Datasets:

notaphoenix

/

iesta_liberal_effective

like 0

<BOA> I am against My Opponent was, or Currently is, on Crack because I thank my opponent's clear response. "So in the previous round my opponent's whole argument was based on her having Social Phobia." My opponent missed the point of my last argument. I was not saying that I must have Social Phobia or General Anxiety Disorder. I was trying to make a point that there are SO MANY other possibilities that my "symptoms" show signs of. A MAJORITY of the side effects my opponent listed for cocaine do not relate to me in any way such as changes in blood pressure, heart rates, breathing rates, nausea, vomiting, convulsions, swelling and bleeding of mucous membranes, damage to nasal cavities, and damage to lungs. On top of that, there are other common physical side effects that many people would notice (but don't) if I used cocaine. Short-term cocaine effects include: Increased blood pressure Constricted blood vessels Dilated pupils Mental alertness Increased energy Increased heart rate Decreased appetite Increased temperature ( http://www.cocaine-effects.com... ) If I used crack, my pupils would most definitely be dilated. This is an obvious sign of cocaine use. My opponent has not mentioned this because he has never seen my pupils dilate in such a way. If he said such, it would be clear proof of cocaine use as it is not caused by many other things. My pupils do not dilate and have not dilated because I do not use or used cocaine. "Social Phobia is caused by problems with neurotransmitters in the brain called dopamine and seretonin." My opponent makes it seem like this is solid proof. This might not even be true! Although some studies suggest involvement of dopamine and serotonin, other studies have not supported the idea that these two neurotransmitters are related to social anxiety disorder ( http://www.anxietytreatment.ca... ). Once again, my opponent does not relay the true idea of my life when he says I, "have moved from Virginia to Texas last year after your father remarried." My opponent does truthfully say my father remarries but, he remarried when I was 6 years old. That happened almost 9 years ago. "So your parents pay for everything and you only have $380 saved up? " I am a teenage girl. I go shopping and to the movies every weekend. The $380 is my spending money. I said "in cash". I have thousands more saved in my bank account. I just like to stay at around $380 in cash. Each week I get $10. That's all. I only baby sit our neighbors every couple weeks. I don't get an extravagant amount all the time. "I believe I have provided sufficient enough evidence to prove my point over yours." I would disagree and say you did not prove your point over mine. I did so. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would really like to thank my opponent for offering this debate as my very first one to participate in. He is also my friend and was the one who encouraged me to join DDO. So, I give a special thanks to him. Thank you to everyone and anyone who votes in either favor. :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Facebook, your identity and privacy promotion because I do not know what is being argued, but I accept. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Scorpions are good pets in general. because I accept. I also accept the provided definitions. I want to request that Round Five is kept short and in bullet point fashion if at all possible as Four solid rounds of debate is a bit much for this topic. If we could use Round Five as a brief recap for the voters I would appreciate it. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with marijuana because I told you a fact about Marijuana and coconuts how they're related. this argument is over just admit it Alisha i won. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with My Opponent Will Lose This Debate because I further believe con will lose this argument because he’s done this debate a total of 7 times now, with a general feedback of distaste from most people. He’s been repeatedly accused in these debates of using this resolution to boost his stats, and those who agree with that sentiment will vote for me simply because they believe he shouldn’t be able to continue to do so. He may argue that I’ve done something unscrupulous by giving him so little time to reply, asking voters to vote against me because of this, but I’ve only made the “game”, as he calls it, more challenging. If he wasn’t up for the challenge, he shouldn’t have accepted. It shows the time you have for each debate before you accept. I further argue he will lose because he forfeited his last round. This is a clear loss for round two of the game, meaning I get the win for that round. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Obama is murdering and terrorizing men women and children in Afghanistan because My opponent's entire argument is based on a chip on his shoulder, and a grudge he is holding against what he terms "the Democratic party", and "their" criticism of Bush. Indeed there were many members of the Democratic party who criticized Bush's handling of the war, but there was no combined effort to label Bush a murderer and terrorist. That would have resulted in articles of impeachment and a formal accusation of murder and terrorism by the Democratic party. This never happened. My opponent would not only have to prove that Bush was accused en masse of being a murderer and terrorist by some official body who's declaration would have some legal value, but he would subsequently have to prove that Obama has committed the same crimes. My opponent has not even attempted to do either. "What my personal beliefs are or what I would do is irrelevant."- That's not true. Your entire argument is based on what you supposedly believe of Obama. If you believe it is just to invade a country and annihilate their populations based on the actions of those "harbored" by the country, then you can't possibly believe a lesser controlled version of those same actions are murder and/or terrorism. It is your argument that Obama's actions amount to murder and terrorism, but it is also your belief that his actions are not only just, but lacking. This moral contradiction dismantles your moral argument. Point #1- You have not even attempted to prove this. I am sure if you bring about the official declarations of the Democratic party's views of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan they would not amount to labeling Bush a murderer and a terrorist- a pre-requisite for proving your argument that Obama is in the same boat. Furthermore, the Democratic party's opinion is irrelevant to this argument because you are not debating a Democrat who agrees with even an unofficial assessment. Point #2- Raids are not carried out on a case by case basis under orders of the President. You obviously lack understanding of military chain of command, rules of engagement, etc. By your assessment the entire military is full of murderers and terrorists as they all carry out the unlawful orders to murder and terrorize civilians in the form of following orders to carry out counter-terrorism raids. Point #3- It was you who brought up the legality issue, not me. Thanks for conceding the point that it is irrelevant. Point #4- You have expressed not only support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, you have supported wider action in the entire Middle East. "If one takes the time or even bothers to look at war statistics, The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the most successful wars ever fought in military history."- It's always interesting when debaters inject a little humor into their statements. I would love to see these magical statistics. "If Bush is a war criminal then Obama is a war criminal."- With this statement my opponent concedes the entire debate. Bush has not been accused or convicted of war crimes. Even if the reciprocity applied, a separate trial would have to be held to assess the actions of the Obama Administration which has just begun. No such investigation, trial, or judgment has been carried out on the Bush Administration, so by my opponent's reasoning- If Bush is NOT a war criminal, then neither is Obama. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Creationism should be Taught in Public Schools because Thanks for proposing this debate Installgentoo, let's make it a good one. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against intermediate students should be able to date and show their affection at school because At school, I think it is completely inapropriate. A, because what about the kids that aren't ready to experience that type of thing? It's PDA and uncomfortable. And school is a place for learning, not a place for romance. Save that for when your education is solid. Don't think I am being unfair, I can see this from your perspective because I am in eighth grade. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Quote Debate because I'll show you the one man who is not afraid to mess with the Beatles. my quotes... "Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily." -Napoleon Bonaparte "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." -Napoleon Bonaparte Now let the voting begin!!! <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Philosophy: Determinism Accurately Describes Reality because ======== Clarification ======== I did not mean to insinuate that Con's arguments weren't his own, but to clarify that just because there are arguments against determinism, it doesn't make determinism false. The arguments against determinism are unsound. ========== The Microcosm ========== Con has said that Copenhagen's theory holds more weight than Bohm's because it has been observed and Bohm's has not. However, that is quite obvious (and the entire point) since Bohm's theory revolves around unobserved hidden variables. Again, because Copenhagen's theory has NOT been proven to be consistent enough for a law, then there really is no weight on it, and especially not any more weight than mine (Bohm's). Further, it is common knowledge amongst physicists that upon studying an atom, one disturbs its natural state. Thus, observations made of these quantum quarks can not be their true state; they are instead in a disturbed state that energy laid upon them through observation compels them to be in. Because of this faulty detail, Con can not prove that Copenhagen's theory holds ground, or that it's not only a result of quantum disturbance given to the atoms upon observation. These direct observations clearly conflict with the observation disturbances (Con even mentioned this). So again, Bohm's theory is no more hypothetical than Copenhagen's. Moving on, my opponent obviously does not understand the definition of what Bohm calls "self determined." What Bohm is referring to is that nothing could have evolved that base unit from itself; it is the base unit that all of matter is made up from. No other particle determines it's existence and its initial behaviors. This doesn't at all go against determinism -- as even determinism begs for a start movement -- but the states that follow after this initial movement are clearly determined (thus establishing determinism). Now, even if the base unit is indeterministic -- the only indeterministic thing in our universe -- this does not get rid of determinism. All this base unit provides is an initial movement that starts in motion a chain of events, like a chaotic system (which is 100% predictable if one knows the initial move). So, while my opponent brought up objections to Bohm's theory, keep in mind one clear, huge problem with Copenhagen's theory and that is that it clearly violates the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Violation of such a principle would lead the world to a completely indeterministic state (which doesn't imply free will either, as both determinism and indeterminism don't allow for free will). Additionally, even if my opponent is implying that his indeterministic quantum state carries up to the macro, then he too is making a "composition error." My opponent accused me of committing a composition fallacy: Illegitimately transfer a property of the parts of a thing to the whole. However, the composition error is not always illegitimate. It is common knowledge amongst logicians that some arguments from fallacies are sound. For example, atoms have mass (property of the part), and humans (the whole) are made of atoms. If humans are made of atoms, and atoms have mass, then humans have mass (and we all know this is true). So, humans have mass, and as you can see, sometimes fallacious arguments are sound. What can be considered fallacious in one setting may not be proven false in another. Moving on, Con brings up the Uncertainty Principle, but Einstein himself went head to head with this one saying that it was "a reflection of our ignorance of some fundamental property of reality." He clearly defends this with the EPR Paradox. My source [1] and Wiki provide the simple version of the EPR Paradox described by physicist Brian Greene along with the complete mathematical formula verifying this paradox: "A positron and an electron are emitted from a source by pion decay, so that their spins are opposite; one particle's spin about any axis is the negative of the other's. Also, due to uncertainty, making a measurement of a particle's spin about one axis disturbs the particle so you now can't measure its spin about any other axis. Now say you measure the electron's spin about the X-axis. This automatically tells you the positron's spin about the X-axis. Since you've done the measurement without disturbing the positron in any way, it can't be that the positron 'only came to have that state when you measured it,' because you didn't measure it! It must have had that spin all along. Also you can now measure the positron's spin about the Y-axis. So it follows that the positron has had a definite spin about two axes – much more information than the positron is capable of holding, and a 'hidden variable' according to EPR." And the Uncertainty Principle is just that: ignorance and hasty judgment. ========== The Macrocosm ========== Con begins by stating, "Just because our actions are the direct result of our brain (this may or may not be true)..." which really blows my mind right off the bat. What do you mean that might not be true!? If I lift a pencil, do you think my arm is doing that on its own?! Or because my brain told it to via the nervous system? Anyway, let's just move right on to Con's point: He thinks that our consciousness has evolved so greatly that we are now able to rebel against previously deterministic causes. Okay first, this assertion proves that my opponent acknowledges deterministic causes. Second, you'll see that this point doesn't hold any weight because Con hasn't proven HOW we overcome deterministic causes. Moreover, it is not our CONSCIOUSNESS that disturbs atoms; it is any observation (distribution of energy) that can disturb movement of these atoms. If Con argues that consciousness does this, then consciousness is that distribution of energy (movement or cause) thus still validating determinism. Regarding the diet example, my opponent is completely ignorant to the reality that both choices (to eat or not eat) were NOT just as likely; obviously 1 choice is going to be made over the other. Every single choice we make is because 1 option has certain factors that lead us to choose it over the other. Even if we flip a coin, the factors that determine the result -- like the wind blowing, gravity or the amount of mass distribution in a particular setting -- are all out of our control due to the laws of nature. Now, Con has completely misunderstood and thereby misrepresented my position. I have explained why determinism is a sound and valid argument, and then explained why we can't predict everything even though the reality of determinism is quite obvious. I said that the human mind can not know the position of every single sub-atomic particle in the entire universe, or the position of each and its potential from prior states. Con turned around and asked how we can know that these unknowns are deterministic... but I've already explained why they are (see: entire debate!). Finally on this point, Con says that anything illogical happening defines determinism. Uh, what? This point proves absolutely NOTHING. If something illogical happens (whatever that is), all it means is that something determined led to that occurrence. Give me an example and in the final round I'll prove how. ====== Free Will ====== We certainly feel free, but what does that really prove? According to Sartre, he can re-evaluate his life and turn it around. This comes from a desire to do so, which comes from somewhere else... a chain. Again, his comment can be dismissed because he doesn't really say much that can't be easily refuted; his desire to change is just that - his desire - and where does that desire come from? Conflict, dislike of his current states that begs this next state of change. ======= Conclusion ======= Con has failed to adequately refute determinism. [1] http://math.ucr.edu... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Had Hunton711 accepted this challenge, I would have beaten Hunton711. because 1.Against Hunton, Pro clearly would not have won THIS debate, as THIS debate's resolution (the one Hunton would have been charged with negating had he accepted THIS debate) is: "Had Hunton711 accepted THIS debate, iamadragon would have won." (Emphasis mine) You see, THE MERE FACT OF HUNTON HAVING ACCEPTED THE DEBATE, had he, would have negated such a resolution! [If there is any question about whether, for any x, "had x…" implies "not x", I invite the reader to try and construct a statement "had x…" that could be used in a situation in which x is true.] It being impossible to prove a resolution that is necessarily false, "had Hunton711 accepted this debate, iamadragon would" NOT "have won," a fact that is clearly irreconcilable with the resolution. 2.Pro says: "Your argument hinges on Hunton711's accepting the debate IN REALITY." Of course it doesn't. But the fact of the matter is that the resolution (of Pro's choosing) is such that its truth under circumstances of Hunton's having accepted is NECESSARILY EQUAL TO it's truth IN REALITY (i.e. under circumstances of my having accepted). But I do agree that, were I Hunton, my job would be slightly easier, as the resolution would be negated in a single step: "Had Hunton accepted…" (i.e. "Hunton didn't accept") would be plainly false. Under present circumstances (i.e. my being me), I must reach the logical conclusion that the resolution's plain falsity would have lost Pro the debate. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against The existence of the immortal soul because Thanks Pro: Your other concept was right, when re-reading my own statement after already posting it, I notices a passage had been accidentally cut and pasted above where it was meant to be. Giving you the incorrect impression that I claimed Buddhism knew of Evolution. I keep forgetting to turn off my touchpad (Douchpad) which often drags things to where they should not be, as I have clumsy thumbs and they stupidly put douchpads in the middle of the laptop, under these clumsy thumbs. Sorry about the mixup, it is my clumsy fault. You are right, in that Buddhism pre-existed science so it certainly pre-existed Evolution. Though Neuroscience and Buddhism arrived at similar conclusions that the Consciousness, not just our own but other higher mammals, are a composite illusion created by the human brain. Buddhism does not teach of an Eternal Immortal Soul, this concept of the Immortal Soul is purely a fantasy created by The Bible and adopted by Islam, since Islam is also derived from misinterpretations of the Old Testament. The Bible does not teach of any Immortal Soul. The Immortal Soul is actually from Pagan, Babylonian and Egyptian (Phoneacian) Theology. It has nothing to do with the Bible, and did not come from Jesus. http://www.ucg.org... http://www.british-israel.ca... So as you should easily be able to see, the Immortal Soul is actually an Ancient, Pagan Belief. Not a Judaic, nor a Christian doctrine. The Immortal Soul truly is a fanciful notion which is not supported by any obtainable evidence. Firstly I'll address Pro's complete misconceptin of Science and Neurology: " Modern science admits that the brain is made of the very same particles that everything else in the universe is made up of. Things such as rocks, chairs, and entire galaxies. According to modern physicists these particles are not conscious. Since the brain consists totally of non conscious particles the brain itself cannot produce consciousness the same way anything else made up of particles such as a rock cannot produce consciousness. " Firstly Pro makes many mistakes in this passage: 1: The product Brain and DNA, is greater than the sum of the components: The brain may be made up of elements common to non living objects, but the brain is not a non-living object, it behaves completely different to inannimate matter, it is living, the elements are combined in different formations which give it different properties , j ust as oxygen and hydrogen are gasses, but in combination they produce water , which is not a gas. When you combine Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur , and phosphorous, which are just bunch of solids and gasses in the right proportions and with the correct linkages, we have DNA, which is the basis of all living creatures. We went from star dust to self replicating living matter that combines to produce all humans on the planet. So the blank, naive assumption that rocks and gases don't make decisions or create illusions has been proven wrong, because our brains are continually making decisions and creating illusions from it's rock and gaseous element base. For instance: Pain is an illusion, which is created by several different structures. The signals produced by the pain receptors is not pain, it is mearly a signal giving the brain stem an instance of I've been hit from a pain receptor. This is transferred up throuth the Hypothalamus, which distributes the signal to a few more different structures and to the PreFrontal Cortex, where it can be interpreted as everything from a severe pain of 10 to just a mild tickle. This is proven in patients with damage to their frontal cortex who cannot feel pain, because their brain cannot interpret the signal as such. They can burn their fingers