Datasets:

notaphoenix

/

debateorg_w_effect_for_conservative_subset

like 0

rules 1st round is acceptance only 2nd round arguments only 3rd round rebuttals and arguments 4th round rebuttals and conclusions only no new arguments If you wish to discuss the rules make a comment in the comment section

hect

rules 1st round is acceptance only 2nd round arguments only 3rd round rebuttals and arguments 4th round rebuttals and conclusions only no new arguments If you wish to discuss the rules make a comment in the comment section

Philosophy

there-is-no-afterlife/2/

First of all I must start by saying on relation the the question is there an afterlife? We must all admit we don't know thats because we can't know so the people who have to leave the debate right away are those who claim they do. We can only make logical arguments that lead to the assumption on the issue. Now to my arguments I will present throughout the debate. I think it is obvious that the concept of an afterlife is a man made idea constructed for a number of reason I shall discuss. The first being consolation and wishful thinking; it's obviously comforting if your child just died but your are told not to worry because he/she is going to a better place, which in my view is a slightly immoral idea because it's to say any thing that makes you feel better is fine, drugs can also make you feel 'better'. The other is control and power as for centuries the afterlife has represented a claim by humans to be able to interpret the divine thus give themselves power by doing so. Now on to the point of eternity the afterlife represents, sure the first 100 years or so may be enjoyable in heaven/ other religious equivalent, maybe even the first few hundred but what about after 1000, 10 000, 100 000, 1000 000 and ad infinitum things would surely start to seem repetitive and mundane and would start to look alot like hell. We all know the party of life is going to end, eventually you will be tapped on the shoulder and asked to leave; the party is going on without you but you must leave. This is where the afterlife comes in, you are told you go to another party but someone comes and tapes you on the shoulder but this time tells you you can never leave and what's more demands you have a good time. This cannot be believed by a thinking person. Also who determines what beings gain access to the afterlife is it just the human species, how does one determine this; via DNA? Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species (1). So apes to maybe then you must go down the gene pool to squirrels, rats, fish and bacteria. and if animals are not allowed in the afterlife what happens to them? Closing point I think It is fairly obvious that the state/ non state after death is parallel to what you experienced before conception/birth. source: 1. <URL>...

hect

First of all I must start by saying on relation the the question is there an afterlife? We must all admit we don't know thats because we can't know so the people who have to leave the debate right away are those who claim they do. We can only make logical arguments that lead to the assumption on the issue. Now to my arguments I will present throughout the debate. I think it is obvious that the concept of an afterlife is a man made idea constructed for a number of reason I shall discuss. The first being consolation and wishful thinking; it's obviously comforting if your child just died but your are told not to worry because he/she is going to a better place, which in my view is a slightly immoral idea because it's to say any thing that makes you feel better is fine, drugs can also make you feel 'better'. The other is control and power as for centuries the afterlife has represented a claim by humans to be able to interpret the divine thus give themselves power by doing so. Now on to the point of eternity the afterlife represents, sure the first 100 years or so may be enjoyable in heaven/ other religious equivalent, maybe even the first few hundred but what about after 1000, 10 000, 100 000, 1000 000 and ad infinitum things would surely start to seem repetitive and mundane and would start to look alot like hell. We all know the party of life is going to end, eventually you will be tapped on the shoulder and asked to leave; the party is going on without you but you must leave. This is where the afterlife comes in, you are told you go to another party but someone comes and tapes you on the shoulder but this time tells you you can never leave and what's more demands you have a good time. This cannot be believed by a thinking person. Also who determines what beings gain access to the afterlife is it just the human species, how does one determine this; via DNA? Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species (1). So apes to maybe then you must go down the gene pool to squirrels, rats, fish and bacteria. and if animals are not allowed in the afterlife what happens to them? Closing point I think It is fairly obvious that the state/ non state after death is parallel to what you experienced before conception/birth. source: 1. http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au...

Philosophy

there-is-no-afterlife/2/

bruh... I really wanted to have this debate

hect

bruh... I really wanted to have this debate

Philosophy

there-is-no-afterlife/2/

I think I should be awarded points as my opponent forfeited.

hect

I think I should be awarded points as my opponent forfeited.

Philosophy

there-is-no-afterlife/2/

You are so stupid! THERE HAS TO BE LAWS!!!!! Otherwise, the world would be horrible and worse than it is now!

Glitter2998

You are so stupid! THERE HAS TO BE LAWS!!!!! Otherwise, the world would be horrible and worse than it is now!

Society

there-should-be-no-laws/1/

True, lol

Glitter2998

True, lol

Society

there-should-be-no-laws/1/

You REALLY wanna go there? REALLY?!?!

Glitter2998

You REALLY wanna go there? REALLY?!?!

Society

there-should-be-no-laws/1/

why should we be controlled in what we can and can't do? it is appalling that i have to wake up knowing that my life is boxed in by rules that people i've never met decide.

donkal

why should we be controlled in what we can and can't do? it is appalling that i have to wake up knowing that my life is boxed in by rules that people i've never met decide.

Society

there-should-be-no-laws/1/

Animals live without law. why can't we? there does not have to be law because we are animals. our ancestors lived without law. they survived.

donkal

Animals live without law. why can't we? there does not have to be law because we are animals. our ancestors lived without law. they survived.

Society

there-should-be-no-laws/1/

why should some rich politician tell me what i can and can't do? if i want to smoke crack let me smoke crack. if i want to kill in revenge why not? the law is stupid and pointless. stop bossing me around.

donkal

why should some rich politician tell me what i can and can't do? if i want to smoke crack let me smoke crack. if i want to kill in revenge why not? the law is stupid and pointless. stop bossing me around.

Society

there-should-be-no-laws/1/

Thank you for bringing this topic up... All teenagers hate cc(community service) hours! However, even though I am personally against service learning hours, I am here to negate the topic. First off, some diffinitions for this round: The topic was there shuold be no service learning hours from now on. My opponent has not specifically stated what type of hours. Hours for inmates at jail? Or hours needed to graduate from high school? Since my opponent has not claimed any diffinitions, I will provide some. Therefore the service hours in the topic will now refer to the community service hours needed to graduate high school. The topic can now read: There should be no community service hours needed to graduate high school. My position as the negative is to prove to the judges that we should keep service learning and having community service as a requirement to graduate high school. My opponents only true argument was: 1)Pro ~ there shouldn't be no service learning hours from now on because if some people don't want to get to know there community its there choice To sum it up for judges my opponent is arguing that its the people's choice to choose wheter or not to do community service hours. My response to this argument is: Service learning IS optional. Nobody is forcing the people to serve their community or not. Its their choice to do them or not. My opponent is claiming that we're currently forcing people to do them. However we're not. For example, if I don't want to do my community service hours, I won't do them, the only consquence of me not doing those hours is that I cannot graduate high school. IT IS MY CHOICE ALREADY whether or not to do those hours. On to my own case: 1)Service learning Supported by the government Our government supports service learning. In fact there is many programs for service learning for example, Learn and Serve America. Learn and Serve America is a program dedicated to helping young students who are enrolled in the program. Not only does it provide the students with tutors in which to raise the grades, Learn and Serve America provides COLLEGE GRANTS, in which if a student does community service, or service learning, he/she can gain a scholarship for college. There is also Americorp and CitizenCorp. Both are government funded programs designed to help America's society. 2)Service learning provides for a better society- With future citizens learning how to better take care of society and learning how to help one and another, society will become better. Service learning helps students learn about their community and brings them closer together. It not only helps the community, it produces a better citizen who cares about community and the greater good. 3)It helps students become more moral- Service learning teaches students moral lessons. It teaches students to CARE for one and another and to LOVE their community. It also teaches them not to DEFILE and DEHUMANIZE other things. Students in the service learning program are more EXPOSED to other subjects and therefore are more OPEN MINDED and ACCEPTING. They can become more RESILIENT and learn how to further accept racial differences. STUDENTS ARE WORKING WITH OTHER STUDENTS, which can lead to the lowering of racism. 4)Already its hard not to do community service hours. In the society that we live in, a ton of programs are dedicated to helping the community. Let's take a look at the boyscout/girl scout program, and the programs that coastal communitys instigate after an oil spill. When that one tanker a few weeks ago from China spilled over, who was there to clean it? Students in the service learning programs and volunteers! EVEN IF MY OPPONENT says we shuoldn't have service learning, ITS ALREADY IMPOSSIBLE TO AVOID! As a wrap up, my opponents only argument was that people might not want to do service learning. I have countered that by stating that it is the people's choice to do it or not. A student doesn't have to be in school, they're there because they want to be there. My case for the round is as follows: 1)Service learning supported by government 2)Service learnin-Better society 3)Service Learning-More morality 4)Service Learning is evident in our daily lives For all these reasons please vote negative.

