, gene splicing, [ gene technology ], recombinant DNA technology
Reference: http://dictionary.reference.com...
If PRO wanted the issue to be: 'Should we clone the future?' we cannot clone the future, and we cannot clone the past or present. We cannot clone, or genetically modify, a point in time.
Even if PRO wanted the issue to be: 'Should we Clone in the Future?' he agreed with my thesis, which would be: 'We shouldn't clone in the future.' So, any way you cut it, this debate is over.
Thank you. | Science | 0 | should-we-genetically-modify-the-future/1/ | 80,431 |
Let me walk this through with you... The resolution is: 'Should we genetically modify the future?' However, it is impossible to genetically modify the future. If PRO meant for the resolution to be: 'Should we genetically modify in the future?', he/she mentions cloning, although cloning and genetic modification are 2 different things: DEFINITION OF 'GENETIC MODIFICATION' noun any alteration of genetic material, as in agriculture, to make them capable of producing new substances or performing new functions; also called genetic engineering , genetic manipulation , gene splicing , [ gene technology ], recombinant DNA technology REFERENCE: <URL>... DEFINITION OF 'CLONE' noun 1. Biology . a cell, cell product, or organism that is genetically identical to the unit or individual from which it was derived. a population of identical units, cells, or individuals that derive from the same ancestral line. REFERENCE: <URL>... So, as you can see, genetic modification requires you to change something, whereas, if you're cloning something, you don't. If PRO wanted the resolution to be: 'Should we clone the future?', we cannot clone, or genetically modify, the future. If PRO wanted the resolution to be: 'Should we clone in the future?' he/she argued for my side. PRO, you are'pro' because you want to genetically modify the future. I am 'con' because I don't want to genetically modify the future. DEFINITION OF 'PRO' 1. An argument or consideration in favor of something: weighing the pros and cons. 2. One who supports a proposal or takes the affirmative side in a debate. REFERENCE: <URL>... DEFINITION OF 'CON' In opposition or disagreement; against: debated the issue pro and con. n. 1. An argument or opinion against something. 2. One who holds an opposing opinion or view. REFERENCE: <URL>... So PRO argued for my thesis, which is: 'We should not genetically modify the future.' He gave me a 'turn.' He agreed with my thesis. (s)He said: 'Okay, so if you think you should clone yourself you are wrong in a million ways because then this world would be to crowded. yes there is mars but its just not a good idea, trust me. if we just constantly keep going like this then we could be homeless, less jobs, less houses, less buildings. we all have a goal that we don't choose or don't wan't. that is the matter of living life and death. you all know this. well, not all of you, but you know you understand. just to end this, you should agree with me. and we should not genetically modify our future!' He agreed with my thesis. After posting my last argument about all the mistakes he made, PRO said this: ' That is what i am saying! we can not!' PRO, nobody knows what your resolution is. I would appreciate it if you told me what your resolution is next round. Not only that, but he admitted to agreeing with my thesis, as evidenced by his second post. I've pointed out flaws with all of your possible resolutions, PRO. Therefore, vote CON. | 0 | EAT_IT_SUKA |
Let me walk this through with you... The resolution is: 'Should we genetically modify the future?' However, it is impossible to genetically modify the future. If PRO meant for the resolution to be: 'Should we genetically modify in the future?', he/she mentions cloning, although cloning and genetic modification are 2 different things: DEFINITION OF 'GENETIC MODIFICATION'
noun
any alteration of genetic material, as in agriculture, to make them capable of producing new substances or performing new functions; also called genetic engineering , genetic manipulation , gene splicing , [ gene technology ], recombinant DNA technology
REFERENCE: http://dictionary.reference.com... DEFINITION OF 'CLONE'
noun
1.
Biology .
a cell, cell product, or organism that is genetically identical to the unit or individual from which it was derived.
a population of identical units, cells, or individuals that derive from the same ancestral line.
REFERENCE: http://dictionary.reference.com... So, as you can see, genetic modification requires you to change something, whereas, if you're cloning something, you don't. If PRO wanted the resolution to be: 'Should we clone the future?', we cannot clone, or genetically modify, the future. If PRO wanted the resolution to be: 'Should we clone in the future?' he/she argued for my side. PRO, you are'pro' because you want to genetically modify the future. I am 'con' because I don't want to genetically modify the future. DEFINITION OF 'PRO'
1. An argument or consideration in favor of something: weighing the pros and cons.
2. One who supports a proposal or takes the affirmative side in a debate. REFERENCE: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... DEFINITION OF 'CON' In opposition or disagreement; against: debated the issue pro and con.
n.
1. An argument or opinion against something.
2. One who holds an opposing opinion or view. REFERENCE: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... So PRO argued for my thesis, which is: 'We should not genetically modify the future.' He gave me a 'turn.' He agreed with my thesis. (s)He said: 'Okay, so if you think you should clone yourself you are wrong in a million ways because then this world would be to crowded. yes there is mars but its just not a good idea, trust me. if we just constantly keep going like this then we could be homeless, less jobs, less houses, less buildings. we all have a goal that we don't choose or don't wan't. that is the matter of living life and death. you all know this. well, not all of you, but you know you understand. just to end this, you should agree with me. and we should not genetically modify our future!' He agreed with my thesis. After posting my last argument about all the mistakes he made, PRO said this: ' That is what i am saying! we can not!' PRO, nobody knows what your resolution is. I would appreciate it if you told me what your resolution is next round. Not only that, but he admitted to agreeing with my thesis, as evidenced by his second post. I've pointed out flaws with all of your possible resolutions, PRO. Therefore, vote CON.
| Science | 1 | should-we-genetically-modify-the-future/1/ | 80,432 |
Extend. PRO's statement ' Okay so then i will delete this and start a new one!' is totally irrelevant to the debate. Vote CON. | 0 | EAT_IT_SUKA |
Extend. PRO's statement ' Okay so then i will delete this and start a new one!' is totally irrelevant to the debate. Vote CON. | Science | 3 | should-we-genetically-modify-the-future/1/ | 80,433 |
PRO stated that CON wins. This debate, if not already, is over. Vote CON. | 0 | EAT_IT_SUKA |
PRO stated that CON wins. This debate, if not already, is over. Vote CON. | Science | 4 | should-we-genetically-modify-the-future/1/ | 80,434 |
Okay, so if you think you should clone yourself you are wrong in a million ways because then this world would be to crowded. yes there is mars but its just not a good idea, trust me. if we just constantly keep going like this then we could be homeless, less jobs, less houses, less buildings. we all have a goal that we don't choose or don't wan't. that is the matter of living life and death. you all know this. well, not all of you, but you know you understand. just to end this, you should agree with me. and we should not genetically modify our future! | 0 | Hazel_Snow |
Okay, so if you think you should clone yourself you are wrong in a million ways because then this world would be to crowded. yes there is mars but its just not a good idea, trust me. if we just constantly keep going like this then we could be homeless, less jobs, less houses, less buildings. we all have a goal that we don't choose or don't wan't. that is the matter of living life and death. you all know this. well, not all of you, but you know you understand. just to end this, you should agree with me. and we should not genetically modify our future! | Science | 0 | should-we-genetically-modify-the-future/1/ | 80,435 |
That is what i am saying! we can not! | 0 | Hazel_Snow |
That is what i am saying! we can not! | Science | 1 | should-we-genetically-modify-the-future/1/ | 80,436 |
Okay so then i will delete this and start a new one! | 0 | Hazel_Snow |
Okay so then i will delete this and start a new one! | Science | 3 | should-we-genetically-modify-the-future/1/ | 80,437 |
Fine con WIN'S! | 0 | Hazel_Snow |
Fine con WIN'S! | Science | 4 | should-we-genetically-modify-the-future/1/ | 80,438 |
give free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health care | 0 | muhname |
give free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health care | Health | 0 | should-we-give-free-health-care/1/ | 80,439 |
give free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health care | 0 | muhname |
give free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health caregive free health care
| Health | 1 | should-we-give-free-health-care/1/ | 80,440 |
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg | 0 | muhname |
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg | Health | 2 | should-we-give-free-health-care/1/ | 80,441 |
thank you to a responder. i beileve that handguns should not be sold to people when they turn 21. you can own a long gun at age 18 also. i think they shouldnt because when you turn 21 you are immediatly into having your first alchoholic drink. therefor, carrying a gun would not be good at 21. they can easily get a gun permit and buy one. there are very bad people out there that will just go and buy a gun at the age of 21, and shoot someone. i beileve you should have at least 2-3 years of gun training to own a handgun, and you would have to start that training at 21. if you wanted any form of gun other than a handgun, such as a rifle, sniper, etc, i think you should have 4-5 years of training. good luck. i do not expect to win, but a clear answer and opinion of another person would be nice. | 0 | flash7221 |
thank you to a responder.
i beileve that handguns should not be sold to people when they turn 21. you can own a long gun at age 18 also. i think they shouldnt because when you turn 21 you are immediatly into having your first alchoholic drink. therefor, carrying a gun would not be good at 21. they can easily get a gun permit and buy one. there are very bad people out there that will just go and buy a gun at the age of 21, and shoot someone. i beileve you should have at least 2-3 years of gun training to own a handgun, and you would have to start that training at 21. if you wanted any form of gun other than a handgun, such as a rifle, sniper, etc, i think you should have
4-5 years of training.
good luck. i do not expect to win, but a clear answer and opinion of another person would be nice. | Technology | 0 | should-you-be-allowed-to-own-a-gun-at-18-21/1/ | 80,484 |
my opponent has said a very well written response. there are other things to protect yourself with, knives, bats, etc. the following article is now written, Youth - Gun Violence & Gun Access Guns cause the death of 20 children and young adults (24 years of age and under) each day in the U.S. Children and young adults (24 years of age and under) constitute over 41% of all firearm deaths and non-fatal injuries. In the United States, over 1.69 million kids age 18 and under are living in households with loaded and unlocked firearms. More than 75% of guns used in suicide attempts and unintentional injuries of 0-19 year-olds were stored in the residence of the victim, a relative, or a friend. A 2000 study found that 55% of U.S. homes with children and firearms have one or more firearms in an unlocked place; 43% have guns without a trigger lock in an unlocked place. The practices of keeping firearms locked, unloaded, and storing ammunition in a locked location separate from firearms may assist in reducing youth suicide and unintentional injury in homes with children and teenagers where guns are stored. Many young children, including children as young as three years old, are strong enough to fire handguns Dangers of Gun Use for Self-Defense Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action. Of the 13,636 Americans who were murdered in 2009, only 215 were killed by firearms (165 by handguns) in homicides by private citizens that law enforcement determined were justifiable. A study reviewing surveys of gun use in the U.S. determined that most self-reported self-defense gun uses may well be illegal and against the interests of society. The Dangers of Handguns From 1993 to 2001, an annual average of 737,360 violent crimes were committed with handguns in the U.S., making handguns seven times more likely to be used to commit violent crimes than other firearms. Although handguns make up only 34% of firearms, approximately 80% of firearm homicides are committed with a handgun. Women face an especially high risk of handgun violence. In 2008, 71% of female homicide victims were killed with a handgun. A California study found that in the first year after the purchase of a handgun, suicide was the leading cause of death among handgun purchasers. In the first week after the purchase of a handgun, the firearm suicide rate among the purchasers was 57 times as high as the adjusted rate in the general population. owning a firearm is not always a good way to "protect" yourself. it can also influence you to shoot someone, simply because you own the gun. source of article: <URL>... =conclusion= owning a handgun or firearm is not all about protecting yourself. suicide rates are increasing from the use of firearms, mostly handguns. | 0 | flash7221 |
my opponent has said a very well written response.
there are other things to protect yourself with, knives, bats, etc.
the following article is now written,
Youth – Gun Violence & Gun Access
Guns cause the death of 20 children and young adults (24 years of age and under) each day in the U.S.
Children and young adults (24 years of age and under) constitute over 41% of all firearm deaths and non-fatal injuries.
In the United States, over 1.69 million kids age 18 and under are living in households with loaded and unlocked firearms.
