Datasets:

notaphoenix

/

debateorg_w_effect_for_conservative_subset

like 0

Hello, I have proof that athiesm is false and is evil!!! 1. Athiests have no morals Athiests have no reason to follow any morals, because they do not believe that a higher power will punish them. Therefore, they don't have morality and like to eat babies. 2. Evilution is false The athiestic worldview is based primarily on evolution as an alternative for a recent creation. I have proof that evolution is false and is evil.Before we go down to the facts, let's just look at what evolution is. Evolution is a theory that states that the universe came from nowhere, and then nothing turned into the solar system through random chance. Then, the Earth formed and life spontaneously appeared out of rocks. Then, the rock-monster turned into plants and animals, then whales came out of the ocean and became cows. Afterwards, dinosaurs went extinct and monkeys turned into people, again through random chance. That sounds ridiculous. It is impossible for all those coincidences to happen all at once. There are many forms of evolution. They are: Macro evolution-this is false. I will address it in a second. Micro evolution-the only thing that is actual science. Stellar evolution-all 100% of the instances caught on telescope are lies made up by the NASA as a part of a cover-up. Matter evolution-No, the sun does not convert hydrogen into helium through nuclear fusion. Instead, the sun runs on burning methane from farts. As you can see, all the above forms of evolution are false.Let's see some details you see in life that disprove evolution. Look at the banana. They have no seeds and are perfectly fit for the human hand to grab. They were INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED for humans. Some hotshot athiests may use "oh well wild bananas have seeds and they breeded the bananas so that domesticated bananas have no seeds" as a rebuttal, but that is false. Athiests have no morals, because there is nothing that guides them through life. Why trust them over me? Also, peanut butter. If evolution is true, then life should be able to spontaneously form in peanut butter. Why has nobody sent samples of peanut butter monsters to science labs? If evolution is true, then macroscopic multicellular peanut butter monsters should be able to spontaneously evolve from peanut butter within a few days of purchase. Transitional fossils and speciation events do not exist. If evolution was true, we should see them. While there are alleged "transitional fossils" ( <URL>... ) as well as "speciation events" ( <URL>... <URL>... ), they were "discovered" by athiests. Athiests have no morals and are more violent than religious people, so why trust them over me? I have a biology PhD from a diploma mill, and cannot know the difference between a gene, genome, or base pair, which is proof that everything I say is right. Evolution is based on solely random chance. There is no selection mechanism involved. Then, how can it make things better, and not neutral or worse? Evolution is wrong. Also, look at the creator of evolution, Charles Darwin. There is proof that Charles Darwin is a evil athiest terrorist baby eater liberal communist socialist racist nazi. In fact, Adolf Hitler used evolution to justify his actions. Also, Charles Darwin is responsible for the rise of OOOOOOOOBBBBBBBBAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMMAAAAAAAAA, who we all know is the Anticrist. Teaching evolution in schools has led to a spike in teen pregnancy, crimes, natural disasters, and erectile dysfunction. Evolution will destroy us all! As you can see, the lie of evolution is exposed in the light and truth brought by faith. Ask your local politicians to take evolution out of schools .3. Belief in atheism will destroy us all! As stated previously, athiesm will cause a spike in teen pregnancy, crimes, natural disasters, erectyle dysfunction, and more! The proof is that teaching evolution is causing the rise of OOOBBBBBAAAAMMMAAAA, who is obviously the Antichrist because he is politically liberal.

jh1234l

Hello, I have proof that athiesm is false and is evil!!! 1. Athiests have no morals Athiests have no reason to follow any morals, because they do not believe that a higher power will punish them. Therefore, they don't have morality and like to eat babies. 2. Evilution is false The athiestic worldview is based primarily on evolution as an alternative for a recent creation. I have proof that evolution is false and is evil.Before we go down to the facts, let's just look at what evolution is. Evolution is a theory that states that the universe came from nowhere, and then nothing turned into the solar system through random chance. Then, the Earth formed and life spontaneously appeared out of rocks. Then, the rock-monster turned into plants and animals, then whales came out of the ocean and became cows. Afterwards, dinosaurs went extinct and monkeys turned into people, again through random chance. That sounds ridiculous. It is impossible for all those coincidences to happen all at once. There are many forms of evolution. They are: Macro evolution-this is false. I will address it in a second. Micro evolution-the only thing that is actual science. Stellar evolution-all 100% of the instances caught on telescope are lies made up by the NASA as a part of a cover-up. Matter evolution-No, the sun does not convert hydrogen into helium through nuclear fusion. Instead, the sun runs on burning methane from farts. As you can see, all the above forms of evolution are false.Let's see some details you see in life that disprove evolution. Look at the banana. They have no seeds and are perfectly fit for the human hand to grab. They were INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED for humans. Some hotshot athiests may use "oh well wild bananas have seeds and they breeded the bananas so that domesticated bananas have no seeds" as a rebuttal, but that is false. Athiests have no morals, because there is nothing that guides them through life. Why trust them over me? Also, peanut butter. If evolution is true, then life should be able to spontaneously form in peanut butter. Why has nobody sent samples of peanut butter monsters to science labs? If evolution is true, then macroscopic multicellular peanut butter monsters should be able to spontaneously evolve from peanut butter within a few days of purchase. Transitional fossils and speciation events do not exist. If evolution was true, we should see them. While there are alleged "transitional fossils" ( http://www.talkorigins.org... ) as well as "speciation events" ( http://www.talkorigins.org... http://www.talkorigins.org... ), they were "discovered" by athiests. Athiests have no morals and are more violent than religious people, so why trust them over me? I have a biology PhD from a diploma mill, and cannot know the difference between a gene, genome, or base pair, which is proof that everything I say is right. Evolution is based on solely random chance. There is no selection mechanism involved. Then, how can it make things better, and not neutral or worse? Evolution is wrong. Also, look at the creator of evolution, Charles Darwin. There is proof that Charles Darwin is a evil athiest terrorist baby eater liberal communist socialist racist nazi. In fact, Adolf Hitler used evolution to justify his actions. Also, Charles Darwin is responsible for the rise of OOOOOOOOBBBBBBBBAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMMAAAAAAAAA, who we all know is the Anticrist. Teaching evolution in schools has led to a spike in teen pregnancy, crimes, natural disasters, and erectile dysfunction. Evolution will destroy us all! As you can see, the lie of evolution is exposed in the light and truth brought by faith. Ask your local politicians to take evolution out of schools .3. Belief in atheism will destroy us all! As stated previously, athiesm will cause a spike in teen pregnancy, crimes, natural disasters, erectyle dysfunction, and more! The proof is that teaching evolution is causing the rise of OOOBBBBBAAAAMMMAAAA, who is obviously the Antichrist because he is politically liberal.

Religion

Athiesm-is-false/1/

My opponent is an athiest, therefore, he supports OOOOOBBBAAAAMMMMMAAAA! Why do athiests hate 'Murica? 1. Morality While an athiest may think that doing certain things is immoral, they cannot have an objective standard for morality, while religious people have an objective standard through interpeting their holy books. 2. Evolution Con states that evolution is not the alternative for a recent creation. However, it is, as macroevolution as scientists know it can only happen in a long time period. Con says that the matter came from a nebula. However, where did the star that created the nebula come from? Nope it is stated life came from water anyways and not spontaneously Life coming from water? Nooooooopppee. Evolution states that the deep ocean floor, with volcanic activity, was where life appeared. It WAS spontaneous, as that was the definition of abiogenesis. Nope Monkeys are less related to a human than a chimp and humans did not come from monkeys. The orgigin was handy man (Homo Habilis ) Where are the transitional fossils, if that happened? My opponent dropped my point that transitional fossils did not exist, as well as my point about speciation. A cover up of what A cover up of the fact that evolution is false! Now, where did my other points, such as the evolution of matter, go? They were not addressed by con. Peanut butter is made from a peanut once a peanut is picked off a peanut plant it is no longer alive only alive things can evolve. also it takes if thousands of years to evolve I was talking about the formation of life, similiar to the beginning of life, not the peanut butter mutating. Well atheism hasn't started as many wars as any other religion Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, and many other dictators were athiest! They killed a LOT of people! Josef Stalin even started the cold war! In conclusion, none of my points were adequately addressed by con, and many points, such as transitional fossils, speciation, and the evolution of matter, were ignored. Vote PRO!

jh1234l

My opponent is an athiest, therefore, he supports OOOOOBBBAAAAMMMMMAAAA! Why do athiests hate 'Murica? 1. Morality While an athiest may think that doing certain things is immoral, they cannot have an objective standard for morality, while religious people have an objective standard through interpeting their holy books. 2. Evolution Con states that evolution is not the alternative for a recent creation. However, it is, as macroevolution as scientists know it can only happen in a long time period. Con says that the matter came from a nebula. However, where did the star that created the nebula come from? Nope it is stated life came from water anyways and not spontaneously Life coming from water? Nooooooopppee. Evolution states that the deep ocean floor, with volcanic activity, was where life appeared. It WAS spontaneous, as that was the definition of abiogenesis. Nope Monkeys are less related to a human than a chimp and humans did not come from monkeys. The orgigin was handy man (Homo Habilis ) Where are the transitional fossils, if that happened? My opponent dropped my point that transitional fossils did not exist, as well as my point about speciation. A cover up of what A cover up of the fact that evolution is false! Now, where did my other points, such as the evolution of matter, go? They were not addressed by con. Peanut butter is made from a peanut once a peanut is picked off a peanut plant it is no longer alive only alive things can evolve. also it takes if thousands of years to evolve I was talking about the formation of life, similiar to the beginning of life, not the peanut butter mutating. Well atheism hasn't started as many wars as any other religion Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, and many other dictators were athiest! They killed a LOT of people! Josef Stalin even started the cold war! In conclusion, none of my points were adequately addressed by con, and many points, such as transitional fossils, speciation, and the evolution of matter, were ignored. Vote PRO!

Religion

Athiesm-is-false/1/

My arguments were purposefully fatally flawed as a parody of common creationist arguments, but con, unfortunately, could not refute them despite how purposefully flawed my arguments were. "My opponent has provided no evidence atheism is evil" My opponent has conceded, ignored, and denied all my arguments about morality that I said last round. Let me repeat it to my opponent again. The argument, word for word, that I wrote down in last round that con has not yet refuted: W hile an athiest may think that doing certain things is immoral, they cannot have an objective standard for morality, while religious people have an objective standard through interpeting their holy books. "Atheism is not the belief of evolution it is the belief of no god so stop supplying things with evolution" While evolution can exist without atheism, atheism cannot exist without evolution, as it is the only theory explaining biology that is still supported in the scientific community. My arguments were, therefore, relevant to athiesm, and con flatly ignres them in this round. Con states that the people were "power hungry", but has no proof.

jh1234l

My arguments were purposefully fatally flawed as a parody of common creationist arguments, but con, unfortunately, could not refute them despite how purposefully flawed my arguments were. "My opponent has provided no evidence atheism is evil" My opponent has conceded, ignored, and denied all my arguments about morality that I said last round. Let me repeat it to my opponent again. The argument, word for word, that I wrote down in last round that con has not yet refuted: W hile an athiest may think that doing certain things is immoral, they cannot have an objective standard for morality, while religious people have an objective standard through interpeting their holy books. "Atheism is not the belief of evolution it is the belief of no god so stop supplying things with evolution" While evolution can exist without atheism, atheism cannot exist without evolution, as it is the only theory explaining biology that is still supported in the scientific community. My arguments were, therefore, relevant to athiesm, and con flatly ignres them in this round. Con states that the people were "power hungry", but has no proof.

Religion

Athiesm-is-false/1/

I accept. Since I'm Con, I will be arguing that atheism and agnosticism are not the same thing. I really don't know how you're going to manage this one, TheFool, because you just defined both terms and they are clearly not the same thing.

DakotaKrafick

I accept. Since I'm Con, I will be arguing that atheism and agnosticism are not the same thing. I really don't know how you're going to manage this one, TheFool, because you just defined both terms and they are clearly not the same thing.

Religion

Athiesm-is-the-same-as-Agnosticism/1/

Vote freshness, vote for Fool, eh? Well, wait a minute, don't you think you should be saving that line until I've at least offered my first rebuttal? Anyway... My opponent defined both "agnosticism" and "atheism" quite accurately in her first round, but then seems to showcase how little she actually understood those definitions in her second round. Allow me to explain the difference as clearly as I can. Theism and Atheism Theism and atheism are ontological stances (concerning belief). If one believes a deity exists, then he/she is a theist. Otherwise, he/she is an atheist. Neither theism nor atheism require an assertion of absolute certainty. For instance, I believe life exists elsewhere in the universe, but I cannot know for certain and don't assert that this is absolutely the case. Despite the fact that I don't assert 100 percent certainty, though, I still believe extraterrestrial life exists. Only when life is discovered on another planet will I assert 100 percent certainty. Gnosticism and Agnosticism Gnosticism and agnosticism are epistemological stances (concerning knowledge). If one believes absolute certainty can be obtained about a particular phenomena (such as the existence of extraterrestrial life or God), then he/she is a gnostic. Otherwise, he/she is an agnostic. Mutual Exclusiveness Both of the ontological stances are mutually exclusive of each other, and both of the epistemological stances are mutually exclusive of each other as well. This means one cannot be both a theist and an atheist, nor can one be both a gnostic and an agnostic (concerning the same phenomena). However, the ontological stances are not mutually exclusive of the epistemological stances. This means one can be a gnostic theist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, or agnostic atheist (in fact, one must be one of those four), depending on how they answer the following two questions: 1. "Do you believe a deity exists?" (YES: theist, NO: atheist) 2. "Do you believe it can be known for certain whether or not a deity exists?" (YES: gnostic, NO: agnostic) My opponent states this: "Agnostics do not belief that such knowledge is possible. Therefore they lack belief in god or not god." This is simply false. Calling yourself an "agnostic" does not clarify whether or not you believe in a deity. Again, I believe it's impossible to know for certain whether or not extraterrestrial life exists (that would make me an agnostic on the subject), but I do believe they do. Similarly, a theist can believe in God without asserting 100 percent certainty. Conclusion I believe I have thoroughly shown the difference between agnosticism and atheism. TheFool lost this debate from the beginning by defining the terms correctly in the instigation and taking Pro.

DakotaKrafick

Vote freshness, vote for Fool, eh? Well, wait a minute, don't you think you should be saving that line until I've at least offered my first rebuttal? Anyway... My opponent defined both "agnosticism" and "atheism" quite accurately in her first round, but then seems to showcase how little she actually understood those definitions in her second round. Allow me to explain the difference as clearly as I can. Theism and Atheism Theism and atheism are ontological stances (concerning belief). If one believes a deity exists, then he/she is a theist. Otherwise, he/she is an atheist. Neither theism nor atheism require an assertion of absolute certainty. For instance, I believe life exists elsewhere in the universe, but I cannot know for certain and don't assert that this is absolutely the case. Despite the fact that I don't assert 100 percent certainty, though, I still believe extraterrestrial life exists. Only when life is discovered on another planet will I assert 100 percent certainty. Gnosticism and Agnosticism Gnosticism and agnosticism are epistemological stances (concerning knowledge). If one believes absolute certainty can be obtained about a particular phenomena (such as the existence of extraterrestrial life or God), then he/she is a gnostic. Otherwise, he/she is an agnostic. Mutual Exclusiveness Both of the ontological stances are mutually exclusive of each other, and both of the epistemological stances are mutually exclusive of each other as well. This means one cannot be both a theist and an atheist, nor can one be both a gnostic and an agnostic (concerning the same phenomena). However, the ontological stances are not mutually exclusive of the epistemological stances. This means one can be a gnostic theist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, or agnostic atheist (in fact, one must be one of those four), depending on how they answer the following two questions: 1. "Do you believe a deity exists?" (YES: theist, NO: atheist) 2. "Do you believe it can be known for certain whether or not a deity exists?" (YES: gnostic, NO: agnostic) My opponent states this: "Agnostics do not belief that such knowledge is possible. Therefore they lack belief in god or not god." This is simply false. Calling yourself an "agnostic" does not clarify whether or not you believe in a deity. Again, I believe it's impossible to know for certain whether or not extraterrestrial life exists (that would make me an agnostic on the subject), but I do believe they do. Similarly, a theist can believe in God without asserting 100 percent certainty. Conclusion I believe I have thoroughly shown the difference between agnosticism and atheism. TheFool lost this debate from the beginning by defining the terms correctly in the instigation and taking Pro.

Religion

Athiesm-is-the-same-as-Agnosticism/1/

I have little motivation to type this, because whether TheFool is aware of it or not, she is ultimately debating herself. She defined two words with two different meanings, and has since been trying to convince the audience those two different meanings are really the same when they're patently not. Agnosticism vs Atheism TheFool is acting like I'm somehow putting forth unique definitions for these words, when really I'm using the same ones provided in the instigation. Atheist: "Someone who doesn't believe in gods." Agnostic: "Someone who believes the existence or non-existence of gods is unknown or unknowable." Already, we can see TheFool was wrong to take Pro in this debate; those two definitions are not the same thing. If we replace the words "gods" in these definitions with "aliens", it can be easier to see what these two terms mean. I believe the existence and non-existence of aliens is unknowable, because there is no evidence either way. That would make me an agnostic. But I believe aliens exist (not with 100 percent certainty, of course, but I still do believe). That would make me a theist. Switching back the words, we can see how it's possible for one to be an agnostic theist: one who believes the existence or non-existence of gods are unknowable (because they're supernatural), but still believes a god exists. Pro makes the insane assertion that in order to argue my definitions (which are really her definitions), I have to prove most people in the world in use those definitions. No, I don't have to do that. 1) These were the definitions provided in the instigation; I'm merely explaining them for you. 2) I'm not arguing what the definitions mean according to most people's misconceptions; I'm arguing what the definitions mean, period. A popular misconception is just that: popular. And a misconception. Accusations My "bold assertions" are nothing more than explanations of TheFool's own definitions. TheFool states this: "Con also claims agnosticism is simply a claim that we could not be certain about the knowledge of Gods." Yes, because it is, according to your own definition. "But that makes everybody's claim which is not a priory certain or logically certain, as an agnostic claim" Yes, it does. "which means that all atheists and most theists (those who base God on faith alone), are agnostics." No, it doesn't. Some atheists are gnostic. They believe they know for 100 percent certainty that gods do not exist. Even some theists who say they base their belief in God on faith alone are gnostics. They believe faith is an accurate tool for understanding reality and claim to know for certain that God exists. I know, it doesn't make sense; but then, people don't make sense. I admit, all forms of gnosticism on this matter stem purely from ignorance, but gnostics do exist on both sides of the fence (atheists and theists). And the same can be said for agnostics; they exist on both sides of the fence as well. Also, my "ad hominem" was not an ad hominem at all. Ad hominem is the logical fallacy committed when one asserts another is wrong due to a flaw in that person's character. For example: you're ignorant; therefore, you're wrong. What I said was, more or less, you're ignorant AND you're wrong, and here's why [...] However, I meant no offense by it. Ignorance is never a bad thing and can be easily remedied. Conclusion My opponent has taken the position that words A and B mean the same thing, then provided definitions A and B respectively. Those two definitions were not the same thing. Nothing else need be said, but I showed how my opponent's interpretations of those definitions were lacking and how they were not as similar as some people might think (of course, any difference at all would negate the resolution). Don't be a Fool; vote Con.

DakotaKrafick

I have little motivation to type this, because whether TheFool is aware of it or not, she is ultimately debating herself. She defined two words with two different meanings, and has since been trying to convince the audience those two different meanings are really the same when they're patently not. Agnosticism vs Atheism TheFool is acting like I'm somehow putting forth unique definitions for these words, when really I'm using the same ones provided in the instigation. Atheist: "Someone who doesn't believe in gods." Agnostic: "Someone who believes the existence or non-existence of gods is unknown or unknowable." Already, we can see TheFool was wrong to take Pro in this debate; those two definitions are not the same thing. If we replace the words "gods" in these definitions with "aliens", it can be easier to see what these two terms mean. I believe the existence and non-existence of aliens is unknowable, because there is no evidence either way. That would make me an agnostic. But I believe aliens exist (not with 100 percent certainty, of course, but I still do believe). That would make me a theist. Switching back the words, we can see how it's possible for one to be an agnostic theist: one who believes the existence or non-existence of gods are unknowable (because they're supernatural), but still believes a god exists. Pro makes the insane assertion that in order to argue my definitions (which are really her definitions), I have to prove most people in the world in use those definitions. No, I don't have to do that. 1) These were the definitions provided in the instigation; I'm merely explaining them for you. 2) I'm not arguing what the definitions mean according to most people's misconceptions; I'm arguing what the definitions mean, period. A popular misconception is just that: popular. And a misconception. Accusations My "bold assertions" are nothing more than explanations of TheFool's own definitions. TheFool states this: "Con also claims agnosticism is simply a claim that we could not be certain about the knowledge of Gods." Yes, because it is, according to your own definition. "But that makes everybody’s claim which is not a priory certain or logically certain, as an agnostic claim" Yes, it does. "which means that all atheists and most theists (those who base God on faith alone), are agnostics." No, it doesn't. Some atheists are gnostic. They believe they know for 100 percent certainty that gods do not exist. Even some theists who say they base their belief in God on faith alone are gnostics. They believe faith is an accurate tool for understanding reality and claim to know for certain that God exists. I know, it doesn't make sense; but then, people don't make sense. I admit, all forms of gnosticism on this matter stem purely from ignorance, but gnostics do exist on both sides of the fence (atheists and theists). And the same can be said for agnostics; they exist on both sides of the fence as well. Also, my "ad hominem" was not an ad hominem at all. Ad hominem is the logical fallacy committed when one asserts another is wrong due to a flaw in that person's character. For example: you're ignorant; therefore, you're wrong. What I said was, more or less, you're ignorant AND you're wrong, and here's why [...] However, I meant no offense by it. Ignorance is never a bad thing and can be easily remedied. Conclusion My opponent has taken the position that words A and B mean the same thing, then provided definitions A and B respectively. Those two definitions were not the same thing. Nothing else need be said, but I showed how my opponent's interpretations of those definitions were lacking and how they were not as similar as some people might think (of course, any difference at all would negate the resolution). Don't be a Fool; vote Con.

Religion

Athiesm-is-the-same-as-Agnosticism/1/

Is this even possible? Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims--especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity,--are unknown or unknowable for epistemological reason Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. Somebody that doesn't believe in Gods. First round is acceptence!

The_Fool_on_the_hill

Is this even possible? Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity,—are unknown or unknowable for epistemological reason Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. Somebody that doesn't believe in Gods. First round is acceptence!

Religion

Athiesm-is-the-same-as-Agnosticism/1/

Private Fool at your service Agnostics Agnostics do not belief that such knowledge is possible. Therefore they lack belief in god or not god. You can't have a belief in not-god because not-god does not existence. Therefore it's only possible we believe in god. Or I don't believe in god. Therefore they don't believe in god. Atheist Atheist do not belief if god or such deities. However the atheist does not believe in god because there is no sufficient reason too . But this is also as epistemological reason! Therefore they both don't believe in god and they are both epistemological reasons. They end up being logical equivalent anyways. I believe Positive belief synonymous 'I belief that P is true' A subjective feeling of inclination that P is true I have faith that p true I expect that p true I trust that p true I have confidence that P true I do not believe Negation of belief synonyms "I do not belief that p is true." A lack of subjective feeling of inclination that P is true I expect that ~p is true Or I don't expect that p is true. The Fool: There are some redundant variations but I am tired .lol The master of Fools is the master of logic! ~E(p) = E(~p) ~E(p)<-> E(~p) E(P) mean p is within a framework of E P is something which is believed in. Relative negation: (relative negations can have opposite) Expectation=E the expected= X Mathematical proof Logical proof -1(E)(x)= -Ex ~E(x)-> ~Ex 1(E)(~x)= -Ex E(~x)-> ~Ex That is they are all logically equivalent. Absolute negation: (cannot have opposites) Because God is supposed to be an absolute entity, it's really this, but I didn't want make is confusing. Mathematical proof Logical proof 0*E(x)=0 ~E(x)->0 E(0*x)=0 E(~x)->0 That is they are all logically equivalent That is to not believe in the existence of god is synonymous with believing that god does not exist. Understanding relative vs absolute: A relate opposite can be HOT and COLD but they are only relative opposites of an average temperature. We could explain them as absolutes in that HOT is its own positive sensation and COLD is its own unique positive sensation. The both become painful the stronger they become. Thus we have the absolute value. And the opposites are non-existence. For in an absolute framework hot is not the opposite of cold. No sensations are the opposite what is the non-existence of them. Another is example is direction. We may to east is +X and to west is -X relative to a point of origin. e.g. As in let's say we travel 5 miles east and then 5 miles west, we will have traveled 0 miles relative to the point of origin. The absolute value, in this case, give us the absolute distance traveled we take (5 East)+ (5 West )to get an absolute distance 10 miles travelled all together. (Absolutely) There you have it! There is no logical difference between them after all! More original philosophy from your favourite Fool! You heard it here first, straight from the hill! Vote Freshness vote for Fool!

The_Fool_on_the_hill

Private Fool at your service Agnostics Agnostics do not belief that such knowledge is possible. Therefore they lack belief in god or not god. You can’t have a belief in not-god because not-god does not existence. Therefore it’s only possible we believe in god. Or I don’t believe in god. Therefore they don’t believe in god. Atheist Atheist do not belief if god or such deities. However the atheist does not believe in god because there is no sufficient reason too . But this is also as epistemological reason! Therefore they both don’t believe in god and they are both epistemological reasons. They end up being logical equivalent anyways. I believe Positive belief synonymous ‘I belief that P is true’ A subjective feeling of inclination that P is true I have faith that p true I expect that p true I trust that p true I have confidence that P true I do not believe Negation of belief synonyms “I do not belief that p is true.” A lack of subjective feeling of inclination that P is true I expect that ~p is true Or I don’t expect that p is true. The Fool: There are some redundant variations but I am tired .lol The master of Fools is the master of logic! ~E(p) = E(~p) ~E(p)<-> E(~p) E(P) mean p is within a framework of E P is something which is believed in. Relative negation: (relative negations can have opposite) Expectation=E the expected= X Mathematical proof Logical proof -1(E)(x)= -Ex ~E(x)-> ~Ex 1(E)(~x)= -Ex E(~x)-> ~Ex That is they are all logically equivalent. Absolute negation: (cannot have opposites) Because God is supposed to be an absolute entity, it’s really this, but I didn’t want make is confusing. Mathematical proof Logical proof 0*E(x)=0 ~E(x)->0 E(0*x)=0 E(~x)->0 That is they are all logically equivalent That is to not believe in the existence of god is synonymous with believing that god does not exist. Understanding relative vs absolute: A relate opposite can be HOT and COLD but they are only relative opposites of an average temperature. We could explain them as absolutes in that HOT is its own positive sensation and COLD is its own unique positive sensation. The both become painful the stronger they become. Thus we have the absolute value. And the opposites are non-existence. For in an absolute framework hot is not the opposite of cold. No sensations are the opposite what is the non-existence of them. Another is example is direction. We may to east is +X and to west is –X relative to a point of origin. e.g. As in let’s say we travel 5 miles east and then 5 miles west, we will have traveled 0 miles relative to the point of origin. The absolute value, in this case, give us the absolute distance traveled we take (5 East)+ (5 West )to get an absolute distance 10 miles travelled all together. (Absolutely) There you have it! There is no logical difference between them after all! More original philosophy from your favourite Fool! You heard it here first, straight from the hill! Vote Freshness vote for Fool!

Religion

Athiesm-is-the-same-as-Agnosticism/1/

The dictator! Cons suggestion of a type of systematic organization about how we should go about understanding agnostics and atheism is something to be considered. If it is not suggestion, it is an attempt to dictate something into truth. However the fact of the matter is that it's still at best an idiosyncratic version that does not represent the majority of the way Atheist and Agnostic have or do now identify themselves. For the one thing we could never be wrong about is our own thoughts, they are exclusive to us and us only. Therefore Cons explanation should not be taken any more seriously than any fundamentalist or dogmatic assertions then somebody who goes around telling you what you are, what are your beliefs and what your position is. For one bold assertion is as good as the next. To be The Fool or not To Be The Fool. That is the question? Ontology is a philosophical study about existences in general. Not about particular existences in themselves. Under Cons interpretation, every claim becomes ontological, especially, every truth or falsity of something. For to say something particular is false is synonymous to saying that truth of some particular thing does not exist. Similarly to claim anything false would be to claim that it doesn't exist that it is true. Secondly under Cons interpretation even agnostic claims are all ontological. According to Con they are claiming that certainty of such knowledge does not exist which thus must be taken as ontological. In the general interpretation agnosticism which is the claim that such knowledge is not possible is synonymous with saying that such knowledge is non-existent. That is Cons misinformed ontological understanding makes ontology so trivial to point of being completely useless. Are you sure you are certain of that question? It is still very alive and well to consider agnosticism as a middle ground. There is no ground for proofing or even suggesting that this interpretation is obsolete what so ever. ( Bold Assertion Fallacy ) Almost every interpretation searchable is this interpretation. To claim otherwise Con need to prove that most people in the word use that interpretation. Even philosophers are not infallible to a Semantic Fallacy . That is we define word to refer to another set of organized word. Language can only be used to describe reality not to define reality. E.g. I am using my computer, I can define my computer as a HAT but low and behold, what I had been referring to as computer, is still a computer whether I define as something else or not. AKA you can't ever define something into exist. So nothing is depended on cons definition but another set of words he uses to refer to it. If they don't describe reality by symbolizing it, then his interpretation is false. Con also claims agnosticism is simply a claim that we could not be certain about the knowledge of Gods. But that makes everybody's claim which is not a priory certain or logically certain, as an agnostic claim, which means that all atheists and most theists (those who base God on faith alone), are agnostics. Most people know faith is not certain knowledge enough to not go around dictating to others about what they should believe. Most Religious people tend (in the world) to pick and choose what parts of the bible they like or agree with and discard the rest. People often define their own personal version of God. Many people believe in God for the mere fact of having something to believe in. That is, simply for the therapeutic reasons. It often makes us feel better than thinking that life is a purposeless random accident. But by no means epistemological nor ontological. Therefore Cons personal idiosyncratic categorisation system fails to account for such forms of Theists. This is just another good reason for its rejection. I am certainly uncertain that it's a certain a question!?? Ad hominem fallacy Con: "My opponent defined both "agnosticism" and "atheism" quite accurately in her first round, but then seems to showcase how little she actually understood those definitions in her second round." The Fool: Please don't suppose I am ignorant until at least you have at least proved it first. Ipse dixit fallacy Con: "My opponent states this: "Agnostics do not belief that such knowledge is possible. Therefore they lack belief in god or not god."" F1. Con: This is simply false. Calling yourself an "agnostic" does not clarify whether or not you believe in a deity. F2 . Con: The Fool lost this debate from the beginning by defining the terms correctly in the instigation and taking Pro. The Fool: Cons conclusions are based on his own unproven bold assertions. Strawman fallacy Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims --especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims-- are unknown or unknowable. <URL>... The Fool : Con claims my definition correct but at the same time he says that agnostic only means uncertainty of knowledge. But the definition states nothing about uncertainty in fact is says specifically unknown as in unknowable at all. That is NO TRUTH OR FALSE CLAIM AT ALL. Mine is based off a source would represent the popular interpretation, So am more than justified in using this version that I have based my definition on. The very same one CON agreed to when the he accept the debate. And therefore those are the definitions we must work with. And from these definitions I have proved them soundly that they are logical equivalents. Any explanation other than comparing Agnostic and Atheism are superfluous to this debate at hand. The bottom line is that there are quite a few theories buzzing around, with all kinds or strong, medium and weak variations. Therefore too accept Cons for this debate would be at best Special pleading. The Fool has given sound proof from the definition given, his version is the most supported, and the one defined and accepted. Moreover many aspects of Cons explanation where shown inadequate and incomplete. Don't be Foolish, err I mean be Foolish, err I mean don' t foolish. Umm I am confused, Just vote FOOL!! ;)

The_Fool_on_the_hill

The dictator! Cons suggestion of a type of systematic organization about how we should go about understanding agnostics and atheism is something to be considered. If it is not suggestion, it is an attempt to dictate something into truth. However the fact of the matter is that it’s still at best an idiosyncratic version that does not represent the majority of the way Atheist and Agnostic have or do now identify themselves. For the one thing we could never be wrong about is our own thoughts, they are exclusive to us and us only. Therefore Cons explanation should not be taken any more seriously than any fundamentalist or dogmatic assertions then somebody who goes around telling you what you are, what are your beliefs and what your position is. For one bold assertion is as good as the next. To be The Fool or not To Be The Fool. That is the question? Ontology is a philosophical study about existences in general. Not about particular existences in themselves. Under Cons interpretation, every claim becomes ontological, especially, every truth or falsity of something. For to say something particular is false is synonymous to saying that truth of some particular thing does not exist. Similarly to claim anything false would be to claim that it doesn’t exist that it is true. Secondly under Cons interpretation even agnostic claims are all ontological. According to Con they are claiming that certainty of such knowledge does not exist which thus must be taken as ontological. In the general interpretation agnosticism which is the claim that such knowledge is not possible is synonymous with saying that such knowledge is non-existent. That is Cons misinformed ontological understanding makes ontology so trivial to point of being completely useless. Are you sure you are certain of that question? It is still very alive and well to consider agnosticism as a middle ground. There is no ground for proofing or even suggesting that this interpretation is obsolete what so ever. ( Bold Assertion Fallacy ) Almost every interpretation searchable is this interpretation. To claim otherwise Con need to prove that most people in the word use that interpretation. Even philosophers are not infallible to a Semantic Fallacy . That is we define word to refer to another set of organized word. Language can only be used to describe reality not to define reality. E.g. I am using my computer, I can define my computer as a HAT but low and behold, what I had been referring to as computer, is still a computer whether I define as something else or not. AKA you can’t ever define something into exist. So nothing is depended on cons definition but another set of words he uses to refer to it. If they don’t describe reality by symbolizing it, then his interpretation is false. Con also claims agnosticism is simply a claim that we could not be certain about the knowledge of Gods. But that makes everybody’s claim which is not a priory certain or logically certain, as an agnostic claim, which means that all atheists and most theists (those who base God on faith alone), are agnostics. Most people know faith is not certain knowledge enough to not go around dictating to others about what they should believe. Most Religious people tend (in the world) to pick and choose what parts of the bible they like or agree with and discard the rest. People often define their own personal version of God. Many people believe in God for the mere fact of having something to believe in. That is, simply for the therapeutic reasons. It often makes us feel better than thinking that life is a purposeless random accident. But by no means epistemological nor ontological. Therefore Cons personal idiosyncratic categorisation system fails to account for such forms of Theists. This is just another good reason for its rejection. I am certainly uncertain that it’s a certain a question!?? Ad hominem fallacy Con: “My opponent defined both "agnosticism" and "atheism" quite accurately in her first round, but then seems to showcase how little she actually understood those definitions in her second round.” The Fool: Please don’t suppose I am ignorant until at least you have at least proved it first. Ipse dixit fallacy Con: “My opponent states this: "Agnostics do not belief that such knowledge is possible. Therefore they lack belief in god or not god."” F1. Con: This is simply false. Calling yourself an "agnostic" does not clarify whether or not you believe in a deity. F2 . Con: The Fool lost this debate from the beginning by defining the terms correctly in the instigation and taking Pro. The Fool: Cons conclusions are based on his own unproven bold assertions. Strawman fallacy Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims —especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims— are unknown or unknowable. http://en.wikipedia.org... The Fool : Con claims my definition correct but at the same time he says that agnostic only means uncertainty of knowledge. But the definition states nothing about uncertainty in fact is says specifically unknown as in unknowable at all. That is NO TRUTH OR FALSE CLAIM AT ALL. Mine is based off a source would represent the popular interpretation, So am more than justified in using this version that I have based my definition on. The very same one CON agreed to when the he accept the debate. And therefore those are the definitions we must work with. And from these definitions I have proved them soundly that they are logical equivalents. Any explanation other than comparing Agnostic and Atheism are superfluous to this debate at hand. The bottom line is that there are quite a few theories buzzing around, with all kinds or strong, medium and weak variations. Therefore too accept Cons for this debate would be at best Special pleading. The Fool has given sound proof from the definition given, his version is the most supported, and the one defined and accepted. Moreover many aspects of Cons explanation where shown inadequate and incomplete. Don’t be Foolish, err I mean be Foolish, err I mean don’ t foolish. Umm I am confused, Just vote FOOL!! ;)

Religion

Athiesm-is-the-same-as-Agnosticism/1/

This will be a debate on whether or not civilians should be able to possess and use automatic weapons. I will be taking the side of con (Arguing for the civilian possession of these arms). Round One: Acceptance Round Two: Constructives Round Three: Constructives and Rebuttles Round Four: Rebuttles (no new arguments) Automatic weapon is defined as so: any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semi-automatic, or burst fire at the options of the user. <URL>...

RavenDebater

This will be a debate on whether or not civilians should be able to possess and use automatic weapons. I will be taking the side of con (Arguing for the civilian possession of these arms). Round One: Acceptance Round Two: Constructives Round Three: Constructives and Rebuttles Round Four: Rebuttles (no new arguments) Automatic weapon is defined as so: any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semi-automatic, or burst fire at the options of the user. http://www.slate.com...

Politics

Automatic-weapons-should-be-banned/1/

I believe my opponent is a little confused. I have taken the side of Con and am therefore arguing that automatic weapons should not be banned. Pro is arguing that they should be. I apologize for any confusion I may have caused. Nevertheless I have an argument to make Reasons why automatic weapons should no be banned 1. Banning would be insufficient to quell the problems associated with automatic weapons. In 1994 a piece of legislation was passed called the Assault Weapons Ban. Supporters argued that this would decrease gun crimes. Roth and Koper (some of the original writers of the bill were quoted to have said "We were unable to detect any reduction to date in two types of gun murders that are thought to be closely associated with assault weapons, those with multiple victims in a single incident and those producing multiple bullet wounds per victim." What that means is that when an actual ban was placed on automatic weapons it did not curb gun violence, contrary to what most ban advocates claim. 2. A ban would be insufficient to quell mass shootings One of the biggest problems that people have with automatic weapons is that they are the guns most often used for mass shootings. However banning them would have little affect on these. Again referencing the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 here. In the time that the ban was in affect 14 mass shootings happened, including Columbine. Opponents may argue that we have seen an increase in deaths by automatic weapons but statistics show that mass shooting fluctuate from year to year, and that no trend is clear. 3. A ban would negatively affect the economy. Gun manufacturing is a 6 billion dollar industry and employs over 200,000 people. Automatic weapons make up %14 of all weapons sales so a ban on them would cost the industry 420 million dollars a year. Considering we're just coming out of economic downturn this kind of loss would be unacceptable 4. A ban would completely nullify the second amendment. As we all know the second amendment guarantees our right to own and use a firearm. But a ban on automatic weapons would completely invalidate the point of it being there in the first place. True a ban on automatic weapon would not infringe on our ability to own a firearm, but you must think of what the founding fathers had in mind when they originally wrote that. When the Bill of Rights was writing America had just managed to successfully revolt against Great Britain. What do you thin seems more likely. Them writing the amendment so a few people can go hunting every once in a while or guaranteeing the means to revolt once more if an oppressive regime ever came into power again. Back then the only weapon available was the musket. Military and Civilian arms didn't vary all that much and the drafters thought it was a safe assumption to think that it would remain that way. However, we do not live in that time anymore. If an oppressive regime comes to power handguns are not going to stop it. Wars these days are fought with machine guns, not hunting rifles. if we ban automatic weapons we essentially cripple our ability to fight back Sources: <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>...

RavenDebater

I believe my opponent is a little confused. I have taken the side of Con and am therefore arguing that automatic weapons should not be banned. Pro is arguing that they should be. I apologize for any confusion I may have caused. Nevertheless I have an argument to make Reasons why automatic weapons should no be banned 1. Banning would be insufficient to quell the problems associated with automatic weapons. In 1994 a piece of legislation was passed called the Assault Weapons Ban. Supporters argued that this would decrease gun crimes. Roth and Koper (some of the original writers of the bill were quoted to have said "We were unable to detect any reduction to date in two types of gun murders that are thought to be closely associated with assault weapons, those with multiple victims in a single incident and those producing multiple bullet wounds per victim." What that means is that when an actual ban was placed on automatic weapons it did not curb gun violence, contrary to what most ban advocates claim. 2. A ban would be insufficient to quell mass shootings One of the biggest problems that people have with automatic weapons is that they are the guns most often used for mass shootings. However banning them would have little affect on these. Again referencing the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 here. In the time that the ban was in affect 14 mass shootings happened, including Columbine. Opponents may argue that we have seen an increase in deaths by automatic weapons but statistics show that mass shooting fluctuate from year to year, and that no trend is clear. 3. A ban would negatively affect the economy. Gun manufacturing is a 6 billion dollar industry and employs over 200,000 people. Automatic weapons make up %14 of all weapons sales so a ban on them would cost the industry 420 million dollars a year. Considering we're just coming out of economic downturn this kind of loss would be unacceptable 4. A ban would completely nullify the second amendment. As we all know the second amendment guarantees our right to own and use a firearm. But a ban on automatic weapons would completely invalidate the point of it being there in the first place. True a ban on automatic weapon would not infringe on our ability to own a firearm, but you must think of what the founding fathers had in mind when they originally wrote that. When the Bill of Rights was writing America had just managed to successfully revolt against Great Britain. What do you thin seems more likely. Them writing the amendment so a few people can go hunting every once in a while or guaranteeing the means to revolt once more if an oppressive regime ever came into power again. Back then the only weapon available was the musket. Military and Civilian arms didn't vary all that much and the drafters thought it was a safe assumption to think that it would remain that way. However, we do not live in that time anymore. If an oppressive regime comes to power handguns are not going to stop it. Wars these days are fought with machine guns, not hunting rifles. if we ban automatic weapons we essentially cripple our ability to fight back Sources: http://mic.com... http://www.foxnews.com... http://business.time.com... http://www.slate.com...

Politics

Automatic-weapons-should-be-banned/1/

I extend all my points

RavenDebater

I extend all my points

Politics

Automatic-weapons-should-be-banned/1/

I extend all my points. Con wins by default

RavenDebater

I extend all my points. Con wins by default

Politics

Automatic-weapons-should-be-banned/1/

they should not be banned because in war how will people end the fight? with pistols

smartismyname

they should not be banned because in war how will people end the fight? with pistols

Politics

Automatic-weapons-should-be-banned/1/

When it comes to illegality, the main question that should be considered is: does this have the potential to harm anyone OTHER than the individual using it. In other words, is this a victim-less crime? When it comes to matters such as marijuana or prostitution (tangents I'd prefer not to get into, I'm merely using them to illustrate a point) there is a potential for harm, but only to the people using marijuana or practicing prostitution. The right to inflict harm upon yourself is one that I will vouch for, as it is a personal choice. Weapons, on the other hand, have the potential for harm beyond just the people using them. In fact, they are designed specifically to harm anyone but the person using them. This now puts individuals with no willing association with the subject in question in danger. It's true that people kill people but, frankly, (to refute this old clich) they use guns to do it. This is why we should take all steps possible to keep guns out of everyone's hands; criminals and civilians alike (though shooting someone has the potential to make you a criminal, doesn't it?). It is absolutely ridiculous that you would need an automatic weapon to defend yourself. Even within the current context of handguns being legal, surely that's enough? In the kind of situation where one might need to use a weapon (and such situations are few and isolated), would you not want to minimize the amount of gunfire?