Ninjanuke

Thank you for bringing this topic up... All teenagers hate cc(community service) hours! However, even though I am personally against service learning hours, I am here to negate the topic. First off, some diffinitions for this round: The topic was there shuold be no service learning hours from now on. My opponent has not specifically stated what type of hours. Hours for inmates at jail? Or hours needed to graduate from high school? Since my opponent has not claimed any diffinitions, I will provide some. Therefore the service hours in the topic will now refer to the community service hours needed to graduate high school. The topic can now read: There should be no community service hours needed to graduate high school. My position as the negative is to prove to the judges that we should keep service learning and having community service as a requirement to graduate high school. My opponents only true argument was: 1)Pro ~ there shouldn't be no service learning hours from now on because if some people don't want to get to know there community its there choice To sum it up for judges my opponent is arguing that its the people's choice to choose wheter or not to do community service hours. My response to this argument is: Service learning IS optional. Nobody is forcing the people to serve their community or not. Its their choice to do them or not. My opponent is claiming that we're currently forcing people to do them. However we're not. For example, if I don't want to do my community service hours, I won't do them, the only consquence of me not doing those hours is that I cannot graduate high school. IT IS MY CHOICE ALREADY whether or not to do those hours. On to my own case: 1)Service learning Supported by the government Our government supports service learning. In fact there is many programs for service learning for example, Learn and Serve America. Learn and Serve America is a program dedicated to helping young students who are enrolled in the program. Not only does it provide the students with tutors in which to raise the grades, Learn and Serve America provides COLLEGE GRANTS, in which if a student does community service, or service learning, he/she can gain a scholarship for college. There is also Americorp and CitizenCorp. Both are government funded programs designed to help America's society. 2)Service learning provides for a better society- With future citizens learning how to better take care of society and learning how to help one and another, society will become better. Service learning helps students learn about their community and brings them closer together. It not only helps the community, it produces a better citizen who cares about community and the greater good. 3)It helps students become more moral- Service learning teaches students moral lessons. It teaches students to CARE for one and another and to LOVE their community. It also teaches them not to DEFILE and DEHUMANIZE other things. Students in the service learning program are more EXPOSED to other subjects and therefore are more OPEN MINDED and ACCEPTING. They can become more RESILIENT and learn how to further accept racial differences. STUDENTS ARE WORKING WITH OTHER STUDENTS, which can lead to the lowering of racism. 4)Already its hard not to do community service hours. In the society that we live in, a ton of programs are dedicated to helping the community. Let's take a look at the boyscout/girl scout program, and the programs that coastal communitys instigate after an oil spill. When that one tanker a few weeks ago from China spilled over, who was there to clean it? Students in the service learning programs and volunteers! EVEN IF MY OPPONENT says we shuoldn't have service learning, ITS ALREADY IMPOSSIBLE TO AVOID! As a wrap up, my opponents only argument was that people might not want to do service learning. I have countered that by stating that it is the people's choice to do it or not. A student doesn't have to be in school, they're there because they want to be there. My case for the round is as follows: 1)Service learning supported by government 2)Service learnin-Better society 3)Service Learning-More morality 4)Service Learning is evident in our daily lives For all these reasons please vote negative.

Education

there-should-be-no-service-learning-hours-from-now-on/1/

Since my opponent has no responded she has lost her case and dropped my entire case. I wish she had responded though -.- As we can see I have overwhelming won this debate. Thank you. go james logan!

Ninjanuke

Since my opponent has no responded she has lost her case and dropped my entire case. I wish she had responded though -.- As we can see I have overwhelming won this debate. Thank you. go james logan!

Education

there-should-be-no-service-learning-hours-from-now-on/1/

there shouldn't be no service learning hours from now on because if some people don't want to get to know there community its there choice

erica11

there shouldn't be no service learning hours from now on because if some people don't want to get to know there community its there choice

Education

there-should-be-no-service-learning-hours-from-now-on/1/

"so, legally and morally, the third trimester should be heavily regulated." no it's not . .

Level27

"so, legally and morally, the third trimester should be heavily regulated." no it's not . .

Religion

third-trimester-abortion-should-be-heavily-regualated/1/

both legally and morally, the third trimester of pregnancy should be heavily regulated to prevent abortion. legally.... roe v wade allows regulation, but doe v. bolton in practice has effectively render void that legislative option. "Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health." not because that case is bad law, but because it's being applied too liberally. so, to keep with the snpirit of roe v wade, legally, more regulations should exist in the third trimester. also, morally... only things like the health of the mother should allow abortions. maybe a little leniency on some other things, but not much. this is obvious... it's not a baby two seconds out of the birth canal but a baby two seconds before, and murder doesn't happen only out of the birth canal. this is not debatable, to rational people. so, legally and morally, the third trimester should be heavily regulated.

dairygirl4u2c

both legally and morally, the third trimester of pregnancy should be heavily regulated to prevent abortion. legally.... roe v wade allows regulation, but doe v. bolton in practice has effectively render void that legislative option. "Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health." not because that case is bad law, but because it's being applied too liberally. so, to keep with the snpirit of roe v wade, legally, more regulations should exist in the third trimester. also, morally... only things like the health of the mother should allow abortions. maybe a little leniency on some other things, but not much. this is obvious... it's not a baby two seconds out of the birth canal but a baby two seconds before, and murder doesn't happen only out of the birth canal. this is not debatable, to rational people. so, legally and morally, the third trimester should be heavily regulated.

Religion

third-trimester-abortion-should-be-heavily-regualated/1/

hes racist and homophobic

hawaiianxx

hes racist and homophobic

Politics

trump-is-a-bad-president/1/

he said that all mexicans are rapists

hawaiianxx

he said that all mexicans are rapists

Politics

trump-is-a-bad-president/1/

okay I have been thinking for ever on this and I believe I can hold a debit on my ideas here they are you job is to look for any week point in my system and try to exploit it. Now I may do this 2 or 3 other time from now but only to strengthen my ideals and so I can see if I missed any thing in this system. money is a thing of taboo in my mythical economy okay now you may ask how can cash be taboo? well it inceriges pp to live in a ether two or three naberhoods you have the slums no one want to live there, the Wright naberhoods and the middle ground not quit getteo but you ant likely to find a rich well pad guy anywhere nere here unless his doughtier is banging some thug or something. It also hold back medical research and science Know how can I buy stuff with out money you may ask and the ecoimy would fall to peaces right? Wong. You now that id card of yours? Well it has a strip on the back that can hold data not much but some, I think your name, dob and address if memory servers, and it could save weather or not you are a bum, disabled or working.. now a bum has no house but he can get food and drink for free and medical care that it he cant get any thing el's, disabled pp have all the thing the working have. A home medical and schooling. unless there is no job you can do or you must work or you are a bum but if you have a job you can have the same benhifets as say the Dr or the president. now how can the usa support this we need money to tread out side of the usa right? No it common to use money but no. We could trad good for goods, and you can still get forine moneys from a cash debot so you can buy some paint or something from England or something. whoa dame that a lot of type the spell check goanna $hit it self to day

ickda

okay I have been thinking for ever on this and I believe I can hold a debit on my ideas here they are you job is to look for any week point in my system and try to exploit it. Now I may do this 2 or 3 other time from now but only to strengthen my ideals and so I can see if I missed any thing in this system. money is a thing of taboo in my mythical economy okay now you may ask how can cash be taboo? well it inceriges pp to live in a ether two or three naberhoods you have the slums no one want to live there, the Wright naberhoods and the middle ground not quit getteo but you ant likely to find a rich well pad guy anywhere nere here unless his doughtier is banging some thug or something. It also hold back medical research and science Know how can I buy stuff with out money you may ask and the ecoimy would fall to peaces right? Wong. You now that id card of yours? Well it has a strip on the back that can hold data not much but some, I think your name, dob and address if memory servers, and it could save weather or not you are a bum, disabled or working.. now a bum has no house but he can get food and drink for free and medical care that it he cant get any thing el's, disabled pp have all the thing the working have. A home medical and schooling. unless there is no job you can do or you must work or you are a bum but if you have a job you can have the same benhifets as say the Dr or the president. now how can the usa support this we need money to tread out side of the usa right? No it common to use money but no. We could trad good for goods, and you can still get forine moneys from a cash debot so you can buy some paint or something from England or something. whoa dame that a lot of type the spell check goanna $hit it self to day