off and not feel it. These people are very prone to killing themselves accidentally because they don't know they are. Pain is only an Illusion developed by evolution to protect our bodies. When we die, those structures that create the illusion of pain die with us and thus have no use to any afterlife if it exists. Thus, if there was such thing as a Hell, we could not feel pain there, because the lumps of matter that create pain no longer exist with us. http://quantumneurology.com... 2: Physics is not Biology, The Rules Are Entirely Different in context to Simple Physics Taught At School: The laws of physics are needed to form Molecules, but once they become molecules, the rules change entirely. Molecules combine and disassociate using a mixture of physical laws, but the very basic laws of physics are now in combination and not separate, so behaviour become more Complex. For instance: you cannot predict the activity of a virus or pathogen nor devise a cure using laws of physics taught at secondary schools, because the rules have reached a complexity beyond normal capabilities of Physicists. So it is wrong to let standard higher school physicists make comments about biology. There comments are not considered as relevant. There is still a relevance for Physics in biology, since the law of physics combines elements. But the rules are way too complex for Pro to comprehend and certainly do not support his views. http://physics.aps.org... http://www.princeton.edu... Some people mistakenly link Quantum Physics with Consciousness: Here is an explanation of their Mistake: http://physics.about.com... Though time for a little bit of Neurologist's Humor: https://www.youtube.com... So maybe it would be better going to an apolsterer instead of a psychologist. Back To The Debate: Pro Stated: " what is consciousness, it is simply our sense of self awareness, our ability so realize that we are all individual beings. So for the second question do I envision the immortal soul as a form of cosmic consciousness ? " Most of our Behaviour and Self Consciousness comes from our Genetics: Here is Robert Sapolsky (my fave lecturer) giving the background for this: https://www.youtube.com... Because Consciousness Errors such as Schizophrenia are demonstrated as being connected in families and genetically derived. As Sapolsky explains. The fact that consciousness abilities and errors are genetically related, destroys the notion that these arise from some form of cosmic/shared/eternal consciousness. The Cosmic/Universal consciousness belief has been destroyed by similar scientific studies for almost a century. Thus Consciousness traits and forms are evidently a product of Evolution/genetics. Human Compassion comes from the functions of the Brain's Limbic system, which evolved in mammals and thus many mammals have empathy and forms of altruistic behavior. Here is a couple of references for how the Limbic System (a bunch of star based atoms formed into a group of brain structures that work together to create our ability to feel Emotions and to have Empathy for others. https://www.youtube.com... Though this lecture is extremely interesting, but a little long around 1.5 hours. I've included a text reference for the functions of our Empathy/Limbic System. https://www.youtube.com... http://its.sdsu.edu... On Consciousness: Here is a tour of how the Brain creates Human Consciousness by V.S. Ramachandren. https://www.youtube.com... Brain diseases and injuries proves that Self Consciousness is Brain Based. Because of diseases where people don't believe their own arm belongs to them, but to somebody else, in other words their self consciousness is false, because of a lesion in their brain. Transexuality is also a brain based error of consciousness, because their Inferior Parietal Lobe (IPL) self image is not the same sex as their developed body. So for a man with this self-image error, his IPL image is of a woman, so the man does not understand why he has a penis, because it appears foreign to him. Mentally he is a woman, but physically a man. Because there is a faulty image hard wired into the brain. That's enough for now: Thanks Pro. Over to you: PS I've got my touch pad disconnected so hopefully no more confusing drag and drop errors. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Captain America would beat master chief in a fight because I would like to keep this round for acceptance only. Thanks, DDD <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Intelligent Design should be taught in school because "The makers of the theory of ID say it is a theory unrelated to religion." Really? And which makers would those be? Can you cite any sources advocating this please? How on Earth is Intelligent Design unrelated to religion? Does the Christian Faith say that God created the Earth? Yes. Does it say that God designed everything? Absolutely. Does it say that God is intelligent? Immensely. How then can you possibly say that? Intelligent design IS religion. "In Theology, you would teach the Christian faith, which includes Creationism." You seem to misunderstand religion. Christianity is certainly not the only religion. In a true theology class, numerous religions would be taught, not just Christianity. Nice try though. So lets look at some more definitions to bring my opponent up-to-speed. Intelligent Design- The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes. Religion- A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. Again, how can you possibly say that Intelligent design does not fall under "religion?" That being said, please try to refute the rest of my argument from the previous round. The resolution is affirmed. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with I CAN HOLD A WHOLE CHICKEN WITH MY BUTT because HOW REMARKABLE IS IT REALLY TO MAKE SUCH A CLAIM? IF A PERSON WERE TO TAKE A WHOLE DEAD CHICKEN RELATIVELY SMALL IN SIZE, AND POSITION ANY PART OF IT SO THAT IT COULD BE PINCHED BETWEEN EACH CHEEK, IT COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH A MINIMAL DEGREE OF DIFFICULTY. I COULD PIN THE CHICKEN BETWEEN MY BUTT AND AN UNMOVING OBJECT, SUCH AS A WALL, VEHICLE, ETC, AND HOLD IT AGAINST THAT OBJECT. ALSO, IT COULD BE POSITIONED ON TOP OF MY BUTT SO THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE WEIGHT OF THE CHICKEN WAS RESTED ABOVE WHERE IT WAS PINCHED BETWEEN THE CHEEKS. YOU COMPARE MY STATEMENT TO THE CLAIM THAT SIMPLY STATING THAT YOU CAN FLY DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU CAN, BUT WHAT I'M CLAIMING IS NOT ONLY PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE, BUT IS RELATIVELY EASY TO DO. OBVIOUSLY, I CANT SIMPLY CRAM A CHICKEN IN MY BUM AND SEND YOU A PICTURE OF IT, BUT IF YOU HAVE A MINIMAL UNDERSTANDING OF FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS YOU CAN FIGURE OUT THAT HOLDING A WHOLE CHICKEN WITH YOUR BUTT REALLY ISNT THAT REMARKABLE. I'M SIMPLY ARGUING THAT I COULD DO HOLD A WHOLE CHICKEN WITH MY BUTT. SINCE IT IS WELL WITHIN THE POSSIBILITIES OF HUMAN CAPABILITY, AND I AM A FULLY FUNCTIONING HUMAN, IT IS THEREFORE IN NO WAY UNLIKELY THAT I COULD NOT HOLD A WHOLE CHICKEN WITH MY BUTT. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need. because I'm confused as to the rules and/or what my opponent meant to do (see: comment section). However I am sure we can figure this out by restructuring the debate somehow. I'll allow him to make his opening arguments in R2 and we can go from there. If he wants to start this debate over, he can forfeit this one and challenge me to a new one. It's up to him. Good luck! <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Should it take 3 debates to be able to vote? because I do not think that it should take three debates to be able to vote. Some people minght decide to debate on something, and say something completley irrelevent and stupid. It happens all of the time. People debate about cartoon characters, or their hair on here all of the time. Those aren't serious debates. If you are being forced to debate about something, it doesn't necessarily have to be serious. Thank You! <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Mirza engaged in strategic voting behavior on bluesteel's debate against innomen because Mirza urges readers to apply the arguments from his other debate to this one. DO NOT DO THIS. He can't save character space be referencing 8,000 characters of arguments in another debate, just like I can't post my response on a blog and provide the hyperlink in order to save characters. I'll only debate what he posts in this debate. == Rebuttal == R1) I misinterpret everything? This is just hyperbole (and ad hominem) from my opponent. I admit that I blew innomen's involvement in this affair way out of proportion. I have personally apologized to innomen, and I am prosecuting the izbo case as a favor to him. He and I have reconciled. Mirza claims I have "attacked" other people. I would have mirza bring formal charges against me if he wants me to refute these allegations. But my character is not at issue here. As a judge on this debate, it doesn't matter if you dislike me or if you love Mirza. At the end of the day, regardless of your feelings towards either of us, you can still agree that he engaged in strategic voting behavior on my debate. All mirza's character attacks do is urge judge bias: he's asking you to ignore his behavior if you supposedly don't like mine. R2) No RFD Left Mirza admits here that he voted at the last possible second. That's really the only takeaway that matters. I was using the lack of an RFD to show that Mirza had literally no time between when he left his vote and when I was notified by DDO that I'd lost (a debate I had been leading by 9 points when I had last checked 3 minutes earlier). I posted my complaints about Mirza in the forums as soon as being notified. Thus, mirza had "no time" to leave an RFD because there WAS "no time" between when he voted and when I was notified I'd lost the debate. R3) Mirza "forgot" about Gileandos' vote Most people lie when they are caught doing something they shouldn't have done; the most obvious lie for Mirza to use in his defense is, of course, that he forgot about Gileandos' vote. So I'm not surprised that Mirza would use this tactic, and I don't begrudge it to him since I see it done in criminal trials all the time. However, this simply does not hold water. Mirza claims he went OUT OF HIS WAY to contact both Gileandos and ApostateAbe. He claims that he was so upset by their behavior that he wanted to block both users. And yet suddenly he forgets all the drama surrounding this debate? Whenever someone counter-vote bombs, he or she should obviously always check that the original vote bomb was removed before changing their votes. That is the standard operating procedure and the only ethical course of action. If Mirza did check before re-voting, then he KNEW Gileandos was still vote-bombing me. If he DID NOT check, then he should have ASSUMED that there was still a vote-bomb against me. He admits he still knew he was "counter-votebombing." What did he think he was countering? When mirza went to vote a second time, the website would have displayed his previous vote and his previous RFD, which read: "counter-vote bombing." {I don't know if any of you have tried to change your votes, but try it – you *can't* miss your previous RFD; you'd literally have to delete your previous RFD in order to write a new one, which Mirza did} It's impossible to believe that Mirza didn't see his RFD and previous vote, both of which would have told him that he was countering someone. If he "forgot" who he was countering, he would have checked. If Mirza checked his original vote on the "votes" tab before re-voting to see WHY he'd written "counter-vote bombing", he would have seen Gildeanos' vote bomb since it was right above Mirza's original vote. It was impossible to miss. Mirza tries to portray his vote as a determined last-minute rush to vote on the debate. However, his decision of when to vote was clearly very calculated. When he voted, I checked his activity log, and he was online for hours before he voted. He started arguing against i-am-panda on innomen's political debate an hour and a half before voting. If Mirza had computer trouble and suddenly rushed to some computer just to vote on this debate, you wouldn't have seen him log onto DDO and take his leisurely time doing other things. It's hard to believe that Mirza was paying SO MUCH attention to the debate that he knew EXACTLY when the voting period ended (there's no notifications for when a debate is an hour from finishing). Mirza must have been checking in constantly to know this. It's hard to believe he was following the debate to such an extent as to know the exact hour it ended but forgot MAJOR details about why his 7 points had been cast in my favor in the first place. R4) Highly improbable engineering First of all, I don't need to prove that Mirza engineered any vote but his own or that he premeditated this strategy three days in advance. In criminal law, we look at whether someone had motive and opportunity to commit a crime. The opportunity arose two hours before the voting period was about to end, when Zetsubou voted 5 points to innomen, lowering my lead from 14 points to 9 points. At this point, Mirza's 10-point swing could actually affect the outcome of the debate. It's obvious why Mirza didn't bother changing his vote before that point: because even if he gave 5 points to innomen (resulting in a 12 point swing towards innomen), I would have still been winning by two points. For a 14-point swing, Mirza would have had to vote innomen all seven points, and he obviously calculated that his strategic voting behavior would be FAR too obvious in that case. And without Zetsubou's vote, even Mirza vote bombing 7 points to innomen would have only resulted in a tie. Mirza carefully bided his time until his vote became not only decisive, but also un-counter-able. Zetsubou's late vote created the opportunity; now let's discuss motive. The motive should be clear both from this debate and Mirza's comments that I quoted from the forums: Mirza dislikes me a great deal. He also wanted to help innomen, who is a close friend and confidant of Mirza's, albeit doing so in a completely misguided way. But even innomen thinks mirza engaged in strategic voting behavior. Innomen said to me, in an apology about mirza's behavior, "i think he was just trying to help me in his own way, but didn't realize the turmoil he was going to create." R5) Did not read the debate? This was a pretty big double bind: either mirza was so rushed that he did not LEGITIMATELY have time to read the debate (and voted without reading, which is a vote bomb) OR he finished reading the debate days earlier and bided his time to vote at a more strategic opportunity. Mirza asks if people typically vote right after they read a debate. Typically they do, so as not to forget the arguments. I *never* read a debate in full and then wait two days to vote. Mirza says, "Why not say that I read the debate and had 5-10 minutes to judge properly?" Any psychologist would have a FIELD DAY with this statement. When someone is lying but uncomfortable doing so, they will often ask hypothetical questions rather than making explicit statements. [1] Someone telling the truth would say, "I finished reading the debate with 5 to 10 minutes left, pondered my decision for 8 to 9 minutes, then voted." A liar would say, "well, it's reasonable to think that I had 5 to 10 minutes to ponder the debate before voting." Notably, Mirza's short RFD (the one attached to his vote) does not mention a single argument that either I or innomen made in the debate. It's two lines of "fluff," with Mirza equivocating on the meaning of certain words in the resolution. It's precisely the sort of RFD you'd expect from someone who didn't read the debate but needed to write something in a hurry. R6) Knowing his vote would be "decisive" Every argument Mirza makes here assumes that you believe that he "forgot" he was countering a vote bomb. It should have been patently obvious, however, given that Mirza admits he saw the score was "39-48" prior to voting. Any sane person would question why his vote could result in such a large point swing and would check why he had counter-vote bombed in the first place. Gileandos' vote bomb was IMMEDIATELY above Mirza's old vote. It's not as if Mirza had so many things going on that he could get confused. Prior to this incident, he hadn't debated on this site for 4 months. His previous vote had been a week earlier, but that was only to counter a vote bomb against RoyLatham. Mirza rarely posted to the forums anymore, until this incident, which is why many of you likely don't know him. The ONLY thing he was doing on DDO at this time was voting on my debate with innomen. It's really hard to believe that a big detail, like why his counter-vote bomb was still there, would just "slip his mind." R7) Admission of guilt Mirza contemptuously posts a link to an English grammar forum. He provides no other real response. His words speak for themselves, "I also 'knew' if my votebomb-counter in your favor did not get switched, you'd not care. You'd celebrate your win. You were grateful for all the votes on you. Hurray." Sarcasm. Contempt. Hatred. Joy at my misery. Misery at the thought of my joy. This statement alone is a 100% admission of guilt. Vote pro. There is absolutely no way that you could construe the above quote to mean "innomen would not react this way if he lost," as Mirza suggests. [1] Mark Bouton, How to Spot Lies Like the FBI <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Society would be better off without religion because well, first off intelligent design wouldn't be crammed down one's throat. You teach both. You say that one is based on faith, the other on fact. If you don't teach it a kid wouldn't be well rounded on the idea. You need both sides before you make a decision... that's all I say. Also, you say you can deny where morals came from. You say it wasn't religion, so please provide an answer, an alternative so we can see where you stand instead of just denying it. Over the past decade, considerable research has emerged that demonstrates the benefits of religious practice within society. Religious practice promotes the well-being of individuals, families, and the community. Of particular note are the studies that indicate the benefits of Religion to the poor. Regular attendance at religious services is linked to healthy, stable family life, strong marriages, and well-behaved children. The practice of Religion also leads to a reduction in the incidence of domestic abuse, crime, substance abuse, and addiction. In addition, religious practice leads to an increase in physical and mental health, longevity, and education attainment. Moreover, these effects are inter generational, as grandparents and parents pass on the benefits to the next generations. America's Founding Fathers understood the vital role that Religion plays in a free society. Far from shielding the American people from religious influence, the Founders promoted the freedom of religion and praised the benefits that it brings to society. George Washington articulated this in his farewell address to the nation: Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness-these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against The US should discontinue its use of private military contractors because == Rebuttal (cont'd from Round 1) == R1) group his C and D 1. Remember, the CRS said that most PMC personnel are locals so they blend in, and thus (turn), they cause less anti-American sentiment than US soldiers, who stand out. 2. Our troops are worse and have less oversight. According to the Wikileaks War Logs, our military has already killed 109,000 civilians in Iraq, 15,000 of which the military had tried to cover-up. [1] 3. Remember, turn, fewer contractors means fewer boots on the ground, which Senlis Afghanistan tells us means an over-reliance on air support, vastly increasing civilian casualties. 4. Turn, many of our translators are contractors (according to the CRS). Without translators, we will lose hearts and minds because we won't be able to communicate effectively with locals. R2) No allegiance 1. My opponent is correct: contractors pay off local warlords in Afghanistan so they don't attack convoys. But with corruption endemic in Afghanistan, our diplomatic corps and military tolerate massive corruption, making this non-unique to contractors. We even tolerate Karzai's stolen election and his drug dealing brother, Ahmed Wali. Paying the warlords off is safer and better for everyone than having more fighting and instability along the nation's highways. 2. According to my opponent's own source, the allegations of contractors paying the Taliban to attack them are completely unsubstantiated and this makes little logical sense anyways. 3. The contractors in Sierra Leone were not U.S. PMC's. We have arrangements with our private military contractors that prevent them from working with nations hostile to the United States. If they did so, they would not be rehired, and U.S. contracts are worth more than the contracts of our opponents (the Taliban?). 4. Contractors used for more sensitive missions are usually former Navy SEALS, who would be extremely loyal to the U.S. R3) Other disadvantages A. Operate solely within contact 1. This is one unfortunate incident, but the Army generally does a better job at writing the contracts to be as broad and general as possible. 