More than 75% of guns used in suicide attempts and unintentional injuries of 0-19 year-olds were stored in the residence of the victim, a relative, or a friend.
A 2000 study found that 55% of U.S. homes with children and firearms have one or more firearms in an unlocked place; 43% have guns without a trigger lock in an unlocked place.
The practices of keeping firearms locked, unloaded, and storing ammunition in a locked location separate from firearms may assist in reducing youth suicide and unintentional injury in homes with children and teenagers where guns are stored.
Many young children, including children as young as three years old, are strong enough to fire handguns
Dangers of Gun Use for Self-Defense
Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.
Of the 13,636 Americans who were murdered in 2009, only 215 were killed by firearms (165 by handguns) in homicides by private citizens that law enforcement determined were justifiable.
A study reviewing surveys of gun use in the U.S. determined that most self-reported self-defense gun uses may well be illegal and against the interests of society.
The Dangers of Handguns
From 1993 to 2001, an annual average of 737,360 violent crimes were committed with handguns in the U.S., making handguns seven times more likely to be used to commit violent crimes than other firearms.
Although handguns make up only 34% of firearms, approximately 80% of firearm homicides are committed with a handgun.
Women face an especially high risk of handgun violence. In 2008, 71% of female homicide victims were killed with a handgun.
A California study found that in the first year after the purchase of a handgun, suicide was the leading cause of death among handgun purchasers. In the first week after the purchase of a handgun, the firearm suicide rate among the purchasers was 57 times as high as the adjusted rate in the general population.
owning a firearm is not always a good way to "protect" yourself. it can also influence you to shoot someone, simply because you own the gun.
source of article:
http://www.lcav.org...
=conclusion=
owning a handgun or firearm is not all about protecting yourself. suicide rates are increasing from the use of firearms, mostly handguns. | Technology | 1 | should-you-be-allowed-to-own-a-gun-at-18-21/1/ | 80,485 |
we think that smoking should be allowed. First round acceptance 2nd and 3rd debate 4th is just congratulating eachother | 0 | PatCam |
we think that smoking should be allowed.
First round acceptance
2nd and 3rd debate
4th is just �congratulating eachother | Health | 0 | smoking-should-be-illegal/6/ | 80,557 |
If you go back to the early 30's in America the government banned alcohol. Thes did not result in everyone being sober and stop drinking because people smuggled the alcohol.this was what created the mafia in the U.S. Al Capone was one who because very famous for his smuggling of alcohol. The exact same could happen with cigarettes. People can choose the ways to spend their life. If they want to smoke they can smoke and ruin their life. The criminals get richer by smuggling stuff and they will get very rich by smuggling and selling cigarettes. This could result in a complete increase of criminal gangs who can rape, murder and rob and always get out of the way because they bribe the police and judges. Or threaten them. | 0 | PatCam |
If you go back to the early 30's in America the government banned alcohol. The�s did not result in everyone being sober and stop drinking because people smuggled the alcohol.�this was what created the mafia in the U.S.
Al Capone was one who because very famous for his smuggling of alcohol. The exact same could happen with cigarettes. People can choose the ways to spend their life. If they want to smoke they can smoke and ruin their life. The criminals get richer by smuggling stuff and they will get very rich by smuggling and selling cigarettes. This could result in a complete increase of criminal gangs who can rape, murder and rob and always get out of the way because they bribe the police and judges. Or threaten them. | Health | 1 | smoking-should-be-illegal/6/ | 80,558 |
dont give up...just try...smoking is also some people joy. if they love this then let them do so. they decide what they want out of life. not the government. | 0 | PatCam |
dont give up...just try...smoking is also some people joy. if they love this then let them do so. they decide what they want out of life. not the government. | Health | 2 | smoking-should-be-illegal/6/ | 80,559 |
Why didnt you respond...forfeiter :( | 0 | PatCam |
Why didnt you respond...forfeiter :( | Health | 4 | smoking-should-be-illegal/6/ | 80,560 |
All right | 0 | PinkPeanut |
All right | Health | 0 | smoking-should-be-illegal/6/ | 80,561 |
...im screwed X) Anyways, why should you even tolerate this anyways? ...guys, i give up, you're 2 against 1... ...not fair... | 0 | PinkPeanut |
...im screwed X)
Anyways, why should you even tolerate this anyways?
...guys, i give up, you're 2 against 1...
...not fair... | Health | 1 | smoking-should-be-illegal/6/ | 80,562 |
i will let the pro side state their arguement first | 0 | vcheng |
i will let the pro side state their arguement first | Society | 0 | space-exploration-is-not-a-waste-of-money/1/ | 80,586 |
superman sucks | 0 | Gohan12345 |
superman sucks | TV | 0 | superman-sucks/1/ | 80,701 |
he does sux hes yltoo powerful and batman beated him and I saw him being a ugly dork thats why wondered women refused his letter | 0 | Gohan12345 |
he does sux hes yltoo powerful and batman beated him and I saw him being a ugly dork thats why wondered women refused his letter | TV | 1 | superman-sucks/1/ | 80,702 |
Technology is very much important for our life now.We use the output of science,technology in every sphere of our life to live better.But,on the other hand,technology is just distructive for our enviroment. | 0 | Bayron |
Technology is very much important for our life now.We use the output of science,technology in every sphere of our life to live better.But,on the other hand,technology is just distructive for our enviroment. | Technology | 0 | technology-is-nothing-but-a-threat-for-the-enviroment/1/ | 80,776 |
Thank you, 16adams, for challenging me to this debate. I hope this will be excciting and engaging for both of us. I generally debate religious philosophy, but seeing your debates I thought you would be a good opponent. ==Opening Arguments== In a democracy, the people have a right to elect whom they want to elect. Term limits limit that right. Therefore, term limits are non-democratic and should be done away with. Premise 1 states that in a democracy, the citizens of that nation have that right to elect whom they want. This should be an unproblematic premise for both myself and my opponent. Democracy is defined as a government by the people, for the people, and of the people. Hence, they should have the right to elect whom they want to elect. [1] Premise 2 states that term limits limit that right. If we are truly a government "by the people, for the people, and of the people", then the people decides who they want. Lets take, for example, Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt was loved by the people and was a successful war time president [2]. Therefore, the people were justified by giving him 4 terms instead of 2. My question to my opponent is this: If people want to have the same president more than 2 times, why should they be denied the president of their choice? I say, let it be. Therefore, term limits limit democracy and should be done away with . ==Rebuttals== My opponent claims that term limits make elections "fairer." I disagree. It is generally not the person that is most known, but the person who raises the most money for campaigns [3]. Thanks. References [1] <URL>... ; [2] <URL>... ; [3] <URL>... ; | 0 | Mr.Infidel |
Thank you, 16adams, for challenging me to this debate. I hope this will be excciting and engaging for both of us. I generally debate religious philosophy, but seeing your debates I thought you would be a good opponent. ==Opening Arguments==
In a democracy, the people have a right to elect whom they want to elect.
Term limits limit that right.
Therefore, term limits are non-democratic and should be done away with.
Premise 1 states that in a democracy, the citizens of that nation have that right to elect whom they want. This should be an unproblematic premise for both myself and my opponent. Democracy is defined as a government by the people, for the people, and of the people. Hence, they should have the right to elect whom they want to elect. [1] Premise 2 states that term limits limit that right. If we are truly a government "by the people, for the people, and of the people", then the people decides who they want. Lets take, for example, Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt was loved by the people and was a successful war time president [2]. Therefore, the people were justified by giving him 4 terms instead of 2. My question to my opponent is this: If people want to have the same president more than 2 times, why should they be denied the president of their choice? I say, let it be. Therefore, term limits limit democracy and should be done away with . ==Rebuttals== My opponent claims that term limits make elections "fairer." I disagree. It is generally not the person that is most known, but the person who raises the most money for campaigns [3]. Thanks. References [1] http://www.democracyweb.org... ; [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... ; [3] http://communities.washingtontimes.com... ;
| Politics | 0 | term-limits/10/ | 80,813 |
Thank you for your arguments. I want to welcome you once again to debate.org and wish you the best of luck. I have argued the following: In a democracy, the people have the right to elect whom they want to elect. Term limits limit that right. Therefore, term limits are unjust in a democratic society. I have not given any particular nation for which we were arguing about, but for the most part, it appears my opponent wishes to stick with the USA, so I shall (respectfully) do the same. My opponent has a few facts wrong. There are many different types of democracy, and in fact, a constitutional republic is one of those different types. Although it is not a pure democracy (there has never been a pure democracy) it is, in fact a type of democracy [1]. In the words of my opponent, "I do agree we need to vote for who we want", and if that person is someone who has served more than twice, then so be it. My opponent argues that there is a fear of a dictatorship, however, I believe this is a scare tactic. The constitution and the balances of power (Judicial, Executive, and Legislative) [2] balance the power to prevent this type of dictatorship from happening. The good thing about a democracy, is that if we do elect someone we do not like, we have the power to remove the person from office. Thanks. ____________ [1] <URL>... ; [2] <URL>... ; | 0 | Mr.Infidel |
Thank you for your arguments. I want to welcome you once again to debate.org and wish you the best of luck. I have argued the following:
In a democracy, the people have the right to elect whom they want to elect.
Term limits limit that right.
Therefore, term limits are unjust in a democratic society.
I have not given any particular nation for which we were arguing about, but for the most part, it appears my opponent wishes to stick with the USA, so I shall (respectfully) do the same. My opponent has a few facts wrong. There are many different types of democracy, and in fact, a constitutional republic is one of those different types. Although it is not a pure democracy (there has never been a pure democracy) it is, in fact a type of democracy [1]. In the words of my opponent, "I do agree we need to vote for who we want", and if that person is someone who has served more than twice, then so be it. My opponent argues that there is a fear of a dictatorship, however, I believe this is a scare tactic. The constitution and the balances of power (Judicial, Executive, and Legislative) [2] balance the power to prevent this type of dictatorship from happening. The good thing about a democracy, is that if we do elect someone we do not like, we have the power to remove the person from office. Thanks. ____________ [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... ; [2] http://bensguide.gpo.gov... ;
| Politics | 1 | term-limits/10/ | 80,814 |
Thank you for a fun debate. I will restate my opening argument: In a democratic society, the people have the right to elect whom they want to elect. Term limits limit that right. Therefore, in a democratic society term limits are unjust. My opponent kept arguing that the incubinent keeps winning, so what? If the person is good and the people want him, why can't the people elect the incubinent more than 2x. | CONCLUSION | My opponent has not answered the question that I raised in round 1. If people want to have the same president more than 2 times, why should they be denied the president of their choice? Thank you. | 0 | Mr.Infidel |
Thank you for a fun debate. I will restate my opening argument:
In a democratic society, the people have the right to elect whom they want to elect.
Term limits limit that right.
Therefore, in a democratic society term limits are unjust.