LevezVosSkinnyFists

When it comes to illegality, the main question that should be considered is: does this have the potential to harm anyone OTHER than the individual using it. In other words, is this a victim-less crime? When it comes to matters such as marijuana or prostitution (tangents I'd prefer not to get into, I'm merely using them to illustrate a point) there is a potential for harm, but only to the people using marijuana or practicing prostitution. The right to inflict harm upon yourself is one that I will vouch for, as it is a personal choice. Weapons, on the other hand, have the potential for harm beyond just the people using them. In fact, they are designed specifically to harm anyone but the person using them. This now puts individuals with no willing association with the subject in question in danger. It's true that people kill people but, frankly, (to refute this old clich�) they use guns to do it. This is why we should take all steps possible to keep guns out of everyone's hands; criminals and civilians alike (though shooting someone has the potential to make you a criminal, doesn't it?). It is absolutely ridiculous that you would need an automatic weapon to defend yourself. Even within the current context of handguns being legal, surely that's enough? In the kind of situation where one might need to use a weapon (and such situations are few and isolated), would you not want to minimize the amount of gunfire?

Politics

Automatic-weapons-should-be-legalized./1/

I would argue for the illegality of all weapons because the only purpose they serve is to kill and harm. As for the other objects you mentioned - "cars, knifes, baseball bats, heavy objects, and rocks" - these objects all have a purpose for which they were created that does not involve harming others. If we were to make them illegal, it would cause much inconvenience and difficulty in people's lives whereas the illegality of guns actually makes people safer. Your other point is really nothing more than paranoid hyperbole. I cannot see an open fire fight with automatic weapons happening in your home any time soon. Even if you do have an intruder in your home, most buglers can be scared off by your very presence or a cheap security alarm (if this is really the sort of thing that confuses you).

LevezVosSkinnyFists

I would argue for the illegality of all weapons because the only purpose they serve is to kill and harm. As for the other objects you mentioned - "cars, knifes, baseball bats, heavy objects, and rocks" - these objects all have a purpose for which they were created that does not involve harming others. If we were to make them illegal, it would cause much inconvenience and difficulty in people's lives whereas the illegality of guns actually makes people safer. Your other point is really nothing more than paranoid hyperbole. I cannot see an open fire fight with automatic weapons happening in your home any time soon. Even if you do have an intruder in your home, most buglers can be scared off by your very presence or a cheap security alarm (if this is really the sort of thing that confuses you).

Politics

Automatic-weapons-should-be-legalized./1/

First off, I'd like to say that you are correct about the discussion getting off topic and I will be sure to stick to the resolution of automatic weapons being legal rather than all weapons. Your main argument relies on the supposed need to protect yourself against armed criminals. These criminals are getting weapons somehow, most likely buying them on the black market. This means that someone who has legally purchased a gun has had it stolen or sold it to the black market. If automatic weapons are legalized, would it not stand to reason that the theft of automatic weapons would become much more common, and thus, that they would be more available to criminals? Most burglars are not looking for confrontation and prefer not to attract attention. Not to mention that a gun in your home is just one more item that can be stolen (once again contributing to the black market). The propagation of weapons (especially automatic weapons) is not going to make anyone safer. The best way to keep automatic weapons out of the hands of criminals is through strong gun control.

LevezVosSkinnyFists

First off, I'd like to say that you are correct about the discussion getting off topic and I will be sure to stick to the resolution of automatic weapons being legal rather than all weapons. Your main argument relies on the supposed need to protect yourself against armed criminals. These criminals are getting weapons somehow, most likely buying them on the black market. This means that someone who has legally purchased a gun has had it stolen or sold it to the black market. If automatic weapons are legalized, would it not stand to reason that the theft of automatic weapons would become much more common, and thus, that they would be more available to criminals? Most burglars are not looking for confrontation and prefer not to attract attention. Not to mention that a gun in your home is just one more item that can be stolen (once again contributing to the black market). The propagation of weapons (especially automatic weapons) is not going to make anyone safer. The best way to keep automatic weapons out of the hands of criminals is through strong gun control.

Politics

Automatic-weapons-should-be-legalized./1/

I feel like I have effectively proved that the legalization of automatic weapons would make them more available for criminals (that point was just conceded), so I will address your other arguments here. You said that "in San Francisco in Richmond alone someone is shot ever[y] 2 or 3 days factor in the rest of America and multiple people are being shot daily". These people are being shot with guns: the very thing you are arguing to make more accessible. This seems like a basic flaw in logic: "too many people are being shot, so let's make guns more available". By arming citizens you are treating a symptom; not curing the problem. The solution here should focus more on keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals and stopping violent crime at the roots than on arming citizens with automatic weapons. They are one more thing to be stolen in the case of a burglary and we cannot afford to have them become more accessible. I hope that we can progress towards a gun-free society one day and in the spirit of peace, I ask for a con vote on this debate. I thank my opponent for the lively discussion and look forward to future dialog.

LevezVosSkinnyFists

I feel like I have effectively proved that the legalization of automatic weapons would make them more available for criminals (that point was just conceded), so I will address your other arguments here. You said that "in San Francisco in Richmond alone someone is shot ever[y] 2 or 3 days factor in the rest of America and multiple people are being shot daily". These people are being shot with guns: the very thing you are arguing to make more accessible. This seems like a basic flaw in logic: "too many people are being shot, so let's make guns more available". By arming citizens you are treating a symptom; not curing the problem. The solution here should focus more on keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals and stopping violent crime at the roots than on arming citizens with automatic weapons. They are one more thing to be stolen in the case of a burglary and we cannot afford to have them become more accessible. I hope that we can progress towards a gun-free society one day and in the spirit of peace, I ask for a con vote on this debate. I thank my opponent for the lively discussion and look forward to future dialog.

Politics

Automatic-weapons-should-be-legalized./1/

This is a short debate so lets get to all the arguments my opponent has given then cover anything else I feel needs to be added. Full Faith and Credit: The full faith and credit clause reads "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State" Clearly same sex marriage should be recognized as not doing so would be denying full faith and credit to the laws and records of another state. For example if state A allowed for same sex marriage and a couple were married in state A if they moved to state B where same sex marriage was not legal they state would be required to give full faith and credit to those laws and records and respect the marriage. Thus that provision of the defense of marriage act is clearly unconstitutional and my opponents argument falls. Equal Protection clause: The Equal protection Clause reads "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Banning same sex marriage would be to deny homosexual couples equal protection because they are not allowed to marry while others are allowed the marry. This plainly is not equal protection and is thus unconstitutional. Furthermore my opponent brings up the rational basis review. First of All rational basis review should not be used. Strict Scrutiny test is used when There is a claim that a law or action is burdening fundamental rights. Plainly Marriage is recognized as a fundamental right as it is officially endorsed by the government and it has been a right historically, thus Strict Scrutiny is required. Furthermore in order to pass rational basis review the law must show a legitimate government interest. What government interest is there in denying marriage to certain people? NONE whatsoever, unless we are living in Nazi Germany and begin blaming people for the worlds problems. Loving V. Virginia In Loving v. Virginia the court found that "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. d" This not only further endorses my previous point but shows that because limits on marriage deprive liberty they are unconstitutional. Clearly this case is admissible and it shows that the supreme court found marriage restrictions to be unconstitutional, this applies to same sex marriages as well. Baker V. Nelson What I have shown in Loving v. Virginia supersedes this case as the U.S supreme court holding takes precedence over the Minnesota supreme court. The Fact that the U.S Supreme court did not hear the case does not mean same sex marriage is unconstitutional. Additional Points I would like to cover. My opponent sites cases and laws as the warrant for his case, however as we saw in many civil rights cases they are overturned, what i have presented is the actual wording of the constitution. This debate is essentially whether or not it is constitutional or not, not whether or not it is happening. Thanks to my opponent for preparing this debate and I urge all of you to Vote CON Sources: <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>...

Metz

This is a short debate so lets get to all the arguments my opponent has given then cover anything else I feel needs to be added. Full Faith and Credit: The full faith and credit clause reads "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State" Clearly same sex marriage should be recognized as not doing so would be denying full faith and credit to the laws and records of another state. For example if state A allowed for same sex marriage and a couple were married in state A if they moved to state B where same sex marriage was not legal they state would be required to give full faith and credit to those laws and records and respect the marriage. Thus that provision of the defense of marriage act is clearly unconstitutional and my opponents argument falls. Equal Protection clause: The Equal protection Clause reads "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Banning same sex marriage would be to deny homosexual couples equal protection because they are not allowed to marry while others are allowed the marry. This plainly is not equal protection and is thus unconstitutional. Furthermore my opponent brings up the rational basis review. First of All rational basis review should not be used. Strict Scrutiny test is used when There is a claim that a law or action is burdening fundamental rights. Plainly Marriage is recognized as a fundamental right as it is officially endorsed by the government and it has been a right historically, thus Strict Scrutiny is required. Furthermore in order to pass rational basis review the law must show a legitimate government interest. What government interest is there in denying marriage to certain people? NONE whatsoever, unless we are living in Nazi Germany and begin blaming people for the worlds problems. Loving V. Virginia In Loving v. Virginia the court found that "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. d" This not only further endorses my previous point but shows that because limits on marriage deprive liberty they are unconstitutional. Clearly this case is admissible and it shows that the supreme court found marriage restrictions to be unconstitutional, this applies to same sex marriages as well. Baker V. Nelson What I have shown in Loving v. Virginia supersedes this case as the U.S supreme court holding takes precedence over the Minnesota supreme court. The Fact that the U.S Supreme court did not hear the case does not mean same sex marriage is unconstitutional. Additional Points I would like to cover. My opponent sites cases and laws as the warrant for his case, however as we saw in many civil rights cases they are overturned, what i have presented is the actual wording of the constitution. This debate is essentially whether or not it is constitutional or not, not whether or not it is happening. Thanks to my opponent for preparing this debate and I urge all of you to Vote CON Sources: http://www.law.umkc.edu... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.constitution.org... http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...

Politics

Banning-Same-Sex-Marriage-is-Legal-in-the-United-States/1/

Yes, performing a Catholic Baptism at a young age is an inappropriate course of action, because Why would you Baptize a baby? I mean that is ridiculous!

Betsy123

Yes, performing a Catholic Baptism at a young age is an inappropriate course of action, because Why would you Baptize a baby? I mean that is ridiculous!

Religion

Baptism-at-a-young-age/1/

So, performing Baptism at a young age is acceptable because of tradition? I mean I thought Catholics believed on the Bible? The Bible does not say to baptize a baby. According to the Bible it states 'Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.' You see that the Bible does not say baptize babies. Also the Bible also states ' But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.' So, according to the Bible children have no sin, because they are pure and the only way you can go to heaven is if you have no sin. Plus babies, don't have the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong.

Betsy123

So, performing Baptism at a young age is acceptable because of tradition? I mean I thought Catholics believed on the Bible? The Bible does not say to baptize a baby. According to the Bible it states 'Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.' You see that the Bible does not say baptize babies. Also the Bible also states ' But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.' So, according to the Bible children have no sin, because they are pure and the only way you can go to heaven is if you have no sin. Plus babies, don't have the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong.

Religion

Baptism-at-a-young-age/1/

Barack Obama clearly does not like the idea of Americans wielding guns. However, there are three reasons why this should not be done. 1. It is unconstitutional. The second Bill of Rights amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." <URL>... 2. It hurts the innocent more than the criminals. People go hunting with guns all of the time. People protect themselves with guns all of the time. People also rob others with guns all of the time. The former two groups are innocent. The latter group is criminal. The innocent people would be hurt by any sort of gun control, and would not to wish to have to break a law just to enjoy a hunting trip, or feel more safe. Criminals, on the other hand, are already breaking the law, so they would just obtain and hold guns illegally. 3. Gun freedom lowers crime rates. <URL>... Robbers are less likely to charge into a building and rob it if he fears that a number of bystanders may be concealing a gun that could shoot him in the head. Take this poor fellow, for example: <URL>... Thank you for reading, and good luck to whoever accepts this.

mongeese

Barack Obama clearly does not like the idea of Americans wielding guns. However, there are three reasons why this should not be done. 1. It is unconstitutional. The second Bill of Rights amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. It hurts the innocent more than the criminals. People go hunting with guns all of the time. People protect themselves with guns all of the time. People also rob others with guns all of the time. The former two groups are innocent. The latter group is criminal. The innocent people would be hurt by any sort of gun control, and would not to wish to have to break a law just to enjoy a hunting trip, or feel more safe. Criminals, on the other hand, are already breaking the law, so they would just obtain and hold guns illegally. 3. Gun freedom lowers crime rates. http://www.nytimes.com... Robbers are less likely to charge into a building and rob it if he fears that a number of bystanders may be concealing a gun that could shoot him in the head. Take this poor fellow, for example: http://www.darwinawards.com... Thank you for reading, and good luck to whoever accepts this.

Politics

Barack-Obama-should-not-disarm-the-general-American-public-of-their-guns./1/

Thank you for responding so quickly. "First off, your source is a campaign video, they emphasize the bad things. Second, he wants gun CONTROL not a gun ban. I am asssuming this is what we are to debate." I already know that he wants gun control. I'm just fearing that he might step it up to making guns illegal. That is the point that I am trying to make here. Sorry, but you assumed wrong. "Gun control doesn't violate our second amendment right. It makes it harder to get a gun, but not illegal. Barack Obama wants to make it so you cannot go to K-Mart, buy a gun, and shoot someone." Disarming the general public does violate our second amendment right. "You still can get a gun, it is just harder to." Not if you've been disarmed. "There are other methods one can use to protect themselves." But people like their guns, and they are one of the better methods for security during a home invasion. Barack Obama did, as a Senator in Illinois, try to make it so that if you shoot a robber when he robs your house, you can get charged with gun assault. "It is not breaking the law unless there is a gun ban." And I'm talking about a gun ban. Even if it is just gun control, the innocent hunters have to spend much more time becoming registered for a gun, while a robber would just obtain one through illegal means. "Actually the homcide rate is much lower in countries that have gun control (United Kingdom 2.1, Japan .5, Germany 1, Italy 1.2)" I'm looking at your sources, and they just say what the homicide rates are. They say nothing about which countries have gun control and which ones don't. The word "control" does not appear anywhere on either of your sources. I see no correlation. Thank you for accepting, and sorry about the misunderstanding.

mongeese

Thank you for responding so quickly. "First off, your source is a campaign video, they emphasize the bad things. Second, he wants gun CONTROL not a gun ban. I am asssuming this is what we are to debate." I already know that he wants gun control. I'm just fearing that he might step it up to making guns illegal. That is the point that I am trying to make here. Sorry, but you assumed wrong. "Gun control doesn't violate our second amendment right. It makes it harder to get a gun, but not illegal. Barack Obama wants to make it so you cannot go to K-Mart, buy a gun, and shoot someone." Disarming the general public does violate our second amendment right. "You still can get a gun, it is just harder to." Not if you've been disarmed. "There are other methods one can use to protect themselves." But people like their guns, and they are one of the better methods for security during a home invasion. Barack Obama did, as a Senator in Illinois, try to make it so that if you shoot a robber when he robs your house, you can get charged with gun assault. "It is not breaking the law unless there is a gun ban." And I'm talking about a gun ban. Even if it is just gun control, the innocent hunters have to spend much more time becoming registered for a gun, while a robber would just obtain one through illegal means. "Actually the homcide rate is much lower in countries that have gun control (United Kingdom 2.1, Japan .5, Germany 1, Italy 1.2)" I'm looking at your sources, and they just say what the homicide rates are. They say nothing about which countries have gun control and which ones don't. The word "control" does not appear anywhere on either of your sources. I see no correlation. Thank you for accepting, and sorry about the misunderstanding.

Politics

Barack-Obama-should-not-disarm-the-general-American-public-of-their-guns./1/

Please clarify a absolute resolution." Barack Obama should not disarm the general American public of their guns. That's about as clear and absolute as it can get. disarm - to divest of arms ( <URL>... ) arms - guns "The constitution can be changed, this is not an argument for guns, it is just a statement" First off, that was just a response to your comment about how gun control doesn't violate our second amendment rights. Secondly, to change the constitution, three-fourths of the states have to agree to give up their guns completely. "Forty-four states have a provision in their state constitutions similar to the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights (the exceptions are California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York)." <URL>... (by_state)#Texas Somehow, I doubt that such an amendment could be passed by states that like the idea of gun rights. "I am going to need a source that is not extremely bias to tell me this." They are all facts; it's just that it shows the facts they want you to hear. Here's another source: <URL>... You also failed to refute, and thus conceded, the fact that people like their guns, and they are one of the better methods for security during a home invasion. "These prove that gun control is safe, so it should be instituted." Gun control is irrelevant to this debate, because this debate is about disarming people, not regulating them. I am against strict gun control as well as against gun bans, but this debate is about banning, not controlling. Additionally, loose gun control sure seems to be working for Texas. If a Japanese man got his hands on a gun and robbed a store, they would probably be powerless. Not so in Texas. In conclusion, my opponent has not actually said anything about gun bans, only gun control, which is irrelevant, and Barack Obama should not disarm us. Thank you.

mongeese

Please clarify a absolute resolution." Barack Obama should not disarm the general American public of their guns. That's about as clear and absolute as it can get. disarm - to divest of arms ( http://www.merriam-webster.com... ) arms - guns "The constitution can be changed, this is not an argument for guns, it is just a statement" First off, that was just a response to your comment about how gun control doesn't violate our second amendment rights. Secondly, to change the constitution, three-fourths of the states have to agree to give up their guns completely. "Forty-four states have a provision in their state constitutions similar to the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights (the exceptions are California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York)." http://en.wikipedia.org... (by_state)#Texas Somehow, I doubt that such an amendment could be passed by states that like the idea of gun rights. "I am going to need a source that is not extremely bias to tell me this." They are all facts; it's just that it shows the facts they want you to hear. Here's another source: http://www.thepriceofliberty.org... You also failed to refute, and thus conceded, the fact that people like their guns, and they are one of the better methods for security during a home invasion. "These prove that gun control is safe, so it should be instituted." Gun control is irrelevant to this debate, because this debate is about disarming people, not regulating them. I am against strict gun control as well as against gun bans, but this debate is about banning, not controlling. Additionally, loose gun control sure seems to be working for Texas. If a Japanese man got his hands on a gun and robbed a store, they would probably be powerless. Not so in Texas. In conclusion, my opponent has not actually said anything about gun bans, only gun control, which is irrelevant, and Barack Obama should not disarm us. Thank you.

Politics

Barack-Obama-should-not-disarm-the-general-American-public-of-their-guns./1/

"Well obviously HE shouldn't because that would be a gross overuse of excecutive power. I am assuming he shouldn't argue for it. Though this is not what Baraack Obama wants, he wants gun control." Barack Obama is slowly moving towards wanting gun bans. Also, I think you just conceded the resolution, which basically means that you conceded the entire debate. "Gun CONTROL doesn't, however, I didn't understand the resolution. I now understand we ae arguing a gun ban." Good. "Just because it is unlikely does not mean it shouldn't happen." Well, I'm just going to come out and say that it CAN'T happen. 38 states are required to undo the second amendment. 13 are necessary to disagree. Forty-four states, however, like their gun rights. I can guarantee that it will take more than eight years for them to want to change their ways to not include gun rights, and by then, Obama will have no presidential power. I know that Texas will not give up its guns in the near future. "He is for gun CONTROL not a gun ban, and, yes, I do concede the point that people like there guns. So dpo criminals, gangs, and other "Wrong-doers". If you want to protect yourself, use another method." If you're under eighteen, you are not allowed to have a gun. But that doesn't apply to the "general American public". Also, criminals will have guns, whether there is a gun ban or not. If a robber breaks into your house, and you have a gun, and you manage to point your gun at him before he draws his gun, you're safe. If you're unarmed, however, you're either dead or robbed. Guns are THE best protection method to use in a home invasion. They're quick and long range, all you have to do is point and hold a finger on the trigger, and it doesn't take too much skill to use. No other weapon is so efficient. If there is, it would be banned before guns. People lose their gun rights when they abuse them. This does not apply to the general public. Generally, if everyone has a gun, it is safer than if only those who are willing to break the law having a gun. "Strict gun control works in the same effect as a ban in most cases. Also, if in your hypothetical situation, the criminal didn't have a gun, or the police were doing their job, there would be no problem." The criminal will always have a gun. He could import one, he could build one himself, I don't care. The point is, the criminal will get his dirty hands on a gun and use it. Also, the police can't get to every robbery, especially if the robber doesn't let anyone call 911. It is so much more efficient for a civilian to just shoot the robber then and there. "I am sorry about the misunderstanding of the resolution." Yeah, I think that the entire misunderstanding thing killed the debate. Thank you for responding.

mongeese

"Well obviously HE shouldn't because that would be a gross overuse of excecutive power. I am assuming he shouldn't argue for it. Though this is not what Baraack Obama wants, he wants gun control." Barack Obama is slowly moving towards wanting gun bans. Also, I think you just conceded the resolution, which basically means that you conceded the entire debate. "Gun CONTROL doesn't, however, I didn't understand the resolution. I now understand we ae arguing a gun ban." Good. "Just because it is unlikely does not mean it shouldn't happen." Well, I'm just going to come out and say that it CAN'T happen. 38 states are required to undo the second amendment. 13 are necessary to disagree. Forty-four states, however, like their gun rights. I can guarantee that it will take more than eight years for them to want to change their ways to not include gun rights, and by then, Obama will have no presidential power. I know that Texas will not give up its guns in the near future. "He is for gun CONTROL not a gun ban, and, yes, I do concede the point that people like there guns. So dpo criminals, gangs, and other "Wrong-doers". If you want to protect yourself, use another method." If you're under eighteen, you are not allowed to have a gun. But that doesn't apply to the "general American public". Also, criminals will have guns, whether there is a gun ban or not. If a robber breaks into your house, and you have a gun, and you manage to point your gun at him before he draws his gun, you're safe. If you're unarmed, however, you're either dead or robbed. Guns are THE best protection method to use in a home invasion. They're quick and long range, all you have to do is point and hold a finger on the trigger, and it doesn't take too much skill to use. No other weapon is so efficient. If there is, it would be banned before guns. People lose their gun rights when they abuse them. This does not apply to the general public. Generally, if everyone has a gun, it is safer than if only those who are willing to break the law having a gun. "Strict gun control works in the same effect as a ban in most cases. Also, if in your hypothetical situation, the criminal didn't have a gun, or the police were doing their job, there would be no problem." The criminal will always have a gun. He could import one, he could build one himself, I don't care. The point is, the criminal will get his dirty hands on a gun and use it. Also, the police can't get to every robbery, especially if the robber doesn't let anyone call 911. It is so much more efficient for a civilian to just shoot the robber then and there. "I am sorry about the misunderstanding of the resolution." Yeah, I think that the entire misunderstanding thing killed the debate. Thank you for responding.

Politics

Barack-Obama-should-not-disarm-the-general-American-public-of-their-guns./1/

"I made a grammatical error. I meant to say ' I am assuming you are saying he shouldn't argue for it'" Grammar errors are bad, yes. Obama can argue all he wants; he just shouldn't actually disarm us, for the reasons I have listed. "Just because it cannot happen does not make it wrong. We are debating if a gun ban should happen, not if it is possible." And it should not happen, because the states are against Obama on this issue, and this debate is about whether Obama should remove our guns or not. "I disagree. If you make it extremely hard to get a gun, you will be able to easier track suspicious activity." It will be easier, but it will not be easy. The number of attempted crimes may go down, but the number of successful crimes will go up. "Or use a dog or pepper spray or martial arts." One shot kills a dog. Pepper spray is harder to hit long-distance, and needs better aim. Martial arts is close-range. A gun can kill you before you can punch him. "Crime rates are lower in countries with gun control. The US crtime rate is 80 (Italy is 30, Japan 19, Spain 22)" Again, this source does not identify which countries support gun control. It would help if the source marked the countries that banned or highly regulated guns. Also, a quote from your source that makes data questionable: "Comparing international crime statistics must be done with great caution. Statistics compiled by the United Nations are based on surveys that specify that crimes be counted based on each country's legislated definition of what constitute a 'crime'. Some countries may include misdemeanor offences, where a fine is issued while others may only count imprisionable offences. Also, counting the crime takes place at different places in the law-enforcement process. Consequently, some countries may count every reported breach of the law, while others may only count cases that make it to court, and even then only the most serious of several charges laid. Because there is so much inconsistency in these statistics, they might also be a quality measure of the standard and efficiency of law enforcement and the criminal justice system of a country, rather than having anything to do with actual prevalence of crime." "Or deadly, they are extremely dangerous" Nuclear bombs are more deadly and more dangerous. But they aren't nearly as efficient for defense against a home invasion. "Oh, no! A robber! I'm going to throw a nuke at him!" *throws* BOOOOOOOOOOM! Everything within a ten-mile radius explodes. "The majority of murders in the US were from arguments in 2007. Not robbery. By having the gun, that allowed someone angry to just kill someone else. The majority of murder is not planned out. By taking away the gun, you nearly completely eliminate that." What, so instead of shooting, you think that they should have strangled each other? Drowned each other? Guns don't kill people. People kill people. "Yep, but I hope we will understand eachother now." We understand each other. Hopefully, this debate has been fixed. "Thank you." You're welcome. IN CONCLUSION: Obama should not disarm the general American public of their guns. 1. It is unconstitutional, and there is no way that 38 states would suddenly repeal their own amendments within the next eight years. 2. People who hunt for sport, or protect themselves with guns, would be severely hurt by a gun ban. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. 3. If random people in a store are carrying guns, a robber is less likely to want to rob that store, and much less likely to succeed. Thank you for this debate. Vote PRO.

mongeese

"I made a grammatical error. I meant to say ' I am assuming you are saying he shouldn't argue for it'" Grammar errors are bad, yes. Obama can argue all he wants; he just shouldn't actually disarm us, for the reasons I have listed. "Just because it cannot happen does not make it wrong. We are debating if a gun ban should happen, not if it is possible." And it should not happen, because the states are against Obama on this issue, and this debate is about whether Obama should remove our guns or not. "I disagree. If you make it extremely hard to get a gun, you will be able to easier track suspicious activity." It will be easier, but it will not be easy. The number of attempted crimes may go down, but the number of successful crimes will go up. "Or use a dog or pepper spray or martial arts." One shot kills a dog. Pepper spray is harder to hit long-distance, and needs better aim. Martial arts is close-range. A gun can kill you before you can punch him. "Crime rates are lower in countries with gun control. The US crtime rate is 80 (Italy is 30, Japan 19, Spain 22)" Again, this source does not identify which countries support gun control. It would help if the source marked the countries that banned or highly regulated guns. Also, a quote from your source that makes data questionable: "Comparing international crime statistics must be done with great caution. Statistics compiled by the United Nations are based on surveys that specify that crimes be counted based on each country's legislated definition of what constitute a 'crime'. Some countries may include misdemeanor offences, where a fine is issued while others may only count imprisionable offences. Also, counting the crime takes place at different places in the law-enforcement process. Consequently, some countries may count every reported breach of the law, while others may only count cases that make it to court, and even then only the most serious of several charges laid. Because there is so much inconsistency in these statistics, they might also be a quality measure of the standard and efficiency of law enforcement and the criminal justice system of a country, rather than having anything to do with actual prevalence of crime." "Or deadly, they are extremely dangerous" Nuclear bombs are more deadly and more dangerous. But they aren't nearly as efficient for defense against a home invasion. "Oh, no! A robber! I'm going to throw a nuke at him!" *throws* BOOOOOOOOOOM! Everything within a ten-mile radius explodes. "The majority of murders in the US were from arguments in 2007. Not robbery. By having the gun, that allowed someone angry to just kill someone else. The majority of murder is not planned out. By taking away the gun, you nearly completely eliminate that." What, so instead of shooting, you think that they should have strangled each other? Drowned each other? Guns don't kill people. People kill people. "Yep, but I hope we will understand eachother now." We understand each other. Hopefully, this debate has been fixed. "Thank you." You're welcome. IN CONCLUSION: Obama should not disarm the general American public of their guns. 1. It is unconstitutional, and there is no way that 38 states would suddenly repeal their own amendments within the next eight years. 2. People who hunt for sport, or protect themselves with guns, would be severely hurt by a gun ban. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. 3. If random people in a store are carrying guns, a robber is less likely to want to rob that store, and much less likely to succeed. Thank you for this debate. Vote PRO.

Politics

Barack-Obama-should-not-disarm-the-general-American-public-of-their-guns./1/

Thank you for putting this debate up. "Barack Obama clearly does not like the idea of Americans wielding guns. However, there are three reasons why this should not be done." First off, your source is a campaign video, they emphasize the bad things. Second, he wants gun CONTROL not a gun ban. I am asssuming this is what we are to debate. "1. It is unconstitutional." The second Bill of Rights amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Gun control doesn't violate our second ammendment right. It makes it harder to get a gun, but not illegal. Barack Obama wants to make it so you cannot go to K-Mart, buy a gun, and shoot someone. "2. It hurts the innocent more than the criminals." I beg to differ. "People go hunting with guns all of the time" You still can get a gun, it is just harder to. "People protect themselves with guns all of the time" There are other methods one can use to protect themselves. "People also rob others with guns all of the time. The former two groups are innocent. The latter group is criminal. The innocent people would be hurt by any sort of gun control, and would not to wish to have to break a law just to enjoy a hunting trip, or feel more safe. Criminals, on the other hand, are already breaking the law, so they would just obtain and hold guns illegally." It is not breaking the law unless there is a gun ban. "3. Gun freedom lowers crime rates. <URL>... ... Robbers are less likely to charge into a building and rob it if he fears that a number of bystanders may be concealing a gun that could shoot him in the head. Take this poor fellow, for example: <URL>... ; Actually the homcide rate is much lower in countries that have gun control (United Kingdom 2.1, Japan .5, Germany 1, Italy 1.2)( <URL>... ) ( <URL>... ) Thank you for reading

ournamestoolong

Thank you for putting this debate up. "Barack Obama clearly does not like the idea of Americans wielding guns. However, there are three reasons why this should not be done." First off, your source is a campaign video, they emphasize the bad things. Second, he wants gun CONTROL not a gun ban. I am asssuming this is what we are to debate. "1. It is unconstitutional." The second Bill of Rights amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Gun control doesn't violate our second ammendment right. It makes it harder to get a gun, but not illegal. Barack Obama wants to make it so you cannot go to K-Mart, buy a gun, and shoot someone. "2. It hurts the innocent more than the criminals." I beg to differ. "People go hunting with guns all of the time" You still can get a gun, it is just harder to. "People protect themselves with guns all of the time" There are other methods one can use to protect themselves. "People also rob others with guns all of the time. The former two groups are innocent. The latter group is criminal. The innocent people would be hurt by any sort of gun control, and would not to wish to have to break a law just to enjoy a hunting trip, or feel more safe. Criminals, on the other hand, are already breaking the law, so they would just obtain and hold guns illegally." It is not breaking the law unless there is a gun ban. "3. Gun freedom lowers crime rates. http://www.nytimes.com... ... Robbers are less likely to charge into a building and rob it if he fears that a number of bystanders may be concealing a gun that could shoot him in the head. Take this poor fellow, for example: http://www.darwinawards.com... ; Actually the homcide rate is much lower in countries that have gun control (United Kingdom 2.1, Japan .5, Germany 1, Italy 1.2)( http://www.photius.com... ) ( http://www.allcountries.org... ) Thank you for reading

Politics

Barack-Obama-should-not-disarm-the-general-American-public-of-their-guns./1/

"I already know that he wants gun control. I'm just fearing that he might step it up to making guns illegal. That is the point that I am trying to make here. Sorry, but you assumed wrong." Please clarify a absolute resolution. "Disarming the general public does violate our second amendment right." The constitution can be changed, this is not an argument for guns, it is just a statement "But people like their guns, and they are one of the better methods for security during a home invasion. Barack Obama did, as a Senator in Illinois, try to make it so that if you shoot a robber when he robs your house, you can get charged with gun assault." I am going to need a source that is not extremely bias to tell me this. "I'm looking at your sources, and they just say what the homicide rates are. They say nothing about which countries have gun control and which ones don't. The word "control" does not appear anywhere on either of your sources. I see no correlation." Forgot to add these <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... These prove that gun control is safe, so it should be instituted.

ournamestoolong

"I already know that he wants gun control. I'm just fearing that he might step it up to making guns illegal. That is the point that I am trying to make here. Sorry, but you assumed wrong." Please clarify a absolute resolution. "Disarming the general public does violate our second amendment right." The constitution can be changed, this is not an argument for guns, it is just a statement "But people like their guns, and they are one of the better methods for security during a home invasion. Barack Obama did, as a Senator in Illinois, try to make it so that if you shoot a robber when he robs your house, you can get charged with gun assault." I am going to need a source that is not extremely bias to tell me this. "I'm looking at your sources, and they just say what the homicide rates are. They say nothing about which countries have gun control and which ones don't. The word "control" does not appear anywhere on either of your sources. I see no correlation." Forgot to add these http://news.bbc.co.uk... http://www.guncite.com... http://archives.cnn.com... These prove that gun control is safe, so it should be instituted.

Politics

Barack-Obama-should-not-disarm-the-general-American-public-of-their-guns./1/

Thank you for a quick response. "Barack Obama should not disarm the general American public of their guns." Well obviously HE shouldn't because that would be a gross overuse of excecutive power. I am assuming he shouldn't argue for it. Though this is not what Baraack Obama wants, he wants gun control. "First off, that was just a response to your comment about how gun control doesn't violate our second amendment rights." Gun CONTROL doesn't, however, I didn't understand the resolution. I now understand we ae arguing a gun ban. "Secondly, to change the constitution, three-fourths of the states have to agree to give up their guns completely. "Forty-four states have a provision in their state constitutions similar to the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights (the exceptions are California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York)." <URL>... ...(by_state)#Texas Somehow, I doubt that such an amendment could be passed by states that like the idea of gun rights." Just because it is unlikely does not mean it shouldn't happen. "They are all facts; it's just that it shows the facts they want you to hear. Here's another source: <URL>... ... You also failed to refute, and thus conceded, the fact that people like their guns, and they are one of the better methods for security during a home invasion." He is for gun CONTROL not a gun ban, and, yes, I do concede the point that people like there guns. So dpo criminals, gangs, and other "Wrong-doers". If you want to protect yourself, use another method. "Gun control is irrelevant to this debate, because this debate is about disarming people, not regulating them. I am against strict gun control as well as against gun bans, but this debate is about banning, not controlling. Additionally, loose gun control sure seems to be working for Texas. If a Japanese man got his hands on a gun and robbed a store, they would probably be powerless. Not so in Texas." Strict gun control works in the same effect as a ban in most cases. Also, if in your hypothetical situation, the criminal didn't have a gun, or the police were doing their job, there would be no problem. "In conclusion, my opponent has not actually said anything about gun bans, only gun control, which is irrelevant, and Barack Obama should not disarm us." I am sorry about the misunderstanding of the resolution. Thank you.

ournamestoolong

Thank you for a quick response. "Barack Obama should not disarm the general American public of their guns." Well obviously HE shouldn't because that would be a gross overuse of excecutive power. I am assuming he shouldn't argue for it. Though this is not what Baraack Obama wants, he wants gun control. "First off, that was just a response to your comment about how gun control doesn't violate our second amendment rights." Gun CONTROL doesn't, however, I didn't understand the resolution. I now understand we ae arguing a gun ban. "Secondly, to change the constitution, three-fourths of the states have to agree to give up their guns completely. "Forty-four states have a provision in their state constitutions similar to the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights (the exceptions are California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York)." http://en.wikipedia.org... ...(by_state)#Texas Somehow, I doubt that such an amendment could be passed by states that like the idea of gun rights." Just because it is unlikely does not mean it shouldn't happen. "They are all facts; it's just that it shows the facts they want you to hear. Here's another source: http://www.thepriceofliberty.org... ... You also failed to refute, and thus conceded, the fact that people like their guns, and they are one of the better methods for security during a home invasion." He is for gun CONTROL not a gun ban, and, yes, I do concede the point that people like there guns. So dpo criminals, gangs, and other "Wrong-doers". If you want to protect yourself, use another method. "Gun control is irrelevant to this debate, because this debate is about disarming people, not regulating them. I am against strict gun control as well as against gun bans, but this debate is about banning, not controlling. Additionally, loose gun control sure seems to be working for Texas. If a Japanese man got his hands on a gun and robbed a store, they would probably be powerless. Not so in Texas." Strict gun control works in the same effect as a ban in most cases. Also, if in your hypothetical situation, the criminal didn't have a gun, or the police were doing their job, there would be no problem. "In conclusion, my opponent has not actually said anything about gun bans, only gun control, which is irrelevant, and Barack Obama should not disarm us." I am sorry about the misunderstanding of the resolution. Thank you.

Politics

Barack-Obama-should-not-disarm-the-general-American-public-of-their-guns./1/

"Barack Obama is slowly moving towards wanting gun bans. Also, I think you just conceded the resolution, which basically means that you conceded the entire debate." I made a grammatical error. I meant to say " I am assuming you are saying he shouldn't argue for it" "Well, I'm just going to come out and say that it CAN'T happen. 38 states are required to undo the second amendment. 13 are necessary to disagree. Forty-four states, however, like their gun rights. I can guarantee that it will take more than eight years for them to want to change their ways to not include gun rights, and by then, Obama will have no presidential power. I know that Texas will not give up its guns in the near future." Just because it cannot happen does not make it wrong. We are debating if a gun ban should happen, not if it is possible. "If you're under eighteen, you are not allowed to have a gun. But that doesn't apply to the "general American public". Also, criminals will have guns, whether there is a gun ban or not." I disagree. If you make it extremely hard to get a gun, you will be able to easier track suspicious activity. "If a robber breaks into your house, and you have a gun, and you manage to point your gun at him before he draws his gun, you're safe." Or use a dog or pepper spray or martial arts. "If you're unarmed, however, you're either dead or robbed." Crime rates are lower in countries with gun control. The US crtime rate is 80 (Italy is 30, Japan 19, Spain 22) ( <URL>... ) "Guns are THE best protection method to use in a home invasion. They're quick and long range, all you have to do is point and hold a finger on the trigger, and it doesn't take too much skill to use. No other weapon is so efficient." Or deadly, they are extremely dangerous "The criminal will always have a gun. He could import one, he could build one himself, I don't care. The point is, the criminal will get his dirty hands on a gun and use it. Also, the police can't get to every robbery, especially if the robber doesn't let anyone call 911. It is so much more efficient for a civilian to just shoot the robber then and there." The majority of murders in the US were from arguments in 2007. Not robbery. By having the gun, that allowed someone angry to just kill someone else. The majority of murder is not planned out. By taking away the gun, you nearly completely eliminate that. "Yeah, I think that the entire misunderstanding thing killed the debate." Yep, but I hope we will understand eachother now. Thank you.

ournamestoolong

"Barack Obama is slowly moving towards wanting gun bans. Also, I think you just conceded the resolution, which basically means that you conceded the entire debate." I made a grammatical error. I meant to say " I am assuming you are saying he shouldn't argue for it" "Well, I'm just going to come out and say that it CAN'T happen. 38 states are required to undo the second amendment. 13 are necessary to disagree. Forty-four states, however, like their gun rights. I can guarantee that it will take more than eight years for them to want to change their ways to not include gun rights, and by then, Obama will have no presidential power. I know that Texas will not give up its guns in the near future." Just because it cannot happen does not make it wrong. We are debating if a gun ban should happen, not if it is possible. "If you're under eighteen, you are not allowed to have a gun. But that doesn't apply to the "general American public". Also, criminals will have guns, whether there is a gun ban or not." I disagree. If you make it extremely hard to get a gun, you will be able to easier track suspicious activity. "If a robber breaks into your house, and you have a gun, and you manage to point your gun at him before he draws his gun, you're safe." Or use a dog or pepper spray or martial arts. "If you're unarmed, however, you're either dead or robbed." Crime rates are lower in countries with gun control. The US crtime rate is 80 (Italy is 30, Japan 19, Spain 22) ( http://www.nationmaster.com... ) "Guns are THE best protection method to use in a home invasion. They're quick and long range, all you have to do is point and hold a finger on the trigger, and it doesn't take too much skill to use. No other weapon is so efficient." Or deadly, they are extremely dangerous "The criminal will always have a gun. He could import one, he could build one himself, I don't care. The point is, the criminal will get his dirty hands on a gun and use it. Also, the police can't get to every robbery, especially if the robber doesn't let anyone call 911. It is so much more efficient for a civilian to just shoot the robber then and there." The majority of murders in the US were from arguments in 2007. Not robbery. By having the gun, that allowed someone angry to just kill someone else. The majority of murder is not planned out. By taking away the gun, you nearly completely eliminate that. "Yeah, I think that the entire misunderstanding thing killed the debate." Yep, but I hope we will understand eachother now. Thank you.

Politics

Barack-Obama-should-not-disarm-the-general-American-public-of-their-guns./1/

Thank you for all voters, my opponent, and those who are reading. I will not bring up new arguments, but only refute my opponent's points. "Obama can argue all he wants; he just shouldn't actually disarm us, for the reasons I have listed." I disagree. "And it should not happen, because the states are against Obama on this issue, and this debate is about whether Obama should remove our guns or not." Again, just because it is not popular does not mean it will not be effective and shouldn't be implemented. "One shot kills a dog. Pepper spray is harder to hit long-distance, and needs better aim. Martial arts is close-range. A gun can kill you before you can punch him." Those were just examples, and if you look at the stats, having a gun on you makes it more likely for you to kill someone over a argument rather than in self defense. "Again, this source does not identify which countries support gun control. It would help if the source marked the countries that banned or highly regulated guns" <URL>... "Comparing international crime statistics must be done with great caution. Statistics compiled by the United Nations are based on surveys that specify that crimes be counted based on each country's legislated definition of what constitute a 'crime'. Some countries may include misdemeanor offences, where a fine is issued while others may only count imprisionable offences. Also, counting the crime takes place at different places in the law-enforcement process. Consequently, some countries may count every reported breach of the law, while others may only count cases that make it to court, and even then only the most serious of several charges laid. Because there is so much inconsistency in these statistics, they might also be a quality measure of the standard and efficiency of law enforcement and the criminal justice system of a country, rather than having anything to do with actual prevalence of crime." Comparing specific crimes negates this. RAPE ( <URL>... ) US: .3 UK: .15 SPAIN: .14 JAPAN: .01 MURDER ( <URL>... ) US: .042 UK: .014 SPAIN: .012 JAPAN: .004 ASSAULTS ( <URL>... ) US: 7.56 UK: 7.45 SPAIN: 2.2 JAPAN: .33 NOTE: All stats given were per capita "Nuclear bombs are more deadly and more dangerous. But they aren't nearly as efficient for defense against a home invasion. "Oh, no! A robber! I'm going to throw a nuke at him!" *throws* BOOOOOOOOOOM! Everything within a ten-mile radius explodes" I don't understand the point he's making here. "What, so instead of shooting, you think that they should have strangled each other? Drowned each other? Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Guns make it easier to kill people. Thank you.

ournamestoolong

Thank you for all voters, my opponent, and those who are reading. I will not bring up new arguments, but only refute my opponent's points. "Obama can argue all he wants; he just shouldn't actually disarm us, for the reasons I have listed." I disagree. "And it should not happen, because the states are against Obama on this issue, and this debate is about whether Obama should remove our guns or not." Again, just because it is not popular does not mean it will not be effective and shouldn't be implemented. "One shot kills a dog. Pepper spray is harder to hit long-distance, and needs better aim. Martial arts is close-range. A gun can kill you before you can punch him." Those were just examples, and if you look at the stats, having a gun on you makes it more likely for you to kill someone over a argument rather than in self defense. "Again, this source does not identify which countries support gun control. It would help if the source marked the countries that banned or highly regulated guns" http://www.time.com... "Comparing international crime statistics must be done with great caution. Statistics compiled by the United Nations are based on surveys that specify that crimes be counted based on each country's legislated definition of what constitute a 'crime'. Some countries may include misdemeanor offences, where a fine is issued while others may only count imprisionable offences. Also, counting the crime takes place at different places in the law-enforcement process. Consequently, some countries may count every reported breach of the law, while others may only count cases that make it to court, and even then only the most serious of several charges laid. Because there is so much inconsistency in these statistics, they might also be a quality measure of the standard and efficiency of law enforcement and the criminal justice system of a country, rather than having anything to do with actual prevalence of crime." Comparing specific crimes negates this. RAPE ( http://www.nationmaster.com... ) US: .3 UK: .15 SPAIN: .14 JAPAN: .01 MURDER ( http://www.nationmaster.com... ) US: .042 UK: .014 SPAIN: .012 JAPAN: .004 ASSAULTS ( http://www.nationmaster.com... ) US: 7.56 UK: 7.45 SPAIN: 2.2 JAPAN: .33 NOTE: All stats given were per capita "Nuclear bombs are more deadly and more dangerous. But they aren't nearly as efficient for defense against a home invasion. "Oh, no! A robber! I'm going to throw a nuke at him!" *throws* BOOOOOOOOOOM! Everything within a ten-mile radius explodes" I don't understand the point he's making here. "What, so instead of shooting, you think that they should have strangled each other? Drowned each other? Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Guns make it easier to kill people. Thank you.