Politics

umm-it-a-type-of-err-it-like-capitalism-but-it-not/1/

okay you look like fun to ague this with. So I am a pro for socialism that for got what it called okay how would I support my stat? easy trad for good with other country's, instead of bills I we need oil lets say then we give them a sofa or a gun or any thing els they may wont from us $h!t we could even give them cars for stuff that we want. If we can give it away for goods then we do. I also give the people a resin to work if you ant crippled then you a bum all you have is free food and water, other whys you live in the streets, but if you have a job which mean you give the stat something to use to hold the system to gather and keep the people fed and happy, The Negro's wont be stuck in a slum typ area (and just read about Detroit and other places like that it a bloody mess. And I believe the slums were mad for the negro) we gite ride of the higher class and the middle class so we have one class the working class. note negro is not a racist term, go to the 60 an like an you see a lot of black pp using the term. So mah

ickda

okay you look like fun to ague this with. So I am a pro for socialism that for got what it called okay how would I support my stat? easy trad for good with other country's, instead of bills I we need oil lets say then we give them a sofa or a gun or any thing els they may wont from us $h!t we could even give them cars for stuff that we want. If we can give it away for goods then we do. I also give the people a resin to work if you ant crippled then you a bum all you have is free food and water, other whys you live in the streets, but if you have a job which mean you give the stat something to use to hold the system to gather and keep the people fed and happy, The Negro's wont be stuck in a slum typ area (and just read about Detroit and other places like that it a bloody mess. And I believe the slums were mad for the negro) we gite ride of the higher class and the middle class so we have one class the working class. note negro is not a racist term, go to the 60 an like an you see a lot of black pp using the term. So mah

Politics

umm-it-a-type-of-err-it-like-capitalism-but-it-not/1/

It be law for there boss to encourage there inployees to keep the flow good, if you do not do high grad wok hmmm you gate spanked. yeas I now it odd to say that about adult but it not jail and a belt to the a$$ would be low unufe that most would not want to do and if you are still lazy then it time for the nine tails, but so it not abused there must be a job senit that evilurats the pp up for a spanking. So that it dose not punish the pp doing there all. School? The old nun smacking you with a ruler had it right but it no need be a nun.

ickda

It be law for there boss to encourage there inployees to keep the flow good, if you do not do high grad wok hmmm you gate spanked. yeas I now it odd to say that about adult but it not jail and a belt to the a$$ would be low unufe that most would not want to do and if you are still lazy then it time for the nine tails, but so it not abused there must be a job senit that evilurats the pp up for a spanking. So that it dose not punish the pp doing there all. School? The old nun smacking you with a ruler had it right but it no need be a nun.

Politics

umm-it-a-type-of-err-it-like-capitalism-but-it-not/1/

OkayMySpacBarIsBrokenFuGK ThatIsSoMuchBetterThenAbetingThanks IgussIHaveToUseMIndGamesAndStuffLikeThat OrIfYouDoGoodTheBossIsINcourigdToThourApartyForTheWorkForce,ThingsLikeTHisMighthelp PsIfYouHaveAnyIdeaWhyICanrSpacePleesTellMeThisIsRetardid

ickda

OkayMySpacBarIsBrokenFuGK ThatIsSoMuchBetterThenAbetingThanks IgussIHaveToUseMIndGamesAndStuffLikeThat OrIfYouDoGoodTheBossIsINcourigdToThourApartyForTheWorkForce,ThingsLikeTHisMighthelp PsIfYouHaveAnyIdeaWhyICanrSpacePleesTellMeThisIsRetardid

Politics

umm-it-a-type-of-err-it-like-capitalism-but-it-not/1/

how am i not defending or debating the topic? Oh yah mind games mean using psychology like um this link here <URL>... there are many other types of physiology based mind games a government may use to git the people to do benefiting things for the people

ickda

how am i not defending or debating the topic? Oh yah mind games mean using psychology like um this link here http://www.psychological-warfare.com... there are many other types of physiology based mind games a government may use to git the people to do benefiting things for the people

Politics

umm-it-a-type-of-err-it-like-capitalism-but-it-not/1/

Step one in your system, delicate your people to one language. My guess is English will not be that language. Without proper communication nothing can be accomplished. Second, You say it's "umm it a type of err it like capitalism but it not". What you have developed is Modern Socialism., hurrah that hasn't be tried before. You take it a step further too, you obliterate the monetary system that makes capitalism so evil, but you reestablish it in a digital form. You got rid of Fiat money which retains little value but requires some capital to at least process the notes. You replace it with something that has literally no capital value. You expect a certain group to be given capital goods too. How would you do this? How would you force people with your fake 1's and 0's that can't even afford to make you a police state, enforce your welfare state. You have a plan worse than real world communism.

xenofreedomx

Step one in your system, delicate your people to one language. My guess is English will not be that language. Without proper communication nothing can be accomplished. Second, You say it's "umm it a type of err it like capitalism but it not". What you have developed is Modern Socialism., hurrah that hasn't be tried before. You take it a step further too, you obliterate the monetary system that makes capitalism so evil, but you reestablish it in a digital form. You got rid of Fiat money which retains little value but requires some capital to at least process the notes. You replace it with something that has literally no capital value. You expect a certain group to be given capital goods too. How would you do this? How would you force people with your fake 1's and 0's that can't even afford to make you a police state, enforce your welfare state. You have a plan worse than real world communism.

Politics

umm-it-a-type-of-err-it-like-capitalism-but-it-not/1/

What reason would you give people to work? What reason would you give someone who does minimal work, to excel and do great work? What reason would motivate a high skill level to work as hard as a lower skill level? How would you avoid creating a welfare state with high unemployment and a workforce of only the working poor? You are describing socialism, and it only creates more poor and more inequality. <URL>... Creating a state to regulate equality will only destroy freedom. Look at what has happened in the United States of America. <URL>... How will your system avoid this?

xenofreedomx

What reason would you give people to work? What reason would you give someone who does minimal work, to excel and do great work? What reason would motivate a high skill level to work as hard as a lower skill level? How would you avoid creating a welfare state with high unemployment and a workforce of only the working poor? You are describing socialism, and it only creates more poor and more inequality. http://www.forbes.com... Creating a state to regulate equality will only destroy freedom. Look at what has happened in the United States of America. http://rogueoperator.wordpress.com... How will your system avoid this?

Politics

umm-it-a-type-of-err-it-like-capitalism-but-it-not/1/

Who would regulate theses spankings? Have you heard of a Non-Aggression Principle? <URL>... Going off of non-aggression, your state wouldn't use it. I think you should read up on it. Allow me to clarify. Your welfare state which as stated above cannot work, of which you've yet to refute. The state will only operate on the idea of doing your best or force, or fear of force will motivate you? Does this sound like a pleasant place to live? What would prevent bureaucrats from becoming corrupt? Would you institute more bureaucrats? I can't see this as practical. You keep making statements but you've yet to answer any questions and you've yet to refute any of my points.

xenofreedomx

Who would regulate theses spankings? Have you heard of a Non-Aggression Principle? http://en.wikipedia.org... Going off of non-aggression, your state wouldn't use it. I think you should read up on it. Allow me to clarify. Your welfare state which as stated above cannot work, of which you've yet to refute. The state will only operate on the idea of doing your best or force, or fear of force will motivate you? Does this sound like a pleasant place to live? What would prevent bureaucrats from becoming corrupt? Would you institute more bureaucrats? I can't see this as practical. You keep making statements but you've yet to answer any questions and you've yet to refute any of my points.