My opponent kept arguing that the incubinent keeps winning, so what? If the person is good and the people want him, why can't the people elect the incubinent more than 2x. | CONCLUSION | My opponent has not answered the question that I raised in round 1. If people want to have the same president more than 2 times, why should they be denied the president of their choice? Thank you.
| Politics | 2 | term-limits/10/ | 80,815 |
Resolved: on balance the supreme court ruling on citizens united harms the election process. My partner and I stand on firm negation of this resolution for these points" Contention 1: Without Citizens united the election process will be jeopardized Contention 2: Citizens united allows voters to be more informed about elections Contention 1: Without Citizens united the election process will be jeopardized. I would like to start out with saying that citizens united is a main contributor to the election process, in fact it is responsible for 78% of funds according to <URL>... With citizens united people have the ability to help change the out comeof the election by giving money to candidates. It is a well known fact that the most crucial key to winning an election is the resources you have ie money. With citizens united in place it gives candidates a "safety net" of funds to keep their campaigns in progress. If citizens united were revoked that "safety net" would disappear, and have the possibility knock a candidate out of the election. This clearly contradicts what my the pro side is tiring to prove, which is that citizens united harms the election process, in fact it helps the election process. Contention 2: Citizens united allows voters to be more informed about elections. Citizens United plays a big role in provide funding for these advertisements. It is a well known fact that a large majority of money is spent on political advertising. Advertisements are also often considered the most important part of campaigning because a candidate can reach out to a large amount of people with one advertisement. With these advertisements Americans can become more informed on what is happening in the political world. In most cases advertisements are the main source of information for voters, meaning that those advertisements have a large impact on the election. With Citizens United advertisements can be more abundant, properly informing voters on political situations. Due to this citizens united actually protects the election process, because it gives each candidate the resources they need to pay for advertisements. Without citizens united it would give an unfair advantage with the candidate with the most amount of money, so with citizens united it actually creates a "more pure" election process. | 0 | neveragain |
Resolved: on balance the supreme court ruling on citizens united harms the election process. My partner and I stand on firm negation of this resolution for these points"
Contention 1: Without Citizens united the election process will be jeopardized
Contention 2: Citizens united allows voters to be more informed about elections
Contention 1: Without Citizens united the election process will be jeopardized. I would like to start out with saying that citizens united is a main contributor to the election process, in fact it is responsible for 78% of funds according to https://www.commondreams.org... With citizens united people have the ability to help change the out comeof the election by giving money to candidates. It is a well known fact that the most crucial key to winning an election is the resources you have ie money. With citizens united in place it gives candidates a "safety net" of funds to keep their campaigns in progress. If citizens united were revoked that "safety net" would disappear, and have the possibility knock a candidate out of the election. This clearly contradicts what my the pro side is tiring to prove, which is that citizens united harms the election process, in fact it helps the election process.
Contention 2: Citizens united allows voters to be more informed about elections. Citizens United plays a big role in provide funding for these advertisements. It is a well known fact that a large majority of money is spent on political advertising. Advertisements are also often considered the most important part of campaigning because a candidate can reach out to a large amount of people with one advertisement. With these advertisements Americans can become more informed on what is happening in the political world. In most cases advertisements are the main source of information for voters, meaning that those advertisements have a large impact on the election. With Citizens United advertisements can be more abundant, properly informing voters on political situations. Due to this citizens united actually protects the election process, because it gives each candidate the resources they need to pay for advertisements. Without citizens united it would give an unfair advantage with the candidate with the most amount of money, so with citizens united it actually creates a "more pure" election process. | Politics | 0 | the-Supreme-Court-decision-in-Citizens-United-v.-Federal-Election-Commission-harms-election-process/2/ | 80,918 |
First of all my opponent said Citizens United gives unfair advantages" however that is completely false. If his statement were true than, historically speaking, every election was won by the candidate with more money. This is completely false disproving his attack. His second point that, "the court's decision allows for corporations to spend investor money (without the consent of the investor) on causes with which the investor(s) may not agree" is irrelevant to today"s topic, because it doesn"t show how citizens united harms the lection process. His third attack was that Citizens United is devastating to democracy" however if this were true, then we would already see democracy being effected, and would have been repelled by the Supreme Court. His final attack was that Super Pacs spread false lies, however one can not blame Super Pacs alone for causing this, and in order for this argument to be valid he must give a direct link to Super Pacs being the cause for all of the lies. I shall now attack his case in order for his first point to stand he must give me an example of a time corporations make a political statement using their investors money without their knowledge, since that is what his first point is about. In his second point he must show that Citizens United DIRECTLY empowers corporate managers to use money that isn't their own to make their own political statements. If he can not prove either, both points are invalid because his points would be based on a the possibility of something happening, not what actually what has happened. | 0 | neveragain |
First of all my opponent said Citizens United gives unfair advantages" however that is completely false. If his statement were true than, historically speaking, every election was won by the candidate with more money. This is completely false disproving his attack. His second point that, "the court's decision allows for corporations to spend investor money (without the consent of the investor) on causes with which the investor(s) may not agree" is irrelevant to today"s topic, because it doesn"t show how citizens united harms the lection process. His third attack was that Citizens United is devastating to democracy" however if this were true, then we would already see democracy being effected, and would have been repelled by the Supreme Court. His final attack was that Super Pacs spread false lies, however one can not blame Super Pacs alone for causing this, and in order for this argument to be valid he must give a direct link to Super Pacs being the cause for all of the lies.
I shall now attack his case in order for his first point to stand he must give me an example of a time corporations make a political statement using their investors money without their knowledge, since that is what his first point is about. In his second point he must show that Citizens United DIRECTLY empowers corporate managers to use money that isn't their own to make their own political statements. If he can not prove either, both points are invalid because his points would be based on a the possibility of something happening, not what actually what has happened. | Politics | 1 | the-Supreme-Court-decision-in-Citizens-United-v.-Federal-Election-Commission-harms-election-process/2/ | 80,919 |
My opponent still can not say that the more money "drown out opponents arguments" because more money does not mean that the opposing candidates opinions will be drown out. His arguments would still exist even if the opposing candidate did have more money. He also argued that the Supreme Court is very liberal, however that does not mean they would ignore what is best for America. Now to summarize my points and why they still hold strong in today"s debate. I showed in my first point that if we removed Citizens United it would harm the election process more than help it, as brought up in a piece of evidence I presented. I proved that Citizens United account for 78% of money in the election, and if we removed that it would take away the "safety net" and could force candidates to drop out of an election. Since he failed to disprove this my argument still stands in today"s debate. My second point showed that Citizens United helps keep voters informed. My main argument was that advertisements are a key part of an election, and that Citizens United helps fund these advertisements, informing the common voter. However with citizens united gone, these advertisements would go down in number and less inform us about what is going on in the political world, thus harming the election process. My opponent also failed to disprove this meaning the argument still holds in today"s debate. | 0 | neveragain |
My opponent still can not say that the more money "drown out opponents arguments" because more money does not mean that the opposing candidates opinions will be drown out. His arguments would still exist even if the opposing candidate did have more money. He also argued that the Supreme Court is very liberal, however that does not mean they would ignore what is best for America. Now to summarize my points and why they still hold strong in today"s debate. I showed in my first point that if we removed Citizens United it would harm the election process more than help it, as brought up in a piece of evidence I presented. I proved that Citizens United account for 78% of money in the election, and if we removed that it would take away the "safety net" and could force candidates to drop out of an election. Since he failed to disprove this my argument still stands in today"s debate. My second point showed that Citizens United helps keep voters informed. My main argument was that advertisements are a key part of an election, and that Citizens United helps fund these advertisements, informing the common voter. However with citizens united gone, these advertisements would go down in number and less inform us about what is going on in the political world, thus harming the election process. My opponent also failed to disprove this meaning the argument still holds in today"s debate. | Politics | 2 | the-Supreme-Court-decision-in-Citizens-United-v.-Federal-Election-Commission-harms-election-process/2/ | 80,920 |
You're argument forgets that GOD is not only love and mercy but also justice. If someone breaks GOD's law then GOD has every right to send that person to Hell. GOD didn't create people so that we could have a great time. He created us to bring glory to Himself. In order to bring glory to Himself, He created some of us to repent and be saved, (to show His mercy) and some of us to be defiant and not be saved (to show His justice) Romans 9 and Ephesians 1&2. It's as simple as that. It's doesn't contradict itself at all. GOD created all of us. Everyone has broken His law. There is nothing un-loving about punishing law-breakers. It's simply justice. Now as to the free-will part of things. People do not have free will. Sorry to burst the bubble. People are born slaves to sin. Do people still get to make a choice? Absolutely. But humans are so sinful that our choice will always be sin. GOD, although He knows we are going to sin, does not force us to. Think of it like this... One owns a dog. This person has repeatedly told this dog to stay inside the fence, NO MATTER WHAT. This person opens the gate knowing that the dog is going to run out of the fence. Has the person made the dog leave the fence? Not at all. The person simply allowed the dog to make the choice. GOD doesn't ever force anyone to do anything. He simply lets us make our own choices. When someone gets saved it's only because GOD has changed their heart from wanting sinfulness to wanting to obey Him. | 0 | AEQUITAS |
You're argument forgets that GOD is not only love and mercy but also justice. If someone breaks GOD's law then GOD has every right to send that person to Hell. GOD didn't create people so that we could have a great time. He created us to bring glory to Himself. In order to bring glory to Himself, He created some of us to repent and be saved, (to show His mercy) and some of us to be defiant and not be saved (to show His justice) Romans 9 and Ephesians 1&2. It's as simple as that. It's doesn't contradict itself at all. GOD created all of us. Everyone has broken His law. There is nothing un-loving about punishing law-breakers. It's simply justice. Now as to the free-will part of things. People do not have free will. Sorry to burst the bubble. People are born slaves to sin. Do people still get to make a choice? Absolutely. But humans are so sinful that our choice will always be sin. GOD, although He knows we are going to sin, does not force us to. Think of it like this... One owns a dog. This person has repeatedly told this dog to stay inside the fence, NO MATTER WHAT. This person opens the gate knowing that the dog is going to run out of the fence. Has the person made the dog leave the fence? Not at all. The person simply allowed the dog to make the choice. GOD doesn't ever force anyone to do anything. He simply lets us make our own choices. When someone gets saved it's only because GOD has changed their heart from wanting sinfulness to wanting to obey Him. | Religion | 0 | the-christian-portrayal-of-god-is-hypocritical./1/ | 81,011 |
You're point is that "the christian portrayal of GOD is hypocritical." You use the fact that GOD creates people knowing they will go to Hell to try and prove this. I showed that while this belief is true, it does not contradict other christian beliefs. Thus, the christian portrayal of GOD is NOT hypocritical. You still have yet to refute my point on that and unless you can I've successfully argued my point. Even so, I'll refute the other points you make, irrelevent to this debate though they may be. In the process I'll also refute some of the points made by commenters. "If everyone has broken GOD's law, then why isn't everyone saved? Is it because some crimes are worse than others?" Again, keep Romans 9 in mind. Now, If everyone has sinned, then everyone deserves condemnation. Jesus died on the cross to satisfy that punishment. Because Jesus is perfect He could die in our place and satisfy GOD the Father's justice. When Jesus died He died for people who were pre-ordained by GOD to be saved (to show GOD's mercy) These people are completely sinful and have no hope of salvation until GOD changes their hearts. (There is NOTHING special about pre-ordained people. They are just as sinful and rebellious against GOD as everyone else. The ONLY reason they are saved is because GOD chose them and changed their hearts.) People who GOD doesn't choose are not saved. (To show GOD's justice) Again, I point to the example of the dog and the owner that I used in my first argument which explains how a person always gets to choose between right or wrong, but because of people's inherent sinfulness they will always choose sin. The merciful thing is that Jesus died to satisfy GOD's perfect justice. The just thing is that people who refuse to repent of their sins still go to Hell. Mercy and Justice are not contradictory. These beliefs are known as Calvinism. Here is a website that will explain it in more depth. <URL>... | 0 | AEQUITAS |
You're point is that "the christian portrayal of GOD is hypocritical." You use the fact that GOD creates people knowing they will go to Hell to try and prove this. I showed that while this belief is true, it does not contradict other christian beliefs. Thus, the christian portrayal of GOD is NOT hypocritical. You still have yet to refute my point on that and unless you can I've successfully argued my point. Even so, I'll refute the other points you make, irrelevent to this debate though they may be. In the process I'll also refute some of the points made by commenters.
"If everyone has broken GOD's law, then why isn't everyone saved? Is it because some crimes are worse than others?" Again, keep Romans 9 in mind. Now, If everyone has sinned, then everyone deserves condemnation. Jesus died on the cross to satisfy that punishment. Because Jesus is perfect He could die in our place and satisfy GOD the Father's justice. When Jesus died He died for people who were pre-ordained by GOD to be saved (to show GOD's mercy) These people are completely sinful and have no hope of salvation until GOD changes their hearts. (There is NOTHING special about pre-ordained people. They are just as sinful and rebellious against GOD as everyone else. The ONLY reason they are saved is because GOD chose them and changed their hearts.) People who GOD doesn't choose are not saved. (To show GOD's justice) Again, I point to the example of the dog and the owner that I used in my first argument which explains how a person always gets to choose between right or wrong, but because of people's inherent sinfulness they will always choose sin.