Politics

Barack-Obama-should-not-disarm-the-general-American-public-of-their-guns./1/

I accept to take this debate, and defend Barack Obama's presidency. Looking forward to a great debate, @fasttrack.

maydaykiller

I accept to take this debate, and defend Barack Obama's presidency. Looking forward to a great debate, @fasttrack.

Politics

Barack-Obama/15/

Thank you, Con. As ruled, by Con in Round 1, I will use Round 2 to reveal my arguments in favor of Barack Obama's presidency. Arguments in favor of Barack Obama's presidency A1. Foreign Policy Through Barack Obama's presidency, the United States achieved strategic foreign geo-political gains. First and foremost, under his leadership, American troops successfully conducted a raid that killed Osama Bin Laden, undoubtely, America's number one enemy, personnally responsible for the worst attack on American soil. Also, Obama has pulled Americans out of harm's way in Afghanistan [1], and has pressed more sanctions on North Korea, for threatening regional peace [2] lastly, he has isolated the Russian Federation for its annexation of Crimea, and further sanctions were applied on the country, which lead to an important economic crisis in Russia. A2. Domestic policies Obama's domestic plan was dominated by his Affordable Care Act, intended to provide Americans with affordable Healthcare, which many Americans were lacking. The Affordable Care Act enabled millions of Americans not to go bankrupt because of medical reasons. [3] Secondly, he has worked to insure the use of green and renewable energy; since he entered office, the share of U.S wind and solar energy has grown considerably. [4] He also repealed " Don't Ask Don't Tell" which now allows Gays and Lesbians to serve in the U.S troops. A3 . The Economy When Barack Obama entered The Oval Office in 2009, he inherited a massive deficit and a crippled economy, left by his reckless predecessor George W. Bush. But under Obama, unemployement has come down massively. When he entered in January 2009, the unemployement rate was around an horrifying 10% and is descending under Obama (now around 5.6%), which is quite significant compared to the European Union, whose unemployement remains in the double digits. America has succeeded at recovering from the 2008 financial crash, and most economists agree that it is thanks to Obama's stimulus plan. [5] Lastly, while it is often undermined, Obama has done alot to limit the unequality in America. The rich are paying more taxes, precisely, 28.1% more than in 2008. Conclusion While he is often discredited, Barack Obama and his presidency were actually more beneficial for America than often said. Compared to John McCain and Mitt Romney, Barack Obama was the better choice in 2008 and in 2012. He has led the country to a somewhat successful recovery from the 2008 Economic Collapse under Bush, reduced unemployement, killed Osama Bin Laden, gave Health Assurance to those who could not afford it, and applied successful sanctions and economic pressure against American Allies. Sources : [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... [5] <URL>...

maydaykiller

Thank you, Con. As ruled, by Con in Round 1, I will use Round 2 to reveal my arguments in favor of Barack Obama's presidency. Arguments in favor of Barack Obama's presidency A1. Foreign Policy Through Barack Obama's presidency, the United States achieved strategic foreign geo-political gains. First and foremost, under his leadership, American troops successfully conducted a raid that killed Osama Bin Laden, undoubtely, America's number one enemy, personnally responsible for the worst attack on American soil. Also, Obama has pulled Americans out of harm's way in Afghanistan [1], and has pressed more sanctions on North Korea, for threatening regional peace [2] lastly, he has isolated the Russian Federation for its annexation of Crimea, and further sanctions were applied on the country, which lead to an important economic crisis in Russia. A2. Domestic policies Obama's domestic plan was dominated by his Affordable Care Act, intended to provide Americans with affordable Healthcare, which many Americans were lacking. The Affordable Care Act enabled millions of Americans not to go bankrupt because of medical reasons. [3] Secondly, he has worked to insure the use of green and renewable energy; since he entered office, the share of U.S wind and solar energy has grown considerably. [4] He also repealed " Don't Ask Don't Tell" which now allows Gays and Lesbians to serve in the U.S troops. A3 . The Economy When Barack Obama entered The Oval Office in 2009, he inherited a massive deficit and a crippled economy, left by his reckless predecessor George W. Bush. But under Obama, unemployement has come down massively. When he entered in January 2009, the unemployement rate was around an horrifying 10% and is descending under Obama (now around 5.6%), which is quite significant compared to the European Union, whose unemployement remains in the double digits. America has succeeded at recovering from the 2008 financial crash, and most economists agree that it is thanks to Obama's stimulus plan. [5] Lastly, while it is often undermined, Obama has done alot to limit the unequality in America. The rich are paying more taxes, precisely, 28.1% more than in 2008. Conclusion While he is often discredited, Barack Obama and his presidency were actually more beneficial for America than often said. Compared to John McCain and Mitt Romney, Barack Obama was the better choice in 2008 and in 2012. He has led the country to a somewhat successful recovery from the 2008 Economic Collapse under Bush, reduced unemployement, killed Osama Bin Laden, gave Health Assurance to those who could not afford it, and applied successful sanctions and economic pressure against American Allies. Sources : [1] http://www.theguardian.com... [2] http://www.theguardian.com... [3] http://www.newrepublic.com... [4] http://grist.org... [5] http://www.nytimes.com...

Politics

Barack-Obama/15/

I only have One rebuttal to make as the majority of Con's argument are just ill-founded claims. Rebuttal Pro argues that the The Bowe Bergdahl Swap was a disgrace to American foreign policy. I would argue otherwise, although it wasn't necessarily the best move, that 'guy', as Con puts it, was a Sergeant in the United States Army [1]. He left his loved ones to go serve his country abroad, it is only morally right that we do not leave him behind. What kind of nation would allow, its men and women in uniform serving, abroad, in war, to be left behind? Obama invested alot of efforts to get this brave young man back to the United States, and credits should be given to him for that. To conclude, following Con's forfeiture I believe the voters should vote Pro. I have rebutted his arguments and he has failed to rebute mine. [1] <URL>... ;

maydaykiller

I only have One rebuttal to make as the majority of Con's argument are just ill-founded claims. Rebuttal Pro argues that the The Bowe Bergdahl Swap was a disgrace to American foreign policy. I would argue otherwise, although it wasn't necessarily the best move, that 'guy', as Con puts it, was a Sergeant in the United States Army [1]. He left his loved ones to go serve his country abroad, it is only morally right that we do not leave him behind. What kind of nation would allow, its men and women in uniform serving, abroad, in war, to be left behind? Obama invested alot of efforts to get this brave young man back to the United States, and credits should be given to him for that. To conclude, following Con's forfeiture I believe the voters should vote Pro. I have rebutted his arguments and he has failed to rebute mine. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... ;

Politics

Barack-Obama/15/

Vote Pro. Other than a few ill-founded and unsubstantiated claims, Con has made no valid arguments.

maydaykiller

Vote Pro. Other than a few ill-founded and unsubstantiated claims, Con has made no valid arguments.

Politics

Barack-Obama/15/

It sounds that the basic metaphor is this: back in the day everyone had cows and you could trade a cow for services thus meaning said service was available to everyone. As time went on, this service started to cost more and more and more cows until you needed a whole herd, which most people cannot afford or even have. You contend that the government should step in and provide extra cows to people that do not have enough for this service. I contend that this would actually make things worse. Let's say I'm a provider of this service, and I need to charge 2 cows to stay in business. Maybe the cost of defending my cows from unruly people has gone up (lawyers). It's unfortunate, but hey I need to make something or there's no point to providing my service. Now the government steps in and says "Poor people cannot afford your service. Charge them 1 cow and I'll make sure you get the difference". So now, I am getting a lot of cows from both people and the government. Unruly people see me with a lot of cows, and try to steal them more often. So I have to hire more security and my costs go up. It's cool though, the government will give me more cows to cover it. Maybe I'll even *say* my costs went up. More cows for me. Now the question is: where does the government keep getting all these cows from? By taxing the people that it is trying to help.

sarsin

It sounds that the basic metaphor is this: back in the day everyone had cows and you could trade a cow for services thus meaning said service was available to everyone. As time went on, this service started to cost more and more and more cows until you needed a whole herd, which most people cannot afford or even have. You contend that the government should step in and provide extra cows to people that do not have enough for this service. I contend that this would actually make things worse. Let's say I'm a provider of this service, and I need to charge 2 cows to stay in business. Maybe the cost of defending my cows from unruly people has gone up (lawyers). It's unfortunate, but hey I need to make something or there's no point to providing my service. Now the government steps in and says "Poor people cannot afford your service. Charge them 1 cow and I'll make sure you get the difference". So now, I am getting a lot of cows from both people and the government. Unruly people see me with a lot of cows, and try to steal them more often. So I have to hire more security and my costs go up. It's cool though, the government will give me more cows to cover it. Maybe I'll even *say* my costs went up. More cows for me. Now the question is: where does the government keep getting all these cows from? By taxing the people that it is trying to help.

Politics

Basic-Minimum-don-t-have-a-cow/2/

Call of duty is better because you can customize game modes and weapons. You can do more with multiplayer than you can with Battlefield. You can also do private matches witch you can't do on Battlefield. The campaign is also better because it is different every time unlike the unchanging Battlefield campaign that is forever the same.

Isaiahk14

Call of duty is better because you can customize game modes and weapons. You can do more with multiplayer than you can with Battlefield. You can also do private matches witch you can't do on Battlefield. The campaign is also better because it is different every time unlike the unchanging Battlefield campaign that is forever the same.

Games

Battlefield-is-better-than-Call-of-Duty./1/

Battlefield 3 and 4's campaigns were the same. All the Battlefields have the exact same setting the middle east. You can fight the fact that modern warfare 3 and advanced warfare are the same because there wasn't exo suits, laser guns, and overall different guns some that don't even exist creating the imagination factor Battlefield doesn't have. BOOM SON YOU JUST GOT TOLD!

Isaiahk14

Battlefield 3 and 4's campaigns were the same. All the Battlefields have the exact same setting the middle east. You can fight the fact that modern warfare 3 and advanced warfare are the same because there wasn't exo suits, laser guns, and overall different guns some that don't even exist creating the imagination factor Battlefield doesn't have. BOOM SON YOU JUST GOT TOLD!

Games

Battlefield-is-better-than-Call-of-Duty./1/

Battlefield has always been the same exact for Hardline which is more like are military style remake of grand theft auto. Also most gamers want games that have imagination and aren't all the time realistic. They want games that take place in places war hasn't been before or things that don't happen in the real world. Call of Duty brings a great mix oh Imagination and Realism with their games that go through real wars and made up wars. Therefore Call of Duty takes cake for the best war game. For one I enjoyed Ghost and more research shows that more people actually did like Ghost.

Isaiahk14

Battlefield has always been the same exact for Hardline which is more like are military style remake of grand theft auto. Also most gamers want games that have imagination and aren't all the time realistic. They want games that take place in places war hasn't been before or things that don't happen in the real world. Call of Duty brings a great mix oh Imagination and Realism with their games that go through real wars and made up wars. Therefore Call of Duty takes cake for the best war game. For one I enjoyed Ghost and more research shows that more people actually did like Ghost.

Games

Battlefield-is-better-than-Call-of-Duty./1/

1) First, Pro suggests that the government should buy out the companies of AT&T; and Comcast. What Pro is essentially suggesting is that the tax payers should pay money to change the new provider that they're paying to. This is illogical, as the country is currently in an economic crisis. With Pro's plan, all tax payers are contributing a large chunk of money to buy a part of an industry to which they may not necessarily subscribe, i.e. internet. Not everybody chooses to utilize the internet as Pro himself pointed out, so it would be unfair to make these people pay for it. Taxes are supposed to be kept to a minimum; having the internet is not a right, and as such, the government has no incentive to try and lower costs of the internet. That is for the market to work out on its own. To combat the current high prices of internet, a new company could emerge with lower prices, attract a lot of customers, and in the end prove to be a viable competitor or perhaps even surpass the current alleged oligopoly. That's what Wal-Mart did :) 2) Pro begins his argument by fear-mongering in claiming that technology, our national freedom and even our children are at risk under the current system. First, while technology is important, the internet is not a right like I've said. Additionally, citizens have access to the internet for free at libraries and other public buildings. Moreover, there are internet cafes, free internet for children at schools, etc. Second, we still have national dialog the same as we did (and got by) before the publicity of the internet. We have these things called books, letters, memos, magazines, newspapers, etc. You know - these things that were around and helpful at sparking the French Revolution, for example. Finally, our children are not at risk - this is a blatant exaggeration. 3) Regarding an internet subscription model, that won't happen thanks to market competition. As soon as one company implements that requirement, people will flock membership to the one that doesn't. Additionally, people can always boycott purchasing these internet plans. Instead, they can access the free internet I've mentioned, or - dare I say it - go without their beloved internet for a little while and prove that just as we don't necessarily have the right to internet, we don't have an obligation to pay for it either. This will cost said companies an exorbitant amount of money if everyone complies, and they will revoke the policy. If people don't comply, it will be our tough luck, because in a capitalistic and democratic society, these companies absolutely have the right to charge us for internet use. Additionally, it should be noted that we already pay a fee to use the internet (mine's about 30 bucks a month), so perhaps this new policy might even SAVE people money. For instance, if they charge 2 bucks per site, and the only sites I frequent from my home are DDO, CNN and Google, then I'd be paying $6 per month for internet instead of 30. I s'pose it depends how these charges are structured though; a policy that Pro nor myself know nothing about at this time. However, keep in mind that even if AT&T; or Comcast don't run their policy like that, other new competitors can. 4) Next Pro insists that people must demand that our freedom shall be protected, and a government-run 'public option' must be introduced. First, again, our freedoms are not being threatened; this is a case of appeal to fear/emotion fallacies. Anyway, Pro does not provide an adequate argument as to why a public option would be most beneficial. Here are his claims: A -- A travesty of American society is that only 63% of households have high-speed internet. Okay, slavery was a travesty. The Holocaust was a travesty. Having just 63% of U.S. households have high-speed internet is NOT a travesty. Moreover, just because France downloads and uploads at higher speeds is hardly a decent argument for increasing the ever-growing bureaucracy of the U.S. government. If I'm downloading the same music as someone in France and it takes them 2 minutes and me 10 minutes, it's certainly not a gigantic infringement upon my rights or danger to my freedom. B -- By establishing a large competitor to every other ISP in America, instant pressure is put on them to improve services and lower the needlessly high prices. I've already detailed how competition in this country works, and why the government paying for Pro's suggested idea is wrong. Further, these companies should already have said incentive thanks to competition. C -- Because the government has a vested interest in the safety of the internet users, it will give the government more access to what we do on the internet. What?! The constitution implies a right to privacy, and The Privacy Act of 1974 prevents the unauthorized disclosure of personal information held by the government. Essentially I disagree with Pro - the government absolutely would become a digital Big Brother.

Danielle

1) First, Pro suggests that the government should buy out the companies of AT&T; and Comcast. What Pro is essentially suggesting is that the tax payers should pay money to change the new provider that they're paying to. This is illogical, as the country is currently in an economic crisis. With Pro's plan, all tax payers are contributing a large chunk of money to buy a part of an industry to which they may not necessarily subscribe, i.e. internet. Not everybody chooses to utilize the internet as Pro himself pointed out, so it would be unfair to make these people pay for it. Taxes are supposed to be kept to a minimum; having the internet is not a right, and as such, the government has no incentive to try and lower costs of the internet. That is for the market to work out on its own. To combat the current high prices of internet, a new company could emerge with lower prices, attract a lot of customers, and in the end prove to be a viable competitor or perhaps even surpass the current alleged oligopoly. That's what Wal-Mart did :) 2) Pro begins his argument by fear-mongering in claiming that technology, our national freedom and even our children are at risk under the current system. First, while technology is important, the internet is not a right like I've said. Additionally, citizens have access to the internet for free at libraries and other public buildings. Moreover, there are internet cafes, free internet for children at schools, etc. Second, we still have national dialog the same as we did (and got by) before the publicity of the internet. We have these things called books, letters, memos, magazines, newspapers, etc. You know - these things that were around and helpful at sparking the French Revolution, for example. Finally, our children are not at risk - this is a blatant exaggeration. 3) Regarding an internet subscription model, that won't happen thanks to market competition. As soon as one company implements that requirement, people will flock membership to the one that doesn't. Additionally, people can always boycott purchasing these internet plans. Instead, they can access the free internet I've mentioned, or - dare I say it - go without their beloved internet for a little while and prove that just as we don't necessarily have the right to internet, we don't have an obligation to pay for it either. This will cost said companies an exorbitant amount of money if everyone complies, and they will revoke the policy. If people don't comply, it will be our tough luck, because in a capitalistic and democratic society, these companies absolutely have the right to charge us for internet use. Additionally, it should be noted that we already pay a fee to use the internet (mine's about 30 bucks a month), so perhaps this new policy might even SAVE people money. For instance, if they charge 2 bucks per site, and the only sites I frequent from my home are DDO, CNN and Google, then I'd be paying $6 per month for internet instead of 30. I s'pose it depends how these charges are structured though; a policy that Pro nor myself know nothing about at this time. However, keep in mind that even if AT&T; or Comcast don't run their policy like that, other new competitors can. 4) Next Pro insists that people must demand that our freedom shall be protected, and a government-run 'public option' must be introduced. First, again, our freedoms are not being threatened; this is a case of appeal to fear/emotion fallacies. Anyway, Pro does not provide an adequate argument as to why a public option would be most beneficial. Here are his claims: A -- A travesty of American society is that only 63% of households have high-speed internet. Okay, slavery was a travesty. The Holocaust was a travesty. Having just 63% of U.S. households have high-speed internet is NOT a travesty. Moreover, just because France downloads and uploads at higher speeds is hardly a decent argument for increasing the ever-growing bureaucracy of the U.S. government. If I'm downloading the same music as someone in France and it takes them 2 minutes and me 10 minutes, it's certainly not a gigantic infringement upon my rights or danger to my freedom. B -- By establishing a large competitor to every other ISP in America, instant pressure is put on them to improve services and lower the needlessly high prices. I've already detailed how competition in this country works, and why the government paying for Pro's suggested idea is wrong. Further, these companies should already have said incentive thanks to competition. C -- Because the government has a vested interest in the safety of the internet users, it will give the government more access to what we do on the internet. What?! The constitution implies a right to privacy, and The Privacy Act of 1974 prevents the unauthorized disclosure of personal information held by the government. Essentially I disagree with Pro - the government absolutely would become a digital Big Brother.

Society

Be-It-Resolved-That-The-Goverment-Should-Nationalize-the-Internet./1/

I'd like to thank my opponent for his well thought out response and making his Bolshevik ideology abundantly clear. I'll continue structuring my argument numerically for clarity and consistency. 1. Pro beings by claiming that the government should be involved in the market because the government "can do it cheaper." Whoa - hello, Communism. Saying "the government can do it cheaper" is a horrible argument. Pro writes, "The fact is that government should not assume that someone else is providing a need for its people, it should take initiative." Again, the internet is not a need! Like I said, the government's only responsibility in a democracy is to protect the rights of its citizens. Because the internet is not a right, the government has no incentive to get involved. 2. Moreover, while Pro accuses me of being short-sighted, he's clearly the one who's wishful thinking. When has the government ever done something without a profit motive? The government's debt is nearly 1.5 trillion dollars. Because politicians can't pay this debt by raising taxes (as doing so hinder their re-election), they're going to ensure that they profit in all of their business endeavors, perhaps not to pay greedy CEOs, but to pay to the State. So, the idea that the government would drastically lower costs is a pipe dream. 3. Next Pro complains about Comcast's profit margins. A business that doesn't think about profit doesn't stay in business. Additionally, Comcast profit margins are less than businesses in many other industries. In fact, they are barely high enough to get people to invest in their stock! People who constantly whine about greed haven't the faintest notion about how business or a capitalist economy works. Here's a clue: If DSL offered service for $11/month as Pro suggested, but Comcast and AT&T; provided better service (i.e. faster speed, more options, etc.) but charged $25/month, then people have the option of which they'd prefer. Just because several companies have a lot of business is NOT indicative of a monopoly, oligopoly, etc. and Pro has not proven as such. 4. Pro continues that a government option would "the cost of an essential need for all families by $168 a year." Again, high-speed internet is NOT a need - it's a luxury. At best, it could be argued that this would be a NEED for government officials, whose internet is paid by government tax dollars anyway. Additionally, no one has argued against the government creating a system specifically for itself. A huge reason why that's an important factor is because the opinion of the people is very important to consider in this matter. For instance, there is a huge divide in our society and our government concerning nationalizing health care let alone the internet! The ideology to combat will be: If the government can get in on the action here, they can justifiably get in on the action anywhere. I mean what's next - government food chains? Pro would say it's unlikely, but hey, at least food is a necessity. If the government implements itself into every aspect of the market, we'll become a Communist nation. This is especially true if the government offers the lowest price in every market, completely eliminating their competitors, and making nearly impossible for small business to compete. 5. Next Pro argues that my ideology is moot because it's impossible for a competitor to compete. First of all, he clearly has no idea how things like the stock exchange and investing work. If you pool resources, get loans, sell stock, etc. then you'd have the funds to make yourself a viable competitor. Second, if the government implements a cheaper alternative, how does Pro expect those businesses to compete OR for other smaller businesses to emerge and compete? Small businesses drive the American economy. 6. Who's to say that the government wouldn't charge per site or download? Moreover, government control = less freedom! They can easily implement censorship and other manipulation. Conclusion: Pro dropped many of my arguments, including: The reality that free internet is accessible; Our 'freedoms' are not being threatened as Pro argued in R1; The government would become a digital Big Brother; etc. Additionally, I propose that there are other alternatives to combating this alleged oligopoly, such as boycotts (at least in the household, if not at businesses and schools) - an argument again that Pro has completely ignored. Plus, he mentioned that combined these 2 companies in question have control of 30% of the U.S. market, so about 15% each. What about the other 70%? Worst case scenario, Americans can switch providers. There are companies with even more of an oligopoly-like reign, including telecommunications providers, air lines (Boeing), Dell - IBM, Haliburton, gas stations, etc. Like with these other companies, the government should take measures to regulate the economy; however, creating a public option is not a viable or proper solution.

Danielle

I'd like to thank my opponent for his well thought out response and making his Bolshevik ideology abundantly clear. I'll continue structuring my argument numerically for clarity and consistency. 1. Pro beings by claiming that the government should be involved in the market because the government "can do it cheaper." Whoa - hello, Communism. Saying "the government can do it cheaper" is a horrible argument. Pro writes, "The fact is that government should not assume that someone else is providing a need for its people, it should take initiative." Again, the internet is not a need! Like I said, the government's only responsibility in a democracy is to protect the rights of its citizens. Because the internet is not a right, the government has no incentive to get involved. 2. Moreover, while Pro accuses me of being short-sighted, he's clearly the one who's wishful thinking. When has the government ever done something without a profit motive? The government's debt is nearly 1.5 trillion dollars. Because politicians can't pay this debt by raising taxes (as doing so hinder their re-election), they're going to ensure that they profit in all of their business endeavors, perhaps not to pay greedy CEOs, but to pay to the State. So, the idea that the government would drastically lower costs is a pipe dream. 3. Next Pro complains about Comcast's profit margins. A business that doesn't think about profit doesn't stay in business. Additionally, Comcast profit margins are less than businesses in many other industries. In fact, they are barely high enough to get people to invest in their stock! People who constantly whine about greed haven't the faintest notion about how business or a capitalist economy works. Here's a clue: If DSL offered service for $11/month as Pro suggested, but Comcast and AT&T; provided better service (i.e. faster speed, more options, etc.) but charged $25/month, then people have the option of which they'd prefer. Just because several companies have a lot of business is NOT indicative of a monopoly, oligopoly, etc. and Pro has not proven as such. 4. Pro continues that a government option would "the cost of an essential need for all families by $168 a year." Again, high-speed internet is NOT a need - it's a luxury. At best, it could be argued that this would be a NEED for government officials, whose internet is paid by government tax dollars anyway. Additionally, no one has argued against the government creating a system specifically for itself. A huge reason why that's an important factor is because the opinion of the people is very important to consider in this matter. For instance, there is a huge divide in our society and our government concerning nationalizing health care let alone the internet! The ideology to combat will be: If the government can get in on the action here, they can justifiably get in on the action anywhere. I mean what's next - government food chains? Pro would say it's unlikely, but hey, at least food is a necessity. If the government implements itself into every aspect of the market, we'll become a Communist nation. This is especially true if the government offers the lowest price in every market, completely eliminating their competitors, and making nearly impossible for small business to compete. 5. Next Pro argues that my ideology is moot because it's impossible for a competitor to compete. First of all, he clearly has no idea how things like the stock exchange and investing work. If you pool resources, get loans, sell stock, etc. then you'd have the funds to make yourself a viable competitor. Second, if the government implements a cheaper alternative, how does Pro expect those businesses to compete OR for other smaller businesses to emerge and compete? Small businesses drive the American economy. 6. Who's to say that the government wouldn't charge per site or download? Moreover, government control = less freedom! They can easily implement censorship and other manipulation. Conclusion: Pro dropped many of my arguments, including: The reality that free internet is accessible; Our 'freedoms' are not being threatened as Pro argued in R1; The government would become a digital Big Brother; etc. Additionally, I propose that there are other alternatives to combating this alleged oligopoly, such as boycotts (at least in the household, if not at businesses and schools) - an argument again that Pro has completely ignored. Plus, he mentioned that combined these 2 companies in question have control of 30% of the U.S. market, so about 15% each. What about the other 70%? Worst case scenario, Americans can switch providers. There are companies with even more of an oligopoly-like reign, including telecommunications providers, air lines (Boeing), Dell - IBM, Haliburton, gas stations, etc. Like with these other companies, the government should take measures to regulate the economy; however, creating a public option is not a viable or proper solution.

Society

Be-It-Resolved-That-The-Goverment-Should-Nationalize-the-Internet./1/

I'd like to thank my opponent, Mr. Marx, for his presentation thus far. 1. I'll begin by responding to my opponent's proposed "putrid hypocrisy" of my argument. He says that since this debate is taking place on the internet, that the internet must be a right. I stand in firm negation of this absurd and fallacious assertion. Rights are something that you are born with. Access to high-speed internet is not one of them! Regardless of how useful the internet may be or how often we might use it, the internet is not a right. Period. My opponent's attempt at trying to make it appear so by appealing to its function is ridiculous. He says, "It is for these social, political, educational, humanitarian and productivity reasons that the government should benefit the whole and not only nationalize, but -socialize- the internet." Fortunately, we don't live in a Socialist nation. The ONLY things the government should socialize, if anything, are that which are deemed rights. Because Pro has not and can not prove that having the internet is a right, this is an embarrassing argument on his behalf and one that most definitely belongs to the Con. Further, I'll prove for economic and political reasons throughout this discussion why Pro's proposal would not be a good idea. 2. Next, Pro writes, "I would not only accuse the con side of being short sighted, but I can prove it! Herein, she contradicts herself in the span of two sentences: When has the government ever done something without a profit motive? The government's debt is nearly 1.5 trillion dollars." For now, I'll ignore the fact that Pro completely misused the terms 'short-sighted' and 'contradiction' because this is not an English class, though you'll note that nothing about that statement demonstrated short-sightedness or a contradiction of any kind. Nevertheless, I'll demonstrate how Pro is wrong in this regard. In fact, his statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Here he is trying to prove that simply because we have a debt, that the government is obviously not trying to make money. However, what do you think taxes are to begin with? Here in Illinois, they are seeking to raise prices on things like soda. They've already jacked the prices on cigarettes and other things. Now why is the government taxing these items? To profit, to help relieve some of the debt. So, here you'll note that Pro didn't prove a thing. Also, Pro says, "I don't agree with the size of the debt, I think that the government is right to provide us with more." He wants to give us more debt? Interesting. Additionally, "One of the best ways to give the people more -and- reduce the debt over time is to socialize the internet and ensure an immediate social payoff and an eventual economic one." Ladies and gentleman, you'll note that in absolutely no way, shape or form did Pro prove how socializing the internet will decrease our government debt! Moreover, Pro has failed to detail what this "economic pay off" will entail. Therefore he has earned no credibility what these points and again this argument should go to the Con. 3. My 3rd point was about Comcast profiting less than other businesses, and barely making enough to have shareholders invest in their stock. Instead of responding to this reality, Pro claimed that certain things (like medicare and food stamps) shouldn't have a profit margin to begin with. This draws upon the hasty generalization that programs like this should even exist, let alone profit. Also, Pro is saying that the internet is just as important as health care and food. Before I respond to this accordingly, Pro must prove that this is the case. Also, please cite your sources so I can respond to the bit about the alleged oligopoly from an economic stand point. 4. Pro continues, "She tries to instill fear by promising that the government will take over the entire economy next..." Lol this was after he said in R1 "Our national dialog, our freedom of information and our children are at risk..." lol and implied that our freedom was being threatened. Anyway, no, I did not imply that the government would take over the economy. What I said was that our capitalistic nation calls for there to be no government socialization in any market that the people don't deem to be a right... and again, the internet is not one of them. 5. Pro ignored my 5th point regarding competition and investment. 6. Pro says, "If they hike our rates, we'll vote them out of office; simple." Now there's the idea! Except think of it this way: If private companies do that to us, we'll ditch them (boycotts, switch providers, etc.). Here comes the fundamental difference in our ideologies: "Most people would rather, or have to, over-pay for internet than to not have it at all; this is not a decision that they should have to make." I completely disagree. I'm out of characters for now, and will conclude all final arguments in the next round from a location with free wireless internet :)

Danielle

I'd like to thank my opponent, Mr. Marx, for his presentation thus far. 1. I'll begin by responding to my opponent's proposed "putrid hypocrisy" of my argument. He says that since this debate is taking place on the internet, that the internet must be a right. I stand in firm negation of this absurd and fallacious assertion. Rights are something that you are born with. Access to high-speed internet is not one of them! Regardless of how useful the internet may be or how often we might use it, the internet is not a right. Period. My opponent's attempt at trying to make it appear so by appealing to its function is ridiculous. He says, "It is for these social, political, educational, humanitarian and productivity reasons that the government should benefit the whole and not only nationalize, but -socialize- the internet." Fortunately, we don't live in a Socialist nation. The ONLY things the government should socialize, if anything, are that which are deemed rights. Because Pro has not and can not prove that having the internet is a right, this is an embarrassing argument on his behalf and one that most definitely belongs to the Con. Further, I'll prove for economic and political reasons throughout this discussion why Pro's proposal would not be a good idea. 2. Next, Pro writes, "I would not only accuse the con side of being short sighted, but I can prove it! Herein, she contradicts herself in the span of two sentences: When has the government ever done something without a profit motive? The government's debt is nearly 1.5 trillion dollars." For now, I'll ignore the fact that Pro completely misused the terms 'short-sighted' and 'contradiction' because this is not an English class, though you'll note that nothing about that statement demonstrated short-sightedness or a contradiction of any kind. Nevertheless, I'll demonstrate how Pro is wrong in this regard. In fact, his statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Here he is trying to prove that simply because we have a debt, that the government is obviously not trying to make money. However, what do you think taxes are to begin with? Here in Illinois, they are seeking to raise prices on things like soda. They've already jacked the prices on cigarettes and other things. Now why is the government taxing these items? To profit, to help relieve some of the debt. So, here you'll note that Pro didn't prove a thing. Also, Pro says, "I don't agree with the size of the debt, I think that the government is right to provide us with more." He wants to give us more debt? Interesting. Additionally, "One of the best ways to give the people more -and- reduce the debt over time is to socialize the internet and ensure an immediate social payoff and an eventual economic one." Ladies and gentleman, you'll note that in absolutely no way, shape or form did Pro prove how socializing the internet will decrease our government debt! Moreover, Pro has failed to detail what this "economic pay off" will entail. Therefore he has earned no credibility what these points and again this argument should go to the Con. 3. My 3rd point was about Comcast profiting less than other businesses, and barely making enough to have shareholders invest in their stock. Instead of responding to this reality, Pro claimed that certain things (like medicare and food stamps) shouldn't have a profit margin to begin with. This draws upon the hasty generalization that programs like this should even exist, let alone profit. Also, Pro is saying that the internet is just as important as health care and food. Before I respond to this accordingly, Pro must prove that this is the case. Also, please cite your sources so I can respond to the bit about the alleged oligopoly from an economic stand point. 4. Pro continues, "She tries to instill fear by promising that the government will take over the entire economy next..." Lol this was after he said in R1 "Our national dialog, our freedom of information and our children are at risk..." lol and implied that our freedom was being threatened. Anyway, no, I did not imply that the government would take over the economy. What I said was that our capitalistic nation calls for there to be no government socialization in any market that the people don't deem to be a right... and again, the internet is not one of them. 5. Pro ignored my 5th point regarding competition and investment. 6. Pro says, "If they hike our rates, we'll vote them out of office; simple." Now there's the idea! Except think of it this way: If private companies do that to us, we'll ditch them (boycotts, switch providers, etc.). Here comes the fundamental difference in our ideologies: "Most people would rather, or have to, over-pay for internet than to not have it at all; this is not a decision that they should have to make." I completely disagree. I'm out of characters for now, and will conclude all final arguments in the next round from a location with free wireless internet :)

Society

Be-It-Resolved-That-The-Goverment-Should-Nationalize-the-Internet./1/

I'd like to thank my opponent, Mr. Lenin for this debate, and encourage him to take his Che Guevara mask off and get some fresh air, since it's not even Halloween yet! Now let's get back to the debate... 1. We once again find ourselves in perhaps the most indicative argument of this debate: whether or not access to high speed internet is a right. Again, I stand in FIRM negation. You'll notice that Pro cited the example of one's "right to trial" and yet I have no idea why; there is absolutely no connection. All he did was prove that people have some rights - and I agree with him - but still, access to the internet is not one of them. Rights are things that you are born with; they're moral principles sanctioning one's freedom of action in a social context. In that regard, a right to trial exists. A right to the internet does not. Rights say that morally certain actions are right, and all other actions that forcibly interfere with those actions are wrong. Nobody is forcibly interfering with Pro or anyone else from accessing high speed internet (which would be the only argument), so therefore his point fails. 2. Pro maintains that the government should socialize the internet, because any "profit" i.e. higher ratio of gain than what was invested would go towards giving us (citizens) things that provide utility. I'll begin by quoting Robert Scheer -- "What is proposed is not the nationalization of private corporations, but rather a corporate takeover of government. The marriage of highly concentrated corporate power with an authoritarian state... is more accurately referred to as "financial fascism" [than socialism]. After all, even Hitler never nationalized the Mercedes-Benz company, but rather entered into a very profitable partnership with the current car company's corporate ancestor, which made out quite well until Hitler's bubble burst." Additionally, if the government socializes the internet, the competition will be eliminated (Americans would not choose the option with the higher cost). So, what is the incentive for this government to create better and more productive services? Moreover, capitalism gives people the opportunity to dictate the market via supply and demand. Without competition, my #2 point remains: How do we know that the government won't raise its prices drastically at a later point - say when the competition has been eliminated - or even kept it JUST below the other competitors? That would make the entire thing not worth it, as we have no incentive to socialize something and limit our freedoms if we're not even getting huge monetary gains. Socializing puts economics in the hands of the government and not the people. 3. Here we are again. Pro thinks that the internet should not turn an overall profit because it provides us rights. Okay, lawyers defend our rights too, and yet they still profit. Are lawyers and judges not "mechanisms of the Bill of Rights?" Plus, I'd agree that the internet is a so-called mechanism of our rights (though I think that applies to nearly everything), and as such, I believe that we all have the RIGHT to purchase internet services. This premise completely negates the conclusion to his entire argument and debate. 4. Pro didn't respond to my 4th point, so. 5. First of all, I don't think there's anything wrong with Wal-Mart. In fact, my R1 argument SPECIFICALLY said, "To combat the current high prices of internet, a new company could emerge with lower prices, attract a lot of customers, and in the end prove to be a viable competitor or perhaps even surpass the current alleged oligopoly. That's what Wal-Mart did :) " I maintain this argument as a reason for how and why the free market could lower the cost of the internet. Also, Pro said that socializing would lead other companies to create a better service and product. This premise alone completely destroys his argument, as that very same incentive exists today without socialization. Moreover, if a drastically superior product is created, then it's reasonable to assume Pro would want to socialize that too. After all, he's arguing for socialization on the base of human necessity. If a better, more popular item became the norm as the internet has, he'd want to socialize that out of "necessity" as well. 6. Pro said that if the government hikes up internet rates (which I posed as a potential problem), we'll simply vote the politicians out of office. What I said was that by these private companies hiking up our rates, we could effectively do the same thing via boycotts, switching providers, etc. The reality is that we're too apathetic to do it. Why would it be any different with politicians? Also, again this very argument put forth by Pro destroys his own. Say the Government and Comcast were 2 providers. The costs suddenly skyrocketed for both, and the people demanded change. The government said No. Then what? We'd be forced to make a choice, which has been my proposal all along.

Danielle

I'd like to thank my opponent, Mr. Lenin for this debate, and encourage him to take his Che Guevara mask off and get some fresh air, since it's not even Halloween yet! Now let's get back to the debate... 1. We once again find ourselves in perhaps the most indicative argument of this debate: whether or not access to high speed internet is a right. Again, I stand in FIRM negation. You'll notice that Pro cited the example of one's "right to trial" and yet I have no idea why; there is absolutely no connection. All he did was prove that people have some rights - and I agree with him - but still, access to the internet is not one of them. Rights are things that you are born with; they're moral principles sanctioning one's freedom of action in a social context. In that regard, a right to trial exists. A right to the internet does not. Rights say that morally certain actions are right, and all other actions that forcibly interfere with those actions are wrong. Nobody is forcibly interfering with Pro or anyone else from accessing high speed internet (which would be the only argument), so therefore his point fails. 2. Pro maintains that the government should socialize the internet, because any "profit" i.e. higher ratio of gain than what was invested would go towards giving us (citizens) things that provide utility. I'll begin by quoting Robert Scheer -- "What is proposed is not the nationalization of private corporations, but rather a corporate takeover of government. The marriage of highly concentrated corporate power with an authoritarian state... is more accurately referred to as "financial fascism" [than socialism]. After all, even Hitler never nationalized the Mercedes-Benz company, but rather entered into a very profitable partnership with the current car company's corporate ancestor, which made out quite well until Hitler's bubble burst." Additionally, if the government socializes the internet, the competition will be eliminated (Americans would not choose the option with the higher cost). So, what is the incentive for this government to create better and more productive services? Moreover, capitalism gives people the opportunity to dictate the market via supply and demand. Without competition, my #2 point remains: How do we know that the government won't raise its prices drastically at a later point - say when the competition has been eliminated - or even kept it JUST below the other competitors? That would make the entire thing not worth it, as we have no incentive to socialize something and limit our freedoms if we're not even getting huge monetary gains. Socializing puts economics in the hands of the government and not the people. 3. Here we are again. Pro thinks that the internet should not turn an overall profit because it provides us rights. Okay, lawyers defend our rights too, and yet they still profit. Are lawyers and judges not "mechanisms of the Bill of Rights?" Plus, I'd agree that the internet is a so-called mechanism of our rights (though I think that applies to nearly everything), and as such, I believe that we all have the RIGHT to purchase internet services. This premise completely negates the conclusion to his entire argument and debate. 4. Pro didn't respond to my 4th point, so. 5. First of all, I don't think there's anything wrong with Wal-Mart. In fact, my R1 argument SPECIFICALLY said, "To combat the current high prices of internet, a new company could emerge with lower prices, attract a lot of customers, and in the end prove to be a viable competitor or perhaps even surpass the current alleged oligopoly. That's what Wal-Mart did :) " I maintain this argument as a reason for how and why the free market could lower the cost of the internet. Also, Pro said that socializing would lead other companies to create a better service and product. This premise alone completely destroys his argument, as that very same incentive exists today without socialization. Moreover, if a drastically superior product is created, then it's reasonable to assume Pro would want to socialize that too. After all, he's arguing for socialization on the base of human necessity. If a better, more popular item became the norm as the internet has, he'd want to socialize that out of "necessity" as well. 6. Pro said that if the government hikes up internet rates (which I posed as a potential problem), we'll simply vote the politicians out of office. What I said was that by these private companies hiking up our rates, we could effectively do the same thing via boycotts, switching providers, etc. The reality is that we're too apathetic to do it. Why would it be any different with politicians? Also, again this very argument put forth by Pro destroys his own. Say the Government and Comcast were 2 providers. The costs suddenly skyrocketed for both, and the people demanded change. The government said No. Then what? We'd be forced to make a choice, which has been my proposal all along.

Society

Be-It-Resolved-That-The-Goverment-Should-Nationalize-the-Internet./1/

Let's deal with some definitions; 'This Government' is herein defined as the United States of America, for the sake of simplicity. 'Nationalize' should be recognized as a buy-out of AT&T; and Comcast, which accounts for 30% of the U.S market for internet service providers. Entrance to the market should not be restricted and no new regulations shall be put on the rest of the ISPs (internet service providers) in the market. I would suggest, though not require, that my opponent begin with a constructive argument for their case and leave the deconstruction for the next 3 rounds. ----- Friends, we find ourselves at a crossroads. The world's most vital technology is at risk. Our national dialog, our freedom of information and our children are at risk. On one side, the large internet service providers are rallying for a new system to government the internet, where an average person must pay for a subscription model to access the internet. Much in the same way one pays for cable, these ISPs want to limit your access to the internet. Consider this; you want to go on youtube, but you can only watch 3 today, unless you want to upgrade to the gold plan for $20 a month more. You want to download a torrent but that's a big no-no in the ISP's eyes, so you can't go on those sites at all. You want to go on skype to talk to your mother across the country, but that cuts into Verizon's long distance calling, so you're blocked from that, too. It's a scary scenario that I think damages the country. So what should be done? The people must demand that our freedom shall be protected, and a government-run 'public option' must be introduced. Given that AT&T; and Comcast already have the infrastructure in place, it makes the most sense to start there. The facts, my friends, are in support of my case. Firstly, I would like to call attention to a travesty of American society; only 63% of households have high-speed internet. The United States trails the world in broadband penetration and it is hurting American growth. It is limiting our children in their education, it is hurting businesses and it making life more difficult for average Americans. Look, for example, at France. Internet penetration is at 68% and thanks to a recent recognition of high speed internet as human right, DSL in France is not only somewhat cheaper than the same service in American, it is on average more than 5 times faster, and in some places as much as 28 times as fast. In Finland where high speed internet is a legal right, there is 83% penetration. How can this same right be denied in America? My second point is that of competition. By establishing a large competitor to every other ISP in America, instant pressure is put on them to improve services and lower the needlessly high prices. Given that the government will only be taking on 30% of the market, there is a huge area of opportunity for small, local providers to enter the market. Right now, the current ISPs are not only complacent but in cahoots. Any semblance of real competition is merely a facade, as they are working together to crush net neutrality and establish a subscription model for the internet that will harm the forward-thinking way of life in America. My final point is that of security. By giving the government a stake in the internet business, the middle man will be cut out. Because the government has a vested interest in the safety of the internet users, it will give the government the opportunity not to censor the internet, but to protect against any illegal elements. That is to say that the government will be given the power to find and punish those in possession of child pornography or other illegal material. This -does not- imply that the government will become the digital Big Brother, but merely that they will continue to the monitor the internet as they do at present, but with more accuracy and openness. I look forward to my opponent's response. SOURCES: U.S broadband penetration; <URL>... Finland case study; <URL>... Internet in France; <URL>... DSL speed by state; <URL>... DSL prices around the world; <URL>... E.U internet stats; <URL>...