Politics

umm-it-a-type-of-err-it-like-capitalism-but-it-not/1/

I think the source of your spacebar issue operator related. So they would throw a party? How would they gain the stuff for a party? How would anyone be motivated? Mind games, you mean propaganda? I don't understand you. This is ridiculous and I am done debate this topic. The point of debate has been invalidated by you, by choosing not to debate the topic. This is sad given it's your topic.

xenofreedomx

I think the source of your spacebar issue operator related. So they would throw a party? How would they gain the stuff for a party? How would anyone be motivated? Mind games, you mean propaganda? I don't understand you. This is ridiculous and I am done debate this topic. The point of debate has been invalidated by you, by choosing not to debate the topic. This is sad given it's your topic.

Politics

umm-it-a-type-of-err-it-like-capitalism-but-it-not/1/

You are trolling your own debate, so I am going to throw this. I believe your view to be a foolish and naive one of the world.

xenofreedomx

You are trolling your own debate, so I am going to throw this. I believe your view to be a foolish and naive one of the world.

Politics

umm-it-a-type-of-err-it-like-capitalism-but-it-not/1/

If my mother had aborted me, we'd never have had been able to have this debate and you'd never have had been able to win it or lose it or even reach a conclusion. If this debate has any value, my mother shouldn't have aborted me. If this debate has no value, you shouldn't have made it and thus forfeit it to me. I win.

ProNoob

If my mother had aborted me, we'd never have had been able to have this debate and you'd never have had been able to win it or lose it or even reach a conclusion. If this debate has any value, my mother shouldn't have aborted me. If this debate has no value, you shouldn't have made it and thus forfeit it to me. I win.

Politics

ur-mom-should-have-aborted-you/1/

Are you saying that I am the sole reason for you having this view? In that case if my mother had aborted me, you wouldn't have the view that you claim to be true. This means that you are saying that your own view shouldn't have had to have been debated due to the fact that I should have been aborted. This method of metaphorical comparison is not only irrational but self-destructive because you rendered your own debate worth of 'abortion'.

ProNoob

Are you saying that I am the sole reason for you having this view? In that case if my mother had aborted me, you wouldn't have the view that you claim to be true. This means that you are saying that your own view shouldn't have had to have been debated due to the fact that I should have been aborted. This method of metaphorical comparison is not only irrational but self-destructive because you rendered your own debate worth of 'abortion'.

Politics

ur-mom-should-have-aborted-you/1/

I didn't understand a single word of what pro just wrote... Sorry. Basically I think all my points went uncontested so vote con.

ProNoob

I didn't understand a single word of what pro just wrote... Sorry. Basically I think all my points went uncontested so vote con.

Politics

ur-mom-should-have-aborted-you/1/

ur mom should have aborted you u use up resources and wed all be better off if u didnt exist

dairygirl4u2c

ur mom should have aborted you u use up resources and wed all be better off if u didnt exist

Politics

ur-mom-should-have-aborted-you/1/

if ur mom aborted you hen i woldnt have to debate this . the only reason i do is becaues u exist. yet another hindreance to us all

dairygirl4u2c

if ur mom aborted you hen i woldnt have to debate this . the only reason i do is becaues u exist. yet another hindreance to us all

Politics

ur-mom-should-have-aborted-you/1/

u shouldnt exist. u suck up resorues etc. the fact even have to deabate u is a hindrance wed be better of here amd ing emeral if didnt exst

dairygirl4u2c

u shouldnt exist. u suck up resorues etc. the fact even have to deabate u is a hindrance wed be better of here amd ing emeral if didnt exst

Politics

ur-mom-should-have-aborted-you/1/

Rebuttals "this website expands a few more expenditures on the poor... but even it with thwith the formal analysis doesn't put spending at much more than ten percent. <URL>... ... ..." 10% is still very significant when it comes to the budget. Although it's actually more than that. I'll show in my arguments. "most general spending is on things like EPA or adminstrative stuff... not poor stuff. SS is a middle class and everyone issue, and in theory is suppose to be self supporting by pay roll taxes. same with medicare, which is probably atleast half of the health spending." Actually, most general spending is on entitlements. This is important, because entitlement spending is nondiscretionary. This means it is automatic, and can't be changed unless congress passes legislation to change it. Much of this entitlement spending goes to the poor. This graph illustrates how much money we actually spend on entitlements. "medicaid is for poor people, is probably less than half of that healthcare spending. but perhaps we could account it for half for the sake of argument? if health care is twenty to tewnty five percent of our budget, that's like ten to twelve percent of our budget." 12% is a lot of money compared to a lot of other things we put money in. "food stamps are only a hundred billion out of a three and a half trillion budget. two to three percent maybe. national debt and defense are for everyone." Everything adds up. A hundred billion is a lot of money. "not to mention, most of the national debt is due to borrowing against social security. which is an accounting issue more than anything that has to do with the poor." The only reason we have social security is to prevent poverty in old age. This is certainly for the poor. "welfare is a program that in most states, at least ohio, is a woman can only get cash assistance for three years if shes poor and has kids. that is the maximum. this was a result of welfare reform during the clinton admin, ie the feds do match some money spent. but i belieeve this is part of health spending and not much more than a few billion per year." Welfare spending is about $179.7 billion in total for states, and $430 billion for the federal government. This is hardly just a few billion per year. (1) "there's also section 8 housing which is a marginal amount compared to the overall budget. (not that i woudln't mind redireecting this money somehow else but that's beside the point) grants to college students only add up to a fraction of the education budget which is eighty billion... maybe thirty billion max? (not that i wouldnt mind cutting this too but aaginst besie point) maybe a percent?" Student assistance, including grants, loans, direct payments, and contracts add up to $195 billion in total state spending. This isn't just a percent. (2) "so if we add it up, we got medicaid food stamps section 8 student grants matches for welfare. not much else? that adds up to like fifteen, sixteen percent of our budget.??" You're missing a lot, and it's a lot more. "these are rough estimates. but enough to show it's not poor people as our problems and "welfare" etc. it's mostly governmetn mismanagement, borrowing against programs, not paying for what we spend, cutting taxes while running deficits, not keeping overall spending lower, etc." Poor people are a problem in America. We don't like it when people are poor, so then we spend hundreds of billions in trying to make their lives better. Arguments State spending The states spend a substantial amount of their money on the poor in various ways. This graph shows the spending as a percentage of total spending, in 2010. The 16% welfare is obvious to notice, but other spending on the poor is much more subtle. Of the $436 billion the states spend on health care, $337 billion is in vendor payments (welfare). This makes the welfare spending in healthcare at around 23% of total state spending.(1) Not including the money we give to the poor through education, social security, food stamps etc., this is still 39% of the state spending. This proves that spending on the poor is a primary cause of government spending problems. Sources: 1. <URL>... 2. <URL>...