The merciful thing is that Jesus died to satisfy GOD's perfect justice. The just thing is that people who refuse to repent of their sins still go to Hell. Mercy and Justice are not contradictory.
These beliefs are known as Calvinism. Here is a website that will explain it in more depth. http://www.calvinistcorner.com... | Religion | 1 | the-christian-portrayal-of-god-is-hypocritical./1/ | 81,012 |
As I've already pointed out there is nothing un-loving about GOD punishing people who break His laws. He created us, He gave us commandments and said "Do not break these or you will go to Hell." We broke these commandments. GOD has is perfectly just in condemning people for that. People always have a choice. They have a choice to either turn to Christ and trust in His mercy, or to continue in their sin. The problem is that a person WANTS their sin more than they want Christ. It's not that GOD says "ummm... you would have wanted to repent, but I didn't want you to so I kept you from it." GOD doesn't keep anyone from repenting. Our own sinfulness does that. The only way for someone to desire to repent is if GOD changes their hearts and makes them want Christ more than they want sin. Then they will choose Christ. It's not that GOD gives the people who He has chosen the ability to repent. Everyone has that ability. He gives them the desire. The only reason why non-preordained people cannot choose GOD is not because they lack the ability, it's because they lack all desire to do so. So when the psalmist says "but I have trusted in thy mercy; my heart shall rejoice in thy salvation." This is someone speaking from a heart that GOD has changed. This is someone who DESIRES GOD. Desires to praise Him and follow Him. Since GOD has changed this person's heart this person now trusts in GOD's mercy and salvation. A person whose heart GOD has not chosen to save will never trust in GOD's mercy or rejoice in His salvation. GOD doesn't keep someone from believing in Him. He simply gives some a new heart that desires to follow Him. Back to the example with the dog and the owner from argument one. The owner has repeatedly told the dog to stay in the fence. The owner leaves the gate open and walks away. The owner knows that the dog is going to leave the fence but wants to give it a choice. The owner did not make the dog leave the yard in any way shape or form. He simply gave it the choice whether or not to obey him. The dog could have stayed inside the fence, but he didn't want to. In order to be saved one MUST trust in Jesus as their only hope of salvation. "I am the Way, the Truth, the Life. No one comes to the Father but by Me." One must turn away from their sin and follow Jesus. "For whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." All the promises of those who trust in GOD will be saved are true. The only way someone will trust in GOD though is if they are given a new heart that desires to trust in Jesus. The mercy side of things is that Jesus died when He didn't have to. Matthew 26:52. Jesus states here very plainly that He doesn't have to die if He doesn't want to. He still does though. Dying in order to take the punishment for someone else is merciful. Punishing those who refuse to repent of their sins and follow Jesus is just. Granting a new heart that desires to follow Christ and then letting them make a decision is mercy. Not granting a new heart that wants to follow Christ and letting them make their own choice is just. It is also just to give a new heart that desires to follow Christ to some because Christ died to take the punishment for sins. His death satisfied Justice. People are always allowed to make a choice. Because sin's hold on them is so strong however, they cannot choose anything but sin. They have the ability to choose, but they desire sin so strongly, they cannot choose against that desire. In conclusion, there is no way that GOD will condemn someone in spite of repenting and following Christ. "Anyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." The only way someone will call upon the name of the Lord however, is if they have been given a new heart that desires GOD. Everyone has the choice to change, but no one is able to independently because they desire sin too strongly. GOD is just for sending those to Hell who reject His law and His Son. He is merciful because gives to some a new heart that desires to follow Christ. Read the books of Genesis, Matthew, Romans, and Ephesians. | 0 | AEQUITAS |
As I've already pointed out there is nothing un-loving about GOD punishing people who break His laws. He created us, He gave us commandments and said "Do not break these or you will go to Hell." We broke these commandments. GOD has is perfectly just in condemning people for that.
People always have a choice. They have a choice to either turn to Christ and trust in His mercy, or to continue in their sin. The problem is that a person WANTS their sin more than they want Christ. It's not that GOD says "ummm... you would have wanted to repent, but I didn't want you to so I kept you from it." GOD doesn't keep anyone from repenting. Our own sinfulness does that.
The only way for someone to desire to repent is if GOD changes their hearts and makes them want Christ more than they want sin. Then they will choose Christ. It's not that GOD gives the people who He has chosen the ability to repent. Everyone has that ability. He gives them the desire. The only reason why non-preordained people cannot choose GOD is not because they lack the ability, it's because they lack all desire to do so. So when the psalmist says "but I have trusted in thy mercy; my heart shall rejoice in thy salvation." This is someone speaking from a heart that GOD has changed. This is someone who DESIRES GOD. Desires to praise Him and follow Him.
Since GOD has changed this person's heart this person now trusts in GOD's mercy and salvation. A person whose heart GOD has not chosen to save will never trust in GOD's mercy or rejoice in His salvation. GOD doesn't keep someone from believing in Him. He simply gives some a new heart that desires to follow Him.
Back to the example with the dog and the owner from argument one. The owner has repeatedly told the dog to stay in the fence. The owner leaves the gate open and walks away. The owner knows that the dog is going to leave the fence but wants to give it a choice. The owner did not make the dog leave the yard in any way shape or form. He simply gave it the choice whether or not to obey him. The dog could have stayed inside the fence, but he didn't want to.
In order to be saved one MUST trust in Jesus as their only hope of salvation. "I am the Way, the Truth, the Life. No one comes to the Father but by Me." One must turn away from their sin and follow Jesus. "For whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." All the promises of those who trust in GOD will be saved are true. The only way someone will trust in GOD though is if they are given a new heart that desires to trust in Jesus. The mercy side of things is that Jesus died when He didn't have to. Matthew 26:52. Jesus states here very plainly that He doesn't have to die if He doesn't want to. He still does though. Dying in order to take the punishment for someone else is merciful. Punishing those who refuse to repent of their sins and follow Jesus is just. Granting a new heart that desires to follow Christ and then letting them make a decision is mercy. Not granting a new heart that wants to follow Christ and letting them make their own choice is just. It is also just to give a new heart that desires to follow Christ to some because Christ died to take the punishment for sins. His death satisfied Justice.
People are always allowed to make a choice. Because sin's hold on them is so strong however, they cannot choose anything but sin. They have the ability to choose, but they desire sin so strongly, they cannot choose against that desire.
In conclusion, there is no way that GOD will condemn someone in spite of repenting and following Christ. "Anyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." The only way someone will call upon the name of the Lord however, is if they have been given a new heart that desires GOD. Everyone has the choice to change, but no one is able to independently because they desire sin too strongly. GOD is just for sending those to Hell who reject His law and His Son. He is merciful because gives to some a new heart that desires to follow Christ.
Read the books of Genesis, Matthew, Romans, and Ephesians. | Religion | 2 | the-christian-portrayal-of-god-is-hypocritical./1/ | 81,013 |
christian teaching is that god is responsible for all life here on earth. physically, it takes a man and a woman (or a sperm and an egg, to be more PC) to create a child. however, without god's influence, that life will never come to be. that is the christian belief. christians also believe that god is omnipotent, that he sees and knows all, and this is supported numerous times throughout the bible. for instance, philippians 4:3 and revelation 3:5 say that the moment you place your faith in jesus as your savior (see John 3:16 and romans 10:9-10), your name is written in the Book of Life, never to be erased. no true believer should doubt his eternal security in Christ (john 10:28-30). in other words, humans do have free will, but god in all of his infinite wisdom already knows the choices that people will make... because he is omnipotent, knows everything about everything, etc. and god knows who has accepted him and lived by his word, and will save them after death, i.e. send them to heaven. well if this is the case, god also knows long before one is born that one will go to hell. what i mean is, if one is going to reject the lord as their savior, they will be damned for all eternity. but god knows that one is going to go down this path (hehe- he's clairvoyant). so... why would god choose to create that life? according to christian/biblical logic, god is choosing to damn souls to hell by even allowing them to exist. if they're only going to be lost souls doomed to eternal damnation in a firey existance worse than any excrutiating circumstance that we as humans can fathom (deep breath), why not just prevent a life from ever being created? sure humans have "free will" to make the right choices, but god already knows who WON'T make the right choices, so in essence he is allowing people to go to hell. isn't that completely contradictory of the all-loving, gracious and forgiving god portrayed and embraced by christian faith/doctrine...? | 0 | numa |
christian teaching is that god is responsible for all life here on earth. physically, it takes a man and a woman (or a sperm and an egg, to be more PC) to create a child. however, without god's influence, that life will never come to be. that is the christian belief.
christians also believe that god is omnipotent, that he sees and knows all, and this is supported numerous times throughout the bible. for instance, philippians 4:3 and revelation 3:5 say that the moment you place your faith in jesus as your savior (see John 3:16 and romans 10:9‑10), your name is written in the Book of Life, never to be erased. no true believer should doubt his eternal security in Christ (john 10:28-30).
in other words, humans do have free will, but god in all of his infinite wisdom already knows the choices that people will make... because he is omnipotent, knows everything about everything, etc. and god knows who has accepted him and lived by his word, and will save them after death, i.e. send them to heaven.
well if this is the case, god also knows long before one is born that one will go to hell. what i mean is, if one is going to reject the lord as their savior, they will be damned for all eternity. but god knows that one is going to go down this path (hehe- he's clairvoyant). so... why would god choose to create that life?
according to christian/biblical logic, god is choosing to damn souls to hell by even allowing them to exist. if they're only going to be lost souls doomed to eternal damnation in a firey existance worse than any excrutiating circumstance that we as humans can fathom (deep breath), why not just prevent a life from ever being created? sure humans have "free will" to make the right choices, but god already knows who WON'T make the right choices, so in essence he is allowing people to go to hell. isn't that completely contradictory of the all-loving, gracious and forgiving god portrayed and embraced by christian faith/doctrine...? | Religion | 0 | the-christian-portrayal-of-god-is-hypocritical./1/ | 81,014 |
my point has been that god created people KNOWING already what their fate would be before they were even born: that they would someday go to hell. con was supposed to refute this; however, here is what she has said- "In order to bring glory to Himself, He created some of us to repent and be saved, (to show His mercy) and some of us to be defiant and not be saved (to show His justice) Romans 9 and Ephesians 1&2. It's as simple as that." so con is agreeing with me that to BRING GLORY TO HIMSELF, god purposefully created people just so he could send them to hell. that god sounds vain, prejudice, and unloving- FAR from the god that christians normally describe. then con says, "Everyone has broken His law. There is nothing un-loving about punishing law-breakers. It's simply justice." i would agree with con here. except if EVERYONE has broken god's law, then why isn't EVERYONE saved? because some crimes are worse than others? i would agree with that. however according to con, people don't have free will. in other words, people cannot control what they do because con believes in predestination over free will. so basically, people are forced to commit crimes (due to their own natural urges) and then are punished for them to show god's justice. now, whether or not you agree with this christian approach (and christian beliefs on the subject DO vary), while voting you must only take into account the specific beliefs and arguments that con has put forward... also, keep in mind that the definition of justice is also linked to fairness. why is it fair that some people are born with god's 'intention' of sending them to heaven, and others specifically created just so he could send them to hell to glorify himself and his name? again, DO NOT VOTE BASED ON YOUR OWN BELIEFS, BUT THESE ARE CON'S BELIEFS WHICH SHE HAS OFFERED IN DEFENSE OF HER ARGUMENT... | 0 | numa |
my point has been that god created people KNOWING already what their fate would be before they were even born: that they would someday go to hell. con was supposed to refute this; however, here is what she has said- "In order to bring glory to Himself, He created some of us to repent and be saved, (to show His mercy) and some of us to be defiant and not be saved (to show His justice) Romans 9 and Ephesians 1&2. It's as simple as that."
so con is agreeing with me that to BRING GLORY TO HIMSELF, god purposefully created people just so he could send them to hell. that god sounds vain, prejudice, and unloving- FAR from the god that christians normally describe.