MistahKurtz

Let's deal with some definitions; 'This Government' is herein defined as the United States of America, for the sake of simplicity. 'Nationalize' should be recognized as a buy-out of AT&T; and Comcast, which accounts for 30% of the U.S market for internet service providers. Entrance to the market should not be restricted and no new regulations shall be put on the rest of the ISPs (internet service providers) in the market. I would suggest, though not require, that my opponent begin with a constructive argument for their case and leave the deconstruction for the next 3 rounds. ----- Friends, we find ourselves at a crossroads. The world's most vital technology is at risk. Our national dialog, our freedom of information and our children are at risk. On one side, the large internet service providers are rallying for a new system to government the internet, where an average person must pay for a subscription model to access the internet. Much in the same way one pays for cable, these ISPs want to limit your access to the internet. Consider this; you want to go on youtube, but you can only watch 3 today, unless you want to upgrade to the gold plan for $20 a month more. You want to download a torrent but that's a big no-no in the ISP's eyes, so you can't go on those sites at all. You want to go on skype to talk to your mother across the country, but that cuts into Verizon's long distance calling, so you're blocked from that, too. It's a scary scenario that I think damages the country. So what should be done? The people must demand that our freedom shall be protected, and a government-run 'public option' must be introduced. Given that AT&T; and Comcast already have the infrastructure in place, it makes the most sense to start there. The facts, my friends, are in support of my case. Firstly, I would like to call attention to a travesty of American society; only 63% of households have high-speed internet. The United States trails the world in broadband penetration and it is hurting American growth. It is limiting our children in their education, it is hurting businesses and it making life more difficult for average Americans. Look, for example, at France. Internet penetration is at 68% and thanks to a recent recognition of high speed internet as human right, DSL in France is not only somewhat cheaper than the same service in American, it is on average more than 5 times faster, and in some places as much as 28 times as fast. In Finland where high speed internet is a legal right, there is 83% penetration. How can this same right be denied in America? My second point is that of competition. By establishing a large competitor to every other ISP in America, instant pressure is put on them to improve services and lower the needlessly high prices. Given that the government will only be taking on 30% of the market, there is a huge area of opportunity for small, local providers to enter the market. Right now, the current ISPs are not only complacent but in cahoots. Any semblance of real competition is merely a facade, as they are working together to crush net neutrality and establish a subscription model for the internet that will harm the forward-thinking way of life in America. My final point is that of security. By giving the government a stake in the internet business, the middle man will be cut out. Because the government has a vested interest in the safety of the internet users, it will give the government the opportunity not to censor the internet, but to protect against any illegal elements. That is to say that the government will be given the power to find and punish those in possession of child pornography or other illegal material. This -does not- imply that the government will become the digital Big Brother, but merely that they will continue to the monitor the internet as they do at present, but with more accuracy and openness. I look forward to my opponent's response. SOURCES: U.S broadband penetration; http://www.websiteoptimization.com... Finland case study; http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com... Internet in France; http://en.wikipedia.org... DSL speed by state; http://www.speedmatters.org... DSL prices around the world; http://goldsteinreport.com... E.U internet stats; http://www.internetworldstats.com...

Society

Be-It-Resolved-That-The-Goverment-Should-Nationalize-the-Internet./1/

I thank my wonderful opponent for such a well thought out response, and for making it abundantly clear her Luddite connections. Side opposition's point is that of cost. She has said that it does not make sense to buy out these industries because the poor tax payer will have to foot the bill. This disingenuous argument forgets a massive factor; the government can do it cheaper. Yes, it will cost the tax payer money to nationalize these industries -in the short term.- Evidently my opponent's shortsightedness here limits her, as it is quite evident that by entering the industry, the government would need no profit. Do you have any idea what sort of profit margins these companies make? Let's crunch the numbers. The price for an average, middle of the road DSL connection from AT&T; is $25. AT&T; and Comcast both garner 59% profit margins (!!!) Let's do this simplistically and say that the other 41% represents the upkeep for maintain their DSL service (this is not the case, and it would actually be considerably lower, considering the government does not need lobbyists, advertising, etc.), then the implications are that the government would only aim for 4% profit margins. That means that people will be paying just over $11/month for DSL (it would realistically be a lot lower, for many reasons.) By combing AT&T; and Comcast, their operating costs can be significantly reduced which would allow for more profit and a lower cost The companies have a combined profit of $23.743 billion before taxes. Assuming the profit margin is reduced to 4%, that means the companies will have a new profit of $3.5 billion. That's not given a lot of thing that would actually push profit up, so that is very conservative number. The companies, together, are worth $225.9 billion. Now, given that the government is only nationalizing the ISP portion of these businesses, I am going to hazard a guess and say that the real cost would be something like 40% of that ($90b) and we must do the same to the profits ($1.4b) And given the reasons I already established and coupled with other factors, the real cost would likely be lower and the profits higher. So let's recap; the government does a deal that will turn into profit in less than 60 years and costs less than 14% of, say, the overall defense budget. What's more, it reduces the cost of an essential need for all families by $168 a year and of every level of government, who rely on the internet. That's not bad. My opponent's second points hinges on the idea that people don't -need.- Internet, and that children are fine by being limited. Her argument equates to, "Those poor people are fine without food stamps, there's soup kitchens." The fact is that government should not assume that someone else is providing a need for its people, it should take initiative. Beyond that, my opponent boils down my argument to simply giving everyone internet, which is totally untrue. My argument hinges on the fact that the government can give everyone AND provide it better and cheaper. The internet allows children and adults alike work and learn more productively and make their lives easier. It allows businesses and governments to work more efficiently and it cuts down on operating costs. Hell, it also reduces the amount of physical activities we have to do (ie writing letters, driving to the library, printing books and newspapers, etc.) and helps reduce our carbon emissions. My opponent's third point is ignorant to reality. These companies have, together been advocating the destruction of network neutrality for years. They are now coming dangerously close to succeeding, and they have every intention of doing it. Because all the large competitors wish to do it, there is no chance for a small provider to come along because starting up as an ISP is wildly expensive and those ISPs who have a subscription model will be making enough money to destroy or buy-out any provider that comes along to try and provide the more user-friendly system. And yes, people currently pay a monthly fee, but these plans involve -keeping- that fee and than adding more ways to gouge money from users. Loading up Debate.org may be 30 cents. Every refresh will be another 30 cents. This works much in the same way data plans work for a BlackBerry. Good luck watching videos. "I've already detailed how competition in this country works, and why the government paying for Pro's suggested idea is wrong. Further, these companies should already have said incentive thanks to competition." While I won't be able to deconstruct my opponent's entire argument at this point; it is this falsehood that must be addressed. There is a natural oligarchy of ISPs in America that completely destroys the idea of 'competition' and free market economics. The barriers to entry are just to high to have real competition. Sources will be in the comments.

MistahKurtz

I thank my wonderful opponent for such a well thought out response, and for making it abundantly clear her Luddite connections. Side opposition's point is that of cost. She has said that it does not make sense to buy out these industries because the poor tax payer will have to foot the bill. This disingenuous argument forgets a massive factor; the government can do it cheaper. Yes, it will cost the tax payer money to nationalize these industries -in the short term.- Evidently my opponent's shortsightedness here limits her, as it is quite evident that by entering the industry, the government would need no profit. Do you have any idea what sort of profit margins these companies make? Let's crunch the numbers. The price for an average, middle of the road DSL connection from AT&T; is $25. AT&T; and Comcast both garner 59% profit margins (!!!) Let's do this simplistically and say that the other 41% represents the upkeep for maintain their DSL service (this is not the case, and it would actually be considerably lower, considering the government does not need lobbyists, advertising, etc.), then the implications are that the government would only aim for 4% profit margins. That means that people will be paying just over $11/month for DSL (it would realistically be a lot lower, for many reasons.) By combing AT&T; and Comcast, their operating costs can be significantly reduced which would allow for more profit and a lower cost The companies have a combined profit of $23.743 billion before taxes. Assuming the profit margin is reduced to 4%, that means the companies will have a new profit of $3.5 billion. That's not given a lot of thing that would actually push profit up, so that is very conservative number. The companies, together, are worth $225.9 billion. Now, given that the government is only nationalizing the ISP portion of these businesses, I am going to hazard a guess and say that the real cost would be something like 40% of that ($90b) and we must do the same to the profits ($1.4b) And given the reasons I already established and coupled with other factors, the real cost would likely be lower and the profits higher. So let's recap; the government does a deal that will turn into profit in less than 60 years and costs less than 14% of, say, the overall defense budget. What's more, it reduces the cost of an essential need for all families by $168 a year and of every level of government, who rely on the internet. That's not bad. My opponent's second points hinges on the idea that people don't -need.- Internet, and that children are fine by being limited. Her argument equates to, "Those poor people are fine without food stamps, there's soup kitchens." The fact is that government should not assume that someone else is providing a need for its people, it should take initiative. Beyond that, my opponent boils down my argument to simply giving everyone internet, which is totally untrue. My argument hinges on the fact that the government can give everyone AND provide it better and cheaper. The internet allows children and adults alike work and learn more productively and make their lives easier. It allows businesses and governments to work more efficiently and it cuts down on operating costs. Hell, it also reduces the amount of physical activities we have to do (ie writing letters, driving to the library, printing books and newspapers, etc.) and helps reduce our carbon emissions. My opponent's third point is ignorant to reality. These companies have, together been advocating the destruction of network neutrality for years. They are now coming dangerously close to succeeding, and they have every intention of doing it. Because all the large competitors wish to do it, there is no chance for a small provider to come along because starting up as an ISP is wildly expensive and those ISPs who have a subscription model will be making enough money to destroy or buy-out any provider that comes along to try and provide the more user-friendly system. And yes, people currently pay a monthly fee, but these plans involve -keeping- that fee and than adding more ways to gouge money from users. Loading up Debate.org may be 30 cents. Every refresh will be another 30 cents. This works much in the same way data plans work for a BlackBerry. Good luck watching videos. "I've already detailed how competition in this country works, and why the government paying for Pro's suggested idea is wrong. Further, these companies should already have said incentive thanks to competition." While I won't be able to deconstruct my opponent's entire argument at this point; it is this falsehood that must be addressed. There is a natural oligarchy of ISPs in America that completely destroys the idea of 'competition' and free market economics. The barriers to entry are just to high to have real competition. Sources will be in the comments.

Society

Be-It-Resolved-That-The-Goverment-Should-Nationalize-the-Internet./1/

My opponent certainly has a well thought out case, I think it would make Senator McCarthy proud. 1. There is an intense, putrid hypocricy in my opponent's argument that I hope everyone is reading into; without the internet, this debate would never take place. Or rather, without the internet, many debates would not be taking place. The internet is the world's larges town hall where anyone and everyone can participate in frank discussion. My opponent belittles this by saying that the internet is not 'needed', but I wonder how often has the requirement been in her life. Has she ever had a school assignment reliant on internet sources? Has she ever carried on a long distance relationship? Has she ever been in a teleconference? Has she ever donated to an online charity that builds schools in Uganda? I would be interested in the answer. It is for these social, political, educational, humanitarian and productivity reasons that the government should benefit the whole and not only nationalize, but -socialize- the internet. Not just take it over for the sake of its own being, but make it open the public for the sake of the public. 2. I would not only accuse the con side of being short sighted, but I can prove it! Herein, she contradicts herself in the span of two sentences; "When has the government ever done something without a profit motive? The government's debt is nearly 1.5 trillion dollars." It is quite evident that the debt, while unfortunate, is the evidence that the government is not in it for the profit, but for us. While I don't agree with the size of the debt, I think that the government is right to provide us with more. One of the best ways to give the people more -and- reduce the debt over time is to socialize the internet and ensure an immediate social payoff and an eventual economic one. 3. My opponent here creates an a deplorable scarecrow from my argument. There is nothing wrong with profit; it can be a really great thing to keep our system going. However, should social security have a 59% profit margin? Should Medicare have a 59% profit margin? Should the food stamp program have a 59% profit margin? No! The internet is too important to our democracy and social order to be left to the fickleness of the market and corporate structure. Furthermore, my opponent says; "Just because several companies have a lot of business is NOT indicative of a monopoly, oligopoly, etc. and Pro has not proven as such." I will prove so right now; The top ten internet service providers in the United States own nearly 70% of the market. The top five own over 56%. Only 11 companies have over one million subscribers and most have no room to expand because they are purely local. Only 12 take at least 1% of the market share. This small group of companies provide internet to tens of millions of internet users, and they want you to pay more for it! By defeating network neutrality, this small groups wants to charge you more and restrict what sites you can go on. Who's to stop them? They have a stanglehold on the market. 4. My opponent's next fallacy is a slippery slope if I ever saw one. She tries to instill fear by promising that the government will take over the entire economy next, which is flagrantly untrue. Perhaps if food in America cost double what it did in the rest of the country, was of vastly inferior quality and held us back in the world, I would advocate a nationalization of that industry. However, that is not necessary because we have a hugely competitive food market that gives our citizens high quality food for reasonable prices while still providing a profit to its shareholders. The ISPs would rather have half of America paying hand-over-fist for service than have everyone paying a reasonable price. 6. The government would never make uses pay per download because we have the tools at our disposal to stop them. If they hike our rates, we'll vote them out of office; simple. As a conclusion, I have dropped -none- of Con's arguments. I have already established that the 'free' internet of our already underfunded libraries is inconvenient and the cost of the internet itself is burdening our libraries. Let's take another argument that I have apparently 'dropped' "Additionally, I propose that there are other alternatives to combating this alleged oligopoly, such as boycotts (at least in the household, if not at businesses and schools)" First, my opponent here agrees with me about the importance of the internet. My opponent doesn't understand that internet in the household is just as important as in businesses and schools as it is at home. Most people would rather, or have to, over-pay for internet than to not have it at all; this is not a decision that they should have to make. In closing, my opponent's case relies on the fact that people don't need internet. I ask that everyone think about their lives, then think about it without the internet. Thank you. ISP info; http://bi

MistahKurtz

My opponent certainly has a well thought out case, I think it would make Senator McCarthy proud. 1. There is an intense, putrid hypocricy in my opponent's argument that I hope everyone is reading into; without the internet, this debate would never take place. Or rather, without the internet, many debates would not be taking place. The internet is the world's larges town hall where anyone and everyone can participate in frank discussion. My opponent belittles this by saying that the internet is not 'needed', but I wonder how often has the requirement been in her life. Has she ever had a school assignment reliant on internet sources? Has she ever carried on a long distance relationship? Has she ever been in a teleconference? Has she ever donated to an online charity that builds schools in Uganda? I would be interested in the answer. It is for these social, political, educational, humanitarian and productivity reasons that the government should benefit the whole and not only nationalize, but -socialize- the internet. Not just take it over for the sake of its own being, but make it open the public for the sake of the public. 2. I would not only accuse the con side of being short sighted, but I can prove it! Herein, she contradicts herself in the span of two sentences; "When has the government ever done something without a profit motive? The government's debt is nearly 1.5 trillion dollars." It is quite evident that the debt, while unfortunate, is the evidence that the government is not in it for the profit, but for us. While I don't agree with the size of the debt, I think that the government is right to provide us with more. One of the best ways to give the people more -and- reduce the debt over time is to socialize the internet and ensure an immediate social payoff and an eventual economic one. 3. My opponent here creates an a deplorable scarecrow from my argument. There is nothing wrong with profit; it can be a really great thing to keep our system going. However, should social security have a 59% profit margin? Should Medicare have a 59% profit margin? Should the food stamp program have a 59% profit margin? No! The internet is too important to our democracy and social order to be left to the fickleness of the market and corporate structure. Furthermore, my opponent says; "Just because several companies have a lot of business is NOT indicative of a monopoly, oligopoly, etc. and Pro has not proven as such." I will prove so right now; The top ten internet service providers in the United States own nearly 70% of the market. The top five own over 56%. Only 11 companies have over one million subscribers and most have no room to expand because they are purely local. Only 12 take at least 1% of the market share. This small group of companies provide internet to tens of millions of internet users, and they want you to pay more for it! By defeating network neutrality, this small groups wants to charge you more and restrict what sites you can go on. Who's to stop them? They have a stanglehold on the market. 4. My opponent's next fallacy is a slippery slope if I ever saw one. She tries to instill fear by promising that the government will take over the entire economy next, which is flagrantly untrue. Perhaps if food in America cost double what it did in the rest of the country, was of vastly inferior quality and held us back in the world, I would advocate a nationalization of that industry. However, that is not necessary because we have a hugely competitive food market that gives our citizens high quality food for reasonable prices while still providing a profit to its shareholders. The ISPs would rather have half of America paying hand-over-fist for service than have everyone paying a reasonable price. 6. The government would never make uses pay per download because we have the tools at our disposal to stop them. If they hike our rates, we'll vote them out of office; simple. As a conclusion, I have dropped -none- of Con's arguments. I have already established that the 'free' internet of our already underfunded libraries is inconvenient and the cost of the internet itself is burdening our libraries. Let's take another argument that I have apparently 'dropped' "Additionally, I propose that there are other alternatives to combating this alleged oligopoly, such as boycotts (at least in the household, if not at businesses and schools)" First, my opponent here agrees with me about the importance of the internet. My opponent doesn't understand that internet in the household is just as important as in businesses and schools as it is at home. Most people would rather, or have to, over-pay for internet than to not have it at all; this is not a decision that they should have to make. In closing, my opponent's case relies on the fact that people don't need internet. I ask that everyone think about their lives, then think about it without the internet. Thank you. ISP info; http://bi

Society

Be-It-Resolved-That-The-Goverment-Should-Nationalize-the-Internet./1/

I would like to congratulate my opponent on the excellent debate, but would ask her to kindly replace Ronald Reagan's corpse back to whence it came. 1. My opponent continues to ignore the fact that access to the internet is a right. Perhaps it is not found within the bill of rights itself, but I would argue that it is a national progression. For example, the citizen has the right to a fair trail by a jury of his peers, does he not? So, naturally, the government simply ensures that there are enough private corporations to allow the citizen to pay for his trial and receive some form of justice. Correct? No. The government, to ensure this liberty, owns and operates the means of trial by jury, also known as the American legal system. So given this, what rights are made accessible by the internet? Freedom of press? Certainly. Freedom of expression? Absolutely. Freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, the right to petition; all made accessible and more powerful by the internet. And these rights do not apply only to those with the money, but to everyone. It is abundantly clear that the government recognizes not just the right of the concept but also of its accessibility and facilitation. For my opponent to deny this is two-faced; she supports the idea, but not the practice. I will use her own quote in support of my case; "The ONLY things the government should socialize, if anything, are that which are deemed rights." 2. My opponent goes on to argue that taxes are proof of a profit motivation. This is inherently false, and I explain so only for her benefit, as most people can instantly see through this. We pay taxes for stuff. That's right, we give the government money so that it may bring back to us a utility. Furthermore, we are to understand that the utility is usually in some way enforcing and strengthening our rights and privileges as citizens. What better than to digitize our more sacred and cherished liberties? My opponent goes on to take my argument out of context, accusing me of wanting more debt even when I was obviously arguing the contrary. I proved, with mathematical certainty, that socializing the internet will provide us with income. If my opponent failed to read this, that is not my concern. I want more services and less debt, isn't that true of every citizen? Everyone except my opponent, that is, who seems to want nothing for her money. 3. My opponent's 'refutation' of my claims relies only on her already established, already proven fallacious and incorrect points. I have identified that the internet should not turn an overall profit because it provides us rights, therefore it is a mechanism of the bill of rights and therefore not open to private enterprise. My opponent ignores this and tries to force my into arguing that the internet is more important food, which I have never stated. My argument is that the internet, just as food stamps and medicare, helps us to realize our enshrined rights as citizens. Furthermore, my opponent attacks me for not providing a source that I did provide. 5. My opponent's avocation for competition needs no refutation because I agree with it; I have already argued for competition between the government and the other providers. Because the government has no real interest in attracting new people, merely with providing the option, it need not become mobile in the market. Therefore, the other companies will have the opportunity to provide specialized, and maybe even better services for those who want to pay. By my opponent's logic, Wal-Mart should not be allowed because it kills competition, when in fact there is a fierce crowd of companies who are locally competing quite strongly with the corporate giant. 6. My opponent returns to harping about the nice idea of voting with the almighty dollar. However, she forgets that in this oligopoly, there is no hope for the consumer to effectuate real change because almost every single comerical ISP is out to screw you. They are steadily making you pay high rights, more often and for less services. Where else are you going to go? My argument boils down to this, my friends; the internet provides us access to so many rights so easily that it, in itself, is a right. Therefore, just like the government provides the utilities and due process to, say, protect against illegal search and seizure, the government should be giving to us the ability to realize the highest possible level of free speech and freedom of expression. While the economic and educational (which my opponent has not refuted) benefits are multi-fold, the government -must- socialize the internet for the sake of the rights that we are born with. Thank you.

MistahKurtz

I would like to congratulate my opponent on the excellent debate, but would ask her to kindly replace Ronald Reagan's corpse back to whence it came. 1. My opponent continues to ignore the fact that access to the internet is a right. Perhaps it is not found within the bill of rights itself, but I would argue that it is a national progression. For example, the citizen has the right to a fair trail by a jury of his peers, does he not? So, naturally, the government simply ensures that there are enough private corporations to allow the citizen to pay for his trial and receive some form of justice. Correct? No. The government, to ensure this liberty, owns and operates the means of trial by jury, also known as the American legal system. So given this, what rights are made accessible by the internet? Freedom of press? Certainly. Freedom of expression? Absolutely. Freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, the right to petition; all made accessible and more powerful by the internet. And these rights do not apply only to those with the money, but to everyone. It is abundantly clear that the government recognizes not just the right of the concept but also of its accessibility and facilitation. For my opponent to deny this is two-faced; she supports the idea, but not the practice. I will use her own quote in support of my case; "The ONLY things the government should socialize, if anything, are that which are deemed rights." 2. My opponent goes on to argue that taxes are proof of a profit motivation. This is inherently false, and I explain so only for her benefit, as most people can instantly see through this. We pay taxes for stuff. That's right, we give the government money so that it may bring back to us a utility. Furthermore, we are to understand that the utility is usually in some way enforcing and strengthening our rights and privileges as citizens. What better than to digitize our more sacred and cherished liberties? My opponent goes on to take my argument out of context, accusing me of wanting more debt even when I was obviously arguing the contrary. I proved, with mathematical certainty, that socializing the internet will provide us with income. If my opponent failed to read this, that is not my concern. I want more services and less debt, isn't that true of every citizen? Everyone except my opponent, that is, who seems to want nothing for her money. 3. My opponent's 'refutation' of my claims relies only on her already established, already proven fallacious and incorrect points. I have identified that the internet should not turn an overall profit because it provides us rights, therefore it is a mechanism of the bill of rights and therefore not open to private enterprise. My opponent ignores this and tries to force my into arguing that the internet is more important food, which I have never stated. My argument is that the internet, just as food stamps and medicare, helps us to realize our enshrined rights as citizens. Furthermore, my opponent attacks me for not providing a source that I did provide. 5. My opponent's avocation for competition needs no refutation because I agree with it; I have already argued for competition between the government and the other providers. Because the government has no real interest in attracting new people, merely with providing the option, it need not become mobile in the market. Therefore, the other companies will have the opportunity to provide specialized, and maybe even better services for those who want to pay. By my opponent's logic, Wal-Mart should not be allowed because it kills competition, when in fact there is a fierce crowd of companies who are locally competing quite strongly with the corporate giant. 6. My opponent returns to harping about the nice idea of voting with the almighty dollar. However, she forgets that in this oligopoly, there is no hope for the consumer to effectuate real change because almost every single comerical ISP is out to screw you. They are steadily making you pay high rights, more often and for less services. Where else are you going to go? My argument boils down to this, my friends; the internet provides us access to so many rights so easily that it, in itself, is a right. Therefore, just like the government provides the utilities and due process to, say, protect against illegal search and seizure, the government should be giving to us the ability to realize the highest possible level of free speech and freedom of expression. While the economic and educational (which my opponent has not refuted) benefits are multi-fold, the government -must- socialize the internet for the sake of the rights that we are born with. Thank you.

Society

Be-It-Resolved-That-The-Goverment-Should-Nationalize-the-Internet./1/

An abortion debate: rendering the clich, I Accept. It is a fetus! It is not a fetus! Heak what is fetus. "abortion and why it is so wrong and downright evil. I would like to start with a story." The story is that morals have been philosophically debated for the span of human life basically. So what is evil to Y person might not be a common evil to X person. 1.e*vil/'ev@l/ Adjective:Profoundly immoral and malevolent. Noun:Profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, esp. when regarded as a supernatural force. That is the dictionary. However what is immoral, how can one justify that with pure certainty? Nothing is known but something immoral can be probable amongst the human race. <URL>... "You were once a child, were you not? You were once an egg. Then you were fertilized. You grew and became the person you are now. You could be the president, the doctor that saved a little girl's life or a famous banker. But what if your mother had an abortion? Where would you be? That's right. You WOULDN'T be. You'd be dead and nonexistent." What happens if this mother had the child (not an abortion) and that child was not a president of X country (rare), or a famous banker, or a doctor (both difficult to obtain). What would happen if that child became a criminal due environmental forces that can qualify as a mere release from X environment on that person who was rasided in it. What if and if and if and on can become of this person that wouldn't be. How do I know that I am existing? Is it because I touch, feel, breath and can interpret something non existent? For all I know the earth could be purgatory (as defined in the Christian bible) and I am no higher being to tell you what is existing and what is not existing. Earth= purgatory fits the requirements, as long as X human is on planet earth and time keeps ticking, some form of disability or suffering will occur . 1.pur*ga*to*ry/'p@rg@,tre/ Noun:(in Roman Catholic doctrine) A place or state of suffering inhabited by the souls of sinners who are expiating their sins before going... Adjective:Having the quality of cleansing or purifying. A story: A man who thought he was a man by X meaning found out that X was a lie. In figuring out the lie a state of suffering, this man has become. How do I know I exist in what I think that I exist in? Freakonomics highly controversial thesis= the crime rate dropped due to women having abortions. Generally a person is more likely to turn out to be an average person when conceived, probally not the president. I do not stand fully with this thesis though I will bring it into the debate for its thesis on the this topic. The audience can be the judge. <URL>... The story is lovely, and personally heart warming to read that people still care about other people. But wait? Is abortion impersonal and just businesslike. Take the bombing of Japan that was businesslike due to increased rationality. For the record it was to save lives. ( No only North American and coalition lives). Now is it to be defined that when a woman has an abortion it is just businesslike and committed to her lacking feeling towards the fetus, (or is it a fetus)?. Unless that woman is a sociopath then no. People who have had an abortion or lost a child through miscarriage are not commiting an abortion like a sociopath. There is a personal experience or connection generally, but the abortion is done with thinking, (hopefully). The Nazis killed businesslike. When on trial "I was just doing my job when I took my gun and pointed it at the inferiors". Again abortion is not businesslike. About Half of the women that have had an abortion are under the age of 25. Take a 17 year old who does have a child in the ghetto. That is a child producing a child. That 17 year olds future that was already not in her favor is officialy not in her favor. (Future being going to school, focusing on the self to build the self to affect the other). Can a woman or a community help define what is best for the micro self or for that 17 year old child. Stop killing babies? Well if that baby is born that baby of a child as my example will probally have a difficult life, perhaps by having that baby she is already nonexistent (that being future of the self). <URL>... "I don't care if this is helping "keep down world population". We might as well be killing in MASSES the way the Nazis did! Is that not the same thing we are already doing?" A.It is keeping down the world population, which is a benefit. The U.S. is about 309 million people by 2050 that figure will jump to 450 million. U.S. people use a ton of resources. Perhaps the U.S. people who are using oil and blood money are debabtly a race of evil people. If the U.S. is a race of evil people, evil as in the definition, is it immoral to stuff the face with French fries and cry I am hungry after eating an hour ago. People in Liberia are starving, there is genocides that have occurred in Africa. By the out of Africa theory, the human race should help Africa. The U.S. stated that they will help those in need such as Libya. Well why doesn't the U.S. prevent Genreral Buttnacked from producing 10 9.11's. B.Is killing immoral, a state in the U.S. cannot weigh has different degrees of the killing and cannot agree on the subject. Homicide, manslaughter, Murder, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, . Justified killing protecting a Texas front lawn. C."Abortion falls under all three definitions. So why are those who preform abortions and those who have abortions not getting punishment? They are just as bad as some of the worst criminals. They are murderers." D. Are they really? A sister having an abortion is by far worst than the criminal who is sticking me up as I type on my computer. Then why has society not outlawed it? Why is it when they do there is such a roar from the community for and against the law? The guy sticking me up who looks to be about 30, I think knows better, at least he is letting me type my words until my clock runs out. E.Abortions will still occur even outlawed and that crime would be life in prison for the most criminal of gully criminalies. Is it a crime to lock Brenda up if she would have an abortion, to seek the best road for her life. What road am I on? Im going to roll a dice and find out, because it is never known. Locking her up when Brenda is capable of being a president, I personally would deem that a crime. Brenda by having the ability to choose when pro life and pro choice is pro choice, might be one helluva president, that is now with Crazy Slice the bandit in the dungeon. Well at least she is not talking to the rats, and Crazy Slice might help her understand her crime, what is the crime, and how her time should be done to benefit or not from the time to do nothing but stare at some nice walls, that get cleaned at "WAKE UP ITS 5 SCUMBAGS WHY ISNT YOUR BED MADE ALREADY". F.Abortion is an emotional experience. To lock away someone because they could not take on the burden of having to care for another child can be a crime. Why is it that some people from a hood when in prison for crack distribution at 14, retain their innocence. Perhaps they were raised to fail and benefit the system of the U.S. that puts a profit on that 14 year olds head. That 14 year old was raised by criminals in an overindustrilized community not knowing what life is. A group that would be formally called GEO Group, a private prison company that is expanding. The more people locked up the more money for the ruling class. <URL>... G.And so I ask you. Why? Is it so necessary? Why do we need to kill off so many? There are so many other options. Adoption is a perfectly fine option. Or, better yet, if you have the ability to, why don't you just raise the child yourself? For the reasons I have stated today, this resolution MUST and WILL stand for the sake of these 42 million children and the others that are yet to come. H.Well your asking me so I can not tell you if it is necessary or not. But will do my best to advocate for the sisters like you. IF more sisters sway the democratic community to the left or right, I will back that up. Locke defined a democracy to be likened to- Person A does not vote for Person As selfish motives, but votes for the common good or Person B and Person C. Locke impacted the founding fathers of the U.S. I can not raise a child and if I could become impregnated I would not have the child, for I have a life to live, and I am not betting on Person Z in caring for my child. My child will be a product of Dad. Not Dad (the other dad because I did not exist, for the childs best interest.) Well why did you have the child in the first place? Well technically I cannot get laid, and I am a 22 virgin who personally is lucky to be alive, and still does not understand the luck that got me to be typing on this computer. Personally I do not want to live as I am living, because my cost is outweighing the reward of living, but to end it in the moment of truth is heavy, so if it does happen I thought about it. For abortion it is thought about, in all types of minds. When I wake up I do recall someone on one special day- X told me "Stop complaining about this, what the F*** is wrong with you, you should not be here." Adoption is good idea, but sometimes adoption is not seen for some people. Remember people who have babies are all different types of people from different backgrounds. Some sisters do not have the luxury of typing on a computer to know what adoption is. I can even spell adoption. I. I thank you for the debate.

K.GKevinGeary

An abortion debate: rendering the clich�, I Accept. It is a fetus! It is not a fetus! Heak what is fetus. "abortion and why it is so wrong and downright evil. I would like to start with a story." The story is that morals have been philosophically debated for the span of human life basically. So what is evil to Y person might not be a common evil to X person. 1.e•vil/ˈēvəl/ Adjective:Profoundly immoral and malevolent. Noun:Profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, esp. when regarded as a supernatural force. That is the dictionary. However what is immoral, how can one justify that with pure certainty? Nothing is known but something immoral can be probable amongst the human race. http://en.wikipedia.org... "You were once a child, were you not? You were once an egg. Then you were fertilized. You grew and became the person you are now. You could be the president, the doctor that saved a little girl's life or a famous banker. But what if your mother had an abortion? Where would you be? That's right. You WOULDN'T be. You'd be dead and nonexistent." What happens if this mother had the child (not an abortion) and that child was not a president of X country (rare), or a famous banker, or a doctor (both difficult to obtain). What would happen if that child became a criminal due environmental forces that can qualify as a mere release from X environment on that person who was rasided in it. What if and if and if and on can become of this person that wouldn't be. How do I know that I am existing? Is it because I touch, feel, breath and can interpret something non existent? For all I know the earth could be purgatory (as defined in the Christian bible) and I am no higher being to tell you what is existing and what is not existing. Earth= purgatory fits the requirements, as long as X human is on planet earth and time keeps ticking, some form of disability or suffering will occur . 1.pur•ga•to•ry/ˈpərgəˌt�rē/ Noun:(in Roman Catholic doctrine) A place or state of suffering inhabited by the souls of sinners who are expiating their sins before going... Adjective:Having the quality of cleansing or purifying. A story: A man who thought he was a man by X meaning found out that X was a lie. In figuring out the lie a state of suffering, this man has become. How do I know I exist in what I think that I exist in? Freakonomics highly controversial thesis= the crime rate dropped due to women having abortions. Generally a person is more likely to turn out to be an average person when conceived, probally not the president. I do not stand fully with this thesis though I will bring it into the debate for its thesis on the this topic. The audience can be the judge. http://www.freakonomics.com... The story is lovely, and personally heart warming to read that people still care about other people. But wait? Is abortion impersonal and just businesslike. Take the bombing of Japan that was businesslike due to increased rationality. For the record it was to save lives. ( No only North American and coalition lives). Now is it to be defined that when a woman has an abortion it is just businesslike and committed to her lacking feeling towards the fetus, (or is it a fetus)?. Unless that woman is a sociopath then no. People who have had an abortion or lost a child through miscarriage are not commiting an abortion like a sociopath. There is a personal experience or connection generally, but the abortion is done with thinking, (hopefully). The Nazis killed businesslike. When on trial "I was just doing my job when I took my gun and pointed it at the inferiors". Again abortion is not businesslike. About Half of the women that have had an abortion are under the age of 25. Take a 17 year old who does have a child in the ghetto. That is a child producing a child. That 17 year olds future that was already not in her favor is officialy not in her favor. (Future being going to school, focusing on the self to build the self to affect the other). Can a woman or a community help define what is best for the micro self or for that 17 year old child. Stop killing babies? Well if that baby is born that baby of a child as my example will probally have a difficult life, perhaps by having that baby she is already nonexistent (that being future of the self). http://www.guttmacher.org... "I don't care if this is helping "keep down world population". We might as well be killing in MASSES the way the Nazis did! Is that not the same thing we are already doing?" A.It is keeping down the world population, which is a benefit. The U.S. is about 309 million people by 2050 that figure will jump to 450 million. U.S. people use a ton of resources. Perhaps the U.S. people who are using oil and blood money are debabtly a race of evil people. If the U.S. is a race of evil people, evil as in the definition, is it immoral to stuff the face with French fries and cry I am hungry after eating an hour ago. People in Liberia are starving, there is genocides that have occurred in Africa. By the out of Africa theory, the human race should help Africa. The U.S. stated that they will help those in need such as Libya. Well why doesn't the U.S. prevent Genreral Buttnacked from producing 10 9.11's. B.Is killing immoral, a state in the U.S. cannot weigh has different degrees of the killing and cannot agree on the subject. Homicide, manslaughter, Murder, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, . Justified killing protecting a Texas front lawn. C."Abortion falls under all three definitions. So why are those who preform abortions and those who have abortions not getting punishment? They are just as bad as some of the worst criminals. They are murderers." D. Are they really? A sister having an abortion is by far worst than the criminal who is sticking me up as I type on my computer. Then why has society not outlawed it? Why is it when they do there is such a roar from the community for and against the law? The guy sticking me up who looks to be about 30, I think knows better, at least he is letting me type my words until my clock runs out. E.Abortions will still occur even outlawed and that crime would be life in prison for the most criminal of gully criminalies. Is it a crime to lock Brenda up if she would have an abortion, to seek the best road for her life. What road am I on? Im going to roll a dice and find out, because it is never known. Locking her up when Brenda is capable of being a president, I personally would deem that a crime. Brenda by having the ability to choose when pro life and pro choice is pro choice, might be one helluva president, that is now with Crazy Slice the bandit in the dungeon. Well at least she is not talking to the rats, and Crazy Slice might help her understand her crime, what is the crime, and how her time should be done to benefit or not from the time to do nothing but stare at some nice walls, that get cleaned at "WAKE UP ITS 5 SCUMBAGS WHY ISNT YOUR BED MADE ALREADY". F.Abortion is an emotional experience. To lock away someone because they could not take on the burden of having to care for another child can be a crime. Why is it that some people from a hood when in prison for crack distribution at 14, retain their innocence. Perhaps they were raised to fail and benefit the system of the U.S. that puts a profit on that 14 year olds head. That 14 year old was raised by criminals in an overindustrilized community not knowing what life is. A group that would be formally called GEO Group, a private prison company that is expanding. The more people locked up the more money for the ruling class. http://www.geogroup.com... G.And so I ask you. Why? Is it so necessary? Why do we need to kill off so many? There are so many other options. Adoption is a perfectly fine option. Or, better yet, if you have the ability to, why don't you just raise the child yourself? For the reasons I have stated today, this resolution MUST and WILL stand for the sake of these 42 million children and the others that are yet to come. H.Well your asking me so I can not tell you if it is necessary or not. But will do my best to advocate for the sisters like you. IF more sisters sway the democratic community to the left or right, I will back that up. Locke defined a democracy to be likened to- Person A does not vote for Person As selfish motives, but votes for the common good or Person B and Person C. Locke impacted the founding fathers of the U.S. I can not raise a child and if I could become impregnated I would not have the child, for I have a life to live, and I am not betting on Person Z in caring for my child. My child will be a product of Dad. Not Dad (the other dad because I did not exist, for the childs best interest.) Well why did you have the child in the first place? Well technically I cannot get laid, and I am a 22 virgin who personally is lucky to be alive, and still does not understand the luck that got me to be typing on this computer. Personally I do not want to live as I am living, because my cost is outweighing the reward of living, but to end it in the moment of truth is heavy, so if it does happen I thought about it. For abortion it is thought about, in all types of minds. When I wake up I do recall someone on one special day- X told me "Stop complaining about this, what the F*** is wrong with you, you should not be here." Adoption is good idea, but sometimes adoption is not seen for some people. Remember people who have babies are all different types of people from different backgrounds. Some sisters do not have the luxury of typing on a computer to know what adoption is. I can even spell adoption. I. I thank you for the debate.

Health

Be-it-Resolved-That-Abortion-Should-Be-Banned/1/

"Are you now stating that morals are now so twisted that murder can be considered "moral" to certain persons and not to others? Do we live in such a world where murder can be justified as "moral" just because the person to be murdered was a "bother" to you? And what if the said person is innocent. This person has not even been born for crying out loud! So yes, I don't care who you are, murder is evil. I don't care if you find it evil, it is still murder. It is the end of another persons life." The clich redundant arguments... I am stating that everyone has different morals. In Texas murder can be justified under the castle law doctrine. Mr. Horn found someone to be a bother, and told the operator that he was going to kill the suspects. Mr. Horn was justified in the killing despite being told to stand down multiple times. For others U.S. soldiers who kill as their job, that is classified as murder. One persons freedom fighter is another persons terrorist. Everyone has different standards. For the world some places murder is commonly justifiable irrationally or rationally. Somalia the cot chewing child soldiers. Liberia. Iraq post Hussein... on and on around to developed nations. The baby being aborted is not Satan, but who has the right to someone elses body? That would be slavery. So in my example of the individual without the silver spoon in the mouth who has an abortion for their safety, should be classified as a murderer, and be charged as one. Despite even if a law was in place. Abortion is going to happen, it will be unsafe. So by locking away all women who have had an abortion, that would be most likely negative in contemporary modern day society. 3:33 Joe Horn first video. "Oh, so now you're stating that all 42 million children that die each year would've become criminals? Really? What happened to all those children before abortion existed?" No I did not state that the 42 million children aborted would be criminals. I stated in the U.S. a lot of the abortions that occur are in places that the people have been drained of their livihood= scary places, where the child could live with the pidgeons where murder inc was born and not be a boxer, but an abandoned child to suffer and die. Having a child is a huge responsibility. "In 2008, 84.3% of all abortions were performed on unmarried women (CDC)." "Women between the ages of 20-24 obtained 33% of all abortions in 2008; women between 25-29 obtained 24% (CDC)." "In 2008, adolescents under 15 years obtained .05% of all abortions, but had the highest abortion ratio, 821 abortions for every 1,000 live births (CDC)." 47% of women who have abortions had at least one previous abortion (AGI). "Black women are more than 4.8 times more likely than non-Hispanic white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.7 times as likely (AGI)." "In 1972 (the year before abortion was federally legalized), a total of 24 women died from causes known to be associated with legal abortions, and 39 died as a result of known illegal abortions (CDC)." <URL>... I did not state 42 million children would be criminals. But many people who have had abortion, are not sociopaths out to spread the blood of the innocent, but do not have a silver spoon in their mouth. If I was to have child and could become impreganated. I would put the child for adoption. But I have the luxury to type on a computer, and know what that is. Now that is U.S. statistics. "Women in certain countries, who have a child are putting themselves at risk. These countries are developing or underdeveloped countries." "Nearly half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe, and nearly all unsafe abortions (98%) occur in developing countries. In the developing world, 56% of all abortions are unsafe, compared with just 6% in the developed world." "In 2008, more than 97% of abortions in Africa were unsafe. Southern Africa is the subregion with the lowest proportion of unsafe abortions (58%) [1]. Close to 90% of women in the subregion live in South Africa, where abortion was liberalized in 1997" <URL>... Well personally I am not going to go to Africa as a honky and tell some lady who is suffering who is riskier her life to have an abortion for her better chance of survival that she is a mass murderer. So A. I did not state that they would be criminals, or presidents. "Okay, thanks. I get it. While we're at it, why don't we throw the ideas of Doctor Suess in here? Because for all we know, we could live on a speck of dust. Yeah, we could. It still doesn't matter whether we exist or whether this Earth is purgatory or not. Murder is still murder whether you are on Jupiter, Mars or this so called Purgatory Earth." Thanks for the compliment for doctor suess. At work I am called Kevin Querry by some older generations, so being called Suess, is complimenting. Well that is just food for thought in my opening regarding what is existent and what is non existent. Murder is not murder for some folks. Murder is murder for some folks. Murder is when a soldier kills the enemy. Murder is when a person kills a baby. Murder is when an ant is killed. Murder is when I choose to be euthanized. What is murder as the common definition, that pushs the literary definition a bit harder for people? People are not robots, or maybe they are, who knows? How can I know anything? How can anyone know anything? That is the road I think I am on. Freakonomics highly controversial thesis= the crime rate dropped due to women having abortions" "Oh, really? Okay. So now take the approximately 520,000 murders we have annually. Now, take the 42,000,000 murders we also have annually due to abortions. The people who preform these abortions (such as the "doctors") are in fact responsible for murder as well. And it gets worse. It's the murder of innocents. I don't care about stealing, murder is the ultimate crime. It's the removal of someone's life." Why is the murder happening so much? In Africa why is a women going to risk her life to have an abortion when she most likely will die? The audience can deliberate that. The freaknomics thesis is again highly controversial, I personally do not agree with it 100 percent, but I just brought it into the debate for the audience, to take their stance. The women who is having an abortion in a developed contry such as the U.S. is not being sadistic. Not spreading the blood of the innocent. To compare the Nazis who rationalized the murder of inferiors due to increased rationality as C Wright Mills would argue, is a bit extreme. A war criminal "I was just doing my job". The U.S. dropping a bomb on Japan, was that justifiable? Perhaps justifiable as the Nazis justified the death of inferiors. The doctor is doing a job as well, but the mother who goes to the doctor who is the patient is not just like "hey I want to kill babies for fun, this is great". It is not impersonal for the mother. If I was doctor who performed the abortion, call me a war criminal, but take a look at the micro level of the mother, before you rationally kill me. I do not think the doctors are a group of sociopaths, but the audience can judge, as humans do. Is it a crime to lock Brenda up if she would have an abortion, to seek the best road for her life." "It's murder of innocents. I don't care if Brenda had a life ahead of her. She could put the child up for adoption if she needs to! And anyways, there are plenty of women out there having test-tube babies because they can't have their own while Brenda just killed off hers. A round of applause for Brenda, ladies and gentlemen, for being a selfish person who can't seem to see the fact that the child was human and that so many people want children and can't have them." Brenda does not know her name. Does she know how to spell adoption like me then? If I got pregnant, I would be outcasted from my household due to my mothers Catholicness, and my own judgemnet if I aborted the child. But I have the luxury of the word adoption. I can see you do to. It is nice. Does Mr. Shakur paint a picture of a sociopath mother? I do not agree with Mr. Shakur on how he decided to take the name of Machiavelli from the 1500's for all his ideals that stem, but I agree with the video for a humanistic U.S. stance on abortion. "Adoption is ALWAYS an option. I don't care if you're giving the child to your neighbor or to the state, adoption is better than murder." No Adoption is not always an option for every single woman on planet earth that is a fallacy to state over and over and over and over and over. Adoption for many is better than abortion, for many people. Clich= abortion debates, important, but the same arguments are made over and over and over and over for pro and con. Hopefully I did not present a clich point of view for the audience or my opponent for the con side. Call me Zeuss if you want. Pro did not resolve that abortion should be banned, but presented a fallacy that all women have this option of adoption. Vote Con. Thanks for the debate.