Valladarex

Rebuttals "this website expands a few more expenditures on the poor... but even it with thwith the formal analysis doesn't put spending at much more than ten percent. http://www.motherjones.com... ... ..." 10% is still very significant when it comes to the budget. Although it's actually more than that. I'll show in my arguments. "most general spending is on things like EPA or adminstrative stuff... not poor stuff. SS is a middle class and everyone issue, and in theory is suppose to be self supporting by pay roll taxes. same with medicare, which is probably atleast half of the health spending." Actually, most general spending is on entitlements. This is important, because entitlement spending is nondiscretionary. This means it is automatic, and can't be changed unless congress passes legislation to change it. Much of this entitlement spending goes to the poor. This graph illustrates how much money we actually spend on entitlements. "medicaid is for poor people, is probably less than half of that healthcare spending. but perhaps we could account it for half for the sake of argument? if health care is twenty to tewnty five percent of our budget, that's like ten to twelve percent of our budget." 12% is a lot of money compared to a lot of other things we put money in. "food stamps are only a hundred billion out of a three and a half trillion budget. two to three percent maybe. national debt and defense are for everyone." Everything adds up. A hundred billion is a lot of money. "not to mention, most of the national debt is due to borrowing against social security. which is an accounting issue more than anything that has to do with the poor." The only reason we have social security is to prevent poverty in old age. This is certainly for the poor. "welfare is a program that in most states, at least ohio, is a woman can only get cash assistance for three years if shes poor and has kids. that is the maximum. this was a result of welfare reform during the clinton admin, ie the feds do match some money spent. but i belieeve this is part of health spending and not much more than a few billion per year." Welfare spending is about $179.7 billion in total for states, and $430 billion for the federal government. This is hardly just a few billion per year. (1) "there's also section 8 housing which is a marginal amount compared to the overall budget. (not that i woudln't mind redireecting this money somehow else but that's beside the point) grants to college students only add up to a fraction of the education budget which is eighty billion... maybe thirty billion max? (not that i wouldnt mind cutting this too but aaginst besie point) maybe a percent?" Student assistance, including grants, loans, direct payments, and contracts add up to $195 billion in total state spending. This isn't just a percent. (2) "so if we add it up, we got medicaid food stamps section 8 student grants matches for welfare. not much else? that adds up to like fifteen, sixteen percent of our budget.??" You're missing a lot, and it's a lot more. "these are rough estimates. but enough to show it's not poor people as our problems and "welfare" etc. it's mostly governmetn mismanagement, borrowing against programs, not paying for what we spend, cutting taxes while running deficits, not keeping overall spending lower, etc." Poor people are a problem in America. We don't like it when people are poor, so then we spend hundreds of billions in trying to make their lives better. Arguments State spending The states spend a substantial amount of their money on the poor in various ways. This graph shows the spending as a percentage of total spending, in 2010. The 16% welfare is obvious to notice, but other spending on the poor is much more subtle. Of the $436 billion the states spend on health care, $337 billion is in vendor payments (welfare). This makes the welfare spending in healthcare at around 23% of total state spending.(1) Not including the money we give to the poor through education, social security, food stamps etc., this is still 39% of the state spending. This proves that spending on the poor is a primary cause of government spending problems. Sources: 1. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com... 2. http://www.usaspending.gov...

Politics

welfare-spending-on-poor-as-primary-cause-of-gov-spending-problems-is-a-misconception/2/

Rebuttals "you showed student loans as being billions but as a percentage only like three or four of the federal budget. aside from that, social security is supppose to be self sustaining, you get what you pay into it, for the most part. the state budgets, if i assume are accurate, are telling, i concede. they show states spend maybe a fifth or so on that. but state spending v federal is a lot smaller. percentage of overal spending puts poor spending at a small fraction." Well now that you concede that spending on poor is a problem in state governments, and not a misconception, I shouldn't really need to show anything beyond that. But to make it clear that, even on the federal level, much of the spending is on the poor, I will continue to show statistics. The federal student assistance programs accounts for $38 billion for 1.1% of the budget in 2010. (1) Federal spending on vendor payments(welfare) is $330.7 billion, or 9.5% of the budget. Federal welfare spending is $502 billion, or 14.5% of the budget.(2) This all together adds up to $870.7 billion, 25.1% of the federal budget. To put into perspective, this was more than the entire defense budget. It's evident that this is part of the spending problem we have in America. "let's say each state spends 30 billion a year, pretty standard. times 50 states. 1.5 tillion. and the fed spends 3.5 trillion. that means twenty percent on teh state side, 10 on the fed side, we're talking like 13 percent of total ependitures. you said ten was a lot, i simply disagree and im sure most people would. 13 might be pushign it more, but it's still not a ton of money or at least not of realtive significance." Even though it's about double what you thought the total expenditure was, 13% would have still been a very significant amount of money. Thats enough money to give $1,459 to every single citizen of the United States in 2010. Its triple what the federal government spends on education. To think that $449 billion isn't a significant amount of money is absurd. Even if you think that the other 87% is a bigger part of the spending problem, that 13% is a problem nonetheless. 1. <URL>... ; 2. <URL>... ;

Valladarex

Rebuttals "you showed student loans as being billions but as a percentage only like three or four of the federal budget. aside from that, social security is supppose to be self sustaining, you get what you pay into it, for the most part. the state budgets, if i assume are accurate, are telling, i concede. they show states spend maybe a fifth or so on that. but state spending v federal is a lot smaller. percentage of overal spending puts poor spending at a small fraction." Well now that you concede that spending on poor is a problem in state governments, and not a misconception, I shouldn't really need to show anything beyond that. But to make it clear that, even on the federal level, much of the spending is on the poor, I will continue to show statistics. The federal student assistance programs accounts for $38 billion for 1.1% of the budget in 2010. (1) Federal spending on vendor payments(welfare) is $330.7 billion, or 9.5% of the budget. Federal welfare spending is $502 billion, or 14.5% of the budget.(2) This all together adds up to $870.7 billion, 25.1% of the federal budget. To put into perspective, this was more than the entire defense budget. It's evident that this is part of the spending problem we have in America. "let's say each state spends 30 billion a year, pretty standard. times 50 states. 1.5 tillion. and the fed spends 3.5 trillion. that means twenty percent on teh state side, 10 on the fed side, we're talking like 13 percent of total ependitures. you said ten was a lot, i simply disagree and im sure most people would. 13 might be pushign it more, but it's still not a ton of money or at least not of realtive significance." Even though it's about double what you thought the total expenditure was, 13% would have still been a very significant amount of money. Thats enough money to give $1,459 to every single citizen of the United States in 2010. Its triple what the federal government spends on education. To think that $449 billion isn't a significant amount of money is absurd. Even if you think that the other 87% is a bigger part of the spending problem, that 13% is a problem nonetheless. 1. http://www2.ed.gov... ; 2. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com... ;

Politics

welfare-spending-on-poor-as-primary-cause-of-gov-spending-problems-is-a-misconception/2/

"we just disagree that X percent of the budget is signifcant or not. i also dont thinkwe can say 450 billion or X amount is a lot when it's only a fraction of the budget. it might be a lot and seem like a lot, but proportionally it's nothing. 10-15 percent is relatively nothing." Every X amount will only be a fraction of the budget. It doesn't make it negligible. Also, I already showed that it isn't 10-15 percent. It's about 25.1%. Vote Con.

Valladarex

"we just disagree that X percent of the budget is signifcant or not. i also dont thinkwe can say 450 billion or X amount is a lot when it's only a fraction of the budget. it might be a lot and seem like a lot, but proportionally it's nothing. 10-15 percent is relatively nothing." Every X amount will only be a fraction of the budget. It doesn't make it negligible. Also, I already showed that it isn't 10-15 percent. It's about 25.1%. Vote Con.

