Datasets:

notaphoenix

/

debateorg_w_effect_for_conservative_subset

like 0

First, i would like to refute all of your previous points You have said That 1) Caucases give the party an idea of which candidate to chose, and that caucuses are for the people. The truth is that caucuses are not fair because it does not reflect the popular vote, so how can you say that an election in which not every vote counts the same way is for the people. The only kind of election for the people is one closely based on the popular vote, like primaries. 2) There is no other way to do this as effectively. As i said earlier, there is. the way Caucuses work is people get together with other people in their "presinct" and try to convince others to move over to their side. If that doesnt work, any candidates supporters that do not have at least 15% are forced to move to another group. Then, whichever candidates has the most supporters wins the entire presinct, while in primaries you just vote for whoever you want. Most states use primaries, not caucuses, and they work, so there is another way to do this effectively. 3) We have done it this way for centuries Just because the current system is old, doesnot mean it works. In fact, just how old it is proves the system needs to be reformed for the good of all americans. Now i will move on to some of my own points 1) Primaries have a higher turnout on average than caucuses. Caucuses take more time than primaries also so less people show up. If we want a government by the people and for the people we should use the system which gets people to vote, not the long tedious unfair system of caucuses. Srry GTG....

iluvdb8

First, i would like to refute all of your previous points You have said That 1) Caucases give the party an idea of which candidate to chose, and that caucuses are for the people. The truth is that caucuses are not fair because it does not reflect the popular vote, so how can you say that an election in which not every vote counts the same way is for the people. The only kind of election for the people is one closely based on the popular vote, like primaries. 2) There is no other way to do this as effectively. As i said earlier, there is. the way Caucuses work is people get together with other people in their "presinct" and try to convince others to move over to their side. If that doesnt work, any candidates supporters that do not have at least 15% are forced to move to another group. Then, whichever candidates has the most supporters wins the entire presinct, while in primaries you just vote for whoever you want. Most states use primaries, not caucuses, and they work, so there is another way to do this effectively. 3) We have done it this way for centuries Just because the current system is old, doesnot mean it works. In fact, just how old it is proves the system needs to be reformed for the good of all americans. Now i will move on to some of my own points 1) Primaries have a higher turnout on average than caucuses. Caucuses take more time than primaries also so less people show up. If we want a government by the people and for the people we should use the system which gets people to vote, not the long tedious unfair system of caucuses. Srry GTG....

Politics

Caucuses-should-not-be-used-in-determining-candidates-for-President-in-the-USA/1/

Celebrating birthday is a burden of craps we own. Isn't it so annoying to wish everyone on their bdays, and being hurt if someone forgets to wish us back on our own bdays ??. I dont cerebrate bdays, its a waste of time, money and resources that add no quality in lives of others. It only boost our ego and greed up... I mean being ME for any reason seems ridiculous.. I would rather spend this day volunteering the foster home or with the people who are less fortunate.. Your thoughts ?? Agree or disagree ?

Raffat

Celebrating birthday is a burden of craps we own. Isn't it so annoying to wish everyone on their bdays, and being hurt if someone forgets to wish us back on our own bdays ??. I dont cerebrate bdays, its a waste of time, money and resources that add no quality in lives of others. It only boost our ego and greed up... I mean being ME for any reason seems ridiculous.. I would rather spend this day volunteering the foster home or with the people who are less fortunate.. Your thoughts ?? Agree or disagree ?

Philosophy

Celebrating-birthday-is-a-burden-of-craps-we-own./1/

You must remember one thing and that is that birthdays give people happiness. Though it may not be any sort of accomplishment it makes people happy just as going to theme parks and watching television does. Social psychologists at oxford have determined that roughly 40% of happiness comes from one off events like these. So if something makes you happy it is almost never a waste of time as that should be the goal of your life. To always be happy.

sherlockholmesfan2798

You must remember one thing and that is that birthdays give people happiness. Though it may not be any sort of accomplishment it makes people happy just as going to theme parks and watching television does. Social psychologists at oxford have determined that roughly 40% of happiness comes from one off events like these. So if something makes you happy it is almost never a waste of time as that should be the goal of your life. To always be happy.

Philosophy

Celebrating-birthday-is-a-burden-of-craps-we-own./1/

My points are still valid.

sherlockholmesfan2798

My points are still valid.

Philosophy

Celebrating-birthday-is-a-burden-of-craps-we-own./1/

Still valid.

sherlockholmesfan2798

Still valid.

Philosophy

Celebrating-birthday-is-a-burden-of-craps-we-own./1/

I contend that the 'reason' for that thread's deletion was that it was against the ToS. More than likely, a _user_ got upset at the topic, and contacted customer support in regards to the breach in ToS. The user is the one who disliked the topic, not the staff. The staff almost had to comply, since the ToS were in fact breached in the debate. This is my contention. I will now attempt to show you why my theory is much more likely than yours. In your scenario, the site is actively suppressing a certain topic. However, site views, which predicate ad views and therefore income, are based largely on controversy. By removing said controversy, they remove some of that income. Also, the 'bad press' generated by this could easily cause a few members to quit. Also, they have no more vested interest in the issue you brought up as on any other controversial issue. In my scenario, someone suppressed a certain topic. The reason they gave customer support was the breach in ToS. The site was forced to shut it down because of this. The person may have been losing in the debate and/or comments, could have just been a controlling type, etc. Basically, if you don't want your topic shut down, don't breach the ToS. you agreed to them when you signed up (though you probably didn't read them), and they even had a separate checkbox to verify that you agreed not to use profanity, use personal attacks, etc. You also state that it's _impossible_ to have free speech on a US hosted server. I happen to have an unused forum laying around, so in a sec I'll prove you wrong by direct evidence: <URL>... Post whatever you want in the forum I just added. My server is, in fact, in the United States. I'll leave whatever you post there up for at least a week. Proof positive that free speech can and does exist on some US servers.

beem0r

I contend that the 'reason' for that thread's deletion was that it was against the ToS. More than likely, a _user_ got upset at the topic, and contacted customer support in regards to the breach in ToS. The user is the one who disliked the topic, not the staff. The staff almost had to comply, since the ToS were in fact breached in the debate. This is my contention. I will now attempt to show you why my theory is much more likely than yours. In your scenario, the site is actively suppressing a certain topic. However, site views, which predicate ad views and therefore income, are based largely on controversy. By removing said controversy, they remove some of that income. Also, the 'bad press' generated by this could easily cause a few members to quit. Also, they have no more vested interest in the issue you brought up as on any other controversial issue. In my scenario, someone suppressed a certain topic. The reason they gave customer support was the breach in ToS. The site was forced to shut it down because of this. The person may have been losing in the debate and/or comments, could have just been a controlling type, etc. Basically, if you don't want your topic shut down, don't breach the ToS. you agreed to them when you signed up (though you probably didn't read them), and they even had a separate checkbox to verify that you agreed not to use profanity, use personal attacks, etc. You also state that it's _impossible_ to have free speech on a US hosted server. I happen to have an unused forum laying around, so in a sec I'll prove you wrong by direct evidence: http://fm.dureiku.org... Post whatever you want in the forum I just added. My server is, in fact, in the United States. I'll leave whatever you post there up for at least a week. Proof positive that free speech can and does exist on some US servers.

Society

Censorship-is-alive-and-well-on-debate.org./1/

>>How is that not censorship? Ok so then the TOS allows for censorship and its in play on this site. Your statement is in my favor.<< I find it rather unfair that you've completely changed your entire premise. In your opening argument, you laid out a case suggesting that Debate.org is deliberately suppressing unpopular beliefs. You gave PROOF that there was 'censorship,' so I didn't figure you truly wished to debate whether or not it was happening. Now you've changed your position to one simply saying "there are rules on this site." _rules YOU agreed to_. I believe anyone who reads your opening argument will realize that you meant 'unfair censorship.' I doubt you can call upholding a ToS every member here agreed to unfair. Well, you can, but you'd be wrong. >>But there is no oversight, they define when and if the TOS is violated, which reduces it to an excuse set. They have all the power.<< They don't decide when and if the ToS is breached. You do, by breaching it. You can go read the terms of service here: <URL>... You were supposed to read this when you signed up. If you breach it, it's your fault. You had all the information beforehand. >>There is no force, this page is totally free, the TOS forces users unilaterally.<< I meant the site was forced to close to topic due to a user contacting customer support about the breach of ToS. They were forced to by a user. True, they could have said "nah, we'll keep it around," but if they did, it would seem like censorship when they did close topics for ToS breaches. Censorship ofthe type you're arguing that they use - censorship where the site removes content simply because it disagrees. >>And if I post a plan to murder the president or a gig of child porn, and then send a few email to regulatory agencies, you think it'll last a week? Come on, you know better.<< Why would you call regulatory agencies? Of course you don't have free speech if you're actively limiting it yourself. Also, I don't allow image uploads, so any child porn would have to be ASCII renditions thereof. Also, in case you want to be oh-so-literal about your topic title and change the actual topic of your arguments (like you already kind of did): Censorship is not alive, therefore you lose. You were debating in round 1 that debate.org is censoring people on its own whim, though I've presented a much more likely scenario. Please provide further proof for your claim. You tried to change the topic to 'they censor because of the ToS,' but I am not respecting that. You lose based on your debate topic, and you lose based on your opening argument. Pick one to support in your third and final round.

beem0r

>>How is that not censorship? Ok so then the TOS allows for censorship and its in play on this site. Your statement is in my favor.<< I find it rather unfair that you've completely changed your entire premise. In your opening argument, you laid out a case suggesting that Debate.org is deliberately suppressing unpopular beliefs. You gave PROOF that there was 'censorship,' so I didn't figure you truly wished to debate whether or not it was happening. Now you've changed your position to one simply saying "there are rules on this site." _rules YOU agreed to_. I believe anyone who reads your opening argument will realize that you meant 'unfair censorship.' I doubt you can call upholding a ToS every member here agreed to unfair. Well, you can, but you'd be wrong. >>But there is no oversight, they define when and if the TOS is violated, which reduces it to an excuse set. They have all the power.<< They don't decide when and if the ToS is breached. You do, by breaching it. You can go read the terms of service here: http://www.debate.org... You were supposed to read this when you signed up. If you breach it, it's your fault. You had all the information beforehand. >>There is no force, this page is totally free, the TOS forces users unilaterally.<< I meant the site was forced to close to topic due to a user contacting customer support about the breach of ToS. They were forced to by a user. True, they could have said "nah, we'll keep it around," but if they did, it would seem like censorship when they did close topics for ToS breaches. Censorship ofthe type you're arguing that they use - censorship where the site removes content simply because it disagrees. >>And if I post a plan to murder the president or a gig of child porn, and then send a few email to regulatory agencies, you think it'll last a week? Come on, you know better.<< Why would you call regulatory agencies? Of course you don't have free speech if you're actively limiting it yourself. Also, I don't allow image uploads, so any child porn would have to be ASCII renditions thereof. Also, in case you want to be oh-so-literal about your topic title and change the actual topic of your arguments (like you already kind of did): Censorship is not alive, therefore you lose. You were debating in round 1 that debate.org is censoring people on its own whim, though I've presented a much more likely scenario. Please provide further proof for your claim. You tried to change the topic to 'they censor because of the ToS,' but I am not respecting that. You lose based on your debate topic, and you lose based on your opening argument. Pick one to support in your third and final round.

Society

Censorship-is-alive-and-well-on-debate.org./1/

I'm just going to tackle the big things my opponent said. >>To me censorship by definition is unfair.<< That is where you and the rest of the world disagree. If you post child porn, like you suggested in your other post, do you expect that to be able to remain? It's someone else's server! Also, using your analogy, is charging someone rent also automatically unfair? There's a house (apartment) and it says (on a contract, not on the door) that you need to pay X per month to live there. It's not unfair or ridiculous by any means. Debate.org wants to cater to a certain audience, and so they don't allow you to do certain things on their site that would steer these audiences away. You expect to just be given the automatic right to post whatever you want, hateful, profane, whatever. The site wants this to be a certain atmosphere, you have agreed in the ToS to comply, and you complain when they don't allow you to post things that are against the ToS? >>[me] "They don't decide when and if the ToS is breached. You do, by breaching it." That's circular. Why did the page get taken down? Because I broke the TOS. How do you know? They took the page down.<< No, you know if it's against the terms of service by reading the terms of service. Each member agreed to the terms of service upon account creation. We also specifically agreed not to resort to personal attacks or profanity. Not complying with this means we breach the ToS. >>Right, which they enact by using selective interpretation. Look, I'm not saying it's not tidy I'm saying its still censorship. A rose by any other name, and all that.<< I have put forward a much more likely case. A case where it is not the whim of the webmasters, but that of a user who contacted customer support. The more controversy you stir up on here, _the better_ from the view of the site's owners. Also, you're purely speculating when you say they're interpreting. It could have been something quite uninterpretable, such as using profanity or personal attacks. You haven't given any information on why it was shut down except 'they probably just didn't like the topic.' >>"Censorship is not alive, therefore you lose." Don't be pedantic. If you wish to play that game I can easily show that life is a meaningless and arbitrary term.<< Go ahead, but it doesn't change the fact that censorship is not alive, which you claim it is. Debate.org does not censor ideas, they simply limit the way you express these ideas on their site. And they fairly tell you the limits beforehand. In the cases where they might suppress your ideas, it is because they are forced to by law (if you had a debate on how best to assassinate the president, for example). While my opponent is trying to argue that debate.org will simply censor at its whim, it has no motive. He's also arguing that censorship is by its nature unfair. This is obviously not the case. If I own a site, I get to decide what goes there. If I make an agreement, such as a ToS, with members of my site, I am expected to uphold it, as are my members. If my members breach the terms they agreed to, it's not unfair in the least for me to remove the users and/or their ToS-breaching content from my site.

beem0r

I'm just going to tackle the big things my opponent said. >>To me censorship by definition is unfair.<< That is where you and the rest of the world disagree. If you post child porn, like you suggested in your other post, do you expect that to be able to remain? It's someone else's server! Also, using your analogy, is charging someone rent also automatically unfair? There's a house (apartment) and it says (on a contract, not on the door) that you need to pay X per month to live there. It's not unfair or ridiculous by any means. Debate.org wants to cater to a certain audience, and so they don't allow you to do certain things on their site that would steer these audiences away. You expect to just be given the automatic right to post whatever you want, hateful, profane, whatever. The site wants this to be a certain atmosphere, you have agreed in the ToS to comply, and you complain when they don't allow you to post things that are against the ToS? >>[me] "They don't decide when and if the ToS is breached. You do, by breaching it." That's circular. Why did the page get taken down? Because I broke the TOS. How do you know? They took the page down.<< No, you know if it's against the terms of service by reading the terms of service. Each member agreed to the terms of service upon account creation. We also specifically agreed not to resort to personal attacks or profanity. Not complying with this means we breach the ToS. >>Right, which they enact by using selective interpretation. Look, I'm not saying it's not tidy I'm saying its still censorship. A rose by any other name, and all that.<< I have put forward a much more likely case. A case where it is not the whim of the webmasters, but that of a user who contacted customer support. The more controversy you stir up on here, _the better_ from the view of the site's owners. Also, you're purely speculating when you say they're interpreting. It could have been something quite uninterpretable, such as using profanity or personal attacks. You haven't given any information on why it was shut down except 'they probably just didn't like the topic.' >>"Censorship is not alive, therefore you lose." Don't be pedantic. If you wish to play that game I can easily show that life is a meaningless and arbitrary term.<< Go ahead, but it doesn't change the fact that censorship is not alive, which you claim it is. Debate.org does not censor ideas, they simply limit the way you express these ideas on their site. And they fairly tell you the limits beforehand. In the cases where they might suppress your ideas, it is because they are forced to by law (if you had a debate on how best to assassinate the president, for example). While my opponent is trying to argue that debate.org will simply censor at its whim, it has no motive. He's also arguing that censorship is by its nature unfair. This is obviously not the case. If I own a site, I get to decide what goes there. If I make an agreement, such as a ToS, with members of my site, I am expected to uphold it, as are my members. If my members breach the terms they agreed to, it's not unfair in the least for me to remove the users and/or their ToS-breaching content from my site.

Society

Censorship-is-alive-and-well-on-debate.org./1/

While this site may purport to support controversy and discussion of relevant social issues, and total trivia in some cases such as who's cuter than who or which comic book character is tougher, when pressed it is just as capable of bias and cowardice as any other privately owned expression media. <URL>... ...was removed because of a heated debate that developed on the nature of the typical American mating paradigm of sexual and economical objectification of females and males respectively. Subjective excuses about manners or cursing will likely be used to defend this action, or maybe a heavy handed "it's mine I can do as I please" from the owner. But the fact is no one wants to hear about the evolutionary dead end we've gotten ourselves into, and this site, like any other, will suppress truly unpopular ideas rather than allow them to be explored unless that exploration is watered down and meaningless. Free speech is not possible on any server hosted in the united states.

bsergent

While this site may purport to support controversy and discussion of relevant social issues, and total trivia in some cases such as who's cuter than who or which comic book character is tougher, when pressed it is just as capable of bias and cowardice as any other privately owned expression media. http://www.debate.org... ...was removed because of a heated debate that developed on the nature of the typical American mating paradigm of sexual and economical objectification of females and males respectively. Subjective excuses about manners or cursing will likely be used to defend this action, or maybe a heavy handed "it's mine I can do as I please" from the owner. But the fact is no one wants to hear about the evolutionary dead end we've gotten ourselves into, and this site, like any other, will suppress truly unpopular ideas rather than allow them to be explored unless that exploration is watered down and meaningless. Free speech is not possible on any server hosted in the united states.

Society

Censorship-is-alive-and-well-on-debate.org./1/

"I contend that the 'reason' for that thread's deletion was that it was against the ToS." How is that not censorship? Ok so then the TOS allows for censorship and its in play on this site. Your statement is in my favor. "The staff almost had to comply, since the ToS were in fact breached in the debate." But there is no oversight, they define when and if the TOS is violated, which reduces it to an excuse set. They have all the power. "The site was forced to shut it down because of this. " There is no force, this page is totally free, the TOS forces users unilaterally. "Post whatever you want in the forum I just added. My server is, in fact, in the United States. I'll leave whatever you post there up for at least a week." And if I post a plan to murder the president or a gig of child porn, and then send a few email to regulatory agencies, you think it'll last a week? Come on, you know better.

bsergent

"I contend that the 'reason' for that thread's deletion was that it was against the ToS." How is that not censorship? Ok so then the TOS allows for censorship and its in play on this site. Your statement is in my favor. "The staff almost had to comply, since the ToS were in fact breached in the debate." But there is no oversight, they define when and if the TOS is violated, which reduces it to an excuse set. They have all the power. "The site was forced to shut it down because of this. " There is no force, this page is totally free, the TOS forces users unilaterally. "Post whatever you want in the forum I just added. My server is, in fact, in the United States. I'll leave whatever you post there up for at least a week." And if I post a plan to murder the president or a gig of child porn, and then send a few email to regulatory agencies, you think it'll last a week? Come on, you know better.

Society

Censorship-is-alive-and-well-on-debate.org./1/

"You gave PROOF that there was 'censorship,' so I didn't figure you truly wished to debate whether or not it was happening." So are you saying you agree with me that censorship is alive and well here? Or not... That is the point of the debate I thought. I'm confused. What I'm saying is that no matter what the EULA/TOS says, no matter what I was forced to agree to, or whether or not I did, the contents of the TOS allow for censorship and that allowance is being exploited for censorship. Like imagine a club house that says "Entry means you owe me a nickel." I'm saying that entry costs a nickel, and you're saying "It was clearly posted therefore you choose to pay a nickel." The nickel is censorship, the TOS is the sign, and the club house is debate.org So, yea you're right, but that's not a refutation of my point. I don't see your core argument yet. Do you have one? I grant that the TOS allows for censorship, but that's not the topic of the debate, I didn't say that it was absent from or against the TOS. I simply said it was alive and well. 'unfair censorship.' To me censorship by definition is unfair. "They don't decide when and if the ToS is breached. You do, by breaching it." That's circular. Why did the page get taken down? Because I broke the TOS. How do you know? They took the page down. "If you breach it, it's your fault." No, as any lawyer will tell you almost any language is subject to interpretation. Every forum or chat room rule list, TOS or EULA includes subjective prohibition on abuse and other highly subjective terms. And their interpretation is the only one that matters, thus allowing them to act unilaterally. The TOS is just a CYA like any other. "Censorship of the type you're arguing that they use - censorship where the site removes content simply because it disagrees." Right, which they enact by using selective interpretation. Look, I'm not saying it's not tidy I'm saying its still censorship. A rose by any other name, and all that. "Why would you call regulatory agencies? Of course you don't have free speech if you're actively limiting it yourself." ?! Uhhh, To illustrate that there is no such thing as free speech on American servers? I wouldn't have to make the report if you removed your time limit, eventually the secret service would show up. And how is me calling the Gov limiting my freedom of speech. If my speech were unlimited the calling wouldn't matter. By your logic there is no drug law unless the DEA finds out. Which I suppose is true in a extremely strict existential sense. But I was talking about prohibition independent of consequences. Potential consequences are enough. "Censorship is not alive, therefore you lose." Don't be pedantic. If you wish to play that game I can easily show that life is a meaningless and arbitrary term. "You were debating in round 1 that debate.org is censoring people on its own whim, though I've presented a much more likely scenario." As explained above, your scenario does not contradict my point. So it still stands. "Please provide further proof for your claim." The mere fact that they will pull a page for any reason proves my point. I merely made this debate to make people aware of that fact that if they post something the admins don't like (for what ever reason, TOS violation or not) they have the option of censoring it, and have used such an option in the past. "You tried to change the topic to 'they censor because of the ToS,..." No, I merely added that the TOS is the excuse they use to justify their censorship because you tried to use the TOS justification as some sort of refutation of my core point, which it is not.

bsergent

"You gave PROOF that there was 'censorship,' so I didn't figure you truly wished to debate whether or not it was happening." So are you saying you agree with me that censorship is alive and well here? Or not… That is the point of the debate I thought. I'm confused. What I'm saying is that no matter what the EULA/TOS says, no matter what I was forced to agree to, or whether or not I did, the contents of the TOS allow for censorship and that allowance is being exploited for censorship. Like imagine a club house that says "Entry means you owe me a nickel." I'm saying that entry costs a nickel, and you're saying "It was clearly posted therefore you choose to pay a nickel." The nickel is censorship, the TOS is the sign, and the club house is debate.org So, yea you're right, but that's not a refutation of my point. I don't see your core argument yet. Do you have one? I grant that the TOS allows for censorship, but that's not the topic of the debate, I didn't say that it was absent from or against the TOS. I simply said it was alive and well. 'unfair censorship.' To me censorship by definition is unfair. "They don't decide when and if the ToS is breached. You do, by breaching it." That's circular. Why did the page get taken down? Because I broke the TOS. How do you know? They took the page down. "If you breach it, it's your fault." No, as any lawyer will tell you almost any language is subject to interpretation. Every forum or chat room rule list, TOS or EULA includes subjective prohibition on abuse and other highly subjective terms. And their interpretation is the only one that matters, thus allowing them to act unilaterally. The TOS is just a CYA like any other. "Censorship of the type you're arguing that they use - censorship where the site removes content simply because it disagrees." Right, which they enact by using selective interpretation. Look, I'm not saying it's not tidy I'm saying its still censorship. A rose by any other name, and all that. "Why would you call regulatory agencies? Of course you don't have free speech if you're actively limiting it yourself." ?! Uhhh, To illustrate that there is no such thing as free speech on American servers? I wouldn't have to make the report if you removed your time limit, eventually the secret service would show up. And how is me calling the Gov limiting my freedom of speech. If my speech were unlimited the calling wouldn't matter. By your logic there is no drug law unless the DEA finds out. Which I suppose is true in a extremely strict existential sense. But I was talking about prohibition independent of consequences. Potential consequences are enough. "Censorship is not alive, therefore you lose." Don't be pedantic. If you wish to play that game I can easily show that life is a meaningless and arbitrary term. "You were debating in round 1 that debate.org is censoring people on its own whim, though I've presented a much more likely scenario." As explained above, your scenario does not contradict my point. So it still stands. "Please provide further proof for your claim." The mere fact that they will pull a page for any reason proves my point. I merely made this debate to make people aware of that fact that if they post something the admins don't like (for what ever reason, TOS violation or not) they have the option of censoring it, and have used such an option in the past. "You tried to change the topic to 'they censor because of the ToS,…" No, I merely added that the TOS is the excuse they use to justify their censorship because you tried to use the TOS justification as some sort of refutation of my core point, which it is not.

Society

Censorship-is-alive-and-well-on-debate.org./1/

In the course of human events, and, in fact, all events, whether human in nature or not, it becomes evident that, under careful and meticulous contemplation, most things are subjective when it comes right down to it. One color cannot be objectively better than another color, humans cannot adjudicate regarding the definite moral standing of another person, etc. However, in spite of all of this, there remain a certain number of immanent truths. Various religious orders, philosophies and the like may come to mind, as, when speaking of an absolute code of right and wrong, dogmatic theists (and even atheists) are naturally brought to mind with the foremost subconscious priority. Right and wrong, though, is not what we are discussing here. We are discussing correct and incorrect. My opponent will likely want to bring up the argument that "people have the freedom to their own opinion, they can eat cereal in any manner that they choose as long as it doesn't hurt anyone" and other such nonsense. Any such digression, I warn you, should be labelled as irrelevant by the collective consciousness of you, the voters, the ostensible high court of this virtual ekklesiasterion. Morality is not the issue here. Cereal was meant to be poured in before the milk, just as there had to be an Earth for rain to occur on before rain could occur at all. The fact that rain falls on the already present Earth is not right or wrong from a moral standpoint. No, when speaking of morality, it simply is. It is, however, correct, by virtue of the fact that this is the way it was meant to be; this is the natural order of things. So it is with cereal and milk. Cereal was meant to be poured before milk. If cereal is poured after milk, the cereal and milk don't mix properly and you are left with a floating layer of dry cereal and unflavored, dull milk. Tell me, what is the point of putting the two substances in a situation that clearly dictates that they be mixed if you don't mix them properly? Furthermore, when cereal is poured after milk, you have to be careful about how much milk you put in, because the cereal will float on top and, more often than not, you will end up with an overabundance of milk. To achieve the perfect balance of milk and cereal could be considered an art form and requires many breakfasts of training. Surely the inventors of cereal didn't intend for breakfast to be an extra chemistry class. Cereals have even been designed to be poured before milk (well, all cereal has been, but I am talking out of the ordinary). Lucky Charms, for example, used to have (and may still have, I'm not sure) cool little marshmallows that changed shape or color when they sat in milk for a long time, in addition to turning the milk green. Given that the cereal and milk don't mix properly when the cereal is poured after the milk, thereby denying the desired effect, it is incorrect to eat Lucky Charms if they are poured after the milk. This is but one example of multiple such cases. Lastly, I would like to perform an experiment with the voters and readers of this debate. I would like you to Google image search "pouring bowl of cereal." Count to yourselves how many of the pictures that show either milk or cereal being poured into a bowl, in which the other is already present, show milk being poured first and how many show cereal being poured first.

PericIes

In the course of human events, and, in fact, all events, whether human in nature or not, it becomes evident that, under careful and meticulous contemplation, most things are subjective when it comes right down to it. One color cannot be objectively better than another color, humans cannot adjudicate regarding the definite moral standing of another person, etc. However, in spite of all of this, there remain a certain number of immanent truths. Various religious orders, philosophies and the like may come to mind, as, when speaking of an absolute code of right and wrong, dogmatic theists (and even atheists) are naturally brought to mind with the foremost subconscious priority. Right and wrong, though, is not what we are discussing here. We are discussing correct and incorrect. My opponent will likely want to bring up the argument that "people have the freedom to their own opinion, they can eat cereal in any manner that they choose as long as it doesn't hurt anyone" and other such nonsense. Any such digression, I warn you, should be labelled as irrelevant by the collective consciousness of you, the voters, the ostensible high court of this virtual ekklesiasterion. Morality is not the issue here. Cereal was meant to be poured in before the milk, just as there had to be an Earth for rain to occur on before rain could occur at all. The fact that rain falls on the already present Earth is not right or wrong from a moral standpoint. No, when speaking of morality, it simply is. It is, however, correct, by virtue of the fact that this is the way it was meant to be; this is the natural order of things. So it is with cereal and milk. Cereal was meant to be poured before milk. If cereal is poured after milk, the cereal and milk don't mix properly and you are left with a floating layer of dry cereal and unflavored, dull milk. Tell me, what is the point of putting the two substances in a situation that clearly dictates that they be mixed if you don't mix them properly? Furthermore, when cereal is poured after milk, you have to be careful about how much milk you put in, because the cereal will float on top and, more often than not, you will end up with an overabundance of milk. To achieve the perfect balance of milk and cereal could be considered an art form and requires many breakfasts of training. Surely the inventors of cereal didn't intend for breakfast to be an extra chemistry class. Cereals have even been designed to be poured before milk (well, all cereal has been, but I am talking out of the ordinary). Lucky Charms, for example, used to have (and may still have, I'm not sure) cool little marshmallows that changed shape or color when they sat in milk for a long time, in addition to turning the milk green. Given that the cereal and milk don't mix properly when the cereal is poured after the milk, thereby denying the desired effect, it is incorrect to eat Lucky Charms if they are poured after the milk. This is but one example of multiple such cases. Lastly, I would like to perform an experiment with the voters and readers of this debate. I would like you to Google image search "pouring bowl of cereal." Count to yourselves how many of the pictures that show either milk or cereal being poured into a bowl, in which the other is already present, show milk being poured first and how many show cereal being poured first.

Miscellaneous

Cereal-Should-be-Poured-into-the-Bowl-Before-the-Milk/1/

Well, um, I didn't challenge you specifically, so... I don't really see the need to point out that you accept. Given that I already put forth an argument and spared you the pointless social niceties, I would think it was common sense to, you know, do the same. Apparently not. Unless you're just trying to use up your first part of the argument, forcing me to use my next one, so that you'd have the final word and be the end all be all of the debate and leave me without the option of rebuttal and only one body of argument. If that's the case, you could have at least been more clever about it. I am rather new here, though, so if it's customary to needlessly accept nonexistent targeted challenges, I withdraw the above confused semi-rant.

PericIes

Well, um, I didn't challenge you specifically, so... I don't really see the need to point out that you accept. Given that I already put forth an argument and spared you the pointless social niceties, I would think it was common sense to, you know, do the same. Apparently not. Unless you're just trying to use up your first part of the argument, forcing me to use my next one, so that you'd have the final word and be the end all be all of the debate and leave me without the option of rebuttal and only one body of argument. If that's the case, you could have at least been more clever about it. I am rather new here, though, so if it's customary to needlessly accept nonexistent targeted challenges, I withdraw the above confused semi-rant.

Miscellaneous

Cereal-Should-be-Poured-into-the-Bowl-Before-the-Milk/1/

This is another simple argument which clearly states one thing: -->Any one person cannot live a happy life without change of any sort. ex. Doing all the same things at the same time every day, talking to the same people(having the same conversations), thinking the same things, eating the same things, thus taking out any essence of unpredictability in their lives. This completely remove surprise of any kind, and any kind of stimulus that would excite them, utterly leaving them in a depressive rut. Good luck to whoever accepts this, should be fun.

stropheum

This is another simple argument which clearly states one thing: -->Any one person cannot live a happy life without change of any sort. ex. Doing all the same things at the same time every day, talking to the same people(having the same conversations), thinking the same things, eating the same things, thus taking out any essence of unpredictability in their lives. This completely remove surprise of any kind, and any kind of stimulus that would excite them, utterly leaving them in a depressive rut. Good luck to whoever accepts this, should be fun.