2. The DOD Inspector General report found that the Army was equally at fault and could have easily had the electrical problems repaired itself or pushed KBR to repair them; once notified properly of the problems, "KBR initiated the inspection of over 75,000 structures throughout Iraq and was making life, health, and safety repairs". [2] B. Waste Money My opponent says "The Defense Contract Audit Agency found that contractors…" The fact that there is now a Defense Contract Audit Agency means there is a thousand times more accountability for expenses for PMC's than exists within our own DOD military budget. Christopher Preble documents far more than $10 billion that have been wasted through military procurement programs, like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Virginia class submarine, and V22-Osprey. [3] He laments that there is no oversight for these procurement programs, which routinely come in billions of dollars over-budget and often fail to deliver at all. The DOD refuses to even publish its expenditures for inspection. Oversight for contractors is, in fact, better than oversight for our regular military. == Rebuttal to Round 2 == C1) Force multiplier Original argument: currently, only 20% of US forces can be on combat duty at any given time. Without PMC's to perform base support functions, this ratio would be even lower, making our fighting forces extremely ineffective. My opponent claims that the problem would be solved if there were no "brain drain" from the military. A brain drain exists among Navy SEALS and specialized personnel, but only because certain contractors are willing to pay them MORE than the military is willing to pay them. But this is not true for the typical base support or logistical support personnel, who costs, on average, $15,000 less than a US government-employed counterpart (according to the GAO). Having 90,000 more troops from Iraq won't solve the problem either, since according to the same CRS report, PMC's account for 50% of our military personnel. We'd need at least an additional 500,000 personnel to replace PMC's everywhere our military currently operates. Extend C3 under this argument as the impact. Without PMC's, we would either need to implement a draft or forgo most of our military operations, such as deterring North Korean aggression against South Korea. My opponent says conscription would never work because of strong domestic opposition, but Vietnam clearly disproves this argument. Many neo-cons within the Bush administration were pushing for conscription; only PMC's prevented such an outcome. C2) Oversight The Armed Contractor Oversight Division along with the Defense Contract Audit Agency have been successful in reigning in abuses other than shooting incidents as well. My opponents other objections just nitpick the study methodology, but any study would be prudent to point out that causation is difficult to prove when there are so many factors. That doesn't negate the fact that there are two new oversight divisions and preliminary evidence shows them to be very effective. In addition, the new Status of Force agreements in Iraq and Afghanistan no longer give contractors immunity to domestic laws, but still grant such immunity to our troops. Contractors are now being prosecuted by Afghanistan and Iraq for the crimes they commit there. [4] C4) Cost My opponent drops the evidence that according to a 20 year CBO study, logistical support is 90% cheaper from PMC's. The other study looks at peacetime savings, which applies to PMC personnel in South Korea, Germany, etc. But given that troops in active combat earn hazard pay and lifetime health insurance, it's likely that we achieve even greater cost savings in Iraq and Afghanistan. C5) Humanitarian interventions This is a big winner for Con. My opponent agrees that without PMC's, political leaders would not have the political cover to intervene in genocides around the world and that PMC's are extremely effective at stopping genocides, as they were in Serbia/Bosnia. His only argument is that they work both sides, but this is not true in Afghanistan (they are not hiring themselves out to the Taliban) or whenever the US is involved. I challenge my opponent to show examples of US PMC's working with the opposition in Serbia or Somalia, when they were used. Clinton had to stand by and watch millions slaughtered in Rwanda because he could not put US boots on the ground due to Somalia. Luckily, by the time the Croatian/Serbian disasters rolled around, Clinton figured out that he could use PMC's to save lives without angering the public. C6) Security Guards Extend the Wikileaks evidence; our military killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. Blackwater has done an amazing job in comparison. And Blackwater has never let someone they were guarding die, something that cannot be said for our own military. The Iraqi police force is so corrupt that a report to Congress recommended they be scrapped. [5] Trusting the State Department in Iraq to their care would be a cruel fate for many American citizens. If you're worried about people trusting us, relying on the local police is the worst possible idea. A 2010 Army report found that people in Afghanistan rank the local police as more dangerous than roadside bombs and criminals. [6] C7) Air support The Senlis Afghanistan report was written prior to the surge in Afghanistan, saying we need more troops to prevent civilian casualties. Obama's additional 30,000 troops brought us up to sufficient levels. Getting rid of PMC's would get rid of 50% of our forces in Afghanistan, which would undoubtedly make us rely more on air support, resulting in many times more civilian casualties. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] The Power Problem, p. 43-52 [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] <EOA>

<BOA> I am with The character of God in the Bible is essentially Adolph Hitler because The Garden of Eden I specified, as my opponent may want to reexamine, that the presence of Cain's wife indicates one of two things; either there were humans outside the Garden that were unrelated to Adam and Eve, or Cain married his [younger] sister. I did not explicitly state that they had no daughters. I wouldn't particularly enjoy the image of Cain marrying his sisters, but that's just me, I suppose. I am not sure why my opponent is including the reason for Cain's banishment in this debate. To my knowledge it is not at question. My opponent is using logic now that seems quite broken to me. He has stated that God is omniscient. He has also stated that God deliberately creates people (I think it's Isaiah that specifies this). He has also stated that God gives free will to all. Now, allow me to examine the logic here, and present why I find it flawed: P1: God designs all people (including angels). P2: God is omniscient, meaning he is ultimately knowledgeable, regardless of time (knows the consequences of his actions before he does the actions). C: God knows exactly what all people will be like with every variation upon design, before he creates them. Now, this illustrates that people obviously do not have free will since, if God knows what someone will be like before he designs that person, then he knows what actions that design will bring about, ergo he is consciously designing their actions as he designs them. My opponent's Lego model is flawed because it implies that God is either omniscient or malevolent, as he would either know someone would step on the Legos and put them there anyway, meaning he would be malevolent, or he would not know someone would step on the Legos, meaning he would not be omniscient. My opponent has just made another assertion I don't follow; I stand accused of preferring God to have created another woman than Cain to have made a marriage of incest; my opponent has stated that God did indeed create his greatest enemy (which I have already proven means God must have been either malevolent or non-omniscient), and that God also created the temptation which was his creation's downfall; he has stated that God knew what would happen; I conclude that since God knew what would happen, created it with this knowledge, and yet still created it, God must have created it maliciously. That he created such an elaborate scheme for a salvation from a problem he created does not seem like an example either of benevolence or omnipotence to me. Noah's Ark My opponent now is just creating straw men, or perhaps trying to turn my arguments into straw men. He has stated that it cannot be logically concluded that Noah persuaded God based on the quote I gave. He has also stated that other versions of the Bible omit the verse about Noah finding favor in the eyes of God. Regarding the former, God's attitude progresses from a resolution to destroy all life, all, from the planet to destroying all but Noah and his ark, and it adds at the end of this, seemingly as an explanation, that Noah found favor in God's eyes. I do not see anything illogical about the assumption that Noah's favor in God's eyes is the cause of God's change of plans. Regarding the latter, I would be very interested to know to what versions my opponent is referring, because in my collection of Bibles, both modern and antique, I have yet to find an example of that passage being omitted. If desired I shall provide citations. We are not operating under the assumption that the Bible is true, we are operating under the assumption that the Bible is an accurate portrayal of God's character. Now, my good opponent, you are openly contradicting yourself. If God knew beforehand that no one would accept his warning, then presenting a warning would be wasteful. It would have been a better example of benevolence for God to instead offer a warning that people would believe. As for the size of the ark, my opponent may be mentally exaggerating this. The ark was actually quite small, smaller than many private craft. Maybe about the size of a yacht. For four adults with carpentry skills to build such a boat would really take comparatively little time if they had nothing else to do and were dedicated to the project. My opponent has yet to establish that people were all concentrated in one spot. All non-Biblical evidence speaks strictly to the contrary, that at the alleged time of the Great Flood, some four-thousand years ago, if I remember correctly, humans were living on every continent. I cannot imagine any place on the planet that Noah could go that would successfully be visible to every continent (excepting Antarctica, naturally). This argument stands like a great pillar of marble, as of now. Job I'm glad to hear that my opponent is familiar with Adolph Hitler; it saves me the necessity of explaining his actions further. I will simply assume that he knows, and if he does not, he will be responsible for addressing his own currency of knowledge. My opponent states that God made Lucifer with the knowledge of what Lucifer would do. If God knew what every possible variation on Lucifer would be like, then it is obvious that, in choosing the one he did, he instantly took from Lucifer free will, as the actions of the Lucifer he created were predetermined, and effectively it would mean God was designing Lucifer both to love him for the time that he did, and to betray him. My opponent's own argument proves that if God exists, either he is not as my opponent describes, or freedom is an illusion. Regarding children, do not bring my children into this. I have created no child with the knowledge of exactly what it would be before I created it, I did not choose a 'template' for what that child's life would be, and I did not force it to assume an identity that I was predeterminedly aware of before I created it. That is a totally irrelevant analogy. My opponent has addressed none of my points about Job, and instead attacked my religious beliefs, my family values, and idly speculated about God's motivations before conceding that he does not know why God would allow Job to endure such a situation. Finally, he states that God knows everything, reinforcing my point that either God is not all-powerful, or not benevolent. Sodom and Gomorrah I did not assume that Sodom and Gomorrah had surprise orgies, I made a joke. There is no more evidence to suggest that Sodom and Gomorrah had surprise orgies than there is to suggest they wanted to rape people. Yes, they did stand outside of Lot's house and demand sex. But as they did not get their wish, they weren't given any opportunity to demonstrate whether they intended it to be consensual or otherwise. That Lot insisted they stay the night with him is not necessarily an act of protection. My opponent may not be highly familiar with Middle Eastern culture: allow me to enlighten him a bit. It is customary for Arabs (and Hebrews) to offer hospitality to travelers. Lot's offer of hospitality could as easily have been habitual as it could have been out of concern for the traveler's safety. Being such an ambiguous passage, that really is hard to address. However, Lot's motives aren't at question. God still destroyed two cities, regardless of innocents. Oho, and now we have evangelism. I asked you not to do that. Conclusion My dear fellow, history is written by the victors! At his rein, Hitler also declared that he had a perfect standard, that he knew if men were beyond hope, and he did promise a utopia to those who followed him. And did I just hear "God doesn't discriminate by race?" surely I did not hear that. My opponent finishes with "God...is a holy, perfect, and just God." Can you support this of a God who, as I have established without rebuttal, has committed multiple cases of genocide, a term which my opponent has kindly defined for us? Saying that he was justified because he was killing those that deserved it to create a utopia is describing Adolph Hitler. Your move. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Euthanasia Should Be Legal In America because Some of my opponent's arguments do not link to his conclusion. When someone is given the right to life, that means that the government outlaws murder, and punishes those who infringe on the right. This has nothing to do with the right to do with it whatever they want. With Pro's interpretation of this right, anyone including depressed teenagers and the like, are allowed to commit suicide, even when it would clearly harm society for them to do so. My opponent's sole valid point is basically this: that those who want a way out from their pain should have it by killing them, which is a merciful thing to do. However, I also agree that patients should have the right to die in this circumstance, with assisted suicide. This would achieve the same upsides, without the downsides of the doctor outright killing the patient. With the doctor killing the patient, doctors are given power that may be abused. For example, when it would benefit the doctor, the doctor could fake consent, among other things. Assisted suicide achieves the same upsides, without the ethical downsides of euthanasia. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against God Does NOT Exist, God is NOT Great, and Makes Life Worthless because This debate is moving right along, so I'll try to keep the pace. ====> G O D S - E X I S T E N C E <==== :::Argument from the Universe::: Geo's argument here only works if God is defined as a supreme being that created all of existence including himself. I call him Straw God and concede his existence is impossible. However, I can't think of a religion today that postulates such a God. I am defended the Christian God as described in the Westminster Confession of Faith [1], which most accurately reflects the working definition of God I am defending. Given a distinction between all of existence and God's creation, there is no logical incompatibility. Therefore, he has not disproven the existence of God, only of Straw God. :::Kalam's Cosmological Argument FAILS::: P1: Whatever begins to exist, has a cause. Geo simply misunderstands the intended premises of the KCA. P1 does not assert that matter and energy has a cause. It asserts that, per our observations, everything we observe began to exist at a point in time. The beginning of matter and energy (if indeed there is one) are dealt with in P2. Furthermore, Geo uses the fallacy of composition: P1: A laptop is composed of matter P2: Matter never began :. The laptop never began P2: The universe began to exist. Understanding P1 correctly, things that exist in time started in time. Whether or not matter and energy always existed is irrelevant to the bigger issue: that time and space began. For example, if matter and energy always existed, something would have to cause that matter and energy to expand into 4 dimensions. Note that Geo did not comment on the Alexander Vilenkin's unifying theory that all expanding universes have a singularity and therefore a beginning. Vilenkin and his colleagues are non-religious physicists that had previously published infinite universe theories. What say ye? :::Ambiguity of the Uncaused Cause::: Of course, proving the KCA by itself doesn't prove that the cause was God, but Geo can't have it both ways. The ambiguity of the uncaused cause favors neither position. Geo is free to offer a dozen alternative causes, but doing so fails to prove God does NOT exist. A rebuttal of an argument FOR God's existence does not prove the opposite. That would be the fallacy of Affirmative Conclusion from Negative Premises. ====> G O D - I S - N O T - G R E A T <==== :::God Can't Be Great::: I fail to see how Geo is exempt from supporting his assertion that "God is not Satan, God is not demons, God is not my opponent, God is not evil, God is not dirt, etc. Unless a Theist is willing to accept that God is a Satanic, evil piece of dirt, then God must be finite." This is ipse dixit, an assertion he has not supported. I suppose it's just another set of attributes of Straw God. :::God is a Tyrannical Dictator::: I wasn't trying to engage in semantics as much as request clarification on the definition of great. Indeed, my point was that, with such an ambiguous term, how can either of us prove greatness or non-greatness meaningfully? Here is Geo's criterion: "if God were [sic] shown to be evil, finite, and tyrannical, he would NOT be 'superior in quality of character,' he would NOT be 'noble,' and he would NOT be 'remarkable or significant.'" Straw God certainly meets Geo's criteria and is therefore not great. God, on the other hand, is by definition infinite, which makes him "remarkable or significant." By Geo's own arbitrary standards, God is indeed great. ====> G O D - D E G R A D E S - L I F E S - S I G N I F I C A N C E <==== Once again, we are met with Geo's arbitrary criterion. Significance, according to Geo, occurs in a life that "is boundless, unrestricted, free to explore, free to give multiple meanings, free to create." Aside from the limits imposed by the laws of physics, I declare that I am boundless, unrestricted, free to explore, free to give multiple meanings, and free to create. I simultaneously believe in God (not Straw God) and assert that he grants me these freedoms. Therefore, I have life-significance. How can Geo hope to prove that my sense of life-significance is false? This is entirely a subjective matter. ====> T A G <==== Looks like Geo successfully defeated Straw TAG. It's a good thing I still have TAG to defend. Perhaps I can help Geo understand the argument in pseudo-syllogism. Here are the assertions I made with a summary of my supporting arguments. Truth is objective - I argued that skepticism is self-refuting Objective truth is obtained via reliable principles such as logic, science, and morality - That's what we're doing in this debate; using these principles to objectively prove or disprove the resolution Logic must be abstract and absolute in order to obtain objective truth - Proved by transcendental argument. For logic to be universal and independently verifiable, these are the necessary preconditions. Nature must be uniform - Proved by transcendental argument. For scientific inquiry to yield objective results, the future must behave like the past. The necessary precondition, therefore, is an ordered universe. Morality must be abstract and absolute in order to place objective moral obligations on outside parties - Proved by transcendental argument. If morality is to be used to disprove God's existence, then it must be a morality that is not subject to human unpredictability. Subjective morality is just mere opinion. The Christian Worldview is the only worldview that accounts for the aforementioned preconditions. Naturalism cannot account for abstract entities. Idealism cannot account for absolute entities. I could go on, but I'll let Geo site the worldview of his choice. In the end, by eliminating worldviews that cannot meet the preconditions necessary for intelligible debate, the Christian Worldview is left standing. Thus, by impossibility of the contrary, the Christian Worldview is true and God exists. That's the argument. It's not circular, but it does reason from the particulars to the universals. That's what a transcendental argument does. Now, I'd like to see Geo defend TAG instead of Straw TAG next round. ====> S O U R C E S <==== 1. http://www.reformed.org... <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Star Trek technology is achievable because Final Rebuttals Con remarked that the round one burden requires real world transporters to be an exact match of the Star Trek version. He cited the round one statement which states that the “ function of the technology could be duplicated in the real world, including it's practical application. ” I understand that my opponent will persist on this position to the end, so I appeal to the voter to review the burden in context. You see, the burden also states the technology is reasonably achievable . It should go without saying, that the technology must function within reason in order to be reasonable. Hence, it would not be my burden to provide a mechanism for an inherently fictional processes. On the topic of burden, I wish to conclude the following: I had the burden of proving that transportation is practically possible. I had the burden of overcoming certain intrinsic mechanical obstacles. To satisfy my burden I provided the following: Two varied theories by respected Researchers on possible transportation mechanisms. The theory of Quantum Entanglement and the Higgs field manipulation theory are both good candidates for the technology. I overcame the problem of identity by showing the separation between the physical ability to teleport and the philosophical moral implications of it's practice. Indeed, the problem of identity does not relate the ability to teleport, but merely to the ability of the transported object to be considered metaphysically “self”. Anatomy, physiology, biology, memory, character and sense of self are retained. We are concerned with quantum mechanics, not deep, meaningful discussions on ethics. I overcame the problem of recording by demonstrating that a computer converts information to bits, which are stored as text. The data occupies mere kilobytes. My opponent argued that the amount of information is still to great, but that ignored my Quantum Processor argument which clearly explains that Quantum PCs are able to read/write 250 qubits per second, which is “ more than every atom in the universe .” Obviously the problem is overcome, since we are dealing only with the atoms in the human body. Any appeal to the “monumental amount of information” simply seeks to exaggerate