K.GKevinGeary

"Are you now stating that morals are now so twisted that murder can be considered "moral" to certain persons and not to others? Do we live in such a world where murder can be justified as "moral" just because the person to be murdered was a "bother" to you? And what if the said person is innocent. This person has not even been born for crying out loud! So yes, I don't care who you are, murder is evil. I don't care if you find it evil, it is still murder. It is the end of another persons life." The clich� redundant arguments… I am stating that everyone has different morals. In Texas murder can be justified under the castle law doctrine. Mr. Horn found someone to be a bother, and told the operator that he was going to kill the suspects. Mr. Horn was justified in the killing despite being told to stand down multiple times. For others U.S. soldiers who kill as their job, that is classified as murder. One persons freedom fighter is another persons terrorist. Everyone has different standards. For the world some places murder is commonly justifiable irrationally or rationally. Somalia the cot chewing child soldiers. Liberia. Iraq post Hussein… on and on around to developed nations. The baby being aborted is not Satan, but who has the right to someone elses body? That would be slavery. So in my example of the individual without the silver spoon in the mouth who has an abortion for their safety, should be classified as a murderer, and be charged as one. Despite even if a law was in place. Abortion is going to happen, it will be unsafe. So by locking away all women who have had an abortion, that would be most likely negative in contemporary modern day society. 3:33 Joe Horn first video. "Oh, so now you're stating that all 42 million children that die each year would've become criminals? Really? What happened to all those children before abortion existed?" No I did not state that the 42 million children aborted would be criminals. I stated in the U.S. a lot of the abortions that occur are in places that the people have been drained of their livihood= scary places, where the child could live with the pidgeons where murder inc was born and not be a boxer, but an abandoned child to suffer and die. Having a child is a huge responsibility. "In 2008, 84.3% of all abortions were performed on unmarried women (CDC)." "Women between the ages of 20-24 obtained 33% of all abortions in 2008; women between 25-29 obtained 24% (CDC)." "In 2008, adolescents under 15 years obtained .05% of all abortions, but had the highest abortion ratio, 821 abortions for every 1,000 live births (CDC)." 47% of women who have abortions had at least one previous abortion (AGI). "Black women are more than 4.8 times more likely than non-Hispanic white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.7 times as likely (AGI)." "In 1972 (the year before abortion was federally legalized), a total of 24 women died from causes known to be associated with legal abortions, and 39 died as a result of known illegal abortions (CDC)." http://www.abort73.com... I did not state 42 million children would be criminals. But many people who have had abortion, are not sociopaths out to spread the blood of the innocent, but do not have a silver spoon in their mouth. If I was to have child and could become impreganated. I would put the child for adoption. But I have the luxury to type on a computer, and know what that is. Now that is U.S. statistics. "Women in certain countries, who have a child are putting themselves at risk. These countries are developing or underdeveloped countries." "Nearly half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe, and nearly all unsafe abortions (98%) occur in developing countries. In the developing world, 56% of all abortions are unsafe, compared with just 6% in the developed world." "In 2008, more than 97% of abortions in Africa were unsafe. Southern Africa is the subregion with the lowest proportion of unsafe abortions (58%) [1]. Close to 90% of women in the subregion live in South Africa, where abortion was liberalized in 1997" http://www.guttmacher.org... Well personally I am not going to go to Africa as a honky and tell some lady who is suffering who is riskier her life to have an abortion for her better chance of survival that she is a mass murderer. So A. I did not state that they would be criminals, or presidents. "Okay, thanks. I get it. While we're at it, why don't we throw the ideas of Doctor Suess in here? Because for all we know, we could live on a speck of dust. Yeah, we could. It still doesn't matter whether we exist or whether this Earth is purgatory or not. Murder is still murder whether you are on Jupiter, Mars or this so called Purgatory Earth." Thanks for the compliment for doctor suess. At work I am called Kevin Querry by some older generations, so being called Suess, is complimenting. Well that is just food for thought in my opening regarding what is existent and what is non existent. Murder is not murder for some folks. Murder is murder for some folks. Murder is when a soldier kills the enemy. Murder is when a person kills a baby. Murder is when an ant is killed. Murder is when I choose to be euthanized. What is murder as the common definition, that pushs the literary definition a bit harder for people? People are not robots, or maybe they are, who knows? How can I know anything? How can anyone know anything? That is the road I think I am on. Freakonomics highly controversial thesis= the crime rate dropped due to women having abortions" "Oh, really? Okay. So now take the approximately 520,000 murders we have annually. Now, take the 42,000,000 murders we also have annually due to abortions. The people who preform these abortions (such as the "doctors") are in fact responsible for murder as well. And it gets worse. It's the murder of innocents. I don't care about stealing, murder is the ultimate crime. It's the removal of someone's life." Why is the murder happening so much? In Africa why is a women going to risk her life to have an abortion when she most likely will die? The audience can deliberate that. The freaknomics thesis is again highly controversial, I personally do not agree with it 100 percent, but I just brought it into the debate for the audience, to take their stance. The women who is having an abortion in a developed contry such as the U.S. is not being sadistic. Not spreading the blood of the innocent. To compare the Nazis who rationalized the murder of inferiors due to increased rationality as C Wright Mills would argue, is a bit extreme. A war criminal "I was just doing my job". The U.S. dropping a bomb on Japan, was that justifiable? Perhaps justifiable as the Nazis justified the death of inferiors. The doctor is doing a job as well, but the mother who goes to the doctor who is the patient is not just like "hey I want to kill babies for fun, this is great". It is not impersonal for the mother. If I was doctor who performed the abortion, call me a war criminal, but take a look at the micro level of the mother, before you rationally kill me. I do not think the doctors are a group of sociopaths, but the audience can judge, as humans do. Is it a crime to lock Brenda up if she would have an abortion, to seek the best road for her life." "It's murder of innocents. I don't care if Brenda had a life ahead of her. She could put the child up for adoption if she needs to! And anyways, there are plenty of women out there having test-tube babies because they can't have their own while Brenda just killed off hers. A round of applause for Brenda, ladies and gentlemen, for being a selfish person who can't seem to see the fact that the child was human and that so many people want children and can't have them." Brenda does not know her name. Does she know how to spell adoption like me then? If I got pregnant, I would be outcasted from my household due to my mothers Catholicness, and my own judgemnet if I aborted the child. But I have the luxury of the word adoption. I can see you do to. It is nice. Does Mr. Shakur paint a picture of a sociopath mother? I do not agree with Mr. Shakur on how he decided to take the name of Machiavelli from the 1500's for all his ideals that stem, but I agree with the video for a humanistic U.S. stance on abortion. "Adoption is ALWAYS an option. I don't care if you're giving the child to your neighbor or to the state, adoption is better than murder." No Adoption is not always an option for every single woman on planet earth that is a fallacy to state over and over and over and over and over. Adoption for many is better than abortion, for many people. Clich�= abortion debates, important, but the same arguments are made over and over and over and over for pro and con. Hopefully I did not present a clich� point of view for the audience or my opponent for the con side. Call me Zeuss if you want. Pro did not resolve that abortion should be banned, but presented a fallacy that all women have this option of adoption. Vote Con. Thanks for the debate.

Health

Be-it-Resolved-That-Abortion-Should-Be-Banned/1/

I have a beard and i look sexy. Brian Wilson has a beard and he looks sexy. James Harden has a beard and he looks sexy. Santa has a beard and children love him.

AndIwasLikeBaby

I have a beard and i look sexy. Brian Wilson has a beard and he looks sexy. James Harden has a beard and he looks sexy. Santa has a beard and children love him.

Miscellaneous

Beards-are-sexy/1/

This round i will further solidify my claims by providing examples and explaining why those beards are in fact sexy. example 1: <URL>... Please notice how the beard illuminates her perfect facial features, making her more desirable. example 2: <URL>... The beard accents his boyish look to give him a rugged complexion, creating a very handsome face.

AndIwasLikeBaby

This round i will further solidify my claims by providing examples and explaining why those beards are in fact sexy. example 1: http://shechive.files.wordpress.com... Please notice how the beard illuminates her perfect facial features, making her more desirable. example 2: http://www.cosmopolitan.co.uk... The beard accents his boyish look to give him a rugged complexion, creating a very handsome face.

Miscellaneous

Beards-are-sexy/1/

Sounds fun. I'll accept.

Rain_Was_Here

Sounds fun. I'll accept.

Entertainment

Belief-in-God-is-reasonable./1/

Each user will post 3 jokes per round......... Yo mamma so fat, you could slap her butt and ride the waves. Yo mamma so fat, when she entered a fat contest, she came in first, second, and third. Yo mamma so fat she broke your family tree.

emospongebob527

Each user will post 3 jokes per round......... Yo mamma so fat, you could slap her butt and ride the waves. Yo mamma so fat, when she entered a fat contest, she came in first, second, and third. Yo mamma so fat she broke your family tree.

Entertainment

Best-Yo-Mamma-Joke/1/

Yo mama is so stupid that when she saw the "Under 17 not admitted" sign at a movie theatre, she went home and got 16 friends. Yo mamma so fat not even Dora can explore her. Yo mama is so old that I told her to act her own age, and she died.

emospongebob527

Yo mama is so stupid that when she saw the "Under 17 not admitted" sign at a movie theatre, she went home and got 16 friends. Yo mamma so fat not even Dora can explore her. Yo mama is so old that I told her to act her own age, and she died.

Entertainment

Best-Yo-Mamma-Joke/1/

Yo mama is so fat that when she was diagnosed with a flesh-eating disease, the doctor gave her ten years to live. Yo mama is so stupid that she asked me what yield meant, I said "Slow down" and she said "What... does.... yield... mean?" Yo mama is so stupid that she spent twenty minutes lookin' at an orange juice box because it said "concentrate". Yo mama is so old that her birth certificate says "expired" on it. Yo mama's so fat that she expresses her weight in scientific notation. Yo mama is so skinny that instead of calling her your parent, you call her transparent.

emospongebob527

Yo mama is so fat that when she was diagnosed with a flesh-eating disease, the doctor gave her ten years to live. Yo mama is so stupid that she asked me what yield meant, I said "Slow down" and she said "What... does.... yield... mean?" Yo mama is so stupid that she spent twenty minutes lookin' at an orange juice box because it said "concentrate". Yo mama is so old that her birth certificate says "expired" on it. Yo mama's so fat that she expresses her weight in scientific notation. Yo mama is so skinny that instead of calling her your parent, you call her transparent.

Entertainment

Best-Yo-Mamma-Joke/1/

Yo mama is so stupid that she put a quarter in a parking meter and waited for a gumball to come out. Yo mama is so ugly that when she looks in the mirror, the reflection looks back and shakes its head. Yo mama is so stupid that she tried to commit suicide by jumping out of the basement window.

emospongebob527

Yo mama is so stupid that she put a quarter in a parking meter and waited for a gumball to come out. Yo mama is so ugly that when she looks in the mirror, the reflection looks back and shakes its head. Yo mama is so stupid that she tried to commit suicide by jumping out of the basement window.

Entertainment

Best-Yo-Mamma-Joke/1/

Yo momma so fat she's on both side of the family. Yo mama's a convenient proof that the universe is still expanding exponentially. Yo mama is so old that she walked into an antique store and they kept her.

emospongebob527

Yo momma so fat she's on both side of the family. Yo mama's a convenient proof that the universe is still expanding exponentially. Yo mama is so old that she walked into an antique store and they kept her.

Entertainment

Best-Yo-Mamma-Joke/1/

This is a yo mamma debate. Jokes must not be dirty or offensive. Before and after debate agreement is how funny the jokes are. Conduct is how dirty the jokes are. Spelling and grammar is irrelevant Convincing arguments are irrelevant Reliable sources are how original the jokes are.

jackwilliams141

This is a yo mamma debate. Jokes must not be dirty or offensive. Before and after debate agreement is how funny the jokes are. Conduct is how dirty the jokes are. Spelling and grammar is irrelevant Convincing arguments are irrelevant Reliable sources are how original the jokes are.

Entertainment

Best-Yo-Mamma-Joke/1/

Yo mammas so ugly, when she was born, the doctor looked at her face and her butt and said"Twins." Yo mammas so poor, when I walked in her front door, I tripped over the back fence. Yo mammas so short, she commited suicide by jumping off the sidewalk.

jackwilliams141

Yo mammas so ugly, when she was born, the doctor looked at her face and her butt and said"Twins." Yo mammas so poor, when I walked in her front door, I tripped over the back fence. Yo mammas so short, she commited suicide by jumping off the sidewalk.

Entertainment

Best-Yo-Mamma-Joke/1/

Imma catch up with six here Yo mammas so fat when she went outside in a yellow raincoat, the sun said "I quit." Yo mammas so stupid, she failed a blood test. Yo mammas so poor, she cant even pay attention Yo mammas so fat, when God said"Let there be light." he had to move her over. Yo mammas so stupid, when I asked her to buy a color TV, she asked me which color. Yo mammas so old, she saw herself on history channel.

jackwilliams141

Imma catch up with six here Yo mammas so fat when she went outside in a yellow raincoat, the sun said "I quit." Yo mammas so stupid, she failed a blood test. Yo mammas so poor, she cant even pay attention Yo mammas so fat, when God said"Let there be light." he had to move her over. Yo mammas so stupid, when I asked her to buy a color TV, she asked me which color. Yo mammas so old, she saw herself on history channel.

Entertainment

Best-Yo-Mamma-Joke/1/

You are three jokes ahead now, which isn't fair to me. If I post 6 jokes this round, and you post three, it will be even. Yo mammas so stupid, she bought a spoon to the Super Bowl Yo mammas so old she went out with Jesus in seventh grade. Yo mammas so stupid, she failed a survey. Yo mammas so fat, when she saw a bunch of white people go into a school bus, she said"Catch that twinkie!" Yo mammas so stupid, when somebody said spring was around the corner, she went looking for it. Yo mammas so stupid, when she got locked in a 99 cent store, she starved to death.

jackwilliams141

You are three jokes ahead now, which isn't fair to me. If I post 6 jokes this round, and you post three, it will be even. Yo mammas so stupid, she bought a spoon to the Super Bowl Yo mammas so old she went out with Jesus in seventh grade. Yo mammas so stupid, she failed a survey. Yo mammas so fat, when she saw a bunch of white people go into a school bus, she said"Catch that twinkie!" Yo mammas so stupid, when somebody said spring was around the corner, she went looking for it. Yo mammas so stupid, when she got locked in a 99 cent store, she starved to death.

Entertainment

Best-Yo-Mamma-Joke/1/

Yo mammas so poor, the ducks throw bread for her! Yo mammas so hairy, Jane Goodall set up base camp in her armpit. Yo mammas so ugly, Bob The Builder looked at her and said, "I cant fix that!"

jackwilliams141

Yo mammas so poor, the ducks throw bread for her! Yo mammas so hairy, Jane Goodall set up base camp in her armpit. Yo mammas so ugly, Bob The Builder looked at her and said, "I cant fix that!"

Entertainment

Best-Yo-Mamma-Joke/1/

Because of the length constraints a completely specified argument is impossible, indeed it would take a small book. I will however assert some premises which I hope are self-evident to my opponent. If they are not those topics must be clarified before meaningful debate on the resolution can be had. 1. Legality and morality are inherently linked, if something is moral it should be legal and if is legal it should be moral. The difference between them is the difference between what people think and what is. Morality is that which is right, the law is that which people (a majority of) think is right (as expressed through a democratic government). 2. To make moral claims one must have moral principles, to have moral principles one must have a moral theory. That is one must be aware of the field of philosophy which is ethics and subscribe to some system of thought in that field. 3. Baring a full derivation and support of a moral theory, the relevant theory in the case of bestiality/zoophilia is mutual consent of interacting parties + reasonable avoidance of foreseeable pain or biological damage . For those interested I hold a more constrained view as a universal principle for human society, i.e. volition is the prerequisite of all moral interaction between humans. From these premises I would like to preempt possible strategies of my opponent by implication. #1 means I will not entertain the notion that even if bestiality/zoophilia is moral it is detrimental to society and that constitutes a legal basis for banning it. For those who consider this unfair I ask you to think of all those things demonstrably detrimental to society that the law does allow for on the basis of personal freedom. #2 means that I will not entertain sentiments which associate the term morality with emotional appeals, religious dogma, or mindless. If it is not wrong and you wish to merely point out how it can sometimes be dangerous or play a negative role in someone's life then I'll leave you to it; that is not the resolution I wish to argue. #2 also means that there is no such thing as 'one case at a time' moral judgments, nothing is good or evil in a vacuum but can only be so in the context of a mountain of previously derived facts. Identifying and challenging double standards is a key technique in discovering moral fallacies. If someone can use one standard of moral judgment in case A and another in case B on whim then no moral debate is possible. Therefore if you are someone who thinks comparing zoophilia to homosexuality or to the practice of eating animal meat is a red herring then you should not accept the challenge. #3 means you are willing to debate the matter of consent, I love to debate ethics and no doubt I will on this site but if you do not believe consent is the moral principle involved here you are almost certainly going to turn this into a philosophical debate. Some notes on terms: I use Bestiality/zoohilia, some other people make distinctions between these terms; I mean the practice of interspecies sex specifically involving humans as one of the species. Is zoophilia a sexual orientation? I think so, as far as the word has objective meaning. Bottom line is that some people desire sexual relations with animals. I do not believe the causes of this phenomenon are relevant to the debate nor do I believe there is enough scientific ground work to attempt to answer that question. The homosexual movement has been chugging away for decades and nobody really has a clue what causes it. Consent, and this is important , is defined as " permission for something to happen or agreement to do something" <URL>... . I am fully aware that the idea of informed consent in legal circles is different and much stricter. I do not mean legal/informed consent when I say consent. No one who has a pet, no one who has partook in any animal derived products has ever had informed consent from any animals. It is an impossibility even for humans to give perfect informed consent because it presupposes that both parties are perfectly aware of the consequences of an action. Something that requires the ability to predict the future with 100% certainty. In practice what is meant by informed consent is that one party discloses any information about the interaction which may reasonably be expected to affect their decision. If one party does not have the information it cannot be given . If the other party is incapable of receiving the information it is not considered a requirement. For instance, you bring an unconscious stranger into a hospital, the doctor will still treat them on the presumption that they want to be healed. There is no consent informed or otherwise. Under the constraints set out above the question is: A.) Can an animal give permission or agreement to a member of another species for sexual interaction? There are two possible reasons why the answer to that could be no in all cases: 1. No species is capable of communicating permission, agreement, or anything really to a member of another species implicitly or explicitly. 2. No species is psychologically capable of granting consent to another species We can knock out #2 by the mere fact that this is an issue. Humans must be capable of granting consent to another species if they pursue sexual relations with them. Surely you could say humans are an exception but that would require some explanation. Why would humans be the only species capable of accepting interspecies sex? How could you reconcile this with observed instances of interspecies sex between two non-human species? Even if a creature is incapable of choosing between acting and not acting a certain way it cannot be said that it does not consent. Instead it is more accurate to say that consent is not conceptually applicable to that species. If a wasp stings you, you might think it was merely the sum of stimuli up to that point that caused it. There is not enough of an independent consciousness in a wasp brain to ever decide not to sting you given the same inputs. It is incorrect to say that the wasp accepts or refuses the interaction. It does neither but if you had to choose, it would be acceptance because if it did have the ability to choose obviously its actions would reflect its choice. #1 is a little harder but not by much. Consider the following premise It is impossible for a creature to pursue an action to which it does not consent provided it does not fear retribution for failure to comply. This can be established easily by looking at its negation. In order for it to be possible a creature must be capable of pursuing a course of action which it doesn't agree to. It's a contradiction in terms. If it can agree with anything it must agree with itself. Therefore even in the absence of verbal or body language (which is not true for all animals by any stretch of the imagination) if an animal pursues a course of action where no negative consequences have ever been employed as the result of failing to pursue said course of action, then it has implicitly communicated its intention and its acceptance of the action. If that action is in fact an inter action it must also consent to the interaction . Whether that decision is the result of some faculty of self-determination or is pure instinct is actually irrelevant. If it is pure instinct then the creature never had any freedom to violate. If it has self-determination then it is determining things for itself. In summation if there exists any example of an animal showing through action absent negative conditioning the acceptance of sexual relations with another species the answer to question A is Yes, at least in some cases. I want to wrap up with an example question: Horseback riding. Do you believe a horse can consent to being ridden? How would you know?

ADreamOfLiberty

Because of the length constraints a completely specified argument is impossible, indeed it would take a small book. I will however assert some premises which I hope are self-evident to my opponent. If they are not those topics must be clarified before meaningful debate on the resolution can be had. 1. Legality and morality are inherently linked, if something is moral it should be legal and if is legal it should be moral. The difference between them is the difference between what people think and what is. Morality is that which is right, the law is that which people (a majority of) think is right (as expressed through a democratic government). 2. To make moral claims one must have moral principles, to have moral principles one must have a moral theory. That is one must be aware of the field of philosophy which is ethics and subscribe to some system of thought in that field. 3. Baring a full derivation and support of a moral theory, the relevant theory in the case of bestiality/zoophilia is mutual consent of interacting parties + reasonable avoidance of foreseeable pain or biological damage . For those interested I hold a more constrained view as a universal principle for human society, i.e. volition is the prerequisite of all moral interaction between humans. From these premises I would like to preempt possible strategies of my opponent by implication. #1 means I will not entertain the notion that even if bestiality/zoophilia is moral it is detrimental to society and that constitutes a legal basis for banning it. For those who consider this unfair I ask you to think of all those things demonstrably detrimental to society that the law does allow for on the basis of personal freedom. #2 means that I will not entertain sentiments which associate the term morality with emotional appeals, religious dogma, or mindless. If it is not wrong and you wish to merely point out how it can sometimes be dangerous or play a negative role in someone’s life then I’ll leave you to it; that is not the resolution I wish to argue. #2 also means that there is no such thing as ‘one case at a time’ moral judgments, nothing is good or evil in a vacuum but can only be so in the context of a mountain of previously derived facts. Identifying and challenging double standards is a key technique in discovering moral fallacies. If someone can use one standard of moral judgment in case A and another in case B on whim then no moral debate is possible. Therefore if you are someone who thinks comparing zoophilia to homosexuality or to the practice of eating animal meat is a red herring then you should not accept the challenge. #3 means you are willing to debate the matter of consent, I love to debate ethics and no doubt I will on this site but if you do not believe consent is the moral principle involved here you are almost certainly going to turn this into a philosophical debate. Some notes on terms: I use Bestiality/zoohilia, some other people make distinctions between these terms; I mean the practice of interspecies sex specifically involving humans as one of the species. Is zoophilia a sexual orientation? I think so, as far as the word has objective meaning. Bottom line is that some people desire sexual relations with animals. I do not believe the causes of this phenomenon are relevant to the debate nor do I believe there is enough scientific ground work to attempt to answer that question. The homosexual movement has been chugging away for decades and nobody really has a clue what causes it. Consent, and this is important , is defined as “ permission for something to happen or agreement to do something” http://oxforddictionaries.com... . I am fully aware that the idea of informed consent in legal circles is different and much stricter. I do not mean legal/informed consent when I say consent. No one who has a pet, no one who has partook in any animal derived products has ever had informed consent from any animals. It is an impossibility even for humans to give perfect informed consent because it presupposes that both parties are perfectly aware of the consequences of an action. Something that requires the ability to predict the future with 100% certainty. In practice what is meant by informed consent is that one party discloses any information about the interaction which may reasonably be expected to affect their decision. If one party does not have the information it cannot be given . If the other party is incapable of receiving the information it is not considered a requirement. For instance, you bring an unconscious stranger into a hospital, the doctor will still treat them on the presumption that they want to be healed. There is no consent informed or otherwise. Under the constraints set out above the question is: A.) Can an animal give permission or agreement to a member of another species for sexual interaction? There are two possible reasons why the answer to that could be no in all cases: 1. No species is capable of communicating permission, agreement, or anything really to a member of another species implicitly or explicitly. 2. No species is psychologically capable of granting consent to another species We can knock out #2 by the mere fact that this is an issue. Humans must be capable of granting consent to another species if they pursue sexual relations with them. Surely you could say humans are an exception but that would require some explanation. Why would humans be the only species capable of accepting interspecies sex? How could you reconcile this with observed instances of interspecies sex between two non-human species? Even if a creature is incapable of choosing between acting and not acting a certain way it cannot be said that it does not consent. Instead it is more accurate to say that consent is not conceptually applicable to that species. If a wasp stings you, you might think it was merely the sum of stimuli up to that point that caused it. There is not enough of an independent consciousness in a wasp brain to ever decide not to sting you given the same inputs. It is incorrect to say that the wasp accepts or refuses the interaction. It does neither but if you had to choose, it would be acceptance because if it did have the ability to choose obviously its actions would reflect its choice. #1 is a little harder but not by much. Consider the following premise It is impossible for a creature to pursue an action to which it does not consent provided it does not fear retribution for failure to comply. This can be established easily by looking at its negation. In order for it to be possible a creature must be capable of pursuing a course of action which it doesn’t agree to. It’s a contradiction in terms. If it can agree with anything it must agree with itself. Therefore even in the absence of verbal or body language (which is not true for all animals by any stretch of the imagination) if an animal pursues a course of action where no negative consequences have ever been employed as the result of failing to pursue said course of action, then it has implicitly communicated its intention and its acceptance of the action. If that action is in fact an inter action it must also consent to the interaction . Whether that decision is the result of some faculty of self-determination or is pure instinct is actually irrelevant. If it is pure instinct then the creature never had any freedom to violate. If it has self-determination then it is determining things for itself. In summation if there exists any example of an animal showing through action absent negative conditioning the acceptance of sexual relations with another species the answer to question A is Yes, at least in some cases. I want to wrap up with an example question: Horseback riding. Do you believe a horse can consent to being ridden? How would you know?

Society

Bestiality-Zoophilia-should-be-legal-and-not-inherently-immoral/1/

It is my 'style' to respond to specific points of rebuttal to avoid the confusion of matching responses. It also reduces uncaught misunderstanding. If you believe I have disconnected an integrated statement please simply point out my mistake as opposed to accusing me of nitpicking or strawmen. "First and foremost, I would like to say that the fact that you think bestiality should legal is very disturbing and disgusting." Don't put the cart ahead of the horse, if this is meant to be an argument it is an appeal to emotion fallacy <URL>... If it is just a comment ignore this. "Being a strong believer in Christianity is one of the main reasons why I oppose your argument. It is a sin to have any type of sexual relations with any animal that is not of the human race, but I will keep my religion to myself because not everyone believes in it." Thank you, I could not argue against your religion anyway. "Animals could have outlandish or familiar diseases that can be contracted from having sexual intercourse with them; you could become severely ill or possibly die. You could contract infections such as brucellosis, leptospirosis, or Q fever. You could contract various types of tapeworms and other forms of parasites. So only is it disgusting, it"s dangerous." What you say is factually correct but there are two problems with its relation to the resolution. First off just because something represents a risk does not mean it is immoral. Secondly to ban bestiality/zoophilia on theses grounds would be terribly hypocritical since the biggest transmitter of diseases to humans is other humans, to proceed on the implied standard would mean that all human interaction would be banned as well. Of the four types of contagions you mentioned all four may be passed without sexual contact with animals and all four can be acquired by consuming products like milk or cheese from animals. You also fail to mention a key fact, only infected animals transmit these diseases, the presence of the disease can be detected by a competent vet. "Someone who has coitus with any domesticated animal has the ability to cause an international outbreak of any disease or infection, causing other people to possibly become ill or even die. It could even cause another form of animal extinction depending on the severity of the disease. " I must label this sensationalist, just because someone accidently transmits a disease does not make them the cause of it nor does it mean it will spiral into a 'international outbreak' or mass extinction. Even if there was a particularly dangerous diseases lurking in animals that could only be transmitted sexually I would still not accept that risk of infection is a basis for declaring something immoral. If it was then HIV would make all human sex immoral. "It"s probably even more dangerous when it comes to diseases that don"t even have names yet or are unfamiliar to anyone trying to find a cure for it. This is probably one of the main reasons why it should be and STAY illegal. " My main rebuttal to this is challenging the faulty premise that sex is the only significant pathway for diseases to be transferred between species. Anyone who has pets and touches them (nonsexually), feeds them by hand, or even cleans up after them without full chemical spill gear is coming in biological contact with these animals. I'll admit that sex is much greater degree of contact but when you are talking about high infectious diseases the magnitude of the original infection doesn't matter that much. Your argument is not for sex with animals to be illegal but for contact with animals to be illegal. "Also, bestiality is a form of animal abuse. Animals cannot consent to sex, but they can oppose it" If they truly cannot consent then they must (not just can) oppose it in all cases. Now tell me how could such baseless asymmetry in volition come to exist? Why do they have a choice about other interactions with humans but not this one? Why can a horse choose to let a human ride on them, a dog choose to allow a human to pet him, a parrot choose to imitate human sounds yet they cannot choose something which by common sense and medical data would be considerably more pleasant? I think you would have to believe in a God because the only explanation would be that God put such a specific mental barrier in place. How do you explain the fact that animals will initiate sexual advances towards humans with no prior training? (rare but it does happen and I can provide references if asked) Has the devil taken over their brains? "either way, the human is forcing it upon the animal for their own selfish (and sick) pleasure, and that, sir, is called rape no matter how you put it. " No ma'am (if you are a ma'am) if a human does not force it upon the animal it is not rape, and I have never seen any argument that came close to establishing that the only way to have sex with an animal is force. Indeed if you had some experience of animal psychology (and you may) you would know the basis of most domestication is trust and trade. Why in the world would a zoophile use force on their pet when a milk bone or the act itself is sufficient to acquire cooperation? "For example, if a man had sex with a woman and she did not oppose it in any way, does that mean she enjoyed it? No. Does that mean she wanted it? No. " It does mean she consented. I think many women have found themselves in the above situation and some men too. You give and you take no? I would never claim that animals always enjoy sex with humans, but I have no doubt that they do some of the time; if the human knows what they are doing. However let's consider the case that they don't give a @$@% either way. Why is it wrong now? "It"s the same with the animal. Just because the animal is not using any type of harmful or opposing body language does not mean that the animal wants or enjoys the intercourse or other sexual act. " It is a good indication that they do not object however, and you would be incorrect if you think that neutrality is the best a zoophile can hope for from an animal. There is somewhat of a problem in distinguishing the two for many female animals since their natural participation consists of standing still. However males can clearly show their active pursuit of the interaction. It is illogical to assume that just because it is harder for us to tell that females are any less capable than males of enjoying sex. "Additionally, zoophilia, which is the main cause of bestiality, is defined as a MORBID condition. mor"bid Characterized by or appealing to an abnormal and unhealthy interest in disturbing and unpleasant subjects, esp. death and disease. Normally, when something is wrong with someone, or they have some type of mental disease " or morbid condition " it has the need to be treated for; this defends the fact that bestiality/zoophilia should be ILLEGAL. " Normally I am a fan of argument by definition but in this case the definition is incorrect, and I clearly dealt with this possibility in my opening argument: "I use Bestiality/zoohilia, some other people make distinctions between these terms; I mean the practice of interspecies sex specifically involving humans as one of the species." Homosexuality was once considered a mental disease but suddenly that changed, it wasn't evidence or truth that changed but politics. I humbly submit that there is no objective definition of a mental disease that can be applied to zoophilia. If an unhealthy interest in things like death and disease made someone immoral (or their acts) then we should lock up the goths and the nihilist. In my opinion such a characterization of zoophiles is ridiculously inaccurate, there are of course some nut case zoophiles on the loose who were abused as children and such, but most have a totally normal level of interest in death and disease. I personally can't stand people who worship or delight in death, excuse the possible offense but Christians and other religious people often fall into that category as far as I can tell. Why is it that God had to die to save us from our wretchedness? You need to have a sacrificial mentality for that to make a lick of sense. "It is not humanly proper, or accurate, if you will, to have a sexual attraction to animals. This makes zoophilia and bestiality abnormal" It's not normal, it's clearly not the proper function of sex I'll give you that. However that is how the attraction mechanism works in zoophiles. The question at hand is not whether the desires should exist but whether the acts should be permitted. It is two different questions. If I had the power I would fix all deviant orientations right now. " which ties into it being immoral." Please justify that knot. I place no moral value on normalcy qua normalcy at all. "Lastly, to answer your question about horseback riding, they cannot consent to being ridden - they can oppose it, though." Again that is a contradiction in terms unless they must oppose it. If they do not oppose it then by definition they consent. "But there"s a difference in riding a horse and having intercourse with one. Intercourse can cause pain and discomfort, while horseback riding (depending on the fit of the saddle and how well you ride) does not. An average horse weighs up to 1,300 lbs, they can feel the pressure of the person, but it does not hurt them." You might have a point here if you did not undermine both of the crucial scopes. Intercourse can cause discomfort but does not typically do so, especially with some research and care. Riding can cause discomfort but does not typically do so, especially with some research and care. I do not see the difference in regards to pain. "Also, having sex with a horse can kill a person " it happened." So has riding a horse. Have you wondered at how a stallion managed to kill someone with their penis while in the process of opposing sex?

ADreamOfLiberty

It is my 'style' to respond to specific points of rebuttal to avoid the confusion of matching responses. It also reduces uncaught misunderstanding. If you believe I have disconnected an integrated statement please simply point out my mistake as opposed to accusing me of nitpicking or strawmen. "First and foremost, I would like to say that the fact that you think bestiality should legal is very disturbing and disgusting." Don't put the cart ahead of the horse, if this is meant to be an argument it is an appeal to emotion fallacy http://www.nizkor.org... If it is just a comment ignore this. "Being a strong believer in Christianity is one of the main reasons why I oppose your argument. It is a sin to have any type of sexual relations with any animal that is not of the human race, but I will keep my religion to myself because not everyone believes in it." Thank you, I could not argue against your religion anyway. "Animals could have outlandish or familiar diseases that can be contracted from having sexual intercourse with them; you could become severely ill or possibly die. You could contract infections such as brucellosis, leptospirosis, or Q fever. You could contract various types of tapeworms and other forms of parasites. So only is it disgusting, it"s dangerous." What you say is factually correct but there are two problems with its relation to the resolution. First off just because something represents a risk does not mean it is immoral. Secondly to ban bestiality/zoophilia on theses grounds would be terribly hypocritical since the biggest transmitter of diseases to humans is other humans, to proceed on the implied standard would mean that all human interaction would be banned as well. Of the four types of contagions you mentioned all four may be passed without sexual contact with animals and all four can be acquired by consuming products like milk or cheese from animals. You also fail to mention a key fact, only infected animals transmit these diseases, the presence of the disease can be detected by a competent vet. "Someone who has coitus with any domesticated animal has the ability to cause an international outbreak of any disease or infection, causing other people to possibly become ill or even die. It could even cause another form of animal extinction depending on the severity of the disease. " I must label this sensationalist, just because someone accidently transmits a disease does not make them the cause of it nor does it mean it will spiral into a 'international outbreak' or mass extinction. Even if there was a particularly dangerous diseases lurking in animals that could only be transmitted sexually I would still not accept that risk of infection is a basis for declaring something immoral. If it was then HIV would make all human sex immoral. "It"s probably even more dangerous when it comes to diseases that don"t even have names yet or are unfamiliar to anyone trying to find a cure for it. This is probably one of the main reasons why it should be and STAY illegal. " My main rebuttal to this is challenging the faulty premise that sex is the only significant pathway for diseases to be transferred between species. Anyone who has pets and touches them (nonsexually), feeds them by hand, or even cleans up after them without full chemical spill gear is coming in biological contact with these animals. I'll admit that sex is much greater degree of contact but when you are talking about high infectious diseases the magnitude of the original infection doesn't matter that much. Your argument is not for sex with animals to be illegal but for contact with animals to be illegal. "Also, bestiality is a form of animal abuse. Animals cannot consent to sex, but they can oppose it" If they truly cannot consent then they must (not just can) oppose it in all cases. Now tell me how could such baseless asymmetry in volition come to exist? Why do they have a choice about other interactions with humans but not this one? Why can a horse choose to let a human ride on them, a dog choose to allow a human to pet him, a parrot choose to imitate human sounds yet they cannot choose something which by common sense and medical data would be considerably more pleasant? I think you would have to believe in a God because the only explanation would be that God put such a specific mental barrier in place. How do you explain the fact that animals will initiate sexual advances towards humans with no prior training? (rare but it does happen and I can provide references if asked) Has the devil taken over their brains? "either way, the human is forcing it upon the animal for their own selfish (and sick) pleasure, and that, sir, is called rape no matter how you put it. " No ma'am (if you are a ma'am) if a human does not force it upon the animal it is not rape, and I have never seen any argument that came close to establishing that the only way to have sex with an animal is force. Indeed if you had some experience of animal psychology (and you may) you would know the basis of most domestication is trust and trade. Why in the world would a zoophile use force on their pet when a milk bone or the act itself is sufficient to acquire cooperation? "For example, if a man had sex with a woman and she did not oppose it in any way, does that mean she enjoyed it? No. Does that mean she wanted it? No. " It does mean she consented. I think many women have found themselves in the above situation and some men too. You give and you take no? I would never claim that animals always enjoy sex with humans, but I have no doubt that they do some of the time; if the human knows what they are doing. However let’s consider the case that they don't give a @$@% either way. Why is it wrong now? "It"s the same with the animal. Just because the animal is not using any type of harmful or opposing body language does not mean that the animal wants or enjoys the intercourse or other sexual act. " It is a good indication that they do not object however, and you would be incorrect if you think that neutrality is the best a zoophile can hope for from an animal. There is somewhat of a problem in distinguishing the two for many female animals since their natural participation consists of standing still. However males can clearly show their active pursuit of the interaction. It is illogical to assume that just because it is harder for us to tell that females are any less capable than males of enjoying sex. "Additionally, zoophilia, which is the main cause of bestiality, is defined as a MORBID condition. mor"bid Characterized by or appealing to an abnormal and unhealthy interest in disturbing and unpleasant subjects, esp. death and disease. Normally, when something is wrong with someone, or they have some type of mental disease " or morbid condition " it has the need to be treated for; this defends the fact that bestiality/zoophilia should be ILLEGAL. " Normally I am a fan of argument by definition but in this case the definition is incorrect, and I clearly dealt with this possibility in my opening argument: "I use Bestiality/zoohilia, some other people make distinctions between these terms; I mean the practice of interspecies sex specifically involving humans as one of the species." Homosexuality was once considered a mental disease but suddenly that changed, it wasn't evidence or truth that changed but politics. I humbly submit that there is no objective definition of a mental disease that can be applied to zoophilia. If an unhealthy interest in things like death and disease made someone immoral (or their acts) then we should lock up the goths and the nihilist. In my opinion such a characterization of zoophiles is ridiculously inaccurate, there are of course some nut case zoophiles on the loose who were abused as children and such, but most have a totally normal level of interest in death and disease. I personally can't stand people who worship or delight in death, excuse the possible offense but Christians and other religious people often fall into that category as far as I can tell. Why is it that God had to die to save us from our wretchedness? You need to have a sacrificial mentality for that to make a lick of sense. "It is not humanly proper, or accurate, if you will, to have a sexual attraction to animals. This makes zoophilia and bestiality abnormal" It's not normal, it's clearly not the proper function of sex I'll give you that. However that is how the attraction mechanism works in zoophiles. The question at hand is not whether the desires should exist but whether the acts should be permitted. It is two different questions. If I had the power I would fix all deviant orientations right now. " which ties into it being immoral." Please justify that knot. I place no moral value on normalcy qua normalcy at all. "Lastly, to answer your question about horseback riding, they cannot consent to being ridden - they can oppose it, though." Again that is a contradiction in terms unless they must oppose it. If they do not oppose it then by definition they consent. "But there"s a difference in riding a horse and having intercourse with one. Intercourse can cause pain and discomfort, while horseback riding (depending on the fit of the saddle and how well you ride) does not. An average horse weighs up to 1,300 lbs, they can feel the pressure of the person, but it does not hurt them." You might have a point here if you did not undermine both of the crucial scopes. Intercourse can cause discomfort but does not typically do so, especially with some research and care. Riding can cause discomfort but does not typically do so, especially with some research and care. I do not see the difference in regards to pain. "Also, having sex with a horse can kill a person " it happened." So has riding a horse. Have you wondered at how a stallion managed to kill someone with their penis while in the process of opposing sex?