Politics

welfare-spending-on-poor-as-primary-cause-of-gov-spending-problems-is-a-misconception/2/

i would like to debate someon who thinks "welfare" and spending on poor is the cause of our federal or even state governemnt fiscal problems. i'll accept most state budgets as examples except maybe california as examples of state budgets if someone wants to get into state specifics. i'll focus on fed budget with sometimes references to states. this website expands a few more expenditures on the poor... but even it with thwith the formal analysis doesn't put spending at much more than ten percent. <URL>... ... this graph breaks down what we spend money on. <URL>... ... we could break major spending into somewhat equal sections, general spending, health spending, social security, national debt, defense. the health spending is a bit bigger, but all are roughly ball parked the same. most general spending is on things like EPA or adminstrative stuff... not poor stuff. SS is a middle class and everyone issue, and in theory is suppose to be self supporting by pay roll taxes. same with medicare, which is probably atleast half of the health spending. medicaid is for poor people, is probably less than half of that healthcare spending. but perhaps we could account it for half for the sake of argument? if health care is twenty to tewnty five percent of our budget, that's like ten to twelve percent of our budget. food stamps are only a hundred billion out of a three and a half trillion budget. two to three percent maybe. national debt and defense are for everyone. not to mention, most of the national debt is due to borrowing against social security. which is an accounting issue more than anything that has to do with the poor. welfare is a program that in most states, at least ohio, is a woman can only get cash assistance for three years if shes poor and has kids. that is the maximum. this was a result of welfare reform during the clinton admin, ie the feds do match some money spent. but i belieeve this is part of health spending and not much more than a few billion per year. there's also section 8 housing which is a marginal amount compared to the overall budget. (not that i woudln't mind redireecting this money somehow else but that's beside the point) grants to college students only add up to a fraction of the education budget which is eighty billion... maybe thirty billion max? (not that i wouldnt mind cutting this too but aaginst besie point) maybe a percent? so if we add it up, we got medicaid food stamps section 8 student grants matches for welfare. not much else? that adds up to like fifteen, sixteen percent of our budget.?? these are rough estimates. but enough to show it's not poor people as our problems and "welfare" etc. it's mostly governmetn mismanagement, borrowing against programs, not paying for what we spend, cutting taxes while running deficits, not keeping overall spending lower, etc.

dairygirl4u2c

i would like to debate someon who thinks "welfare" and spending on poor is the cause of our federal or even state governemnt fiscal problems. i'll accept most state budgets as examples except maybe california as examples of state budgets if someone wants to get into state specifics. i'll focus on fed budget with sometimes references to states. this website expands a few more expenditures on the poor... but even it with thwith the formal analysis doesn't put spending at much more than ten percent. http://www.motherjones.com... ... this graph breaks down what we spend money on. http://www.federalbudget.com... ... we could break major spending into somewhat equal sections, general spending, health spending, social security, national debt, defense. the health spending is a bit bigger, but all are roughly ball parked the same. most general spending is on things like EPA or adminstrative stuff... not poor stuff. SS is a middle class and everyone issue, and in theory is suppose to be self supporting by pay roll taxes. same with medicare, which is probably atleast half of the health spending. medicaid is for poor people, is probably less than half of that healthcare spending. but perhaps we could account it for half for the sake of argument? if health care is twenty to tewnty five percent of our budget, that's like ten to twelve percent of our budget. food stamps are only a hundred billion out of a three and a half trillion budget. two to three percent maybe. national debt and defense are for everyone. not to mention, most of the national debt is due to borrowing against social security. which is an accounting issue more than anything that has to do with the poor. welfare is a program that in most states, at least ohio, is a woman can only get cash assistance for three years if shes poor and has kids. that is the maximum. this was a result of welfare reform during the clinton admin, ie the feds do match some money spent. but i belieeve this is part of health spending and not much more than a few billion per year. there's also section 8 housing which is a marginal amount compared to the overall budget. (not that i woudln't mind redireecting this money somehow else but that's beside the point) grants to college students only add up to a fraction of the education budget which is eighty billion... maybe thirty billion max? (not that i wouldnt mind cutting this too but aaginst besie point) maybe a percent? so if we add it up, we got medicaid food stamps section 8 student grants matches for welfare. not much else? that adds up to like fifteen, sixteen percent of our budget.?? these are rough estimates. but enough to show it's not poor people as our problems and "welfare" etc. it's mostly governmetn mismanagement, borrowing against programs, not paying for what we spend, cutting taxes while running deficits, not keeping overall spending lower, etc.

Politics

welfare-spending-on-poor-as-primary-cause-of-gov-spending-problems-is-a-misconception/2/

you showed student loans as being billions but as a percentage only like three or four of the federal budget. aside from that, social security is supppose to be self sustaining, you get what you pay into it, for the most part. the state budgets, if i assume are accurate, are telling, i concede. they show states spend maybe a fifth or so on that. but state spending v federal is a lot smaller. percentage of overal spending puts poor spending at a small fraction. let's say each state spends 30 billion a year, pretty standard. times 50 states. 1.5 tillion. and the fed spends 3.5 trillion. that means twenty percent on teh state side, 10 on the fed side, we're talking like 13 percent of total ependitures. you said ten was a lot, i simply disagree and im sure most people would. 13 might be pushign it more, but it's still not a ton of money or at least not of realtive significance.

dairygirl4u2c

you showed student loans as being billions but as a percentage only like three or four of the federal budget. aside from that, social security is supppose to be self sustaining, you get what you pay into it, for the most part. the state budgets, if i assume are accurate, are telling, i concede. they show states spend maybe a fifth or so on that. but state spending v federal is a lot smaller. percentage of overal spending puts poor spending at a small fraction. let's say each state spends 30 billion a year, pretty standard. times 50 states. 1.5 tillion. and the fed spends 3.5 trillion. that means twenty percent on teh state side, 10 on the fed side, we're talking like 13 percent of total ependitures. you said ten was a lot, i simply disagree and im sure most people would. 13 might be pushign it more, but it's still not a ton of money or at least not of realtive significance.

Politics

welfare-spending-on-poor-as-primary-cause-of-gov-spending-problems-is-a-misconception/2/

we just disagree that X percent of the budget is signifcant or not. i also dont thinkwe can say 450 billion or X amount is a lot when it's only a fraction of the budget. it might be a lot and seem like a lot, but proportionally it's nothing. 10-15 percent is relatively nothing.

dairygirl4u2c

we just disagree that X percent of the budget is signifcant or not. i also dont thinkwe can say 450 billion or X amount is a lot when it's only a fraction of the budget. it might be a lot and seem like a lot, but proportionally it's nothing. 10-15 percent is relatively nothing.

Politics

welfare-spending-on-poor-as-primary-cause-of-gov-spending-problems-is-a-misconception/2/

what is the influence of western culture on students

bubbles1000

what is the influence of western culture on students

Education

westurn-culture-influence-on-students./1/

Let me just tell you its western not westurn for your title. And next time change the time limit please. So I am guessing that you are going be arguing that Western culture influence on students are bad? Definition western culture the modern culture of western Europe and North America <URL>... The influence of western culture on students varies on the students. Students that are influenced by western culture is something that is not bad, but good. To argue about this you first need to know what "western culture" truly means. Western Culture refers to the cultures of European regions. I see no harm for the students that will be influenced by western culture. Western culture such as dance, music, visual art, story-telling, and architecture are human universals, they are expressed in the West in certain characteristic ways that are not expressed in any other part of the world. I just don't see any reasons that the culture influence on students are harmful. Western culture teaches us traditions, themes, sports, technological advances, and literacy. Western cultural influence is not harmful, but good. <URL>... ;

nerdykiller

Let me just tell you its western not westurn for your title. And next time change the time limit please. So I am guessing that you are going be arguing that Western culture influence on students are bad? Definition western culture the modern culture of western Europe and North America http://dictionary.reference.com... The influence of western culture on students varies on the students. Students that are influenced by western culture is something that is not bad, but good. To argue about this you first need to know what "western culture" truly means. Western Culture refers to the cultures of European regions. I see no harm for the students that will be influenced by western culture. Western culture such as dance, music, visual art, story-telling, and architecture are human universals, they are expressed in the West in certain characteristic ways that are not expressed in any other part of the world. I just don't see any reasons that the culture influence on students are harmful. Western culture teaches us traditions, themes, sports, technological advances, and literacy. Western cultural influence is not harmful, but good. http://en.wikipedia.org... ;

Education

westurn-culture-influence-on-students./1/

My opponent didn't rebuttal or give any reasons. So my reason still stands.

nerdykiller

My opponent didn't rebuttal or give any reasons. So my reason still stands.

Education

westurn-culture-influence-on-students./1/

Again no response. I have proved my point already in round 1.

nerdykiller

Again no response. I have proved my point already in round 1.