Society

Change-is-necessary-to-maintain-a-happy-lifestyle/1/

Thanks, repete21, for accepting this challenge. I hope this will be as interesting as i expect it to be. Now let me analyze each part of your argument. 1:"A person...rut." >>>1A: This is a very good point, although there are some flaws. This person who believes that they are living the same day, every day, cannot read the newspapers, watch the news, or any form of television for that matter, for not only will these things introduce a daily change, but if the person were to eventually notice these things, saying that they participated in these activities every day, they would become very upset, realizing how so much time has been lost in their eyes, thus making them unhappy. >>>1B: Another thing, using the link you provided for the definitions of the word "happy", I will assume that you agree all of these definitions are true, and will provide another reason why this argument is flawed. The first definition in the link provided by you in the past argument is "favored by luck or fortune". I also took the liberty of location the definition of "amnesia" from <URL>... , which reads "complete or partial loss of memory caused by brain injury, shock, etc.". One who has been a victim of traumas such as brain injury and shock are most certainly not favored by luck or fortune, and by the definition that you have provided me with, this person is most certainly not happy. >>>1C: Also, this is flawed in that these people are being introduced to change of some sort. In their mind it's the same day, yes, which means that yesterday was a completely different day to them, so they could do many activities that are a change to what they did "yesterday", being the day before the amnesia began. Altogether this was a good scenario, with a couple fundamental flaws. 2: "Someone whose lifestyle...without changing your lifestyle." >>>2A: This is again a good scenario, but also with fundamental flaws. True enough, this scenario would not introduce a lifestyle change, but the argument is that a person cannot live happily if all sorts of change are removed from their lives. Meeting new people and seeing new places is not a lifestyle change, but it is change, therefore their happiness is irrelevant to the argument at hand. 3: Based on these conclusions I have made about your arguments, I believe that my opening statement still stands firm. Good luck in the following rounds, repete21.

stropheum

Thanks, repete21, for accepting this challenge. I hope this will be as interesting as i expect it to be. Now let me analyze each part of your argument. 1:"A person...rut." >>>1A: This is a very good point, although there are some flaws. This person who believes that they are living the same day, every day, cannot read the newspapers, watch the news, or any form of television for that matter, for not only will these things introduce a daily change, but if the person were to eventually notice these things, saying that they participated in these activities every day, they would become very upset, realizing how so much time has been lost in their eyes, thus making them unhappy. >>>1B: Another thing, using the link you provided for the definitions of the word "happy", I will assume that you agree all of these definitions are true, and will provide another reason why this argument is flawed. The first definition in the link provided by you in the past argument is "favored by luck or fortune". I also took the liberty of location the definition of "amnesia" from http://dictionary.reference.com... , which reads "complete or partial loss of memory caused by brain injury, shock, etc.". One who has been a victim of traumas such as brain injury and shock are most certainly not favored by luck or fortune, and by the definition that you have provided me with, this person is most certainly not happy. >>>1C: Also, this is flawed in that these people are being introduced to change of some sort. In their mind it's the same day, yes, which means that yesterday was a completely different day to them, so they could do many activities that are a change to what they did "yesterday", being the day before the amnesia began. Altogether this was a good scenario, with a couple fundamental flaws. 2: "Someone whose lifestyle...without changing your lifestyle." >>>2A: This is again a good scenario, but also with fundamental flaws. True enough, this scenario would not introduce a lifestyle change, but the argument is that a person cannot live happily if all sorts of change are removed from their lives. Meeting new people and seeing new places is not a lifestyle change, but it is change, therefore their happiness is irrelevant to the argument at hand. 3: Based on these conclusions I have made about your arguments, I believe that my opening statement still stands firm. Good luck in the following rounds, repete21.

Society

Change-is-necessary-to-maintain-a-happy-lifestyle/1/

Che Guevara was not a horrible man, and is a symbol of revolution and standing up to oppression to help the less fortunate.

I-M-Right

Che Guevara was not a horrible man, and is a symbol of revolution and standing up to oppression to help the less fortunate.

Politics

Che-Guevara/1/

When you are trying to overthrow a government that is hurting the people and spending the peoples money on nonsense such as the Batista government did, there will be casualties. I think your exaggerating the number he killed, but he's a soldier what do you expect. And he believed in socialism, not communism. Communism cannot work and will never exist, but socialism can. The U.S was preventing Latin America from becoming a strong region, and that's why Guevara was tired of seeing his people suffer and starve while they didn't benefit from the selling of the peoples resources. Look what Guevara started even today. He taught people to stand up to oppressive governments. Look at a few weeks ago when the Venezuelan president was trying to pass a bill that would allow him to have unlimited terms in office. The people stood up and voted against it, becuase Guevara set an example for them and others.

I-M-Right

When you are trying to overthrow a government that is hurting the people and spending the peoples money on nonsense such as the Batista government did, there will be casualties. I think your exaggerating the number he killed, but he's a soldier what do you expect. And he believed in socialism, not communism. Communism cannot work and will never exist, but socialism can. The U.S was preventing Latin America from becoming a strong region, and that's why Guevara was tired of seeing his people suffer and starve while they didn't benefit from the selling of the peoples resources. Look what Guevara started even today. He taught people to stand up to oppressive governments. Look at a few weeks ago when the Venezuelan president was trying to pass a bill that would allow him to have unlimited terms in office. The people stood up and voted against it, becuase Guevara set an example for them and others.

Politics

Che-Guevara/1/

Che Guevera murdered thousands of innocent people! How can you defend that? Communism is devaluing to the individual, even if they are poor. Communisim doesn't allow them to be awarded for progressing!

independentprogressive

Che Guevera murdered thousands of innocent people! How can you defend that? Communism is devaluing to the individual, even if they are poor. Communisim doesn't allow them to be awarded for progressing!

Politics

Che-Guevara/1/

Hmmm. Lets see here... Is Cuba communist? I think so! Who did Che help put in office? Fidel Castro! Is he a communist? I think so! Casualties? He sent thousands of them to the firing squad. Poor ones, rich ones. Che had absolutely no respect for human life. As for the incident of Chavez and term limits, Che would have been on Chavez's side!

independentprogressive

Hmmm. Lets see here... Is Cuba communist? I think so! Who did Che help put in office? Fidel Castro! Is he a communist? I think so! Casualties? He sent thousands of them to the firing squad. Poor ones, rich ones. Che had absolutely no respect for human life. As for the incident of Chavez and term limits, Che would have been on Chavez's side!

Politics

Che-Guevara/1/

Thank you for setting up a valid point. Doritos do give people what they want. Doritoes may make a wide range of flavors Blazin' Buffalo & Ranch,Cool Ranch, Fiery Habanero,Nacho Cheese, Natural White Nacho Cheese, Poppin' Jalapeo, Ranchero,Salsa Verde , Smokin' Cheddar BBQ, Spicy Nacho, Toasted Corn, Zesty Taco,Cheeseburger, and Sizzlin' Picante, but that does not make them fickle, it makes them versatile. Even if versatility is bad it also applies to cheetos. What, with flavors like Flamin' Hot Chile Limn or Cool Ranch Cheetos, one would almost say my opponent isn't well informed on the topic. no offense.

vicstorm15

Thank you for setting up a valid point. Doritos do give people what they want. Doritoes may make a wide range of flavors Blazin' Buffalo & Ranch,Cool Ranch, Fiery Habanero,Nacho Cheese, Natural White Nacho Cheese, Poppin' Jalape�o, Ranchero,Salsa Verde , Smokin' Cheddar BBQ, Spicy Nacho, Toasted Corn, Zesty Taco,Cheeseburger, and Sizzlin' Picante, but that does not make them fickle, it makes them versatile. Even if versatility is bad it also applies to cheetos. What, with flavors like Flamin' Hot Chile Lim�n or Cool Ranch Cheetos, one would almost say my opponent isn't well informed on the topic. no offense.

Health

Cheetos-are-better-than-Doritos/1/

First of all I didn't refute your second two points because they are pointless. Find me someone who eats junk food in order to improve dental hygene, and I'll refute that point. on your third point, maybe this is just me but, eating things because of their shape rather than their taste is toddlerish. Besides the triangle is a trade mark. I mean your eating it and it will taste the same no matter what shape it is. My opponent did not argue with my point that cheetos are just as "fickle" as doritos. He or she is obviously dodging the fact that their main point applies to cheetos as well as doritos consider your points refuted.

vicstorm15

First of all I didn't refute your second two points because they are pointless. Find me someone who eats junk food in order to improve dental hygene, and I'll refute that point. on your third point, maybe this is just me but, eating things because of their shape rather than their taste is toddlerish. Besides the triangle is a trade mark. I mean your eating it and it will taste the same no matter what shape it is. My opponent did not argue with my point that cheetos are just as "fickle" as doritos. He or she is obviously dodging the fact that their main point applies to cheetos as well as doritos consider your points refuted.

Health

Cheetos-are-better-than-Doritos/1/

My oponents first point can be argued. As for saying that cheetos sticks to cheese and flaming hot flavors, that is false. As I stated before, they have a flavor, Flamin' Hot Chile Limn, which is sprinkled with limon and lime flavoring. Cheetos does not vary taste often but instead, changes shape as a sales gimick. Which is more importiant? Good taste, or "cheesy" shapes? Pardon the pun. As far as dental hygene, both cheetos and doritos require brushing to remove cavity causing debree. Although, cheetos have more sugary ingredients and cavity causing chemicals. So if left unbrushed, it's more harmful than "hard" doritos. Should decoration mark superior taste as in the resturaunts you mentioned before, or should it mark an obvious sales gimick? Cheetos have a 70% success rate with new designes, while doritos have a 100% success rating. Conclusion: Doritos are more versitile, better for teeth, and use less sales gimicks. I have refuted all my opponents points.

vicstorm15

My oponents first point can be argued. As for saying that cheetos sticks to cheese and flaming hot flavors, that is false. As I stated before, they have a flavor, Flamin' Hot Chile Lim�n, which is sprinkled with limon and lime flavoring. Cheetos does not vary taste often but instead, changes shape as a sales gimick. Which is more importiant? Good taste, or "cheesy" shapes? Pardon the pun. As far as dental hygene, both cheetos and doritos require brushing to remove cavity causing debree. Although, cheetos have more sugary ingredients and cavity causing chemicals. So if left unbrushed, it's more harmful than "hard" doritos. Should decoration mark superior taste as in the resturaunts you mentioned before, or should it mark an obvious sales gimick? Cheetos have a 70% success rate with new designes, while doritos have a 100% success rating. Conclusion: Doritos are more versitile, better for teeth, and use less sales gimicks. I have refuted all my opponents points.

Health

Cheetos-are-better-than-Doritos/1/

I am going to be arguing for this topic as I believe that gum and headphones might help some people concentrate in lessons. They might also find lessons more appealing if they are allowed these two simple things. My opponent should accept is he/she is against the idea of having gum and headphones in lessons. First round is for acceptance only.

CezziCash

I am going to be arguing for this topic as I believe that gum and headphones might help some people concentrate in lessons. They might also find lessons more appealing if they are allowed these two simple things. My opponent should accept is he/she is against the idea of having gum and headphones in lessons. First round is for acceptance only.

Education

Chewing-gum-and-headphones-should-be-allowed-in-lessons/1/

Thank-you for accepting, I hope this debate will be a well discussed topic that will contain a load of opinions and interesting facts. Good luck. First of all, I would like to mention a few of the very many amount of benefits from having chewing gum in class. Gum helps children stay quiet in lessons because it keeps their mouths occupied, this allows them to think instead of talk and distract the lesson. Also, it has been proven that chewing gun speeds up reading. <URL>... claims that the one of the reasons why people read slowly is because of 'internal voice', a delay in which the mouth must move as the reader reads. Chewing gum occupies the mouth, this allowing faster reading times without the habit of internal voice. Reading faster would benefit students because they would be able to complete work fast and learn more. Students can discard nervous energy by chewing gum. This would help students because they would be able to focus easily in stressful times; such as a test or a controlled assessment. Also, so long as they chew quietly, chewing gum could avoid class distractions where as tapping a pencil or foot, or chewing fingernails could be more distracting. The only problem with chewing gum in class is that teachers are afraid they will put the used gum under the desks or on the chairs; so long as students do not put chewing gum on furniture or carpet I truly do not see a problem with chewing gun in class. <URL>... About the headphones, personally I noticed music can help me focus on my work and block out distractions going on in the class. I think its okay during independent work such as tests, quizzes or when a teacher gives you a paper to do. Music will persuade students to do their work because they will have the encouragement of their music. They will be listening to their favourite music which would make school lessons and learning go by quicker and sound more appealing to do. Lessons would be considered as study time instead of long lectures. I know many students find this helpful while working and it allows them to focus in their own mind whilst having something they enjoy to add to the work. We all have those kids in our class that create some sort of distraction and I think it would be helpful to allow music in classes. Con should keep in mind that this topic is an opinion.

CezziCash

Thank-you for accepting, I hope this debate will be a well discussed topic that will contain a load of opinions and interesting facts. Good luck. First of all, I would like to mention a few of the very many amount of benefits from having chewing gum in class. Gum helps children stay quiet in lessons because it keeps their mouths occupied, this allows them to think instead of talk and distract the lesson. Also, it has been proven that chewing gun speeds up reading. http://www.spreeder.com... claims that the one of the reasons why people read slowly is because of 'internal voice', a delay in which the mouth must move as the reader reads. Chewing gum occupies the mouth, this allowing faster reading times without the habit of internal voice. Reading faster would benefit students because they would be able to complete work fast and learn more. Students can discard nervous energy by chewing gum. This would help students because they would be able to focus easily in stressful times; such as a test or a controlled assessment. Also, so long as they chew quietly, chewing gum could avoid class distractions where as tapping a pencil or foot, or chewing fingernails could be more distracting. The only problem with chewing gum in class is that teachers are afraid they will put the used gum under the desks or on the chairs; so long as students do not put chewing gum on furniture or carpet I truly do not see a problem with chewing gun in class. http://www.educationworld.com... About the headphones, personally I noticed music can help me focus on my work and block out distractions going on in the class. I think its okay during independent work such as tests, quizzes or when a teacher gives you a paper to do. Music will persuade students to do their work because they will have the encouragement of their music. They will be listening to their favourite music which would make school lessons and learning go by quicker and sound more appealing to do. Lessons would be considered as study time instead of long lectures. I know many students find this helpful while working and it allows them to focus in their own mind whilst having something they enjoy to add to the work. We all have those kids in our class that create some sort of distraction and I think it would be helpful to allow music in classes. Con should keep in mind that this topic is an opinion.

Education

Chewing-gum-and-headphones-should-be-allowed-in-lessons/1/

He has forfeited that round so I would just like to say to keep that in mind and double my points ;)

CezziCash

He has forfeited that round so I would just like to say to keep that in mind and double my points ;)

Education

Chewing-gum-and-headphones-should-be-allowed-in-lessons/1/

I thank you for this debate. I beleive that tomato soup is so much better than chicken soup becuase it has so many tastes and combinations. I show you the proof here: YOU CAN USE IT IN AND ON (1ST) MEAT LOAF (2ND) AND WHEN YOU MAKE SPICY TACOS (3RD) STUFF BELL PEPPERS (4TH) MAKING PIZZA FROM HOME MADE (5TH) SPICY BEAN DIP FOR CHIPS FOR PARTY,S (6TH) SPICY MEATBALL AND SPAGHETTI (7TH) SPICY VEGETABLE BEEF SOUP (8TH) SPICY GROUND BEEF FOR OTHER DISHES LIKE HAMBURGER'S TO GIVE THE BEEF JUST A SPICY TOUCH AND TO KEEP THEM FROM DRYING OUT ON THE GRILL (9TH) SPICY SALAS DIPS FOR CHIPS (10TH) SPICY SLOPPY JOES These are the possible combinations from a yahoo question about all the things you can do with tomato soup. Thank you and I await your rebuttal.

Randomknowledge

I thank you for this debate. I beleive that tomato soup is so much better than chicken soup becuase it has so many tastes and combinations. I show you the proof here: YOU CAN USE IT IN AND ON (1ST) MEAT LOAF (2ND) AND WHEN YOU MAKE SPICY TACOS (3RD) STUFF BELL PEPPERS (4TH) MAKING PIZZA FROM HOME MADE (5TH) SPICY BEAN DIP FOR CHIPS FOR PARTY,S (6TH) SPICY MEATBALL AND SPAGHETTI (7TH) SPICY VEGETABLE BEEF SOUP (8TH) SPICY GROUND BEEF FOR OTHER DISHES LIKE HAMBURGER'S TO GIVE THE BEEF JUST A SPICY TOUCH AND TO KEEP THEM FROM DRYING OUT ON THE GRILL (9TH) SPICY SALAS DIPS FOR CHIPS (10TH) SPICY SLOPPY JOES These are the possible combinations from a yahoo question about all the things you can do with tomato soup. Thank you and I await your rebuttal.

Entertainment

Chicken-Soup-is-better-than-Tomato-Soup./1/

Hello again polka, and as this is a fun debate I will treat it as such =] first of all, let me refute your previous argument: First of all, just because a certain thing has many uses, does not necessarily make it better. There are thousands of uses for paper, but that doesn't make it better than medicine. Chicken Soup is first off yummy. It has a variety of textures, with the noodles and soup, so you don't get bored of it easily. :) Secondly, chicken noodle soup is proven healthy for you and helps you when you are sick. It contains many herbs that are beneficial to your health including ginger, thyme, sage, and many other. This creates a wonderful heath "potion." You are right, paper is not better than medicine, but having multiple uses does lend itself to having more things that can be done with it. I have no doubt that it is yummy, as I am a fan of both soups. It does have a variety of textures, but if you use all of the combinations I listed then you will not "get bored." Chicken noodle soup is proven to be healthy and wonderful for medicinal purposes, but so dos tomato soup: The tomato is known as a powerhouse of nutrition. It contains a multitude of vitamins and minerals that act to support health. However, it was not until the discovery of the carotenoid lycopene that modern science began to truly recognize the healing power of the tomato. Lycopene has recently become the poster child of bioactive substances found in food that demonstrate health benefits. Among these benefits, the risk of prostate and breast cancer decreases due to lycopene.11 Lycopene appears to have a favorable effect in treating many other cancers such as: lung, stomach, colorectal, oral, esophageal, pancreatic, bladder and cervical cancer.11 Also, research has shown lycopene to lower the oxidation of LDL cholesterol and reduce heart disease,1,2,5,6 as well as increase the resistance to lung cancer and exercise induced asthma.7,9 There is even some evidence that lycopene in tomatoes may help to prevent cataracts,32,33 age-related macular degeneration34 and sunburns.31 More and more research appears to show that lycopene assists the immune system in protecting the body from illness. This is just a small Excerpt from <URL>... , a website talking about the medicinal values of Tomatoes, thus proving that when combined with bread and crackers and such, tomato soup comes out on top. Thank you and I await your rebuttal.

Randomknowledge

Hello again polka, and as this is a fun debate I will treat it as such =] first of all, let me refute your previous argument: First of all, just because a certain thing has many uses, does not necessarily make it better. There are thousands of uses for paper, but that doesn't make it better than medicine. Chicken Soup is first off yummy. It has a variety of textures, with the noodles and soup, so you don't get bored of it easily. :) Secondly, chicken noodle soup is proven healthy for you and helps you when you are sick. It contains many herbs that are beneficial to your health including ginger, thyme, sage, and many other. This creates a wonderful heath "potion." You are right, paper is not better than medicine, but having multiple uses does lend itself to having more things that can be done with it. I have no doubt that it is yummy, as I am a fan of both soups. It does have a variety of textures, but if you use all of the combinations I listed then you will not "get bored." Chicken noodle soup is proven to be healthy and wonderful for medicinal purposes, but so dos tomato soup: The tomato is known as a powerhouse of nutrition. It contains a multitude of vitamins and minerals that act to support health. However, it was not until the discovery of the carotenoid lycopene that modern science began to truly recognize the healing power of the tomato. Lycopene has recently become the poster child of bioactive substances found in food that demonstrate health benefits. Among these benefits, the risk of prostate and breast cancer decreases due to lycopene.11 Lycopene appears to have a favorable effect in treating many other cancers such as: lung, stomach, colorectal, oral, esophageal, pancreatic, bladder and cervical cancer.11 Also, research has shown lycopene to lower the oxidation of LDL cholesterol and reduce heart disease,1,2,5,6 as well as increase the resistance to lung cancer and exercise induced asthma.7,9 There is even some evidence that lycopene in tomatoes may help to prevent cataracts,32,33 age-related macular degeneration34 and sunburns.31 More and more research appears to show that lycopene assists the immune system in protecting the body from illness. This is just a small Excerpt from http://www.townsendletter.com... , a website talking about the medicinal values of Tomatoes, thus proving that when combined with bread and crackers and such, tomato soup comes out on top. Thank you and I await your rebuttal.

Entertainment

Chicken-Soup-is-better-than-Tomato-Soup./1/

Hello, polka. I will refute: You said that "tomatoe soup, since it can be used in many different areas, will not be something you will get bored of. " What I meant was that since it can be used with almost anything, the frequent combinations will keep you interested. you said: "But, just becuase you add it into different things doesn't mean you won't get bored of it. Actually, using the same thing day after day, would get boring. Chicken noodle soup provide much variety at once." I concede that point to you, but so does Tomato Soup, when combined with other things. "Chicken noodle soup is also full of vitamins and minerals. (Well, it actually depends on the brand you get, but usually:) Also, lycopene may reduce the risk of things such as cancer, but what is known to CURE a cold? No medicine you can find on the shelves at stores is known to kill colds. Chicken noodle soup is known to CURE things and has variety. May I also add that you can get chicken noodle soup with goldfish as the noodles! :) hehe :)" I also agree that Chicken Noodle soup is full of vitamins and minerals. I direct the reader, however, to the severity of cancer and the severity of a common cold. Maybe in the 1800's(earlier?) it was common for people to die of the cold, but not today. We have remedies, cold swabs, cold medicine, and The soup we are debating about. The cold is nothing to worry about, while cancer is. Thus why Tomato soup is healthier. Besides, why have goldfish shaped noodles when it tastes great to put goldfish in your tomato soup? The reader should decide on the better debater, not who they agree with. Thank you.

Randomknowledge

Hello, polka. I will refute: You said that "tomatoe soup, since it can be used in many different areas, will not be something you will get bored of. " What I meant was that since it can be used with almost anything, the frequent combinations will keep you interested. you said: "But, just becuase you add it into different things doesn't mean you won't get bored of it. Actually, using the same thing day after day, would get boring. Chicken noodle soup provide much variety at once." I concede that point to you, but so does Tomato Soup, when combined with other things. "Chicken noodle soup is also full of vitamins and minerals. (Well, it actually depends on the brand you get, but usually:) Also, lycopene may reduce the risk of things such as cancer, but what is known to CURE a cold? No medicine you can find on the shelves at stores is known to kill colds. Chicken noodle soup is known to CURE things and has variety. May I also add that you can get chicken noodle soup with goldfish as the noodles! :) hehe :)" I also agree that Chicken Noodle soup is full of vitamins and minerals. I direct the reader, however, to the severity of cancer and the severity of a common cold. Maybe in the 1800's(earlier?) it was common for people to die of the cold, but not today. We have remedies, cold swabs, cold medicine, and The soup we are debating about. The cold is nothing to worry about, while cancer is. Thus why Tomato soup is healthier. Besides, why have goldfish shaped noodles when it tastes great to put goldfish in your tomato soup? The reader should decide on the better debater, not who they agree with. Thank you.

Entertainment

Chicken-Soup-is-better-than-Tomato-Soup./1/

Hi, and thanks for accepting this debate challenge. Might I make it perfectly clear to anybody reading this that I am not in support of child pornography, nor the production of child pornography. I strongly believe that abuse like the production of CP should come with punishment. My debate is on the topic of the possession of child pornography. While the possessors of Child Pornography may be sick, wrong, and perverted they are realistically doing nothing to harm anybody. They are not harming the child by simply viewing the material in any real way, the harm that may actually come out of the viewing of this material is caused by the producer- not the viewer. Viewers of Child Pornography will not necessarily molest children in the future, just as those who drink a sip of liquor do not necessarily go on killing sprees. While I believe it is wrong, and objectionable I believe that CP should be legal to possess only.

DucoNihilum

Hi, and thanks for accepting this debate challenge. Might I make it perfectly clear to anybody reading this that I am not in support of child pornography, nor the production of child pornography. I strongly believe that abuse like the production of CP should come with punishment. My debate is on the topic of the possession of child pornography. While the possessors of Child Pornography may be sick, wrong, and perverted they are realistically doing nothing to harm anybody. They are not harming the child by simply viewing the material in any real way, the harm that may actually come out of the viewing of this material is caused by the producer- not the viewer. Viewers of Child Pornography will not necessarily molest children in the future, just as those who drink a sip of liquor do not necessarily go on killing sprees. While I believe it is wrong, and objectionable I believe that CP should be legal to possess only.

Society

Child-pornography-should-be-legal-to-posses./1/

Thanks for accepting my debate rwebberc. For all of those of you who plan to vote on this debate I must ask you to objectively look at both of our arguments and vote based on who you think honestly won this debate. I understand this is a controversial topic and it is a strong possibility that some of you might immediately vote, assuming I am incorrect without even reading my arguments, but please at least give me a fighting chance before saying I lost. My opponent wrongfully assumes that for me to believe possession of child pornography to be legal, child molestation should as well. This assumption is boldly incorrect, even by his own statistics and reasoning. The CP industry is a special industry in many respects. Firstly, while most products demand increases drastically as price moves closer to zero (Such as, for example, holywood movies. If free DVD's were being given away for popular movies, a very large number of people would try to get them, depending on the circumstances). However, when CP is distributed a very small amount of people are interested in it- even if the price is zero. Secondly, as most modern CP (By your own argument) is distributed over the Internet, thusly, even with relatively high demand- scarcity is almost impossible, and does not come with more people desiring it. Furthermore, most people would be absolutely repulsed by the very idea of CP and not seek it if it were legal, I suggest that the occurrences of CP would hardly be effected at all. Look at other black market industries, like those of drugs and prostitution. Going after the possessors (Or johns) stops a very small amount of people, and barely puts a dent in the demand. In fact, it effects demand so lightly that it hardly takes a hit. However, when the supply is taken down the supplier is unable to supply his or her multiple clients. When the US invaded Afghanistan Opioid production dropped significantly, they did this by removing the supply- not the millions upon millions of opioid abusers. Lastly, CP is arguably not an industry. Typically, for something to be considered an industry, it has to be a "Commercial enterprise". CP has very few instances of commercial production, and in my research a majority of the arrests are for production at home for distribution on the internet, though IRC, P2P, FTP, and the like- not commercial production. It would not be logical to think that if less people were getting arrested for CP possession people would decide "Maybe I SHOULD molest my kids, after all, I can get 10 people to download my file on the internet when I could only previously get 7!" By your own statistic, 60% of arrests have never sexually victimized a single child. Meaning 60% of those arrested are totally innocent, and have not committed a crime where there has been a victim. These people are not out molesting children, they're looking at (albeit disturbing) images. We already have laws covering the molestation of children, it would be far more logical to go after the actual molesters than /potential/ molesters. It is somewhat comparable to outlawing pornography to prevent prostitution, or perhaps rape. Outlawing something for the slight possibility of somebody ALSO doing something illegal while doing something legally innocent is against Liberty. In some areas, Black people tend to commit more crimes than whites. Does that mean we should round up all black persons into jails, for having a /possibility/ of committing crimes in the future? Should we round up those who view pornography for the /possibility/ that they will later rape? Should we round up those who drink for the possibility that they may commit violence? Should we outlaw guns, for the possibility that they will be used unjustly? No- there are laws against all of these behaviors already, we do not need to throw innocent people into the mix. Fantasies are just that- fantasies. Outlawing fantasies is thought crime at best. There are already laws preventing child sexual abuse without throwing innocent fantasizers into the mix. Do Pedophiles necessarily commit sexual crimes against children? You would think so- but many sexual abusers are situational abusers rather than pedophiles. I disagree that sexual abuse has risen 1500% since 1988, it is much more likely that it is now easier for (1) the abused to report their crimes to the police, due to social change. and (2) police to catch (and notice) sexual abuse, as as you said it might be posted on the net rather than in photographs. Police no longer need informants, they just need to get into the net- find it, and prosecute. While convicted pedophiles may claim that pornography may have helped them lead to molesting children, it does not necessarily go the other way. In other words, viewing such does not necessarily make you a sexual abuser- it just makes you a viewer. I'm sure most rapists are fueled by hard core pornography- yet hard core pornography is still legal.... why? Because of choice. People, upon viewing child pornography (or hard core pornography) have committed thought crime by the viewing of it, but have only committed actual crime when they CHOOSE to act on these fantasies. A fantasy is perfectly alright, many people have many different kinds of fantasies- some of them more main stream, and some of them absolutely 'weird'- however, unless those fantasies transcend into real life- in which another person is harmed, they have not caused any harm and should not be punished.