Society

Bestiality-Zoophilia-should-be-legal-and-not-inherently-immoral/1/

My opponent apparently doesn't even have an account anymore... eh so I guess THIS DEBATE IS OVER! [boxing narrator voice]

ADreamOfLiberty

My opponent apparently doesn't even have an account anymore... eh so I guess THIS DEBATE IS OVER! [boxing narrator voice]

Society

Bestiality-Zoophilia-should-be-legal-and-not-inherently-immoral/1/

null

ADreamOfLiberty

null

Society

Bestiality-Zoophilia-should-be-legal-and-not-inherently-immoral/1/

I accept! (And though bestiality is legal in Texas, it's certainly not socially acceptable. However, other states criminilize bestiality to protect the rights of animals. Of course, there are a string of reasons why humans shouldn't go looking to animals for sexual pleasure. . . . )

Juan_Pablo

I accept! (And though bestiality is legal in Texas, it's certainly not socially acceptable. However, other states criminilize bestiality to protect the rights of animals. Of course, there are a string of reasons why humans shouldn't go looking to animals for sexual pleasure. . . . )

Entertainment

Bestiality-should-be-illegal-in-all-cases-in-the-United-States/5/

In Round 2 my opponent makes claims that are blatantly false, which undermine her second main argument of her two main arguments. Her second main argument is this: " Even if animals cannot consent, sex with animals is morally permissible " She defends this position with these five general assertions: 1) " R ationality is a necessary pre-requisite for a being to have moral rights because to be morally considerable, a being must have (1) knowledge of its moral rights, and (2) the freedom to exercise those rights. " (She then goes on to argue that this means animals do not have rights, which is of course a falsehood. They very much do in virtually all nations that have now been industrialized for several decades and their rights are presently expanding [1].) 2) " A nimals cannot be moral agents because moral obligations are reciprocal. If you have a moral obligation not to kill me, then I must have a moral obligation not to kill you. " (Okay. But animals still have rights because numerous human societies have enacted Animals Rights , which protect animals from gratuitous human harm and abuse. Since humans are moral agents, their moral compass necessarily extends to their interaction not just with each other, but with the Earth, with the animals, and with resources. Animal Rights are there to place restrictions on what humans can do to animals and to their habitats! The concept of Animal Rights does not require animals to enunciate and defend their rights to humans. In fact, numerous federal laws within the United States and a multitude of International laws make it a crime to treat animals in certain abusive ways; the penalties range from a simple fine to incarceration [2].) 3) " S ocial contract theory...posits that humans give up certain rights when they become part of a society....However, non non-humans are not part of the social contract...because they are not part of 'society' [since animals are property, not members of society] and in part because they do not themselves agree to be bound by the social contract (i.e., they never 'signed' the contract). " (Here my opponent fails to fully understand what social contract theory is. In the United States and virtually all other democratic countries citizens are obligated to follow public laws not because they "sign onto them", as she frivolously asserts, but because they are bound to them by either being citizens or residents of the said country. In the United States [as most other countries] people are required to follow laws no matter their opinion of them or their citizenship status. No signature required. And when a law is broken, a penalty is almost always imposed. This legal principle is called "The Rule of Law" and its a cardinal foundation for the U.S. Constitution and other legal frameworks around the globe [3]. Humans are obligated to follow Animal Welfare Laws or they risk being prosecuted for breaking them.) 4) " A nimals are not morally considerable beings, and therefore humans can do anything they want to animals ." (No; not true. The Animal Welfare Act of 1966 restricts how animals can be treated by dealers, in exhibitions, during transport and for scientific research. The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1978 requires the proper treatment and handling of all animals to be slaughtered in USDA slaughter plants plants. Numerous U.S. federal laws exist to protect wildlife, endangered, domesticated, and farm animals from gratuitous harm, mistreatment and neglect; this doesn't include the hundreds of states laws throughout the country that protect pets, wildlife, and endangered species from human neglect and harm, nor various international laws that exist, which the US conforms to, to protect animals and provide them with rights [2].) 5) " A nimals rape each other all the time and are never held to account . . . humans facilitate animal rape all the time. When humans breed animals, they often lock the female animal in a cage with an extremely enthusiastic male, and she is forced to copulate with him. " (Yes. Many animals do rape within their own species. This is a theme found within nature. However, even this forced copulation is intended for the purposes of reproduction and generating progeny. And it's commited within a species capable of producing viable offspring. The sexual organs involved were meant to compliment each other. However, surveys consistently indicate that most human practitioners of bestiality are males, with sexual organs not intended and designed for sex with non-human animals [4]. As a consequence, harm to the animal [and the human] is of great public concern. Besides physical and emotional harm inflicted to the animal [something which sessions of bestiality have a high prevalance for [5]], there is also occassional harm inflicted to humans, which includes being impaled, trappled, and bitten by the animal, and disease transmission is also very common; bestiality is therefore regarded as a high risk activity [6].) My opponents primary argument in ROUND 2 is that animals can (though not always) consent to sex, and therefore this justifies bestiality - sex between human and animal. What she completely fails to mention is that most sessions of bestiality are initiated by the human, often a male, without regard for the safety and wellbeing of the poor defenseless animal. In the legal sphere this is called "Sexual Assult" on animal [7], and it is presently illegal in 37 U.S. States; the number of states criminalizing bestiality has increased over the last decade [6]. Now CON is undermining her argument by suggesting that because some animals do consent to sex with humans this makes bestiality okay. But of course it does not, because most cases of bestiality are initiated by the human against the will of the animal; this is essentially rape. Yes, many animals do rape their own kind, but this is natural and human laws cannot be extended to interactions between a pair of non-human animals. However, human sexual organs are not intended and designed for non-human animal sexual interaction. Sex between human and animal is simply ill-fated to be gratuitously harmful and emotionally disturbing to the animal. As I explained earlier in this ROUND, my opponent is wrong to assert that humans are free to do whatever they wish to animals. We cannot. As of March 14, 2014, ALL 50 U.S. STATES have now made it a felony to inflict egregious abuse on an animal [8], which in many cases is also interpretted to mean sexual assault. That means that gratuitous, malicious abuse against animals is punishable with more than a year of incarceration in all states. Animal Welfare Laws and Animal Rights legislation is forcing humans to respect animals and treat them with dignitiy even though they cannot personally enunciate their rights and defend them. And even in cases where animals do initiate sex with a human, they do so out of ignorance, not realizing what to fully expect or the possible longterm sexual abuse that might be inflicted on them by a more powerful human. This is why all bestiality should be outlawed. If animals do "consent" to sex with a human on occassion, it's only done in playful ignorance . . . but the damage that can follow is real. Animals have been killed and injured because of sex with humans. Horses have died from being impaled by the limbs of sexually-aggressive men [9]. Goats, horses, dogs, sheep, chickens, cats, deer, cattle have endured the sexual advances of humans, the vast majority unwillingly, and have been injured by these sessions [10]. For specific case histories, see here: <URL>... These relations are fundamentally unequal. If the human wants to have sex with an animal, the animal is more often than not helpless to prevent it. Bestiality is necessarily an abusive, suppressive kind of sex. If the more powerful, more smarter human wants sex, what can the animal do to stop him? The defenseless animal is at the mercy of sexually aggressive human. This is not a partnership of equals. And these partnerships cannot be realistically and socially consummated because animals don't understand the notion of human rights. So if an animal bites a human, trapples him, impales him or otherwise injures him what can the human do? Take the animal to court? Beastiality is simply something that society cannot approve of, because of the incredible complications involved. Therefore, with respect to law, it's best that human and animal go there separate ways sexually, and find amourous satisfaction within their own species. [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [ 4] <URL>... [ 5] <URL>... [ 6] <URL>... [ 7] <URL>... [8] <URL>... [ 9] <URL>... [ 10] <URL>...

Juan_Pablo

In Round 2 my opponent makes claims that are blatantly false, which undermine her second main argument of her two main arguments. Her second main argument is this: " Even if animals cannot consent, sex with animals is morally permissible " She defends this position with these five general assertions: 1) " R ationality is a necessary pre-requisite for a being to have moral rights because to be morally considerable, a being must have (1) knowledge of its moral rights, and (2) the freedom to exercise those rights. " (She then goes on to argue that this means animals do not have rights, which is of course a falsehood. They very much do in virtually all nations that have now been industrialized for several decades and their rights are presently expanding [1].) 2) " A nimals cannot be moral agents because moral obligations are reciprocal. If you have a moral obligation not to kill me, then I must have a moral obligation not to kill you. " (Okay. But animals still have rights because numerous human societies have enacted Animals Rights , which protect animals from gratuitous human harm and abuse. Since humans are moral agents, their moral compass necessarily extends to their interaction not just with each other, but with the Earth, with the animals, and with resources. Animal Rights are there to place restrictions on what humans can do to animals and to their habitats! The concept of Animal Rights does not require animals to enunciate and defend their rights to humans. In fact, numerous federal laws within the United States and a multitude of International laws make it a crime to treat animals in certain abusive ways; the penalties range from a simple fine to incarceration [2].) 3) " S ocial contract theory...posits that humans give up certain rights when they become part of a society....However, non non-humans are not part of the social contract...because they are not part of 'society' [since animals are property, not members of society] and in part because they do not themselves agree to be bound by the social contract (i.e., they never 'signed' the contract). " (Here my opponent fails to fully understand what social contract theory is. In the United States and virtually all other democratic countries citizens are obligated to follow public laws not because they "sign onto them", as she frivolously asserts, but because they are bound to them by either being citizens or residents of the said country. In the United States [as most other countries] people are required to follow laws no matter their opinion of them or their citizenship status. No signature required. And when a law is broken, a penalty is almost always imposed. This legal principle is called "The Rule of Law" and its a cardinal foundation for the U.S. Constitution and other legal frameworks around the globe [3]. Humans are obligated to follow Animal Welfare Laws or they risk being prosecuted for breaking them.) 4) " A nimals are not morally considerable beings, and therefore humans can do anything they want to animals ." (No; not true. The Animal Welfare Act of 1966 restricts how animals can be treated by dealers, in exhibitions, during transport and for scientific research. The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1978 requires the proper treatment and handling of all animals to be slaughtered in USDA slaughter plants plants. Numerous U.S. federal laws exist to protect wildlife, endangered, domesticated, and farm animals from gratuitous harm, mistreatment and neglect; this doesn't include the hundreds of states laws throughout the country that protect pets, wildlife, and endangered species from human neglect and harm, nor various international laws that exist, which the US conforms to, to protect animals and provide them with rights [2].) 5) " A nimals rape each other all the time and are never held to account . . . humans facilitate animal rape all the time. When humans breed animals, they often lock the female animal in a cage with an extremely enthusiastic male, and she is forced to copulate with him. " (Yes. Many animals do rape within their own species. This is a theme found within nature. However, even this forced copulation is intended for the purposes of reproduction and generating progeny. And it's commited within a species capable of producing viable offspring. The sexual organs involved were meant to compliment each other. However, surveys consistently indicate that most human practitioners of bestiality are males, with sexual organs not intended and designed for sex with non-human animals [4]. As a consequence, harm to the animal [and the human] is of great public concern. Besides physical and emotional harm inflicted to the animal [something which sessions of bestiality have a high prevalance for [5]], there is also occassional harm inflicted to humans, which includes being impaled, trappled, and bitten by the animal, and disease transmission is also very common; bestiality is therefore regarded as a high risk activity [6].) My opponents primary argument in ROUND 2 is that animals can (though not always) consent to sex, and therefore this justifies bestiality - sex between human and animal. What she completely fails to mention is that most sessions of bestiality are initiated by the human, often a male, without regard for the safety and wellbeing of the poor defenseless animal. In the legal sphere this is called "Sexual Assult" on animal [7], and it is presently illegal in 37 U.S. States; the number of states criminalizing bestiality has increased over the last decade [6]. Now CON is undermining her argument by suggesting that because some animals do consent to sex with humans this makes bestiality okay. But of course it does not, because most cases of bestiality are initiated by the human against the will of the animal; this is essentially rape. Yes, many animals do rape their own kind, but this is natural and human laws cannot be extended to interactions between a pair of non-human animals. However, human sexual organs are not intended and designed for non-human animal sexual interaction. Sex between human and animal is simply ill-fated to be gratuitously harmful and emotionally disturbing to the animal. As I explained earlier in this ROUND, my opponent is wrong to assert that humans are free to do whatever they wish to animals. We cannot. As of March 14, 2014, ALL 50 U.S. STATES have now made it a felony to inflict egregious abuse on an animal [8], which in many cases is also interpretted to mean sexual assault. That means that gratuitous, malicious abuse against animals is punishable with more than a year of incarceration in all states. Animal Welfare Laws and Animal Rights legislation is forcing humans to respect animals and treat them with dignitiy even though they cannot personally enunciate their rights and defend them. And even in cases where animals do initiate sex with a human, they do so out of ignorance, not realizing what to fully expect or the possible longterm sexual abuse that might be inflicted on them by a more powerful human. This is why all bestiality should be outlawed. If animals do "consent" to sex with a human on occassion, it's only done in playful ignorance . . . but the damage that can follow is real. Animals have been killed and injured because of sex with humans. Horses have died from being impaled by the limbs of sexually-aggressive men [9]. Goats, horses, dogs, sheep, chickens, cats, deer, cattle have endured the sexual advances of humans, the vast majority unwillingly, and have been injured by these sessions [10]. For specific case histories, see here: http://www.pet-abuse.com... These relations are fundamentally unequal. If the human wants to have sex with an animal, the animal is more often than not helpless to prevent it. Bestiality is necessarily an abusive, suppressive kind of sex. If the more powerful, more smarter human wants sex, what can the animal do to stop him? The defenseless animal is at the mercy of sexually aggressive human. This is not a partnership of equals. And these partnerships cannot be realistically and socially consummated because animals don't understand the notion of human rights. So if an animal bites a human, trapples him, impales him or otherwise injures him what can the human do? Take the animal to court? Beastiality is simply something that society cannot approve of, because of the incredible complications involved. Therefore, with respect to law, it's best that human and animal go there separate ways sexually, and find amourous satisfaction within their own species. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://awic.nal.usda.gov... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com... [ 4] http://www.zoophilia.net... [ 5] http://www.animalsandsociety.org... [ 6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [ 7] http://aldf.org... [8] http://aldf.org... [ 9] http://www.homosexinfo.org... [ 10] http://www.pet-abuse.com...

Entertainment

Bestiality-should-be-illegal-in-all-cases-in-the-United-States/5/

In her ROUND 3 response, my opponent makes the following statement, in defense of moral nihilism - the view that nothing is inherently right or wrong, that anything can be and is fundamentally permissable in the world of natural/cosmic interactions [1]: " My opponent just makes a bare assertion that we have a moral obligation to safeguard animals. I could just as easily assert that Moral Nihilism is true. The theory of Expressivism states that when people claim something is 'immoral,' they are just stating their personal feelings on the subject. Their views have no objective basis and therefore have no power to bind the actions of others. My opponent fails to offer any ethical system to disprove Nihilism, which is the default position if no ethical system is offered. " But if she's going to argue this, then why have laws at all? Here again she doesn't seem to grasp the very philosophy she's using to defend her own position. Moral nihilism asserts that everything is fundamentally permitted in the world, and this implies that humans don't have rights, that rules can be broken whenever and for whatever reasons. Why even bother establishing a society consisting of laws and order? Moral nihilism is the position that everything is permissible, simply because it can happen...it is a position that defends every possible reckless entropy within human society and interaction, since there is no objective basis for anything, which it asserts [1]. She's incorrectly applying moral nihilism, by saying that humans have rights but animals do not. Moral nihilism asserts that neither human nor animal have an objective foundation for morality and rights! Anything and everything goes; to put it bluntly, she had better be prepared to extend the implications of moral nihilism to her own rights just as much as she's applying them to animal rights (which she claims have "no objective basis" [2]). Well, human rights are not objective either. They are exclusively subjective. But the social theorist John Stuart Mill solved this problem for us. My opponent cites him as a source in ROUND 3 , but once again it doesn't appear she fully comprehends what's being said. Here I'm going to repost what my opponent stated in her quote above: " The theory of Expressivism states that when people claim something is 'immoral,' they are just stating their personal feelings on the subject. Their views have no objective basis and therefore have no power to bind the actions of others. " But for John Stuart Mill emotions were everything; they were the bedrock of morality and of social order in the world. John Stuart Mill was a founder and contributer of Utilitarianism , which is summed up in the creed of the Greatest-Happiness Principle : "Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the...[prohibition] of pleasure" [3]. To John Stuart Mill and in the philosophy of Utilitarianism moral rightness is decided, not by an objective quality, which Mill believed was impossible to establish on this topic, but by the feelings conjured by an action. If an action inflicted more pain upon a person or a group than it did pleasure, it was wrong; if an action provided more happiness to an individual or a group than it did pain, it was right [3]. Moral rightness then is decided by the Greatest-Happiness Principle , and this is the foundation stone of modern Utilitarianism. Human Rights exist because they provide people interacting within a community with safeguards and legal protections from harmful, unwanted abuse. Public laws exist because they impose a structured order necessary to optimize the quality of life in a community - but also to eliminate or reduce gratuitous pain and harm. John Stuart Mill elucidated that it's our wants, our feelings, our will to optimize the quality of life and increase social happiness that drives us to establish rights and to enact laws. What we want collectively and what we feel with respect to actions determines morality [4]. Using this justification he went on to denounce slavery and endorse complete human rights for the slave and he also championed women's issues and womans rights while he lived, which was rare in his time [5]. My opponent will also be shocked to learn, since she cites him, that John Stuart Mill was also a fierce advocate of animal rights ! In his article In Defense of Bentham (Jeremy Bentham was a popular philosopher of animal rights), Mill argues that the Greatest-Happiness Principle applies to all interactions involving a human and another living thing, human or non-human [6]. Gratuitous ( unnecessary ) pain is immoral because it simply isn't necessary and it creates more distress on an animal than the situation calls for, even in the act of killing an animal for human consumption. In other words, pain is real for the animal and because it shows an aversion to pain, the distress should be reduced in it as much as possible, if not totally eliminated. The act of inflicting gratuitous pain on the animal Mill calls "animal cruelty" [6]. In ROUND 2 my opponent wrongly insisted that humans can do anything they want to animals. I showed that she was in fact wrong. In all 50 U.S. States it is now a felony to egregiously abuse a non-human animal [7]. There are hundreds of laws that restrict human behavior around animals - inside of research laboratories, on farms and slaughter houses, in the wild and inside the home. Laws protecting animals from gratuitous harm, neglect, poaching carry penalties that range from a fine to incarceration. The work of philosophers like Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Peter Singer and literally thousands of concerned Animal Rights supporters have helped to pass federal and state legislation to protect animals from brutal, unnecessary violence and harm. Bestiality, or "sexual assault" on an animal in the legal sphere, is just another unnecessary abuse animals can go without when they interact with humans. As I explained in ROUND 2 , most incidences of bestiality are initiated by the human, for the purpose of human pleasure, without regard for the animal, which can be anything from a small bird to a grazing cow. These relationships are fundamentally unequal, however, because the human always has the advantage, due to his intelligence, his power, and because he speaks the same language of the federal and state courts; the animal does not. There is no confident way to determine that an animal disapproved of being sexually violated once it has happened. For this reason beastiality, which is currently outlawed in 37 states, should be outlawed in all 50 U.S. States! Because an animal cannot of its own freewill file charges against someone who has sexually assaulted it, the country - each state - has a responsibility to protect animals from this degenerate and twisted abuse. No man or woman should have the right to assert him/herself on a less intelligent animal in search of sexual gratification; we do not permit this between adults and children - pedophilia - because we recognize that a child, or a teenager, is less intelligent, less mature, less powerful than a human adult. Even if a child does consent, the human adult will still be prosecuted for taking advantage of the less intelligent, less mature, less cognitively-inclined child. The age of consent in all 50 U.S. States is between 16 and 18 [8] - several years above the age of puberty, when teenagers are already experiencing strong sexual urges. Why is this? Because in the United States consent requires an assumed level of intelligence and the capacity for good judgement; children simply aren't considered smart enough or rational enough to have sex with an adult and it's done to protect them from physical and emotional abuse. Similarly, in the case of beastiality, the animal doesn't have the capacity to say "no" and communicate with certain words that it disaproves of the sex act during or after the fact. Therefore, to protect the animal, 37 U.S. States have passed laws outlawing beastiality completely. It's my contention that all U.S. States should criminalize beastility, to protect animals from sexual opportunists and habitual practitioners of beastility. Animals should not be used as tools to satisfy perverse human fetishes. There are so many other, wonderful, less detrimental ways (to both the animal and the human) for the human to find sexual happiness. And they often involve consensual sex with another human adult. Lastly, no animal on Earth is nearly as intelligent as a human being. For the last 40 years, biologists have been measuring relative animal intelligence using a parameter called the encephalization quotient (or EQ ) [9]. The encephalization quotient is used by biologists to estimate the rough intelligence of an animal. Somewhat complicated to obtain, it considers an animal's brain and body mass and allometric effects. The rough intelligence of the animal is computed from the ratio between its actual brain mass and the predicted brain mass it would have if it fit brain-to-body mass trends in nature. The EQ has been found to coincide very well with observed complexity in animal behavior; it is also superior to the simple brain-to-body mass ratio scientists relied on over 50 years ago [9]. The chart below shows how humans compare to other species. (Higher values reflect greater intelligence.) [1] <URL>... [ 2] "Beastility should be illegal in all cases in the United States." Bluesteel, ROUND 3. [3] <URL>... (book) [ 4] Heilbroner, Robert L. The Worldly Philosophers. 1966. P. 108. [5] <URL>... [ 6] <URL>... [ 7] <URL>... [ 8] <URL>... [ 9] <URL>...

Juan_Pablo

In her ROUND 3 response, my opponent makes the following statement, in defense of moral nihilism - the view that nothing is inherently right or wrong, that anything can be and is fundamentally permissable in the world of natural/cosmic interactions [1]: " My opponent just makes a bare assertion that we have a moral obligation to safeguard animals. I could just as easily assert that Moral Nihilism is true. The theory of Expressivism states that when people claim something is 'immoral,' they are just stating their personal feelings on the subject. Their views have no objective basis and therefore have no power to bind the actions of others. My opponent fails to offer any ethical system to disprove Nihilism, which is the default position if no ethical system is offered. " But if she's going to argue this, then why have laws at all? Here again she doesn't seem to grasp the very philosophy she's using to defend her own position. Moral nihilism asserts that everything is fundamentally permitted in the world, and this implies that humans don't have rights, that rules can be broken whenever and for whatever reasons. Why even bother establishing a society consisting of laws and order? Moral nihilism is the position that everything is permissible, simply because it can happen...it is a position that defends every possible reckless entropy within human society and interaction, since there is no objective basis for anything, which it asserts [1]. She's incorrectly applying moral nihilism, by saying that humans have rights but animals do not. Moral nihilism asserts that neither human nor animal have an objective foundation for morality and rights! Anything and everything goes; to put it bluntly, she had better be prepared to extend the implications of moral nihilism to her own rights just as much as she's applying them to animal rights (which she claims have "no objective basis" [2]). Well, human rights are not objective either. They are exclusively subjective. But the social theorist John Stuart Mill solved this problem for us. My opponent cites him as a source in ROUND 3 , but once again it doesn't appear she fully comprehends what's being said. Here I'm going to repost what my opponent stated in her quote above: " The theory of Expressivism states that when people claim something is 'immoral,' they are just stating their personal feelings on the subject. Their views have no objective basis and therefore have no power to bind the actions of others. " But for John Stuart Mill emotions were everything; they were the bedrock of morality and of social order in the world. John Stuart Mill was a founder and contributer of Utilitarianism , which is summed up in the creed of the Greatest-Happiness Principle : "Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the...[prohibition] of pleasure" [3]. To John Stuart Mill and in the philosophy of Utilitarianism moral rightness is decided, not by an objective quality, which Mill believed was impossible to establish on this topic, but by the feelings conjured by an action. If an action inflicted more pain upon a person or a group than it did pleasure, it was wrong; if an action provided more happiness to an individual or a group than it did pain, it was right [3]. Moral rightness then is decided by the Greatest-Happiness Principle , and this is the foundation stone of modern Utilitarianism. Human Rights exist because they provide people interacting within a community with safeguards and legal protections from harmful, unwanted abuse. Public laws exist because they impose a structured order necessary to optimize the quality of life in a community - but also to eliminate or reduce gratuitous pain and harm. John Stuart Mill elucidated that it's our wants, our feelings, our will to optimize the quality of life and increase social happiness that drives us to establish rights and to enact laws. What we want collectively and what we feel with respect to actions determines morality [4]. Using this justification he went on to denounce slavery and endorse complete human rights for the slave and he also championed women's issues and womans rights while he lived, which was rare in his time [5]. My opponent will also be shocked to learn, since she cites him, that John Stuart Mill was also a fierce advocate of animal rights ! In his article In Defense of Bentham (Jeremy Bentham was a popular philosopher of animal rights), Mill argues that the Greatest-Happiness Principle applies to all interactions involving a human and another living thing, human or non-human [6]. Gratuitous ( unnecessary ) pain is immoral because it simply isn't necessary and it creates more distress on an animal than the situation calls for, even in the act of killing an animal for human consumption. In other words, pain is real for the animal and because it shows an aversion to pain, the distress should be reduced in it as much as possible, if not totally eliminated. The act of inflicting gratuitous pain on the animal Mill calls "animal cruelty" [6]. In ROUND 2 my opponent wrongly insisted that humans can do anything they want to animals. I showed that she was in fact wrong. In all 50 U.S. States it is now a felony to egregiously abuse a non-human animal [7]. There are hundreds of laws that restrict human behavior around animals - inside of research laboratories, on farms and slaughter houses, in the wild and inside the home. Laws protecting animals from gratuitous harm, neglect, poaching carry penalties that range from a fine to incarceration. The work of philosophers like Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Peter Singer and literally thousands of concerned Animal Rights supporters have helped to pass federal and state legislation to protect animals from brutal, unnecessary violence and harm. Bestiality, or "sexual assault" on an animal in the legal sphere, is just another unnecessary abuse animals can go without when they interact with humans. As I explained in ROUND 2 , most incidences of bestiality are initiated by the human, for the purpose of human pleasure, without regard for the animal, which can be anything from a small bird to a grazing cow. These relationships are fundamentally unequal, however, because the human always has the advantage, due to his intelligence, his power, and because he speaks the same language of the federal and state courts; the animal does not. There is no confident way to determine that an animal disapproved of being sexually violated once it has happened. For this reason beastiality, which is currently outlawed in 37 states, should be outlawed in all 50 U.S. States! Because an animal cannot of its own freewill file charges against someone who has sexually assaulted it, the country - each state - has a responsibility to protect animals from this degenerate and twisted abuse. No man or woman should have the right to assert him/herself on a less intelligent animal in search of sexual gratification; we do not permit this between adults and children - pedophilia - because we recognize that a child, or a teenager, is less intelligent, less mature, less powerful than a human adult. Even if a child does consent, the human adult will still be prosecuted for taking advantage of the less intelligent, less mature, less cognitively-inclined child. The age of consent in all 50 U.S. States is between 16 and 18 [8] - several years above the age of puberty, when teenagers are already experiencing strong sexual urges. Why is this? Because in the United States consent requires an assumed level of intelligence and the capacity for good judgement; children simply aren't considered smart enough or rational enough to have sex with an adult and it's done to protect them from physical and emotional abuse. Similarly, in the case of beastiality, the animal doesn't have the capacity to say "no" and communicate with certain words that it disaproves of the sex act during or after the fact. Therefore, to protect the animal, 37 U.S. States have passed laws outlawing beastiality completely. It's my contention that all U.S. States should criminalize beastility, to protect animals from sexual opportunists and habitual practitioners of beastility. Animals should not be used as tools to satisfy perverse human fetishes. There are so many other, wonderful, less detrimental ways (to both the animal and the human) for the human to find sexual happiness. And they often involve consensual sex with another human adult. Lastly, no animal on Earth is nearly as intelligent as a human being. For the last 40 years, biologists have been measuring relative animal intelligence using a parameter called the encephalization quotient (or EQ ) [9]. The encephalization quotient is used by biologists to estimate the rough intelligence of an animal. Somewhat complicated to obtain, it considers an animal's brain and body mass and allometric effects. The rough intelligence of the animal is computed from the ratio between its actual brain mass and the predicted brain mass it would have if it fit brain-to-body mass trends in nature. The EQ has been found to coincide very well with observed complexity in animal behavior; it is also superior to the simple brain-to-body mass ratio scientists relied on over 50 years ago [9]. The chart below shows how humans compare to other species. (Higher values reflect greater intelligence.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [ 2] "Beastility should be illegal in all cases in the United States." Bluesteel, ROUND 3. [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... (book) [ 4] Heilbroner, Robert L. The Worldly Philosophers. 1966. P. 108. [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [ 6] http://www.animal-rights-library.com... [ 7] http://aldf.org... [ 8] http://www.ageofconsent.us... [ 9] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Entertainment

Bestiality-should-be-illegal-in-all-cases-in-the-United-States/5/

I accept. By making opening statements in Round 1 while establishing a rule that forbids me from making opening statemts in round 1, you have violated your own rule. Your Round 1 opening statements are !) Biblical Creationism is false, 2) it has effectively no scientific backing, 3) it has multiple contradictions, and 4) is not found in the Bible. That's 4 statements in violation of your rule against me posting a debate argument for round 1. While I think it would be fair for mt to not waste a round and put up rebuttals to these 4 statements, I will honor your rule and let you expound in round two on the opening statements you made in Round 1. I will not discuss any further about whether or not you have been unfair in making an opening arguements in round 1 and adding a rule you would claim I violated if I did the same.

LifeMeansGodIsGood

I accept. By making opening statements in Round 1 while establishing a rule that forbids me from making opening statemts in round 1, you have violated your own rule. Your Round 1 opening statements are !) Biblical Creationism is false, 2) it has effectively no scientific backing, 3) it has multiple contradictions, and 4) is not found in the Bible. That's 4 statements in violation of your rule against me posting a debate argument for round 1. While I think it would be fair for mt to not waste a round and put up rebuttals to these 4 statements, I will honor your rule and let you expound in round two on the opening statements you made in Round 1. I will not discuss any further about whether or not you have been unfair in making an opening arguements in round 1 and adding a rule you would claim I violated if I did the same.

Religion

Biblical-Creationism-is-Incorrect/2/

It is agreed on all sides that there are only two possible solutions to the riddle of origins. Either Someone made the world, or the world made itself. A third option, the world is eternal and without origin, contradicts Natural Laws such as Thermodynamics and has been disproved with mathematical certainty in the 20th century. As the universe is obviously complex and seemingly well-designed, a Designer should be the scientific default. In everything we observe today, concept and design are the result of a Mind. Furthermore, Natural Laws such as Gravity, Inverse Squares, Cause and Effect, and Thermodynamics imply a Law-giver. Unless a natural mechanism constrained by Natural Law, by which the entire universe could come into existence and further develop through random process, is found, a Creator must be the theoretical default. It doesn't matter whether an individual scientist has difficulty accepting it or not. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle so eloquently stated in his Sherlock Holmes series, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Time Constraints. Both Creationists and Evolutionists agree that if evolution is at all possible, there needs to be an excessive (if not infinite) amount of time. For much of the 20th century, it was thought evolutionists had all the time they needed. If the earth ever looked too young for certain evolutionary developments to have occurred, the age was pushed back in the textbooks. In 1905, the earth was declared to be two billion years old. By 1970, the earth was determined to be 3.5 billion years old, and by the 1990's, the earth had become 4.6 billion years old. However, Young Earth advocates have identified quite a few Young Earth chronometers in recent years. Currently, there are approximately five times more natural chronometers indicating a "Young Earth" than an "Old Earth." Each discovery is a separate "Limiting Factor" that places a constraint on the possible age of the earth. For example, moon drift, earth rotation speed, magnetic field decay, erosion rates, chemical influx into the oceans, ocean salinity, etc, all constrain the possible age of the earth. Each Limiting Factor is distinct. If one were successfully challenged, there is still the problem of all the rest. Furthermore, there are Limiting Factors constraining the possible age of the universe, such as spiral galaxies where they're maintaining their spiral shapes despite their centers spinning faster than their extremities. Age of the Earth: Limiting Factors The answer to the Age of the Earth question is found in "Limiting Factors." While it may be impossible to be certain when the Earth formed, we may determine when the Earth did not form. Limiting Factors are best explained with this illustration: A boat sinks. On board is a chest full of gold coins. As time passes, the wreck is forgotten. Centuries later, the boat is discovered, and the chest full of coins is recovered. How can we determine when the boat sank? We may not be able to pinpoint the date, but we are able to determine when it did not sink by looking at the dates on the coins. If a coin is marked with 1756, we know the boat did not sink in 1755 or 1730 or 1610, etc. It must have sunk after the coin was minted. The coin is a "Limiting Factor." Age of the Earth: Factors Pointing to a Young Earth There are many Limiting Factors limiting the possible Age of the Earth. Here are a few: Magnetic Field. The Earth's magnetic field is essential to life on Earth for many reasons. One reason is that it deflects much of the cosmic radiation that destroys life. Precise measurements of the Earth's magnetic field have been made since 1829, all over the world. During that time, it has deteriorated exponentially -- that is, it has followed a predictable curve. By graphing this curve, we extrapolate that life would have been impossible before 20,000 BC (the field would be as strong as the Sun's at that point) and will cease to exist after 10,000 AD (there will be, for all practical purposes, no field left, and the Earth will be fried by cosmic radiation). Earth Rotation. The Earth's spin is slowing down. We experience a "leap second" every year and a half. If it is slowing down, at one time it was going much faster. A faster spin would create a stronger Coriolis Effect, and life would be impossible as we know it. Moon Drift. The moon is drifting slowly away from the Earth. If it is getting further away, then at one time it was much closer. The Inverse Square Law in physics states that if the moon was half the distance away, its gravitational effect on our tides would be quadrupled. One third the distance and it would be 9 times stronger. We would all drown twice a day. 1.2 billion (1,200 million) years ago, the moon would have been touching the Earth. Age of the Earth: Young is Not Unreasonable There are a number of additional Limiting Factors regarding the Age of the Earth that scientists are discovering on a more and more frequent basis. Interestingly, they all seem to indicate a Young Earth, or certainly, not one that is millions or billions of years old. Contrary to the general thinking of the last century, many scientists now accept that it is reasonable to view the Earth as fairly young. Radiometric Dating - A Brief Explanation Radiometric dating is the primary dating scheme employed by scientists to determine the age of the earth. Radiometric dating techniques take advantage of the natural decay of radioisotopes. An isotope is one of two or more atoms which have the same number of protons in their nuclei, but a different number of neutrons. Radioisotopes are unstable isotopes: they spontaneously decay (emitting radiation in the process -- thus making them radioactive). They continue to decay going through various transitional states until they finally reach stability. For example, Uranium-238 (U238) is a radioisotope. It will spontaneously decay until it transitions into Lead-206 (Pb206). The numbers 238 and 206 represent these isotopes' atomic mass. The Uranium-238 radioisotope goes through 13 transitional stages before stabilizing into Lead-206 (U238 > Th234 > Pa234 > U234 > Th230 > Ra226 > Rn222 > Po218 > Pb214 > Bi214 > Po214 > Pb210 > Bi210 > Po210 > Pb206). In this instance, Uranium-238 is called the "parent" and Lead-206 is called the "daughter". By measuring how long it takes for an unstable element to decay into a stable element and by measuring how much daughter element has been produced by the parent element within a specimen of rock, scientists believe they are able to determine the age of the rock. This belief is based upon three significant assumptions. Radiometric Dating - The Assumptions Many of the ages derived by radiometric dating techniques are highly publicized. Nevertheless, the fundamental assumptions employed are not. Here are the three major assumptions for your consideration: "The rate of decay remains constant. "There has been no contamination (that is, no daughter or intermediate elements have been introduced or leeched from the specimen of rock). "We can determine how much daughter there was to begin with (if we assume there was no daughter to begin with, yet there was daughter at the formation of the rock, the rock would have a superficial appearance of age). Are these foundational assumptions reasonable? Recent findings seem to indicate that though we ourselves have not been able to vary the decay rates by much in the laboratory, the decay rates may have been accelerated in the unobservable past [1]. If this were the case, the first assumption would be deemed unreasonable. This would completely upset our current standardized view of earth's history. Dr Carl Wieland summarizes the recent findings: "When uranium decays to lead, a by-product of this process is the formation of helium, a very light, inert gas which readily escapes from rock. Certain crystals called zircons, obtained from drilling into very deep granites, contain uranium which has partly decayed into lead. By measuring the amount of uranium and 'radiogenic lead' in these crystals, one can calculate that, if the decay rate has been constant, about 1.5 billion years must have passed. (This is consistent with the geologic 'age' assigned to the granites in which these zircons are found.) There is a significant amount of helium from that '1.5 billion years of decay' still inside the zircons. This is at first glance surprising, because of the ease with which one would expect helium (with its tiny, light, unreactive atoms) to escape from the spaces within the crystal structure. There should hardly be any left, because with such a slow buildup, it should be seeping out continually and not accumulating. Drawing any conclusions from the above depends, of course, on actually measuring the rate at which helium leaks out of zircons. This is what one of the recent RATE [2] papers reports on. The samples were sent" to a world-class expert to measure these rates. The consistent answer: the helium does indeed seep out quickly over a wide range of temperatures. In fact, the results show that because of all the helium still in the zircons, these crystals (and since this is Precambrian basement granite, by implication the whole earth) could not be older than between 4,000 and 14,000 years. In other words, in only a few thousand years, 1.5 billion years' worth (at today's rates) of radioactive decay has taken place. Interestingly, the data has since been refined and updated to give a date of 5680 ( /- 2000) years." (3) Footnotes: 1.D. Russel Humphreys, Steven A. Austin, John R. Baumgardner, Andrew A. Snelling, Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay; Article available online at <URL>... . 2.The "RATE" project stands for, "Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth" 3.Carl Wieland, RATE Group Reveal Exciting

LifeMeansGodIsGood

It is agreed on all sides that there are only two possible solutions to the riddle of origins. Either Someone made the world, or the world made itself. A third option, the world is eternal and without origin, contradicts Natural Laws such as Thermodynamics and has been disproved with mathematical certainty in the 20th century. As the universe is obviously complex and seemingly well-designed, a Designer should be the scientific default. In everything we observe today, concept and design are the result of a Mind. Furthermore, Natural Laws such as Gravity, Inverse Squares, Cause and Effect, and Thermodynamics imply a Law-giver. Unless a natural mechanism constrained by Natural Law, by which the entire universe could come into existence and further develop through random process, is found, a Creator must be the theoretical default. It doesn't matter whether an individual scientist has difficulty accepting it or not. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle so eloquently stated in his Sherlock Holmes series, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Time Constraints. Both Creationists and Evolutionists agree that if evolution is at all possible, there needs to be an excessive (if not infinite) amount of time. For much of the 20th century, it was thought evolutionists had all the time they needed. If the earth ever looked too young for certain evolutionary developments to have occurred, the age was pushed back in the textbooks. In 1905, the earth was declared to be two billion years old. By 1970, the earth was determined to be 3.5 billion years old, and by the 1990's, the earth had become 4.6 billion years old. However, Young Earth advocates have identified quite a few Young Earth chronometers in recent years. Currently, there are approximately five times more natural chronometers indicating a "Young Earth" than an "Old Earth." Each discovery is a separate "Limiting Factor" that places a constraint on the possible age of the earth. For example, moon drift, earth rotation speed, magnetic field decay, erosion rates, chemical influx into the oceans, ocean salinity, etc, all constrain the possible age of the earth. Each Limiting Factor is distinct. If one were successfully challenged, there is still the problem of all the rest. Furthermore, there are Limiting Factors constraining the possible age of the universe, such as spiral galaxies where they're maintaining their spiral shapes despite their centers spinning faster than their extremities. Age of the Earth: Limiting Factors The answer to the Age of the Earth question is found in "Limiting Factors." While it may be impossible to be certain when the Earth formed, we may determine when the Earth did not form. Limiting Factors are best explained with this illustration: A boat sinks. On board is a chest full of gold coins. As time passes, the wreck is forgotten. Centuries later, the boat is discovered, and the chest full of coins is recovered. How can we determine when the boat sank? We may not be able to pinpoint the date, but we are able to determine when it did not sink by looking at the dates on the coins. If a coin is marked with 1756, we know the boat did not sink in 1755 or 1730 or 1610, etc. It must have sunk after the coin was minted. The coin is a "Limiting Factor." Age of the Earth: Factors Pointing to a Young Earth There are many Limiting Factors limiting the possible Age of the Earth. Here are a few: Magnetic Field. The Earth's magnetic field is essential to life on Earth for many reasons. One reason is that it deflects much of the cosmic radiation that destroys life. Precise measurements of the Earth's magnetic field have been made since 1829, all over the world. During that time, it has deteriorated exponentially -- that is, it has followed a predictable curve. By graphing this curve, we extrapolate that life would have been impossible before 20,000 BC (the field would be as strong as the Sun's at that point) and will cease to exist after 10,000 AD (there will be, for all practical purposes, no field left, and the Earth will be fried by cosmic radiation). Earth Rotation. The Earth's spin is slowing down. We experience a "leap second" every year and a half. If it is slowing down, at one time it was going much faster. A faster spin would create a stronger Coriolis Effect, and life would be impossible as we know it. Moon Drift. The moon is drifting slowly away from the Earth. If it is getting further away, then at one time it was much closer. The Inverse Square Law in physics states that if the moon was half the distance away, its gravitational effect on our tides would be quadrupled. One third the distance and it would be 9 times stronger. We would all drown twice a day. 1.2 billion (1,200 million) years ago, the moon would have been touching the Earth. Age of the Earth: Young is Not Unreasonable There are a number of additional Limiting Factors regarding the Age of the Earth that scientists are discovering on a more and more frequent basis. Interestingly, they all seem to indicate a Young Earth, or certainly, not one that is millions or billions of years old. Contrary to the general thinking of the last century, many scientists now accept that it is reasonable to view the Earth as fairly young. Radiometric Dating - A Brief Explanation Radiometric dating is the primary dating scheme employed by scientists to determine the age of the earth. Radiometric dating techniques take advantage of the natural decay of radioisotopes. An isotope is one of two or more atoms which have the same number of protons in their nuclei, but a different number of neutrons. Radioisotopes are unstable isotopes: they spontaneously decay (emitting radiation in the process -- thus making them radioactive). They continue to decay going through various transitional states until they finally reach stability. For example, Uranium-238 (U238) is a radioisotope. It will spontaneously decay until it transitions into Lead-206 (Pb206). The numbers 238 and 206 represent these isotopes' atomic mass. The Uranium-238 radioisotope goes through 13 transitional stages before stabilizing into Lead-206 (U238 > Th234 > Pa234 > U234 > Th230 > Ra226 > Rn222 > Po218 > Pb214 > Bi214 > Po214 > Pb210 > Bi210 > Po210 > Pb206). In this instance, Uranium-238 is called the "parent" and Lead-206 is called the "daughter". By measuring how long it takes for an unstable element to decay into a stable element and by measuring how much daughter element has been produced by the parent element within a specimen of rock, scientists believe they are able to determine the age of the rock. This belief is based upon three significant assumptions. Radiometric Dating - The Assumptions Many of the ages derived by radiometric dating techniques are highly publicized. Nevertheless, the fundamental assumptions employed are not. Here are the three major assumptions for your consideration: "The rate of decay remains constant. "There has been no contamination (that is, no daughter or intermediate elements have been introduced or leeched from the specimen of rock). "We can determine how much daughter there was to begin with (if we assume there was no daughter to begin with, yet there was daughter at the formation of the rock, the rock would have a superficial appearance of age). Are these foundational assumptions reasonable? Recent findings seem to indicate that though we ourselves have not been able to vary the decay rates by much in the laboratory, the decay rates may have been accelerated in the unobservable past [1]. If this were the case, the first assumption would be deemed unreasonable. This would completely upset our current standardized view of earth's history. Dr Carl Wieland summarizes the recent findings: "When uranium decays to lead, a by-product of this process is the formation of helium, a very light, inert gas which readily escapes from rock. Certain crystals called zircons, obtained from drilling into very deep granites, contain uranium which has partly decayed into lead. By measuring the amount of uranium and 'radiogenic lead' in these crystals, one can calculate that, if the decay rate has been constant, about 1.5 billion years must have passed. (This is consistent with the geologic 'age' assigned to the granites in which these zircons are found.) There is a significant amount of helium from that '1.5 billion years of decay' still inside the zircons. This is at first glance surprising, because of the ease with which one would expect helium (with its tiny, light, unreactive atoms) to escape from the spaces within the crystal structure. There should hardly be any left, because with such a slow buildup, it should be seeping out continually and not accumulating. Drawing any conclusions from the above depends, of course, on actually measuring the rate at which helium leaks out of zircons. This is what one of the recent RATE [2] papers reports on. The samples were sent" to a world-class expert to measure these rates. The consistent answer: the helium does indeed seep out quickly over a wide range of temperatures. In fact, the results show that because of all the helium still in the zircons, these crystals (and since this is Precambrian basement granite, by implication the whole earth) could not be older than between 4,000 and 14,000 years. In other words, in only a few thousand years, 1.5 billion years' worth (at today's rates) of radioactive decay has taken place. Interestingly, the data has since been refined and updated to give a date of 5680 ( /- 2000) years." (3) Footnotes: 1.D. Russel Humphreys, Steven A. Austin, John R. Baumgardner, Andrew A. Snelling, Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay; Article available online at http://www.icr.org... . 2.The "RATE" project stands for, "Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth" 3.Carl Wieland, RATE Group Reveal Exciting