Education

westurn-culture-influence-on-students./1/

Again no rebuttals or reasoning. I already made my point.

nerdykiller

Again no rebuttals or reasoning. I already made my point.

Education

westurn-culture-influence-on-students./1/

which game to you is better cod mw2 or cod black ops im for cod black ops becouse of the perks and weapons

externowolf

which game to you is better cod mw2 or cod black ops im for cod black ops becouse of the perks and weapons

Technology

which-game-is-better-cod-mw2-or-cod-black-ops/1/

OK the debate is about why you think COD:MW2 is a better game than COD:BLACK OPS OK this is my case; COD:black ops is a more advanced game even though the game takes place in a different time frame than COD:MW2 with more perks and also bringing some perks from past games like last chance, hard line ETC. The weapons on the other hand are less advanced than the ones in COD:MW2.but the thing is that the weapons are re-made than the modern design of the weapon Lastly the extensive map packs they are i believe 5-6 map packs and each one is different from the other either have different COD:zombie missions to more multi-player maps and that's my case i will be waiting for the opposition's statment

externowolf

OK the debate is about why you think COD:MW2 is a better game than COD:BLACK OPS OK this is my case; COD:black ops is a more advanced game even though the game takes place in a different time frame than COD:MW2 with more perks and also bringing some perks from past games like last chance, hard line ETC. The weapons on the other hand are less advanced than the ones in COD:MW2.but the thing is that the weapons are re-made than the modern design of the weapon Lastly the extensive map packs they are i believe 5-6 map packs and each one is different from the other either have different COD:zombie missions to more multi-player maps and that's my case i will be waiting for the opposition's statment

Technology

which-game-is-better-cod-mw2-or-cod-black-ops/1/

Firstly, it behooves you to first confirm that the person you are individually challenging does not agree with you on the subject you wish to debate. I do in fact believe that abortions are wrong. Why did I accept this debate? Because you really ought not to argue a topic if you cannot adequately substantiate your points. (1) How are you defining life and why? (2) How, and by what means are you quantifying the inherent sanctity of human life? (3) How would you justify trumping the liberties of women only to superimpose the liberties of an unborn child? (4) How is it like murder to a human if: (a) you have shown that human life is inherently worth a dime (b) you have not revealed the method by which you determine life A mere critique of your argument is all that is necessary for a rebuttal. If you cannot substantiate your claims, do not argue the topic. We know how you feel, now tell us why those feelings are valid.

InquireTruth

Firstly, it behooves you to first confirm that the person you are individually challenging does not agree with you on the subject you wish to debate. I do in fact believe that abortions are wrong. Why did I accept this debate? Because you really ought not to argue a topic if you cannot adequately substantiate your points. (1) How are you defining life and why? (2) How, and by what means are you quantifying the inherent sanctity of human life? (3) How would you justify trumping the liberties of women only to superimpose the liberties of an unborn child? (4) How is it like murder to a human if: (a) you have shown that human life is inherently worth a dime (b) you have not revealed the method by which you determine life A mere critique of your argument is all that is necessary for a rebuttal. If you cannot substantiate your claims, do not argue the topic. We know how you feel, now tell us why those feelings are valid.

Health

why-do-u-agree-with-abortions/1/

It's not that you do not know what you are talking about. It's that you need to try and figure out why it is you feel the way you feel about abortion. For instance, do not be afraid to bring in metaphysics and philosophy as to why you believe human life has intrinsic value. You believe that an unborn child reflects human life because there is not a human on earth who cannot trace his or herself back to the moment of conception. Substantiate your feelings and you've got a case, just stating feelings ruins your case.

InquireTruth

It's not that you do not know what you are talking about. It's that you need to try and figure out why it is you feel the way you feel about abortion. For instance, do not be afraid to bring in metaphysics and philosophy as to why you believe human life has intrinsic value. You believe that an unborn child reflects human life because there is not a human on earth who cannot trace his or herself back to the moment of conception. Substantiate your feelings and you've got a case, just stating feelings ruins your case.

Health

why-do-u-agree-with-abortions/1/

That's great. I am glad that you're are open to learning the different aspects of the argument at large.

InquireTruth

That's great. I am glad that you're are open to learning the different aspects of the argument at large.

Health

why-do-u-agree-with-abortions/1/

i am against abortions because u are taking away an unborns life away. and that should be against the law. cause it is like murder to a human. (con)

ally93

i am against abortions because u are taking away an unborns life away. and that should be against the law. cause it is like murder to a human. (con)

Health

why-do-u-agree-with-abortions/1/

ok life should be ever important to a person, because you have no idea when you or someone you love is going to die. well i will not procide this argument because like you said i do not know what i am talking about and i read your prefile wrong. sorry

ally93

ok life should be ever important to a person, because you have no idea when you or someone you love is going to die. well i will not procide this argument because like you said i do not know what i am talking about and i read your prefile wrong. sorry

Health

why-do-u-agree-with-abortions/1/

ok thanks i have learn a lot for only being on this sit for a couple of days now. i understand what i need to say and reflect that in to an argument instead of feeling.

ally93

ok thanks i have learn a lot for only being on this sit for a couple of days now. i understand what i need to say and reflect that in to an argument instead of feeling.

Health

why-do-u-agree-with-abortions/1/

Refutations: "women are able to vote" Yes but whether they do or not is unknown. "They have jobs" Not all of them. Many "stay at home moms" just stay at home. The unemployment rate for men is lower than the rate for women because men are expected to be the breadwinners of the family, while women are the bread receivers. "we can even own land" What a surprise. I'm taking this fail of a debate off the front page, so I will forfeit the last round. You're welcome.

Rockylightning

Refutations: "women are able to vote" Yes but whether they do or not is unknown. "They have jobs" Not all of them. Many "stay at home moms" just stay at home. The unemployment rate for men is lower than the rate for women because men are expected to be the breadwinners of the family, while women are the bread receivers. "we can even own land" What a surprise. I'm taking this fail of a debate off the front page, so I will forfeit the last round. You're welcome.

Philosophy

women-for-the-kitchen-.vs.-for-the-office/1/

My opponent did my job for me. Happy voting.

Rockylightning

My opponent did my job for me. Happy voting.

Philosophy

women-for-the-kitchen-.vs.-for-the-office/1/

women are able to vote they have jobs we can even own land!

paigeteevee

women are able to vote they have jobs we can even own land!

Philosophy

women-for-the-kitchen-.vs.-for-the-office/1/

Thanks to my opponent for starting this debate. "Don't accept this debate and tell me "infinity is just a concept, you cant do anything with it" because thats a load of crap." No, it's not a load of crap, your set of equations is a load of crap. We can't use infinity like a real number, that's it, case closed. The very fact that you can say nonsense like '1+infinity = infinity' means that infinity is not a number. ===== "Since infinity does not follow the rules laid down for numbers, it cannot be a number. Every time you use the symbol {infinity} in a formula where you would normally use a number, you have to interpret the formula differently." [1] ===== This is why you appear to have proven that (x-x) does not have to equal 1, because you have broken the rules of mathematics. For my opponent's future reference, (infinity - infinity) = indeterminate. [1] Thanks. [1] - <URL>...

leet4A1

Thanks to my opponent for starting this debate. "Don't accept this debate and tell me "infinity is just a concept, you cant do anything with it" because thats a load of crap." No, it's not a load of crap, your set of equations is a load of crap. We can't use infinity like a real number, that's it, case closed. The very fact that you can say nonsense like '1+infinity = infinity' means that infinity is not a number. ===== "Since infinity does not follow the rules laid down for numbers, it cannot be a number. Every time you use the symbol {infinity} in a formula where you would normally use a number, you have to interpret the formula differently." [1] ===== This is why you appear to have proven that (x-x) does not have to equal 1, because you have broken the rules of mathematics. For my opponent's future reference, (infinity - infinity) = indeterminate. [1] Thanks. [1] - http://en.wikibooks.org...

Science

x-x-0/1/

My opponent forfeited his second round, presumably because there really is no argument to make. My opponent's equations only 'work' because they break the laws of mathematics. Vote CON.

leet4A1

My opponent forfeited his second round, presumably because there really is no argument to make. My opponent's equations only 'work' because they break the laws of mathematics. Vote CON.