the data and undermine Computer technology. My opponent also objected that I did not argue how the human body could be scanned. Conveniently, he objected to this at the end of round four, hoping I would be trapped in my final round with a dropped argument. First off, the argument is not dropped if it was never brought up. If my opponent does not object to an atomic scanner, then it is assumed that there is no conflict. Fortunately, the rules do not bar me from addressing the objection, since it was brought up in round four. I would like to share a final source, which my opponent can attempt to refute in his final round. I would like to make a note about the poor conduct of final round objections. If we debate again in the future, please allow more room for rebuttals. Consider the article by the American Physical Society which presented the data for an atomic scan of a crystalline surface structure. [1] The Source originated in 1990. The source is quoted as stating:” High-resolution scanning tunneling microscopy data on the reconstructed Au(111) surface are presented that give a comprehensive picture of the atomic structure, the long-range ordering, and the interaction between reconstruction and surface defects in the reconstructed surface. “ We've been able to scan at atomic levels for over two decades. I overcame the problem of disintegration. My opponent remarks that my argument of RF wave propagation is insufficient. He obviously lost track of how the technology functions. Quantum entanglement deals with twin pairs of atomic structures. The physical mass does not travel around the corner. The photon packets do. The physical mass is manipulated at the distant end. It would appear that my opponent believes that the atoms are just “launched” at their target without riding on a medium. That is why I appealed to radio theory, because information is heterodyned (mixed) on a radio frequency wave before it is transmitted. Radio's don't receive soundwaves. They receive RF waves. The sound needs to me “mixed” with the RF, in order for a Radio to receive it. Naturally, teleportation would require the same. No antenna could pick up a “matter signal”. The physical properties must be “mixed” onto a carrier wave and then demodulated. That's what quantum entanglement is. Particle “As” information is sent via photon packets to Particle “B”, which now takes on the exact properties of particle A. That's how I can transport around corners. That's also how you can send a radio message from New York to Italy. Con stated: “ What the what??? I fail to see how my argument from identity is an appeal to emotion. I have no idea where this came from.” Rebuttal : The problem of identity does not prohibit the function of a transporter. It raises ethical problems, such as:” Is the original human dead and is the transported Human different somehow?” That is not an objection to mechanics. That's an appeal to ethics, which is an emotional appeal. It does not pertain to quantum entanglement theory. Let's assume I take 20 atoms out of my brain, and I replace them with 20 other, equal atoms. They are arranged the same way, occupy the same space and provide the same function. Did I become a different person? If not, why would a transported person suffer from the problem of identity? Does this premise only govern Macro constructs? If so, then the premise suffers from infinite regression. My opponent seeks to overcome an issue of technology through the method of philosophy. Fail . Conclusion My opponent is arguing:” Because it hasn't been invented and therefore never will.” The irony is that he accuses me of blind optimism, while he persists in blind pessimism. Dear voters, teleportation is a reality. The technology is not a theory, it's in stages of practical application. My opponent cannot argue against it. The evidence speaks for itself. At best, my opponent could hope to argue it's limitations, but he chose instead to argue against the whole premise of teleportation. He insisted that the problem of identity is pervasive, while real scientific study produced real teleportation. Identity was not a problem when the Germans teleported a photon packet over 143 kilometers. Identity was not a problem when the same team teleported Rubidium across 5 meters of free space on a spin weave photon packet. It would be the equivalent of calling the earth flat while standing in front of a NASA image of the planet. We are not dealing with paradox, like a "married bachelor" or a "Sqaure Circle." We are dealing with observable, practical science. As a final note, here is a list of dropped arguments: Quantum tunneling (Dropped in round 4) Problem of identity relates to metaphysics, not temporal mechanics (Never addressed) Matter does not need to be converted to energy (Never addressed) Massive research efforts to further practical applications (Never addressed) Krauss' argument for the Higgs field problem. (Dropped in round 4) The Law of thermodynamics dictating the equal proportion of transported mass. (Never addressed) I thank the voter for their patience. I strongly urge a vote for Pro. I have established my burden on practical evidence and field expert testimony. I have addressed every objection and labored to see my burden satisfied. My opponent has failed to provide sufficient reason to disprove teleportation. Additionally, his collection of dropped arguments and concessions make for an easy vote: Vote Pro. http://prb.aps.org... ; [1] <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Selling violent video games to minors is okay. because I thank Shooter for initiating this debate, and accept the challenge. Before getting into the issue, some housekeeping. Violent- Pro mentioned "bloody, gory, and sometimes offensive", but I don't think that does justice. To be more descriptive, we need to add a few terms such as, decapitation, dismemberment, disemboweling, burning, bodies exploding into chunks, and blood gushes, splatters, and pools. Even after the character is dead, the player can usually further mutilate the body by shooting, hacking, kicking, beating, etc. Minor- Being under legal age; not yet a legal adult. One who has not reached full legal age (1). Okay- It's difficult to define this word, but generally it means, "acceptable". If my opponent has no objection, either party may use the comments section if they need more character space, for their argument. No new arguments in the last round. To clarify burden of proof, the instigator, or pro, assumes the burden of proof to affirm the positive claim, made by the resolution, "Selling violent video games to minors is okay". Since Pro opted to argue in the next round, I don't have much of a rebuttal in this round, but I will make a few comments about his opening. Pro mentions the SCOTUS debate over violent video games. A California law banning the sale of violent video games to minors, was up for review, and was found to not meet the "strict scrutiny" required to ban a protected form of free speech (2). Luckily though, neither participant in this debate is required to meet that same "strict scrutiny", that was required of the California law. What we'll be debating here, per the resolution, are the issues involved in the sale of those games to minors, and whether those sales are, as the resolution states, "okay". Argument I disagree with pro's resolution for several reasons. 1. A blanket statement, such as the one made by the resolution, is rarely a good thing in debate because, since no exceptions are specified, it implies that ALL things apply in ALL cases. Therefore pro must defend the notion that it is okay to sell all violent games to ANY minor, without exception. Since pro did specify an age range of 13-18, I will stick to the age range he specified. There are several problems with selling all violent games to any teen, including but not limited to, the following. a) Violence is not all that is being sold. Games containing intense violence don't JUST contain violence. Violence is usually accompanied by nudity, strong sexual content, profanity, drug, alcohol, and tobacco use, and any number of behaviors that might be deemed inappropriate, by the parents, thus the sale of those games to just any teen is not okay. b) All parents know that a child's maturity level frequently does not match his chronological age. This is especially true in the younger teen years, and in kids with problems like ADD, etc. There are also kids who are much more mature, and the parents may feel that it is okay for that child to have the game. Point is that the parent is the only one who is equipped to know what is "okay" for their child. 2. Minors, by definition, are not of legal age or are not emancipated, meaning that they are subject to parental authority. That authority is respected, even in the legal field, unless it is deemed harmful by a court. The right of a parent to set guidelines, for their child, must always take precedence over a retailer's right to sell a product containing sex and violence, to a minor. Selling violent video games to minors, without parental consent, circumvents that parental authority, and makes it extremely difficult to enforce those guidelines. a) With the increasing complexity of games, there is often more to the game than just the disk. There is often downloadable content, online content, and cheats, that allow access to more than just what is listed on the cover. The "coffee" cheat for Grand Theft Auto, is a good example (3). This statement is taken from the IT Law Wiki, "Games that include an online component are tagged "Game Experience May Change During Online Play" to give notice to users that the online content may not fall into the same rating category as the game due to possible user generated content " (4). The sale of these games, without parental consent, makes it nearly impossible for a parent to properly evaluate the game, and it's additional content beforehand, and decide whether, or not, it is appropriate. Selling the games to teens in secret, even if parents have told the child no, limits a parent's ability to take responsibility for what the child is exposed to, because by the time the parent finds the game, they've already been playing it. It forces parents to be reactive, rather than proactive, in monitoring their child's behavior. With the authority given to parents, by law, it is not "okay", to sell a potentially harmful product to a child, without giving parents the opportunity to fully evaluate the product to determine if it is appropriate. A child has no "right" to own a potentially harmful product unless a parent, or legal guardian, gives them that right. Allowing retailers, who stand to gain financially, to sell these products to kids without parental consent should never be deemed "okay". 3. The ESRB ratings placed on the boxes of games to advise parents of the contents, are endorsed by the SCOTUS, in it's opinion on the California law. However, without legal backing, the rating system is in no way binding on retailers. These ratings are a voluntary measure, taken by the software industry, who realize that some games are inappropriate for younger age groups. The information contained in these ratings is useless unless the parent is there to see it before the purchase, which is just not realistic when talking about teens. Without some threat of financial penalty or legal consequence, retailers, who are in business to make money, can not be relied on as an intermediary force, that will go against it's own best interest to ensure that minors do not buy inappropriate games. 4. Since video game content is a protected form of free speech, laws do not attempt to prohibit minors from owning, or playing violent video games, they simply prohibit the "sale" of that potentially harmful content to minors, without parental consent. This is the most effective way to make sure that the child's best interest is met. Parents who allow their teen to play these games can still allow that by simply buying the game for their child. This reasonable accommodation is allowed by law, and is not interfered with in any way. With a ban on the sale in place, their are reasonable accommodations, that protect the interest of both sides Without a law, however, there is no change for the parents who allow their kids access to that content, but there is no reasonable accommodation for parents who determine the content inappropriate for their children. They simply have to accept that other people have the right to sell potentially harmful material to their children, even though the parents may have told the child that they can't have that game. If the parent says no, the child can still go buy the game behind their back, and simply hide it, playing it only when they're sure they won't get caught. Although there are other arguments that can be made, on the subject, this is enough for now. I hope the reader gives consideration to these issues, and agrees that selling intensely violent video games, and all the other content that comes with it to minors, without parental consent, is not okay. I look forward to pro's argument. 1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2. http://www.supremecourt.gov... 3. http://www.legalzoom.com... 4. http://itlaw.wikia.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against goerge bush was a good president because Just before I start leave obama out of this, we are debating bush not obama. Refutation 1: Economy The last two years of his presidency were characterized by the worsening subprime mortgage crisis, which resulted in dramatic government intervention to bailout damaged financial institutions and a weakening economy. [1] So his last 2 years his economic policies stopped working. House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt said the middle class will not benefit enough from the tax cut and the wealthy will reap unfairly high benefits. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle argued that the tax cut is too large, too generous to the rich and too expensive. [1] Also the first tax cut cost $144.5 billion [1] And the tax cuts did little to the economy: The truth is that there is virtually no evidence in support of the Bush tax cuts as an economic elixir. To the extent that they had any positive effect on growth, it was very, very modest. [2] So the economy fixed itself on it's own. Free markets have a tendency to heal themselves over time. Refutation 2: The debt We are debating GWB not obama. So a comparison isn't fair as obama has NOTHING to do with the resolution. I will expand this argument: But it is high time to remind the American public of Bush's policies that caused so much of the debt we are debating In his last term in office, Bush increased discretionary spending by 48.6 percent. 130 current members of congress voted to increase the debt limit under Bush. [3] So a comparison isn't fair, let's stick to ONE PERSON and stay with the resolution. Adding obama is a red herring. Refutation 3: Education President Bush's budget would cut money for education, the second straight time he has sought less school spending after a first term of steady increases. The Education Department would get $54.4 billion for discretionary spending in the fiscal year starting Oct. 1. That would amount to a cut of $3.7 billion, or 6.4 percent, from this year. [4] I find it funny I am getting this from fox news... A year ago, Bush proposed cutting the education budget by 1 percent, to $56 billion from $56.6 billion. Congress eventually approved a slight increase instead [4] He wanted cuts first term, but congress blocked it. Also when he called for education increases congress ignored him. Rendering him a weak leader with persuasion when it comes to Congress, a downside. Later he ACTUALLY succeeded in cutting education: Congress cut only five of the 48 programs Bush slated for elimination in last year's budget proposal. [5] So he didn't get all of what he wanted, but still he succeeded in a decrease in education. "At a time when expectations for states and school districts are at their highest under the No Child Left Behind Act, the President's investment in education is headed in the opposite direction," Jennings contended. [5] So his first policies = good, but later he made up for it by helping cut the funds. Conclusion: My opponent has not refuted my main arguments and made a red herring with the usage of obama. Also I belive I have done well in this debate, VOTE PRO. sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... [1] http://www.thefiscaltimes.com... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3] http://www.foxnews.com... [4] http://www.stateline.org... [5] <EOA>

<BOA> I am with If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, it makes a sound. because "nowhere in your does it state, scientifically speaking" It doesn't need to. A sound is created, whether or not the sound is heard is beyond the point. The point is, a sound is created. Scienficially speaking doesn't need to be included, because a sound is created no matter what... "Therefore it is all a matter of human perspective. Due to the fact that there is no one around to hear it, it does not exist." No it's not. Detection is a matter of human perspective. Detection is when a person or something hears or senses the sound. Just because that does not happen, does not mean that the sound was not created. WHen people try to say that just because someone wasn't there, a sound wasn't created, it is completely beside the point! What difference would it make if someone was there? It would be detected. Either way, a sound is produced. Also, now this may defy my thesis, but of course in a forest, there are small bugs and insects and animals. The small insects don't make an impact on the sound being created. They are there to detect it. In any forest (refer to definiton) there are little bugs and animals. I am sorry if this maybe wasn't fully clear in my first few rounds, and I apoligize. It shouldn't make a difference in the long run though! The US law system is not science. It's a form of logic. Detection and creation of sound is scientifical, and is not logic. Those two points do not really even relate to eachother! "However, if there is nobody around to feel the vibrations, they never occured as stated by the Smithsonian INstitute on December 12,2008." Okay, while this may be true, in a forest, things are there. The vibrations will occur and will be felt by the ground, other plants, and little creatures that reside in the forest. As to my sources, my sources are pure science. Ask any science professor or teacher. They will fully support my case. I haven't presented any facts that require a source other than just science. I would like to thank you in advance for this great debate and good luck! :) <EOA>

<BOA> I am with IVF Debate because In vitro fertilization (IVF) is used to help couples conceive a child -- which can fix marital issues and strengthen the bond between the couple. This procedure was first done due to a woman named Lesley Brown's fallopian tubes being blocked. ("First IVF Case - IVF & Regulation.") Lesley was able to give birth to a healthy baby; as do other women who go through the procedure. "First IVF Case - IVF & Regulation." First IVF Case - IVF & Regulation. Accessed April 27, 2016. http://invitrofertilization.weebly.com... . <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Best Utopia Contest because BACK THE FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK UP, EVERYBODY!!! IT'S MATHAFACKIN AWESOMELAND!!! "What the fack is Awesomeland?" WHAT THE FACK ARE YOU?! THIS PIECE OF CRAP HAS GOT EVERAYTHANG!!!! EXPLOSIONS!!! SPACESHIPS!!! AND SO!! MANY!! PONIES!! YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TWO HEART ATTACKS! ONE FROM ALL THE EPIC ... AND ONE FROM ALL THE CUTE. ************************************************** "But... there's no parkour in your world." ... THE FACK DID YOU JUST SAY? ******************************** YOU CAN LEAVE!!! WE GOT TONS OF PARKOUR IN THIS BETCH!!! BETCH!!! PARKOUR ON WALLS : PARKOUR ON BUILDINGS : EVEN THE CATS DO PARKOUR: SO DON'T GO AROUND THINKING YOU'RE COOL UNLESS YOU RESIDE IN AWESOMELAND!!! FACK. YOU. "But is there a shopping mall?" LEAVE. BECAUSE AWESOMELAND IS THE GREATEST PLACE KNOWN TO MAN EVER IN THE HISTORY OF ALL THE THINGS EVAR. EV- VAR. VOTE. CON. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with resoloved: REMOVE TAX EXEMPTIONS FROM ALL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES because My opponent has just spent most of his last round argument agreeing with me and providing information to support my argument, with an end note that poor churches should still get exemptions because they need the money. I would argue that the church money should be spread out within each faith. If a baptist church in one region is struggling, why not get aid from the multimillion dollar baptist church across town? Why should it be up to the government to aid one failing church when others of the same group are doing far more than surviving? My opponent actually failed to address any of my arguments in the previous round, aside from the ones he supported, so my arguments still stand, awaiting rebuttals. I will clarify one argument that I made that I believe needs to be addressed. There is no one faith that accounts for the majority of the population. Christianity cannot be counted as a single faith, since groups like Catholics, Protestants and Mormons all fall under Christianity and they are all run by completely separate organizations. And even under Protestants, which is the largest group in America, there are so many divisions that disagree on so many fundamental issues. So why would the majority of non-believers of any specific faith want their tax dollars going towards funding a religion that they disagree with. Especially people who are directly impacted or even attacked by members of those churches, like homosexuals or women who get abortions. If the government funded a group, using your tax dollars, that stripped rights away from you, would you want to keep paying for that group? If church groups want to spread their word around, they need to do it with their own money that they collect. It should not be up to the government to ensure that churches have enough money to keep spreading the word. That money should go to more important things like scientific research on health and climate that offer evidence, proof and results rather than a promise of eternal salvation that can never actually be confirmed as a real service beyond helping some people feel less nervous about death, while terrifying many others with a threat of eternal damnation. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Teaching Java in Introductory programming courses because The resolution asks what should be done by the Universities. To determine this, I will define the goals of introductory classes as the following: a) To prepare students for a career and advanced courses in computer science. b) To maximize retention rate for computer science majors. I will show how the unique features of Java help universities achieve their goals better than Javascript does. C1) Java Runtime Environment (JRE) The JRE consists of two things; the Java Virtual Machine (JVM), and the Java class library. The JVM is unique to Java and provides features such as automated exception handling [1] where the operating system generates exceptions as opposed to crashing [2]. This encourages novice programmers to understand the sources of their errors as opposed to being discouraged by them. Throwing exceptions on Java for simple programs is straightforward and requires only a single class which can extend the RuntimeException class and inherit its properties after which the newly declared class can be used in other classes and programs and made to throw exceptions of the programmer's choice. Another function of the JVM is to verify the bytecode before it executes which protects the host machine from being crashed by user programs while also controlling access to data that the programmer can declare private [1]. The Java class library is much more extensive than Javascript libraries which allows students to focus on writing original code while using the libraries for code that has already been written before. Javascript libraries on the other hand are more complicated to use, and less exhaustive. They all need to be linked in the original HTML file which reduces Javascript's capability as a standalone program. C2) Javascript is limited to webpages Introductory programming languages must offer a wide range of functionality on which students can build upon and learn more specific languages designed for narrowly defined tasks. This allows students to appreciate the full extent of the power of programming right from the beginning of their college years. Besides, if they end up learning only one language, one that is applicable to a greater range of situations is more useful. Java can stand alone while Javascript needs to be placed inside an html document to function. Javascript is wholly reliant on the browser to understand it. It wasn't developed as a general purpose programming language but rather to manipulate web pages. This makes it very limited in function. It cannot access desktop applications or the file system of the machine it runs on. It cannot open or save local files. These limitations makes Javascipt inappropriate for introducing students to programming. C3) No barrier to Entry Before a student can learn Javascript, they require knowledge of HTML (Hypertext Markup Language). Even the simplest Javascript program requires the programmer to insert script tags into an HTML document. In order for this to occur, students are required to create HTML pages which requires the capability to understand HTML and implement it before the first Javascript file is created. Introductory courses must teach HTML in the first few weeks of the course before moving onto Javascript. This lessens the time remaining to teach the students Javascript. Leaving Javascript for advanced courses lessens this difficulty as students in advanced courses are more apt to learn HTML on their own and use the features of programming languages they have already learned (like Java). The alternative to teaching HTML in the first few weeks is to require HTML knowledge as a pre-requisite. This blocks out students who are unwilling or unable to learn HTML on their own or waste a semester or quarter of financial aid taking a course in HTML. C4) Intimacy Consider the knowledge of the program gained from writing the simplest traditional “Hello World” program in Javascript and in Java. Javascript requires the programmer to create an HTML file, insert a script tag and type the following in a new file: alert (“Hello World!”); This teaches nothing about Javascript except that the programmer is invoking a built-in function. On the other hand, consider how much writing a basic Java program teaches the student about Java: public class main { public static void main (String [] args) { System.out.println(“Hello World”); } } The student learns that Java is an object oriented programming (OOP) language where all code is written inside a class and inside a method. Encapsulation is introduced with the access modifier “public” which is a core concept of OOP [3]. Public classes and methods are available to the client to use whereas in many applications, Java programmers want to practice information hiding. The term “void” teaches students about return types and students soon learn about methods that do have a return type and can correlate the return type of those methods to appreciate the difference between them and the method that they have been used to writing. As we can see, Java immerses students into the language right from the moment they touch the keyboard by teaching them about access modifiers and return types. Compare with Javascript where the underlying structure of the language is not exposed to students until later on in the course. This intimate connection with the language structure increases interest in the language which keeps students engaged. The benefits of teaching a general purpose programming language like Java outweigh. I could keep comparing features but I will stop here to see what Con comes up with so we can get to the areas of real clash. Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://docs.oracle.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against A Crowbar is the best weapon to have during a Zombie Uprising. because I thank my opponent for creating this debate and hope that it will be an interesting one. In this debate I will be showing both why a crowbar is not the best weapon to use during a Zombie Uprising and providing at least one example of a better weapon. First my explanations as to why a crowbar would not be the best weapon to use. I assume that by crowbar my opponent is referring to those similar to the first example on this site [1]. I will be using its specifications for my arguments. The referenced crowbar is 21 inches long and weighs 1.32 lbs. and is made of solid titanium. The problem with using a crowbar like this one as a weapon is that crowbars are meant to add leverage when prying things open, this means that during their production they are not tested for balance and are more difficult to swing than many other objects. It is also a fairly short weapon which means that your effective range would be around 55 inches or so. I contend that for zombie killing a composite graphite baseball bat [2] would be more effective than a crowbar. Baseball bats are meant for swinging and are designed to withstand forces that are greater than bashing in the decomposing head of your average zombie. The only disadvantage to the composite bat is that in cold temperatures they are prone to breaking when playing baseball. This is not really much of a factor considering that it does not take as much force to crush said zombie's softened head as hitting a fastball. If you consider the face that the average length of a baseball bat is around 30 inches for an adult [3] you get more range to do damage. They may weigh a bit more than the crowbar, but the fact that they are better balanced means that swinging it will not tire you out as fast. With that I negate the resolution that crowbars are the best weapons for a zombie apocalypse and contend that a baseball bat would be better. [1] http://www.materials.com... [2] http://www.articlesbase.com... [3] http://www.dickssportinggoods.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against The Law of Parsimony Supports the Existence of Intelligent Extraterrestrials because I will rebut the proposition with three arguments: 1. The Law of Parsimony is not a Law, therefore it cannot be used as a basis of a proof. 2. Complex crop circles are most easily and best explained as hoaxes. 3. Drake's Equation is indefinite and not derived from Parsimony. 1. The Law of Parsimony is not a law. "For every complex problem there is a simple solution, and it is wrong." -- H.L. Mencken Let's consider some questions: Why does the stock market go up and down? Why does it rain? Why did Hurricane Katrina strike New Orleans? The true answers to these questions are enormously complex. The stock market depends upon many interacting factors. The weather depends upon complex interactions of terrain, the atmosphere, and the sun. The paths of hurricanes are at best approximately predictable, even with the latest computers and models. There are much simpler explanations: a stock market god, a weather god, and a hurricane god. So, does the Law of Parsimony demand that we accept the assortment of gods over the complexity of the real world? I claim that there is nothing in Parsimony that is so compelling. One problem is that it is often difficult to tell what is simpler. Extraterrestrials, like gods, are apparently simple, because they are expressed in one or two words, but they comprise enormous hidden complexity. How do they overcome speed-of-light limitations? Why do they leave so much consequential evidence, but so little direct evidence? If they want to communicate, why would they use crop circles rather than, say, an interview of the evening news? There may be explanations, but each one adds to the complexity of an extraterrestrial explanation, and there hundreds more of such questions. The Law of Parsimony is actually a useful guide only in very limited circumstances. For example, if an event can be explained with four parameters rather than five parameters, the four parameter explanation will be preferred. Use of parsimony depends upon some sort of apples and apples comparison. For example, parsimony makes the explanation of the motion of the planets as simple ellipses preferred to a theory of orbs upon orbs, but the problem to be solved is highly constrained. Even in those circumstances, it is no more than a guideline. Using the Law of Parsimony to explain events otherwise unexplained is no better than using gods to explain the unexplained. In fact, gods are even more parsimonious an explanation. Gods don't need space ships that travel faster than light. 2. Complex crop circles are all hoaxes. There is some evidence that simple round crop circles can be caused by the weather, but all complex ones are hoaxes. The methods were explained by one of the original perpetrators. The crops are pushed down by stepping on a four-foot board pulled up by ropes on each end. Circles are defined with a wire attached to a stake. Straight lines are walked using a wire sighting device attached to a hat. The original perpetrator was forced to come clean when his wife started to suspect he was sneaking out at night for purposes other than stomping down crops. Complex crop circle patterns become valuable tourist attractions, so farmers sometimes aid in there construction. http://en.wikipedia.org... "Among the most famous hoaxers are the British team of Doug Bower and Dave Chorley, known as "Doug and Dave." In 1991, the duo came out and announced that they had made hundreds of crop circles since 1978. To prove that they were responsible, they filmed themselves for the BBC making a circle with a rope-and-plank contraption in a Wiltshire field (see the next section for information on making a crop circle). "Joe Nickell, Senior Research Fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) says that crop circles have all the hallmarks of hoaxes: They are concentrated primarily in southern England; they've become more elaborate over the years (indicating that hoaxers are getting better at their craft); and their creators never allow themselves to be seen." http://science.howstuffworks.com... With the simple techniques for making straight lines and circles, and pattern can be constructed that could be equivalently done on paper with ruler and compass. The includes constructing perpendiculars and parallels, and bisecting angles. In addition, a tape measure can be used to measure lengths and a compass to measure angles. That enables virtually any construction. Given that any crop circle pattern can be constructed by humans, that is a simpler explanation than demanding that ET do the job. 3. Drake's Equation is indefinite and not Parsimonious Drake's Equation is an interesting basis for computing the probability of intelligent extraterrestrials. However, the equation is posed with many unknown parameters. http://en.wikipedia.org... We have fairly good ideas of numbers of galaxies and stars, but things like the probability of intelligent life developing from simple life and the probability of intelligent life surviving the risks of extinction are unknown. Perhaps future studies will provide solid estimates, but as of now it is pure speculation. Therefore Drake's Equation provides nothing beyond speculation. Using optimistic guesses for the parameters in Drakes Equation, there might be ten intelligent civilizations in the Milky Way Galaxy, per the article cited above. The Milky Way is about 100,000 light years in diameter. http://en.wikipedia.org... That means we optimistically expect the nearest ET civilization to be about 15,000 light years distant. Drake's Equation says nothing about the overcoming the problem of traveling faster than the speed of light. For extraterrestrials to make crop circles, they must travel here to do so. That now seems impossible, so supposing that can be overcome assumes a far more complex technology than guys with boards stomping around in farmers fields. Pro's case does not clearly state whether it is crop circles in conjunction with Drakes Equation that is supposed to imply intelligent life, or whether Drake's Equation by itself is supposed to be an independent reference to the Law of Parsimony. Parsimony only operates to distinguish two alternatives. There is no alternative formulation to Drakes equation, so I assume Pro is not using the Equation itself as if derived from parsimony. There is, of course, the alternative to Drake's Equation that there is no other intelligent life, because God did not make any other. Is the zero alternative more parsimonious? I argue in (1) above, that it is not, but it would seem by Pro's line of thought it would be. The resolution is negated. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with The Chicken came before the Egg because First Round is for Accepting!!! <EOA>

<BOA> I am against For Atheists There Is No Meaning Of Life because Many thanks to my opponent for instigating this fascinating debate and I take this opportunity to cordially welcome him into the DDO community. I will keep this first round fairly brief because I feel that as instigator and Pro my opponent should be making some arguments to prove his resolution and because I believe my initial position is a fairly straight-forward one. An atheist's existence can easily be explained and there can be much meaning to his or her life. My opponent fails to define 'consciousness' or 'meaning of life', perhaps the two most intangible concepts he refers to. I will use the top definitions I got using the define tool on google: Consciousness-an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation; "he lost consciousness" http://www.google.co.uk... -The meaning of life constitutes a philosophical question concerning the purpose and significance of human existence. http://www.google.co.uk... = To explain the sentient, conscious existence of humans without recourse to fantastical myths of supernatural creation and design we need only look at the theories of science and primarily evolution. Like all animals human beings have senses and are conscious when awake. Intelligence is a trait that greatly benefits individual and species survival. Humans have evolved sufficient intelligence to be very good at reproducing and surviving. http://www.bartleby.com... The significance of continued reproduction and survival is the reason and the biological purpose for the continuation of human life. Therefore one possible meaning of life. This applies to atheists, theists and agnostics alike. I have more to say but I think that will do for now, I look forward to my opponent's arguments and rebuttals. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Obama is a member of the Illuminati because Barrack Obama, though he may or may not have won the 2008 presidential election without their help, has been influenced by the Illuminati to a point such that one is unable to distinguish between him and the Anti-Christ. He has been a member of the Illuminati since at least 2010, and the influence by this organization on the President of the United States has been palpable. Before the debate begins, I would like to define the word "Illuminati" The Illuminati is a 6,000 member organization, comprised of Earth's elite. Their goal is to implement a New World Order, which would be destructive for the human race. The following link adequately defines the "Illuminati" http://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk... I will be taking pro, meaning that I will be arguing that Obama is part of the Illuminati, and that its influence on him has been significant. Your role as con is to prove that Obama is not a member of the Illuminati. This can be done in two ways. You can choose to either argue that the Illuminati does not exist, and therefore, Obama cannot be a member. Or, that the Illuminati exists, just that Barrack Obama is not a member. Alternatively, you can argue that the Illuminati exists, and that Obama is a member, but that its influence on him has been negligible. I wish you luck! <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Should SUV's be illegal or not because The State as means of achieving certain ends can only be employed in a defensive, or reactionary manner, for the role of the state is to stamp out injustice, not to take a proactive role to promote justice. In Bastiat's 'The Law' he establishes the role of the state in the reactionary sense through the role of society acting as a collective. Society can use its collective power to broker dispute resolution, and retribution, but is inevitably constrained from actively protruding from the confines of reaction. The Affirmative stance would call upon society and the state to perform a function or role they are not ethically permitted to perform, and thus would warp the administration of justice by means of corrupting its own ends. All Concessions of Freedom Snowball into increased Tyranny We must say no! Sylvester Petro, professor of law, Wake Forest University, Spring 1974, TOLEDO LAW REVIEW, p.480. However, one may still insist, echoing Ernest Hemingway " "I believe in only one thing: liberty." And it is always well to bear in mind David Hume"s observation: "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." Thus, it is unacceptable to say that the invasion of one aspect of freedom is of no importance because there have been invasions of so many other aspects. That road leads to chaos, tyranny, despotism, and the end of all human aspiration. Ask Solzhenitsyn. Ask Milovan Djilas. In sum, if one believes in freedom as a supreme value, and the proper ordering principle for any society aiming to maximize spiritual and material welfare, then every invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and resisted with undying spirit. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Scenario Debate because Alright, so I will address what my opponent has said this round. "Again, I must reiterate my point that it IS the US's job to protect Taiwan per the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979." This is not necessarily true. Please note the following: "The act stipulates that the United States will "consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States" but does not mandate that the United States intervene in these situations." Note the "NOT MANDATE." This neutralizes my opponent's first statement. "My proposal holds water and my opponents does not as just ignoring them would be unconstitutional." Unconstitutional? Where in our constitution does it say we will always act on Taiwan's behalf? Warrant please. Having negated my opponent's argument, and seeing as he does not attack mine, I urge a negative ballot. Thank you. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Society is getting worse. because 1. Manners My opponent is completely contradictory with his statements. He says that I am only using myself and my experiences as an example, but he is only using HIMself and HIS experiences to draw a conclusion. Therefore if my argument doesn't hold any weight, than his shouldn't either. It's like I've been saying - yes, there are some rude people in today's world. However there are a lot of polite people as well. My opponent provided no proof other than his own experiences to explain the rudeness of today's society. Likewise, I have given examples of common courtesy and respect in today's society, but I acknowledge that there are some terribly rude people out there as well. Therefore the only point that should stand regarding the manners argument is my contention that people are more careful to not blatantly throw around dergoatory terms today, which is true. So a point goes to me here, while no points go to my opponent. 