DucoNihilum

Thanks for accepting my debate rwebberc. For all of those of you who plan to vote on this debate I must ask you to objectively look at both of our arguments and vote based on who you think honestly won this debate. I understand this is a controversial topic and it is a strong possibility that some of you might immediately vote, assuming I am incorrect without even reading my arguments, but please at least give me a fighting chance before saying I lost. My opponent wrongfully assumes that for me to believe possession of child pornography to be legal, child molestation should as well. This assumption is boldly incorrect, even by his own statistics and reasoning. The CP industry is a special industry in many respects. Firstly, while most products demand increases drastically as price moves closer to zero (Such as, for example, holywood movies. If free DVD's were being given away for popular movies, a very large number of people would try to get them, depending on the circumstances). However, when CP is distributed a very small amount of people are interested in it- even if the price is zero. Secondly, as most modern CP (By your own argument) is distributed over the Internet, thusly, even with relatively high demand- scarcity is almost impossible, and does not come with more people desiring it. Furthermore, most people would be absolutely repulsed by the very idea of CP and not seek it if it were legal, I suggest that the occurrences of CP would hardly be effected at all. Look at other black market industries, like those of drugs and prostitution. Going after the possessors (Or johns) stops a very small amount of people, and barely puts a dent in the demand. In fact, it effects demand so lightly that it hardly takes a hit. However, when the supply is taken down the supplier is unable to supply his or her multiple clients. When the US invaded Afghanistan Opioid production dropped significantly, they did this by removing the supply- not the millions upon millions of opioid abusers. Lastly, CP is arguably not an industry. Typically, for something to be considered an industry, it has to be a "Commercial enterprise". CP has very few instances of commercial production, and in my research a majority of the arrests are for production at home for distribution on the internet, though IRC, P2P, FTP, and the like- not commercial production. It would not be logical to think that if less people were getting arrested for CP possession people would decide "Maybe I SHOULD molest my kids, after all, I can get 10 people to download my file on the internet when I could only previously get 7!" By your own statistic, 60% of arrests have never sexually victimized a single child. Meaning 60% of those arrested are totally innocent, and have not committed a crime where there has been a victim. These people are not out molesting children, they're looking at (albeit disturbing) images. We already have laws covering the molestation of children, it would be far more logical to go after the actual molesters than /potential/ molesters. It is somewhat comparable to outlawing pornography to prevent prostitution, or perhaps rape. Outlawing something for the slight possibility of somebody ALSO doing something illegal while doing something legally innocent is against Liberty. In some areas, Black people tend to commit more crimes than whites. Does that mean we should round up all black persons into jails, for having a /possibility/ of committing crimes in the future? Should we round up those who view pornography for the /possibility/ that they will later rape? Should we round up those who drink for the possibility that they may commit violence? Should we outlaw guns, for the possibility that they will be used unjustly? No- there are laws against all of these behaviors already, we do not need to throw innocent people into the mix. Fantasies are just that- fantasies. Outlawing fantasies is thought crime at best. There are already laws preventing child sexual abuse without throwing innocent fantasizers into the mix. Do Pedophiles necessarily commit sexual crimes against children? You would think so- but many sexual abusers are situational abusers rather than pedophiles. I disagree that sexual abuse has risen 1500% since 1988, it is much more likely that it is now easier for (1) the abused to report their crimes to the police, due to social change. and (2) police to catch (and notice) sexual abuse, as as you said it might be posted on the net rather than in photographs. Police no longer need informants, they just need to get into the net- find it, and prosecute. While convicted pedophiles may claim that pornography may have helped them lead to molesting children, it does not necessarily go the other way. In other words, viewing such does not necessarily make you a sexual abuser- it just makes you a viewer. I'm sure most rapists are fueled by hard core pornography- yet hard core pornography is still legal.... why? Because of choice. People, upon viewing child pornography (or hard core pornography) have committed thought crime by the viewing of it, but have only committed actual crime when they CHOOSE to act on these fantasies. A fantasy is perfectly alright, many people have many different kinds of fantasies- some of them more main stream, and some of them absolutely 'weird'- however, unless those fantasies transcend into real life- in which another person is harmed, they have not caused any harm and should not be punished.

Society

Child-pornography-should-be-legal-to-posses./1/

And I agree that the production o CP is a criminal exploitation of a child- however, when somebody producers CP who is doing the exploiting? Who is the person who is actually harming the child? Obviously the producer is the person who made the video or took the photos, and is thusly the one who harmed the child. The producer is the one whom distributed the CP, further causing harm to the child. The viewer caused no harm to the child at all. Pictures and videos of other crimes such as murder, arson, and other serious criminal offenses are all widely available- both real and fake. Few people, however, would suggest that possession of videos or pictures depicting other tragedies cause them to happen more often, as there is more 'demand' for them. The video or pictures of the abuse is happenstance, and unrelated to it in the way you're trying to relate it to. People do not abuse their children to pleasure people on the internet. If you claim that my claim that 60% of the people arrested are innocent, you deny your very own statistics, which state "40% of all child pornography arrestees in the US are dual offenders who have sexually victimized children in the past ( <URL>... ...).", meaning that 60% of all CP offenders had no prior convictions of child abuse. Regardless of whether or not you contradict your own statements, it is clear that you are trying to correlate CP with child sexual abuse, why? Because child sexual abuse is the BAD thing- CP itself is not legally bad. Even if a single person is arrested for possession of CP, even if he had molested a child, is unjust. They have already committed a crime, the crime of child sexual abuse (if they had committed such), and therefore will already be punished for it. There is absolutely no sense in punishing somebody for the chance that they may be committing another crime when you can simply charge the real criminals. You yourself claim that the "perpetrator" is knowingly taking advantage of a child- I contend that the perpetrator should indeed be punished severely. The viewer of the CP is not taking advantage of a child, the producer is. Laws against theft, while not deterring thieves strongly, are absolute. If somebody stole my laptop, he stole something of mine. I am the victim, my rights have been violated. As far as CP goes, it is simply a deterrent crime, such as outlawing guns, alcohol, colored people, knifes, or anything else that 'might' correlate with another serious crime with a victim. Each arrest could not take away as much of the market as arresting a producer, the real criminal, could. You suggest we throw innocent people* in jail for thoughtcrime, before they even made the move to molest a child. *I know you don't like me calling them innocent, because you believe they have committed a crime- however, they have not committed a crime against a person. You can not name a victim they harmed directly. The producer of the CP harmed the child by not only producing the material, but molesting the child and distributing it across the net, or other media, causing substantial damage. The viewer is just a by-product, and has had no direct contact in the abusing of the child or the distribution of the material, both of which can be pinned on the producer.

DucoNihilum

And I agree that the production o CP is a criminal exploitation of a child- however, when somebody producers CP who is doing the exploiting? Who is the person who is actually harming the child? Obviously the producer is the person who made the video or took the photos, and is thusly the one who harmed the child. The producer is the one whom distributed the CP, further causing harm to the child. The viewer caused no harm to the child at all. Pictures and videos of other crimes such as murder, arson, and other serious criminal offenses are all widely available- both real and fake. Few people, however, would suggest that possession of videos or pictures depicting other tragedies cause them to happen more often, as there is more 'demand' for them. The video or pictures of the abuse is happenstance, and unrelated to it in the way you're trying to relate it to. People do not abuse their children to pleasure people on the internet. If you claim that my claim that 60% of the people arrested are innocent, you deny your very own statistics, which state "40% of all child pornography arrestees in the US are dual offenders who have sexually victimized children in the past ( http://www.missingkids.com... ...).", meaning that 60% of all CP offenders had no prior convictions of child abuse. Regardless of whether or not you contradict your own statements, it is clear that you are trying to correlate CP with child sexual abuse, why? Because child sexual abuse is the BAD thing- CP itself is not legally bad. Even if a single person is arrested for possession of CP, even if he had molested a child, is unjust. They have already committed a crime, the crime of child sexual abuse (if they had committed such), and therefore will already be punished for it. There is absolutely no sense in punishing somebody for the chance that they may be committing another crime when you can simply charge the real criminals. You yourself claim that the "perpetrator" is knowingly taking advantage of a child- I contend that the perpetrator should indeed be punished severely. The viewer of the CP is not taking advantage of a child, the producer is. Laws against theft, while not deterring thieves strongly, are absolute. If somebody stole my laptop, he stole something of mine. I am the victim, my rights have been violated. As far as CP goes, it is simply a deterrent crime, such as outlawing guns, alcohol, colored people, knifes, or anything else that 'might' correlate with another serious crime with a victim. Each arrest could not take away as much of the market as arresting a producer, the real criminal, could. You suggest we throw innocent people* in jail for thoughtcrime, before they even made the move to molest a child. *I know you don't like me calling them innocent, because you believe they have committed a crime- however, they have not committed a crime against a person. You can not name a victim they harmed directly. The producer of the CP harmed the child by not only producing the material, but molesting the child and distributing it across the net, or other media, causing substantial damage. The viewer is just a by-product, and has had no direct contact in the abusing of the child or the distribution of the material, both of which can be pinned on the producer.

Society

Child-pornography-should-be-legal-to-posses./1/

Your claim that there is no such thing as a victimless crime is wrong, I will refute the examples you gave me one by one. Drugs do not hurt the taxpayers, the government does. While the taxpayers are the victim- who committed the theft, the drug abuser or the nanny state government? Why the government of course! CP increases the chances of a child being molested as much as photos of murder risk all of our lives, by making murders want to murder more..... Drunk driving should be legal, however the simple crime of 'wreckless driving' can easily hold back all offenses without any risk. If somebody is drunk and unable to drive properly, they are allowed to be arrested- however if somebody is sleeping in their car drunk they can not, as their driving was not wreckless. Possession of assault weapons harms nobody, and should be perfectly legal- unless those assault weapons are used to harm others, which is a very important part in my argument so I will deal with this issue separately later in the debate. Counterfeiting harms the taxpayers, all of them, by creating illegal artificial inflation (A mild form of theft), conspiracy harms whomever they are conspiring against, accessory to murder is DIRECTLY allowing the murder to murder, not something as simple as viewing his crimes. All of these are different from viewing photos of a crime, regardless of whether you get off on the photos or not. Viewing videos of people carrying assault rifles (and let's just say, shooting people) does not increase crime, you could arrest people for viewing these videos because you disapprove of the rifles, however, that would not help you cut down the crime of murder one bit. The murder rate does not increase because people are interested in watching this video, they're essentially separate. You seem to have misunderstood me, I said they have not committed a crime against a person, in other words, they did no personal harm to children. They committed a thoughtcrime, a crime against society rather than a crime against a child. The viewers of such material did not molest the child, the producer did (If somebody is caught with possession of CP, and it is clear that they are the abuser, they would obviously be charged with production / molestation / etc ). The producer is the person who violated the child, the perverted viewer of such activity is just that, a perverted viewer. You seem to believe that it is the governments duty to enforce morals. That is simply not true. While some may find other sexually deviant behavior immoral (Such as homosexuality, Bisexuality, ETC) it is not the governments job to regulate either of these either. True, CP is very different from homosexuality because generally another homosexual can consent; and a child can not.... but here is the key point. The person who went into the non-consensual relationship was not the viewer of the indecent material, it was the PRODUCER. While you may find pedophilia immoral, you have no right to punish pedophiles for having a sexual identity other than your own; unless they act on their urges and actually harm a child. Anything else would be thought crime. Please remember that I am not arguing whether or not CP is illegal, it is illegal, I am arguing that it SHOULD be legal. If this isn't the argument you are trying to make, saying "doesn't make it any more legal" puzzles me and leads me to believe you're using an argument from authority. This argument comes to whether the government has the right to punish thoughts and urges rather than focusing their efforts on those who actually abuse children. My opponent would rather focus efforts on going after the sexual perverts rather than the actual rapists. He claims to want to protect children from who would do harm, however he supports the arresting of people who have done children no harm whatsoever. You suggest that the very looking at this objectionable material is similar to, if not the same as, the actual molestation: this is clearly not true. If you are interested in protecting children while remaining just, you must allow people to possess child pornography, however sick you might find it to be. There are already laws covering the actual molestation of children, arresting even one person who has never made the move to actually harm a child is an injustice. Arresting people for the possibility of committing a crime is totally unjust, we might as well start arresting minority groups for the possibility of violent crime, viewers of violent movies for the possibility of violence, and viewers of other crimes, such as murder on the news, for those crimes as well. Might I appeal to the voters for a second: While you might find my argument offensive, please be sure to realize a few things. A. I do not support child molestation, it is wrong. B. I find those who view CP to be morally wrong, but I do not believe that I should punish those whom I disagree with morally for not standing by my points of view, and not following a perfect life. I believe that your right to swing your fists stops where my face begins, however perverted those fists might be swinging. Possessors of CP have not harmed anybody, the producers did. If the possessors are the producers, we obviously cant call them possessors and they should be charged as producers only. Demand for CP increases with more viewers as demand for murder increases with more photos of murder- they're largely unrelated. Nobody will decide to start molesting their child because there is a high demand for child molestation on the internet. C. I plead to you to vote objectively, not automatically shunning my argument because you find it objectionable, but voting on who you believe actually presented his argument best.

DucoNihilum

Your claim that there is no such thing as a victimless crime is wrong, I will refute the examples you gave me one by one. Drugs do not hurt the taxpayers, the government does. While the taxpayers are the victim- who committed the theft, the drug abuser or the nanny state government? Why the government of course! CP increases the chances of a child being molested as much as photos of murder risk all of our lives, by making murders want to murder more..... Drunk driving should be legal, however the simple crime of 'wreckless driving' can easily hold back all offenses without any risk. If somebody is drunk and unable to drive properly, they are allowed to be arrested- however if somebody is sleeping in their car drunk they can not, as their driving was not wreckless. Possession of assault weapons harms nobody, and should be perfectly legal- unless those assault weapons are used to harm others, which is a very important part in my argument so I will deal with this issue separately later in the debate. Counterfeiting harms the taxpayers, all of them, by creating illegal artificial inflation (A mild form of theft), conspiracy harms whomever they are conspiring against, accessory to murder is DIRECTLY allowing the murder to murder, not something as simple as viewing his crimes. All of these are different from viewing photos of a crime, regardless of whether you get off on the photos or not. Viewing videos of people carrying assault rifles (and let's just say, shooting people) does not increase crime, you could arrest people for viewing these videos because you disapprove of the rifles, however, that would not help you cut down the crime of murder one bit. The murder rate does not increase because people are interested in watching this video, they're essentially separate. You seem to have misunderstood me, I said they have not committed a crime against a person, in other words, they did no personal harm to children. They committed a thoughtcrime, a crime against society rather than a crime against a child. The viewers of such material did not molest the child, the producer did (If somebody is caught with possession of CP, and it is clear that they are the abuser, they would obviously be charged with production / molestation / etc ). The producer is the person who violated the child, the perverted viewer of such activity is just that, a perverted viewer. You seem to believe that it is the governments duty to enforce morals. That is simply not true. While some may find other sexually deviant behavior immoral (Such as homosexuality, Bisexuality, ETC) it is not the governments job to regulate either of these either. True, CP is very different from homosexuality because generally another homosexual can consent; and a child can not.... but here is the key point. The person who went into the non-consensual relationship was not the viewer of the indecent material, it was the PRODUCER. While you may find pedophilia immoral, you have no right to punish pedophiles for having a sexual identity other than your own; unless they act on their urges and actually harm a child. Anything else would be thought crime. Please remember that I am not arguing whether or not CP is illegal, it is illegal, I am arguing that it SHOULD be legal. If this isn't the argument you are trying to make, saying "doesn't make it any more legal" puzzles me and leads me to believe you're using an argument from authority. This argument comes to whether the government has the right to punish thoughts and urges rather than focusing their efforts on those who actually abuse children. My opponent would rather focus efforts on going after the sexual perverts rather than the actual rapists. He claims to want to protect children from who would do harm, however he supports the arresting of people who have done children no harm whatsoever. You suggest that the very looking at this objectionable material is similar to, if not the same as, the actual molestation: this is clearly not true. If you are interested in protecting children while remaining just, you must allow people to possess child pornography, however sick you might find it to be. There are already laws covering the actual molestation of children, arresting even one person who has never made the move to actually harm a child is an injustice. Arresting people for the possibility of committing a crime is totally unjust, we might as well start arresting minority groups for the possibility of violent crime, viewers of violent movies for the possibility of violence, and viewers of other crimes, such as murder on the news, for those crimes as well. Might I appeal to the voters for a second: While you might find my argument offensive, please be sure to realize a few things. A. I do not support child molestation, it is wrong. B. I find those who view CP to be morally wrong, but I do not believe that I should punish those whom I disagree with morally for not standing by my points of view, and not following a perfect life. I believe that your right to swing your fists stops where my face begins, however perverted those fists might be swinging. Possessors of CP have not harmed anybody, the producers did. If the possessors are the producers, we obviously cant call them possessors and they should be charged as producers only. Demand for CP increases with more viewers as demand for murder increases with more photos of murder- they're largely unrelated. Nobody will decide to start molesting their child because there is a high demand for child molestation on the internet. C. I plead to you to vote objectively, not automatically shunning my argument because you find it objectionable, but voting on who you believe actually presented his argument best.

Society

Child-pornography-should-be-legal-to-posses./1/

This is an interesting debate topic, albeit a disturbing one. My opponent claims that someone who possesses child pornography is "are realistically doing nothing to harm anybody". Here is the point of stasis between us. Child pornography should not be legal to possess because: 1. possession and viewing of child pornography increases the demand for it, thereby encouraging its production 2. child pornography arrests help law enforcement to crack down on and find sexual predators 3. child pornography fuels sexual fantasies about children and can play an important part in leading pedophiles to physically molest children Here are my justifications: 1. This is a simple supply and demand argument. The more people who possess child pornography, the bigger an industry it will become. If the child pornography industry grows, it will have to satisfy the demand by making more films/pictures. Therefore, more children will be abused, molested, and mentally and emotionally scarred. 2. 40% of all child pornography arrestees in the US are dual offenders who have sexually victimized children in the past ( <URL>... ). Child pornography laws give the Department of Justice another outlet to monitor and convict sexual offenders. 3. All fantasies must start somewhere, and child pornography has been clearly linked to being a starting point for pedophilia. Sexual abuse against children has risen 1500% since 1988, and this is largely credited to the advent of the internet and the access it provides to child pornography ( <URL>... ). Also, most convicted pedophiles acknowledge that viewing child pornography helped lead them to molest children ( <URL>... ). In conclusion, unless my opponent thinks that people should also be allowed to molest children, then I have a hard time seeing how he can defend the legalization of possessing child pornography.

rwebberc

This is an interesting debate topic, albeit a disturbing one. My opponent claims that someone who possesses child pornography is "are realistically doing nothing to harm anybody". Here is the point of stasis between us. Child pornography should not be legal to possess because: 1. possession and viewing of child pornography increases the demand for it, thereby encouraging its production 2. child pornography arrests help law enforcement to crack down on and find sexual predators 3. child pornography fuels sexual fantasies about children and can play an important part in leading pedophiles to physically molest children Here are my justifications: 1. This is a simple supply and demand argument. The more people who possess child pornography, the bigger an industry it will become. If the child pornography industry grows, it will have to satisfy the demand by making more films/pictures. Therefore, more children will be abused, molested, and mentally and emotionally scarred. 2. 40% of all child pornography arrestees in the US are dual offenders who have sexually victimized children in the past ( http://www.missingkids.com... ). Child pornography laws give the Department of Justice another outlet to monitor and convict sexual offenders. 3. All fantasies must start somewhere, and child pornography has been clearly linked to being a starting point for pedophilia. Sexual abuse against children has risen 1500% since 1988, and this is largely credited to the advent of the internet and the access it provides to child pornography ( http://www.nch.org.uk... ). Also, most convicted pedophiles acknowledge that viewing child pornography helped lead them to molest children ( http://www.guardian.co.uk... ). In conclusion, unless my opponent thinks that people should also be allowed to molest children, then I have a hard time seeing how he can defend the legalization of possessing child pornography.

Society

Child-pornography-should-be-legal-to-posses./1/

My opponent can make whatever claims he wants, but this is a fact that cannot be disputed: CP (I will adopt this usage from here on out as well) is a criminal exploitation of a child's rights. Legalizing the viewing of such criminal behavior is to be indirectly complicit with that criminal act, and a person who is in possession of CP is very likely to be an active child abuser already or is on a path that will lead him to become one ( <URL>... ). Let's look at some of my opponent's claims from the previous round: "60% of those arrested are totally innocent" This is simply untrue, the fact is that possession of CP IS a crime, and therefore they are guilty of it. As far as possession of CP being a victimless crime, that is merely semantics. A crime was committed for that image or video to be produced, and the person in possession of it is propagating that crime. Also, since that time I have come across other studies with different numbers. One, done by the Chicago PD, found that "almost all" of the persons they arrested for CP possession had photos of themselves having sex with children( <URL>... ). Another, conducted by US Customs, found that "over 80% of those who buy child pornography are active abusers" and they suspected that a significant proportion of the rest simply had not been caught ( <URL>... ). "Look at other black market industries, like those of drugs and prostitution. Going after the possessors (Or johns) stops a very small amount of people." My opponent makes reference to these to industries in order to equate them with CP possession as a supposed victimless, or public order, crime. However, unlike these two industries, the perpetrator is knowingly taking advantage of the exploitation of a child. This in itself makes the act morally and criminally reprehensible. As far as the deterrence argument goes, that doesn't make it right. Laws against theft do little to deter most thieves, but that in no way justifies the decriminalization of theft. Theft may not be a "victimless" crime, but the logic still applies. "I disagree that sexual abuse has risen 1500% since 1988" Putting aside the fact that you haven't come up with any evidence to back up your theories, I will address your claim nonetheless. According to the United States Department of Justice, child pornography had been all but eradicated by the mid-1980's ( <URL>... ), but with the advent of the internet, CP has become exponentially more popular. And guess who consumes 62.7% of the world's CP now? That's right, the United States ( <URL>... ). Whether my opponent agrees or not, the US has become the world's leading consumer of this abhorrent material, and the only way we can crack down on it is by arresting those who possess and view it. Most CP comes from Eastern Europe or Asia, places outside our jurisdiction. As my opponent has said, the market for CP is very small, and the majority of the material is consumed by a very small number of people. A 2003 sting in which 1,300 people were arrested produced nearly a billion images. Each arrest takes away a significant portion of the market when compared to other industries. Your argument that these are simply fantasies holds no water. Fantasies involve one's own imagination; CP involves the graphic sexual exploitation of an innocent child.

rwebberc

My opponent can make whatever claims he wants, but this is a fact that cannot be disputed: CP (I will adopt this usage from here on out as well) is a criminal exploitation of a child's rights. Legalizing the viewing of such criminal behavior is to be indirectly complicit with that criminal act, and a person who is in possession of CP is very likely to be an active child abuser already or is on a path that will lead him to become one ( http://www.csecworldcongress.org... ). Let's look at some of my opponent's claims from the previous round: "60% of those arrested are totally innocent" This is simply untrue, the fact is that possession of CP IS a crime, and therefore they are guilty of it. As far as possession of CP being a victimless crime, that is merely semantics. A crime was committed for that image or video to be produced, and the person in possession of it is propagating that crime. Also, since that time I have come across other studies with different numbers. One, done by the Chicago PD, found that "almost all" of the persons they arrested for CP possession had photos of themselves having sex with children( http://www.csecworldcongress.org... ). Another, conducted by US Customs, found that "over 80% of those who buy child pornography are active abusers" and they suspected that a significant proportion of the rest simply had not been caught ( http://www.csecworldcongress.org... ). "Look at other black market industries, like those of drugs and prostitution. Going after the possessors (Or johns) stops a very small amount of people." My opponent makes reference to these to industries in order to equate them with CP possession as a supposed victimless, or public order, crime. However, unlike these two industries, the perpetrator is knowingly taking advantage of the exploitation of a child. This in itself makes the act morally and criminally reprehensible. As far as the deterrence argument goes, that doesn't make it right. Laws against theft do little to deter most thieves, but that in no way justifies the decriminalization of theft. Theft may not be a "victimless" crime, but the logic still applies. "I disagree that sexual abuse has risen 1500% since 1988" Putting aside the fact that you haven't come up with any evidence to back up your theories, I will address your claim nonetheless. According to the United States Department of Justice, child pornography had been all but eradicated by the mid-1980's ( http://www.usdoj.gov... ), but with the advent of the internet, CP has become exponentially more popular. And guess who consumes 62.7% of the world's CP now? That's right, the United States ( http://www.csecworldcongress.org... ). Whether my opponent agrees or not, the US has become the world's leading consumer of this abhorrent material, and the only way we can crack down on it is by arresting those who possess and view it. Most CP comes from Eastern Europe or Asia, places outside our jurisdiction. As my opponent has said, the market for CP is very small, and the majority of the material is consumed by a very small number of people. A 2003 sting in which 1,300 people were arrested produced nearly a billion images. Each arrest takes away a significant portion of the market when compared to other industries. Your argument that these are simply fantasies holds no water. Fantasies involve one's own imagination; CP involves the graphic sexual exploitation of an innocent child.

Society

Child-pornography-should-be-legal-to-posses./1/

Apparently my opponent insists on playing the "victimless" card in this debate. So I suppose it is my job to refute this standpoint. In my opinion, there is no such thing as a victimless crime. Drugs hurt the taxpayer's who must pay for their rehabilitation, and CP harms all children by its presence, increasing the likelihood that they will be sexually abused in the future. I doubt my opponent denies that the mere presence of CP increases the risk of child molestation. Simply because children don't complain about the danger they are in due to the presence of CP doesn't mean that there isn't a direct victim. Also, the "no direct victim" definition for a crime discounts other crimes which are equally serious, such as drunk driving, possession of an assault weapon, counterfeiting, conspiracy (to commit murder, terrorism, etc), accessory to murder, attempted murder, and the list goes on. "I know you don't like me calling them innocent, because you believe they have committed a crime- however, they have not committed a crime against a person. You can not name a victim they harmed directly." Here are the four definitions of crime given by the American Heritage Dictionary 1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction. 2. Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime. 3. A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality. 4. An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition: It's a crime to squander our country's natural resources. I suppose you could argue that the fourth definition supports your argument, however it is a figurative use of the word. Other than that, CP possession violates all of the above definitions. The first two are obvious, and I think it is generally accepted in our society that to derive sexual pleasure from the graphic exploitation of a child is immoral. So yes, they have committed a crime. I have already addressed your supposed "no direct victim" defense. I agree with you that child pornography is a less concrete area than theft; however that doesn't make it any more legal. This argument boils down to whether the rights of the citizen to derive pleasure from the rape, sodomizing, and exploitation of a child outweigh our obligation to protect children from those who would do them harm. I believe the latter far exceeds the former in importance.

rwebberc

Apparently my opponent insists on playing the "victimless" card in this debate. So I suppose it is my job to refute this standpoint. In my opinion, there is no such thing as a victimless crime. Drugs hurt the taxpayer's who must pay for their rehabilitation, and CP harms all children by its presence, increasing the likelihood that they will be sexually abused in the future. I doubt my opponent denies that the mere presence of CP increases the risk of child molestation. Simply because children don't complain about the danger they are in due to the presence of CP doesn't mean that there isn't a direct victim. Also, the "no direct victim" definition for a crime discounts other crimes which are equally serious, such as drunk driving, possession of an assault weapon, counterfeiting, conspiracy (to commit murder, terrorism, etc), accessory to murder, attempted murder, and the list goes on. "I know you don't like me calling them innocent, because you believe they have committed a crime- however, they have not committed a crime against a person. You can not name a victim they harmed directly." Here are the four definitions of crime given by the American Heritage Dictionary 1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction. 2. Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime. 3. A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality. 4. An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition: It's a crime to squander our country's natural resources. I suppose you could argue that the fourth definition supports your argument, however it is a figurative use of the word. Other than that, CP possession violates all of the above definitions. The first two are obvious, and I think it is generally accepted in our society that to derive sexual pleasure from the graphic exploitation of a child is immoral. So yes, they have committed a crime. I have already addressed your supposed "no direct victim" defense. I agree with you that child pornography is a less concrete area than theft; however that doesn't make it any more legal. This argument boils down to whether the rights of the citizen to derive pleasure from the rape, sodomizing, and exploitation of a child outweigh our obligation to protect children from those who would do them harm. I believe the latter far exceeds the former in importance.

Society

Child-pornography-should-be-legal-to-posses./1/

I agree with my opponent that this debate should be judged based on the arguments, not the viewpoint each debater is representing. Let me also point out that my opponent believes that drunk driving and the possession of dangerous and unnecessary assault weapons should be legal. You will not find a country in the world where drunk driving is legal. This should give you insight into his skewed logic. Also, his claim about conspiracy is weak. Conspiracy to commit murder or terrorism does not harm anyone; it is the act of murder or terrorism which harms them. Just as viewing CP doesn't "harm" anyone, the act of producing it does. Someone might be conspiring to murder me right now, but I don't know because it doesn't directly impact me. Perhaps my opponent believes this should be legal as well? The difference between CP and a video of a murder is that the tape of the murder wasn't made explicitly for the enjoyment of its viewers. The murder was going to occur anyway, and the cameraman either happened to see it or wanted it as proof that the murder occurred (i.e. Budd Dwyer, Daniel Pearl). If there were a wide demand for murder videos for people's sexual fantasies, I think we would see a different attitude towards them. My opponent's argument centers upon these two points: 1. Possessing CP does not harm any specific person; the damage has been done by the producer 2. However perverted we may think sexual fantasies about children may be, possessors of CP have the right to these fantasies I have already argued about the dangers of allowing people to view these images, as they often lead to the viewer physically abusing a child. However, I will now address these claims from a different perspective. Each and every time a CP image is viewed, that child is victimized again. The lives of these children have already been permanently changed, and the abuse they have suffered is inescapable as the images are circulated around the world. The damage of this enduring reminder of their exploitation is something which should be minimized at all costs. Next, even if I was to concede that a person's sexual fantasies about children are harmless; they have other outlets for these fantasies which are already legal and less harmful. The main example of this are the digitally altered photos which have been made to look like CP. Pseudo-CP, as some people refer to it, contains the face of a child superimposed onto the body of someone who is over the age of 18. While still disturbing, it allows pedophiles to indulge in their fantasies without possessing an image of an actual child who has been raped or otherwise victimized. In this scenario, there is no need for actual CP to be produced, and it's already legal. When thinking about this matter, we must seriously consider the effects of these images on the children who are depicted in them. The following is an excerpt from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's information section about CP: It is important to realize these images can have a devastating and lasting effect on children. In addition to any physical injuries they can suffer in the course of their molestation, such as genital bruising, lacerations, or exposure to sexually transmitted diseases, child victims can also experience depression, withdrawal, anger, and other psychological disorders.24 Such effects may continue into adulthood. For instance women abused as children have statistically significant higher rates of nightmares, back pain, headaches, pelvic pain, eating binges, and other similar symptoms.25 Child victims also frequently experience feelings of guilt and responsibility for the abuse and betrayal, a sense of powerlessness, and feelings of worthlessness and low self-esteem.26 These feelings are often expressed through increased fearfulness and changes in sleep patterns including re-occurring memories, flashbacks, dreams, and nightmares associated with posttraumatic stress.27 Younger children tend to externalize stress by re-enacting sexual activities through play, while adolescents may experience negative effects on their growing sexuality as a result of inappropriate early sexual experiences.28 The lives of children featured in these illegal images are forever altered, not only by the molestation but by the permanent record of the exploitation. Once sexual exploitation takes place, the molester may document these encounters on film or video. This documentation can then become the "ammunition" needed to blackmail the child into further submission, which is necessary to continue the relationship and maintain its secrecy. In addition these documented images allow molesters to "relive" their sexual fantasies with children long after the exploitation has stopped. ( <URL>... ) This is not something which we should take lightly. These are not just fantasies; they are the manifestations of dangerous minds. As far as whether or not it is our country's duty to insert at least some semblance of morality into its citizens, I will leave you with this quote by one of the fathers of the American Revolution, Thomas Paine: "When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary."

rwebberc

I agree with my opponent that this debate should be judged based on the arguments, not the viewpoint each debater is representing. Let me also point out that my opponent believes that drunk driving and the possession of dangerous and unnecessary assault weapons should be legal. You will not find a country in the world where drunk driving is legal. This should give you insight into his skewed logic. Also, his claim about conspiracy is weak. Conspiracy to commit murder or terrorism does not harm anyone; it is the act of murder or terrorism which harms them. Just as viewing CP doesn't "harm" anyone, the act of producing it does. Someone might be conspiring to murder me right now, but I don't know because it doesn't directly impact me. Perhaps my opponent believes this should be legal as well? The difference between CP and a video of a murder is that the tape of the murder wasn't made explicitly for the enjoyment of its viewers. The murder was going to occur anyway, and the cameraman either happened to see it or wanted it as proof that the murder occurred (i.e. Budd Dwyer, Daniel Pearl). If there were a wide demand for murder videos for people's sexual fantasies, I think we would see a different attitude towards them. My opponent's argument centers upon these two points: 1. Possessing CP does not harm any specific person; the damage has been done by the producer 2. However perverted we may think sexual fantasies about children may be, possessors of CP have the right to these fantasies I have already argued about the dangers of allowing people to view these images, as they often lead to the viewer physically abusing a child. However, I will now address these claims from a different perspective. Each and every time a CP image is viewed, that child is victimized again. The lives of these children have already been permanently changed, and the abuse they have suffered is inescapable as the images are circulated around the world. The damage of this enduring reminder of their exploitation is something which should be minimized at all costs. Next, even if I was to concede that a person's sexual fantasies about children are harmless; they have other outlets for these fantasies which are already legal and less harmful. The main example of this are the digitally altered photos which have been made to look like CP. Pseudo-CP, as some people refer to it, contains the face of a child superimposed onto the body of someone who is over the age of 18. While still disturbing, it allows pedophiles to indulge in their fantasies without possessing an image of an actual child who has been raped or otherwise victimized. In this scenario, there is no need for actual CP to be produced, and it's already legal. When thinking about this matter, we must seriously consider the effects of these images on the children who are depicted in them. The following is an excerpt from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's information section about CP: It is important to realize these images can have a devastating and lasting effect on children. In addition to any physical injuries they can suffer in the course of their molestation, such as genital bruising, lacerations, or exposure to sexually transmitted diseases, child victims can also experience depression, withdrawal, anger, and other psychological disorders.24 Such effects may continue into adulthood. For instance women abused as children have statistically significant higher rates of nightmares, back pain, headaches, pelvic pain, eating binges, and other similar symptoms.25 Child victims also frequently experience feelings of guilt and responsibility for the abuse and betrayal, a sense of powerlessness, and feelings of worthlessness and low self-esteem.26 These feelings are often expressed through increased fearfulness and changes in sleep patterns including re-occurring memories, flashbacks, dreams, and nightmares associated with posttraumatic stress.27 Younger children tend to externalize stress by re-enacting sexual activities through play, while adolescents may experience negative effects on their growing sexuality as a result of inappropriate early sexual experiences.28 The lives of children featured in these illegal images are forever altered, not only by the molestation but by the permanent record of the exploitation. Once sexual exploitation takes place, the molester may document these encounters on film or video. This documentation can then become the "ammunition" needed to blackmail the child into further submission, which is necessary to continue the relationship and maintain its secrecy. In addition these documented images allow molesters to "relive" their sexual fantasies with children long after the exploitation has stopped. ( http://www.missingkids.com... ) This is not something which we should take lightly. These are not just fantasies; they are the manifestations of dangerous minds. As far as whether or not it is our country's duty to insert at least some semblance of morality into its citizens, I will leave you with this quote by one of the fathers of the American Revolution, Thomas Paine: "When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary."