then con says, "Everyone has broken His law. There is nothing un-loving about punishing law-breakers. It's simply justice." i would agree with con here. except if EVERYONE has broken god's law, then why isn't EVERYONE saved? because some crimes are worse than others? i would agree with that. however according to con, people don't have free will. in other words, people cannot control what they do because con believes in predestination over free will. so basically, people are forced to commit crimes (due to their own natural urges) and then are punished for them to show god's justice. now, whether or not you agree with this christian approach (and christian beliefs on the subject DO vary), while voting you must only take into account the specific beliefs and arguments that con has put forward...
also, keep in mind that the definition of justice is also linked to fairness. why is it fair that some people are born with god's 'intention' of sending them to heaven, and others specifically created just so he could send them to hell to glorify himself and his name? again, DO NOT VOTE BASED ON YOUR OWN BELIEFS, BUT THESE ARE CON'S BELIEFS WHICH SHE HAS OFFERED IN DEFENSE OF HER ARGUMENT... | Religion | 1 | the-christian-portrayal-of-god-is-hypocritical./1/ | 81,015 |
you are mistaken. to win this debate, all i must do is provide one example in which the christian portrayal of god is hypocritical. now con admits that "GOD creates people knowing they will go to Hell... I showed that while this belief is true, it does not contradict other christian beliefs" which is fine. i am not debating about christian beliefs. i am debating about the christian portrayal of god as an ALL-merciful one, which con admits is not the case. she says that god is just as much about justice as he is about mercy. and that justice is executed through non-loving actions, such as condemning a person to hell. con is wrong in assuming that i do not understand the ways of the christian god. i do, and i'm not even saying that i disagree with them. however consider this quote from the bible- but i have trusted in thy mercy; my heart shall rejoice in thy salvation (psalms 13:5). con's own argument has been that just because one trusts in god's mercy, does NOT mean that they will go to heaven. so all of the bible verses upon bible verses and writings and teachings proclaiming that anyone who believes in jesus christ and god and their message will be saved, is wrong. it's a lie. because god has already chosen (pre-destination) who will go to heaven and who will go to hell. so if one has no free will... which con says that nobody has free will... then we have no role in whether or not we will go to hell. so according to that christian message, WHY SHOULD WE BOTHER DOING GOOD? WHY SHOULD WE ACCEPT GOD? if there is a possibility that god will condemn us anyway despite our loyalty and devotion. if you think there's a discrepancy with this message... vote pro. | 0 | numa |
you are mistaken.
to win this debate, all i must do is provide one example in which the christian portrayal of god is hypocritical. now con admits that "GOD creates people knowing they will go to Hell... I showed that while this belief is true, it does not contradict other christian beliefs" which is fine. i am not debating about christian beliefs. i am debating about the christian portrayal of god as an ALL-merciful one, which con admits is not the case. she says that god is just as much about justice as he is about mercy. and that justice is executed through non-loving actions, such as condemning a person to hell.
con is wrong in assuming that i do not understand the ways of the christian god. i do, and i'm not even saying that i disagree with them. however consider this quote from the bible- but i have trusted in thy mercy; my heart shall rejoice in thy salvation (psalms 13:5). con's own argument has been that just because one trusts in god's mercy, does NOT mean that they will go to heaven. so all of the bible verses upon bible verses and writings and teachings proclaiming that anyone who believes in jesus christ and god and their message will be saved, is wrong. it's a lie. because god has already chosen (pre-destination) who will go to heaven and who will go to hell.
so if one has no free will... which con says that nobody has free will... then we have no role in whether or not we will go to hell. so according to that christian message, WHY SHOULD WE BOTHER DOING GOOD? WHY SHOULD WE ACCEPT GOD? if there is a possibility that god will condemn us anyway despite our loyalty and devotion.
if you think there's a discrepancy with this message... vote pro. | Religion | 2 | the-christian-portrayal-of-god-is-hypocritical./1/ | 81,016 |
ye | 0 | vi_spex |
ye | Science | 0 | the-death-of-religion-is-the-answer-to-all-questions/1/ | 81,039 |
and which question is the death of religion not the answer to? religion is only immoral | 0 | vi_spex |
and which question is the death of religion not the answer to?
religion is only immoral | Science | 1 | the-death-of-religion-is-the-answer-to-all-questions/1/ | 81,040 |
so islam shouldnt die out? or all other religions and humanity | 0 | vi_spex |
so islam shouldnt die out? or all other religions and humanity | Science | 2 | the-death-of-religion-is-the-answer-to-all-questions/1/ | 81,041 |
hello so we have to do debates in class and no one is for the death penalty so I cannot do the arguments there, but I would still like to share my opinions about the death penalty so here I am. by the way I get very heated while I debate and will become very offensive at times to put my point across, so I apologize in advance for my behavior that is sure to come. first off whomever answers the debate is a sick and twisted human being with ought morals. secondly how dare you think that you could ever play god and judge who lives and who dies. and to follow up you are a straight up murderer. | 0 | Grace_loves_debate |
hello so we have to do debates in class and no one is for the death penalty so I cannot do the arguments there, but I would still like to share my opinions about the death penalty so here I am. by the way I get very heated while I debate and will become very offensive at times to put my point across, so I apologize in advance for my behavior that is sure to come.
first off whomever answers the debate is a sick and twisted human being with ought morals. secondly how dare you think that you could ever play god and judge who lives and who dies. and to follow up you are a straight up murderer. | Politics | 0 | the-death-penalty/47/ | 81,072 |
thank you for accepting the debate, I hope you learn a few things and that you can have a new view on the topic. at the very least I hope that you can understand the other side of the argument. Unlike like what most people say, the death penalty does not create relief for the families, it actually means years of appeals and having to relive the pain of the deaths of their children. bill and Denise Richards have advocated for the Boston marathon bomber to not suffer the death penalty. "We are in favor of and would support the Department of Justice in taking the death penalty off the table in exchange for the defendant spending the rest of his life in prison without any possibility of release and waiving all of his rights to appeal," "Many victims" families, like the Richards, oppose execution because of the enduring pain of a prolonged litigation battle." "They are offended by the idea that states are putting people to death on their behalf, for the benefit of their healing, or their revenge." "There"s a false promise that this is going to heal you. This trial, this execution is going to make you feel better," Kristin Froehlich, whose brother was murdered in Connecticut, told ThinkProgress at a conference for murder victims" families last October "There"s a false promise that this is going to heal you. This trial, this execution is going to make you feel better." "When you see the legal process up close, it doesn"t take long to figure out that what"s right and what"s wrong " justice and the law, and what"s right " who can afford a good lawyer, who can"t afford a good lawyer " there"s a big difference," he told WBUR. said bob Curley. "In the eyes of society, their son"s name forever would be associated with cruelty and violence, rather than the human dignity and mercy he embodied in life. bob and Lola Autobee." "The Richard's reasons for opposing the death penalty for the murderer of their child are certainly valid ones. If my child (or any close family member of mine) was murdered, I can't think of too many things more painful than having to deal with endless court time on the matter. Also as a society already filled with violence and hate we should not be advocating that murder is okay if it is justified. Another reason I would oppose the death penalty for my child's killer -- I believe that loss of freedom is a worse punishment than loss of life. I would want that killer to live every day with the knowledge that he murdered my child. And I would hope he would live a long time with that knowledge. Locked away, of course." <URL>... as you can see there are many instances where parents have come to the realization that the death penalty is not worth it and that rather than pushing for revenge to the greatest offence they can move on knowing that the murderer has lost their freedom and any chance at a normal life in society. | 0 | Grace_loves_debate |
thank you for accepting the debate, I hope you learn a few things and that you can have a new view on the topic. at the very least I hope that you can understand the other side of the argument.
Unlike like what most people say, the death penalty does not create relief for the families, it actually means years of appeals and having to relive the pain of the deaths of their children. bill and Denise Richards have advocated for the Boston marathon bomber to not suffer the death penalty.
"We are in favor of and would support the Department of Justice in taking the death penalty off the table in exchange for the defendant spending the rest of his life in prison without any possibility of release and waiving all of his rights to appeal,"
"Many victims" families, like the Richards, oppose execution because of the enduring pain of a prolonged litigation battle."
"They are offended by the idea that states are putting people to death on their behalf, for the benefit of their healing, or their revenge."
"There"s a false promise that this is going to heal you. This trial, this execution is going to make you feel better," Kristin Froehlich, whose brother was murdered in Connecticut, told ThinkProgress at a conference for murder victims" families last October
"There"s a false promise that this is going to heal you. This trial, this execution is going to make you feel better."
"When you see the legal process up close, it doesn"t take long to figure out that what"s right and what"s wrong " justice and the law, and what"s right " who can afford a good lawyer, who can"t afford a good lawyer " there"s a big difference," he told WBUR. said bob Curley.
"In the eyes of society, their son"s name forever would be associated with cruelty and violence, rather than the human dignity and mercy he embodied in life. bob and Lola Autobee."
"The Richard's reasons for opposing the death penalty for the murderer of their child are certainly valid ones. If my child (or any close family member of mine) was murdered, I can't think of too many things more painful than having to deal with endless court time on the matter. Also as a society already filled with violence and hate we should not be advocating that murder is okay if it is justified.
Another reason I would oppose the death penalty for my child's killer -- I believe that loss of freedom is a worse punishment than loss of life. I would want that killer to live every day with the knowledge that he murdered my child. And I would hope he would live a long time with that knowledge. Locked away, of course."
http://thinkprogress.org...
as you can see there are many instances where parents have come to the realization that the death penalty is not worth it and that rather than pushing for revenge to the greatest offence they can move on knowing that the murderer has lost their freedom and any chance at a normal life in society. | Politics | 1 | the-death-penalty/47/ | 81,073 |
First, I will go over what I see as my burden for this debate. My opponent can tell me if I have missed the spirit of the debate. I will be arguing that traditional healthcare would lead to a better future for india than modern healthcare. Again, please inform me if I have missed the point here. Anyway, I will get on with my argument now. 1. Modern/western healthcare takes more to maintain than traditional healthcare does. More money, more technical knowledge [that isn't currently widely available in India], more man-hours. There are much better things for the Indian people to put their money, time, and man-hours on. But this is something I will have to prove in my other points. 2. Western healthcare keeps more people alive than traditional healthcare. This point by itself likely does not convince you of anything, at least nothing I would want to convince you of. However, I will use it as the basis for some other points. 3. Better healthcare builds a reliance on better healthcare. This may not seem apparent at first, or to those lacking knowledge of natural selection and how it works. I'll split this point into sub-points to explain it. 3a. With better healthcare, people who generally have bad health have a better chance of surviving. [Kind of the same thing as point #2] 3b. Since people who generally have bad health are able to survive more often with good healthcare, more people in the population will have generally bad health, and therefore the population will be more in need of good healthcare. So what does the more primitive traditional healthcare do? It ensures that those with bad health are not as fit to survive, and therefore are less likely to pass on their genes to the next generation. This leads to a population that is generally healthy - a population that doesn't need modern healthcare. 4. Less people is good right now. Less people means less greenhouse gases put into the atmosphere. It means we don't need quite as many plants to fulfill our Oxygen needs. It means more space per person. More resources per person. We do not need more people right now. Especially in third-world countries, where the average IQ is much lower than it is in the first world. Take a look at this bad boy: <URL>... The average IQ in India is estimated at 81. This is because most of the smart people leave the country [brain drain]. Better healthcare in India means more ~81 IQ people for the world. Yay. I think I'll pass. Keep in mind that 70-79 is "Borderline mental retardation," and 81 isn't much higher than that. Generally not the kind of people whose number we should seek to increase. <URL>... [It's on the right side] More people in India is bad, and as we learned in point #2, western healthcare allows more people to survive. I believe that is enough for now. I will go over what I have shown. Western healthcare is nothing if not harmful for the future of India. The more-effective healthcare would end up making India's inhabitants less able to withstand disease on their own. Rather than simply dying due to primitive healthcare, the unhealthy would be able to thrive and interbreed, thereby lowering the healthiness of the nation, and creating a reliance on premium healthcare. Also, western healthcare requires a huge investment. Whereas traditional healthcare does not. India would need access to new information, it would need more able-brained people to be doctors, etc, [which it is short on due to brain drain], it would need more money and time to run, etc. Lastly, western healthcare raises the population barrier. India is already overpopulated, with 1.13 BILLION people. The US has a little over 300,000,000 people. And the US is about 3 times as large as India. Let's compare the two: US Area: 9.63 million sq km. India Area: 3.29 million sq km. As you see, India is about 1/3 as large as the US. US Population: 304,678,000 people India Population: 1,135,779,500 people Wow! Let's see how much area there is per person for each country. US: ~31607 sq meters per person. India: ~2896 sq meters per person. So here in the US we have more than 10 times the amount of space per person than they do in India. The last thing India needs is a bigger population. Better healthcare would only raise India's population. <URL>... <URL>... The less people able to survive in India, the better. It's the most overpopulated country, not to mention the low average IQ of its inhabitants. Quality over quantity. We should let them compete in the harshest circumstances possible [as to maximize natural selection]. They need it more than anyone else. It's definitely what's best for India's future. | 0 | beem0r |
First, I will go over what I see as my burden for this debate. My opponent can tell me if I have missed the spirit of the debate.