2. Political Correctness/Affirmative Action Again my opponent is offering no facts, but rather his own opinion on what should or should not be PC. Regardless of whether or not you agree with him, his feelings do not constitute what is right and wrong. It was not our forefather's intention to allow us to say Merry Christmas to each other -- that argument is a clearly manipulated interpretation of the separation of Church and State. Rather PC terms exist as an alternative to offensive language, i.e. referring to someone as homosexual or gay rather than a f@g. Further, my opponent is clearly not aware that the PC term for black has shifted from African American BACK to black, even though in his very own example he mentioned his black friend preferred to be called black (hence the change). His attempt at making me look foolish is quite ironic considering that he is the one behind on the times. And finally, my opponent's argument regarding Affirmative Action holds no water. First, most places do not employ the AA policy. In fact, on most job applications or other admission processes, a company will note that a decision will NOT be made based on race, gender, etc. So for all of the places that DO use AA, an equal number of places (or more) do not adhere to the policy. Second, while AA does exist, racism also still exists. At one place a person may get hired because they're black; at another, they may NOT get hired BECAUSE they are black. So in a sense, they cancel each other out. Either way, this argument is void. 3. Censorship Again this is an argument that can be looked at 2 ways. To my opponent, society is going downhill because of decreasing censorship in the media. To others, "Censorship always protects and perpetuates every horror of the prevailing forms of oppression. With us, its subtle disguises increase its evils by creating delusions of safety, liberty and democracy. It precludes that intelligence which is necessary to hasten wholesome and natural social evolution" -- Theodore Schroeder. So think of it this way: not censoring the media comes with the horror of exposing children to the foul language they hear all the time growing up anyway. The dangers of censorship, however, include oppression and tyranny. So don't fret, littlelacroix - a young'n might hear the word bit Oh, and about 9/11, the increasing racial segregation in this country is only a result of the Bush Administration's use of fear mongering. Once a Democrat is back in the White House and the so-called War on Terrorism (a.k.a. let's discriminate against Arab Americans) is over, we can only assume that society will continue on the accepting and progressive track that it was on before. 4. Entertainment So what does my opponent have to say about all this? Well we know that he doesn't like the show Survivor. That's cool - he's entitled to his opinion. However what he considers mindless does not mean that others don't enjoy it for whatever reason. For instance think of a sport - any sport - but I'll use golf as an example. Well in actuality golf is a game that revolves around hitting a tiny ball as far as you can towards a tiny hole in the distance, and then walking up to the ball and hitting it away from you again. This to me seems pretty mindless. Yet millions of people enjoy the game; Hell, it even became a professional sport - one that is played and celebrated by even the most intelligent individuals. So mindless? Maybe. But what does that have to do with anything? Next I'll address my opponent's other points regarding television. He points out that a mother could let her children watch Sponge Bob when she "doesn't want to deal with them" however he pointed out possible alternatives like The Magic School Bus and other PBS programming. Well great! That just proves my point that there is a variety of educational TV that one can watch, children-related or otherwise. Regarding movies, Pro completely contradicts himself. "In 20 years, there will be hundreds of new movie releases and 90% of them are pretty much the same movie as movies created before." He says this after acknowleding that people's taste in movies change and therefore new kinds of movies emerge. However by that logic, then in 20 years from now NEW movie themes and plots will emerge also (just as movies have shifted from 20 years prior to now). He also deems stars like DiCaprio and Depp to be "too old" to be considered great actors of our day (Bull. Wikipedia notes that his very own example of Bob Newhart was the most popular between 1972 and 1978, when he was nearly 50 years old - much older than Depp and DiCaprio, but I digress). In that case consider Ellen Page (21) who was nominated for an Oscar this past year, Haley Joel Osment (nominated for an Academy Award at age 11), or Adrian Brody, who was the youngest man to win an Oscar in 2003. My point is that good actors come and go, and good directors/writers come and go, thus good movies will always come and go. Plus - my opponent didn't touch upon it - but I believe I have included all of the reasons in rounds prior as to why movies are getting better (creativity, technology, etc.). 5. Technology Again my opponent assumes that dependance on technology = laziness. Uh, WRONG. People rely on technology for a lot of reasons, including but not limited to: production of goods (faster, easier, safer and cheaper); fast, global communication (telephones, cell phones, e-mail, etc.); medical advancements (which my opponent did not address at all, but include monumental things such as corrective surgery, implementation of artificial limbs, organ transplants, etc.); entertainment and the economy (gadgets are lucrative). Next my opponent notes the things you "couldn't do before technology" including be exposed to a lot of porn instantly (where's the harm in that, anyway?), or facilitate obesity via television. However the list of things you CAN do *because* of technology is greatly longer than the list of things you COULDN'T. Besides, the positives far outweigh the negatives, even in this debate alone. Consider my examples from the previous paragraph. After admitting society seeks constant improvement, Pro writes, " mankind is even seeking perfection in evil ... These went un-argued by my opponent because he agrees that we are truly perfecting evil." Uh, no. This went unargued because it wasn't addressed before. Anyway, in this paragraph my opponent contests that things like cheating on tests and blackmail have not existed before the invention of things like digital cameras. Give me a break. 6. Conclusion No more characters, but uh, vote CON :) <EOA>

<BOA> I am against A border fence is needed along America and Mexico. because I shall extend arguments as we move on to our final round of debate. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Schools distributing condoms to students because Introduction I'd like to thank IVV for the challenge and interesting resolution. I will be assuming the affirmative position, arguing that condoms should be made readily available to students in middle schools and high schools. Definitions I accept the definitions and terms for the most part, however, I request that "distributing" be changed to "making readily available" to avoid any semantic arguments such as mandates for students to accept condoms, etc. If Con disagrees, I ask that he respond in the comments before posting his first round to avoid potentially unnecessary effort. I eagerly await my opponent's response. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against I will not contradict myself. because Much thanks to my opponent for the opportunity to take part in this fun semi-debate. As my opponent and I have a history of a couple of debates, a dramatically opposed political ideology and a (hopefully reciprocated) mutual respect I think this could be a particularly interesting game. I apologise in advance if my interrogation seems harsh or critical but I think that is pretty much the nature of any interrogation and hope this will not count against me in the conduct category, I reassure my opponent and the readers that I bear him no ill will whatsoever and do not intend to mock or insult in any way if I question his political or spiritual beliefs. 1. Do you think minimum wage laws are always wrong? 2. Do you think the Bible is a good basis for morality? 3. Are you pro-life? 4. Do you think torture is morally permissible? 5. Do you think that workers have the right to organise and argue for fair pay and conditions? 6. Do you think it is morally permissible to allow a child to starve to death? 7. Do you think affirmative action is always wrong? 8. Do you think prejudice is justified a lot of the time? 9. Is Infrared Ed your brother? 10. Does global warming exist? Thankyou. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Ukraine(pro) vs Turkmenistan(con) because You know I'm attacking right? You're defending you know? Nevertheless, onward! June 13 An embargo is on placed on Turkmenistan from Ukraine. The Ukrainian airforce is ready to engage the enemy. To help them Ukraine begins a cyber attack to western Turkmenistan. Since Turkmenistan cyber warfare capabilities are much less than Ukraine's it is not that difficult. They jam radar and communications for Turkmenistan. They send Ukrainian planes meant for attacking to attack the fleet and any Turkmenistan aircraft. Without radar the fight is one sided. They want some kind of control of the Caspian so soldiers paratroop into what seems like the least defended coastal defense craft. This is known as the battle for the Caspian Sea. Losses: Turkmenistan Navy: 3 coastal defense crafts destroyed Aircraft: 5 fixed wing, 2 fighter,interceptor casualties: 64 dead Captured: 1 damaged coastal defense craft and 13 soldiers Losses: Ukraine Aircraft: 3 fixed wing, 1 interceptor Casualties: 3 dead 1 wounded June 15 News of this victory reaches Ukraine and Turkmenistan by now. Morale in Ukraine rises while in Turkmenistan morale sinks(no pun intended). At Azerbaijan, the Ukrainians stationed there begin repairing it for battle. Luckily most of the damage should be repaired by June 30 along with a few Ukrainian improvements. They will use this ship to prevent merchant ships from Turkmenistan going out or in. They know it won't be easy to keep only one ship from holding a blockade, but it will at least hurt it's exports and imports. Also it can be used to help transport a few soldiers and help bombard the coastline. June 26 The ship Ukraine has captured is finishing repairs and slight improvements. The ship is named The Sikorsky, after Igor Sikorsky a famous Ukrainian engineer. Ukraine plans Operation Infiltration. They will land Bekdash then split in two. One will their way around Garabogazkol Aylagy to take out any enemies there. The other will go south and will meet at Turkmenbashi a major port city. The Sikorsky will also help bombard the city. June 30 Operation Infiltration begins. They come in under the cover of night and have soldiers paratroop out of the planes into Bekdash encountering little resistance. They don't have any tanks initially, but they know they must win some victories. They quickly find and try to clear an area suitable for a plane to land. Now that artillery and tanks will be coming it should result in doing better in combat. July 9 With around 20,000 soldiers along with anti-air systems, tanks, other artillery, aircraft ready to come at a minute's notice and around 1 months worth of supplies before running out they split up and go. July 20 They are close to Turkmenbashi. They have had a few minor skirmishes, but since they invaded at an not very populated part of Turkmenistan there are few forces there. Once again combined they attack Turkmenbashi. The Ukrainian army and air support comes in and along with The Sikorsky attack. Surprised at this attack the soldiers there desperately defend there hopeless position. July 21 Ukraine has conquered the city with these casualties. Turkmenistan Soldiers: 3,758 tanks: 49 destroyed or captured AFVs: 128 SPG: 4 towed artillery: 17 MLRS: 7 Aircraft: 7 Ukraine Soldiers: 1,789 tanks: 12 AFVs: 35 SPG: 1 towed artillery: 7 MLRS: 3 Aircraft: 2 Their position is reinforced in case of counter attack. Any ships heading to or from Turkmenistan will be ordered to turn back by the Sikorsky or be destroyed. They issue this warning to all countries in the Caspian Sea. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Mongeese's Ultimate Team War because I'm going to respond to my opponent's strategies out of order, because doing so makes it easier for me to formulate my rebuttals. <"My opponent clearly has unlimited abilities over time. Therefore, he has broken the rules."> I mean, I already addressed this; it's as if my opponent is sticking his fingers in his ears and yelling "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" <"As for the Mewtwo thing, Mewtwo does not use a spoon in the anime."> Spoons are an object; not an ability. <"Doctor Manhattan clearly has unlimited abilities."> ...I mean, there's absolutely no rationale here. My opponent is just making an unsupported claim. I've already addressed the argument that Manhattan has unlimited abilities, so my opponent is essentially rehashing his argument -- he's using points which I've already addressed. <"Superman can hear things around the world. I'm pretty sure that that's the limit. Superman's heat vision cannot vaporize things that cannot be vaporized. They also cannot go through an atmosphere that does not support vaporization."> The fact that my opponent actually answered these questions is telling me that he misunderstands my argument. I wasn't at all trying to say that Superman has unlimited abilities; I was saying that questions such as the ones my opponent asked are futile. I then asked questions of the same fashion to him to help show why -- but my opponent seemingly didn't realized that, and answered the questions anyway, and in doing so, helped show the futility of his own questions. So...thanks. As I said: "if Doctor Manhattan is against the rules by your logic, then so would Superman be." ...since Superman isn't against the rules, then Manhattan mustn't be, either. <"My opponent claims that Doctor Manhattan and Nezarr can do the planning for him. According to Rule 7, that is the team leader's job."> My plan is to let them plan a counterattack to my opponents attack by using Doctor Manhattan's ability to see the future, and Nezarr the Calculator and Manhattan's extreme intelligence. So yeah, no rule is broken. <"My opponent thinks that time power will mean anything. However, he forgets Jimmy Buffett, whose mere presence causes the planet to become Margaritaville."> There is absolutely zero logic behind the above statement. Whether the planet is "Margaritaville" or not is completely independent from Manhattan's ability to cease time. <"Time is already stopped, although people can still move about and such. Time does not pass."> ...time not passing is exactly why people *can't* "move about and such." My opponent just isn't making sense here. <"Yugi's Brain Control and Change of Heart are more absolute. Furthermore, you can't use mind control on Yugi, as Yami Yugi prevents that with the Millennium Puzzle. Link is protected with his Triforce of Courage, Ganondorf cannot be controlled once he converts himself into Twilight particles to take over someone else. Furthermore, both Superman and Jimmy Buffett are drunk because of Margaritaville, and Yugi, Link, and Ganondorf are in the Shadow Realm, protecting them from Margaritaville. Again, bar fight."> The Millennium Puzzle is mere matter, which both Manhattan and the Silver Surfer can control. They can destroy the the Millennium Puzzle if they see fit, which therefore negates Yugi's anti-mind control crap. Plus, Yugi's cards can be destroyed, as well. So can he. They're all composed of energy and matter, which means they're at the will of Manhattan and the Surfer; they can do anything they want to Yugi. As for Link, here's some info on the Triforce of courage: "The Triforce of Courage seems to grant its holder certain abilities, though this is never canonically confirmed." (1) So, the idea that the Triforce of Courage protects Link cannot be verified by the "canon" my opponent has chosen, which therefore means it's irrelevant, and that my opponent has broken a rule by applying a trait to Link which is "non-canonical." Besides, it wouldn't be too difficult for Manhattan nor the Surfer to break the Triforce of Courage up, leaving Link even more vulnerable than he would be. Link can also be essentially evaporated by either of them. So can Jimmy Buffett. I'd also like to point out that my opponent's "bar fight" strategy can be used against him, if I chose to control Buffett rather than evaporate him. And Ganondorf wouldn't get an opportunity to change forms -- as I said, *any* attack my opponent launch's at my team will be consequently counterattacked, and thus negated, thanks to Manhattan and Nezarr the Calculator. Ganondorf would either be evaporated, controlled, sent into space, etc. There are many things which could be done to make it so Ganondorf wouldn't even get a chance to use his power. <"Yugi can take control of two people at once, and Ganondorf can control another. Together, they can control Mewtwo, Nezarr the Calculator, and the Silver Surfer. Yugi can then sacrifice all three to summon the Winged Dragon of Ra, eliminating them. Ra would have the strength of all three of them combined."> Although I've already negated the possibility of this happening (with my response to my opponent's fifth point), I'll respond anyway: I'd still be left with Doctor Manhattan and Apocalypse. Manhattan is essentially unable to be defeated, anyway, but Apocalypse could easily give Manhattan his complete power, and Manhattan could then create as many copies of himself as he wanted. The Winged Dragon of Ra, nor anyone or anything, would be any match for 1,000,000 Doctor Manhattan's with Apocalypse's power combined with him. Especially since Manhattan cannot be killed, nor perceived. You can't defeat what you can't see, hear, or touch, especially when it has the power of two of the most powerful character's in the comic book/graphic novel universe. <"Anyways, my original plans remain uncontested."> Not at all. In fact, my strategies are the ones which remain "uncontested," especially the following one: "1: before my opponent can even think about making a move, Doctor Manhattan's ability to see the future allows him know what pro's team will do; the simply insane intelligence of him and Nezarr the Calculator then allow them to come up with a counterattack for any possible strategy pro could use, which means there's seemingly no strategy which can be used by pro to defeat my team, because they know what will happen, and are therefore, prepared." None of my other strategies have been rationally rebutted, either. Yugi's cards and puzzle can easily be destroyed, making him very susceptible to mind control, and making it so that he can't use any mind control of his own. That in mind, my second strategy obviously stands (I'd post it again, but yeah...character limit.) My opponent hasn't offered a logical retort to #3, #4, nor #5, either; Manhattan can still easily vanquish them to the outer limits of the universe, or some plant which would then be destroyed, and he can still evaporate them (as can the Surfer.) I've already shown that my opponent's team is still susceptible to mind control, so yeah. <"Simply put, my team cannot be defeated by my opponent's team; my team's ability to know what my opponent's team will do before they do it makes it so that they can counter anything my opponent does."> This point still remains, as well. ... I'd like to point out something my opponent had said earlier: <"Doctor Manhattan has immortality and intangibility, which means that he can never be defeated."> My opponent admits that Manhattan cannot be defeated, which means my team can't be defeated, which means my opponent can't win. He's essentially conceded the debate. ...I have more to say, but, unfortunately, the character limit is making it so that I can't post it, so yeah. (1) = http://zelda.wikia.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Schools distributing condoms to students because INTRODUCTION I’d like to thank Con for the brisk response and apologize for the delay in my own. REFUTATIONS 1: Con attempts to degrade the value of using a condom by hyperbolically deeming it “extremely ineffective”, while even when used improperly , condoms have an 82% chance of preventing unwanted pregnancies. Notice how the fact that when utilized properly, the chances of preventing an unwanted pregnancy spikes to a startling 98%. [1] Con provides no studies or sources indicating any sort of correlation between age and the improper implementation of condoms, thereby rendering this point speculative and consequently, moot. Con states that the availability of condoms lulls teenagers into a false sense of security regarding intercourse due to the apparent exaggeration of condom effectiveness. In order for this point to hold any weight, Con must provide evidence that a majority of schools misrepresent said effectiveness; otherwise this is again, speculative. Furthermore, the misrepresentation (if it existed) does nothing to damage the fact that making condoms readily available can in no way increase the risks of sex as it in fact, accomplishes the exact opposite. “ A recent study conducted in Philadelphia high schools found that school-based condom programs do not encourage sexual activity. Philadelphia high schools have made condoms available through a comprehensive school-based health resource center. Sixty-four percent of students questioned at the health centers reported engaging in sex; the same number as students in schools that lack health centers and condom access programs . In Massachusetts, the availability of condoms in schools also did not lead to increased sexual activity. A study comparing condom use before and after the program found a 43 percent increase in condom use in sexually active students. No study has conclusively shown that making contraceptives available to teens leads to increased sexual activity, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. ”[2] This study clearly refutes the entirety of Con’s first contention. The study also shows a clear increase in condom usage and accordingly, a decrease in the risks of sexual intercourse (unless Con would contest the male condom’s effectiveness at reducing unwanted pregnancies and STIs). 2: Presenting condoms to students in a publicly funded environment will offend students of a wide range of faiths and their respective families, including those of the Catholic faith, many of those of the (Orthodox and Conservative) Judaic faith, and many of those of the Protestant faith. [2] By giving students access to condom and encouraging their use, public schools are interfering with the fundamental religious beliefs of students and their families. If one is against making condoms available to students because it may offend students of certain faiths, one must also be against several other aspects of high schools such as serving pork and other meat in the cafeteria as it would offend the Islamic community. This was the exact argument I attempted to avoid with my redefinition of “distribute”, albeit this is slightly tangent to my previously intended target. Schools with condom-access programs are in no way forcing any students to use or even accept condoms. If being exposed to the mere notion of condoms will deeply offend a student practicing the religions Con has mentioned, the world outside schools would therefore be horrendous and intolerable. “ Opponents of sex education also believe that these programs violate the rights of parents to education their children about moral behavior and religious values. But the truth is that these programs do not preclude the right of a parents to teach a child anything. They simply prevent the use of the public schools to impose religious beliefs on students. Those who argue that the mandate of schools is only to teach academic subjects forget that public high schools are the best place for sex education and condom availability programs because the schools are full of teenagers and of adults who are trained and willing to counsel them. ”[3] The completely passive exposure to different ideals and opinions is abundant in modern society, in fact, that is the premise of a learning environment such as a school. If parents do not want their children to use contraceptives such as male condoms, they have every right to attempt to instil said beliefs into their child. Condom-access oriented safe-sex programs do nothing to directly undermine this. In fact, as bolded in the passage above, schools are not to impose any one religion’s beliefs and teachings on the students, and succumbing to parents practicing the aforementioned religions would be indirectly doing just that. Also note that Con has presented no sources pertaining to objections by parents to the distribution of condoms. 3: Con is misrepresenting the aims of safe-sex programs in schools when he states “ If the school wants them to not have sex, why would it give them condoms that they could use as contraception during intercourse? Hence, the distribution of condoms contradicts a school's attempts to promote abstinence. ” What Con neglects to realize (or rather communicate), is that schools and their faculty are generally not in 100% agreement with themselves regarding teenagers engaging in sex. Schools simply promote abstinence for teens as the first choice of action and, by having the logicality to realize only a minority will choose this option, also provide the option of safe -sex via open male condom availability. Con again states that making condoms readily available will lead to increased sexual activity (which I have already proven is false[2]) and that said increased sexual activity, if it existed, “ may lead to situations in which [students] may be physically hurt or exploited, due to their lack of mental maturity and physical vulnerability ”, which is completely unsupported and therefore irrelevant. CONCLUSION I have therefore refuted all of Con’s contentions and coincidentally, their converses coincide with and have become my arguments. As the distribution (as re-defined in my first round) of condoms is not detrimental to students in terms of safety, the promotion of sexual activity, or the religious beliefs, there stands no reason to deny schools the opportunity to safeguard their students from the risks of unprotected sex. Thank you. I await Con’s response. _____ Sources 1. http://www.youngwomenshealth.org... 2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... <EOA>