Society

Child-pornography-should-be-legal-to-posses./1/

This is the first time for me to debate, that's why I chose this easy topic. No matter how the result is, my purpose is to learn through practices. Thank you! Definition of the topic: Would Chinese be more important than English in nowadays? We should focus on whatever factors of why these two languages are important, and debate which is the most important. Because of I am new in the field of debating, so that would be easier for me to take the pro side. Here we go. Regard to the GDP of the China still grows 9.9% in the first three quarters, though china is facing the global economic recession. And because of China is a member of the WTO; it is no doubt that china play a very important role in the global economy nowadays. Most probably you will need to work with Chinese companies in every business sectors. There is a urgent need to learn Chinese. I am not saying that English is useless, but the Chinese definitely would be the priority language in the world right now.

lamhoikei

This is the first time for me to debate, that's why I chose this easy topic. No matter how the result is, my purpose is to learn through practices. Thank you! Definition of the topic: Would Chinese be more important than English in nowadays? We should focus on whatever factors of why these two languages are important, and debate which is the most important. Because of I am new in the field of debating, so that would be easier for me to take the pro side. Here we go. Regard to the GDP of the China still grows 9.9% in the first three quarters, though china is facing the global economic recession. And because of China is a member of the WTO; it is no doubt that china play a very important role in the global economy nowadays. Most probably you will need to work with Chinese companies in every business sectors. There is a urgent need to learn Chinese. I am not saying that English is useless, but the Chinese definitely would be the priority language in the world right now.

Education

Chinese-is-more-important-than-English-recently./1/

First before I go on, I would like to thank you my opponent for debating me. To begin with, I would like to address one of the things my opponent has stated in his argument." many predict China's GDP to fall to 7.5% in 2009 and even further, 5.8% in 2010. Now if this is the case how will learning the Chinese language be more beneficial to people when there GDP will continue to drop in years to come." But, The Economist and other press also predict China is moving to the centre stage of the global economy and the China economy size is larger than some countries which put English as the first language, such as US and UK. <URL>... There is an urgent need to learn Chinese in order to earn Chinese people money, People can benefit from learning Chinese with no doubt. Besides, China is a huge export market for the US. 1/5th of the world's population lives in China. Overseas Chinese dominate the economies of many countries in Asia, and speaking Mandarin gives you an edge in doing business with them. Countries with large overseas Chinese populations include Singapore, and Malaysia. Trade is not only from China to the US, but also the other way. As China's influence in the global economy is growing rapidly, the needs of learning Chinese is co responsively growing. And, today, many people around the world want to learn Chinese, not because their curiosity, but it is necessary to do so. Just like Tang Dynasty in Chinese history, because of china is prosperous and strong at that time, many people from other countries which on the land of Asia and Europe, whom want to trade with china, all they need is to learn Chinese. Chinese will soon become the most popular language, though English is popular among the people right now .I would like to rasie a question to my opponent, would you use a language to communicate with your friends for fun, or a language that bring you money to eat ? Thank you.

lamhoikei

First before I go on, I would like to thank you my opponent for debating me. To begin with, I would like to address one of the things my opponent has stated in his argument." many predict China's GDP to fall to 7.5% in 2009 and even further, 5.8% in 2010. Now if this is the case how will learning the Chinese language be more beneficial to people when there GDP will continue to drop in years to come." But, The Economist and other press also predict China is moving to the centre stage of the global economy and the China economy size is larger than some countries which put English as the first language, such as US and UK. http://www.economist.com... There is an urgent need to learn Chinese in order to earn Chinese people money, People can benefit from learning Chinese with no doubt. Besides, China is a huge export market for the US. 1/5th of the world's population lives in China. Overseas Chinese dominate the economies of many countries in Asia, and speaking Mandarin gives you an edge in doing business with them. Countries with large overseas Chinese populations include Singapore, and Malaysia. Trade is not only from China to the US, but also the other way. As China's influence in the global economy is growing rapidly, the needs of learning Chinese is co responsively growing. And, today, many people around the world want to learn Chinese, not because their curiosity, but it is necessary to do so. Just like Tang Dynasty in Chinese history, because of china is prosperous and strong at that time, many people from other countries which on the land of Asia and Europe, whom want to trade with china, all they need is to learn Chinese. Chinese will soon become the most popular language, though English is popular among the people right now .I would like to rasie a question to my opponent, would you use a language to communicate with your friends for fun, or a language that bring you money to eat ? Thank you.

Education

Chinese-is-more-important-than-English-recently./1/

First of all, I would like to point out some errors from my opponent's statement: (1) I am questioning the authenticity of your source ( <URL>... ) this is not a official site or authentic organizations' site, and the answer only contains six wordings. I have no idea why my opponent posted this web site as reference. There's not just two countries take Chinese as official language. Besides China, Hong Kong, Macau, Republic of China; Mauritius and Canada take Chinese language as regional language. <URL>... Which simply means Two biggest in size and largest population countries use Chinese (Canada and China). (2) "No doubt you can benefit from learning Chinese, but you can also benefit from learning a variety of other languages." My opponent stated. The simple matter of fact is we cannot benefit much in the trades to other countries besides China, because China is the factory of the world <URL>... . (3) "The steady hand America and the UK have had in the economic market is really the greater of the two." Please do not forget banks in both of these two countries, US and UK , collapsed one by one, but how about China? None of the banks in China close down. The influence of both countries is decreasing, but it growing rapidly in china. (4) "Also his example of the Tang Dynasty is irrelevant to this debate because (a) That was over1500 years ago, and this resolution poses the word "recently" and (b) we did not have as much globalization back in that time period," I addressed the history of China, because I would like to concretize how big the influence of China recently and China is used to be a strong nation. Lastly, I would like to quote one of the Jim Rogers's words, "Let your kids to learn Chinese is the most valuable present to them." Regard to my opponent's answer of my question, I do believe that the majority of the people don't want to lose their jobs. Thank you !

lamhoikei

First of all, I would like to point out some errors from my opponent's statement: (1) I am questioning the authenticity of your source ( http://wiki.answers.com... ) this is not a official site or authentic organizations' site, and the answer only contains six wordings. I have no idea why my opponent posted this web site as reference. There's not just two countries take Chinese as official language. Besides China, Hong Kong, Macau, Republic of China; Mauritius and Canada take Chinese language as regional language. http://en.wikipedia.org... Which simply means Two biggest in size and largest population countries use Chinese (Canada and China). (2) "No doubt you can benefit from learning Chinese, but you can also benefit from learning a variety of other languages." My opponent stated. The simple matter of fact is we cannot benefit much in the trades to other countries besides China, because China is the factory of the world http://www.csmonitor.com... . (3) "The steady hand America and the UK have had in the economic market is really the greater of the two." Please do not forget banks in both of these two countries, US and UK , collapsed one by one, but how about China? None of the banks in China close down. The influence of both countries is decreasing, but it growing rapidly in china. (4) "Also his example of the Tang Dynasty is irrelevant to this debate because (a) That was over1500 years ago, and this resolution poses the word "recently" and (b) we did not have as much globalization back in that time period," I addressed the history of China, because I would like to concretize how big the influence of China recently and China is used to be a strong nation. Lastly, I would like to quote one of the Jim Rogers‘s words, "Let your kids to learn Chinese is the most valuable present to them." Regard to my opponent's answer of my question, I do believe that the majority of the people don't want to lose their jobs. Thank you !

Education

Chinese-is-more-important-than-English-recently./1/

Round 1 - Opening Arguments Only (No rebuttals) Round 2 - Rebuttal Round 3 - Counter-Rebuttals Round 4 - Counter-Rebuttals Round 5 - Closing Arguments and Closing Statements Please do not debate the prophecies themselves. You have to show that christians can be neutral when looking at the Hebrew Bible prophecies. I will have to prove that Christians are unable to look at the old testament prophecies and kown if Jesus really fulfilled them. Serious debates only First, I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. I would like to first say that most Christian accept Jesus as the Messiah before checking his claims of messiah-ship. Mostly they are raised as Christian or accept Jesus as their L-rd and saviour before studying the Bible. Thus, they accept the authority of the New Testament first before they examine if Jesus is really the messiah. And what does the New testament say: Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come. It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble. Luke 17:1-2 So basically, it is better to commit suicide than doubting Jesus as the messiah. And what is the consequence of such a denial, on top of being seen as a Judas by your family and friends who all believe in Jesus? But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven. Hell. (And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night) Furthermore, 1 John 2:2 says "Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist--denying the Father and the Son." So if you deny Jesus, as per the new testament, you are an anti-Christ. Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 1John 4:1-2 The new testament tells you you can test if someone is from G-d, does not allows one to test Jesus claims. What else can I say? That as per the New Testament, it's all about believing. You have eternal life if you believe in the son. As Jesus said " "You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me." John 20:29 And "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" Matthew 18:3. So a Christian is not ask to wonder if Jesus is really the messiah, but to accept it. If you have doubt, you should fight those doubts! So the Christian put the cart before the horse by accepting Jesus as god and saviour before really checking if he is as James 1 say "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. 6 But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. " So the good Christian who doubt if a prophecy is really fulfil must believe and have faith that Jesus is who he says he is, in Jesus name on top of that! "He that answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame unto him" Proverbs 18:3 Finally let examine Exodus 23:8 ""Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds those who see and twists the words of the innocent." This does not talk about Jesus, of course. But Christians who accept Jesus as their lord and saviour have the reward of Heaven as a bribe. On top of that they have the punishment of hell if they refuse Jesus as their saviour. This is, in a way equivalent to a bribe, thus they have been blinded and cannot see the Hebrew Scripture for what it really say.

CapAhab

Round 1 - Opening Arguments Only (No rebuttals) Round 2 - Rebuttal Round 3 - Counter-Rebuttals Round 4 - Counter-Rebuttals Round 5 - Closing Arguments and Closing Statements Please do not debate the prophecies themselves. You have to show that christians can be neutral when looking at the Hebrew Bible prophecies. I will have to prove that Christians are unable to look at the old testament prophecies and kown if Jesus really fulfilled them. Serious debates only First, I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. I would like to first say that most Christian accept Jesus as the Messiah before checking his claims of messiah-ship. Mostly they are raised as Christian or accept Jesus as their L-rd and saviour before studying the Bible. Thus, they accept the authority of the New Testament first before they examine if Jesus is really the messiah. And what does the New testament say: Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come. It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble. Luke 17:1-2 So basically, it is better to commit suicide than doubting Jesus as the messiah. And what is the consequence of such a denial, on top of being seen as a Judas by your family and friends who all believe in Jesus? But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven. Hell. (And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night) Furthermore, 1 John 2:2 says "Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist--denying the Father and the Son." So if you deny Jesus, as per the new testament, you are an anti-Christ. Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 1John 4:1-2 The new testament tells you you can test if someone is from G-d, does not allows one to test Jesus claims. What else can I say? That as per the New Testament, it's all about believing. You have eternal life if you believe in the son. As Jesus said " "You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me." John 20:29 And "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" Matthew 18:3. So a Christian is not ask to wonder if Jesus is really the messiah, but to accept it. If you have doubt, you should fight those doubts! So the Christian put the cart before the horse by accepting Jesus as god and saviour before really checking if he is as James 1 say "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. 6 But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. " So the good Christian who doubt if a prophecy is really fulfil must believe and have faith that Jesus is who he says he is, in Jesus name on top of that! "He that answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame unto him" Proverbs 18:3 Finally let examine Exodus 23:8 ""Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds those who see and twists the words of the innocent." This does not talk about Jesus, of course. But Christians who accept Jesus as their lord and saviour have the reward of Heaven as a bribe. On top of that they have the punishment of hell if they refuse Jesus as their saviour. This is, in a way equivalent to a bribe, thus they have been blinded and cannot see the Hebrew Scripture for what it really say.

Religion

Christians-are-NOT-able-to-determine-fairly-if-Jesus-is-really-the-True-messiah/2/

As I clearly said in the first round, do not argue the prophecies themselves. I have showed that Christians are asked to be bias, please show why they can be neutral. Thank you

CapAhab

As I clearly said in the first round, do not argue the prophecies themselves. I have showed that Christians are asked to be bias, please show why they can be neutral. Thank you

Religion

Christians-are-NOT-able-to-determine-fairly-if-Jesus-is-really-the-True-messiah/2/

"Asking a Christian to be skeptical of their own beliefs makes no sense. Its like asking a mathematician to believe 1+2=5" NO, if Jesus is the messiah, we are required to worship him, but if not you are committing idolatry! Only if you look neutrally at the Hebrew Bible prophecies can you know that Jesus is really the messiah. But if you believe the NT to be inspired, then you only believe without proofs! 1. Gen. 3:15Seed of a woman (virgin birth) Fulfilled in Galatians 4:4-5, Matthew 1:18 WOW, but all humans are born of a woman! Women can have seeds just as men, see Genesis 16:10 Then the Angel of the Lord said to her, "I will multiply your descendants (seed) exceedingly, 2. Gen. 3:15He will bruise Satan's head Fulfilled in Hebrews 2:14, 1 John 3:8 Second coming (has not happened yet. The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you. King James Bible And the God of peace shall bruise Satan <URL>... 3. Gen. 3:15Christ's heel would be bruised with nails on the cross Fulfilled in Matthew 27:35, Luke 24:39-40 It does not talk about a cross or Jesus. 4. Gen. 5:24The bodily ascension to heaven Fulfilled in Mark 16:19, Rev. 12:5 Really, read the text... it is not a prophecy! 6. Gen. 12:3Seed of Abraham will bless all nations Fulfilled in Galatians 3:8, Acts 3:25, 26 Seed (means descendants). <URL>... 7. Gen. 12:7The Promise made to Abraham's Seed Fulfilled in Galatians 3:16 <URL>... 8. Gen. 14:18A priest after the order of Melchizedek Fulfilled in Hebrews 6:20 This has nothing to do with prophecies. Melkizedek never offered sin sacrifices. 9. Gen. 14:18King of Peace and Righteousness Fulfilled in Hebrews 7:2 This is a serious case of bible twisting. This is not a prophecy. 10. Gen. 14:18The Last Supper foreshadowed Fulfilled in Matthew 26:26-29 This is a serious case of bible twisting. This is not a prophecy. 12. Gen. 22:8The Lamb of God promised Fulfilled in John 1:29 Shadows and types. Not a prophecy! 13. Gen. 22:18As Isaac's seed, will bless all nations Fulfilled in Galatians 3:16 yes, the Jews will bless all nations. And again, anyone form Isaac could be the messiah. 17. Gen. 49:10The time of His coming Fulfilled in Luke 2:1-7; Galatians 4:4 This is messianic, it does not mean it's Jesus. Jesus never ruled, thus we can conclude it was not him. 44. Deut. 18:18Sent by the Father to speak His wordJohn 8:28, 29 No, it Mohammed... No Mohammed, it Joseph Smith! 46. Deut. 21:23 Cursed is he that hangs on a treeGalatians 3:10-13 This is not the meaning of the original Hebrew. The original Hebrew mean that you should not leave a dead body to defile the land. But you shall not leave his body on the pole overnight. Rather, you shall bury him on that [same] day, for a hanging [human corpse] is a blasphemy of God, and you shall not defile your land, which the Lord, your God, is giving you as an inheritance. 48. Ruth 4:4-10Christ, our kinsman, has redeemed usEphesians 1:3-7 Not a prophecy 66. Psa. 2:7, 8The Crucifixion and Resurrection Acts 13:29-33 Jesus was not king over all the earth! 72. Psa. 16:10Was not to see corruption(physical) Acts 2:31, 13:35 My goodness is nothing apart from You." I don't see Jesus saying that! 73. Psa. 16:9-11Was to arise from the deadJohn 20:9 74. Psa. 17:15The resurrection predictedLuke 24:6 As for me, I will see Your face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied when I awake in Your likeness. That does not talk about a resurrection! Psalm 22 has nothing to do with Jesus. 76. Psa. 22:1Forsaken because of sins of others2 Corinthians 5:21 77. Psa. 22:1"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"Matthew 27:46 78. Psa. 22:2Darkness upon Calvary for three hoursMatthew 27:45 79. Psa. 22:7They shoot out the lip and shake the headMatthew 27:39-44 80. Psa. 22:8"He trusted in God, let Him deliver Him"Matthew 27:43 81. Psa. 22:9-10Born the SaviourLuke 2:7 82. Psa. 22:12-13They seek His deathJohn 19:6 83. Psa. 22:14His blood poured out when they pierced His sideJohn 19:34 84. Psa. 22:14, 15Suffered agony on CalvaryMark 15:34-37 85. Psa. 22:15He thirstedJohn 19:28 86. Psa. 22:16They pierced His hands and His feetJohn 19:34, 37; 20:27 The original Hebrew says "Like a lion". Thus why would that be messianic? It's a Psalm of David and he share his anguish when Saul was persecuting him. 87. Psa. 22:17, 18Stripped Him before the stares of menLuke 23:34, 35 88. Psa. 22:18They parted His garmentsJohn 19:23, 24 89. Psa. 22:20, 21He committed Himself to GodLuke 23:46 That's what I say... Christian use the "Jesus fulfilled 365 prophecies, and they feel happy with that. But they don't look if it really fits Jesus!

CapAhab

"Asking a Christian to be skeptical of their own beliefs makes no sense. Its like asking a mathematician to believe 1+2=5" NO, if Jesus is the messiah, we are required to worship him, but if not you are committing idolatry! Only if you look neutrally at the Hebrew Bible prophecies can you know that Jesus is really the messiah. But if you believe the NT to be inspired, then you only believe without proofs! 1. Gen. 3:15Seed of a woman (virgin birth) Fulfilled in Galatians 4:4-5, Matthew 1:18 WOW, but all humans are born of a woman! Women can have seeds just as men, see Genesis 16:10 Then the Angel of the Lord said to her, "I will multiply your descendants (seed) exceedingly, 2. Gen. 3:15He will bruise Satan's head Fulfilled in Hebrews 2:14, 1 John 3:8 Second coming (has not happened yet. The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you. King James Bible And the God of peace shall bruise Satan http://www.debate.org... 3. Gen. 3:15Christ's heel would be bruised with nails on the cross Fulfilled in Matthew 27:35, Luke 24:39-40 It does not talk about a cross or Jesus. 4. Gen. 5:24The bodily ascension to heaven Fulfilled in Mark 16:19, Rev. 12:5 Really, read the text... it is not a prophecy! 6. Gen. 12:3Seed of Abraham will bless all nations Fulfilled in Galatians 3:8, Acts 3:25, 26 Seed (means descendants). http://www.debate.org... 7. Gen. 12:7The Promise made to Abraham's Seed Fulfilled in Galatians 3:16 http://www.debate.org... 8. Gen. 14:18A priest after the order of Melchizedek Fulfilled in Hebrews 6:20 This has nothing to do with prophecies. Melkizedek never offered sin sacrifices. 9. Gen. 14:18King of Peace and Righteousness Fulfilled in Hebrews 7:2 This is a serious case of bible twisting. This is not a prophecy. 10. Gen. 14:18The Last Supper foreshadowed Fulfilled in Matthew 26:26-29 This is a serious case of bible twisting. This is not a prophecy. 12. Gen. 22:8The Lamb of God promised Fulfilled in John 1:29 Shadows and types. Not a prophecy! 13. Gen. 22:18As Isaac's seed, will bless all nations Fulfilled in Galatians 3:16 yes, the Jews will bless all nations. And again, anyone form Isaac could be the messiah. 17. Gen. 49:10The time of His coming Fulfilled in Luke 2:1-7; Galatians 4:4 This is messianic, it does not mean it's Jesus. Jesus never ruled, thus we can conclude it was not him. 44. Deut. 18:18Sent by the Father to speak His wordJohn 8:28, 29 No, it Mohammed... No Mohammed, it Joseph Smith! 46. Deut. 21:23 Cursed is he that hangs on a treeGalatians 3:10-13 This is not the meaning of the original Hebrew. The original Hebrew mean that you should not leave a dead body to defile the land. But you shall not leave his body on the pole overnight. Rather, you shall bury him on that [same] day, for a hanging [human corpse] is a blasphemy of God, and you shall not defile your land, which the Lord, your God, is giving you as an inheritance. 48. Ruth 4:4-10Christ, our kinsman, has redeemed usEphesians 1:3-7 Not a prophecy 66. Psa. 2:7, 8The Crucifixion and Resurrection Acts 13:29-33 Jesus was not king over all the earth! 72. Psa. 16:10Was not to see corruption(physical) Acts 2:31, 13:35 My goodness is nothing apart from You." I don't see Jesus saying that! 73. Psa. 16:9-11Was to arise from the deadJohn 20:9 74. Psa. 17:15The resurrection predictedLuke 24:6 As for me, I will see Your face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied when I awake in Your likeness. That does not talk about a resurrection! Psalm 22 has nothing to do with Jesus. 76. Psa. 22:1Forsaken because of sins of others2 Corinthians 5:21 77. Psa. 22:1"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"Matthew 27:46 78. Psa. 22:2Darkness upon Calvary for three hoursMatthew 27:45 79. Psa. 22:7They shoot out the lip and shake the headMatthew 27:39-44 80. Psa. 22:8"He trusted in God, let Him deliver Him"Matthew 27:43 81. Psa. 22:9-10Born the SaviourLuke 2:7 82. Psa. 22:12-13They seek His deathJohn 19:6 83. Psa. 22:14His blood poured out when they pierced His sideJohn 19:34 84. Psa. 22:14, 15Suffered agony on CalvaryMark 15:34-37 85. Psa. 22:15He thirstedJohn 19:28 86. Psa. 22:16They pierced His hands and His feetJohn 19:34, 37; 20:27 The original Hebrew says "Like a lion". Thus why would that be messianic? It's a Psalm of David and he share his anguish when Saul was persecuting him. 87. Psa. 22:17, 18Stripped Him before the stares of menLuke 23:34, 35 88. Psa. 22:18They parted His garmentsJohn 19:23, 24 89. Psa. 22:20, 21He committed Himself to GodLuke 23:46 That's what I say... Christian use the "Jesus fulfilled 365 prophecies, and they feel happy with that. But they don't look if it really fits Jesus!

Religion

Christians-are-NOT-able-to-determine-fairly-if-Jesus-is-really-the-True-messiah/2/

"Nothing I said was invalidated, because Christians don't need to look neutrally at anything if they are right." If you are right,... well that true. But if Jesus is not the messiah and not god, then you have good reason in the Hebrew Bible to be worry. You are committing idolatry. You shall not have other gods (AKA Jesus) before Me. Exodus 20 That's why you should first look at the fact and then take your decision. But for Christians, it's the opposite, they accept Jesus first, then try to prove it from the "old" testament. "We don't find the basis of all of Christian doctrine in the OT, so it is not the only way to exploring Christianity." Christianity can only be proven true in the light of the Hebrew Bible. You may explore a false belief all your life. Only if Jesus fulfilled the prophecies that Christian can know that Jesus was really the messiah. If not, then you are believing a lie. "If i find evidences to believe that Jesus lived" If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) (JESUS)"and let us worship them," you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. "You can be a sceptic, or a believer," You should be a sceptic. Why don't you believe in everything everybody is telling you? The NT asks you to be septic about doctrines and people. The only problem, it does not go as far as asking you to check if Jesus was really the messiah. The NT only wants you to blindly believe Jesus. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "but why be neutral when we can have an opinion?" I am not neutral. I believe that Jesus was a false messiah, a false prophet and a false god. The Hebrew G-d is the true G-d.

CapAhab

"Nothing I said was invalidated, because Christians don't need to look neutrally at anything if they are right." If you are right,... well that true. But if Jesus is not the messiah and not god, then you have good reason in the Hebrew Bible to be worry. You are committing idolatry. You shall not have other gods (AKA Jesus) before Me. Exodus 20 That's why you should first look at the fact and then take your decision. But for Christians, it's the opposite, they accept Jesus first, then try to prove it from the "old" testament. "We don't find the basis of all of Christian doctrine in the OT, so it is not the only way to exploring Christianity." Christianity can only be proven true in the light of the Hebrew Bible. You may explore a false belief all your life. Only if Jesus fulfilled the prophecies that Christian can know that Jesus was really the messiah. If not, then you are believing a lie. "If i find evidences to believe that Jesus lived" If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) (JESUS)"and let us worship them," you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. "You can be a sceptic, or a believer," You should be a sceptic. Why don't you believe in everything everybody is telling you? The NT asks you to be septic about doctrines and people. The only problem, it does not go as far as asking you to check if Jesus was really the messiah. The NT only wants you to blindly believe Jesus. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "but why be neutral when we can have an opinion?" I am not neutral. I believe that Jesus was a false messiah, a false prophet and a false god. The Hebrew G-d is the true G-d.

Religion

Christians-are-NOT-able-to-determine-fairly-if-Jesus-is-really-the-True-messiah/2/

This is what it is, unless someone is neutral and examine the "prophecies" of Jesus before you become a christian, you cannot be neutral. "The L-rd our G-d the L-rd is ONE" Deuteronomy 6:4. And G-d ask us to reject any other gods, including Jesus. But giving your allegiance to a god before knowing if he is really god is foolishness. He that giveth answer before he heareth, It is folly and confusion unto him. Proverbs 18:13.

CapAhab

This is what it is, unless someone is neutral and examine the "prophecies" of Jesus before you become a christian, you cannot be neutral. "The L-rd our G-d the L-rd is ONE" Deuteronomy 6:4. And G-d ask us to reject any other gods, including Jesus. But giving your allegiance to a god before knowing if he is really god is foolishness. He that giveth answer before he heareth, It is folly and confusion unto him. Proverbs 18:13.

Religion

Christians-are-NOT-able-to-determine-fairly-if-Jesus-is-really-the-True-messiah/2/

First, thanks to my opponent for bringing this topic up, and I think it will be interesting to discuss. Secondly, my opponent has set them-self up for a semantics trap. Christians are able to do anything, there is no law stating that a Christian cannot look neutrally at a prophecy about Jesus. However, I assume my opponent means that it is merely difficult or highly unlikely for Jesus Christ to have actually fulfilled the prophecy of the old testament Jews. In that regard, any Old testament prophecy that may still be fulfilled by Jesus is not a indictment against him. That established, I will only consider prophecies whose time periods have ended. Firstly, we have to consider that Jesus himself was raised a JEW, and that his original disciples were mostly jews as well. You will recall, if you read Matthews, that many supposed prophecies are considered fulfilled by Jesus, according to his disciples. That said, the BOP is on my opponent to prove that Jesus did not actually fulfill what his disciples said he did. Essentially, my opponent must prove that Jesus did not actually exist, or that any historical evidence we have of him is untrustworthy, and most of it is lies. I will give a list of prophecies that Jesus supposedly fulfilled, and my opponent should be ready to disprove that he did. Also in regards to ability of Christians to be neutral when looking at old testament prophecy, I will concede that I have an inclination to believe it fulfilled in Jesus, as a Christian, but that inclination rests on convictions formed from prior experiences and evidence. Thus, I am not neutral in regards to picking a side, but I will ask a question. Are you neutral about 1+1= 2? Do simply take no sides? No, you either believe that 1+1=2, or you don't. Likewise, if reach a conclusion on old testament prophecy independent of being a Christian, and become Christian afterwards, it should not be said that I am not neutral, simply that I have no reason to be, or that I am mistaken. (LIST OF PROPHECIES) 1. Gen. 3:15Seed of a woman (virgin birth) Fulfilled in Galatians 4:4-5, Matthew 1:18 2. Gen. 3:15He will bruise Satan's head Fulfilled in Hebrews 2:14, 1 John 3:8 3. Gen. 3:15Christ's heel would be bruised with nails on the cross Fulfilled in Matthew 27:35, Luke 24:39-40 4. Gen. 5:24The bodily ascension to heaven Fulfilled in Mark 16:19, Rev. 12:5 6. Gen. 12:3Seed of Abraham will bless all nations Fulfilled in Galatians 3:8, Acts 3:25, 26 7. Gen. 12:7The Promise made to Abraham's Seed Fulfilled in Galatians 3:16 8. Gen. 14:18A priest after the order of Melchizedek Fulfilled in Hebrews 6:20 9. Gen. 14:18King of Peace and Righteousness Fulfilled in Hebrews 7:2 10. Gen. 14:18The Last Supper foreshadowed Fulfilled in Matthew 26:26-29 12. Gen. 22:8The Lamb of God promised Fulfilled in John 1:29 13. Gen. 22:18As Isaac's seed, will bless all nations Fulfilled in Galatians 3:16 17. Gen. 49:10The time of His coming Fulfilled in Luke 2:1-7; Galatians 4:4 44. Deut. 18:18Sent by the Father to speak His wordJohn 8:28, 29 46. Deut. 21:23Cursed is he that hangs on a treeGalatians 3:10-13 48. Ruth 4:4-10Christ, our kinsman, has redeemed usEphesians 1:3-7 66. Psa. 2:7, 8The Crucifixion and Resurrection Acts 13:29-33 72. Psa. 16:10Was not to see corruption(physical) Acts 2:31, 13:35 73. Psa. 16:9-11Was to arise from the deadJohn 20:9 74. Psa. 17:15The resurrection predictedLuke 24:6 76. Psa. 22:1Forsaken because of sins of others2 Corinthians 5:21 77. Psa. 22:1"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"Matthew 27:46 78. Psa. 22:2Darkness upon Calvary for three hoursMatthew 27:45 79. Psa. 22:7They shoot out the lip and shake the headMatthew 27:39-44 80. Psa. 22:8"He trusted in God, let Him deliver Him"Matthew 27:43 81. Psa. 22:9-10Born the SaviourLuke 2:7 82. Psa. 22:12-13They seek His deathJohn 19:6 83. Psa. 22:14His blood poured out when they pierced His sideJohn 19:34 84. Psa. 22:14, 15Suffered agony on CalvaryMark 15:34-37 85. Psa. 22:15He thirstedJohn 19:28 86. Psa. 22:16They pierced His hands and His feetJohn 19:34, 37; 20:27 87. Psa. 22:17, 18Stripped Him before the stares of menLuke 23:34, 35 88. Psa. 22:18They parted His garmentsJohn 19:23, 24 89. Psa. 22:20, 21He committed Himself to GodLuke 23:46 (From <URL>... ) And lastly, I accept this debate.