I will be arguing that traditional healthcare would lead to a better future for india than modern healthcare.
Again, please inform me if I have missed the point here.
Anyway, I will get on with my argument now.
1. Modern/western healthcare takes more to maintain than traditional healthcare does.
More money, more technical knowledge [that isn't currently widely available in India], more man-hours. There are much better things for the Indian people to put their money, time, and man-hours on. But this is something I will have to prove in my other points.
2. Western healthcare keeps more people alive than traditional healthcare.
This point by itself likely does not convince you of anything, at least nothing I would want to convince you of. However, I will use it as the basis for some other points.
3. Better healthcare builds a reliance on better healthcare.
This may not seem apparent at first, or to those lacking knowledge of natural selection and how it works. I'll split this point into sub-points to explain it.
3a. With better healthcare, people who generally have bad health have a better chance of surviving. [Kind of the same thing as point #2]
3b. Since people who generally have bad health are able to survive more often with good healthcare, more people in the population will have generally bad health, and therefore the population will be more in need of good healthcare.
So what does the more primitive traditional healthcare do? It ensures that those with bad health are not as fit to survive, and therefore are less likely to pass on their genes to the next generation. This leads to a population that is generally healthy - a population that doesn't need modern healthcare.
4. Less people is good right now.
Less people means less greenhouse gases put into the atmosphere. It means we don't need quite as many plants to fulfill our Oxygen needs. It means more space per person. More resources per person. We do not need more people right now. Especially in third-world countries, where the average IQ is much lower than it is in the first world. Take a look at this bad boy:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
The average IQ in India is estimated at 81. This is because most of the smart people leave the country [brain drain]. Better healthcare in India means more ~81 IQ people for the world. Yay. I think I'll pass. Keep in mind that 70-79 is "Borderline mental retardation," and 81 isn't much higher than that. Generally not the kind of people whose number we should seek to increase.
http://en.wikipedia.org... [It's on the right side]
More people in India is bad, and as we learned in point #2, western healthcare allows more people to survive.
I believe that is enough for now. I will go over what I have shown.
Western healthcare is nothing if not harmful for the future of India. The more-effective healthcare would end up making India's inhabitants less able to withstand disease on their own. Rather than simply dying due to primitive healthcare, the unhealthy would be able to thrive and interbreed, thereby lowering the healthiness of the nation, and creating a reliance on premium healthcare.
Also, western healthcare requires a huge investment. Whereas traditional healthcare does not. India would need access to new information, it would need more able-brained people to be doctors, etc, [which it is short on due to brain drain], it would need more money and time to run, etc.
Lastly, western healthcare raises the population barrier. India is already overpopulated, with 1.13 BILLION people. The US has a little over 300,000,000 people. And the US is about 3 times as large as India.
Let's compare the two:
US Area: 9.63 million sq km.
India Area: 3.29 million sq km.
As you see, India is about 1/3 as large as the US.
US Population: 304,678,000 people
India Population: 1,135,779,500 people
Wow!
Let's see how much area there is per person for each country.
US: ~31607 sq meters per person.
India: ~2896 sq meters per person.
So here in the US we have more than 10 times the amount of space per person than they do in India. The last thing India needs is a bigger population. Better healthcare would only raise India's population.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
The less people able to survive in India, the better. It's the most overpopulated country, not to mention the low average IQ of its inhabitants. Quality over quantity. We should let them compete in the harshest circumstances possible [as to maximize natural selection]. They need it more than anyone else. It's definitely what's best for India's future. | Health | 0 | the-future-of-health-care-in-india-lies-in-traditional-knowledge/1/ | 81,094 |
My opponent forfeited, so I need not make any more points. My R1 case still stands. Go back and read it, you probably don't even have to scroll. | 0 | beem0r |
My opponent forfeited, so I need not make any more points. My R1 case still stands. Go back and read it, you probably don't even have to scroll. | Health | 2 | the-future-of-health-care-in-india-lies-in-traditional-knowledge/1/ | 81,095 |
Sorry that I'm in a rush, I'll make my arguments brief and to the point. Considering that the government cannot physically control the reproductive cycles of a woman, and also considering the dialogue of my opponent in her opening statement, I shall assume that my opponent wishes there to be no government action in relation to the number of children that a woman gives birth to. Note that because no government is mentioned in the resolution, it is assumed that my opponent is debating this on a matter of principle and will use government as a general concept to defend her position. My opponent must thus accept that there is no instance where the government should hold any power over "excessive" children. Now, the government's entire purpose is to protect its citizens and to ensure their welfare. If the welfare is being threatened, it is the government's duty to ensure that the welfare is protected, and they ensure the welfare by creating laws. Assume a country threatened by overpopulation. Food supplies are down, water reserves are depleted, and there are barely enough resources to support the current population, not to mention any additional incoming members of the community. Any excessive addition to the population would not only worsen the livelihood of the child, but would also deplete the welfare of everyone else in the community. I therefore move that a government threatened by overpopulation take a course of action similar to China, by removing government funding for any children born that exceed the number that the government sees to be a threat to the general welfare. Note that no immoral action is being taken by a Negative stance, as because there is no life being removed, no murder is taking place. Also note that freedom only extends to the point where welfare can be managed. We cannot exercise our "freedom" to murder someone because it depletes the good of that individual. Therefore, the Affirmative holds the burden of proving that the limiting of the population cannot serve the welfare of society under any and all circumstances. Negated. Please vote con. | 0 | Clockwork |
Sorry that I'm in a rush, I'll make my arguments brief and to the point.
Considering that the government cannot physically control the reproductive cycles of a woman, and also considering the dialogue of my opponent in her opening statement, I shall assume that my opponent wishes there to be no government action in relation to the number of children that a woman gives birth to.
Note that because no government is mentioned in the resolution, it is assumed that my opponent is debating this on a matter of principle and will use government as a general concept to defend her position. My opponent must thus accept that there is no instance where the government should hold any power over "excessive" children.
Now, the government's entire purpose is to protect its citizens and to ensure their welfare. If the welfare is being threatened, it is the government's duty to ensure that the welfare is protected, and they ensure the welfare by creating laws.
Assume a country threatened by overpopulation. Food supplies are down, water reserves are depleted, and there are barely enough resources to support the current population, not to mention any additional incoming members of the community. Any excessive addition to the population would not only worsen the livelihood of the child, but would also deplete the welfare of everyone else in the community.
I therefore move that a government threatened by overpopulation take a course of action similar to China, by removing government funding for any children born that exceed the number that the government sees to be a threat to the general welfare.
Note that no immoral action is being taken by a Negative stance, as because there is no life being removed, no murder is taking place. Also note that freedom only extends to the point where welfare can be managed. We cannot exercise our "freedom" to murder someone because it depletes the good of that individual. Therefore, the Affirmative holds the burden of proving that the limiting of the population cannot serve the welfare of society under any and all circumstances.
Negated. Please vote con. | Health | 0 | the-government-should-not-decide-how-many-children-a-woman-can-have./1/ | 81,119 |
My opponent forfeits the debate. If she didn't want to debate the topic, she shouldn't have posted it. If she wanted an expedient debate, then she shouldn't have set the round time for 72 hours. Nevertheless, my opponent refuses to debate under the parameters that she set forth. Vote con. | 0 | Clockwork |
My opponent forfeits the debate. If she didn't want to debate the topic, she shouldn't have posted it. If she wanted an expedient debate, then she shouldn't have set the round time for 72 hours. Nevertheless, my opponent refuses to debate under the parameters that she set forth.
Vote con. | Health | 1 | the-government-should-not-decide-how-many-children-a-woman-can-have./1/ | 81,120 |
I'd like to point out to my opponent that voters will be debating Believe it or not, I am no mind reader. When I accepted a debate that said that I would have 72 hours to respond, I took it in knowing that I would be able to respond in that time frame, with myself being busy for the first 48 or so. If my opponent would have made any comment of wanting a response withing 20 minutes of acceptance, I would have not accepted. If my opponent would have set the time limit for posting an argument to anything shorter than what I thought I would be able to respond to, I would not have accepted. However, because none of these were listed, I accepted the normal expectations for a debate within the parameters that my opponent herself set, that being: -I would negate the resolution that the government should not decide the number of children that a woman can have. -I would have three rounds of argumentation to negate the aforementioned resolution. -I would post those three arguments within 72 hours of my opponent posting her preceding arguments. If anyone feels that I have failed to meet any of these expectations, go ahead and vote Pro. However, seeing as I have not forfeited any of these three rounds, its self-evident that I have. Also note that all of the "problems" that my opponent holds against me could have been prevented with a click of the mouse while creating this debate or a sentence or two in her opening argument. Instead of doing any of these things, and instead of even making a single attempt to defend her position, she chooses to complain that her schedule and mine "didn't match up", which is of no fault to me, as I had no idea of her desire for a 30-minute debate or her personal life. Seeing that all of her supposed problems were in fact created by her, and seeing as there really is no logical reason why my opponent's excuses hold any water whatsoever, you must vote con by obligation, which is a shame, really, as this would have been a very interesting topic to debate. | 0 | Clockwork |
I'd like to point out to my opponent that voters will be debating
Believe it or not, I am no mind reader. When I accepted a debate that said that I would have 72 hours to respond, I took it in knowing that I would be able to respond in that time frame, with myself being busy for the first 48 or so. If my opponent would have made any comment of wanting a response withing 20 minutes of acceptance, I would have not accepted. If my opponent would have set the time limit for posting an argument to anything shorter than what I thought I would be able to respond to, I would not have accepted.
However, because none of these were listed, I accepted the normal expectations for a debate within the parameters that my opponent herself set, that being:
-I would negate the resolution that the government should not decide the number of children that a woman can have.
-I would have three rounds of argumentation to negate the aforementioned resolution.
-I would post those three arguments within 72 hours of my opponent posting her preceding arguments.
If anyone feels that I have failed to meet any of these expectations, go ahead and vote Pro. However, seeing as I have not forfeited any of these three rounds, its self-evident that I have. Also note that all of the "problems" that my opponent holds against me could have been prevented with a click of the mouse while creating this debate or a sentence or two in her opening argument.
Instead of doing any of these things, and instead of even making a single attempt to defend her position, she chooses to complain that her schedule and mine "didn't match up", which is of no fault to me, as I had no idea of her desire for a 30-minute debate or her personal life.