Religion

Biblical-Creationism-is-Incorrect/2/

Con states with reasoning that ignores science while claiming all scientific backing for theories which contradict the laws of nature. Con also asserts that scientific methodology progressively disproves creation. Con ignores the fact that advances in science tend to support the young earth history as recorded in the Bible. Con stated "I would like to point out the fact that the ability of science to become more accurate in response to more data is one of its strongest defenses and is what allows it to so accurately describe so much of the universe. This contrasts with Biblical Creationism, which starts with the conclusion that the Bible is correct, will never change or become more accurate, and will never add to the predictive power of human reason." Con ignores scientific evidence that is indisputably contrary to his position. This is typical for people who claim they are practicing science but in reality are practicing a pseudo-science that attempts to deny God's right to rule over them. This is also why people who erringly use science to attempt to disprove God's ownership over His creation tend to make multitudes of insults and slanders against common sense by equating God with flying spaghettti monsters. Bill Nye uses this same approach when he cannot answer the findings of his fellow scientists which point out the error of science that tries to prove origins and the rise of life contray to the laws of physics. The last statment so ignored by Con which directly shows Con's error in claiming science becomes more accurate in supporting his postitions was at the end of my round two statement........results show that because of all the helium still in the zircons, these crystals (and since this is Precambrian basement granite, by implication the whole earth) could not be older than between 4,000 and 14,000 years. In other words, in only a few thousand years, 1.5 billion years' worth (at today's rates) of radioactive decay has taken place. Interestingly, the data has since been refined and updated to give a date of 5680 ( /- 2000) years." (3) Footnotes: 1.D. Russel Humphreys, Steven A. Austin, John R. Baumgardner, Andrew A. Snelling, Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay; Article available online at <URL>... .... 2.The "RATE" project stands for, "Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth" 3.Carl Wieland, RATE Group Reveal Exciting. Because Con throws out more and more arguments while ignoring principals of logical deductive reasoning as I posted in the beginning of round two, and then ignores the fact that improvements in science support the young earth story as told in the Bible (another contradiction of Con's, claiming in his opening statements that Creation is Biblical but it's not in tht Bible, and then spending the whole time of the debate attmepting to discredit the Bible......this is again typical of the nonsensical reasoning of people who are putting their faith in the belief that they will never have reason to fear God) Evolution teaches that as species evolve they eventually reach ideal population levels. As species advance, superior species eliminate inferior species -- "survival of the fittest." Weak and inferior members of a species should be eliminated for the preservation of superior bloodlines and for the conservation of essential resources. "Nature" doesn't desire "the mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race, since if she did, her whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, might be ruined with one blow." [1] "Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows." [2] And as humans are merely a species of animal, we have no intrinsic value and are therefore by no means exempt from "the war of nature." Thus, we have Adolf Hitler (<PHONE>) asking the rhetorical question, "should I not also have the right to eliminate millions of an inferior race that multiplies like vermin?" [3] Hitler, of course, is remembered for murdering more than 6,000,000 individual human beings, all of whom he deemed to be inferior members of the species. Was Hitler wrong? Did he misinterpret and misrepresent the theory he claimed to cherish so much? Apparently not. Renowned British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist Sir Arthur Keith (<PHONE>), who was knighted in 1921, came to Hitler's defense, "Hitler is an uncompromising evolutionist, and we must seek for an evolutionary explanation if we are to understand his actions" [4] Keith reassured us, "The German F"hrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." [5] Joseph Stalin (<PHONE>), another ardent evolutionist, surpassed even Hitler in zeal, murdering at least ten times as many "inferiors" (estimates range from 60,000,000 to 100,000,000 people). Was Stalin wrong? What about Pol Pot? Well, not if you subscribe to the evolutionary worldview. In fact, to the philosophically consistent, uncompromised evolutionist, Hitler and Stalin ought to be considered role models. This is where evolutionary teaching leads.......it's own theory of survival of the fittest as the catalyst for improvement and advancement of species would hold whoever obtains the most power in the world to be the improvers of their kind. Most evolutionary scientists will claim to be good moral people of course, but the truth is nobody is perfect and all have broken the perfect law of God which forbids oppression and deceit even in the tiniest inner thoughts of our hearts as imperfection is offensive to God. In vengence againt His enemies. ( those He created who sought to elevate themselves to be independant of Him) He will purge His creation of the pride which denies His power, and give the rebells what they deserve....fire for the fire of their passions of pride against their Creator, and it's good no know He will not tolerate evil forever but He will confine it all to the fire of hell. Biblical Creationism is correct, as is the Judgement of God is also correct , and His mercy i giving his human enemies time to change their minds and be saved from the fire of hell which was created for the devil and his angels. God Himself took on a body to pay for mankind's sin so He could be satisfied that the death man deserves was paid for when He took it on HImself, and He rose from the grave to justify all who believe and put their trust in Him. People put faith in evolution simply because they don't want to admit that they do not deserve to live. Catastrophism -- Empirical Evidence Catastrophism is supported by actual, recorded history. Nearly 300 ancient flood legends have survived the ravishment of time. Legends of a worldwide deluge, commonly known as the "Noachian Flood," are found in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, North American and South America. Furthermore, earth's sedimentary layers with the fossil record seem to suggest a past marine cataclysm. Sedimentary rock (sandstone, siltstone, shale, limestone, etc) is primarily the result of moving water, laid down layer upon layer by hydrologic sorting. Animals whose fossil remains are found within those layers must have been caught in this running water appear to have been buried and preserved. The remains, as well as the rocks, would be sorted according to density or specific gravity. Otherwise, the carcasses would rot or be scavenged. Approximately 95% of all earth's fossil remains discovered thus far are marine invertebrates. Of the remainder, approximately 4.74% are plant fossils, 0.25% are land invertebrates (including insects), and 0.0125% are vertebrates (the majority of which are fish). Roughly 95% of all land vertebrates discovered and recorded to date consist of less than one bone. The overwhelming majority of the plant fossils found appear to demonstrate an instantaneous burial. The leaves are pressed in fine sediment as if placed between the pages of a book and show no signs of decay or rot. Catastrophism -- The Noachian Flood Catastrophism is supported by the evidential data. Catastrophism supports the Noachian Flood. Dramatic evidence is everywhere except in the popular press. For instance, who is aware that fossil remains of clams (found in the closed position, indicating they were buried alive) have been found atop Mt. Everest? What about whale fossils and petrified trees that stand upright through multiple sedimentary layers supposedly separated by millions of years? It is a remarkable time to reinvestigate the facts and determine your own position. In 1999, the human population passed six billion. In 1985, it passed five billion. In 1962, it passed three billion. In 1800, it passed one billion. In 1 AD, the world's population, according to the censuses taken by the governments of that time, was only 250 million. At the current human population growth rate, considering wars and famines and all such variables, it would take approximately 5,000 years to get the current population from two original. Age of Earth: Be Wary of Unreasonable Conclusions Age of Earth: Perhaps a better question is not "What is the Age of the Earth?", but rather, "Are we being educated or indoctrinated?" Our children are not being taught what the evidence is and how to think about it, they are being taught to memorize a small portion of inconsequential data and to believe an unreasonable conclusions. I'm trying to keep the focus on the Biblical creation story as correct in it's teaching of a young earth, approzimately 6000 years from the day it was created. I have addressed philosiphical arguements agaisnt God because Con has thrown those things out as reasons to reject the Biblical creationism which Con says is not in the Bible.

LifeMeansGodIsGood

Con states with reasoning that ignores science while claiming all scientific backing for theories which contradict the laws of nature. Con also asserts that scientific methodology progressively disproves creation. Con ignores the fact that advances in science tend to support the young earth history as recorded in the Bible. Con stated "I would like to point out the fact that the ability of science to become more accurate in response to more data is one of its strongest defenses and is what allows it to so accurately describe so much of the universe. This contrasts with Biblical Creationism, which starts with the conclusion that the Bible is correct, will never change or become more accurate, and will never add to the predictive power of human reason." Con ignores scientific evidence that is indisputably contrary to his position. This is typical for people who claim they are practicing science but in reality are practicing a pseudo-science that attempts to deny God's right to rule over them. This is also why people who erringly use science to attempt to disprove God's ownership over His creation tend to make multitudes of insults and slanders against common sense by equating God with flying spaghettti monsters. Bill Nye uses this same approach when he cannot answer the findings of his fellow scientists which point out the error of science that tries to prove origins and the rise of life contray to the laws of physics. The last statment so ignored by Con which directly shows Con's error in claiming science becomes more accurate in supporting his postitions was at the end of my round two statement........results show that because of all the helium still in the zircons, these crystals (and since this is Precambrian basement granite, by implication the whole earth) could not be older than between 4,000 and 14,000 years. In other words, in only a few thousand years, 1.5 billion years' worth (at today's rates) of radioactive decay has taken place. Interestingly, the data has since been refined and updated to give a date of 5680 ( /- 2000) years." (3) Footnotes: 1.D. Russel Humphreys, Steven A. Austin, John R. Baumgardner, Andrew A. Snelling, Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay; Article available online at http://www.icr.org... .... 2.The "RATE" project stands for, "Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth" 3.Carl Wieland, RATE Group Reveal Exciting. Because Con throws out more and more arguments while ignoring principals of logical deductive reasoning as I posted in the beginning of round two, and then ignores the fact that improvements in science support the young earth story as told in the Bible (another contradiction of Con's, claiming in his opening statements that Creation is Biblical but it's not in tht Bible, and then spending the whole time of the debate attmepting to discredit the Bible......this is again typical of the nonsensical reasoning of people who are putting their faith in the belief that they will never have reason to fear God) Evolution teaches that as species evolve they eventually reach ideal population levels. As species advance, superior species eliminate inferior species -- "survival of the fittest." Weak and inferior members of a species should be eliminated for the preservation of superior bloodlines and for the conservation of essential resources. "Nature" doesn't desire "the mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race, since if she did, her whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, might be ruined with one blow." [1] "Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows." [2] And as humans are merely a species of animal, we have no intrinsic value and are therefore by no means exempt from "the war of nature." Thus, we have Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) asking the rhetorical question, "should I not also have the right to eliminate millions of an inferior race that multiplies like vermin?" [3] Hitler, of course, is remembered for murdering more than 6,000,000 individual human beings, all of whom he deemed to be inferior members of the species. Was Hitler wrong? Did he misinterpret and misrepresent the theory he claimed to cherish so much? Apparently not. Renowned British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist Sir Arthur Keith (1866-1955), who was knighted in 1921, came to Hitler's defense, "Hitler is an uncompromising evolutionist, and we must seek for an evolutionary explanation if we are to understand his actions" [4] Keith reassured us, "The German F"hrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." [5] Joseph Stalin (1879-1953), another ardent evolutionist, surpassed even Hitler in zeal, murdering at least ten times as many "inferiors" (estimates range from 60,000,000 to 100,000,000 people). Was Stalin wrong? What about Pol Pot? Well, not if you subscribe to the evolutionary worldview. In fact, to the philosophically consistent, uncompromised evolutionist, Hitler and Stalin ought to be considered role models. This is where evolutionary teaching leads.......it's own theory of survival of the fittest as the catalyst for improvement and advancement of species would hold whoever obtains the most power in the world to be the improvers of their kind. Most evolutionary scientists will claim to be good moral people of course, but the truth is nobody is perfect and all have broken the perfect law of God which forbids oppression and deceit even in the tiniest inner thoughts of our hearts as imperfection is offensive to God. In vengence againt His enemies. ( those He created who sought to elevate themselves to be independant of Him) He will purge His creation of the pride which denies His power, and give the rebells what they deserve....fire for the fire of their passions of pride against their Creator, and it's good no know He will not tolerate evil forever but He will confine it all to the fire of hell. Biblical Creationism is correct, as is the Judgement of God is also correct , and His mercy i giving his human enemies time to change their minds and be saved from the fire of hell which was created for the devil and his angels. God Himself took on a body to pay for mankind's sin so He could be satisfied that the death man deserves was paid for when He took it on HImself, and He rose from the grave to justify all who believe and put their trust in Him. People put faith in evolution simply because they don't want to admit that they do not deserve to live. Catastrophism -- Empirical Evidence Catastrophism is supported by actual, recorded history. Nearly 300 ancient flood legends have survived the ravishment of time. Legends of a worldwide deluge, commonly known as the "Noachian Flood," are found in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, North American and South America. Furthermore, earth's sedimentary layers with the fossil record seem to suggest a past marine cataclysm. Sedimentary rock (sandstone, siltstone, shale, limestone, etc) is primarily the result of moving water, laid down layer upon layer by hydrologic sorting. Animals whose fossil remains are found within those layers must have been caught in this running water appear to have been buried and preserved. The remains, as well as the rocks, would be sorted according to density or specific gravity. Otherwise, the carcasses would rot or be scavenged. Approximately 95% of all earth's fossil remains discovered thus far are marine invertebrates. Of the remainder, approximately 4.74% are plant fossils, 0.25% are land invertebrates (including insects), and 0.0125% are vertebrates (the majority of which are fish). Roughly 95% of all land vertebrates discovered and recorded to date consist of less than one bone. The overwhelming majority of the plant fossils found appear to demonstrate an instantaneous burial. The leaves are pressed in fine sediment as if placed between the pages of a book and show no signs of decay or rot. Catastrophism -- The Noachian Flood Catastrophism is supported by the evidential data. Catastrophism supports the Noachian Flood. Dramatic evidence is everywhere except in the popular press. For instance, who is aware that fossil remains of clams (found in the closed position, indicating they were buried alive) have been found atop Mt. Everest? What about whale fossils and petrified trees that stand upright through multiple sedimentary layers supposedly separated by millions of years? It is a remarkable time to reinvestigate the facts and determine your own position. In 1999, the human population passed six billion. In 1985, it passed five billion. In 1962, it passed three billion. In 1800, it passed one billion. In 1 AD, the world's population, according to the censuses taken by the governments of that time, was only 250 million. At the current human population growth rate, considering wars and famines and all such variables, it would take approximately 5,000 years to get the current population from two original. Age of Earth: Be Wary of Unreasonable Conclusions Age of Earth: Perhaps a better question is not "What is the Age of the Earth?", but rather, "Are we being educated or indoctrinated?" Our children are not being taught what the evidence is and how to think about it, they are being taught to memorize a small portion of inconsequential data and to believe an unreasonable conclusions. I'm trying to keep the focus on the Biblical creation story as correct in it's teaching of a young earth, approzimately 6000 years from the day it was created. I have addressed philosiphical arguements agaisnt God because Con has thrown those things out as reasons to reject the Biblical creationism which Con says is not in the Bible.

Religion

Biblical-Creationism-is-Incorrect/2/

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life, He that believed not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him. He that believes on him( on the Son of God) has everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation. He that believes not the Son is condemned already. It's not me who is damning you, it's your own sin pulling you down in death all the way to the fire of hell and Jesus Christ who took your death will be your Judge if not your Saviour. It's on you. I'm only telling you where you stand, and you are standing on thin ice melting over the fire of hell. Are you going to tell God he is not there after you are forever separated from Him in the fire as you are now separated from Him in your death by sin? You have let a lot of death-defying fools brainwash you into thinking you have the right to live and you have nothing but death for sure as you stand in your anti-Christ self rightousness. Your very argument is preachy fom the start in defiance of God's rule over you, trying to make yourself god to yourself and trying to convince others to do the same thing.......for what? assurance of death in false hope that death will be the end of trouble for you? You are preachy and religious though you insist you are not. People who deny the biblical record of history just go on and on building rhetorical ideas that ignore anything contradictory. You won't be able to defy God for ever. And your argument that you never saw a reason to submit to him will not be an excuse for finalizing your death in defiance of God if that's the way you must have it. if you don't like a preachy rebuttal to your stupid pink elephant and flying spaghetti monster arguments while you insist life arose out of non-life and order out of chaos and systematic improvement of universal order and life forms, all contrary to the laws of physics, you shoudl have made the debate exclusively about the pink spaghetting flying elephant monster and not against God's design and rule over His creation of which you are a part. I'll continue to call you con because you are con to me........and you are trying to con other people to teach them for whatever you get out of it that they are god to themselves the same as you are to yourself in your futile imagination......and you certainly are being con to God......and God won't buy it. You have bought death and are condemned on death row and you are fooling yourself allowing yourself to be fooled by fools to follow a belief system contrary to the laws of physics and pro to death. Stop being con to God, admit you deserve to die for your sins, believe on the resurrection of Lord Jesus Christ, call on Him to save you and He will come in to your heart and give you a new heart like His heart, born of His Spirit, to make you a new creation for eternal life to the glory of God your Creator who died to save you from hell. Men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil. If you won't take sides with God against your sin, He will always be against you. If you finalize your death in your sin refusing to believe He loved you so much that He took your place in death on the cross and rose from the grave to give you His eternal life, if you refuse to accept Him as your Saviour, your death is on you and on you alone. It's not me damning you, it's your own sin. I'm trying to warn you so maybe you'll wake up and get saved before you wake up on the fire of hell.

LifeMeansGodIsGood

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life, He that believed not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him. He that believes on him( on the Son of God) has everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation. He that believes not the Son is condemned already. It's not me who is damning you, it's your own sin pulling you down in death all the way to the fire of hell and Jesus Christ who took your death will be your Judge if not your Saviour. It's on you. I'm only telling you where you stand, and you are standing on thin ice melting over the fire of hell. Are you going to tell God he is not there after you are forever separated from Him in the fire as you are now separated from Him in your death by sin? You have let a lot of death-defying fools brainwash you into thinking you have the right to live and you have nothing but death for sure as you stand in your anti-Christ self rightousness. Your very argument is preachy fom the start in defiance of God's rule over you, trying to make yourself god to yourself and trying to convince others to do the same thing.......for what? assurance of death in false hope that death will be the end of trouble for you? You are preachy and religious though you insist you are not. People who deny the biblical record of history just go on and on building rhetorical ideas that ignore anything contradictory. You won't be able to defy God for ever. And your argument that you never saw a reason to submit to him will not be an excuse for finalizing your death in defiance of God if that's the way you must have it. if you don't like a preachy rebuttal to your stupid pink elephant and flying spaghetti monster arguments while you insist life arose out of non-life and order out of chaos and systematic improvement of universal order and life forms, all contrary to the laws of physics, you shoudl have made the debate exclusively about the pink spaghetting flying elephant monster and not against God's design and rule over His creation of which you are a part. I'll continue to call you con because you are con to me........and you are trying to con other people to teach them for whatever you get out of it that they are god to themselves the same as you are to yourself in your futile imagination......and you certainly are being con to God......and God won't buy it. You have bought death and are condemned on death row and you are fooling yourself allowing yourself to be fooled by fools to follow a belief system contrary to the laws of physics and pro to death. Stop being con to God, admit you deserve to die for your sins, believe on the resurrection of Lord Jesus Christ, call on Him to save you and He will come in to your heart and give you a new heart like His heart, born of His Spirit, to make you a new creation for eternal life to the glory of God your Creator who died to save you from hell. Men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil. If you won't take sides with God against your sin, He will always be against you. If you finalize your death in your sin refusing to believe He loved you so much that He took your place in death on the cross and rose from the grave to give you His eternal life, if you refuse to accept Him as your Saviour, your death is on you and on you alone. It's not me damning you, it's your own sin. I'm trying to warn you so maybe you'll wake up and get saved before you wake up on the fire of hell.

Religion

Biblical-Creationism-is-Incorrect/2/

You have been brainwashed probably from tv, public schools, in internet where many ignorant people proclaim themselves to be wise and qualified to lead you. Are you aware that our calendar is based on the life of Jesus Christ and the reason He gained such an honor was the miracles he was reknowned for? Only modern mumbo jumbo combined with concerted efforts to lead you to serve a system of lies telling you that you are your own God is able to blur history to the point that you can't tell the difference between the truth and lie You don't know who you are talking about (God the Son, the Son of God) so of course you agree with the ignoramouses who love the pleasures of their sin and pride against God all the way to death and hell fire and they take pleasure in your holding to the same doomed mindse. You will see Jesus Chrsit and you will say willingly or against your will that He is LORD. God createed you for Himself and He will not be denied the honor of his creatures even if it must be in eternal torments of the penalty that is on your sin, the fire of hell. I am threating you with nothing, I'm warning you of the danger you are in. Saying you don't believe it will not be an excuse, saying you didn't have enough evidence won't be an excuse. You are willfully rejecting your own salvation. You don't know whare you are going I guess, but I know where I am going and by your own words I know where you are going and it's not good as you stand now on thin ice melting over the fire of hell. It won't hold long, enjoy while you can if you think it's worth it. The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.

LifeMeansGodIsGood

You have been brainwashed probably from tv, public schools, in internet where many ignorant people proclaim themselves to be wise and qualified to lead you. Are you aware that our calendar is based on the life of Jesus Christ and the reason He gained such an honor was the miracles he was reknowned for? Only modern mumbo jumbo combined with concerted efforts to lead you to serve a system of lies telling you that you are your own God is able to blur history to the point that you can't tell the difference between the truth and lie You don't know who you are talking about (God the Son, the Son of God) so of course you agree with the ignoramouses who love the pleasures of their sin and pride against God all the way to death and hell fire and they take pleasure in your holding to the same doomed mindse. You will see Jesus Chrsit and you will say willingly or against your will that He is LORD. God createed you for Himself and He will not be denied the honor of his creatures even if it must be in eternal torments of the penalty that is on your sin, the fire of hell. I am threating you with nothing, I'm warning you of the danger you are in. Saying you don't believe it will not be an excuse, saying you didn't have enough evidence won't be an excuse. You are willfully rejecting your own salvation. You don't know whare you are going I guess, but I know where I am going and by your own words I know where you are going and it's not good as you stand now on thin ice melting over the fire of hell. It won't hold long, enjoy while you can if you think it's worth it. The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.

Religion

Biblical-Creationism-is-Incorrect/2/

The black man can't go anywhere without experiencing racism. Racism is everywhere. He experiences racism from his own as well as others. If he goes to the store, then he is watched until he gets to the counter to pay for his items. If he speaks intelligently and clearly, then he is considered as trying to be white.

He-man

The black man can't go anywhere without experiencing racism. Racism is everywhere. He experiences racism from his own as well as others. If he goes to the store, then he is watched until he gets to the counter to pay for his items. If he speaks intelligently and clearly, then he is considered as trying to be white.

Politics

Blacks-Experience-Racism-Everyday/1/

Sir, Why discuss recluses if they add no value to the subject or hope for the future implementation of a solution. Are you suggesting that we become like recluses or are you basing your whole argument on a recluse. Have you ever met a black recluse. Tell me about them. WHat is your source. Continue to use your loftiness in your word usage to dig a deeper hole for yourself. It is evident that you have not experienced this sort of racism based on premature statement. You made a mistake in this debate by making this personal and making it as though I believe this way. I am merely stating a resolution. I personally do not hold the belief that I am arguing. Evidently you have a chip on your shoulder that you need to brush off so you can think clearly and respond tactfully. Have you ever been stared at when you entered a store and watched until you left. Have you ever been somewhere in this day and age and told to leave because blacks were not allowed. Have you ever been told by someone you love deeply of another race that since you are black you will have it lot harder than me. Have you ever been treated like you are treating me as though I believe blacks feel like "america owes us something". Damn right I do and it's more than money can pay for. I feel like we are owed "OPPORTUNITY." Since it is not always given I have learned to TAKE MINE. SIR Ebonically speaking, my motto is you don't have to give me nothing, just open up the door and I will get it myself. I create my opportunity. From the looks of your profile you are from Seattle. You are more than likely open minded. However, come to the South. Change it by the recluse argumentation and hommogenous communities. Have you ever lived in an ethnically homogeneous society. I consider a black man speaking intelligently as speaking properly. You come across as a person that innately feels that an anglo saxon always speaks proper english. If it will help you to focus more on the issues at hand and not the man saying it, you would benefit from this conversation. My children are half white and half black. I teach them to speak properly. I teach them to present themselves to others as scholarly but yet try to understand a situation before making an errenous inference. For all you know sir. I could be white. However, I am a black man. I would rather be considered a fool rather than open my mouth and remove all doubt.

He-man

Sir, Why discuss recluses if they add no value to the subject or hope for the future implementation of a solution. Are you suggesting that we become like recluses or are you basing your whole argument on a recluse. Have you ever met a black recluse. Tell me about them. WHat is your source. Continue to use your loftiness in your word usage to dig a deeper hole for yourself. It is evident that you have not experienced this sort of racism based on premature statement. You made a mistake in this debate by making this personal and making it as though I believe this way. I am merely stating a resolution. I personally do not hold the belief that I am arguing. Evidently you have a chip on your shoulder that you need to brush off so you can think clearly and respond tactfully. Have you ever been stared at when you entered a store and watched until you left. Have you ever been somewhere in this day and age and told to leave because blacks were not allowed. Have you ever been told by someone you love deeply of another race that since you are black you will have it lot harder than me. Have you ever been treated like you are treating me as though I believe blacks feel like "america owes us something". Damn right I do and it's more than money can pay for. I feel like we are owed "OPPORTUNITY." Since it is not always given I have learned to TAKE MINE. SIR Ebonically speaking, my motto is you don't have to give me nothing, just open up the door and I will get it myself. I create my opportunity. From the looks of your profile you are from Seattle. You are more than likely open minded. However, come to the South. Change it by the recluse argumentation and hommogenous communities. Have you ever lived in an ethnically homogeneous society. I consider a black man speaking intelligently as speaking properly. You come across as a person that innately feels that an anglo saxon always speaks proper english. If it will help you to focus more on the issues at hand and not the man saying it, you would benefit from this conversation. My children are half white and half black. I teach them to speak properly. I teach them to present themselves to others as scholarly but yet try to understand a situation before making an errenous inference. For all you know sir. I could be white. However, I am a black man. I would rather be considered a fool rather than open my mouth and remove all doubt.

Politics

Blacks-Experience-Racism-Everyday/1/

Regarding other blacks as "his own" is a very racist statement of yours. Some blacks might experience racism every day, but you have no grounds for saying all blacks do, or that there is nowhere without racism to be experienced. For one thing, I'm sure there are a few black recluses. Recluses don't experience racism, or anything else, unless they themselves create it. And in those few pockets of individualism that remain in the world, racism is an utter impossibility (without collectivism, there can be no racism). What about ethnically homogenous communities? It's kind of hard to find racism there, at least the kind you experience, it would get too annoying to the racist :D. You might consider a black man speaking intelligently as "trying to be white." I don't, and frankly I don't know anyone who does. Oh and you're also forgetting any albino blacks or blacks light skinned enough to "pass." Since people don't know they're black, they can't be racist about it.

Ragnar_Rahl

Regarding other blacks as "his own" is a very racist statement of yours. Some blacks might experience racism every day, but you have no grounds for saying all blacks do, or that there is nowhere without racism to be experienced. For one thing, I'm sure there are a few black recluses. Recluses don't experience racism, or anything else, unless they themselves create it. And in those few pockets of individualism that remain in the world, racism is an utter impossibility (without collectivism, there can be no racism). What about ethnically homogenous communities? It's kind of hard to find racism there, at least the kind you experience, it would get too annoying to the racist :D. You might consider a black man speaking intelligently as "trying to be white." I don't, and frankly I don't know anyone who does. Oh and you're also forgetting any albino blacks or blacks light skinned enough to "pass." Since people don't know they're black, they can't be racist about it.

Politics

Blacks-Experience-Racism-Everyday/1/

Recluses were one example, not my whole argument. I was using a recluse to warn against exaggerations. I have not met such a one, that would rather make them unlikely to be a recluse, but recluses do exist and it would be racist to assume that none of them is black :D. I have, as a matter of fact, experienced racism, regardless of your assumptions (yes, racism against me even) although it's by far of course the least of my concerns :D. It's generally a fair assumption that someone believes something if they say it, and I am not to blame if you decided to state something you do not believe (which except in very specific circumstances, none of which come about on debate.org that I can think of, I condemn as dishonesty. I have as a matter of fact been stared at as I entered a store and watched until I left, though that of course had nothing to do with race. I have not been told to leave somewhere because blacks were not allowed, for obvious reasons, although I have for other reasons. Have you, and have you any evidence of it, and is it an EVERY DAY occurrence? You say at once "Have you ever been treated like you are treating me as though I believe blacks feel like 'america owes us something'" and "damn right I do," which makes zero sense, you are implying that me treating you like I supposedly am is wrong while in the same instance confirming the supposed premises upon which those actions rest. You are in short bringing up two contradictory statements, because so far the only way I have "treated you" has been based on the premise that I was dealing with someone who honestly believed X. However since you bring up "owing," I must absolutely differ there, nobody owes you anything unless they have promised it, and that includes "oppurtunity." The possessors (creators) of oppurtunities are not your slaves. You want an "oppurtunity," be it a job or something else, from someone else, earn it in the free market. If you create your own oppurtunity as you later claim, then you have no need to claim something is "owed" you, "owe" is an inappropriate term for something that requires no outside action. It is dishonest to make a request and claim in the same paragraph you are not requesting anything. There is by the way another contradiction, you claim to "create oppurtunity" and "take oppurtunity," without it being given. The former is great if true, the latter implies theft. I live in Seattle, I am originally from South Dakota, and no I am not "open minded," at least not in the literal sense. I am active minded, the result of which means I don't give a damn what race you are. It is irrelevant to the question of whether an ethnically homogenous community exists to ask me whether I have ever lived in such a place. "I consider a black man speaking intelligently as speaking properly. You come across as a person that innately feels that an anglo saxon always speaks proper english." no, as a matter of fact, you have no grounds to derive that. I consider a man speaking properly as speaking properly, without reference to any notions of either intelligence or race ( I know smart people with bad grammar, stupid people with good grammar, black and white people with both combinations and the converse.) And 95% of people I know, of all races, could use a little help in both the grammar and intelligence departments... as a matter of fact I've corrected my english teacher's grammar before (he is,as far as I know, white) so your statement about what I come across as is a bit absurd. Nothing in my previous post, by the way, implied you were any race (it called you racist but that's different :D), so your little personal story is a complete ignoratio elenchi. If you want to be considered black for the remainder of this debate, I'll take your word for it, but it's inconsequential.

Ragnar_Rahl

Recluses were one example, not my whole argument. I was using a recluse to warn against exaggerations. I have not met such a one, that would rather make them unlikely to be a recluse, but recluses do exist and it would be racist to assume that none of them is black :D. I have, as a matter of fact, experienced racism, regardless of your assumptions (yes, racism against me even) although it's by far of course the least of my concerns :D. It's generally a fair assumption that someone believes something if they say it, and I am not to blame if you decided to state something you do not believe (which except in very specific circumstances, none of which come about on debate.org that I can think of, I condemn as dishonesty. I have as a matter of fact been stared at as I entered a store and watched until I left, though that of course had nothing to do with race. I have not been told to leave somewhere because blacks were not allowed, for obvious reasons, although I have for other reasons. Have you, and have you any evidence of it, and is it an EVERY DAY occurrence? You say at once "Have you ever been treated like you are treating me as though I believe blacks feel like 'america owes us something'" and "damn right I do," which makes zero sense, you are implying that me treating you like I supposedly am is wrong while in the same instance confirming the supposed premises upon which those actions rest. You are in short bringing up two contradictory statements, because so far the only way I have "treated you" has been based on the premise that I was dealing with someone who honestly believed X. However since you bring up "owing," I must absolutely differ there, nobody owes you anything unless they have promised it, and that includes "oppurtunity." The possessors (creators) of oppurtunities are not your slaves. You want an "oppurtunity," be it a job or something else, from someone else, earn it in the free market. If you create your own oppurtunity as you later claim, then you have no need to claim something is "owed" you, "owe" is an inappropriate term for something that requires no outside action. It is dishonest to make a request and claim in the same paragraph you are not requesting anything. There is by the way another contradiction, you claim to "create oppurtunity" and "take oppurtunity," without it being given. The former is great if true, the latter implies theft. I live in Seattle, I am originally from South Dakota, and no I am not "open minded," at least not in the literal sense. I am active minded, the result of which means I don't give a damn what race you are. It is irrelevant to the question of whether an ethnically homogenous community exists to ask me whether I have ever lived in such a place. "I consider a black man speaking intelligently as speaking properly. You come across as a person that innately feels that an anglo saxon always speaks proper english." no, as a matter of fact, you have no grounds to derive that. I consider a man speaking properly as speaking properly, without reference to any notions of either intelligence or race ( I know smart people with bad grammar, stupid people with good grammar, black and white people with both combinations and the converse.) And 95% of people I know, of all races, could use a little help in both the grammar and intelligence departments... as a matter of fact I've corrected my english teacher's grammar before (he is,as far as I know, white) so your statement about what I come across as is a bit absurd. Nothing in my previous post, by the way, implied you were any race (it called you racist but that's different :D), so your little personal story is a complete ignoratio elenchi. If you want to be considered black for the remainder of this debate, I'll take your word for it, but it's inconsequential.

Politics

Blacks-Experience-Racism-Everyday/1/

Forfeits are the most terrible things ever, eleventy-one. Forfeits are the most terrible things ever, eleventy-one.

Ragnar_Rahl

Forfeits are the most terrible things ever, eleventy-one. Forfeits are the most terrible things ever, eleventy-one.

Politics

Blacks-Experience-Racism-Everyday/1/

I am against blue-frosted cake donuts. Before I begin the debate, I would like to say that the spelling of "Donut" is merely the shortened term of "Doughnut" in persuasive American English, and that a "Donut" has the same overall definition and description as a "Doughnut". Don't even try to nail me on that one. Also I would like to remind my opposition that this is a one-round debate, so throw everything you have to say out there. As I was saying, I am against blue-frosted cake donuts, for a number of reasons. I will first evaluate on the nutritional value approach of a cake donut: *The average plain cake donut has 18-19 grams of fat, with 9 grams of saturated fat. Based on the average, 2,000 calorie per day diet, this is 46% of your daily value of saturated fat-nearly half in one simple treat. *Backtracking to the total fat amount, on the average 2,000 calorie per day diet, one cake donut equals out to 30% of your daily value of fat. That means eating three cake donuts and, say, 3 munchkins, would suffice for your daily value of total fat. *An average cake donut has 280 calories, with 160 calories from fat. More than half of the calories in this cake donut are from fat (about 57%). Also, the average plain cake donut, in a calories per gram outlook, has 125% more calories per gram in fat than in those of carbohydrates or protein, 25% more in fats alone than these two combined. *The average plain cake donut is NOT a significant source of: Vitamin A Vitamin C Calcium Dietary Fiber Protein Ah, yes, the wonders of a plain cake donut. However, I have yet to discuss the joys of a FROSTED cake donut, and I will do so now: *In the average frosted cake donut, the icing alone brings the calorie level up from 280 to 330, and the fat calorie level by 10. Alas, the calories from fat percentage is still over half the amount. *To add the extra goodness of the icing taste, thrown into the mix is high fructose corn syrup, dextrose, corn syrup, maltodextrin, partially hydrogenated vegetable oil (which isn't all that much of an improvement from regularly hydrogenated oil-see link below), and artifical flavor. Big focus on the high fructose corn syrup, the HFCS. This sweetener, which, for the most part, replaced natural sugar in many a' product, is made from genetically modified enzymes, in order to keep the product stable. Rather than chowing down on pure, sugar cane icing, one is really eating frosting of the fake McCoy. On top of that, this syrupy mixture is as unhealthy as they come; when fed to rats in an experiment, over a short period of time, these rodents developed anemia, high cholesterol, liver and testes swelling, and heart hypertrophy, a deadly infection where their hearts enlarged until they combusted. Imagine what an excess of this virtual poison could do to humans! The second link has more on HFCS: <URL>... <URL>... *The average frosted cake donut is STILL NOT a significant source of: Vitamin A Vitamin C Calcium Dietary Fiber Protein *If the frosted cake donut was indeed of the blue color, than artificial food coloring would have to be used to illustrate this hue. Artificial food coloring is emerging as a new danger to consumers, and is being pulled off the market in a fast flurry. Yellow #2 food coloring has just been pulled off the markets, as it revealed to be a cause of cancer, ADHD, and male sterility. The link below has more: <URL>... Now that I've uncovered the nutritional cons of blue-frosted cake donuts, let's take this from an economical aspect: *Where is one most likely to buy these delectably fattening blue-frosted cake donuts? Most likely at a Dunkin' Donuts, Honey Dew, Winchell's, Krispy Kreme, Tim Horton's, or wheverer you take the liberty of passing through a drive-thru to order a coffee and donut. These donut chains are corporate beasts, and rake in millions of dollars each year selling their fattening products. But with the economic downturn that we've been experiencing over the past few years, even though President Bush has yet to declare a national recession, it is time that we clamp down and start saving. What do we owe these corporate giants enough to pour our wallets out into them, when many of us are dogged by credit card debt, mortgage payments and student loans? People all around us are losing their homes via foreclosure, somewhat in part to the fact they chose to empty out their savings for frivolous purposes such as blue-frosted cake donuts rather than paying off their loans. The answer to the economic downturn, and avoiding another great depression, is not to spend and spend, but to save and spend, using the latter on more important issues. *I also mentioned that we buy these products via drive-thru. Let me illustrate the picture of a drive-thru; 3 kids piled in the backseat screaming, a frazzled mother trying to give her order to the speakerbox, taking a pause every so often to scream back at the kids. After the sugary snacks have been ordered, the kids will continue to be hyper and filled with shrill screams, answered back by the mother's desperate wails. On top of that, she is wasting precious gas money by leaving her engine running in the drive-thru line, and driving back home. A more ideal solution to this would be to lead the kids into the serene setting of the kitchen, and hold a family cake donut-fry for the afternoon. One would get to choose healthier ingredients over what the corporate giants shove into your food, the kids generate and store valuable memories of cooking with mom (or dad), and all is enjoyed in the open environment of one's home, rather than a cramped, stuffy car. Also, one saves precious gas money, and the home-cooked ingredients of a cake donut should be far less than what they charge you at the drive-thru. "Okay," you think, "He's shown that you can still enjoy a blue-frosted cake donut, if you make the proper adjustments. Therefore he has contradicted himself, and I should win this debate easily." Au contraire, my opposition. I still have yet to elaborate on the vital point of this debate-the blue frosting. I have said before that artificial coloring is put into this icing concoction, and that alone makes it less to be desired. However, there is a difference in the blue frosting portion on the cake donut than a pink, white, brown, or green frosting on the same cake donut. That difference is the simple fact that Mother Nature has produced natural foods of all colors-all but blue (blueberries are actually a shade of purple). Limes are green, bananas are yellow, and apples are green and red, but as far as food goes, nothing is naturally blue. Studies have shown that children who drink foods such as Blue Kool-Aid and other artifical blue substances have been led in their later lives to seek out substances of the same color to eat, and have often been deprived of natural taste. Blue-frosted cake donuts can lead to the same effect, and can stray children away from natural, healthy foods. For the sake of the nationwide health, economy and safety of our children, I am against blue-frosted cake donuts. Opposition?

kenicks

I am against blue-frosted cake donuts. Before I begin the debate, I would like to say that the spelling of "Donut" is merely the shortened term of "Doughnut" in persuasive American English, and that a "Donut" has the same overall definition and description as a "Doughnut". Don't even try to nail me on that one. Also I would like to remind my opposition that this is a one-round debate, so throw everything you have to say out there. As I was saying, I am against blue-frosted cake donuts, for a number of reasons. I will first evaluate on the nutritional value approach of a cake donut: *The average plain cake donut has 18-19 grams of fat, with 9 grams of saturated fat. Based on the average, 2,000 calorie per day diet, this is 46% of your daily value of saturated fat-nearly half in one simple treat. *Backtracking to the total fat amount, on the average 2,000 calorie per day diet, one cake donut equals out to 30% of your daily value of fat. That means eating three cake donuts and, say, 3 munchkins, would suffice for your daily value of total fat. *An average cake donut has 280 calories, with 160 calories from fat. More than half of the calories in this cake donut are from fat (about 57%). Also, the average plain cake donut, in a calories per gram outlook, has 125% more calories per gram in fat than in those of carbohydrates or protein, 25% more in fats alone than these two combined. *The average plain cake donut is NOT a significant source of: Vitamin A Vitamin C Calcium Dietary Fiber Protein Ah, yes, the wonders of a plain cake donut. However, I have yet to discuss the joys of a FROSTED cake donut, and I will do so now: *In the average frosted cake donut, the icing alone brings the calorie level up from 280 to 330, and the fat calorie level by 10. Alas, the calories from fat percentage is still over half the amount. *To add the extra goodness of the icing taste, thrown into the mix is high fructose corn syrup, dextrose, corn syrup, maltodextrin, partially hydrogenated vegetable oil (which isn't all that much of an improvement from regularly hydrogenated oil-see link below), and artifical flavor. Big focus on the high fructose corn syrup, the HFCS. This sweetener, which, for the most part, replaced natural sugar in many a' product, is made from genetically modified enzymes, in order to keep the product stable. Rather than chowing down on pure, sugar cane icing, one is really eating frosting of the fake McCoy. On top of that, this syrupy mixture is as unhealthy as they come; when fed to rats in an experiment, over a short period of time, these rodents developed anemia, high cholesterol, liver and testes swelling, and heart hypertrophy, a deadly infection where their hearts enlarged until they combusted. Imagine what an excess of this virtual poison could do to humans! The second link has more on HFCS: http://www.treelight.com... http://www.westonaprice.org... *The average frosted cake donut is STILL NOT a significant source of: Vitamin A Vitamin C Calcium Dietary Fiber Protein *If the frosted cake donut was indeed of the blue color, than artificial food coloring would have to be used to illustrate this hue. Artificial food coloring is emerging as a new danger to consumers, and is being pulled off the market in a fast flurry. Yellow #2 food coloring has just been pulled off the markets, as it revealed to be a cause of cancer, ADHD, and male sterility. The link below has more: http://science-news.org... Now that I've uncovered the nutritional cons of blue-frosted cake donuts, let's take this from an economical aspect: *Where is one most likely to buy these delectably fattening blue-frosted cake donuts? Most likely at a Dunkin' Donuts, Honey Dew, Winchell's, Krispy Kreme, Tim Horton's, or wheverer you take the liberty of passing through a drive-thru to order a coffee and donut. These donut chains are corporate beasts, and rake in millions of dollars each year selling their fattening products. But with the economic downturn that we've been experiencing over the past few years, even though President Bush has yet to declare a national recession, it is time that we clamp down and start saving. What do we owe these corporate giants enough to pour our wallets out into them, when many of us are dogged by credit card debt, mortgage payments and student loans? People all around us are losing their homes via foreclosure, somewhat in part to the fact they chose to empty out their savings for frivolous purposes such as blue-frosted cake donuts rather than paying off their loans. The answer to the economic downturn, and avoiding another great depression, is not to spend and spend, but to save and spend, using the latter on more important issues. *I also mentioned that we buy these products via drive-thru. Let me illustrate the picture of a drive-thru; 3 kids piled in the backseat screaming, a frazzled mother trying to give her order to the speakerbox, taking a pause every so often to scream back at the kids. After the sugary snacks have been ordered, the kids will continue to be hyper and filled with shrill screams, answered back by the mother's desperate wails. On top of that, she is wasting precious gas money by leaving her engine running in the drive-thru line, and driving back home. A more ideal solution to this would be to lead the kids into the serene setting of the kitchen, and hold a family cake donut-fry for the afternoon. One would get to choose healthier ingredients over what the corporate giants shove into your food, the kids generate and store valuable memories of cooking with mom (or dad), and all is enjoyed in the open environment of one's home, rather than a cramped, stuffy car. Also, one saves precious gas money, and the home-cooked ingredients of a cake donut should be far less than what they charge you at the drive-thru. "Okay," you think, "He's shown that you can still enjoy a blue-frosted cake donut, if you make the proper adjustments. Therefore he has contradicted himself, and I should win this debate easily." Au contraire, my opposition. I still have yet to elaborate on the vital point of this debate-the blue frosting. I have said before that artificial coloring is put into this icing concoction, and that alone makes it less to be desired. However, there is a difference in the blue frosting portion on the cake donut than a pink, white, brown, or green frosting on the same cake donut. That difference is the simple fact that Mother Nature has produced natural foods of all colors-all but blue (blueberries are actually a shade of purple). Limes are green, bananas are yellow, and apples are green and red, but as far as food goes, nothing is naturally blue. Studies have shown that children who drink foods such as Blue Kool-Aid and other artifical blue substances have been led in their later lives to seek out substances of the same color to eat, and have often been deprived of natural taste. Blue-frosted cake donuts can lead to the same effect, and can stray children away from natural, healthy foods. For the sake of the nationwide health, economy and safety of our children, I am against blue-frosted cake donuts. Opposition?