Vapeo

First, thanks to my opponent for bringing this topic up, and I think it will be interesting to discuss. Secondly, my opponent has set them-self up for a semantics trap. Christians are able to do anything, there is no law stating that a Christian cannot look neutrally at a prophecy about Jesus. However, I assume my opponent means that it is merely difficult or highly unlikely for Jesus Christ to have actually fulfilled the prophecy of the old testament Jews. In that regard, any Old testament prophecy that may still be fulfilled by Jesus is not a indictment against him. That established, I will only consider prophecies whose time periods have ended. Firstly, we have to consider that Jesus himself was raised a JEW, and that his original disciples were mostly jews as well. You will recall, if you read Matthews, that many supposed prophecies are considered fulfilled by Jesus, according to his disciples. That said, the BOP is on my opponent to prove that Jesus did not actually fulfill what his disciples said he did. Essentially, my opponent must prove that Jesus did not actually exist, or that any historical evidence we have of him is untrustworthy, and most of it is lies. I will give a list of prophecies that Jesus supposedly fulfilled, and my opponent should be ready to disprove that he did. Also in regards to ability of Christians to be neutral when looking at old testament prophecy, I will concede that I have an inclination to believe it fulfilled in Jesus, as a Christian, but that inclination rests on convictions formed from prior experiences and evidence. Thus, I am not neutral in regards to picking a side, but I will ask a question. Are you neutral about 1+1= 2? Do simply take no sides? No, you either believe that 1+1=2, or you don't. Likewise, if reach a conclusion on old testament prophecy independent of being a Christian, and become Christian afterwards, it should not be said that I am not neutral, simply that I have no reason to be, or that I am mistaken. (LIST OF PROPHECIES) 1. Gen. 3:15Seed of a woman (virgin birth) Fulfilled in Galatians 4:4-5, Matthew 1:18 2. Gen. 3:15He will bruise Satan's head Fulfilled in Hebrews 2:14, 1 John 3:8 3. Gen. 3:15Christ's heel would be bruised with nails on the cross Fulfilled in Matthew 27:35, Luke 24:39-40 4. Gen. 5:24The bodily ascension to heaven Fulfilled in Mark 16:19, Rev. 12:5 6. Gen. 12:3Seed of Abraham will bless all nations Fulfilled in Galatians 3:8, Acts 3:25, 26 7. Gen. 12:7The Promise made to Abraham's Seed Fulfilled in Galatians 3:16 8. Gen. 14:18A priest after the order of Melchizedek Fulfilled in Hebrews 6:20 9. Gen. 14:18King of Peace and Righteousness Fulfilled in Hebrews 7:2 10. Gen. 14:18The Last Supper foreshadowed Fulfilled in Matthew 26:26-29 12. Gen. 22:8The Lamb of God promised Fulfilled in John 1:29 13. Gen. 22:18As Isaac's seed, will bless all nations Fulfilled in Galatians 3:16 17. Gen. 49:10The time of His coming Fulfilled in Luke 2:1-7; Galatians 4:4 44. Deut. 18:18Sent by the Father to speak His wordJohn 8:28, 29 46. Deut. 21:23Cursed is he that hangs on a treeGalatians 3:10-13 48. Ruth 4:4-10Christ, our kinsman, has redeemed usEphesians 1:3-7 66. Psa. 2:7, 8The Crucifixion and Resurrection Acts 13:29-33 72. Psa. 16:10Was not to see corruption(physical) Acts 2:31, 13:35 73. Psa. 16:9-11Was to arise from the deadJohn 20:9 74. Psa. 17:15The resurrection predictedLuke 24:6 76. Psa. 22:1Forsaken because of sins of others2 Corinthians 5:21 77. Psa. 22:1"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"Matthew 27:46 78. Psa. 22:2Darkness upon Calvary for three hoursMatthew 27:45 79. Psa. 22:7They shoot out the lip and shake the headMatthew 27:39-44 80. Psa. 22:8"He trusted in God, let Him deliver Him"Matthew 27:43 81. Psa. 22:9-10Born the SaviourLuke 2:7 82. Psa. 22:12-13They seek His deathJohn 19:6 83. Psa. 22:14His blood poured out when they pierced His sideJohn 19:34 84. Psa. 22:14, 15Suffered agony on CalvaryMark 15:34-37 85. Psa. 22:15He thirstedJohn 19:28 86. Psa. 22:16They pierced His hands and His feetJohn 19:34, 37; 20:27 87. Psa. 22:17, 18Stripped Him before the stares of menLuke 23:34, 35 88. Psa. 22:18They parted His garmentsJohn 19:23, 24 89. Psa. 22:20, 21He committed Himself to GodLuke 23:46 (From http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org... ) And lastly, I accept this debate.

Religion

Christians-are-NOT-able-to-determine-fairly-if-Jesus-is-really-the-True-messiah/2/

I did show how Christians could be neutral. Simply by analyzing basic facts, we can be neutral in regards to unfulfilled prophecies. But not already fulfilled ones, part of Christian beliefs. Asking a Christian to be skeptical of their own beliefs makes no sense. Its like asking a mathematician to believe 1+2=5 See my first argument and actually read it.

Vapeo

I did show how Christians could be neutral. Simply by analyzing basic facts, we can be neutral in regards to unfulfilled prophecies. But not already fulfilled ones, part of Christian beliefs. Asking a Christian to be skeptical of their own beliefs makes no sense. Its like asking a mathematician to believe 1+2=5 See my first argument and actually read it.

Religion

Christians-are-NOT-able-to-determine-fairly-if-Jesus-is-really-the-True-messiah/2/

Well if you hold a particular interpretation, it is hard to be convinced. Nothing I said was invalidated, because Christians don't need to look neutrally at anything if they are right. The real question is are we??? So it indeed is difficult for a Christian to suddenly stop believing in Jesus if they did their HW and are convinced. That doesn't mean they can't be neutral, but it doesn't make sense to. We don't find the basis of all of Christian doctrine in the OT, so it is not the only way to exploring Christianity. If i find evidences to believe that Jesus lived, and wasn't lying, and the ancient manuscripts his followers wrote were true, then I will believe in Jesus regardless of the OT. You can be a skeptic, or a believer, but why be neutral when we can have an opinion? That's like signing up for Debate.org and never debating. Ironically....

Vapeo

Well if you hold a particular interpretation, it is hard to be convinced. Nothing I said was invalidated, because Christians don't need to look neutrally at anything if they are right. The real question is are we??? So it indeed is difficult for a Christian to suddenly stop believing in Jesus if they did their HW and are convinced. That doesn't mean they can't be neutral, but it doesn't make sense to. We don't find the basis of all of Christian doctrine in the OT, so it is not the only way to exploring Christianity. If i find evidences to believe that Jesus lived, and wasn't lying, and the ancient manuscripts his followers wrote were true, then I will believe in Jesus regardless of the OT. You can be a skeptic, or a believer, but why be neutral when we can have an opinion? That's like signing up for Debate.org and never debating. Ironically....

Religion

Christians-are-NOT-able-to-determine-fairly-if-Jesus-is-really-the-True-messiah/2/

I agree with alot of things you said, but I think there is sufficient evidence to believe that Jesus existed, and further evidence to indicate most likely he wasn't lying about who he was. But technically, it still is merely possible to be neutral about Jesus, but extremely unnecessary, unless you are unconvinced. Even as a Christian.

Vapeo

I agree with alot of things you said, but I think there is sufficient evidence to believe that Jesus existed, and further evidence to indicate most likely he wasn't lying about who he was. But technically, it still is merely possible to be neutral about Jesus, but extremely unnecessary, unless you are unconvinced. Even as a Christian.

Religion

Christians-are-NOT-able-to-determine-fairly-if-Jesus-is-really-the-True-messiah/2/

Thank you for taking the time to review this debate. This is my first, so I beg your indulgence when I inevitably make mistakes. I'm open to anyone taking up this challenge. The Bible states the following in Ezekiel 28:14-19; You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you. Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones. Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings. By your many sins and dishonest trade you have desecrated your sanctuaries. So I made a fire come out from you, and it consumed you, and I reduced you to ashes on the ground in the sight of all who were watching. All the nations who knew you are appalled at you; you have come to a horrible end and will be no more. My argument is as follows; 1. God who is perfect created a perfect creatures; Lucifer, Adam & Eve. 2. Even though these created beings were perfect, still they sinned and rebelled against God. 3. Once a Christian goes to heaven they a free from sin and imperfection. 4. Given the potential for eternity in heaven, it seems reasonable to assume that at some point each person will sin and rebel against God.

logiboy123

Thank you for taking the time to review this debate. This is my first, so I beg your indulgence when I inevitably make mistakes. I'm open to anyone taking up this challenge. The Bible states the following in Ezekiel 28:14-19; You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you. Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones. Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings. By your many sins and dishonest trade you have desecrated your sanctuaries. So I made a fire come out from you, and it consumed you, and I reduced you to ashes on the ground in the sight of all who were watching. All the nations who knew you are appalled at you; you have come to a horrible end and will be no more. My argument is as follows; 1. God who is perfect created a perfect creatures; Lucifer, Adam & Eve. 2. Even though these created beings were perfect, still they sinned and rebelled against God. 3. Once a Christian goes to heaven they a free from sin and imperfection. 4. Given the potential for eternity in heaven, it seems reasonable to assume that at some point each person will sin and rebel against God.

Religion

Christians-cannot-be-reasonably-assured-of-eternal-salvation./1/

Thank you Microsuck for your participation. Quite honestly you have one of the best avatars I have ever seen. In regards to the "reasonably" word in my topic; if permissible I would like to simply remove it entirely and update the debate to "Christians cannot be assured of eternal salvation.", further I realise I should have defined each of my words clearly. If it is not to late I shall do that now; Christians - A follower of the person and teachings of Christ, accepting that; Jesus was the Son of God, who lived a sinless life, who died on a cross in atonement for mankind's sins in order that God and mankind could be reconciled. Assured - Satisfied as to the truth or certainty of a matter. Salvation - Deliverance from the power and effects of sin. Please note that my opponent has accepted my first 3 points without argument. Further he has turned several Bible verses against me and I shall now address them. John 6:38-40 "that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life" This scripture deals with finding salvation, not how or if you can lose it. Adam and Eve could have existed eternally in the Garden of Eden had they not sinned, but once they did sin they condemned all mankind and the Earth into a sinful state. John 10:27-28 "and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand" Unless of course if I choose to walk away from God by sinning and or rebelling. Something that would appear to be a near certainty given that once you are in heaven and residing with God you now have an entire eternity to eventually screw up. Romans 8:31-39 "nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord" Nothing in these passages address the concept of our choosing to rebel and the circumstances and/or consequences for doing so. For the sake of convenience I accept the position of apostates. This has no bearing on the argument either way. My opponent addresses point 4 by pointing out how one obtains salvation, but fails to address the point that the Bible has clearly shown that it is possible to lose salvation, ergo eternal salvation is not assured. The matter of debate before us is not the when, who, how or why of obtaining salvation. Rather it is the point that Christians cannot be assured of eternal salvation when all can see clearly and from the bible that created beings have lost their salvation. A sinful choice in Heaven would be far greater a crime then here and now on Earth. What excuse could be given at this time for failure? At least on earth we can say we are weak, we are tempted, we are flawed. Once in Heaven no excuse would be available and eternal damnation would be the result of the first mishap great or small. Anything less then perfection is just that; simply not good enough to meet the standards of God. Given an infinite amount of time and the knowledge that perfect beings can sin I see no way that my opponent can persuade you that Christians cannot be assured of eternal salvation. How can the God of the Christians claim to be good if he knows already that all of mankind will eventually lose eternal salvation given enough time? This bring into doubt the veracity of God's claims that he is good, just and merciful. If he does not fully contain those attributes then he is a liar and nothing that God says from that point could be counted as true, including any statements the Bible makes about salvation. Once again, thank you for reading and participating in this debate. I look forward to my opponents reply.

logiboy123

Thank you Microsuck for your participation. Quite honestly you have one of the best avatars I have ever seen. In regards to the "reasonably" word in my topic; if permissible I would like to simply remove it entirely and update the debate to "Christians cannot be assured of eternal salvation.", further I realise I should have defined each of my words clearly. If it is not to late I shall do that now; Christians - A follower of the person and teachings of Christ, accepting that; Jesus was the Son of God, who lived a sinless life, who died on a cross in atonement for mankind's sins in order that God and mankind could be reconciled. Assured - Satisfied as to the truth or certainty of a matter. Salvation - Deliverance from the power and effects of sin. Please note that my opponent has accepted my first 3 points without argument. Further he has turned several Bible verses against me and I shall now address them. John 6:38-40 "that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life" This scripture deals with finding salvation, not how or if you can lose it. Adam and Eve could have existed eternally in the Garden of Eden had they not sinned, but once they did sin they condemned all mankind and the Earth into a sinful state. John 10:27-28 "and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand" Unless of course if I choose to walk away from God by sinning and or rebelling. Something that would appear to be a near certainty given that once you are in heaven and residing with God you now have an entire eternity to eventually screw up. Romans 8:31-39 "nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord" Nothing in these passages address the concept of our choosing to rebel and the circumstances and/or consequences for doing so. For the sake of convenience I accept the position of apostates. This has no bearing on the argument either way. My opponent addresses point 4 by pointing out how one obtains salvation, but fails to address the point that the Bible has clearly shown that it is possible to lose salvation, ergo eternal salvation is not assured. The matter of debate before us is not the when, who, how or why of obtaining salvation. Rather it is the point that Christians cannot be assured of eternal salvation when all can see clearly and from the bible that created beings have lost their salvation. A sinful choice in Heaven would be far greater a crime then here and now on Earth. What excuse could be given at this time for failure? At least on earth we can say we are weak, we are tempted, we are flawed. Once in Heaven no excuse would be available and eternal damnation would be the result of the first mishap great or small. Anything less then perfection is just that; simply not good enough to meet the standards of God. Given an infinite amount of time and the knowledge that perfect beings can sin I see no way that my opponent can persuade you that Christians cannot be assured of eternal salvation. How can the God of the Christians claim to be good if he knows already that all of mankind will eventually lose eternal salvation given enough time? This bring into doubt the veracity of God's claims that he is good, just and merciful. If he does not fully contain those attributes then he is a liar and nothing that God says from that point could be counted as true, including any statements the Bible makes about salvation. Once again, thank you for reading and participating in this debate. I look forward to my opponents reply.

Religion

Christians-cannot-be-reasonably-assured-of-eternal-salvation./1/

I'm probably meant to be wrapping up my arguments at this stage, but I'm afraid I will need to present new ones. My opponent has reiterated his points from John 6:38-40. I assert that this portion of Biblical scripture is talking about gaining salvation. Whilst on the surface it may look like a promise is being made that salvation cannot be lost, but this cannot be true in light of the following two points; 1) Hebrews 10:26-31 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgement and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people." It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. 2) Lucifer, Adam and Eve were all perfect and sinless creatures that made the choice to sin. I do not feel my opponent has done anything to explain or deal with this particular issue. Instead he tries to reassure everyone via scripture that their salvation is secure. This is not a debate on Calvinism vs Arminianism where the issue is if you can lose your salvation whilst here on Earth. This debate is about the eternity existing 100 billion years from now and if salvation can be lost at that time. 3) Revelation 20:1-3 followed by Revelation 20:7-8 And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations any more until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time. When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth - Gog and Magog - and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. So the scene in the above picture is that peace has existed in Heaven and Earth for 1000 years, all have bowed down and worshiped God as the only true King and salvation is assured for all. Then Satan is loosed to deceive as many people as he can. So all the people that choose to fight along side Satan were once saved and now they no longer are. How does this stack up with the promise of Jesus in John chapters 6 and 10? My presumption (which I should have spelled out more clearly) was that a Christian has made it through life, made it through Armageddon, made it through the tribulation and again through the final battle between good and evil. At some point after this, with an eternity on your hands how could you not at some point sin once again? It wasn't my intention to focus on this point, but my opponent made the choice to use scriptures reassuring one of salvation, thinking about it now what other evidence could have have given? none I think. I thank you all for your patience with me, especially my opponent who has done a good job of making me think and do research. I wasn't intending on such a Bible centric debate and if that is not to your taste then I sincerely apologise.

logiboy123

I'm probably meant to be wrapping up my arguments at this stage, but I'm afraid I will need to present new ones. My opponent has reiterated his points from John 6:38-40. I assert that this portion of Biblical scripture is talking about gaining salvation. Whilst on the surface it may look like a promise is being made that salvation cannot be lost, but this cannot be true in light of the following two points; 1) Hebrews 10:26-31 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgement and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people." It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. 2) Lucifer, Adam and Eve were all perfect and sinless creatures that made the choice to sin. I do not feel my opponent has done anything to explain or deal with this particular issue. Instead he tries to reassure everyone via scripture that their salvation is secure. This is not a debate on Calvinism vs Arminianism where the issue is if you can lose your salvation whilst here on Earth. This debate is about the eternity existing 100 billion years from now and if salvation can be lost at that time. 3) Revelation 20:1-3 followed by Revelation 20:7-8 And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations any more until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time. When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth - Gog and Magog - and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. So the scene in the above picture is that peace has existed in Heaven and Earth for 1000 years, all have bowed down and worshiped God as the only true King and salvation is assured for all. Then Satan is loosed to deceive as many people as he can. So all the people that choose to fight along side Satan were once saved and now they no longer are. How does this stack up with the promise of Jesus in John chapters 6 and 10? My presumption (which I should have spelled out more clearly) was that a Christian has made it through life, made it through Armageddon, made it through the tribulation and again through the final battle between good and evil. At some point after this, with an eternity on your hands how could you not at some point sin once again? It wasn't my intention to focus on this point, but my opponent made the choice to use scriptures reassuring one of salvation, thinking about it now what other evidence could have have given? none I think. I thank you all for your patience with me, especially my opponent who has done a good job of making me think and do research. I wasn't intending on such a Bible centric debate and if that is not to your taste then I sincerely apologise.

Religion

Christians-cannot-be-reasonably-assured-of-eternal-salvation./1/

THE TARTAR DISCLAIMER :) for the purposes of this debate, both participants agree-or-at-least-pretend-to-agree that the bible is completely true.

aceofelves

THE TARTAR DISCLAIMER :) for the purposes of this debate, both participants agree-or-at-least-pretend-to-agree that the bible is completely true.

Religion

Christians-should-not-observe-the-Sabbath-on-Sunday./1/

I do not know this CiRro, but I take it it is fair to debate based on your summarization of what he holds, the fact of your summary existing being a concession to this assumption. I should note that a philosophy must be appreciated as a whole, that is, one need not necessarily dispute all of it's component parts to dispute the philosophy, just some of them. " 2) Sacrifices are necessary to ensure a greater stability, which in turn leads to a greater good." Sacrifice consists of giving up something one values for something one does not, or something one values for something one values less. It is wholly impossible that any increase of good, i.e. increase of values, can come about by exchanging greater values for lesser values. Nor is such stable, it is dynamic, specifically, dynamically moving toward a complete lack of value (death). " 3) Conflict should be pushed as a means to strengthen the individual. Strengthening the individual would lead to a stronger society. " The type of conflict is not specified, making this a poor teaching to spread in it's current form. Does the fact that seventeen armed FBI agents are on your tail make you stronger? I was under the impression that it made you weaker, and quite likely to die if you resist. A society, of course, cannot have the terms "strength" or "weakness" applied to it, as it is not an entity, only it's constitutent entities can be referred to as strong or weak. Also, as society is an entity, it cannot be a justification for anything. The individual's benefit is a justification in it's own right, insofar as it is true... and the only possible justification. " 4) Peace can never be achieved. It is merely a figment of the human mind to oppose conflict and problems, which are tests of strength. Peace weakens us." Surrender to problems, surrender to conflict, means you failed any capacity these had to "Test your strength." The point, though, is not to prove your strength, it is to solve problems, because the solution of problems is the only thing strength is good for. Point 4, in essence, subordinates ends to means and then loses both. And assuming the usual definition of peace, i.e. humans not killing each other, it is eminently possible- if it is within the power of a human being to kill, it is also within his power not to kill. " 5) Negative emotions should be kept as a private affair, unless it furthers some greater purpose. Emotional struggles help strengthen the inner person, however are sometimes used as ways to get attention, which is a weakness that must be overcome. " Emotional struggles do not strengthen people, they weaken people. Everyone who has ever been unable to decide on a course of action has an emotional struggle behind it, often though not necessarily with an intellectual struggle at the base of that. I agree, however, that they should be kept to oneself unless the person you're telling about them offered to help, or caused the problem through use of force. " 6) Power is the ultimate goal. In finding true power, those that are to weak are weeded out. " Power, by definition, is the ability to achieve one's goals. It has no meaning apart from some other goal, worthy or not. " 7) Weakness, if used properly can be a plus for society. Those that are weak and cannot obtain power become pawns in a greater game of chess." This is never true. One, society as I mentioned earlier can never be the beneficiary of anything. Two, if it is true that such a chess game is desirable, which I do not hold, the existence of an even stronger person to control YOU makes it all the better if you are to be consistent. Three, by definition anything which is beneficial to one's goals is not a weakness. " 8) There must always be a struggle for power. Absolute power corrupts beyond repair. Power is a goal, however power loses its meaning when only one holds it." This is an absurd contradiction. One cannot simultaneously advocate "This is a good goal" and "The achievement of this goal is bad." Goals are there to be achieved, not to stay just out of reach of. "Power is not power anymore" Horrible metaphysics. A is A and power is power. No matter what. It's known as the Law of Identity, without which the word "philosophy" has no meaning and no value. " 9) Manipulation is an art that most people see as an evil." This is not even a philosophical claim, it is a statistical claim. And one wholly without evidence. "Manipulation is not having the ability to control anthers actions. It is the ability to propel events to determine future outcomes." And this is a semantical claim, not a philosophical one. " 10) The ultimate goal is truth. " Nakedly contradicts: " 6) Power is the ultimate goal." Ultimate means there can be only ONE. By the way, truth cannot be a goal either, because it cannot be worked towards. True is always true, no matter what you do. Knowledge of the truth can be a goal, though it is not the ultimate one. Essentially ultimate goal is a matter of choice: Though everyone who is in this debate has already conceded life as their goal, or they would be dead, and the facts of morality, i.e. how that goal is best achieved, is not so relative. "Truth comes from conflict." Truth is a property of propostions, specifically the property that says they describe reality, as opposed to not describing reality. The existence of conflict does not alter it in the slightest. The essence of the resolution is at hand is whether the philosophy, which Pro believes to belong to CiRro, above described, ought to be embraced. The trouble is, it contains contradictions, and other false claims. Since everyone here is trying to live (otherwise they would be dead, human life, you see, requires constant sustaining effort, both mental and physical), they ought to be careful to obtain knowledge of things, so that they can act on that knowledge and thereby survive. This entails that they ought not embrace such vessels of false claims and contradictions.

Ragnar_Rahl

I do not know this CiRro, but I take it it is fair to debate based on your summarization of what he holds, the fact of your summary existing being a concession to this assumption. I should note that a philosophy must be appreciated as a whole, that is, one need not necessarily dispute all of it's component parts to dispute the philosophy, just some of them. " 2) Sacrifices are necessary to ensure a greater stability, which in turn leads to a greater good." Sacrifice consists of giving up something one values for something one does not, or something one values for something one values less. It is wholly impossible that any increase of good, i.e. increase of values, can come about by exchanging greater values for lesser values. Nor is such stable, it is dynamic, specifically, dynamically moving toward a complete lack of value (death). " 3) Conflict should be pushed as a means to strengthen the individual. Strengthening the individual would lead to a stronger society. " The type of conflict is not specified, making this a poor teaching to spread in it's current form. Does the fact that seventeen armed FBI agents are on your tail make you stronger? I was under the impression that it made you weaker, and quite likely to die if you resist. A society, of course, cannot have the terms "strength" or "weakness" applied to it, as it is not an entity, only it's constitutent entities can be referred to as strong or weak. Also, as society is an entity, it cannot be a justification for anything. The individual's benefit is a justification in it's own right, insofar as it is true... and the only possible justification. " 4) Peace can never be achieved. It is merely a figment of the human mind to oppose conflict and problems, which are tests of strength. Peace weakens us." Surrender to problems, surrender to conflict, means you failed any capacity these had to "Test your strength." The point, though, is not to prove your strength, it is to solve problems, because the solution of problems is the only thing strength is good for. Point 4, in essence, subordinates ends to means and then loses both. And assuming the usual definition of peace, i.e. humans not killing each other, it is eminently possible- if it is within the power of a human being to kill, it is also within his power not to kill. " 5) Negative emotions should be kept as a private affair, unless it furthers some greater purpose. Emotional struggles help strengthen the inner person, however are sometimes used as ways to get attention, which is a weakness that must be overcome. " Emotional struggles do not strengthen people, they weaken people. Everyone who has ever been unable to decide on a course of action has an emotional struggle behind it, often though not necessarily with an intellectual struggle at the base of that. I agree, however, that they should be kept to oneself unless the person you're telling about them offered to help, or caused the problem through use of force. " 6) Power is the ultimate goal. In finding true power, those that are to weak are weeded out. " Power, by definition, is the ability to achieve one's goals. It has no meaning apart from some other goal, worthy or not. " 7) Weakness, if used properly can be a plus for society. Those that are weak and cannot obtain power become pawns in a greater game of chess." This is never true. One, society as I mentioned earlier can never be the beneficiary of anything. Two, if it is true that such a chess game is desirable, which I do not hold, the existence of an even stronger person to control YOU makes it all the better if you are to be consistent. Three, by definition anything which is beneficial to one's goals is not a weakness. " 8) There must always be a struggle for power. Absolute power corrupts beyond repair. Power is a goal, however power loses its meaning when only one holds it." This is an absurd contradiction. One cannot simultaneously advocate "This is a good goal" and "The achievement of this goal is bad." Goals are there to be achieved, not to stay just out of reach of. "Power is not power anymore" Horrible metaphysics. A is A and power is power. No matter what. It's known as the Law of Identity, without which the word "philosophy" has no meaning and no value. " 9) Manipulation is an art that most people see as an evil." This is not even a philosophical claim, it is a statistical claim. And one wholly without evidence. "Manipulation is not having the ability to control anthers actions. It is the ability to propel events to determine future outcomes." And this is a semantical claim, not a philosophical one. " 10) The ultimate goal is truth. " Nakedly contradicts: " 6) Power is the ultimate goal." Ultimate means there can be only ONE. By the way, truth cannot be a goal either, because it cannot be worked towards. True is always true, no matter what you do. Knowledge of the truth can be a goal, though it is not the ultimate one. Essentially ultimate goal is a matter of choice: Though everyone who is in this debate has already conceded life as their goal, or they would be dead, and the facts of morality, i.e. how that goal is best achieved, is not so relative. "Truth comes from conflict." Truth is a property of propostions, specifically the property that says they describe reality, as opposed to not describing reality. The existence of conflict does not alter it in the slightest. The essence of the resolution is at hand is whether the philosophy, which Pro believes to belong to CiRro, above described, ought to be embraced. The trouble is, it contains contradictions, and other false claims. Since everyone here is trying to live (otherwise they would be dead, human life, you see, requires constant sustaining effort, both mental and physical), they ought to be careful to obtain knowledge of things, so that they can act on that knowledge and thereby survive. This entails that they ought not embrace such vessels of false claims and contradictions.