<BOA> I am with War memorials do more harm than good. because Greetings to my opponent and welcome to Round 2 -- Good luck! For the purpose of this debate, a war memorial will be defined as a building, monument, statue or other edifice to celebrate a war or victory, or (predominating in modern times) to commemorate those who died or were injured in war (Source: Wikipedia). If my opponent disagrees with the definition, I ask that he provide another relavent to the resolution as soon as possible. So without further ado (or is it adieu?), let's begin! -- Jimmy Carter once said, "War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good." The word war itself is practically synonomous with violence and death, or at least severe conflict. Since when are these things that are to be celebrated or glorified? Surely my opponent will note that war memorials are meant to REMEMBER the lives lost during times of war and not celebrate them. However that is not necesarilly the case. For instance, consider the obelisks that are scattered around the cities of Rome. Each of them tells a story, usually one regarding an important battle or victory for the Romans. Do you think the stories were illustrated to depict the heroism embraced by soldiers on both sides of the battle? Or were they glorified tales of destruction and conquer on Rome's behalf? Obviously they were the latter; the very concept of the obelisk as a war memorial was stolen from Alexandria (the Greeks) in 30 BC after Rome had defeated them in battle. This example proves that some war memorials do in fact glorify and celebrate war itself. Obviously the applause for such an atrocity would be harmful toward society (promoting violence, ignoring the magnitude of war's consequence, etc.). We know the effects that war memorials can have on individuals. Many of us become emotional and experience intense feelings of patriotism and in turn nationalism. But nationalism is not always a good thing. Ironically, history shows us how nationalism could even be attributed to the cause of a major war (i.e. WWI). It can also promote racism and xenophobia (fear of foreigners). In this day and age, we should be embracing diversity and rejecting notions of superiority over other nations. It is those types of feelings that emulate a negative impression of us throughout the world, and can even make us a target of terror. "For three decades the twin towers of New York's World Trade Center stood as the symbol of American economic might, as powerful an icon for capitalism as the Statue of Liberty is for freedom" (Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com... ). Thus we can see how a symbol that is supposed to be celebrated can actually lead to turmoil and destruction. If such a tragedy could be imposed upon tall office buildings, think of what people could do to a symbol of war -- war is always controversial. From the time we are impressionable children, society teaches us that war memorials are things to be embraced and shown reverence to. Often they stand tall and architecturally sound right in the town square or in a prominent city relavent to the memorial's purpose. We are told that we should appreciate what those monuments stand for and the achievements or courage exemplified by the soliders who fought for a purpose. But speaking of those very soldiers, what type of say do they have in all this? Little to none. Many memorials are constructed and dedicated to fallen military personnel. But what if these fallen patriots do not wish to celebrate their own deaths? What if their families don't? What if these former soldiers do not deem it respectful to celebrate something that caused others (the opposing side) sorrow, heartbreak, bankruptcy and/or death? Truly there is never a 'winner' in any war. Why honor something so destructive, especially if those honored do not deem it appropriate? Indeed not all veterans support the construction of certain war memorials, especially when they infringe upon the environment or aim to disturb an already tranquil setting. This CNN source cites an example of veterans themselves in opposition -- "'I think I have as much right to talk about things like this as most of the people who are advocating destroying this Mall,' Navy veteran John Floberg told Reuters. 'I'd like to think I did a good job ... but I'm not arrogant enough to think that any one of us has the same right to be memorialized on this Mall as George Washington or Abraham Lincoln.'" Another veteran notes, "'I protest what is being done in my name. I am so sorry that my legacy may include the desecration of the Mall" (Source: http://archives.cnn.com... ). Additionally, many soldiers unfortunately suffer from PTSD or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Certain prominent symbols - especially war memorials - are bound to trigger an array of emotions from soldiers who have fought in a war and are still haunted by its effects. Thus rather then making a solider feel proud, war memorials have the capacity to negatively effect and even harm veterans who do not wish to be reminded of their endeavors. This is further instigated by celebrations at or around these memorials, such as events that feature military bands playing war-era songs like the one in my previous example (regarding the Mall). Moving on, I think I have already proved how and why war memorials can be very disrespectful to both the living and deceased on both sides of the conflict. However let's assume for a second that a war memorial was built to honor those lives lost and was very much appreciated and celebrated by soldiers and their families alike. Naturally *someone* is going to be offended by its presence and ultimately seek a way to destroy it or its grandeur. For that reason, people may choose to negatively utilize the area surrounding the memorial, say by using it as a focal point for rallies or other disruption, or more significantly, some people may choose to damage or deface the memorial that was so important and special to others. This would cause great emotional damage to those who placed a certain amount of significance on the memorial. To solve this potential problem, I forsee my opponent opting for one of two strategies. One, he can point out that people construct fences around their homes which also get defaced (maybe I'm just used to that because I'm from NY)... should we cease to stop building fences? Of course not. But obviously a fence does not represent something of such magnitude such as a war, nor does it draw about such intense emotions. Two, it could be suggested we make the memorial 'impossible' to destroy either by hiring guards or building some sort of protective shield. To counter this, I bring up another good point: Who's paying? It is true that many war memorials are a result of contributions from veterans and other private donors. However most war memorials are in fact government funded. Why should tax payers have to spend money towards something so frivolous (I use the word frivolous due to our current economic crisis) when money could be better spent elsewhere? I understand the thinking behind the promotion of war memorials. Obviously many brave people have made tremendous sacrifices including their own lives and deserve to be recognized for their contribution. However war memorials simply do more harm than good. There are other ways of attributing proper gratitude and respect for veterans of war without them. Unfortuntately for this round I have run out of characters, however, within the next two I will 1) suggest sufficient alternatives to war memorials, and 2) discuss the various levels of controversy that currently surround them. I welcome the opportunity for my opponent to touch upon these subject matters first if he so chooses. Again, good luck -- I look forward to Con's rebuttal. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Resolved: Democracy is best upheld through strict seperation of church and state because First I will address his attacks on my case and then I will reattack his case. He begins his attack on my case by saying that I assume that all you voters are Christian. I did no such thing. I merely provided scriptural evidence to OPPOSE his own scriptural evidence. As you can see I provide many other forms of non-bias evidence to prove my point. His next attack is also against my case in general. He says that the examples I provided are not relevant to the resolution. Well my opponent is misinformed. These are all examples taken from United States current events. They are cases being tried in civil and criminal courts under the name of strict separation of church and state. If this is how our government has been interpreting 'strict' recently then it is obvious that these examples are relevant, because I am putting this debate in context of today's world. Something my opponent fails to do altogether. He doesn't look at the results of strict separation. My opponent states that Democracy is more important than Natural Rights because it is used in the resolution. The connection that my opponent fails to make is that Democracy was founded upon the protection of Natural Rights and thus Natural Rights are superior. In spite of this, we can still see how I uphold even his value of Democracy along with my value of Natural Rights. The strict separation of church and state will, as I have proven, destroy both democracy and natural rights thus his value supports my case. I ask not for laws that favor a church in the name of lenient separation of church and state, but instead ask for the destruction of laws that provide for the disfavor of a church in the name of strict separation of church and state. My opponent completely misinterprets my criterion of social contract. I shall fix this by listing fallacies in this attack as a list. 1. Hobbes was not British but instead Irish. 2. His social contract stated that man is naturally evil and will take advantage of one another if left to themselves (anarchy). Thus he proposes that the government (HE DOESN'T SPECIFY WHICH GOVERNMENT) is set in place to keep this natural tendency from occurring. Our own democracy was founded on a mix of both John Locke's and Thomas Hobbes' social contract theories. Thus my criterion applies to all governments including democracies. 3. Thus my criterion stands. He states that my first contention is against the resolution and that it therefore does not back up my case. This is true. It does not back up my case but instead stands as further attack on the aspects of his case that claim that the bible stands for his case. He attacks my second contention by saying that a SUPREME COURT RULING has proven me wrong. And that the info I provide is purely bias. First of all my interpretation was not bias. It was from a book called the Constitutional Commentary co-authored by over two hundred men and women from various religions, parties, races, social backgrounds, and geological areas. Thus it is not bias but is instead a very well balanced interpretation of the Constitution. I would also like to bring up the so called Supreme Court trial that he provides. For yours and his information that very court case was overturned FIVE YEARS LATER. Thus his point is irrelevant. But there's my point. The Supreme Court is not a reliable source for long term morality ideology because it is so fickle. The court has changed its stances on many issues including Church and State for its entire life time. How do we know which one is right? The answer: we can't. Thus the supreme court is not a valid source of info in this debate. Pertaining to his attack on my third contention, I'd like to repeat. I am not for total integration of church and state, but am instead for the partial separation of the two. Why? because as I've proven with the examples from current events, the STRICT separation is going to far and infringing on certain people's rights. Only partial separation has proven to be effective and right. I'm not saying that the church should have a say in the government's every decision, but instead not be totally alienated from society by such separation laws. Now on to his case. My opponent rebuilds his entire case in general by saying that I attack the word 'strict'. He then goes on to say that the church is too powerful of an organization to have a say in government. I agree. Any one church or religion is too powerful to affect government alone. That's why I ask for equal protection of all religions from said strict separation laws. Over 40% of those current event cases I showed to you all were actually against the Muslim, Hindu, and Bhuddists faiths. All of the historical problems due to integration of church and state were due to complete integration and only one religion. There is no negative historical proof that says a lenient separation and protection of all religions will not be successful. He doesn't rebuild my attacks on his value or criterion and first contention. Thus my attacks stand and his case fails. He rebuilds his second contention by pointing out his attacks on my second contention, which I have effectively refuted. Thus his rebuild fails. He rebuilds his third contention by saying that allowing one child to pray in school around those of other religions is offensive to other children. This is preposterous. If a child wants to pray on his/her own before lunch or before the start of school, then let him/her do so because it is their natural right. In conclusion I have shown my opponent's undemocratic arguments, shown where his purposes will take any democracy, and shown how the opposite is best for this nation as well as any other democracy. His case is weak because it degrades natural rights, religious freedoms, and democracy. To put it simply, in a democracy, the people are the government. As I have proven, all people have a religion of some sort. Thus in a democracy there is no way to strictly separate church and state and still have a democracy. Thus the Negative is the only logical choice in this debate. I now urge you to vote for the negative ballot. Thank You all. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with drugs because MMMMMMH GIRL THATS WHAT I THOUGHT BECAUSE I GAVE A BETTER ARGUMENT hehehehehehehehehehehehehhehehe madelyn ellie Rasch <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Naruto seriously owns Bleach. because I must admit, I'm surprised Con didn't immediately surrender upon seeing that I intended to use 'The Sexy Technique' against him. However, he brings up a good point - is Naruto really still a man when he transforms? Well, the description says that he *transforms* into a woman, so no, he isn't a tranny. Besides, the question wasn't whether you would find it wrong that you were attracted to a man who suddenly has transformed into a naked woman, the question was whether you would be able to *resist*. And let's be honest, some of you guys are pretty desperate. With that in mind, let's continue. 1: On plot fails. a. Con contends that Kenpachi might have become more powerful in the interval leading to his battle with the fifth espada. I concede that this is possible, though not documented anywhere. However, are we really to believe that Kenpachi has grown more than five times as powerful as he was before? Aizen stated that he has double the reiatsu of a normal captain [1], implying that there is an average power level for the captains, of which he is double (since reiatsu is generally regarded as a rough indicator of how powerful a soul reaper is in Bleach - i.e. the captains have far more than their lieutenants). If Kenpachi was powerful enough to become a captain and then became more than five times stronger, that would have the absurd implication that Kenpachi is far more powerful than Aizen. b. Con contends that since Ichigo has not seen Aizen's release, then Aizen's ability is useless against him. However, this is simply not tenable. Ichigo and Aizen had been fighting for two arcs and dozens of chapters, with no sign of Ichigo attempting to avoid looking at Aizen's sword; Aizen could have easily shown him the release. Even more importantly, Ichigo states that he mustn't 'look at the shikai', and states that 'BECAUSE OF THAT' he 'has to decide it with one attack' [2] when he tries to launch a sneak attack on Aizen. The clear implication is that if Ichigo got into an extended battle with Aizen he would be able to use his ability on Ichigo. 2. On recent arc ending. Con concedes that the Bleach arc ending was poor, but maintains that the arc ending with Pein was even worse. I'll address this in a moment, but let me point out that while Pein has only been a villain in Naruto for a relatively short time, Aizen has been the main antagonist in Bleach for most of its running, so the lack luster ending here bit much harder. But was the arc ending poor? Con summarises it too briefly to appreciate it or put it into context. Firstly, Naruto had been in an epic extended battle with all Pein's bodies for several chapters beforehand. When he finds Pein's real body, it's a shrivelled husk not really capable of fighting properly. Naruto, instead of deciding to fight him, decides to listen to Pein's story and come to a conclusion on how to break 'the cycle of hatred' Pein has fought to resolve. Naruto doesn't just say "you are trying to kill a lot of people and should stop, but I'm not going to stop you if you continue" and cross his fingers: he listens to Pein's story to understand his motivations and ideology, and then uses the words of his mentor (whom Pein killed) to persuade Pein to stop. Far from lackluster, it's a well conceived conclusion that brings together a great number of previous events. If Naruto had been prepared to kill Pein, that would have missed the whole point - Pein went down that route and fell to evil, whereas it takes strength to break the cycle of hatred without killing. 3: The characters. I agree that looking at the main characters can't tell you everything - however, it's very important considering the main plot revolves around the main character. Con brings up some side-characters that have had some development over the run of the series. However, they don't even compare to characters like Sasuke, Itachi, Tsunade, Sakura or any number of other characters from Naruto, all of which have deeper, more intricate and detailed backgrounds, and who have progressed in a much more significant way - from love-sick girl to disillusioned teenager, from drunken gambler to Hokage, from resentful child to maniacal mass murderer. Con points out that Bleach also blurs the borders between good and evil - well for a start, the example he gives (Rukia's execution) was fairly contrived in any case, IMO - a typical save the distressed heroine storyline. But my point was broader than that - that the characters have developed a great deal, much more than the characters in Bleach. Con argues that Naruto is being inconsistent. However, I think it's clear form the context that what Naruto is talking about is killing, not fighting. In any case, the fight in the recent chapter was hardly a serious fight, never mind one to the death. 