Science

x-x-0/1/

"I didn't reply because you used the wrong logic, therefore making it impossible to make my point. Vote for whoever you choose, I don't really care, nether of us won, my opponent made totally irrelevant arguments." I made no irrelevant or illogical arguments. My opponent laid out a set of equations which apparently proved that (x - x) doesn't always have to equal zero. My opponent's equations used infinity as though it were a real number, which is a basic mathematics fail. I provided links to show that my opponent's equations broke the laws of mathematics and were therefore invalid, and he failed to rebut. Vote CON.

leet4A1

"I didn't reply because you used the wrong logic, therefore making it impossible to make my point. Vote for whoever you choose, I don't really care, nether of us won, my opponent made totally irrelevant arguments." I made no irrelevant or illogical arguments. My opponent laid out a set of equations which apparently proved that (x - x) doesn't always have to equal zero. My opponent's equations used infinity as though it were a real number, which is a basic mathematics fail. I provided links to show that my opponent's equations broke the laws of mathematics and were therefore invalid, and he failed to rebut. Vote CON.

Science

x-x-0/1/

if you know that someone likes someone then you should tell them! like who likes austin

evan_11_7

if you know that someone likes someone then you should tell them! like who likes austin

People

you-should-tell/1/

I thank my opponent for creating this debate, and I apologize in advance for what I'm about to do... In the true path of being a douche, I argue that neither Zelda or FF is better than the other. Because calling games "good" is inherently subjective, it is meaningless and baseless to attempt to place one game at a righter platform than the other. Unless my opponent can find an objective basis for calling a game "good" or "better" than other games, his arguments are simply irrelevant. So there you go - Zelda isn't better than FF. FF isn't better than Zelda. They are both on the same standing.

TheSkeptic

I thank my opponent for creating this debate, and I apologize in advance for what I'm about to do... In the true path of being a douche, I argue that neither Zelda or FF is better than the other. Because calling games "good" is inherently subjective, it is meaningless and baseless to attempt to place one game at a righter platform than the other. Unless my opponent can find an objective basis for calling a game "good" or "better" than other games, his arguments are simply irrelevant. So there you go - Zelda isn't better than FF. FF isn't better than Zelda. They are both on the same standing.

Entertainment

zelda-better-then-final-fantasy/1/

I thank my opponent for his quick response. However, my opponent has said nothing to further his case. He has simply restated that he believes zelda is better than FF. My argument still stands untouched. He has yet to show why his subjective meaning of a "good game" should be objectively higher than anyone else's subjective meaning of a "good game". I'm sorry, but if my opponent can't do more than this then there really isn't much of a debate.

TheSkeptic

I thank my opponent for his quick response. However, my opponent has said nothing to further his case. He has simply restated that he believes zelda is better than FF. My argument still stands untouched. He has yet to show why his subjective meaning of a "good game" should be objectively higher than anyone else's subjective meaning of a "good game". I'm sorry, but if my opponent can't do more than this then there really isn't much of a debate.

Entertainment

zelda-better-then-final-fantasy/1/

Yes, it is true that Zelda and FF are differently constructed games - I never contended that. In fact, I'm sure that many reasons why people like Zelda or FF is in how the game was constructed (obviously). However, that's not the point. My argument was that my opponent cannot show how, in an objective manner, Zelda is a "better" game than FF. This is because calling a game is purely subjective, as saying a song is better than some other song. We can't show that Zelda is mathematically correct and FF is not, or that Zelda is parsimonious. There is no standard for which we can truly compare these games, or anything to do with media, so my opponent's resolution is negated. Zelda is not better than FF because neither are better than the other.

TheSkeptic

Yes, it is true that Zelda and FF are differently constructed games - I never contended that. In fact, I'm sure that many reasons why people like Zelda or FF is in how the game was constructed (obviously). However, that's not the point. My argument was that my opponent cannot show how, in an objective manner, Zelda is a "better" game than FF. This is because calling a game is purely subjective, as saying a song is better than some other song. We can't show that Zelda is mathematically correct and FF is not, or that Zelda is parsimonious. There is no standard for which we can truly compare these games, or anything to do with media, so my opponent's resolution is negated. Zelda is not better than FF because neither are better than the other.

Entertainment

zelda-better-then-final-fantasy/1/

Just because Zelda is more popular, does not mean it's objectively "better" than FF. Again, my opponent has failed to respond to my argument pertaining to the subjectivity of art. If something is subjective, there is no way to say it's "better" than other things in it's category. There really isn't much left to say in this debate. Nothing constructive has come up, and it's quite obvious who the winner is. Vote CON.

TheSkeptic

Just because Zelda is more popular, does not mean it's objectively "better" than FF. Again, my opponent has failed to respond to my argument pertaining to the subjectivity of art. If something is subjective, there is no way to say it's "better" than other things in it's category. There really isn't much left to say in this debate. Nothing constructive has come up, and it's quite obvious who the winner is. Vote CON.

Entertainment

zelda-better-then-final-fantasy/1/

I say that zelda beats ff by far, look at it zelda has had a lot less games then ff. zelda also offers the most entertainment then ff, and zelda is a little bit more story based. plz start the debate.

linkish

I say that zelda beats ff by far, look at it zelda has had a lot less games then ff. zelda also offers the most entertainment then ff, and zelda is a little bit more story based. plz start the debate.

Entertainment

zelda-better-then-final-fantasy/1/

ok then I thank you for thy rebuttal. Well in my case I have a lot to answer for on this one I mean shure they are both the same but have you ever heard of entertainment my friend. Well there's alot to say I would love to say that I am a Zelda fan but I will play ff once and a while, it is not nearly as fun based as Zelda and I believe that ff would not nearly be the same as Zelda.

linkish

ok then I thank you for thy rebuttal. Well in my case I have a lot to answer for on this one I mean shure they are both the same but have you ever heard of entertainment my friend. Well there's alot to say I would love to say that I am a Zelda fan but I will play ff once and a while, it is not nearly as fun based as Zelda and I believe that ff would not nearly be the same as Zelda.

Entertainment

zelda-better-then-final-fantasy/1/

Well I would like thank my opponent for a wise response. Ok, first I'd like to say that I'm a little new so don't blame me for my non challenging response. Now on to the debate first you said that Zelda and ff where the same, I'd like to let you know that that is not correct. In a way of such you would not know, Zelda is a rpg action based story, in other words it is an "role playing game" that follows a specific sequence until the end, in this story there is loads of action, for instance, you kill a guy over here, he shrieks more come to the aid of his, so in other words this game uses real lifetime choices. On the other hand Final Fantasy uses a technique called fictinary sequence making everything seem easy to do, also in ff there is no choice you have to do what the game tells you or you merely die, thus making Zelda better.

linkish

Well I would like thank my opponent for a wise response. Ok, first I'd like to say that I'm a little new so don't blame me for my non challenging response. Now on to the debate first you said that Zelda and ff where the same, I'd like to let you know that that is not correct. In a way of such you would not know, Zelda is a rpg action based story, in other words it is an "role playing game" that follows a specific sequence until the end, in this story there is loads of action, for instance, you kill a guy over here, he shrieks more come to the aid of his, so in other words this game uses real lifetime choices. On the other hand Final Fantasy uses a technique called fictinary sequence making everything seem easy to do, also in ff there is no choice you have to do what the game tells you or you merely die, thus making Zelda better.

Entertainment

zelda-better-then-final-fantasy/1/

I would like you to know that zelda is played more often for an ex <URL>... more people liked zelda better then ff. Zelda has also been around a lot longer then ff, making it more popular, then ff. I probably lost this debate but still I like zelda better!

linkish

I would like you to know that zelda is played more often for an ex http://www.escapistmagazine.com... more people liked zelda better then ff. Zelda has also been around a lot longer then ff, making it more popular, then ff. I probably lost this debate but still I like zelda better!

Entertainment

zelda-better-then-final-fantasy/1/