Religion

CiRrO-s-philosophy-and-teaching-ought-to-be-embraced./1/

" >> Sacrifices do not always have to be something greater to something less. I will refer to one of CiRro's debates: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save more innocent people. It is necessary to sacrifice one person for the sake of the larger amount of people. If society allows more people to die, then they are not really a stable society. Furthermore it is you who said this: "If you were driving a car and you were going down hill and the breaks went out and you had to chose between hitting a group of people os swerving and hitting one person. I would say yes."" First off, you misquoted me. I never said that, I quoted it and then argued against it. I would say no in your example, because, I repeat: The group of people who you would hit if you did nothing are the ones in the trafficked part of the road, whereas the one you have to swerve to hit is the one in an untrafficked part of the road or on the sidewalk, i.e. the first group ACCEPTED the risk of being hit by you given these circumstances, the second person did not. If you are that lax about quoting people, I wonder what you It is not established as morally permissible to kill one supposed "innocent" to save more innocents, because one, all the examples people have given to me have been groups who are not innocent of making choices that implicitly accept the possibility of their death in that circumstance, against individuals who are innocent of it. Furthermore, neither the one innocent person nor the many innocent people are of PRIMARY value in this situation to you. Only you are of primary value to you. By actively participating in a killing of a known innocent individual for a supposed innocent group, you ensure that any innocent who is likely to find themselves the minority in any such situation and notices you knows you have actively declared war upon their existence. They will seek to kill you. You are at risk of sacrificing your own life, the highest possible value available to you, without which you can have no other values- for a bunch of strangers? That, is a greater value for a lesser value. " >> I'm sorry, I didn't have time to be specific, good thing you asked for clarification. Cirro: "a state of opposition between persons or ideas or interests." Now, lets look at your example. CiRro of course is a big proponent of the law. I would assume that 17 FBI agents are chasing you because you have done something wrong or illegal. However, I would say this does make you stronger. Stronger in wit and body." Strength is the ability to achieve your goals. Whatever your goals may be, in almost all situations being chased by people who want to kill you is harmful to your goals, where eliminating such people would be helpful to them. The more people work against your goals, the less likely you are to achieve them. Thus, the less strong you are when you consider the whole of the strength measures available. "{Furthermore, you say that society cannot be termed as strong or weak. That is specifically why CiRrO is against attempts at making everyone strong. He believes as the point shows, that strengthening the individual first, would lead to a stronger society." Contradiction. You both accept that society cannot be termed as strong- and then outline what you will do to make it strong. " >> The idea is never to surrender. " By stating you will never win, i.e. never defeat those who are not at peace with you, you have ALREADY surrendered. ". CiRrO is trying to say that "peace" can never be truly be achieved, because peace itself is a conflict. It is a conflict opposing conflict." It's not a conflict if the conflict it opposes has already given up. A state of opposition can only exist if there is actually something left to oppose. "By finding peace, you will only spur apathy, which in time leads to aggressive hostilities. " How on earth does peace spur apathy? Peace means you can do basically whatever it iss you wanted to do back when there was a conflict over it, because those who wanted to stop you are dead or the equivalent. Apathy tends to be a defense mechanism of the DISENFRANCHISED- not those who have already won. " >> Emotional struggles do not strengthen, really? You seem like a smart guy. Emotional struggles if used correctly could lead to effective action to be victorious over conflict." Emotional struggles, by definitions, are conflicts between one's emotions, i.e., the inability to choose between them, and therefore to choose between effective actions. A SPECIFIC emotional struggle may strengthen you by preparing you for further emotional struggles, but the FACT of emotional struggles by definition weakens you. And if you think they have an "Effective use," it is no longer a struggle, because you've already made up your mind about it :D. ">> Power in and of itself. Definition: one possessing or exercising power, influence or authority" Listing synonyms is a terrible way to define things. Especially when one of those synonyms is the word itself. :D "The weak doing what they must, the Strong doing what they must. " Anyone who "must" do something is not strong. All of those you describe are weak, for they are unable to choose what they achieve. If you MUST do x, you are impotent in regards to x, i.e. it is not subject to your choice. " >> Society is the beneficiary of individuals." As I said, society is not an entity. It cannot be the beneficiary of ANYTHING, because it has no ability in and of itself to determine what a benefit is. Individuals are the beneficiaries of society, specifically the facts of trade. Not the other way around. "Pawns are always necessary. " Human pawns are not necessary if you are "strong" in and of yourself. If you have the ability to achieve your goals, you do not need to control someone else and force them to achieve them for you. " >> My opponent doesn't understand. The ROAD to gaining power is good, it makes people strong. However, when one gains power absolutely, it harbors arrogance, apathy, and unwarranted aggression." A road to anything, by definition, can only be judged in value by where it leads and how well it gets there.. If you happen to go along the road to power to "gain strength" and then make a detour just before the destination, as you seem to be advocating, you are in fact following a different road, the road to this "Strength" you speak of, which simply happens to be near the road to power. " >> lol, you take things way to much at face value." In philosophy, everything had better be reducible to something that can be taken at face value, or it has no meaning at all. "Power is not power because it has been corrupted." This is a meaningless statement. To give it the meaning you were attempting to, it would have to go like this: "What ONCE was power, is not power anymore, because it has been corrupted." Precision! Precision! And then you have to prove the corruption of course, i.e. prove that achieving a thing corrupts it, which is an absurdity all its own, if the corruption is inevitable, then the thing is inherently corrupt and always was, it just wasn't evident.

Ragnar_Rahl

" >> Sacrifices do not always have to be something greater to something less. I will refer to one of CiRro's debates: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save more innocent people. It is necessary to sacrifice one person for the sake of the larger amount of people. If society allows more people to die, then they are not really a stable society. Furthermore it is you who said this: "If you were driving a car and you were going down hill and the breaks went out and you had to chose between hitting a group of people os swerving and hitting one person. I would say yes."" First off, you misquoted me. I never said that, I quoted it and then argued against it. I would say no in your example, because, I repeat: The group of people who you would hit if you did nothing are the ones in the trafficked part of the road, whereas the one you have to swerve to hit is the one in an untrafficked part of the road or on the sidewalk, i.e. the first group ACCEPTED the risk of being hit by you given these circumstances, the second person did not. If you are that lax about quoting people, I wonder what you It is not established as morally permissible to kill one supposed "innocent" to save more innocents, because one, all the examples people have given to me have been groups who are not innocent of making choices that implicitly accept the possibility of their death in that circumstance, against individuals who are innocent of it. Furthermore, neither the one innocent person nor the many innocent people are of PRIMARY value in this situation to you. Only you are of primary value to you. By actively participating in a killing of a known innocent individual for a supposed innocent group, you ensure that any innocent who is likely to find themselves the minority in any such situation and notices you knows you have actively declared war upon their existence. They will seek to kill you. You are at risk of sacrificing your own life, the highest possible value available to you, without which you can have no other values- for a bunch of strangers? That, is a greater value for a lesser value. " >> I'm sorry, I didn't have time to be specific, good thing you asked for clarification. Cirro: "a state of opposition between persons or ideas or interests." Now, lets look at your example. CiRro of course is a big proponent of the law. I would assume that 17 FBI agents are chasing you because you have done something wrong or illegal. However, I would say this does make you stronger. Stronger in wit and body." Strength is the ability to achieve your goals. Whatever your goals may be, in almost all situations being chased by people who want to kill you is harmful to your goals, where eliminating such people would be helpful to them. The more people work against your goals, the less likely you are to achieve them. Thus, the less strong you are when you consider the whole of the strength measures available. "{Furthermore, you say that society cannot be termed as strong or weak. That is specifically why CiRrO is against attempts at making everyone strong. He believes as the point shows, that strengthening the individual first, would lead to a stronger society." Contradiction. You both accept that society cannot be termed as strong- and then outline what you will do to make it strong. " >> The idea is never to surrender. " By stating you will never win, i.e. never defeat those who are not at peace with you, you have ALREADY surrendered. ". CiRrO is trying to say that "peace" can never be truly be achieved, because peace itself is a conflict. It is a conflict opposing conflict." It's not a conflict if the conflict it opposes has already given up. A state of opposition can only exist if there is actually something left to oppose. "By finding peace, you will only spur apathy, which in time leads to aggressive hostilities. " How on earth does peace spur apathy? Peace means you can do basically whatever it iss you wanted to do back when there was a conflict over it, because those who wanted to stop you are dead or the equivalent. Apathy tends to be a defense mechanism of the DISENFRANCHISED- not those who have already won. " >> Emotional struggles do not strengthen, really? You seem like a smart guy. Emotional struggles if used correctly could lead to effective action to be victorious over conflict." Emotional struggles, by definitions, are conflicts between one's emotions, i.e., the inability to choose between them, and therefore to choose between effective actions. A SPECIFIC emotional struggle may strengthen you by preparing you for further emotional struggles, but the FACT of emotional struggles by definition weakens you. And if you think they have an "Effective use," it is no longer a struggle, because you've already made up your mind about it :D. ">> Power in and of itself. Definition: one possessing or exercising power, influence or authority" Listing synonyms is a terrible way to define things. Especially when one of those synonyms is the word itself. :D "The weak doing what they must, the Strong doing what they must. " Anyone who "must" do something is not strong. All of those you describe are weak, for they are unable to choose what they achieve. If you MUST do x, you are impotent in regards to x, i.e. it is not subject to your choice. " >> Society is the beneficiary of individuals." As I said, society is not an entity. It cannot be the beneficiary of ANYTHING, because it has no ability in and of itself to determine what a benefit is. Individuals are the beneficiaries of society, specifically the facts of trade. Not the other way around. "Pawns are always necessary. " Human pawns are not necessary if you are "strong" in and of yourself. If you have the ability to achieve your goals, you do not need to control someone else and force them to achieve them for you. " >> My opponent doesn't understand. The ROAD to gaining power is good, it makes people strong. However, when one gains power absolutely, it harbors arrogance, apathy, and unwarranted aggression." A road to anything, by definition, can only be judged in value by where it leads and how well it gets there.. If you happen to go along the road to power to "gain strength" and then make a detour just before the destination, as you seem to be advocating, you are in fact following a different road, the road to this "Strength" you speak of, which simply happens to be near the road to power. " >> lol, you take things way to much at face value." In philosophy, everything had better be reducible to something that can be taken at face value, or it has no meaning at all. "Power is not power because it has been corrupted." This is a meaningless statement. To give it the meaning you were attempting to, it would have to go like this: "What ONCE was power, is not power anymore, because it has been corrupted." Precision! Precision! And then you have to prove the corruption of course, i.e. prove that achieving a thing corrupts it, which is an absurdity all its own, if the corruption is inevitable, then the thing is inherently corrupt and always was, it just wasn't evident.

Religion

CiRrO-s-philosophy-and-teaching-ought-to-be-embraced./1/

I don't know CiRrO personally, but I have studied his teachings and I believe that there is truth in what he says. I will outline his basic premises. I would really like to see what another member has to say. ****CiRro's Philosophy**** 1) The first absolute moral duty that each member of a society has is to uphold justice, in it's purest form. According to him, a society not built on justice is destined to crumble. 2) Sacrifices are necessary to ensure a greater stability, which in turn leads to a greater good. 3) Conflict should be pushed as a means to strengthen the individual. Strengthening the individual would lead to a stronger society. 4) Peace can never be achieved. It is merely a figment of the human mind to oppose conflict and problems, which are tests of strength. Peace weakens us. 5) Negative emotions should be kept as a private affair, unless it furthers some greater purpose. Emotional struggles help strengthen the inner person, however are sometimes used as ways to get attention, which is a weakness that must be overcome. 6) Power is the ultimate goal. In finding true power, those that are to weak are weeded out. 7) Weakness, if used properly can be a plus for society. Those that are weak and cannot obtain power become pawns in a greater game of chess. 8) There must always be a struggle for power. Absolute power corrupts beyond repair. Power is a goal, however power loses its meaning when only one holds it. Power is not power anymore, it is an individual entity, with no real use. 9) Manipulation is an art that most people see as an evil. Manipulation is not having the ability to control anthers actions. It is the ability to propel events to determine future outcomes. 10) The ultimate goal is truth. Truth comes from conflict. Conflict comes from everyday events that may seem petty. Pettiness is a window into a larger view of the world. These are not all his teachings, however those are the ones I remember him telling me. (From Xfire). I believe there is truth in what he says. Do you agree?

TheBlacknight

I don't know CiRrO personally, but I have studied his teachings and I believe that there is truth in what he says. I will outline his basic premises. I would really like to see what another member has to say. ****CiRro's Philosophy**** 1) The first absolute moral duty that each member of a society has is to uphold justice, in it's purest form. According to him, a society not built on justice is destined to crumble. 2) Sacrifices are necessary to ensure a greater stability, which in turn leads to a greater good. 3) Conflict should be pushed as a means to strengthen the individual. Strengthening the individual would lead to a stronger society. 4) Peace can never be achieved. It is merely a figment of the human mind to oppose conflict and problems, which are tests of strength. Peace weakens us. 5) Negative emotions should be kept as a private affair, unless it furthers some greater purpose. Emotional struggles help strengthen the inner person, however are sometimes used as ways to get attention, which is a weakness that must be overcome. 6) Power is the ultimate goal. In finding true power, those that are to weak are weeded out. 7) Weakness, if used properly can be a plus for society. Those that are weak and cannot obtain power become pawns in a greater game of chess. 8) There must always be a struggle for power. Absolute power corrupts beyond repair. Power is a goal, however power loses its meaning when only one holds it. Power is not power anymore, it is an individual entity, with no real use. 9) Manipulation is an art that most people see as an evil. Manipulation is not having the ability to control anthers actions. It is the ability to propel events to determine future outcomes. 10) The ultimate goal is truth. Truth comes from conflict. Conflict comes from everyday events that may seem petty. Pettiness is a window into a larger view of the world. These are not all his teachings, however those are the ones I remember him telling me. (From Xfire). I believe there is truth in what he says. Do you agree?

Religion

CiRrO-s-philosophy-and-teaching-ought-to-be-embraced./1/

"Sacrifice consists of giving up something one values for something one does not, or something one values for something one values less. It is wholly impossible that any increase of good, i.e. increase of values, can come about by exchanging greater values for lesser values. Nor is such stable, it is dynamic, specifically, dynamically moving toward a complete lack of value (death)." >> Sacrifices do not always have to be something greater to something less. I will refer to one of CiRro's debates: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save more innocent people. It is necessary to sacrifice one person for the sake of the larger amount of people. If society allows more people to die, then they are not really a stable society. Furthermore it is you who said this: "If you were driving a car and you were going down hill and the breaks went out and you had to chose between hitting a group of people os swerving and hitting one person. I would say yes." "The type of conflict is not specified, making this a poor teaching to spread in it's current form. Does the fact that seventeen armed FBI agents are on your tail make you stronger? I was under the impression that it made you weaker, and quite likely to die if you resist. A society, of course, cannot have the terms "strength" or "weakness" applied to it, as it is not an entity, only it's constitutent entities can be referred to as strong or weak. Also, as society is an entity, it cannot be a justification for anything. The individual's benefit is a justification in it's own right, insofar as it is true... and the only possible justification." >> I'm sorry, I didn't have time to be specific, good thing you asked for clarification. Cirro: "a state of opposition between persons or ideas or interests." Now, lets look at your example. CiRro of course is a big proponent of the law. I would assume that 17 FBI agents are chasing you because you have done something wrong or illegal. However, I would say this does make you stronger. Stronger in wit and body. By running you are getting an exercise, and by running from the Cops, you are learning how to get away from bad situation. Thus, you have made yourself stronger. Furthermore, you say that society cannot be termed as strong or weak. That is specifically why CiRrO is against attempts at making everyone strong. He believes as the point shows, that strengthening the individual first, would lead to a stronger society. "Surrender to problems, surrender to conflict, means you failed any capacity these had to "Test your strength." The point, though, is not to prove your strength, it is to solve problems, because the solution of problems is the only thing strength is good for. Point 4, in essence, subordinates ends to means and then loses both. And assuming the usual definition of peace, i.e. humans not killing each other, it is eminently possible- if it is within the power of a human being to kill, it is also within his power not to kill." >> The idea is never to surrender. Either strive and achieve, or strive and fail. You can say that being able to solve problems is a strength. There are many ways to be "strong". Furthermore, peace is not just the end to killing. Peace: a state of harmony or the absence of hostility. CiRrO is trying to say that "peace" can never be truly be achieved, because peace itself is a conflict. It is a conflict opposing conflict. By finding peace, you will only spur apathy, which in time leads to aggressive hostilities. Therefore, peace is just a lingering aggression, waiting to be freed from the agent. Remember, CiRrO is against "aggression" but he admires "assertion" "Emotional struggles do not strengthen people, they weaken people. Everyone who has ever been unable to decide on a course of action has an emotional struggle behind it, often though not necessarily with an intellectual struggle at the base of that. I agree, however, that they should be kept to oneself unless the person you're telling about them offered to help, or caused the problem through use of force. " >> Emotional struggles do not strengthen, really? You seem like a smart guy. Emotional struggles if used correctly could lead to effective action to be victorious over conflict. Link this to the peace point. Conflict and struggles that are kept to linger are not good. It is when one triumphs over these conflicts and strengthen themselves to the next level. He specifically pointed out emotions struggles, because those are the ones that tend to lead to irrational action, rather then constructive achievement. "Power, by definition, is the ability to achieve one's goals. It has no meaning apart from some other goal, worthy or not." >> Power in and of itself. Definition: one possessing or exercising power, influence or authority. Power essentially is what everyone craves. In doing so, the weak in this world are pushed down by those mightier then they are. That is what leads to a good society. The weak doing what they must, the Strong doing what they must. "This is never true. One, society as I mentioned earlier can never be the beneficiary of anything. Two, if it is true that such a chess game is desirable, which I do not hold, the existence of an even stronger person to control YOU makes it all the better if you are to be consistent. Three, by definition anything which is beneficial to one's goals is not a weakness." >> Society is the beneficiary of individuals. As I have brought up, by strengthening the individual society as a whole is strengthened. Furthermore, the "chess game" is a metaphor for power. It is easy to influence the weak to become pawns. Pawns are always necessary. One of CiRrO's favorite quotes: "No game of dejarik can be won without pawns, and this may prove to be a very long game." Pawns only further the inevitable struggle for pwoer, which makes the cycle go round, and round. "This is an absurd contradiction. One cannot simultaneously advocate "This is a good goal" and "The achievement of this goal is bad." Goals are there to be achieved, not to stay just out of reach of." >> My opponent doesn't understand. The ROAD to gaining power is good, it makes people strong. However, when one gains power absolutely, it harbors arrogance, apathy, and unwarranted aggression. Therefore, to stop such hindrances to the overall struggle of life, power must be struggles for. Thus, more people are strengthening themselves. It is a cycle again. The struggle is what makes people stronger. You seem to not understand this concept. Of course, the goal will be achieved, but once you devalue that final goal in such ways as apathy, another person will be there is claim it. And so on. "Horrible metaphysics. A is A and power is power. No matter what. It's known as the Law of Identity, without which the word "philosophy" has no meaning and no value." >> lol, you take things way to much at face value. Power is not power because it has been corrupted. When one corrupts power, it losses its meaning. "And this is a semantical claim, not a philosophical one." >> I do not disagree. < > >> You only claim one contradiction, when I accidentally used the word absolute twice. Furthermore, I Believe my above reasons should have cleared any up.

TheBlacknight

"Sacrifice consists of giving up something one values for something one does not, or something one values for something one values less. It is wholly impossible that any increase of good, i.e. increase of values, can come about by exchanging greater values for lesser values. Nor is such stable, it is dynamic, specifically, dynamically moving toward a complete lack of value (death)." >> Sacrifices do not always have to be something greater to something less. I will refer to one of CiRro's debates: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save more innocent people. It is necessary to sacrifice one person for the sake of the larger amount of people. If society allows more people to die, then they are not really a stable society. Furthermore it is you who said this: "If you were driving a car and you were going down hill and the breaks went out and you had to chose between hitting a group of people os swerving and hitting one person. I would say yes." "The type of conflict is not specified, making this a poor teaching to spread in it's current form. Does the fact that seventeen armed FBI agents are on your tail make you stronger? I was under the impression that it made you weaker, and quite likely to die if you resist. A society, of course, cannot have the terms "strength" or "weakness" applied to it, as it is not an entity, only it's constitutent entities can be referred to as strong or weak. Also, as society is an entity, it cannot be a justification for anything. The individual's benefit is a justification in it's own right, insofar as it is true... and the only possible justification." >> I'm sorry, I didn't have time to be specific, good thing you asked for clarification. Cirro: "a state of opposition between persons or ideas or interests." Now, lets look at your example. CiRro of course is a big proponent of the law. I would assume that 17 FBI agents are chasing you because you have done something wrong or illegal. However, I would say this does make you stronger. Stronger in wit and body. By running you are getting an exercise, and by running from the Cops, you are learning how to get away from bad situation. Thus, you have made yourself stronger. Furthermore, you say that society cannot be termed as strong or weak. That is specifically why CiRrO is against attempts at making everyone strong. He believes as the point shows, that strengthening the individual first, would lead to a stronger society. "Surrender to problems, surrender to conflict, means you failed any capacity these had to "Test your strength." The point, though, is not to prove your strength, it is to solve problems, because the solution of problems is the only thing strength is good for. Point 4, in essence, subordinates ends to means and then loses both. And assuming the usual definition of peace, i.e. humans not killing each other, it is eminently possible- if it is within the power of a human being to kill, it is also within his power not to kill." >> The idea is never to surrender. Either strive and achieve, or strive and fail. You can say that being able to solve problems is a strength. There are many ways to be "strong". Furthermore, peace is not just the end to killing. Peace: a state of harmony or the absence of hostility. CiRrO is trying to say that "peace" can never be truly be achieved, because peace itself is a conflict. It is a conflict opposing conflict. By finding peace, you will only spur apathy, which in time leads to aggressive hostilities. Therefore, peace is just a lingering aggression, waiting to be freed from the agent. Remember, CiRrO is against "aggression" but he admires "assertion" "Emotional struggles do not strengthen people, they weaken people. Everyone who has ever been unable to decide on a course of action has an emotional struggle behind it, often though not necessarily with an intellectual struggle at the base of that. I agree, however, that they should be kept to oneself unless the person you're telling about them offered to help, or caused the problem through use of force. " >> Emotional struggles do not strengthen, really? You seem like a smart guy. Emotional struggles if used correctly could lead to effective action to be victorious over conflict. Link this to the peace point. Conflict and struggles that are kept to linger are not good. It is when one triumphs over these conflicts and strengthen themselves to the next level. He specifically pointed out emotions struggles, because those are the ones that tend to lead to irrational action, rather then constructive achievement. "Power, by definition, is the ability to achieve one's goals. It has no meaning apart from some other goal, worthy or not." >> Power in and of itself. Definition: one possessing or exercising power, influence or authority. Power essentially is what everyone craves. In doing so, the weak in this world are pushed down by those mightier then they are. That is what leads to a good society. The weak doing what they must, the Strong doing what they must. "This is never true. One, society as I mentioned earlier can never be the beneficiary of anything. Two, if it is true that such a chess game is desirable, which I do not hold, the existence of an even stronger person to control YOU makes it all the better if you are to be consistent. Three, by definition anything which is beneficial to one's goals is not a weakness." >> Society is the beneficiary of individuals. As I have brought up, by strengthening the individual society as a whole is strengthened. Furthermore, the "chess game" is a metaphor for power. It is easy to influence the weak to become pawns. Pawns are always necessary. One of CiRrO's favorite quotes: "No game of dejarik can be won without pawns, and this may prove to be a very long game." Pawns only further the inevitable struggle for pwoer, which makes the cycle go round, and round. "This is an absurd contradiction. One cannot simultaneously advocate "This is a good goal" and "The achievement of this goal is bad." Goals are there to be achieved, not to stay just out of reach of." >> My opponent doesn't understand. The ROAD to gaining power is good, it makes people strong. However, when one gains power absolutely, it harbors arrogance, apathy, and unwarranted aggression. Therefore, to stop such hindrances to the overall struggle of life, power must be struggles for. Thus, more people are strengthening themselves. It is a cycle again. The struggle is what makes people stronger. You seem to not understand this concept. Of course, the goal will be achieved, but once you devalue that final goal in such ways as apathy, another person will be there is claim it. And so on. "Horrible metaphysics. A is A and power is power. No matter what. It's known as the Law of Identity, without which the word "philosophy" has no meaning and no value." >> lol, you take things way to much at face value. Power is not power because it has been corrupted. When one corrupts power, it losses its meaning. "And this is a semantical claim, not a philosophical one." >> I do not disagree. < > >> You only claim one contradiction, when I accidentally used the word absolute twice. Furthermore, I Believe my above reasons should have cleared any up.

Religion

CiRrO-s-philosophy-and-teaching-ought-to-be-embraced./1/

The Government has once again raised taxes on smokers. Two years ago cigarettes were about 6 dollars or less, but now because of highly unfair tax increases their are almost up to ten dollars per pack. I am not a smoker, however it is very unfair to place such A high price on cigarettes.

Vinsanity

The Government has once again raised taxes on smokers. Two years ago cigarettes were about 6 dollars or less, but now because of highly unfair tax increases their are almost up to ten dollars per pack. I am not a smoker, however it is very unfair to place such A high price on cigarettes.

Politics

Cigarette-taxes/1/

This is freaking America. (A free country) If people want to smoke then they can. But here's the thing. If you raise taxes on cigarettes, people that are addicted to them aren't going to just quit. Here is a quote that very much defines what I'm saying. "From the standpoint of equity, few existing taxes can be held to be more reprehensible than the cigarette tax. . . .Tax-bearing cigarette smokers typically do not smoke less when rates go up; they and their families consume less of other things." (Professor Harvey Brazer of the University of Michigan.) <URL>... So, there for we could be causing more poverty with all this nonsense. Your turn opponent

Vinsanity

This is freaking America. (A free country) If people want to smoke then they can. But here's the thing. If you raise taxes on cigarettes, people that are addicted to them aren't going to just quit. Here is a quote that very much defines what I'm saying. "From the standpoint of equity, few existing taxes can be held to be more reprehensible than the cigarette tax. . . .Tax-bearing cigarette smokers typically do not smoke less when rates go up; they and their families consume less of other things." (Professor Harvey Brazer of the University of Michigan.) http://www.mackinac.org... So, there for we could be causing more poverty with all this nonsense. Your turn opponent

Politics

Cigarette-taxes/1/

First of all, my opponent needs me to clarify what we're debating about. I think there should be a sales tax on cigarettes but just a sales tax. I think cigarette taxes should not be higher than other goods. You make a very convincing argument. Think about it this way: The government exists to protect our life, liberty, and property from other people. It does not exist to save each person from their self. If legislators raise taxes on cigarettes then they are basically forcing people to quit. I mean you don't make someone "religious" by holding a gun to their head. Besides if people start smoking less cigarettes they will try to hold down more smoke for a longer time which will cause more cancers and diseases. <URL>... <URL>... The Congressional Budget Office concluded ("The external costs of smoking are already covered by existing taxes")a calculation that includes treatment of cancer, lung disease and the vast array of other health problems directly linked to cigarettes. <URL>... Congress and legislators are contradicting themselves with these taxes. The congress and legislators say we need the revenue from cigarette taxes, and it makes some people quit. But if people quit smoking than we don't get that revenue from cigarette taxes. When people are smoking they have to buy lighters, matches, ashtrays, and other things that go along with smoking. So the external cots of smoking exceed the cigarette taxes when people start to quit. So smoking pays for itself and then some. In conclusion, raising cigarette taxes can cause more disease, less revenue, and a loss in civil rights. I wish my opened luck.

Vinsanity

First of all, my opponent needs me to clarify what we're debating about. I think there should be a sales tax on cigarettes but just a sales tax. I think cigarette taxes should not be higher than other goods. You make a very convincing argument. Think about it this way: The government exists to protect our life, liberty, and property from other people. It does not exist to save each person from their self. If legislators raise taxes on cigarettes then they are basically forcing people to quit. I mean you don't make someone "religious" by holding a gun to their head. Besides if people start smoking less cigarettes they will try to hold down more smoke for a longer time which will cause more cancers and diseases. http://www.healthcentral.com... http://www.mackinac.org... The Congressional Budget Office concluded ("The external costs of smoking are already covered by existing taxes")a calculation that includes treatment of cancer, lung disease and the vast array of other health problems directly linked to cigarettes. http://www.time.com... Congress and legislators are contradicting themselves with these taxes. The congress and legislators say we need the revenue from cigarette taxes, and it makes some people quit. But if people quit smoking than we don't get that revenue from cigarette taxes. When people are smoking they have to buy lighters, matches, ashtrays, and other things that go along with smoking. So the external cots of smoking exceed the cigarette taxes when people start to quit. So smoking pays for itself and then some. In conclusion, raising cigarette taxes can cause more disease, less revenue, and a loss in civil rights. I wish my opened luck.

Politics

Cigarette-taxes/1/

Note: this really isn't intended to be a serious debate as much as a mathematical and logical joke. Apologies to anyone whose time I'm wasting. Proposition: Circular and Self-Referential Logic is both valid and awesome. Argument: Assume that circular and self-referential logic is valid and awesome. Therefore, this argument is valid and awesome, so we can conclude that circular and self-referential logic is valid and awesome, validating our assumption. QED.

NeoConCommunist

Note: this really isn't intended to be a serious debate as much as a mathematical and logical joke. Apologies to anyone whose time I'm wasting. Proposition: Circular and Self-Referential Logic is both valid and awesome. Argument: Assume that circular and self-referential logic is valid and awesome. Therefore, this argument is valid and awesome, so we can conclude that circular and self-referential logic is valid and awesome, validating our assumption. QED.

Miscellaneous

Circular-and-Self-Referential-Logic-is-both-valid-and-awesome/1/

What is the opposite of the opposite? I have taken this debate on for two reasons; 1) Possibility arises from the possibility of possibility it self. 2) The meaning of meaning is meaning it self. Any apologies due should be for apologizing. Your argument includes assuming that circular and self-referential logic is valid and awesome. Well we can assume that circular and self-referential logic is valid and awesome and that its valid and awesome that its valid and awesome all day long. But in order for your argument to be on point, assumption must be valid and awesome. It is not. You must have assumed peoples assumption was that assuming is valid and awesome. Assuming is not valid and awesome. Assuming is assuming. I assert that my argument disproves your argument, and in doing so disproves my argument disproving your argument. Luckily for me we are voting on your argument. Facts ignore being ignored. You lose because I win. ************************ I suspect suspicion... You should consider validating validation and examining your examination. Thank you for letting me complicate complication. Who wants freedom? from freedom?

Rolyatleahcim

What is the opposite of the opposite? I have taken this debate on for two reasons; 1) Possibility arises from the possibility of possibility it self. 2) The meaning of meaning is meaning it self. Any apologies due should be for apologizing. Your argument includes assuming that circular and self-referential logic is valid and awesome. Well we can assume that circular and self-referential logic is valid and awesome and that its valid and awesome that its valid and awesome all day long. But in order for your argument to be on point, assumption must be valid and awesome. It is not. You must have assumed peoples assumption was that assuming is valid and awesome. Assuming is not valid and awesome. Assuming is assuming. I assert that my argument disproves your argument, and in doing so disproves my argument disproving your argument. Luckily for me we are voting on your argument. Facts ignore being ignored. You lose because I win. ************************ I suspect suspicion... You should consider validating validation and examining your examination. Thank you for letting me complicate complication. Who wants freedom? from freedom?

Miscellaneous

Circular-and-Self-Referential-Logic-is-both-valid-and-awesome/1/

Hi Mcbunny. This is the first debate I've done in a while where I am not actively extracting the Michael out of my opposition so I'm hoping for a good one. Introduction: I will be arguing that it can be morally justified to perform acts of civil disobedience in a democracy - not that it is always justified. In addition so that I will be fulfilling my burden of proof, I will argue that any act of civil disobedience which cannot be morally justified is no immoral because it is acting against the state, but rather the immorality lies in the action itself independently of the actors prepertating and receiving the action. My burden of proof is that I have to show that these actions against the state are not immoral because they are perpertrated against the state; for an action to be morally justified it does not require it to be good, or moral, merely not immoral - for one does not need to justify a neutral action. Should I merely counter all my opponents arguments, I will have won, for it is reasonable to assume that any action which cannot be shown to be immoral, can be morally justified. Definitions; Justify: To provide an acceptable explanation for <URL>... Moral: Of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behaviour <URL>... Civil disobedience: A form of social protest , involving the active but non-violent refusal to obey certain laws, demands, or commands of an established authority , because they are considered to be morally wrong or detrimental . <URL>... That should be all. 1. Democracies are not immune from tyranny. Infact some describe democracies as the tyranny of the majority. If an immoral law is enforced by a majority - say you must murder someone once a week - civil disobedience is the only moral response. If more people than you want an immoral law enforced, no amount of legal voting will change that. 2. Democratic mandate is not a sufficient mandate on a moral basis. Say you are on an island - 9 Pedos and you. They all get horny. Someone, lets call him Gary Glitter, proposes that someone ought to get raped. There is general consensus that a vote ought to determine who this is. Everyone puts a name in a hat, and nine to one they vote for you. They have a democratic mandate for raping. But this does not make the action moral - for you to attempt to avoid any sexual encounters with Gary Glitter and his buddies would be analagous to civil disobedience. Most would infact argue that civil disobedience (non-violent action) would not be far enough in this case. 3. There is nothing inherently immoral with non-compliance This argument speaks for itself. I suggest that we both agree on an axiomatic basis that we have self ownership - please say if you wish to contest this point. If someone tries to force you to do something against your will which you have not agreed to do, then refusing is not immoral. I await my opponents response. Purple.