Seeing that all of her supposed problems were in fact created by her, and seeing as there really is no logical reason why my opponent's excuses hold any water whatsoever, you must vote con by obligation, which is a shame, really, as this would have been a very interesting topic to debate. | Health | 2 | the-government-should-not-decide-how-many-children-a-woman-can-have./1/ | 81,121 |
It seems today women have been encouraged to have vast amounts of children and the taxpayers or the government will take care of them. Maybe with reality shows like John and Kate plus eight,18 and counting, and now Table for 12, young women might be thinking they too will have a show, a book deal, or maybe Oprah will step in and finance there life. Look at this latest women with 6 children at home and her doctor inseminates her with 8 more. What where they thinking, 14 kids who's going to support them? Her parents , the government!!!! Even with all this I still think its a personal choice, we still live in a free society and government control over this issue is not an option. | 0 | deb |
It seems today women have been encouraged to have vast amounts of children and the taxpayers or the government will take care of them. Maybe with reality shows like John and Kate plus eight,18 and counting, and now Table for 12, young women might be thinking they too will have a show, a book deal, or maybe Oprah will step in and finance there life. Look at this latest women with 6 children at home and her doctor inseminates her with 8 more. What where they thinking, 14 kids who's going to support them? Her parents , the government!!!! Even with all this I still think its a personal choice, we still live in a free society and government control over this issue is not an option. | Health | 0 | the-government-should-not-decide-how-many-children-a-woman-can-have./1/ | 81,122 |
You took your sweet time in responding, which is ok we all have lives. However our timelines didn't match up so i started the debate with someone else. Not sure where we go from here, but what i do know is that i wont be debating two people simultaneously, like i posted int he comments. | 0 | deb |
You took your sweet time in responding, which is ok we all have lives. However our timelines didn't match up so i started the debate with someone else. Not sure where we go from here, but what i do know is that i wont be debating two people simultaneously, like i posted int he comments. | Health | 1 | the-government-should-not-decide-how-many-children-a-woman-can-have./1/ | 81,123 |
Opponents tardiness caused me to create another debate with someone else about the EXACT same topic. Vote pro. | 0 | deb |
Opponents tardiness caused me to create another debate with someone else about the EXACT same topic. Vote pro. | Health | 2 | the-government-should-not-decide-how-many-children-a-woman-can-have./1/ | 81,124 |
the multiples roles of soils go unnoticed ,is that true ?? | 0 | alex0620 |
the multiples roles of soils go unnoticed ,is that true ?? | Miscellaneous | 0 | the-multiples-roles-of-soils-go-unnoticed-is-that-true/1/ | 81,170 |
Yes, it is true. Soil is used in the construction industry[ <URL>... ], and not a lot of people know about that. | 0 | simonstuffles |
Yes, it is true. Soil is used in the construction industry[ http://www.publish.csiro.au... ], and not a lot of people know about that. | Miscellaneous | 0 | the-multiples-roles-of-soils-go-unnoticed-is-that-true/1/ | 81,171 |
Extend. I have raised an argument. Vote Pro. | 0 | simonstuffles |
Extend. I have raised an argument. Vote Pro. | Miscellaneous | 4 | the-multiples-roles-of-soils-go-unnoticed-is-that-true/1/ | 81,172 |
Commentary on the Resolution: I am going to interpret Pro's argument as being that properties that are normally considered quantitative cannot in principle be infinite. For example, a force is usually of a particular magnitude - an unstoppable force would be of infinite magnitude. Although there are no known forces of infinite magnitude in the universe, I do not see why such a force could not exist. Commentary on the Burden of Proof: It is inherently difficult to prove that a statement is merely possibly true, even if the possibility seems rather obvious. For example, it is definitely possible for goldfish to be green, but it is difficult to prove why. I will argue that something should be assumed to be possible if it is readily imaginable. Only if some contradiction or other impossible consequence results should this assumption be reversed. I consider it easy to imagine an object that cannot be moved regardless of how much force is applied to it, so the burden of proof must lie on Pro to should why this is not a possible situation. Rebuttal to the "Unlimited Paradox": Pro argues that an immovable object cannot exist, because if it were to encounter an unstoppable force, a contradiction would result. All this proves is that an unstoppable force cannot encounter an immovable object. There is no reason why an immovable object cannot exist on its own. It would have a property (resistance to motion) in an unlimited quantity, which negates the resolution. Pro assumes that if an unlimited quality exists, an opposing unlimited quality must exist also. I see no good reason to assume that - indeed, if an immovable object were to exist, it would strongly suggest that unstoppable forces do not exist. However, it is even possible for immovable objects and unstoppable forces to exist simultaneously as long as there is some factor which prevents them from coming into contact. Either way, this "paradox" is not paradoxical at all. Conclusion: Although the consequences may be difficult to imagine, there is no good reason to believe that unlimited properties are not conceptually possible. Pro's argument does not show anything to this effect. It can only prove the much weaker claim that objects with opposing unlimited qualities cannot interact with each other in certain ways - that does not mean that they cannot exist. | 0 | Paradigm |
Commentary on the Resolution: I am going to interpret Pro's argument as being that properties that are normally considered quantitative cannot in principle be infinite. For example, a force is usually of a particular magnitude - an unstoppable force would be of infinite magnitude. Although there are no known forces of infinite magnitude in the universe, I do not see why such a force could not exist. Commentary on the Burden of Proof: It is inherently difficult to prove that a statement is merely possibly true, even if the possibility seems rather obvious. For example, it is definitely possible for goldfish to be green, but it is difficult to prove why. I will argue that something should be assumed to be possible if it is readily imaginable. Only if some contradiction or other impossible consequence results should this assumption be reversed. I consider it easy to imagine an object that cannot be moved regardless of how much force is applied to it, so the burden of proof must lie on Pro to should why this is not a possible situation. Rebuttal to the "Unlimited Paradox": Pro argues that an immovable object cannot exist, because if it were to encounter an unstoppable force, a contradiction would result. All this proves is that an unstoppable force cannot encounter an immovable object. There is no reason why an immovable object cannot exist on its own. It would have a property (resistance to motion) in an unlimited quantity, which negates the resolution. Pro assumes that if an unlimited quality exists, an opposing unlimited quality must exist also. I see no good reason to assume that - indeed, if an immovable object were to exist, it would strongly suggest that unstoppable forces do not exist. However, it is even possible for immovable objects and unstoppable forces to exist simultaneously as long as there is some factor which prevents them from coming into contact. Either way, this "paradox" is not paradoxical at all. Conclusion: Although the consequences may be difficult to imagine, there is no good reason to believe that unlimited properties are not conceptually possible. Pro's argument does not show anything to this effect. It can only prove the much weaker claim that objects with opposing unlimited qualities cannot interact with each other in certain ways - that does not mean that they cannot exist. | Philosophy | 0 | the-unlimited-paradox-the-unlimited-as-an-idea-is-proven-to-be-a-false/1/ | 81,312 |
Pro did not actually contradict anything I said in Round 1, so I extent my arguments. In fact, she seems to concede that my arguments are correct. Any assertions that Pro makes about the impossiblity of specific qualities existing to an unlimited extent are irrelevant to the debate, which is about unlimited qualities in general. | 0 | Paradigm |
Pro did not actually contradict anything I said in Round 1, so I extent my arguments. In fact, she seems to concede that my arguments are correct. Any assertions that Pro makes about the impossiblity of specific qualities existing to an unlimited extent are irrelevant to the debate, which is about unlimited qualities in general. | Philosophy | 1 | the-unlimited-paradox-the-unlimited-as-an-idea-is-proven-to-be-a-false/1/ | 81,313 |
Pro agrees with my arguments, so there is really nothing for me to write in this round. | 0 | Paradigm |
Pro agrees with my arguments, so there is really nothing for me to write in this round. | Philosophy | 2 | the-unlimited-paradox-the-unlimited-as-an-idea-is-proven-to-be-a-false/1/ | 81,314 |
the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited is proven to be a false idea weakest point. the unlimited paradox states that an immovable object cannot exist at the same time as an unstoppable force. the fact that it cannot exist at the same time, shows that the unlimited truly doesn't exist. better point. an immovable rock cannot be created that can be lifted by an unstoppable force. | 0 | dairygirl4u2c |
the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited is proven to be a false idea
weakest point. the unlimited paradox states that an immovable object cannot exist at the same time as an unstoppable force. the fact that it cannot exist at the same time, shows that the unlimited truly doesn't exist.
better point. an immovable rock cannot be created that can be lifted by an unstoppable force. | Philosophy | 0 | the-unlimited-paradox-the-unlimited-as-an-idea-is-proven-to-be-a-false/1/ | 81,315 |
well, i see your point. it's the same arguments i made during the 'god paradox' debates. i would say that if con's arguments are legit here, they should be legit in the god paradox debate. it could still be said that there is in fact a limit on the unlimitd, god, in that it can't make to infinitely opposoing forces logically interact as they are suppose to. but this is merely a restraint as a result of logic, reality. so while it could be said to be limiting the unlimited, i'm not sure it's the best argument. | 0 | dairygirl4u2c |
well, i see your point. it's the same arguments i made during the 'god paradox' debates.
i would say that if con's arguments are legit here, they should be legit in the god paradox debate.
it could still be said that there is in fact a limit on the unlimitd, god, in that it can't make to infinitely opposoing forces logically interact as they are suppose to. but this is merely a restraint as a result of logic, reality. so while it could be said to be limiting the unlimited, i'm not sure it's the best argument. | Philosophy | 1 | the-unlimited-paradox-the-unlimited-as-an-idea-is-proven-to-be-a-false/1/ | 81,316 |
yeah i have nothing more to say. except, as i would argue in the God debate, if God wanted to go past logic, then he could, he could make a circle be a square. or moon could mean fish. in the world we live in, we can't really concern ourselves with that. i would apply this argument to con's arguments and say nonsensical stuff in a truly unlimited world should be permissble, albeit unheard of. con hasn't made this point. | 0 | dairygirl4u2c |
yeah i have nothing more to say.