Health

Blue-Frosted-Cake-Donuts/1/

I am in favor of blue-frosted donuts. I think we should eat them, in moderation, as a special treat. They are really yummy. Some of your statistics are, indeed, shocking, and I would never recommend a diet of just eating blue-frosted donuts. You point out that donuts are a high source of fat, and not a source of vital vitamins and nutrients the body needs. However, this is to be expected from an oh-so-naughty dessert that, again, would be an unimaginable part of a daily diet. Your "evil corporations" argument can be made in a similar respect regarding any form of junk food. Yes, perhaps it is sad that many businesses will always be out to profit from human vices. However, I like to think most people are smart enough - especially in a world saturated with advertising - to know which choices are healthy. Nobody is forcing us to go to that donut drive-thru every lunchtime. I would like to have the right to eat a donut, when I want, on my terms. I am sympathetic to those who feel addicted or victimised. But, in almost all cases, that is an issue regarding their strength of character, just like those of us who manage not to be addicted to the casino / smoking / whatever. We're not being force-fed anything; to condone any scrumptious delicacy just because some will abuse their bodies with its excessive consumption is unfair on those who enjoy such items in moderation. I feel that your image of the drive-thru (kids SCREAMING at their parents / leaving the GAS running!) is more an emotional outburst than an arugment. I, for instance, have remained calm in many a drive-thru scenario, even with young children present. The nothing-is-really-blue-in-nature point is interesting. However, I don't think eating some blue artifical colouring will kill me, if, again, I am careful and only eat blue icing on occasion. Here are my arguments in favor of blue-frosted donuts: (1) Blue makes them visually interesting, standing out from the average donut. (2) They taste great. Thanks for debating!

simmyjaye

I am in favor of blue-frosted donuts. I think we should eat them, in moderation, as a special treat. They are really yummy. Some of your statistics are, indeed, shocking, and I would never recommend a diet of just eating blue-frosted donuts. You point out that donuts are a high source of fat, and not a source of vital vitamins and nutrients the body needs. However, this is to be expected from an oh-so-naughty dessert that, again, would be an unimaginable part of a daily diet. Your "evil corporations" argument can be made in a similar respect regarding any form of junk food. Yes, perhaps it is sad that many businesses will always be out to profit from human vices. However, I like to think most people are smart enough - especially in a world saturated with advertising - to know which choices are healthy. Nobody is forcing us to go to that donut drive-thru every lunchtime. I would like to have the right to eat a donut, when I want, on my terms. I am sympathetic to those who feel addicted or victimised. But, in almost all cases, that is an issue regarding their strength of character, just like those of us who manage not to be addicted to the casino / smoking / whatever. We're not being force-fed anything; to condone any scrumptious delicacy just because some will abuse their bodies with its excessive consumption is unfair on those who enjoy such items in moderation. I feel that your image of the drive-thru (kids SCREAMING at their parents / leaving the GAS running!) is more an emotional outburst than an arugment. I, for instance, have remained calm in many a drive-thru scenario, even with young children present. The nothing-is-really-blue-in-nature point is interesting. However, I don't think eating some blue artifical colouring will kill me, if, again, I am careful and only eat blue icing on occasion. Here are my arguments in favor of blue-frosted donuts: (1) Blue makes them visually interesting, standing out from the average donut. (2) They taste great. Thanks for debating!

Health

Blue-Frosted-Cake-Donuts/1/

My opponent stands in affirmation of the topic "Blunt are better than bongs" thus I must prove one of two things. Either I must prove to my voters that Bongs are actually better than Blunts, or I must prove that they deserve equal merit. In this round I will actually be letting my voters choose which scenario they would like to go for and simply offer all of the reasons why Blunts could not possibly be better than Bongs. Beginning with my opponents points. 1. Affordability: Pro clearly states that at its lowest cost a bong is 30-40 bucks while a pack of swisher sweets costs $3.99. Thus my opponent would quite clearly be correct when he states that a bong costs more. Sadly my opponent doesn't bother adding into the equation the fact that swisher sweets need to be re-bought over and over again. Conservatively estimating one goes through a pack of swisher sweets in 1 week which will mean that 10 weeks down the road (2.5 months) buying swisher sweets will actually equal the cost of having bought the bong. After that point the bong becomes the cheaper of the two. 2. Convenience: We've all felt that feeling. You wake up on Saturday morning ready to smoke your blunt / make your morning eggs / eat your favorite peace of candy / wave to your baby only to find that you've actually run out of blunts / eggs / candy / baby. Which means you have to go all the way down to the store to get new ones. Thats the beauty of bong, it doesn't go away. In fact, its always there, waiting for you to smoke it! Convenience at its finest. 3. Recreation: I negate my opponents argument. Not only is it just as fun to bring your favorite bong to the park but it actually offers more recreation when you are running from the cops later that same day. On top of that its actually more exciting to attempt to get away with the bong, this adds to the overall atmosphere of exhilaration. 4. Practicality: First off my affordability and convenience arguments need to be cross applied. It can be very unpractical to suddenly have to run to the store, bongs solve for this. My opponent goes on to point out that you can't smoke a bong in three specific scenarios. This is untrue as I have actually seen a bong smoked in a car and in a park (on a college campus lol). Furthermore it would be more than possible to hide your bong in a paper bag while smoking it on the way down the street. This would not only add to your overall sense of exhilaration but also would qualify you for being highly respected among friends to scared to do such an act. Next on this point we have the fact that bongs come in all sorts of ways, in fact here is a bong that not only lends itself to walking down the street but frees up both hands while doing so. <URL>... Truly amazing! So now I am going to offer some points of my own. 5. Bongs sound cooler. Anyone who has heard someone smoking a bong knows that bubbly sound is infinitely more nifty than the sound of smoking a blunt. 6. Bong are easier to smoke. Why? Because the smoke is cooled before it ever enters your longs. How? The water inside the bong acts as a coolant, this allows for smoke to enter the lungs with out stringent burning effects at any time. 7. Bongs make for a better high. Bongs are easier to smoke and thus can be smoked substantially quicker. Large amounts of smoke inhaled quicker = more high. 8. Bongs last and can stay as a memento. As my opponent mentioned a bong can cost up to 2000 dollars. He suggests this might be a draw back but it is quite clearly not as such an expenditure is clearly optional. This is of massive benefit, it allows for such interesting people as bong collectors and artists. <URL>... Beautiful art! With that I suppose I will allow my opponent an opportunity to answer.

Yraelz

My opponent stands in affirmation of the topic "Blunt are better than bongs" thus I must prove one of two things. Either I must prove to my voters that Bongs are actually better than Blunts, or I must prove that they deserve equal merit. In this round I will actually be letting my voters choose which scenario they would like to go for and simply offer all of the reasons why Blunts could not possibly be better than Bongs. Beginning with my opponents points. 1. Affordability: Pro clearly states that at its lowest cost a bong is 30-40 bucks while a pack of swisher sweets costs $3.99. Thus my opponent would quite clearly be correct when he states that a bong costs more. Sadly my opponent doesn't bother adding into the equation the fact that swisher sweets need to be re-bought over and over again. Conservatively estimating one goes through a pack of swisher sweets in 1 week which will mean that 10 weeks down the road (2.5 months) buying swisher sweets will actually equal the cost of having bought the bong. After that point the bong becomes the cheaper of the two. 2. Convenience: We've all felt that feeling. You wake up on Saturday morning ready to smoke your blunt / make your morning eggs / eat your favorite peace of candy / wave to your baby only to find that you've actually run out of blunts / eggs / candy / baby. Which means you have to go all the way down to the store to get new ones. Thats the beauty of bong, it doesn't go away. In fact, its always there, waiting for you to smoke it! Convenience at its finest. 3. Recreation: I negate my opponents argument. Not only is it just as fun to bring your favorite bong to the park but it actually offers more recreation when you are running from the cops later that same day. On top of that its actually more exciting to attempt to get away with the bong, this adds to the overall atmosphere of exhilaration. 4. Practicality: First off my affordability and convenience arguments need to be cross applied. It can be very unpractical to suddenly have to run to the store, bongs solve for this. My opponent goes on to point out that you can't smoke a bong in three specific scenarios. This is untrue as I have actually seen a bong smoked in a car and in a park (on a college campus lol). Furthermore it would be more than possible to hide your bong in a paper bag while smoking it on the way down the street. This would not only add to your overall sense of exhilaration but also would qualify you for being highly respected among friends to scared to do such an act. Next on this point we have the fact that bongs come in all sorts of ways, in fact here is a bong that not only lends itself to walking down the street but frees up both hands while doing so. http://www.crunchgear.com... Truly amazing! So now I am going to offer some points of my own. 5. Bongs sound cooler. Anyone who has heard someone smoking a bong knows that bubbly sound is infinitely more nifty than the sound of smoking a blunt. 6. Bong are easier to smoke. Why? Because the smoke is cooled before it ever enters your longs. How? The water inside the bong acts as a coolant, this allows for smoke to enter the lungs with out stringent burning effects at any time. 7. Bongs make for a better high. Bongs are easier to smoke and thus can be smoked substantially quicker. Large amounts of smoke inhaled quicker = more high. 8. Bongs last and can stay as a memento. As my opponent mentioned a bong can cost up to 2000 dollars. He suggests this might be a draw back but it is quite clearly not as such an expenditure is clearly optional. This is of massive benefit, it allows for such interesting people as bong collectors and artists. http://www.bolinat.com... Beautiful art! With that I suppose I will allow my opponent an opportunity to answer.

Society

Blunts-are-better-than-bongs/1/

My opponent, rather unfortunately, drops the case, and thereby the debate. I humbly ask that all my arguments are extended. Thank you.

Yraelz

My opponent, rather unfortunately, drops the case, and thereby the debate. I humbly ask that all my arguments are extended. Thank you.

Society

Blunts-are-better-than-bongs/1/

Most depressing indeed. My superior arguments have rendered my opponent speechless. Extend everything!

Yraelz

Most depressing indeed. My superior arguments have rendered my opponent speechless. Extend everything!

Society

Blunts-are-better-than-bongs/1/

To clarify my view, I'm not arguing that in a given instance I would rather smoke a blunt rather than take bong rips or that I would rather be in the possession of small sheets of tobacco pulp over exquisite glass works. I'm simply stating that in general and in the long run smoking blunts is a more sensible form of using cannibus. My reasons are as follows: 1) Affordability: A pack of Swisher Sweets costs $3.99 in most smoke shops and conveniance stores. A single swisha costs a buck. Glass bongs range in price from $30-$40 to $2000. 2) Conveniance: Bongs often have multiple pieces that require initial assembly and reassembly after cleaning. Bongs require water. Blunts are created using only saliva and good rolling technique. It is also far easier to hide or discard a blunt if law enforcement were to approach. Can you imagine getting pulled over and having to throw a bong out of the window. 3) Recreation: It's more fun to pick out a blunt wrap, roll to the park, and pass a fatty L around the table. I haven't come across too many individuals who would, without great hesitation and dismay, bring their bong to a park or outdoor event. 4) Praciticality: I can list at least three instances where one could smoke a blunt while a bong would be out of the question. First, while walking down the street (preferably on the sidewalk). Second, whilst driving in the car (on your way to eat or a party perhaps). And for my third example I employ my previous account of the park, and passing around a fatty L. I hope for a worthy contender, who is cultured in cannibus and well versed in smoking etiquette.

sippinsizzurp

To clarify my view, I'm not arguing that in a given instance I would rather smoke a blunt rather than take bong rips or that I would rather be in the possession of small sheets of tobacco pulp over exquisite glass works. I'm simply stating that in general and in the long run smoking blunts is a more sensible form of using cannibus. My reasons are as follows: 1) Affordability: A pack of Swisher Sweets costs $3.99 in most smoke shops and conveniance stores. A single swisha costs a buck. Glass bongs range in price from $30-$40 to $2000. 2) Conveniance: Bongs often have multiple pieces that require initial assembly and reassembly after cleaning. Bongs require water. Blunts are created using only saliva and good rolling technique. It is also far easier to hide or discard a blunt if law enforcement were to approach. Can you imagine getting pulled over and having to throw a bong out of the window. 3) Recreation: It's more fun to pick out a blunt wrap, roll to the park, and pass a fatty L around the table. I haven't come across too many individuals who would, without great hesitation and dismay, bring their bong to a park or outdoor event. 4) Praciticality: I can list at least three instances where one could smoke a blunt while a bong would be out of the question. First, while walking down the street (preferably on the sidewalk). Second, whilst driving in the car (on your way to eat or a party perhaps). And for my third example I employ my previous account of the park, and passing around a fatty L. I hope for a worthy contender, who is cultured in cannibus and well versed in smoking etiquette.

Society

Blunts-are-better-than-bongs/1/

My case in support of The Beatles being a superior musical group and being more influential than Bob Marley will consist of three contentions. Contention I will focus on the Beatles profoundly innovative, experimental song writing and musical collaborations. Contention II will focus on the Beatles relative success compared to Bob Marley and Contention III will focus on the social and philosophical aspects explored within the Beatles songbook. As per my opponent's request I will use this round only for introductory arguments and not for rebuttals. Also, due to the fact that I wrote the separate contentions at different times, the sources are divided between which contention they refer to. Sources under Contention II for example relate to the numbering of sources within Contention II and only within Contention II. Contention I. Innovation and Influence. Before the Beatles jumped on to the music scene, rock music had never seen a group innovate so many genres or take musical experimentation so far. On the innovation of music recording alone, the Beatles are notable not only for recording the first song on record utilizing guitar feedback (on the song "I Feel Fine"[C1], the first music group to use artificial double tracking[C2], and one of the first uses of backward recording[C3]. These are all techniques which came to have incredible influences on bands to come. Contention II. Relative success comparison. It certainly cannot be denied that the Beatles as a group are one of the most successful groups in modern music history. Every album released after 1964 by the group (15 albums not counting the another 3 albums before that time) went at least platinum in the U.S. with their self titled album going 19X platinum![C1] Compare this to the certification status of Bob Marey. Only one album released by Bob Marley went platinum, only 2X to be exact[C2]. Only five albums released by the Beatles failed to go platinum, compared with all but one of Bob Marley's. Obviously based on record sales alone, we can see that the Beatles were much more successful not only in their popularization of their music but in their popularity around the world. Of course, record sales alone are not enough to determine success. Let's see how the Beatles stand up against the critics. Rolling Stone Magazine in 2003 compiled a list of the 500 Greatest Albums of All time, "based on the votes of 273 rock musicians, critics, and industry figures"[C3]. The results speak for themselves. The Beatles were the clear winners with 4 albums within just the top ten (with ten of their twelve studio albums making the list[C4]), among them "The White Album", Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Nand[C5]. The Beatles also did very nicely on various lists of the greatest artists of all time (#1 on the list)[C6], (also #1)[C7], (also #1)[C8]. Among these lists, Bob Marley never got past #9. The Beatles dwarf outweigh Bob Marley in terms of sales as well as critical reception. On a side note, it says quite a bit about the level of respect the Beatles receive from other critically successful music artists. Besides outright praise and claims of influence, many successful musicians have cited the Beatles as early inspiration. Dave Grohl states, "I never had a teacher, I just had these Beatles records. Even in Nirvana The Beatles were such a huge influence. Kurt loved The Beatles because it was just so simple. Well, it seemed simple, they sound easy to play, but you know what? They're hard."[C9] Of course, imitation is the most sincere form of flattery as they say. Critically successful musicians who have covered Beatles songs range from Eric Claption, Black Sabbath, Aerosmith, Johnny Cash, Jeff Beck, The Beach Boys, Bono, Pat Bentar, Nirvana, and even Metallica[C10]. Contention III. Social and philosophical lyrical focus. The last contention which I will bring in my introductory arguments will be an analysis of the deep lyrical aspects of the Beatles songs. It's one thing that the Beatles profoundly influenced the methods used today to record songs and albums, however this would all be for nothing if the actual lyrical structure of their songs didn't hold some weight. You will not be disappointed. Consider the Beatles song "Within You Without You". At first glance one could pass it off as simply a song influenced by the Beatles famous experimentation with LSD. However, one would do well to remember George Harrison's involvement with and popularization of Hinduism. Harrison uses these concepts to explain the true oneness of the universe and the illusion of space between us. Consider these lyrics: We were talking About the space between us all And the people who hide themselves Behind a wall of illusion Never glimpse the truth Then it's far too late When they pass away Far from being the drug induced ramblings of a new age hippie, Harrison is communicating one of the central truths of Hinduism and many Eastern religions[C1]. Countless other Beatles songs contain within their lyrics profound themes relating to life and the world around us. Eleanor Rigby related to depression and loneliness, Let it Be provides advise for the downtrodden in an era muddled with strife and war, etc. etc. etc. Not only did the Beatles create music so aesthetically pleasing so as to appeal to huge numbers of people, but they were simultaneously able to communicate deep personal ideas about philosophy and the human experience. ===Sources=== CI Sources [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... (The_Beatles_song)#cite_note-FOOTNOTEThe_Beatles2000212-6 CII Sources [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... [5] <URL>... [6] <URL>... (Rolling Stone) [7] <URL>... (VH1) [8] <URL>... (TODAY) [9] <URL>... [10] <URL>... CIII Sources [1] <URL>...

socialpinko

My case in support of The Beatles being a superior musical group and being more influential than Bob Marley will consist of three contentions. Contention I will focus on the Beatles profoundly innovative, experimental song writing and musical collaborations. Contention II will focus on the Beatles relative success compared to Bob Marley and Contention III will focus on the social and philosophical aspects explored within the Beatles songbook. As per my opponent's request I will use this round only for introductory arguments and not for rebuttals. Also, due to the fact that I wrote the separate contentions at different times, the sources are divided between which contention they refer to. Sources under Contention II for example relate to the numbering of sources within Contention II and only within Contention II. Contention I. Innovation and Influence. Before the Beatles jumped on to the music scene, rock music had never seen a group innovate so many genres or take musical experimentation so far. On the innovation of music recording alone, the Beatles are notable not only for recording the first song on record utilizing guitar feedback (on the song "I Feel Fine"[C1], the first music group to use artificial double tracking[C2], and one of the first uses of backward recording[C3]. These are all techniques which came to have incredible influences on bands to come. Contention II. Relative success comparison. It certainly cannot be denied that the Beatles as a group are one of the most successful groups in modern music history. Every album released after 1964 by the group (15 albums not counting the another 3 albums before that time) went at least platinum in the U.S. with their self titled album going 19X platinum![C1] Compare this to the certification status of Bob Marey. Only one album released by Bob Marley went platinum, only 2X to be exact[C2]. Only five albums released by the Beatles failed to go platinum, compared with all but one of Bob Marley's. Obviously based on record sales alone, we can see that the Beatles were much more successful not only in their popularization of their music but in their popularity around the world. Of course, record sales alone are not enough to determine success. Let's see how the Beatles stand up against the critics. Rolling Stone Magazine in 2003 compiled a list of the 500 Greatest Albums of All time, "based on the votes of 273 rock musicians, critics, and industry figures"[C3]. The results speak for themselves. The Beatles were the clear winners with 4 albums within just the top ten (with ten of their twelve studio albums making the list[C4]), among them "The White Album", Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Nand[C5]. The Beatles also did very nicely on various lists of the greatest artists of all time (#1 on the list)[C6], (also #1)[C7], (also #1)[C8]. Among these lists, Bob Marley never got past #9. The Beatles dwarf outweigh Bob Marley in terms of sales as well as critical reception. On a side note, it says quite a bit about the level of respect the Beatles receive from other critically successful music artists. Besides outright praise and claims of influence, many successful musicians have cited the Beatles as early inspiration. Dave Grohl states, "I never had a teacher, I just had these Beatles records. Even in Nirvana The Beatles were such a huge influence. Kurt loved The Beatles because it was just so simple. Well, it seemed simple, they sound easy to play, but you know what? They're hard."[C9] Of course, imitation is the most sincere form of flattery as they say. Critically successful musicians who have covered Beatles songs range from Eric Claption, Black Sabbath, Aerosmith, Johnny Cash, Jeff Beck, The Beach Boys, Bono, Pat Bentar, Nirvana, and even Metallica[C10]. Contention III. Social and philosophical lyrical focus. The last contention which I will bring in my introductory arguments will be an analysis of the deep lyrical aspects of the Beatles songs. It's one thing that the Beatles profoundly influenced the methods used today to record songs and albums, however this would all be for nothing if the actual lyrical structure of their songs didn't hold some weight. You will not be disappointed. Consider the Beatles song "Within You Without You". At first glance one could pass it off as simply a song influenced by the Beatles famous experimentation with LSD. However, one would do well to remember George Harrison's involvement with and popularization of Hinduism. Harrison uses these concepts to explain the true oneness of the universe and the illusion of space between us. Consider these lyrics: We were talking About the space between us all And the people who hide themselves Behind a wall of illusion Never glimpse the truth Then it's far too late When they pass away Far from being the drug induced ramblings of a new age hippie, Harrison is communicating one of the central truths of Hinduism and many Eastern religions[C1]. Countless other Beatles songs contain within their lyrics profound themes relating to life and the world around us. Eleanor Rigby related to depression and loneliness, Let it Be provides advise for the downtrodden in an era muddled with strife and war, etc. etc. etc. Not only did the Beatles create music so aesthetically pleasing so as to appeal to huge numbers of people, but they were simultaneously able to communicate deep personal ideas about philosophy and the human experience. ===Sources=== CI Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.wired.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... (The_Beatles_song)#cite_note-FOOTNOTEThe_Beatles2000212-6 CII Sources [1] http://www.riaa.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.usatoday.com... [5] http://www.rollingstone.com... [6] http://www.rollingstone.com... (Rolling Stone) [7] http://stereogum.com... (VH1) [8] http://today.msnbc.msn.com... (TODAY) [9] http://www.live4ever.uk.com... [10] http://en.wikipedia.org... CIII Sources [1] http://hinduism.ygoy.com...

Arts

Bob-Marley-Vs-The-Beatles/1/

Extend arguments and refutations. And I was actually looking forward to this debate. :(

socialpinko

Extend arguments and refutations. And I was actually looking forward to this debate. :(

Arts

Bob-Marley-Vs-The-Beatles/1/

Further forfeit by my opponent has left me with not much to do this round. So I will just extend my arguments and refutations again. Also enjoy the video please. In honor of the Beatles who are way better than Bob Marley. (One of my personal favorites)

socialpinko

Further forfeit by my opponent has left me with not much to do this round. So I will just extend my arguments and refutations again. Also enjoy the video please. In honor of the Beatles who are way better than Bob Marley. (One of my personal favorites)

Arts

Bob-Marley-Vs-The-Beatles/1/

television rots your mind.when you are watching television you are not utilizing your mind . you are just absorbing things fed to you. not only that but you kill creativity , vocabulary , and problem solving skills by not encouraging reading , almost all the movies are made from books and in all cases the books are much better than the movies . the joy of reading a book has no bounds , you will only understand it when you read a book willingly with your whole mind concentrating into it i say books are better than television! who agrees with me are probably most educated people alive .. thank you

Noleena

television rots your mind.when you are watching television you are not utilizing your mind . you are just absorbing things fed to you. not only that but you kill creativity , vocabulary , and problem solving skills by not encouraging reading , almost all the movies are made from books and in all cases the books are much better than the movies . the joy of reading a book has no bounds , you will only understand it when you read a book willingly with your whole mind concentrating into it i say books are better than television! who agrees with me are probably most educated people alive .. thank you

Education

Books-are-better-than-Television/1/

In television you watch a movie and you have it in your mind by looking at the screen and observing what others do or act but through books you create your own world where you imagine and make your own library in you. You said that television is better? Well have you ever read books? As you speak it looks like you talk with no proper education and self support from books. I have a friend who watches television for 3 hours everyday and she has no good vocabulary plus she watches only educational movies and fun facts but has she gone high in her vocabulary? She hasnt but i read 6 books a day and comparing me and her guess who has the most educated vocabulary? Obviosly its the one who reads the books.i have seen many complains on children watching too much television. I see them in a serious illness and i have seen many parents report against television and i see you are a person who loves watching movies.well its not bad..without books there would be no movies!and u said that the movie is more better than the book.i agree but you think , one author wrote a book( which is intresting) but the movie is better.have you thought about how many people it took to cast the movie ? A lot if people got together and did it but the author wrote it ALONE. I have ask all the adults and they have agreed against television.books: you see words and you take a good look at it and you read it plus you imagine what happens . I have been selected to debating tournaments and every person i see there has been reading books but non of them have been watching so much movies like you said probably you are a t.v. Lover and as i see you dont enjoy reading plus i dont care what you say.. No adults do agree with your oppinion! I ask everyone what is more educating and every single person has my answer ! You havnt enjoyed reading and thats nothing to blame me or anyone else about.. thank you!

Noleena

In television you watch a movie and you have it in your mind by looking at the screen and observing what others do or act but through books you create your own world where you imagine and make your own library in you. You said that television is better? Well have you ever read books? As you speak it looks like you talk with no proper education and self support from books. I have a friend who watches television for 3 hours everyday and she has no good vocabulary plus she watches only educational movies and fun facts but has she gone high in her vocabulary? She hasnt but i read 6 books a day and comparing me and her guess who has the most educated vocabulary? Obviosly its the one who reads the books.i have seen many complains on children watching too much television. I see them in a serious illness and i have seen many parents report against television and i see you are a person who loves watching movies.well its not bad..without books there would be no movies!and u said that the movie is more better than the book.i agree but you think , one author wrote a book( which is intresting) but the movie is better.have you thought about how many people it took to cast the movie ? A lot if people got together and did it but the author wrote it ALONE. I have ask all the adults and they have agreed against television.books: you see words and you take a good look at it and you read it plus you imagine what happens . I have been selected to debating tournaments and every person i see there has been reading books but non of them have been watching so much movies like you said probably you are a t.v. Lover and as i see you dont enjoy reading plus i dont care what you say.. No adults do agree with your oppinion! I ask everyone what is more educating and every single person has my answer ! You havnt enjoyed reading and thats nothing to blame me or anyone else about.. thank you!

Education

Books-are-better-than-Television/1/

okay you say i am not educated? people who read books are more educated than the people who watch television.Show me someone among us who has not spent a guilty afternoon binge-watching TV and mainlining Cheetos, and I will show you a liar. No matter how much we like to feed our brains and stimulate our senses , sometimes we must needs take a vegetation-vacation. It"s a doubly big temptation, because over the years TV has gone from being home to low-rent entertainment wherein cops chase robbers, to a place where thoughtful, cinematic storytelling thrives. But for all its charms, TV will never be books. Here are 7 ways that books are better than TV: 1. A Book Is Unique. Sure, every person who picks up a copy of the same book is going to read the same plot, but thanks to the powers of our respective imaginations, while I might picture purple trees, you might picture gray. While I might picture Michael Keaton as the leading man, you might picture Gerard Butler. When you read, you engage with your inner life in a way you can"t with television. 2. A Book Can REALLY be Paused. In theory, a TV show can be paused, provided you"ve got a DVR or watch everything on your laptop. But you can put down a book whenever you want, and you don"t need a special box to do it. You don"t have to stay up all night in fear of missing something (though some of us do anyway), because come morning, you can pick right back up where you left off. 3. A Book Has No Reruns"Unless You Want Them. When you pick up a new book, you never have to hold your breath and keep your fingers crossed that it isn"t a book you"ve already read. You"re always guaranteed a new adventure"unless you want to revisit your favorite story, in which case, it"s just as easy and far less full of commercials. 4. A Book Is Always 3D, Without The Hassle of Glasses. I don"t know about you, but as a person who wears glasses, nothing is more irritating than having to precariously perch a pair of fancy-schmancy 3D specs on top of them. Guess what doesn"t require 3D glasses for an all-encompassing experience? A book, y"all. 5. Like Red Bull, a Book Gives You Wings. In the immortal words of the Reading Rainbow theme song, "butterfly in the sky, I go fly twice as hiiiiigh!" But reading doesn"t just to take you to places you might not go (like SPACE!), it also starts conversations with strangers who, seeing what you"re reading, might become friends. I"ve struck up more conversations with groovy, reading strangers than with any other people. And if you"ve got a book handy, you"re never alone. Want to try out that new restaurant but all yours peeps are busy? Take your newest book, order it fries, and then don"t share those fries! This is a party. 6. A Book Is A Secret Language. You may not be able to judge a book by its cover (debatable), but I"ve judged more than my fair share of folks based on what they"ve read. I knew one of my "bosom companions" was going to be just that when she used the phrase""bosom companion." Lucy Maude Montgomery for life, you guys. 7. A Book Is Meant To End. Even the best TV shows get worse and worse, as they go on and on. TV shows are designed to fight against their own inevitable ends by their very nature. A book begins with a story to tell, and ends once it"s through. Even if the story is epic enough that it extends A Song of Ice and Fire"style, every author comes to you with a beginning, a middle, and a reassuring end. well, as you said "reading books vastly decreases your ability to put a coherent sentence together with correct grammar and spelling." when you read a book you can correct your grammar by looking at it and at least making a little effort but television just makes you lazy so i prove you wrong! thank you

Noleena

okay you say i am not educated? people who read books are more educated than the people who watch television.Show me someone among us who has not spent a guilty afternoon binge-watching TV and mainlining Cheetos, and I will show you a liar. No matter how much we like to feed our brains and stimulate our senses , sometimes we must needs take a vegetation-vacation. It"s a doubly big temptation, because over the years TV has gone from being home to low-rent entertainment wherein cops chase robbers, to a place where thoughtful, cinematic storytelling thrives. But for all its charms, TV will never be books. Here are 7 ways that books are better than TV: 1. A Book Is Unique. Sure, every person who picks up a copy of the same book is going to read the same plot, but thanks to the powers of our respective imaginations, while I might picture purple trees, you might picture gray. While I might picture Michael Keaton as the leading man, you might picture Gerard Butler. When you read, you engage with your inner life in a way you can"t with television. 2. A Book Can REALLY be Paused. In theory, a TV show can be paused, provided you"ve got a DVR or watch everything on your laptop. But you can put down a book whenever you want, and you don"t need a special box to do it. You don"t have to stay up all night in fear of missing something (though some of us do anyway), because come morning, you can pick right back up where you left off. 3. A Book Has No Reruns"Unless You Want Them. When you pick up a new book, you never have to hold your breath and keep your fingers crossed that it isn"t a book you"ve already read. You"re always guaranteed a new adventure"unless you want to revisit your favorite story, in which case, it"s just as easy and far less full of commercials. 4. A Book Is Always 3D, Without The Hassle of Glasses. I don"t know about you, but as a person who wears glasses, nothing is more irritating than having to precariously perch a pair of fancy-schmancy 3D specs on top of them. Guess what doesn"t require 3D glasses for an all-encompassing experience? A book, y"all. 5. Like Red Bull, a Book Gives You Wings. In the immortal words of the Reading Rainbow theme song, "butterfly in the sky, I go fly twice as hiiiiigh!" But reading doesn"t just to take you to places you might not go (like SPACE!), it also starts conversations with strangers who, seeing what you"re reading, might become friends. I"ve struck up more conversations with groovy, reading strangers than with any other people. And if you"ve got a book handy, you"re never alone. Want to try out that new restaurant but all yours peeps are busy? Take your newest book, order it fries, and then don"t share those fries! This is a party. 6. A Book Is A Secret Language. You may not be able to judge a book by its cover (debatable), but I"ve judged more than my fair share of folks based on what they"ve read. I knew one of my "bosom companions" was going to be just that when she used the phrase""bosom companion." Lucy Maude Montgomery for life, you guys. 7. A Book Is Meant To End. Even the best TV shows get worse and worse, as they go on and on. TV shows are designed to fight against their own inevitable ends by their very nature. A book begins with a story to tell, and ends once it"s through. Even if the story is epic enough that it extends A Song of Ice and Fire"style, every author comes to you with a beginning, a middle, and a reassuring end. well, as you said "reading books vastly decreases your ability to put a coherent sentence together with correct grammar and spelling." when you read a book you can correct your grammar by looking at it and at least making a little effort but television just makes you lazy so i prove you wrong! thank you

Education

Books-are-better-than-Television/1/

Television sharpens your critical thinking skills according to many psychologists. Thus television does not "rot" your brain, it depends on how many hours you watch it and how old you are. If you watch more than 8 hours of TV a day and you are a child, then TV can have an adverse effect on your brain. But there have been no reported cases of children watching more than 8 hours of TV every day . Television is a form of "passive learning" which is where students receive information often through some form of memorization or rote learning. Many teachers and psychologists claim that passive learning is the most efficient way of teaching since it reduces the time and mental effort and it can equip people with a better task representation, making them more effective active learners in the process. Meaning that watching television is more effective than reading in some ways when you want to learn. There are no reported cases that television kills creativity, vocabulary, and problem-solving skills by not encouraging reading. Movie releases actually encourage children to read the books they're based on; just by looking at The Hunger Games, The Lorax, and The Maze Runner, you can see a huge spike in readership the month the movie was released. The joy of television has no bounds; television can cure or aid in curing Situational Depression according to many psychologists. In Holistic Sleep: Beating Insomnia With Commonsense, Medical, and New Age Techniques , a lady was mourning the death of her husband and couldn't sleep until the doctors moved a TV into her room, which comforted her and helped in curing her long-term depression. It is also important to note that based on the votes of 500,917 people, 68% would rather watch a movie rather than read a book. Books are better than the movies they are based on? That seems like a very subjective topic, but I can name numerous movies that are better than the books they are based on including Dr. Strangelove , Children of Men , Fight Club , The Godfather , No Country for Old Men , and that's just to name a few.

lua

Television sharpens your critical thinking skills according to many psychologists. Thus television does not "rot" your brain, it depends on how many hours you watch it and how old you are. If you watch more than 8 hours of TV a day and you are a child, then TV can have an adverse effect on your brain. But there have been no reported cases of children watching more than 8 hours of TV every day . Television is a form of "passive learning" which is where students receive information often through some form of memorization or rote learning. Many teachers and psychologists claim that passive learning is the most efficient way of teaching since it reduces the time and mental effort and it can equip people with a better task representation, making them more effective active learners in the process. Meaning that watching television is more effective than reading in some ways when you want to learn. There are no reported cases that television kills creativity, vocabulary, and problem-solving skills by not encouraging reading. Movie releases actually encourage children to read the books they're based on; just by looking at The Hunger Games, The Lorax, and The Maze Runner, you can see a huge spike in readership the month the movie was released. The joy of television has no bounds; television can cure or aid in curing Situational Depression according to many psychologists. In Holistic Sleep: Beating Insomnia With Commonsense, Medical, and New Age Techniques , a lady was mourning the death of her husband and couldn't sleep until the doctors moved a TV into her room, which comforted her and helped in curing her long-term depression. It is also important to note that based on the votes of 500,917 people, 68% would rather watch a movie rather than read a book. Books are better than the movies they are based on? That seems like a very subjective topic, but I can name numerous movies that are better than the books they are based on including Dr. Strangelove , Children of Men , Fight Club , The Godfather , No Country for Old Men , and that's just to name a few.

Education

Books-are-better-than-Television/1/

Since you didn't respond to any of my arguments and babbled on incoherently about how stupid I am, I'll respond to what you wrote. Based on your response, reading books vastly decreases your ability to put a coherent sentence together with correct grammar and spelling. "As you speak it looks like you talk with no proper education and self support from books." Very hypocritical and grammatically incorrect, you forgot to add the comment after "speak" and the hyphen after "self." The only point you made was that I was not educated, which is incorrect. Please point out any grammatical or spelling error that I made; because I can show you dozens of spelling and grammatical errors that you made. I will ask my opponent to respond to my previous arguments.

lua

Since you didn't respond to any of my arguments and babbled on incoherently about how stupid I am, I'll respond to what you wrote. Based on your response, reading books vastly decreases your ability to put a coherent sentence together with correct grammar and spelling. "As you speak it looks like you talk with no proper education and self support from books." Very hypocritical and grammatically incorrect, you forgot to add the comment after "speak" and the hyphen after "self." The only point you made was that I was not educated, which is incorrect. Please point out any grammatical or spelling error that I made; because I can show you dozens of spelling and grammatical errors that you made. I will ask my opponent to respond to my previous arguments.

Education

Books-are-better-than-Television/1/

Again, you didn't respond to any of my arguments. 1. Your argument is also your rebuttal, while TV and movies give you a whole picture with all the details, books often leave readers in uncertainty. When you look at a movie like Forrest Gump and compare it to the book, the book tries too hard to be funny and comes across over-the-top and unamusing while the movie strikes a perfect balance through the humor and the uplifting message, just one example of the movie being more unique than the book. 2. This argument was baseless and meaningless. You don't need a laptop to pause a TV show; you can leave it paused for however long you want, and it will still be there in the morning just like a book. All you have to do is get Netflix and pay $7.99 a month; that's nothing to you! You buy six books a day! Since the average book costs $27, you pay around $162 a day! 3. Another absurd argument, I can't count the times that I have lost my bookmark, having to search for the page I was on for such a long time. But when I'm on Netflix, I don't have to search, I just press "resume," and I'm right where I left off. 4. This argument is purposeless; you don't have to wear 3D glasses to watch a movie. "Guess what doesn"t require 3D glasses for an all-encompassing experience? A book, y"all." Are you implying that you need 3D glasses to watch every movie? Because that is flat-out incorrect, even if a movie is in 3D, (which is incredibly rare nowadays, you can see the movies that are 3D are steadily dying out), you can choose to watch it in 2D, no one is making you watch movies in 3D. 5. You've struck up countless conversations with strangers about books; this is your word against mine, the person who said she reads six books a day. But let's just assume you're telling the truth this time! Facebook analyzed the most common conversation topics -- and there was not one book on there -- but there were many TV shows on there bringing people together such as The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones. 6. This was nonsensical; I honestly have no idea what she was trying to achieve with this argument. 7. This argument was meaningless and fallacious. Are you implying that TV shows don't end or don't have good endings? Because it is incredibly more common for a book series to get canceled rather than a TV series -- only .2% of authors get published today, while more than 80% of new shows get a second season. TV shows not having good endings is another extremely subjective topic, but I can state countless TV shows with fantastic endings including Justified , Friday Night Lights , Breaking Bad , Battlestar Galactica , and Six Feet Under. Please don't take what I wrote out of context, by leaving out " Based on your response" on " Based on your response, reading books vastly decreases your ability to put a coherent sentence together with correct grammar and spelling." You make it sound like I actually believe that instead of me just making a joke.

lua

Again, you didn't respond to any of my arguments. 1. Your argument is also your rebuttal, while TV and movies give you a whole picture with all the details, books often leave readers in uncertainty. When you look at a movie like Forrest Gump and compare it to the book, the book tries too hard to be funny and comes across over-the-top and unamusing while the movie strikes a perfect balance through the humor and the uplifting message, just one example of the movie being more unique than the book. 2. This argument was baseless and meaningless. You don't need a laptop to pause a TV show; you can leave it paused for however long you want, and it will still be there in the morning just like a book. All you have to do is get Netflix and pay $7.99 a month; that's nothing to you! You buy six books a day! Since the average book costs $27, you pay around $162 a day! 3. Another absurd argument, I can't count the times that I have lost my bookmark, having to search for the page I was on for such a long time. But when I'm on Netflix, I don't have to search, I just press "resume," and I'm right where I left off. 4. This argument is purposeless; you don't have to wear 3D glasses to watch a movie. "Guess what doesn"t require 3D glasses for an all-encompassing experience? A book, y"all." Are you implying that you need 3D glasses to watch every movie? Because that is flat-out incorrect, even if a movie is in 3D, (which is incredibly rare nowadays, you can see the movies that are 3D are steadily dying out), you can choose to watch it in 2D, no one is making you watch movies in 3D. 5. You've struck up countless conversations with strangers about books; this is your word against mine, the person who said she reads six books a day. But let's just assume you're telling the truth this time! Facebook analyzed the most common conversation topics -- and there was not one book on there -- but there were many TV shows on there bringing people together such as The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones. 6. This was nonsensical; I honestly have no idea what she was trying to achieve with this argument. 7. This argument was meaningless and fallacious. Are you implying that TV shows don't end or don't have good endings? Because it is incredibly more common for a book series to get canceled rather than a TV series -- only .2% of authors get published today, while more than 80% of new shows get a second season. TV shows not having good endings is another extremely subjective topic, but I can state countless TV shows with fantastic endings including Justified , Friday Night Lights , Breaking Bad , Battlestar Galactica , and Six Feet Under. Please don't take what I wrote out of context, by leaving out " Based on your response" on " Based on your response, reading books vastly decreases your ability to put a coherent sentence together with correct grammar and spelling." You make it sound like I actually believe that instead of me just making a joke.

Education

Books-are-better-than-Television/1/

I will let my opponent go first whoever it is

Halo3

I will let my opponent go first whoever it is

News

Books-are-good/1/

1. Remember, you are on CON 2. People can practice writing by writing books. 3. Books can give you laughs, dreams, and sadness

Halo3

1. Remember, you are on CON 2. People can practice writing by writing books. 3. Books can give you laughs, dreams, and sadness

News

Books-are-good/1/

1. This is not a sharing time! 2. This is a debate 3. There are many books which become movies. 4. When you are down, books can cheer you up by having comics or other stuff

Halo3

1. This is not a sharing time! 2. This is a debate 3. There are many books which become movies. 4. When you are down, books can cheer you up by having comics or other stuff

News

Books-are-good/1/

1. Sharing time is not all that fun 2. When books become movies, they need actors so it could also hire people who don't have jobs

Halo3

1. Sharing time is not all that fun 2. When books become movies, they need actors so it could also hire people who don't have jobs

News

Books-are-good/1/

1. Books can open the reader's mind to do stuff and learn stuff like hunting, surviving in a desert, etc. 2. The topic is not about movies 3. Sometimes the director wants to cut off some of the parts because it's long, boring, or will take half an hour for that part. 4. Okay, why are you always talking about twilight, the book? Books are good

Halo3

1. Books can open the reader's mind to do stuff and learn stuff like hunting, surviving in a desert, etc. 2. The topic is not about movies 3. Sometimes the director wants to cut off some of the parts because it's long, boring, or will take half an hour for that part. 4. Okay, why are you always talking about twilight, the book? Books are good

News

Books-are-good/1/

I know not too much about this topic... but I will try to get my point across... Heres a possible effect that closing boarders might have. We close the borders and keep more and more people out. Due to the lack of immagrent workers, farmers start having to pay more money, for generally less work. Due to the higher expense of labor, food prices increase, further affecting and weakening our countries economy. Also, have you read the article on the one town that is split between Mexico and US? If we close off the boarders... Then that town, and probably many others, will be killed.... do we want that at this point???

queenalexandria

I know not too much about this topic... but I will try to get my point across... Heres a possible effect that closing boarders might have. We close the borders and keep more and more people out. Due to the lack of immagrent workers, farmers start having to pay more money, for generally less work. Due to the higher expense of labor, food prices increase, further affecting and weakening our countries economy. Also, have you read the article on the one town that is split between Mexico and US? If we close off the boarders... Then that town, and probably many others, will be killed.... do we want that at this point???

Politics

Borders/1/