Thaddeus

Hi Mcbunny. This is the first debate I've done in a while where I am not actively extracting the Michael out of my opposition so I'm hoping for a good one. Introduction: I will be arguing that it can be morally justified to perform acts of civil disobedience in a democracy - not that it is always justified. In addition so that I will be fulfilling my burden of proof, I will argue that any act of civil disobedience which cannot be morally justified is no immoral because it is acting against the state, but rather the immorality lies in the action itself independently of the actors prepertating and receiving the action. My burden of proof is that I have to show that these actions against the state are not immoral because they are perpertrated against the state; for an action to be morally justified it does not require it to be good, or moral, merely not immoral - for one does not need to justify a neutral action. Should I merely counter all my opponents arguments, I will have won, for it is reasonable to assume that any action which cannot be shown to be immoral, can be morally justified. Definitions; Justify: To provide an acceptable explanation for http://en.wiktionary.org... Moral: Of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behaviour http://en.wiktionary.org... Civil disobedience: A form of social protest , involving the active but non-violent refusal to obey certain laws, demands, or commands of an established authority , because they are considered to be morally wrong or detrimental . http://en.wiktionary.org... That should be all. 1. Democracies are not immune from tyranny. Infact some describe democracies as the tyranny of the majority. If an immoral law is enforced by a majority - say you must murder someone once a week - civil disobedience is the only moral response. If more people than you want an immoral law enforced, no amount of legal voting will change that. 2. Democratic mandate is not a sufficient mandate on a moral basis. Say you are on an island - 9 Pedos and you. They all get horny. Someone, lets call him Gary Glitter, proposes that someone ought to get raped. There is general consensus that a vote ought to determine who this is. Everyone puts a name in a hat, and nine to one they vote for you. They have a democratic mandate for raping. But this does not make the action moral - for you to attempt to avoid any sexual encounters with Gary Glitter and his buddies would be analagous to civil disobedience. Most would infact argue that civil disobedience (non-violent action) would not be far enough in this case. 3. There is nothing inherently immoral with non-compliance This argument speaks for itself. I suggest that we both agree on an axiomatic basis that we have self ownership - please say if you wish to contest this point. If someone tries to force you to do something against your will which you have not agreed to do, then refusing is not immoral. I await my opponents response. Purple.

Philosophy

Civil-disobedience-is-morally-justified-in-a-democracy./2/

Why does it always rain on me?

Thaddeus

Why does it always rain on me?

Philosophy

Civil-disobedience-is-morally-justified-in-a-democracy./2/

Somewhere beyond the sea. Somewhere waiting for me.

Thaddeus

Somewhere beyond the sea. Somewhere waiting for me.

Philosophy

Civil-disobedience-is-morally-justified-in-a-democracy./2/

I will be negating the resolution, but I am searching for a pro to begin the debate. If you are interested, accept the challenge and begin with your arguments. Round structure: 1. Pro opening argument. 2. Con opening argument and pro defense. 3. Con defense and closing arguments. Pro closing arguments. Good luck to whoever accepts.

mcbunny234

I will be negating the resolution, but I am searching for a pro to begin the debate. If you are interested, accept the challenge and begin with your arguments. Round structure: 1. Pro opening argument. 2. Con opening argument and pro defense. 3. Con defense and closing arguments. Pro closing arguments. Good luck to whoever accepts.

Philosophy

Civil-disobedience-is-morally-justified-in-a-democracy./2/

1. The 14th amendment of the Constitution states that "no state shall deny equal protection under the laws." This means that gay couples and straight couples are supposed to be teated equally, but the law is not the case. One is called marriage. One is called a civil union. 2. The Supreme Court case, Loving vs. Virginia, states that "MARRIAGE" is a "civil right." This case was referring to interracial marriage in the 60s. But there is a direct and obvious parallel. 3. The Supreme Court case, Brown vs. Board of Education showed that seperate is not equal. Civil unions are seperate and therefore unequal. 4. It is unfair and illogical that gay marriage not be legalized. Civil unions do not suffice. 5. Socially, they are unequal. To say "we ar married" is better than to say "we are civilly united." And there is no reason gay couple have to suffer this difference. 6. Civil unions only create a second class form of married people, which is obvious and a hindrance to social progression. The New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission agrees with this. <URL>... 7. Other states and countries are less likely to recognize a civil union. 8. There are 2,385 civil union couples in New Jersey the New York Times says 568 couples told Garden State Equality that they have not been protected equally under civil union law. If my math is right, that is 24%. A quarter. This is unacceptable and certainly unequal. However, in Massachusetts, marriage for gay people has worked, because separate is never equal. <URL>... Vote PRO because equal protection is an American value that is in our Declaration of Independence, our constitution, and the words "Equal Justuce Under Law" are scribed on the front of our Supreme Court building.

libertarian

1. The 14th amendment of the Constitution states that "no state shall deny equal protection under the laws." This means that gay couples and straight couples are supposed to be teated equally, but the law is not the case. One is called marriage. One is called a civil union. 2. The Supreme Court case, Loving vs. Virginia, states that "MARRIAGE" is a "civil right." This case was referring to interracial marriage in the 60s. But there is a direct and obvious parallel. 3. The Supreme Court case, Brown vs. Board of Education showed that seperate is not equal. Civil unions are seperate and therefore unequal. 4. It is unfair and illogical that gay marriage not be legalized. Civil unions do not suffice. 5. Socially, they are unequal. To say "we ar married" is better than to say "we are civilly united." And there is no reason gay couple have to suffer this difference. 6. Civil unions only create a second class form of married people, which is obvious and a hindrance to social progression. The New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission agrees with this. http://www.indegayforum.org... 7. Other states and countries are less likely to recognize a civil union. 8. There are 2,385 civil union couples in New Jersey the New York Times says 568 couples told Garden State Equality that they have not been protected equally under civil union law. If my math is right, that is 24%. A quarter. This is unacceptable and certainly unequal. However, in Massachusetts, marriage for gay people has worked, because separate is never equal. http://www.indegayforum.org... Vote PRO because equal protection is an American value that is in our Declaration of Independence, our constitution, and the words "Equal Justuce Under Law" are scribed on the front of our Supreme Court building.

Society

Civil-unions-are-unconstitutional-and-therefore-no-substitute-for-the-legalisation-of-gay-marriage./1/

Rebuttals=== 1. Civil unions are unions with the same legal benefits of marriages or very similar, but are not called marriages. This is a seperate union from marriage. From what we've learned from New Jersey's civil unions and Brown vs. Board of Education, seperate is not equal. Here the Equal Protection Clause is violated. 2. Gay marriage and civil unions are called something different and create a second-class of matrimony. Points 5, 6, 7, and 8 all prove that civil unions are unequal to marriage. Point 5 shows that civil unions are lesser socially. Point 6 shows that civil unions are a second class of matrimony. Point 7 shows an inequality in international and interstate recognition. And Point 8 shows a mathematical study proving that New Jersey civil unions are not equal to Massachusetts marriages. 3. I have shown that civil unions are lesser than gay marriages in point 5, 6, 7, and 8. Points 1, 2, and 3 all show a constitutional argument. Point 1 shows that gay couples must be treated equally under the law. Point 2 shows that marriage is a civil right protected by the Constitution. And Point 3 shows that previous Supreme Court cases have shown that seperate but equal is incorrect and cannot hold up against the fourteenth amendment. ++++++++++++++++++ Ignoring my arguments is not a reasonable way to debate. ++++++++++++++++++ So, marriage is determined by Loving vs. Virginia to be a civil right. Civil rights are important and the government cannot deny them. All persons are guaranteed the right to marry who they choose as Loving vs. Virginia shows, a case which allowed interracial marriage. Brown vs. Board of Education shows us that if we can prove that an institution is seperate, but unequal, that institution must be integrated to improve equality. Civil unions are socially unequal, generally unequal, internationally unequal, and interstatially unequal as I and my sources have proven. Therefore, according to the 14th amendment, which guarantees equal protection, civil unions and marriages must be integrated to ensure equality. ++++++++++++++++ If you ignore this, I'm not sure what I can do... Vote PRO for the debater who actually rebutted arguments.

libertarian

Rebuttals=== 1. Civil unions are unions with the same legal benefits of marriages or very similar, but are not called marriages. This is a seperate union from marriage. From what we've learned from New Jersey's civil unions and Brown vs. Board of Education, seperate is not equal. Here the Equal Protection Clause is violated. 2. Gay marriage and civil unions are called something different and create a second-class of matrimony. Points 5, 6, 7, and 8 all prove that civil unions are unequal to marriage. Point 5 shows that civil unions are lesser socially. Point 6 shows that civil unions are a second class of matrimony. Point 7 shows an inequality in international and interstate recognition. And Point 8 shows a mathematical study proving that New Jersey civil unions are not equal to Massachusetts marriages. 3. I have shown that civil unions are lesser than gay marriages in point 5, 6, 7, and 8. Points 1, 2, and 3 all show a constitutional argument. Point 1 shows that gay couples must be treated equally under the law. Point 2 shows that marriage is a civil right protected by the Constitution. And Point 3 shows that previous Supreme Court cases have shown that seperate but equal is incorrect and cannot hold up against the fourteenth amendment. ++++++++++++++++++ Ignoring my arguments is not a reasonable way to debate. ++++++++++++++++++ So, marriage is determined by Loving vs. Virginia to be a civil right. Civil rights are important and the government cannot deny them. All persons are guaranteed the right to marry who they choose as Loving vs. Virginia shows, a case which allowed interracial marriage. Brown vs. Board of Education shows us that if we can prove that an institution is seperate, but unequal, that institution must be integrated to improve equality. Civil unions are socially unequal, generally unequal, internationally unequal, and interstatially unequal as I and my sources have proven. Therefore, according to the 14th amendment, which guarantees equal protection, civil unions and marriages must be integrated to ensure equality. ++++++++++++++++ If you ignore this, I'm not sure what I can do... Vote PRO for the debater who actually rebutted arguments.

Society

Civil-unions-are-unconstitutional-and-therefore-no-substitute-for-the-legalisation-of-gay-marriage./1/

1. It is obvious that if an institution treats people unequally that those people are not being protected equally. This is evident in Brown vs. Board of Education. An institution treated students unequally. And the court overturned the law that allowed this and integrated the schools. The court must integrate the unions to ensure equality. 2. It is evident that civil unions are seperate and unequal. Point 5 shows that civil unions are lesser socially. Point 6 shows that civil unions are a second class of matrimony. Point 7 shows an inequality in international and interstate recognition. And Point 8 shows a mathematical study proving that New Jersey civil unions are not equal to Massachusetts marriages. And by definition they are seperate. Therefore, civil unions are seperate and unequal. 3. YOU ARE WRONG! The law does not say that you cannot discriminate against a person. The law says that "no state...shall deny equal protection under the laws." The laws obviously state that you must treat people equally. The 14th Amendment does not use the word discrimination. In the opinion of the court for the case Loving vs. Virginia "marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man." To deny a person the right to marry who they want is a violation of the 14th Amendment. Not all institutions must be treated equally, but some institutions are so fundamental and necessary that to deny equal protection would be a violation of the 14th Amendment. Loving vs. Virginia proved that marriage is one of those rights.

libertarian

1. It is obvious that if an institution treats people unequally that those people are not being protected equally. This is evident in Brown vs. Board of Education. An institution treated students unequally. And the court overturned the law that allowed this and integrated the schools. The court must integrate the unions to ensure equality. 2. It is evident that civil unions are seperate and unequal. Point 5 shows that civil unions are lesser socially. Point 6 shows that civil unions are a second class of matrimony. Point 7 shows an inequality in international and interstate recognition. And Point 8 shows a mathematical study proving that New Jersey civil unions are not equal to Massachusetts marriages. And by definition they are seperate. Therefore, civil unions are seperate and unequal. 3. YOU ARE WRONG! The law does not say that you cannot discriminate against a person. The law says that "no state...shall deny equal protection under the laws." The laws obviously state that you must treat people equally. The 14th Amendment does not use the word discrimination. In the opinion of the court for the case Loving vs. Virginia "marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man." To deny a person the right to marry who they want is a violation of the 14th Amendment. Not all institutions must be treated equally, but some institutions are so fundamental and necessary that to deny equal protection would be a violation of the 14th Amendment. Loving vs. Virginia proved that marriage is one of those rights.

Society

Civil-unions-are-unconstitutional-and-therefore-no-substitute-for-the-legalisation-of-gay-marriage./1/

Greetings to my opponent, chi. To begin, I assume that the resolution refers to United States policy, as it was left unclear. "Cloning [should] be banned because the idea goes against the bible." Well, there are two ways in which I can counter this point made by my opponent. First, the idea does not necessarily go against the bible itself. In my opponent's argument, it is seemingly an implicit meaning of why the bible might be against cloning. However, I ask for my opponent to supply, if there are any, explicit reasons as to why the bible is against cloning. Does it say anything about the process of cloning itself? Second, even if the bible was against cloning is not a valid reason to ban it. Regardless of whether the bible is or is not against the concept, it is no reason to make United States policy based on it. This is and should be a secular nation. It would be illogical to include biblical reasoning for United States policy. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, such historic documents can be interpreted on a variety of accounts, which makes things somewhat hazy and unclear. Secondly, simply because something might have been stated hundreds of years ago (and would be difficult to prove it was meant at all) does not mean it is right or true. And our government ought to do what is right for its society/country. To infer that which is right to include biblical interpretations in American law would thus be a logical fallacy (argumentum ad verecudiam). This logical fallacy refers to the appeal or argument to authority. Simply because an important figure states something to be true does not make it so. Thus, cloning could still be just. It is also a logical fallacy to assume that the bible is effective in politics at the current time. For example, merely because some have followed it for many centuries does not make its ideas at the current infallible. This fallacy (argumentum ad antiquitatem) is the appeal to tradition or antiquity. That which is right ought to be deduced and derived at the current time. "Although there are numerous medical advances that would happen if we could clone. They would be human so any testing we would do on them would be the same as testing on you or me." Cloning does not exclusively refer to humans. However, even so, advances in human cloning can be tested on less cephalized animals. The thing is, many animals are similar in anatomy and physiology to humans. I would also like to clarify that human cloning does not necessarily mean making more humans, but instead helping humans and ameliorating the society as a whole. That is, the field of cloning may be of use to organ transplants and such as well. "The art of cloning hasn't been fixed yet." There have been, importantly, many advances in the fields of cloning research. However, because some aspects might not be at an optimal level yet does not mean it should be banned. Instead, perhaps it should be more encouraged, to better the processes of cloning. Thus, cloning should generally be legal in the United States, on the premise of logic itself. I await the remaining round, Oboeman.

oboeman

Greetings to my opponent, chi. To begin, I assume that the resolution refers to United States policy, as it was left unclear. "Cloning [should] be banned because the idea goes against the bible." Well, there are two ways in which I can counter this point made by my opponent. First, the idea does not necessarily go against the bible itself. In my opponent's argument, it is seemingly an implicit meaning of why the bible might be against cloning. However, I ask for my opponent to supply, if there are any, explicit reasons as to why the bible is against cloning. Does it say anything about the process of cloning itself? Second, even if the bible was against cloning is not a valid reason to ban it. Regardless of whether the bible is or is not against the concept, it is no reason to make United States policy based on it. This is and should be a secular nation. It would be illogical to include biblical reasoning for United States policy. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, such historic documents can be interpreted on a variety of accounts, which makes things somewhat hazy and unclear. Secondly, simply because something might have been stated hundreds of years ago (and would be difficult to prove it was meant at all) does not mean it is right or true. And our government ought to do what is right for its society/country. To infer that which is right to include biblical interpretations in American law would thus be a logical fallacy (argumentum ad verecudiam). This logical fallacy refers to the appeal or argument to authority. Simply because an important figure states something to be true does not make it so. Thus, cloning could still be just. It is also a logical fallacy to assume that the bible is effective in politics at the current time. For example, merely because some have followed it for many centuries does not make its ideas at the current infallible. This fallacy (argumentum ad antiquitatem) is the appeal to tradition or antiquity. That which is right ought to be deduced and derived at the current time. "Although there are numerous medical advances that would happen if we could clone. They would be human so any testing we would do on them would be the same as testing on you or me." Cloning does not exclusively refer to humans. However, even so, advances in human cloning can be tested on less cephalized animals. The thing is, many animals are similar in anatomy and physiology to humans. I would also like to clarify that human cloning does not necessarily mean making more humans, but instead helping humans and ameliorating the society as a whole. That is, the field of cloning may be of use to organ transplants and such as well. "The art of cloning hasn't been fixed yet." There have been, importantly, many advances in the fields of cloning research. However, because some aspects might not be at an optimal level yet does not mean it should be banned. Instead, perhaps it should be more encouraged, to better the processes of cloning. Thus, cloning should generally be legal in the United States, on the premise of logic itself. I await the remaining round, Oboeman.

Science

Cloning-should-stay-banned/1/

"Of course the bible has nothing to say about cloning beause it was writen thousands of years ago." That is my point right there. The fact that is does not explicitly mention cloning technologies makes biblical interpretations irrelevant. It would be an unreliable source to derive a valid decision from. "but as all great documents in history it was writen to be intpreted." Alright, perhaps at the time it was originally written, it may have been meant to be interpreted. However, simply because it may have been meant to be interpreted for future usage does not necessarily mean it should currently be. "The bible states that humans do not have the powere to create life only God." If that were the case, then humans defy the bible each and every day. In order to produce new life, humans reproduce. This power resides in the power of the reproductive systems in humans. Thus, humans do indeed have the power to create new life. In fact, even every second a new cell is formed in humans, new life is created. Indeed, humans do have the power to create life. For all these reasons mentioned, they already invalidate my opponent's claim, nullifying the instigator's argument. "The second part of of this statement is false. this country was founded on christian principles and the bible. Most of the major colleges in the US (Oxford, Yale, and Harvard) were based on these principles to. It was like that untill the seperation of church and state. The only reason this country has fallen into this moral slop is because we have become lazy in our values. This lack of ideals has made us un-american." The point is, regardless of whether or not this country was founded upon religious principles or not, a secular nation SHOULD still be/continue to be implemented. As well, the major universities mentioned by my opponent, though they may have been founded upon religious affiliations, eventually became secular in nature. However, even if the contrary were true, it would not support my opponent's argumentation, as it would be fallacious. The logical fallacy being used could be considered argumentum ad verecundiam, the appeal or argument to authority. That is, merely because a major university had such affiliation does not justify a country doing the same. Regarding the separation of church and state, it allows the country to have logical values, rather than religious ones. Logical values are values inherent and ameliorative to all of the society, while religious ones may only serve a selective, small population. It is better, and more logical, to serve the society as a whole, instead of only the religious. Again, values can still be adhered to in a secular nation, having just as much merit, if not more, than that of a non-secular nation. The concept of ideals works just the same. Again, I am not so sure what the explicit truth is on the nation being founded upon religious values, but it would be irrelevant anyhow. Even if it were founded upon any religious principles, all that would do is give an illogical rational to lawmakers as they create bills; essentially, this country has multiple religions, and no single one of them is dominant over any others, therefore, it can be derived that incorporating religion, while the nation has freedom of religion, into federal laws is completely unreasonable and ridiculous. The purpose of government is to do what is best for its entire society as a whole collective, not just of a particular religion. That would be discriminatory, which is unethical. Thus, the separation between religion and government is of essence. "How can we get those organs to be transplants unless we clone humans/ the definition of cloning is to create an identical reproduction of a single cell. If we are to do these transplants then we would be growing them not cloning." The organs could come from stem cells (whether adult, embryonic, or similar reproducing cells), upon working to create optimal efficiency in cloning technological methodology. The definition of cloning, though, can be considered to create an identical reproduction of a single cell. However, I think conventional methods still technically have the egg cell's mitochondrial DNA. However, even so, in order to minimize the potential of tissue/organ rejection as an immune response, it could prove useful to clone (same genes) in order to produce valuable tissues/organs necessary. These results could yield countless successes, and save many lives. The point is, though, here, that cloning technologies would still be necessary to generate new tissues or organs awaiting transplants. Cloning is thus a valuable tool for the society, and should be encouraged by the government. Logic dictates a CON vote. I would also ask that potential voters, if they would like to, leave comments regarding their vote preference and reasons for it for this debate. I would like to thank my opponent for this debate, as well, Oboeman

oboeman

"Of course the bible has nothing to say about cloning beause it was writen thousands of years ago." That is my point right there. The fact that is does not explicitly mention cloning technologies makes biblical interpretations irrelevant. It would be an unreliable source to derive a valid decision from. "but as all great documents in history it was writen to be intpreted." Alright, perhaps at the time it was originally written, it may have been meant to be interpreted. However, simply because it may have been meant to be interpreted for future usage does not necessarily mean it should currently be. "The bible states that humans do not have the powere to create life only God." If that were the case, then humans defy the bible each and every day. In order to produce new life, humans reproduce. This power resides in the power of the reproductive systems in humans. Thus, humans do indeed have the power to create new life. In fact, even every second a new cell is formed in humans, new life is created. Indeed, humans do have the power to create life. For all these reasons mentioned, they already invalidate my opponent's claim, nullifying the instigator's argument. "The second part of of this statement is false. this country was founded on christian principles and the bible. Most of the major colleges in the US (Oxford, Yale, and Harvard) were based on these principles to. It was like that untill the seperation of church and state. The only reason this country has fallen into this moral slop is because we have become lazy in our values. This lack of ideals has made us un-american." The point is, regardless of whether or not this country was founded upon religious principles or not, a secular nation SHOULD still be/continue to be implemented. As well, the major universities mentioned by my opponent, though they may have been founded upon religious affiliations, eventually became secular in nature. However, even if the contrary were true, it would not support my opponent's argumentation, as it would be fallacious. The logical fallacy being used could be considered argumentum ad verecundiam, the appeal or argument to authority. That is, merely because a major university had such affiliation does not justify a country doing the same. Regarding the separation of church and state, it allows the country to have logical values, rather than religious ones. Logical values are values inherent and ameliorative to all of the society, while religious ones may only serve a selective, small population. It is better, and more logical, to serve the society as a whole, instead of only the religious. Again, values can still be adhered to in a secular nation, having just as much merit, if not more, than that of a non-secular nation. The concept of ideals works just the same. Again, I am not so sure what the explicit truth is on the nation being founded upon religious values, but it would be irrelevant anyhow. Even if it were founded upon any religious principles, all that would do is give an illogical rational to lawmakers as they create bills; essentially, this country has multiple religions, and no single one of them is dominant over any others, therefore, it can be derived that incorporating religion, while the nation has freedom of religion, into federal laws is completely unreasonable and ridiculous. The purpose of government is to do what is best for its entire society as a whole collective, not just of a particular religion. That would be discriminatory, which is unethical. Thus, the separation between religion and government is of essence. "How can we get those organs to be transplants unless we clone humans/ the definition of cloning is to create an identical reproduction of a single cell. If we are to do these transplants then we would be growing them not cloning." The organs could come from stem cells (whether adult, embryonic, or similar reproducing cells), upon working to create optimal efficiency in cloning technological methodology. The definition of cloning, though, can be considered to create an identical reproduction of a single cell. However, I think conventional methods still technically have the egg cell's mitochondrial DNA. However, even so, in order to minimize the potential of tissue/organ rejection as an immune response, it could prove useful to clone (same genes) in order to produce valuable tissues/organs necessary. These results could yield countless successes, and save many lives. The point is, though, here, that cloning technologies would still be necessary to generate new tissues or organs awaiting transplants. Cloning is thus a valuable tool for the society, and should be encouraged by the government. Logic dictates a CON vote. I would also ask that potential voters, if they would like to, leave comments regarding their vote preference and reasons for it for this debate. I would like to thank my opponent for this debate, as well, Oboeman

Science

Cloning-should-stay-banned/1/

One question. What is your debate question? Does coach gender matter? If this is you debate question then no it doesn't matter because either way a person is a person. Genders don't matter because i have seen both genders taking a team to basketball, football, baseball, track and soccer championships. Also it doesn't depend on gender but it depends on the team. Players need to work together to go to the championship. The coach can convince them and help them get better but it is all on the team effort.

Lilkev

One question. What is your debate question? Does coach gender matter? If this is you debate question then no it doesn't matter because either way a person is a person. Genders don't matter because i have seen both genders taking a team to basketball, football, baseball, track and soccer championships. Also it doesn't depend on gender but it depends on the team. Players need to work together to go to the championship. The coach can convince them and help them get better but it is all on the team effort.

Sports

Coach-Gender/1/

Why did you forfeit this round? This shows you have no more information to show right? Or you know you are wrong and you know i'm right that coach gender doesn't count. Your choice win or lose

Lilkev

Why did you forfeit this round? This shows you have no more information to show right? Or you know you are wrong and you know i'm right that coach gender doesn't count. Your choice win or lose

Sports

Coach-Gender/1/

I guess it shows that coach gender does not matter!!!!

Lilkev

I guess it shows that coach gender does not matter!!!!

Sports

Coach-Gender/1/

Having a different gender coach can have good benefits. You may want the same gender coach, but what if they are not that good of a coach. Either you could have a bad coach that you may not learn from a lot, or different gender coach that can send your team to the championships and you could learn way more. A girl usually things different than a boy which can be good or even the best. You may like a different gender coach more, because they may think different.

alaynafin

Having a different gender coach can have good benefits. You may want the same gender coach, but what if they are not that good of a coach. Either you could have a bad coach that you may not learn from a lot, or different gender coach that can send your team to the championships and you could learn way more. A girl usually things different than a boy which can be good or even the best. You may like a different gender coach more, because they may think different.

Sports

Coach-Gender/1/

I accept, good luck. Before arguing, it seems like a good idea to define terms Co-education (co-ed): The education of pupils of both sexes together. Better: More desirable, satisfactory, or effective:

Sandra888

I accept, good luck. Before arguing, it seems like a good idea to define terms Co-education (co-ed): The education of pupils of both sexes together. Better: More desirable, satisfactory, or effective:

Education

Cod-schools-are-better-than-schools-with-only-one-gender./1/

Good luck Pro. Rebuttals "Co-education promotes diversity and allows children if adults to be exposed to an environment in which they can grow from experience. Growing is a learning experience and can only be unlocked when one is given the chance to be around all genders" Citation needed? Is there evidence that children grow more from the experience of learning in a cp-ed school? " students can prepare themselves in the outside world. It is very important for kids to know how the gender acts so they aren't completely stunned when they grow up." It seems that you are assuming that children do not interact socially at all outside of school. This is clearly not the case. Students have many opportunities to make friends of the other gender when interacting in the outside world. As well as this, many single-sex schools have partner schools of the other gender, and provide opportunities for the schools to interact. "Keeping two genders apart creates tension and makes one feel superior to the other because of being kept apart too long." Once again, the genders are not segregated outside of school. Also, this again needs evidence. How do you know that single-sex schools cause their pupils to be sexist. "Everyone knows that in the outside world both of these genders will meet and clash not being able to live in workplaces or stuff and limit growth in economy and stuff because of people's incapability to successfully socialize with the other gender" What are you trying to say here? Now, given that the burden of proof seems to be shared in this debate, I must give arguments for the superiority of single sex schools. 1. Co-ed schools have worse results than single-sex schools. In Seoul, South Korea, students are fully randomly assigned to co-ed schools or single-sex schools, with no opt-out. Research by the University of Pennsylvania has been conducted into their comparative effectiveness. Because the assignment is random, there is no difference in the comparative funding of the schools. This research has shown that both girls and boys in single-sex education are significantly more likely to attend a college. They also have significantly higher test scores [1]. This proves that co-ed schools are not better in learning, surely the most important aspect of a school. However, it is possible that this study is wrong. After all, one study proves nothing. Thus, I draw your attention to research in Florida. This research, conducted by Stetson University, proves that 49% more boys in single-sex education are judged 'proficient' by FCAS. 16% more girls were judged proficient. Once again this was random, and classes were kept the same [3]. I think this is proof beyond reasonable doubt that co-ed classes give worse learning outcomes than single-sex classes 2. Co-ed schools increase girls' conformity to gender stereotypes. Another study shows that girls attending co-educational classes for physics are far less likely to be engaged in physics, and far more likely to agree with the statement "physics is for boys" than their counterparts in single-sex classes [2]. Once again, this study involved randomly assigned students and was meticulously conducted. Girls schools also produced more female mathematicians, engineers and linguists than co-ed schools[4]. You made the point that sexism 'keeps society from growing'. This is true, but it seems sexism is perpetrated more by co-ed schools than by single-sex ones. 3. The brains of boys work differently to the brains of girls. Boys have different development of their minds to girls, and may be faster or slower to grasp different concepts. This means that a single-sex education can specialise teaching techniques to fit the needs of the different genders. A co-ed schooling can not do this, which means both genders are worse off. Don't believe me? Believe Dr Natalya Kuindzhi, a medical doctor who has conducted a study on this subject. According to Dr Kuindzhi, " by the time children join school, girls display significantly higher left-brain development, while boys continue to be dominated by right-brain activity." [5]. "This puts girls at a greater advantage within a school situation. They meet teachers" expectations fully in standard exercises and are primarily directed towards obedience and rote learning. Boys find it hard to compete. ", she says. In a single-sex system, lessons are tailored for different gender's needs. Summary: I have proven conclusively with an evidence-based argument that single-sex schools are more effective than co-ed schools. Pro has cited no sources and draws conclusions based on nothing. Please vote Con. [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... [5] <URL>...

Sandra888

Good luck Pro. Rebuttals "Co-education promotes diversity and allows children if adults to be exposed to an environment in which they can grow from experience. Growing is a learning experience and can only be unlocked when one is given the chance to be around all genders" Citation needed? Is there evidence that children grow more from the experience of learning in a cp-ed school? " students can prepare themselves in the outside world. It is very important for kids to know how the gender acts so they aren't completely stunned when they grow up." It seems that you are assuming that children do not interact socially at all outside of school. This is clearly not the case. Students have many opportunities to make friends of the other gender when interacting in the outside world. As well as this, many single-sex schools have partner schools of the other gender, and provide opportunities for the schools to interact. "Keeping two genders apart creates tension and makes one feel superior to the other because of being kept apart too long." Once again, the genders are not segregated outside of school. Also, this again needs evidence. How do you know that single-sex schools cause their pupils to be sexist. "Everyone knows that in the outside world both of these genders will meet and clash not being able to live in workplaces or stuff and limit growth in economy and stuff because of people's incapability to successfully socialize with the other gender" What are you trying to say here? Now, given that the burden of proof seems to be shared in this debate, I must give arguments for the superiority of single sex schools. 1. Co-ed schools have worse results than single-sex schools. In Seoul, South Korea, students are fully randomly assigned to co-ed schools or single-sex schools, with no opt-out. Research by the University of Pennsylvania has been conducted into their comparative effectiveness. Because the assignment is random, there is no difference in the comparative funding of the schools. This research has shown that both girls and boys in single-sex education are significantly more likely to attend a college. They also have significantly higher test scores [1]. This proves that co-ed schools are not better in learning, surely the most important aspect of a school. However, it is possible that this study is wrong. After all, one study proves nothing. Thus, I draw your attention to research in Florida. This research, conducted by Stetson University, proves that 49% more boys in single-sex education are judged 'proficient' by FCAS. 16% more girls were judged proficient. Once again this was random, and classes were kept the same [3]. I think this is proof beyond reasonable doubt that co-ed classes give worse learning outcomes than single-sex classes 2. Co-ed schools increase girls' conformity to gender stereotypes. Another study shows that girls attending co-educational classes for physics are far less likely to be engaged in physics, and far more likely to agree with the statement "physics is for boys" than their counterparts in single-sex classes [2]. Once again, this study involved randomly assigned students and was meticulously conducted. Girls schools also produced more female mathematicians, engineers and linguists than co-ed schools[4]. You made the point that sexism 'keeps society from growing'. This is true, but it seems sexism is perpetrated more by co-ed schools than by single-sex ones. 3. The brains of boys work differently to the brains of girls. Boys have different development of their minds to girls, and may be faster or slower to grasp different concepts. This means that a single-sex education can specialise teaching techniques to fit the needs of the different genders. A co-ed schooling can not do this, which means both genders are worse off. Don't believe me? Believe Dr Natalya Kuindzhi, a medical doctor who has conducted a study on this subject. According to Dr Kuindzhi, " by the time children join school, girls display significantly higher left-brain development, while boys continue to be dominated by right-brain activity." [5]. "This puts girls at a greater advantage within a school situation. They meet teachers" expectations fully in standard exercises and are primarily directed towards obedience and rote learning. Boys find it hard to compete. ", she says. In a single-sex system, lessons are tailored for different gender's needs. Summary: I have proven conclusively with an evidence-based argument that single-sex schools are more effective than co-ed schools. Pro has cited no sources and draws conclusions based on nothing. Please vote Con. [1] http://link.springer.com... [2] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... [3] http://www.singlesexschools.org... [4] http://www.yourparenting.co.za... [5] http://in.rbth.com...