except, as i would argue in the God debate, if God wanted to go past logic, then he could, he could make a circle be a square. or moon could mean fish. in the world we live in, we can't really concern ourselves with that. i would apply this argument to con's arguments and say nonsensical stuff in a truly unlimited world should be permissble, albeit unheard of. con hasn't made this point. | Philosophy | 2 | the-unlimited-paradox-the-unlimited-as-an-idea-is-proven-to-be-a-false/1/ | 81,317 |
Damn, what am i gonna say. i accept this jackass debate. | 0 | TheHappyMAn |
Damn, what am i gonna say. i accept this jackass debate. | People | 0 | the-world-wars-had-more-negative-sides-rather-than-positive-sides........../1/ | 81,346 |
The World Wars indeed had cause over millions or billions of death though advantages from World War 1 & 2 are quite great. The World Wars has made people learned a lesson. After experiencing aftermaths of world wars, countries and their controllers would try avoid going through a War. Womens I will talk about how during the WW showed how womens influenced Female rights. You know how womens were always treated as dogs. Well during the world war, women were given privliges to work and when they work, people were impressed. They were the supportive side of the army, they carried loads of machinery. They built planes, cars and much more things. This showed how great women can be unlike how men thinked of women in the past. They are why women's rights exist today, what a great feeling. Everything we have today is defined by the pass including the WORLD WARS. Games, anime, computers, safety, weapons and everything. Call of duty, Battlefield would not exist because both games were influenced by World War 2. Including shooting games. So we know that without WW there would be no: Call of duty or Battlefield. Advance technology because the WW forced tech to get into the next level Epic WW documentaries better economics Women rights I cant think of anything now. So i proved that WW has great advantages Oh yeah, there wouldn't be epic war movies like Wind Talkers. So much things to list i don't even bother. So no cod, battlefield, war games for you. Oh yeah, they wouldn't show badass YouTube videos of trolling and epic montages. Without WW we wouldn't be having this debate now lol. | 0 | TheHappyMAn |
The World Wars indeed had cause over millions or billions of death though advantages from World War 1 & 2 are quite great. The World Wars has made people learned a lesson. After experiencing aftermaths of world wars, countries and their controllers would try avoid going through a War. Womens I will talk about how during the WW showed how womens influenced Female rights. You know how womens were always treated as dogs. Well during the world war, women were given privliges to work and when they work, people were impressed. They were the supportive side of the army, they carried loads of machinery. They built planes, cars and much more things. This showed how great women can be unlike how men thinked of women in the past. They are why women's rights exist today, what a great feeling. Everything we have today is defined by the pass including the WORLD WARS. Games, anime, computers, safety, weapons and everything. Call of duty, Battlefield would not exist because both games were influenced by World War 2. Including shooting games. So we know that without WW there would be no: Call of duty or Battlefield. Advance technology because the WW forced tech to get into the next level Epic WW documentaries better economics Women rights I cant think of anything now. So i proved that WW has great advantages Oh yeah, there wouldn't be epic war movies like Wind Talkers. So much things to list i don't even bother. So no cod, battlefield, war games for you. Oh yeah, they wouldn't show badass YouTube videos of trolling and epic montages. Without WW we wouldn't be having this debate now lol. | People | 1 | the-world-wars-had-more-negative-sides-rather-than-positive-sides........../1/ | 81,347 |
What was the point of this debate. Of course you would answer back of how much people were killed and effected. "Are you saying that the advantages you have given above goes over the life of human being" Yes. SO if your gonna keep complaining of how much people have died which is like 80 million, i would not answer you back since your gonna be saying how much deaths there were and how horrible life is. Defuq would i debate. Fine, ill rebute your debate since you want me to. "You have made a severe mistake in your arguments by supporting my point. You said these world wars helped people to learn a lesson. Why is this so?" All i said was that millions were killed which is obvious but you making a big deal about this. "But could you imagine what they have lost? These women may have lost their husbands and even their sons who died fighting in the world war. So which is greater for the women, their rights or the life of the dear ones" Rights, millions suffer for billions in the future. Do i sound a too cruel now. "The answer of this question would surely bring us to the true fact that these world wars has more disadvantages than advantages." But the advantages are that women would forever have the rights as a man does. I think thats really great to all of the women living today in everyone lives. and more stuff. "So we can say that your arguments has no importance." Facepalm* You arguement is how people suffered. Billions and billions had suffer before the WWs. Go argue how war shouldn't have happened anyway if your saying that millions have suffered. Thats it. "Are you saying that the advantages you have given above goes over the life of human being. NEVER." Again, your same old sh*t. "So all your arguments you have posted in your previous round would not go over the disadvantages." Second facepalm* "Would you ever chose life rather than other things" If the other thing is something i would choose life after. I will list advantages next round. | 0 | TheHappyMAn |
What was the point of this debate. Of course you would answer back of how much people were killed and effected. "Are you saying that the advantages you have given above goes over the life of human being" Yes. SO if your gonna keep complaining of how much people have died which is like 80 million, i would not answer you back since your gonna be saying how much deaths there were and how horrible life is. Defuq would i debate. Fine, ill rebute your debate since you want me to. "You have made a severe mistake in your arguments by supporting my point. You said these world wars helped people to learn a lesson. Why is this so?" All i said was that millions were killed which is obvious but you making a big deal about this. "But could you imagine what they have lost? These women may have lost their husbands and even their sons who died fighting in the world war. So which is greater for the women, their rights or the life of the dear ones" Rights, millions suffer for billions in the future. Do i sound a too cruel now. "The answer of this question would surely bring us to the true fact that these world wars has more disadvantages than advantages." But the advantages are that women would forever have the rights as a man does. I think thats really great to all of the women living today in everyone lives. and more stuff. "So we can say that your arguments has no importance." Facepalm* You arguement is how people suffered. Billions and billions had suffer before the WWs. Go argue how war shouldn't have happened anyway if your saying that millions have suffered. Thats it. "Are you saying that the advantages you have given above goes over the life of human being. NEVER." Again, your same old sh*t. "So all your arguments you have posted in your previous round would not go over the disadvantages." Second facepalm* "Would you ever chose life rather than other things" If the other thing is something i would choose life after. I will list advantages next round. | People | 2 | the-world-wars-had-more-negative-sides-rather-than-positive-sides........../1/ | 81,348 |
I lost. Then | 0 | TheHappyMAn |
I lost. Then | People | 3 | the-world-wars-had-more-negative-sides-rather-than-positive-sides........../1/ | 81,349 |
First round for acceptance only.................. | 1 | josealways123 |
First round for acceptance only.................. | People | 0 | the-world-wars-had-more-negative-sides-rather-than-positive-sides........../1/ | 81,350 |
So thanks for accepting this debate. So here in this debate i would like to say about the defects of the world wars and you should say about the advantages that goes beyond these disadvantages. First i would like to start by just saying a simple point that this world war has caused the deaths of millions and millions of innocent people. In the second world war the Nazis has caused the deaths of several thousands of Jews for no reason. You may think it as very thrilling but think of yourself in that position of death. These world wars are just two black pages of the entire world. These world wars has destroyed the vast beauty of the world. These has promoted enemity between the people and between the countries. So these are some of the many disadvantages of world wars. Here i have just introduced some of the disadvantages of world wars. So as i have said earlier this world war has made many people to lose their lives. But let me ask whether the world wars brought advantages that is better than the life of a person. There are no advantages in having a war. War is the result of a complete breakdown in any sort of diplomatic efforts to solve a problem. In the case of WW2 there were two nations Germany and Japan that wanted to acquire control over territories for 2 reasons, Japan needed raw materials that were being denied her and would result in an economic breakdown if this continued. Germany was under the control of a madman whose only desire was to conquer as much of the world as possible with no regard for human life. His efforts at genocide indicated how insane his entire regime was. Diplomacy in his case was out of the question - he simply had to be stopped. There were no advantages or disadvantages. Japan was determined to conquer territories and Germany represented what true evil looks like. Come with the answers when you post your argument.I hope that i would be able to expand my points in my next round.So hope you would post your argument against this.... | 1 | josealways123 |
So thanks for accepting this debate. So here in this debate i would like to say about the defects of the world wars and you should say about the advantages that goes beyond these disadvantages.
First i would like to start by just saying a simple point that this world war has caused the deaths of millions and millions of innocent people. In the second world war the Nazis has caused the deaths of several thousands of Jews for no reason. You may think it as very thrilling but think of yourself in that position of death. These world wars are just two black pages of the entire world. These world wars has destroyed the vast beauty of the world. These has promoted enemity between the people and between the countries. So these are some of the many disadvantages of world wars. Here i have just introduced some of the disadvantages of world wars. So as i have said earlier this world war has made many people to lose their lives. But let me ask whether the world wars brought advantages that is better than the life of a person.
There are no advantages in having a war. War is the result of a complete breakdown in any sort of diplomatic efforts to solve a problem. In the case of WW2 there were two nations Germany and Japan that wanted to acquire control over territories for 2 reasons, Japan needed raw materials that were being denied her and would result in an economic breakdown if this continued. Germany was under the control of a madman whose only desire was to conquer as much of the world as possible with no regard for human life. His efforts at genocide indicated how insane his entire regime was. Diplomacy in his case was out of the question - he simply had to be stopped. There were no advantages or disadvantages. Japan was determined to conquer territories and Germany represented what true evil looks like.
Come with the answers when you post your argument.I hope that i would be able to expand my points in my next round.So hope you would post your argument against this.... | People | 1 | the-world-wars-had-more-negative-sides-rather-than-positive-sides........../1/ | 81,351 |
Thanks for arguing. In this round i wish to oppose your points. You have made a severe mistake in your arguments by supporting my point. You said these world wars helped people to learn a lesson. Why is this so? This is because of the great defects or disadvantages of these world wars. So you have proved yourself that these world wars had more disadvantages. You have also proceeded an argument that women granted female rights after the effect of the world wars. But could you imagine what they have lost? These women may have lost their husbands and even their sons who died fighting in the world war. So which is greater for the women, their rights or the life of the dear ones? The answer of this question would surely bring us to the true fact that these world wars has more disadvantages than advantages. Similarly a lot of women got rights after the first world war. But were these rights strong enough to prevent the death of Jewish women in the second world war. So we can say that your arguments has no importance. We know that the humans are the greatest resource of the world. Games,advanced technology.......... all were brought up by humans and humans were killed in the world wars.Is this good? Are you saying that the advantages you have given above goes over the life of human being. NEVER....So all your arguments you have posted in your previous round would not go over the disadvantages. Would you ever chose life rather than other things.... Watch some of the destruction in this world wars... <URL>... Just remember the fact that these are some of the destructions or disadvantages caused by the world wars........ Hope you understand them. So i think the people should be in the pro side of this debate....... | 1 | josealways123 |
Thanks for arguing. In this round i wish to oppose your points.
You have made a severe mistake in your arguments by supporting my point. You said these world wars helped people to learn a lesson. Why is this so? This is because of the great defects or disadvantages of these world wars. So you have proved yourself that these world wars had more disadvantages.
You have also proceeded an argument that women granted female rights after the effect of the world wars. But could you imagine what they have lost? These women may have lost their husbands and even their sons who died fighting in the world war. So which is greater for the women, their rights or the life of the dear ones? The answer of this question would surely bring us to the true fact that these world wars has more disadvantages than advantages.
Similarly a lot of women got rights after the first world war. But were these rights strong enough to prevent the death of Jewish women in the second world war. So we can say that your arguments has no importance.
We know that the humans are the greatest resource of the world. Games,advanced technology.......... all were brought up by humans and humans were killed in the world wars.Is this good? Are you saying that the advantages you have given above goes over the life of human being. NEVER....So all your arguments you have posted in your previous round would not go over the disadvantages. Would you ever chose life rather than other things....
Watch some of the destruction in this world wars...
http://www.history.com...
Just remember the fact that these are some of the destructions or disadvantages caused by the world wars........
Hope you understand them. So i think the people should be in the pro side of this debate....... | People | 2 | the-world-wars-had-more-negative-sides-rather-than-positive-sides........../1/ | 81,352 |
If you bothered so much that this is a very bad debate, then why do you accept my challenge. Since you accepted this debate you should argue against me. But this argument does not mean the type of argument you have given. You are saying that life is horrible. This argument is worthless since these are exceptional cases. All the people around us including me likes to live. Why aren't you making some good points on your debate and go on telling all sorts of these unwanted things. You said that millions were killed and this helped people learn a lesson. This clearly points out the disadvantages of the war. So your second point in the previous argument is also worthless. In you third point you gave a stupid answer. Will you choose anything over your life,anything. I am sure that you will never. Then why are you making these silly arguments. Yes billions and billions of people has suffered before the world war. But will it go above the sufferings that are caused by and after the world war. The massive bombings in Japan has lead to many disadvantages among the people of this country. Please check out the following sites. <URL>... From the following site we can see that these bombings made advantages that some were not killed. But the defect is that loads of children today in Japan are also being affected. Another advantage is that it made the wars to end up quickly which explains their disadvantages. Here i would like to depict some sites that support my argument. <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... You have only used some curse words for my points and you have not posted an argument against it. But i argued and opposed all your points. So i think all should be in the pro side in this debate. So i am thanking pro for his foolish arguments. VOTE FOR PRO... | 1 | josealways123 |
If you bothered so much that this is a very bad debate, then why do you accept my challenge. Since you accepted this debate you should argue against me. But this argument does not mean the type of argument you have given. You are saying that life is horrible. This argument is worthless since these are exceptional cases. All the people around us including me likes to live. Why aren't you making some good points on your debate and go on telling all sorts of these unwanted things.
You said that millions were killed and this helped people learn a lesson. This clearly points out the disadvantages of the war. So your second point in the previous argument is also worthless.
In you third point you gave a stupid answer. Will you choose anything over your life,anything. I am sure that you will never. Then why are you making these silly arguments.
Yes billions and billions of people has suffered before the world war. But will it go above the sufferings that are caused by and after the world war. The massive bombings in Japan has lead to many disadvantages among the people of this country. Please check out the following sites.
http://answers.yahoo.com...
From the following site we can see that these bombings made advantages that some were not killed. But the defect is that loads of children today in Japan are also being affected. Another advantage is that it made the wars to end up quickly which explains their disadvantages.
Here i would like to depict some sites that support my argument.
http://www.ask.com...
http://ramblingofnada.wordpress.com...
http://nihatkaygusuz.com...
You have only used some curse words for my points and you have not posted an argument against it. But i argued and opposed all your points. So i think all should be in the pro side in this debate. So i am thanking pro for his foolish arguments.
VOTE FOR PRO... | People | 3 | the-world-wars-had-more-negative-sides-rather-than-positive-sides........../1/ | 81,353 |