Education

Cod-schools-are-better-than-schools-with-only-one-gender./1/

I extend my arguments and hope that my opponent will not forfeit the final round

Sandra888

I extend my arguments and hope that my opponent will not forfeit the final round

Education

Cod-schools-are-better-than-schools-with-only-one-gender./1/

Vote...whichever one I am :)

Sandra888

Vote...whichever one I am :)

Education

Cod-schools-are-better-than-schools-with-only-one-gender./1/

Should colleges/universities cost less money?

meganh2018

Should colleges/universities cost less money?

Education

Colleges-Universities/1/

Seems right up your alley, yay842. I'll pose a question, and yay842 will try to come up with a funny answer. He will then ask me a question, and I will try to come up with a funny answer. And so forth. No repeating a question that has already been asked. Funniest answer wins (Note singular: this is just the single funniest answer, not necessarily who was funniest in general). No behavioural expectations will be held, except that FFs are not allowed. How many roads must a man walk down, before you call him a man?

funwiththoughts

Seems right up your alley, yay842. I'll pose a question, and yay842 will try to come up with a funny answer. He will then ask me a question, and I will try to come up with a funny answer. And so forth. No repeating a question that has already been asked. Funniest answer wins (Note singular: this is just the single funniest answer, not necessarily who was funniest in general). No behavioural expectations will be held, except that FFs are not allowed. How many roads must a man walk down, before you call him a man?

Miscellaneous

Come-up-with-funny-answers./1/

It's a trick question, I don't have a dad. My mom reproduces asexually. What is the average speed velocity of an air-laden swallow?

funwiththoughts

It's a trick question, I don't have a dad. My mom reproduces asexually. What is the average speed velocity of an air-laden swallow?

Miscellaneous

Come-up-with-funny-answers./1/

42. How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck good chuck wood?

funwiththoughts

42. How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck good chuck wood?

Miscellaneous

Come-up-with-funny-answers./1/

Why? Where? When? How? How can the Flintstones celebrate Christmas if they lived before the birth of Christ?

funwiththoughts

Why? Where? When? How? How can the Flintstones celebrate Christmas if they lived before the birth of Christ?

Miscellaneous

Come-up-with-funny-answers./1/

TIME TO DIE! Who's yo daddy?

funwiththoughts

TIME TO DIE! Who's yo daddy?

Miscellaneous

Come-up-with-funny-answers./1/

I accept this debate, but I don't have an alley. Also, this looks fun and it is right up my "alley." One, the road to becoming a man. Also, none if he farted along the way. 1. If you had an apple, Bob had an apple, Larry had an apple, but your mom had a banana, what does your dad have?

yay842

I accept this debate, but I don't have an alley. Also, this looks fun and it is right up my "alley." One, the road to becoming a man. Also, none if he farted along the way. 1. If you had an apple, Bob had an apple, Larry had an apple, but your mom had a banana, what does your dad have?

Miscellaneous

Come-up-with-funny-answers./1/

Well, since the position in a motion diagram chart of a air-laden swallow is a straightforward line across the x-axis, it would be increasing in velocity, which is also the average speed velocity in delta X. Therefore, initial X would be at 0 if the swallow started from rest. So I would need to find final X, or the change in X since initial X is basically 0 because delta X is final X minus initial X. Then I can use integrals if I knew the acceleration of the speed of the swallow, since acceleration is the derivative of velocity, but then I can just use anti-derivatives to derive velocity, but since I have position, I find the derivative of the position which is velocity. But I'm calculating the average speed velocity. So I can find final speed velocity and add it to initial speed velocity; then, I would divide the sum of initial and final velocity, divide it by 2, and I would get the average speed velocity of the air-laden swallow. Since the swallow would be starting at rest, which is why initial X is 0, the initial velocity is also 0, since the swallow is at rest. Then, I need to know the given information of the final distance, or delta X, to calculate the change in velocity by using the kinematic equation: final velocity squared = initial velocity squared + 2 times the acceleration times delta X, since I don't have time; however, I'm not given the final distance either, so I don't have delta X, so I can't find final velocity of the sparrow, so I can't find the average speed velocity of an air-laden sparrow; therefore, the answer is: not enough given information. (Also, I'm taking a physics class and doing poorly right now, so don't judge on if I messed up on the calculations/kinematic equations). 2. What is the third derivative of: "9x squared minus the radical of the log of sin 2 pi beta all divided by the difference between 96x to the power of four minus 21x cubed times the 7x squared plus 69?

yay842

Well, since the position in a motion diagram chart of a air-laden swallow is a straightforward line across the x-axis, it would be increasing in velocity, which is also the average speed velocity in delta X. Therefore, initial X would be at 0 if the swallow started from rest. So I would need to find final X, or the change in X since initial X is basically 0 because delta X is final X minus initial X. Then I can use integrals if I knew the acceleration of the speed of the swallow, since acceleration is the derivative of velocity, but then I can just use anti-derivatives to derive velocity, but since I have position, I find the derivative of the position which is velocity. But I'm calculating the average speed velocity. So I can find final speed velocity and add it to initial speed velocity; then, I would divide the sum of initial and final velocity, divide it by 2, and I would get the average speed velocity of the air-laden swallow. Since the swallow would be starting at rest, which is why initial X is 0, the initial velocity is also 0, since the swallow is at rest. Then, I need to know the given information of the final distance, or delta X, to calculate the change in velocity by using the kinematic equation: final velocity squared = initial velocity squared + 2 times the acceleration times delta X, since I don't have time; however, I'm not given the final distance either, so I don't have delta X, so I can't find final velocity of the sparrow, so I can't find the average speed velocity of an air-laden sparrow; therefore, the answer is: not enough given information. (Also, I'm taking a physics class and doing poorly right now, so don't judge on if I messed up on the calculations/kinematic equations). 2. What is the third derivative of: "9x squared minus the radical of the log of sin 2 pi beta all divided by the difference between 96x to the power of four minus 21x cubed times the 7x squared plus 69?

Miscellaneous

Come-up-with-funny-answers./1/

None, the woodchuck would be chucked by Chuck Norris. 3. What?

yay842

None, the woodchuck would be chucked by Chuck Norris. 3. What?

Miscellaneous

Come-up-with-funny-answers./1/

Cryogenics or time-travel by bending the time-space continuum. 4. What time is it?

yay842

Cryogenics or time-travel by bending the time-space continuum. 4. What time is it?

Miscellaneous

Come-up-with-funny-answers./1/

My mom's husband.

yay842

My mom's husband.

Miscellaneous

Come-up-with-funny-answers./1/

I happily accept to debate @Hanspete. Looking forward to a great debate.

maydaykiller

I happily accept to debate @Hanspete. Looking forward to a great debate.

Economics

Communism-Con-v-Capitalism-Pro/1/

Thank you Pro. I would like to begin with rebuttals, and finish by exposing my arguments. Rebuttals : "The systematic failures of Communism" Pro states in his argument that Lenin is personally responsible for "the mess we refer today as Russia", this is wrong. In contrast, one could argue that the application of Capitalism in Russia worsened the conditions for its citizens; the Russian economy sank, and shockingly enough, according to Russian government officials, the switch to Capitalism dragged the country into a deep depression, far greater than the American depression during the 1930's [1]. Secondly, Pro argues that a major issue with communism is its corruption, I would like to say in response that, according to a study by Transparency International, 14 out of the 15 most corrupted nations in the world are capitalist [2], that is, following Pro's own logic, a classic example of the rampant corruption of the Capitalism system. "Recognition of Individualism" Pro argues that Communism does not work because 'people tend to be greedy', again that is not true. The Soviet Union, for instance, could be considered a success : over a lifespan of almost 70 years,it quickly developed from an agricultural nation to a major superpower. "Why communism will fail" Again, Pro argues that Communism has never worked, but his claim is unsubstantiated : Economically speaking, The Soviet Union never once stumbled into recession [3] and even grew at a faster rate the United States [4]. Pro also says that if the entirety of the world was communist, we would be far behind. That is extremely wrong, the USSR was leading the Space Race for years and were far ahead of any capitalist nation. Militarily speaking the USSR also had outstanding planes, tanks, and armored vehicles. But this was due to the military-industrial complex promince when it came to picking engineers, had the Soviet Union never been involved in the Cold War, technology in the Soviet Union would've been more civilian-oriented.

maydaykiller

Thank you Pro. I would like to begin with rebuttals, and finish by exposing my arguments. Rebuttals : "The systematic failures of Communism" Pro states in his argument that Lenin is personally responsible for "the mess we refer today as Russia", this is wrong. In contrast, one could argue that the application of Capitalism in Russia worsened the conditions for its citizens; the Russian economy sank, and shockingly enough, according to Russian government officials, the switch to Capitalism dragged the country into a deep depression, far greater than the American depression during the 1930's [1]. Secondly, Pro argues that a major issue with communism is its corruption, I would like to say in response that, according to a study by Transparency International, 14 out of the 15 most corrupted nations in the world are capitalist [2], that is, following Pro's own logic, a classic example of the rampant corruption of the Capitalism system. "Recognition of Individualism" Pro argues that Communism does not work because 'people tend to be greedy', again that is not true. The Soviet Union, for instance, could be considered a success : over a lifespan of almost 70 years,it quickly developed from an agricultural nation to a major superpower. "Why communism will fail" Again, Pro argues that Communism has never worked, but his claim is unsubstantiated : Economically speaking, The Soviet Union never once stumbled into recession [3] and even grew at a faster rate the United States [4]. Pro also says that if the entirety of the world was communist, we would be far behind. That is extremely wrong, the USSR was leading the Space Race for years and were far ahead of any capitalist nation. Militarily speaking the USSR also had outstanding planes, tanks, and armored vehicles. But this was due to the military-industrial complex promince when it came to picking engineers, had the Soviet Union never been involved in the Cold War, technology in the Soviet Union would've been more civilian-oriented.

Economics

Communism-Con-v-Capitalism-Pro/1/

-- I would like to remind both Pro and the voters that, as I stated in the Comments Section, I could not post the remaining of my arguments in time and so I shall do so now. I ask the voters to omit this small unforeseen setback. -- Pros of Communism Communism is the belief in equality in the world. It's the belief that the state and their elected officials, who represent the people, must provide to its citizens all the basic needs in life. People aren't categorized by their wealth and thus separated and labeled as lower class citizens. It's the fond belief that, everyone , is entitled to work and make a living. Pro claims that Capitalism serves human nature by allowing to take 'bold and stupid measures', Frankly, this is no priority for the average middle-class citizen who wants to keep up with the ever-rising cost of life. And Communism allows just that. The state, once famously refered as the " Evil Empire" in a grotesque attempt to dehumanize the Soviet Union, provided full employment, guaranteed pensions, paid maternity leave, limits on working hours, free healthcare and education (including higher education), subsidized vacations, inexpensive housing, low-cost childcare, subsidized public transportation. [1] Communism is putting in place the mesures that prevent ordinary people from going bankrupt because of, illness, for example. Pro claims that Communism constrain the will and tells you how to run your life. Unless he can clearly elucidate this claim I refuse to address it. Rebuttals of Pro's Rebuttals to my Rebuttals, (Yes, it's getting complicated) Pro states that "Communism fails, straight up fails. Never in the world has it ever succeded" Again Pro fails to provide a clear source to explain why he believes such unfounded forthright statement, which is one of the main necessities in debating. Also, Pro claims that communism killed 'almost 100 million people' this is easily arguable. Some leaders have indeed comitted atrocious crimes but that cannot be labeled as communism's fault. For instance, Joseph Stalin is rumoured to be an atheist, he did kill millions. So following Pro's logic, Atheism is responsible for their deaths and thus atheism is a 'killer'. Sure, brutal dictators have harbored Communism while commiting despicable crimes, but the exact same applies to capitalism. Furthermore, Pro argues that dropping the economic aspect of communism in China has been beneficial, I would argue the exact opposite . Today, in a capitalist China, an astonishing 67.8% ( 902 million people ) of the population lives with less than 5 dollars a day, moreover, 157 million people live under the poverty line of 1.25$ per day. [2] Adopting capitalism has created terrible conditions for millions of chinese citizens. Recognition of the Individual Humans can become very greedy, indeed. But not to the extent in which we're currently living, surprisingly, an experiment has demonstrated that subjects were ready to offer sums of money to avoid seeing complete strangers receiving electrical shocks. It is the system, not the individual, that is greedy. The current capitalist system forces individuals to focus primarly, and uniquely, on themselves [3]. The 67 richest billionaires own as much wealth as the world's poorest 3.5 billion people . A small group of individuals should never be as rich as billions . Contrary to popular belief, communism does reward harder working individuals, but not to the extent of depriving billions of the necessities of life. Why communism will fail So, Pro asserts that communism 'has never and will never succeed', first of all saying that communism has never succeeded is subjective. Just ask the former citizens of the Soviet Union, who experienced both capitalism and communism, and majoritely stated that life was better in the Soviet Union ...[4] Secondly saying it will never succeed is mere speculation. Furthermore, Pro argues that to democracy is the savior of broken ex-communist countries. Again that is not true, only 35% of Ukranians , for instance, approve the switch to democracy. I will now adress Pro's argument regarding the two, remaining communist countries. Cuba is currently the victim of an embargo so strict that the vast majority of the nations in the world asked to be lifted. This is a solid proof of the United States, isolating, and attempting to destroy every nation that opt towards communism. As to North Korea, harsch sanctions are imposed on the country which prohibits its national developement. Moreover Pro strangely claims that The USSR did not engage in any 'crucial things' during the Space Race. That statement is extremely erroneous, the most significant breakthroughs in mankind's space exploration history came from the Soviets. In addition, I would like to remind Pro that the United States voluntarly dragged a destructed post-WWII nation to a costly, ressource-consuming arms race. Had the U.S and the Soviet Union never confronted, communism would be one of the world's key socio-economic system. Lastly, Pro refuses to accept my source merely because he does not recognize it. I oppose this concept 'I've never seen this, thus I will not accept its validity'. The concept of not being at the whim of the economy and the Stock Markets is unfamiliar to westerners, but it's possible. The state can offer stability as to not regularly fall into recession, or depression, which is what occured in The Soviet Union. My Concluding Statements: Communism is a system that favors the working class. It's a system that values individuals higher than property or wealth. It's a system that does not value individuals by their impact on the economy. Pro refers Communism as a failure, yet under communism, the soviets received full employement and plethora of other benefits that are denied to citizens in corporations-controlled democracies. Capitalism is millions of Americans working long, extensive hours at only 7.25$ (minimum wage that multinationals could easily afford to raise, but, again, money is the priority), or the astonishing 46 million americans who live in poverty. In the richest country on the planet. How can this system be considered more of a success than communism? My sources for this argument were : [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... from the World Bank [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>...

maydaykiller

-- I would like to remind both Pro and the voters that, as I stated in the Comments Section, I could not post the remaining of my arguments in time and so I shall do so now. I ask the voters to omit this small unforeseen setback. -- Pros of Communism Communism is the belief in equality in the world. It's the belief that the state and their elected officials, who represent the people, must provide to its citizens all the basic needs in life. People aren't categorized by their wealth and thus separated and labeled as lower class citizens. It's the fond belief that, everyone , is entitled to work and make a living. Pro claims that Capitalism serves human nature by allowing to take 'bold and stupid measures', Frankly, this is no priority for the average middle-class citizen who wants to keep up with the ever-rising cost of life. And Communism allows just that. The state, once famously refered as the " Evil Empire" in a grotesque attempt to dehumanize the Soviet Union, provided full employment, guaranteed pensions, paid maternity leave, limits on working hours, free healthcare and education (including higher education), subsidized vacations, inexpensive housing, low-cost childcare, subsidized public transportation. [1] Communism is putting in place the mesures that prevent ordinary people from going bankrupt because of, illness, for example. Pro claims that Communism constrain the will and tells you how to run your life. Unless he can clearly elucidate this claim I refuse to address it. Rebuttals of Pro's Rebuttals to my Rebuttals, (Yes, it's getting complicated) Pro states that "Communism fails, straight up fails. Never in the world has it ever succeded" Again Pro fails to provide a clear source to explain why he believes such unfounded forthright statement, which is one of the main necessities in debating. Also, Pro claims that communism killed 'almost 100 million people' this is easily arguable. Some leaders have indeed comitted atrocious crimes but that cannot be labeled as communism's fault. For instance, Joseph Stalin is rumoured to be an atheist, he did kill millions. So following Pro's logic, Atheism is responsible for their deaths and thus atheism is a 'killer'. Sure, brutal dictators have harbored Communism while commiting despicable crimes, but the exact same applies to capitalism. Furthermore, Pro argues that dropping the economic aspect of communism in China has been beneficial, I would argue the exact opposite . Today, in a capitalist China, an astonishing 67.8% ( 902 million people ) of the population lives with less than 5 dollars a day, moreover, 157 million people live under the poverty line of 1.25$ per day. [2] Adopting capitalism has created terrible conditions for millions of chinese citizens. Recognition of the Individual Humans can become very greedy, indeed. But not to the extent in which we're currently living, surprisingly, an experiment has demonstrated that subjects were ready to offer sums of money to avoid seeing complete strangers receiving electrical shocks. It is the system, not the individual, that is greedy. The current capitalist system forces individuals to focus primarly, and uniquely, on themselves [3]. The 67 richest billionaires own as much wealth as the world's poorest 3.5 billion people . A small group of individuals should never be as rich as billions . Contrary to popular belief, communism does reward harder working individuals, but not to the extent of depriving billions of the necessities of life. Why communism will fail So, Pro asserts that communism 'has never and will never succeed', first of all saying that communism has never succeeded is subjective. Just ask the former citizens of the Soviet Union, who experienced both capitalism and communism, and majoritely stated that life was better in the Soviet Union ...[4] Secondly saying it will never succeed is mere speculation. Furthermore, Pro argues that to democracy is the savior of broken ex-communist countries. Again that is not true, only 35% of Ukranians , for instance, approve the switch to democracy. I will now adress Pro's argument regarding the two, remaining communist countries. Cuba is currently the victim of an embargo so strict that the vast majority of the nations in the world asked to be lifted. This is a solid proof of the United States, isolating, and attempting to destroy every nation that opt towards communism. As to North Korea, harsch sanctions are imposed on the country which prohibits its national developement. Moreover Pro strangely claims that The USSR did not engage in any 'crucial things' during the Space Race. That statement is extremely erroneous, the most significant breakthroughs in mankind's space exploration history came from the Soviets. In addition, I would like to remind Pro that the United States voluntarly dragged a destructed post-WWII nation to a costly, ressource-consuming arms race. Had the U.S and the Soviet Union never confronted, communism would be one of the world's key socio-economic system. Lastly, Pro refuses to accept my source merely because he does not recognize it. I oppose this concept 'I've never seen this, thus I will not accept its validity'. The concept of not being at the whim of the economy and the Stock Markets is unfamiliar to westerners, but it's possible. The state can offer stability as to not regularly fall into recession, or depression, which is what occured in The Soviet Union. My Concluding Statements: Communism is a system that favors the working class. It's a system that values individuals higher than property or wealth. It's a system that does not value individuals by their impact on the economy. Pro refers Communism as a failure, yet under communism, the soviets received full employement and plethora of other benefits that are denied to citizens in corporations-controlled democracies. Capitalism is millions of Americans working long, extensive hours at only 7.25$ (minimum wage that multinationals could easily afford to raise, but, again, money is the priority), or the astonishing 46 million americans who live in poverty. In the richest country on the planet. How can this system be considered more of a success than communism? My sources for this argument were : [1] http://www.rand.org... [2] http://databank.worldbank.org... from the World Bank [3] http://www.theguardian.com... [4] http://www.gallup.com...

Economics

Communism-Con-v-Capitalism-Pro/1/

Rebuttals to Pro's rebuttals to my Rebuttals to his rebuttals (Carrying on the habit) Communism itself needs no slaughtering and genocide. Simply because some tyrants decides to commit mass murder, Communism cannot be held accountable to that. Applying Pro's logic, Francois & Jean-Claude Duvalier (I had a plethora of other choices for capitalist dictators, for the record), Haitian dictators who had pro-capitalist views, and support from The United States, murdered millions of their own citizens . Thus, capitalism is an evil system that leads to cruelty. In addition to his rebuttal, Pro argues that 5$ to Chinese citizens is an acceptable sum. But that is not true; the most basic foods cost more than they make for a day. For instance, buying Bananas in Hangzhou would cost you $4.99. This is the daily life of the 902 million Chinese, that supposedly enjoyed the switch to Capitalism.[1] Recognition of Individuals Pro claims that the bottom 3.5 billion aren't lacking essentials. That's mistaken. We all know the most desperate regions in the world right now are suffering from all sorts of problems. Those problems could easily be solved, it is estimated that 30 billion would be needed to work towards ending world poverty . Our society will allow Billionaires to stack up meaningless billions one upon another, and let 850 million people starve [2]. Sure they have worked for it, and, congratulations for it, but what about the hundreds of millions of men, women and children who weren't born in the Western World or any developed nation for that matter, and are thus excluded from any opportunities to lift themselves out of poverty? Isn't it our duty to lift them out of poverty? Why Communism will fail: Again, I can, and have, named a country that was better under Communism. Pro deliberately ignores that. The Soviet Union was undoubtedly better under Communism. And again, the switch to capitalism in Russia, is what drove a major superpower to a 'limping stagnate economy'. Secondly, Pro refutes a poll that I provided, because he believes Putin might of had an influence on the answers provided, this is a crystal clear example of Pro's regular refusals to address legitimate sources, and I believe that the voters should take that into consideration when voting. Moreover, I do agree with Pro that the North Korean Government's foreign policy is meager, but my point was that the Sanctions have harmed the growth of the country, and I think we can both agree on that point. Furthermore, I believe that the Soviet Union would've been able to put a man to the moon, but simply, the Space Race had a enormous cost, and unlike the United States, the USSR saw no interest in perpetuating a costly and useless race. There was no American superiority over the Soviet Union, the more pretentious country won the Space Race, that is it. The Soviet Union did not necessarily collapse because of economic collapse. The USSR's growth was indeed slowing, added the fact that the Soviet Union had to assure survival for all its allies while increasing its defence budget as the United States were increasing theirs, (Ronald Reagan's administration had abandoned the detente, and were in favour of a renewed arms race). -- Final concluding statements: I am grateful towards Pro for offering this debate, it was a passionate one. One last rebuttal, Pro argues that Communism doesn't value individuals, that is not true. Communism undoubtedly cares more about individuals than Capitalism. Wage slavery does not exist in Communism, and the state supplies everyone, regard less of race, wealth or background, equal opportunities. And although I disagree with Pro blaming his unemployment on Barack Obama, that claim is just irrelevant in this debate. Communism provided for all people, that concept is unfamiliar to us Westerners, for us, those who do not affect the economy will not and do not deserve to live decent lives. We are completely okay with having gigantic mufti-corporations who refuse to pay their workers a decent, living wage, have a massive impact on politics through Lobbying. For example, the Koch Brothers will spend nearly $1 BILLION [3] in the 2016 U.S Presidential elections. This is a clear example of bribery of American politicians. How do people expect their elected officials to pass regulations that improves the lives of the middle-class Americans? In a capitalist world, those who's role aren't significant in the economy, will starve. They will never have the same opportunities as those who exploit workers. Capitalism resumes itself as million of lives idled with unemployment and homelessness , both of which are inexistant in Communism. Finally, I believe you should vote Con because Pro has failed to explain how Capitalism is better than Communism and why we should vote for him. He regularly refused to adress sources that were legitimate for a wide range of irrelevant reasons. I would like to thank Pro, and the voters for participating in this debate. I truly hope the voters have enjoyed this debate as much as I have. And to Pro I say that I am most definately looking forward to another debate! -- Sources : [1] <URL>... (Chart from Business Insider) [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... (CBS News)

maydaykiller

Rebuttals to Pro's rebuttals to my Rebuttals to his rebuttals (Carrying on the habit) Communism itself needs no slaughtering and genocide. Simply because some tyrants decides to commit mass murder, Communism cannot be held accountable to that. Applying Pro's logic, Francois & Jean-Claude Duvalier (I had a plethora of other choices for capitalist dictators, for the record), Haitian dictators who had pro-capitalist views, and support from The United States, murdered millions of their own citizens . Thus, capitalism is an evil system that leads to cruelty. In addition to his rebuttal, Pro argues that 5$ to Chinese citizens is an acceptable sum. But that is not true; the most basic foods cost more than they make for a day. For instance, buying Bananas in Hangzhou would cost you $4.99. This is the daily life of the 902 million Chinese, that supposedly enjoyed the switch to Capitalism.[1] Recognition of Individuals Pro claims that the bottom 3.5 billion aren't lacking essentials. That's mistaken. We all know the most desperate regions in the world right now are suffering from all sorts of problems. Those problems could easily be solved, it is estimated that 30 billion would be needed to work towards ending world poverty . Our society will allow Billionaires to stack up meaningless billions one upon another, and let 850 million people starve [2]. Sure they have worked for it, and, congratulations for it, but what about the hundreds of millions of men, women and children who weren't born in the Western World or any developed nation for that matter, and are thus excluded from any opportunities to lift themselves out of poverty? Isn't it our duty to lift them out of poverty? Why Communism will fail: Again, I can, and have, named a country that was better under Communism. Pro deliberately ignores that. The Soviet Union was undoubtedly better under Communism. And again, the switch to capitalism in Russia, is what drove a major superpower to a 'limping stagnate economy'. Secondly, Pro refutes a poll that I provided, because he believes Putin might of had an influence on the answers provided, this is a crystal clear example of Pro's regular refusals to address legitimate sources, and I believe that the voters should take that into consideration when voting. Moreover, I do agree with Pro that the North Korean Government's foreign policy is meager, but my point was that the Sanctions have harmed the growth of the country, and I think we can both agree on that point. Furthermore, I believe that the Soviet Union would've been able to put a man to the moon, but simply, the Space Race had a enormous cost, and unlike the United States, the USSR saw no interest in perpetuating a costly and useless race. There was no American superiority over the Soviet Union, the more pretentious country won the Space Race, that is it. The Soviet Union did not necessarily collapse because of economic collapse. The USSR's growth was indeed slowing, added the fact that the Soviet Union had to assure survival for all its allies while increasing its defence budget as the United States were increasing theirs, (Ronald Reagan's administration had abandoned the détente, and were in favour of a renewed arms race). -- Final concluding statements: I am grateful towards Pro for offering this debate, it was a passionate one. One last rebuttal, Pro argues that Communism doesn't value individuals, that is not true. Communism undoubtedly cares more about individuals than Capitalism. Wage slavery does not exist in Communism, and the state supplies everyone, regard less of race, wealth or background, equal opportunities. And although I disagree with Pro blaming his unemployment on Barack Obama, that claim is just irrelevant in this debate. Communism provided for all people, that concept is unfamiliar to us Westerners, for us, those who do not affect the economy will not and do not deserve to live decent lives. We are completely okay with having gigantic mufti-corporations who refuse to pay their workers a decent, living wage, have a massive impact on politics through Lobbying. For example, the Koch Brothers will spend nearly $1 BILLION [3] in the 2016 U.S Presidential elections. This is a clear example of bribery of American politicians. How do people expect their elected officials to pass regulations that improves the lives of the middle-class Americans? In a capitalist world, those who's role aren't significant in the economy, will starve. They will never have the same opportunities as those who exploit workers. Capitalism resumes itself as million of lives idled with unemployment and homelessness , both of which are inexistant in Communism. Finally, I believe you should vote Con because Pro has failed to explain how Capitalism is better than Communism and why we should vote for him. He regularly refused to adress sources that were legitimate for a wide range of irrelevant reasons. I would like to thank Pro, and the voters for participating in this debate. I truly hope the voters have enjoyed this debate as much as I have. And to Pro I say that I am most definately looking forward to another debate! -- Sources : [1] http://static4.businessinsider.com... (Chart from Business Insider) [2] http://borgenproject.org... [3] http://www.cbsnews.com... (CBS News)

Economics

Communism-Con-v-Capitalism-Pro/1/

Antonio and portia both show there affection towards bassanio .They both love Bassanio very much

RahulNaval

Antonio and portia both show there affection towards bassanio .They both love Bassanio very much

Miscellaneous

Comparative-study-of-portia-and-antonio/1/

I accept. CON states, "Antonio and portia both show there affection towards bassanio .They both love Bassanio very much." He has the full burden of proof to evidence this statement conclusively. If he fails to do so, you vote for me by default.

ResponsiblyIrresponsible

I accept. CON states, "Antonio and portia both show there affection towards bassanio .They both love Bassanio very much." He has the full burden of proof to evidence this statement conclusively. If he fails to do so, you vote for me by default.

Miscellaneous

Comparative-study-of-portia-and-antonio/1/

CON hasn't met his BOP. Therefore, vote PRO.

ResponsiblyIrresponsible

CON hasn't met his BOP. Therefore, vote PRO.

Miscellaneous

Comparative-study-of-portia-and-antonio/1/

And in a house full of Giraffes

Lee001

And in a house full of Giraffes

Arts

Complete-the-sentence/3/

Dominant gene that their parents gave them called "Dwarfism"

Lee001

Dominant gene that their parents gave them called "Dwarfism"

Arts

Complete-the-sentence/3/

Wild Giraffe's are not of the same species of civilized Giraffes. Wild Giraffe's are born from...

Lee001

Wild Giraffe's are not of the same species of civilized Giraffes. Wild Giraffe's are born from...

Arts

Complete-the-sentence/3/

They can not speak, instead they use sign language to communicate to others.

Lee001

They can not speak, instead they use sign language to communicate to others.

Arts

Complete-the-sentence/3/