4: Artwork. I think that Con is confusing number of line strokes with detail here. The best drawing are economical - i.e., they use as few strokes as possible to avoid looking cluttered, but still convey detail. I think that if people look at Con's examples from Bleach (for example, Bleach 350 Page 17 [3]), it's far from obvious that they're more detailed, but they may be more cluttered. In any case, to be honest I don't see much difference between the two (Con's references are in the comments section) and Con concedes this is a relatively minor point in any case. It's difficult to evaluate the superiority of one art style over another, especially when they're so similar and over such a long period of time, like Bleach and Naruto. [1] http://www.mangafox.com... [2] http://www.mangareader.net... [3] http://www.mangafox.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Video Games Cause Bad Behavior because To answer your questions, Garbage in equals garbage out and You are what you eat. If I am wrong please address them in your rebuttal. Now as I said before you must get in significant trouble to be counted as bad behavior. So what games would be included to this list? I would say a game all my friends play would be GTA IV, the MW series, and some fighting games such as Tekken and Soul Calibur. My friends don't go around shooting people or trying to cut people in half with a crystal sword, we are "normal" I use that loosely since normal is a generalized term. Now here is where I stand, people who use the "The game made me do it" excuse are stupid people who don't deserve to play games. They are misusing the games to get what they want. I also say if the parents think the kids aren't ready for it they shouldn't buy them the game in the first place. I mean anyone who has played MW knows how annoying they can be, and if I am not mistaken a grown man actually chocked a kid(didn't kill him) because the kid made fun of him. http://www.youtube.com... Now saying that does necessarily causes bad behavior but then you can't call one incident a "oh my gosh you just lost your case". That is wrong. This is an isolated case. Now going back to the MW series. It is probably the most frustrating game ever created, and people who hate Halo that might be the number 1 to you. How do people say games cause bad behavior? They say it because of violence. Repeating myself, the parents bought these games, and if they didn't they sure know they are playing it! If you don't want your kids "being mean to kids" because of this game, STOP THEM FROM PLAYING IT! Who says they aren't being mean because of the parents, because of bullies, or even because they are just trying to get attention and ruin games for kids. If one kid, this is just a random scenario, kills a kid from playing GTA IV I am pretty sure the parents will stop the kids from playing this game. Now having this so called "bad behavior" is a bad generalization for kids. The parents may think their child is this perfect angel of a kid when they may actually be a bully ruining a kids life but when they finally notice it they will blame the game! If this is true isn't TV evil as well. Football makes adults to some crazy things and things that kids are watching today such as Adventure Time and Regular Show, which use choice words that aren't allowed in school. So games in general can't cause bad behavior they don't even promote bad behavior, they depict bad behavior such as killing people but for some people games are actually a release or escape from the real world. I shall leave my arguments at this and if you can't get the video I shall repost it in my next argument. I also know Thanksgiving is this week so I hope that won't get in the way. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Can something be true for you, but not be true for me? because You're giving me the awful impression that you do not understand my arguments. I never said that everything is a matter of opinion. What I am saying is that not everything is true or false. You cannot possibly divide the world into truths and lies. Many things stay subjective. They do not have an absolute truth because they might be controversial. It only makes sense to say that not everything on this planet can be completely justified. My opponent also believes in what the bible says. He is contradicting himself right there because there is no shred of evidence for the existence of these miraculous events. So you might believe in biblical truth yet most scientists oppose your view and so do I. Believing is not knowing. another silly example: A schoolmate of yours said that your mom is mean. It might be true for him but you do not agree with him because you've also seen your mother on good days. Therefore, it's a matter of belief or opinion. Believing is mostly assuming. That's what we do in our everyday lives. By the way, I have never ever met a relativist who said that everything is relative. Yes, there is an indisputable objective truth like that apple on that tree. Agreed. But what about moral issues? Or how to raise a child? Or social inequality? All these big questions are a matter of perception. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with tablets vs textbooks because Tablets should be used in schools over textbooks because tablets are more savvy and they contribute a more active learning base for students. If students are granted the opportunity to use tablets in class they will not only learn more, they will also learn computer tips that will impact them positively for their future. Textbooks are becoming less used in todays society and as our world becomes more and more technologically advanced, schools should as well. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Resolved: China is, or will have reached superpower status in the near future. because I had fun too! 1) Military power. Your source says nothing on them being caught up in technology. They are on the right track is what it speaks of consistently (and they are). I have already shown that their "advanced fighters" are 20 year old Russian designs. Just looking at the pictures from his source shows their Cold War Era technology. They are even bragging about Cold War Era technology. His source said "When asked Khrushchev condemning us ... "missiles plus one satellite... For example, the "hawk hit 12″ supersonic anti-ship missiles, using solid punching power, the maximum flight speed of more than three times the speed of sound, penetration ability, long-distance, is the latest generation of anti-ship, anti-aircraft carrier "killer." Also, the "East Wind 41-type" missile, "waves-II" submarine-launched ballistic missiles, only to hear its sound, has made enemies Ghost Ship. China Eastern tribe missiles, has both nuclear and can do all kinds of range, power and have made, you can flexibly and effectively applied to a variety of strategic, tactical battlefield, effectively defeating the enemy" This is all technology the real superpowers had 30+ years ago. It is a fact that they are outdated. China is on the right track and that is it. They have lots of troops that are poorly trained. Size means nothing. That is prove through history Sun Tzu agrees "Other conditions being equal, if one force is hurled against another ten times its size, the result will be the flight of the former." [1] Meaning if all being equal the army 10 times the size will be the fleeing army. Conclusion. Their military is a great power but not a superpower 2)Population It is a prove fact that China has a huge population. Their population is backwards though. They have 4 grandparents and 2 parents for every 1 Child. If they want to be a Superpower they have to have a population that is young not old. If they want to be a superpower it is not a 5 -15 year long deal to be a superpower you have to stay powerful for quite awhile. China's population is not only unsustainable but they are very poor and will have a very low workforce percentage. Conclusion. They have a huge population that is old or will be old and reduces their workforce percentage. They are also very poor and their size is unsustainable. Their workforce will be to low to support a superpower. 3)Economy I don't have to argue with my opponent. His sources do for me. They all state how is some way they are to dependant on the U.S. or other countries. "Half of the world's economies are linked to that of the United States and investment by its entrepreneurs. Again, the United States leads the world in technological invention, which is the key to economic progress and development. Most of the manufacturing hubs in China are established by the US-based companies and any sanction by the government of that country can create problems for the Chinese economy."[2] You also state they are the largest exporter. Which on the surface sounds good. I pointed out earlier how that is a negative though. It is good to export usable products but China doesn't they export U.S. goods. Not food, not medicine...toys and clothes. Not only that their economy is on the decline I showed many stats that showed you can only grow so fast and they are hitting their peak. You can't use the past to judge the future. Their economy is on a decline while India's is going up. Their 4-2-1 will kick in and they will launch back down. They make have a lot of money but they only make 4,000 per capita! Also your 10 trillion dollar GDP number isn't a fact it an idea. 2011 isn't over that is one mans opinion on what it will be. As of right now it is 3.175 trillion.[3] Halfway through the year. Do you see a 10 trillion dollar outcome with that? Conclusion I can't believe we are still talking about their economy. It is prove it can't be sustained with their population, its not possible! They make $4,000 per capita! that isn't enough to buy each person a car. A large portion of their civilians still live in huts. It doesn't matter if their GDP is super high if they can't support their own people! They are controlled by other countries (why being a huge exporter can be bad) If NATO stops trading with them they literally make nothing. The argument about their economy is dead in the water. 4) Nuclear Power My opponent states "This is not necessarily a characteristic, but an indicator of great military power. As only a relatively few highly powerful nations have the ability to obtain nuclear weapons. China has a nuclear weapons stockpile, there is no debating this" This statement is utterly false states with nuclear capabilities (not including for energy) " Acknowledged: Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, Russia, United States, North Korea Unacknowledged: Israel Abandoned: South Africa—Constructed but then voluntarily dismantled six uranium bombs. Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine—When Soviet Union broke up, these former states possessed nuclear warheads that they have since given up."[4] Would you consider these countries superpower? No, terrorist can get nuclear bombs. They are not a superpower. Nuclear capability proves nothing for superpower status. Just that they want a big bomb. Conclusion My opponent is simply wrong. Nuclear bombs are easily obtained in today's time. Many countries and terrorist organizations can get nuclear bombs and they are not being considered superpowers. Even more countries have nuclear power plants and can easily make a nuclear bomb. Nuclear has nothing to do with a superpower status anymore. 5)Global Influence Like I said in Economy. They are controlled by other countries. They can't be too influential or the major countries will pull the rug out from under them. They can exert their will as long as the major countries will deal with it. Just like now the business owners are sending business to Mexico and India and the U.S. is punishing them! Conclusion Their influence is limited by the countries they are dependant on. Final Conclusion 1)Military Their military is a great power but not a superpower. It is a fact their technology is out of date. My opponents sources agree with me. They do have a huge army but their skill is more important. Not only does history prove it Sun Tzu who wrote the Art of War wrote it down. 2)Population They have a huge population that is old or will be old and reduces their workforce percentage. They are also very poor and their size is unsustainable. Their workforce will be to low to support a superpower. 3)Economy Any country that boasts a GDP per capita of $4,000 is not a superpower. Any country dependant on another countries technology is not a superpower. Any country with a vast margin of their civilians still living in dirt floor huts are not a superpower. China is all of thee above. 4)Nuclear Power Nuclear power is irrelevant in modern day times. It is too easily obtainable and can be packed into a suitcase. They teach the fundamentals to high school kids and terrorist and small countries have the capabilities. 5)They are just as influential as none superpowers and their influence is limited by the countries that control them. Their influence is at a minimum. I thank my opponent for a fun debate and causing me to get no homework done! [1] http://classics.mit.edu... [2] http://www.ezega.com... [3] http://nextbigfuture.com... [4] http://www.infoplease.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Communism: Are you for it? because Giving the fact that my opponent broke her own rule, I think it`s fair to declare that I win <EOA>

<BOA> I am with The deregulated "free" market is unsustainable because Free Market - Business governed by the laws of supply and demand, not restrained by government interference, regulation or subsidy. Externality - Activities and conditions whose benefits (called external economies) and costs (called external dis-economies) are not reflected in the market price of goods and services. The primary feature of an externality is that one entity's action directly or indirectly changes the options available to other entities. Regulation - Principle or rule (with or without the coercive power of law) employed in controlling, directing, or managing an activity, organization, or system. The free market has been a beloved ideal economic system for the majority of modern nations around the globe. (Particularly in U.S.) A system that is based on supply and demand, profit motivation and individual empowerment. Through the exploration of this economic system; Many great accomplishments have been achieved through what we are lead to believe is simply just the magic of the market place. In other words.. The free market is accepted in modern society as generally self-sufficient. In the United States, whomever considers themselves to be on the right end of the spectrum usually will say that the only problems that face our economic system is the government's regulations. Regardless of what purpose the regulatory agencies had been established for; If the regulations in question were to interfere with "business as usual", it would be considered blasphemy.. THIS is a problem. When having a society that revolves around profit motivation and self empowerment, one can't help but wonder what keeps the peace? How can we make everyone accountable? How can we protect the "American Dream" and equal opportunity if we believe that big business is to big to fail? (Keep in mind the federal reserve is about as federal as federal express) How could we possibly create a system that is 100% work-based compensated? How can we fight poverty if there is no incentive? How are we supposed to end war, when those whom exploit it make millions from it? Questions like these and many others are left unanswered, and above all else are frowned upon. However intellectuals through history have shed light on this very subject time and time again. Ether it would be the myth of the free market's false divinity of work based compensation. "The payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product" - Albert Einstein. Or the alarming growth of intertwining of the private sector over the government. "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."-Thomas Jefferson ****Those who advocate a completely deregulated free market with the expansion of tax cuts do a major disservice to their public.. Not only are they encouraging the major decrease in federal revenue (Single handedly under funding various national programs.) but they advocate to make the private sector more and more unaccountable..**** The premise of the very claim of "The free market is unsustainable" can be summed up in very simple philosophical way. If you have a society based on profit motivation and innovation created from dire struggles to compete.. Or in other words a society inspired by a materialistic rhetoric that paints the image of only to look out for number one. Eventually the people involved in this society will have created a permanent upper class that will inevitably and exponentially create an unbeatable force that by no means can be competed with. Creating what we would refer to as monopolies. When a corporation has the power to basically control the means of more than half, or g-d forbid 3/4's of certain market or industry.. Something is very wrong. Not only are these private externalizing machines dominating the markets by out rages numbers, they are protected by the very society that they harm. I.E. Tea baggers, neo-cons and faux liberals who push for deregulation. But enough talk, let me list some examples of dominated markets in America that are currently harming society and what some people would say, destroying the "American dream." 1. The beer industry. Dominated by : Anheuser-busch and the newly merged corporation, Millercoors. Percentage of the market: Anheuser-busch (50%) Miller and Coors combined (29%) Source: Beer institute 2008 US market share for brewers. 2. The energy drink industry. Dominated by : Monster and Redbull. Percentage of the market: Monster (28%) Red bull (38%) Source: http://www.istockanalyst.com... 3. fallowing my two very random examples.. Lets talk about the most obvious examples of dominance that destroys the American dream.. I'm talking of course, about Walmart. *Walmart Stats* *The Walton family donates approximately 2% of the net worth to charity..(86.6 billion) * The average salary of a Walmart employee is about 20,000.. The salary of CEO Mike Duke is projected at 19,200,000.. (924X the average salary of a walmart employee) * Walmart has the largest case action EVER in history of sex discrimination. (1.6 million lawsuits) *Hypocritically Walmart ran a "Buy American" campaign suggesting that to shop at their store would mean your buying American made products; When in reality, nothing could be further than the truth. (80% of Walmart suppliers are in China. 10% OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY OF CHINAS EXPORTS go to Walmart..) *In 2000, Walmart was sued 4,851 times or once every 2 hours. *90% of Americans live within 15 miles of a Walmart. Source: http://www.businesspundit.com... ---------------------Closing statement----------------------- I realize how for my first couple of examples are little all over the place and unless you see eye to eye with me on my ideology, you wont exactly understand my argument. Basically to put in simple terms my argument is this. A system motivated and revolving around profit, and characterized to have ideally the least amount of responsibility as possible can not be sustainable for humanity. The free market is an system of favoritism (Not like NAFTA is exclusionary...........<.<), immoral actions, exploitation and creates an extremely unhealthy and almost a psychologically abused society. Yes in fact I am making some rather harsh and practically unheard claims.. But those of you advocate a deregulated and highly "free market".. Are most likely not going to care nor bother give two sh*ts what I have to say. I could say the that general body of a corporation has loaded history of stripping rights from people and undermining legislation left and right. But human rights don't me jack to them if it means in the end they have less money. I could say that corporations were given the identity as a single entity or a legal "person" to combat union workers and to ignore any sense of moral code for the grounds of limited liability. But then again, whomever I will be debating against most likely is anti-union, and anti any form of worker representation or any sense of labor laws.. So I guess I'll leave it to my opponent too be to decide and elaborate why he believes the free market is sustainable for workers, the environment, the American Dream and simply humanity.. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Legend of Zelda is better than Elder Scrolls because You've made the word count small, so I'll only be covering adventure as a theme. I would like to begin with the central theme of the original Legend of Zelda. Most people would agree the original theme of the game was adventure, allowing exploration and challenge in equal measures. This was one of the key factors that shaped games such as Pokemon too, getting to explore a new world with new sights. But it died fast. The Zelda formula was devised. With the formula made, all games became practically the same. Mechanically superb, but stagnant. The plot was gone, the adventure was gone. Skyrim and Oblivion gave the player a world to explore at their own pace and leisure. Few dungeons require progress in the main quest to enter. On the other hand, to get to a dungeon in Ocarina required you to find permission to enter the dungeon. This barrier is for narrative purpose, but you can find the Elder Scroll in Skyrim before asked to get it. Next round, Link the character with some rebuttal. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Homework shouldn't be given because No work and revision should be done in break instead of activities because after school students need time to have fun and relax at home. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Exteel sucks because Actually, when talking about games, that's all it takes. legitimate joy is holy and pure thing. If a game can instil this is anyone person, then it is counted as good because because it has instilled a holy experience in a individual. C.S. Lewis speaks of how joy, even for something as simple as liking onion soup, can overthrow weeks of progress made by our tempters. That witch is bad and that witch is demonic does not have within its power to make joy. Joy can only come from a source that is good. So even if many do dislike the game, a holy experience was still created, just not in those particular individuals. My opponent complains the game is updated only every 3 years. I have an classic Netindo game called Kirby, its not updated at all and yet I can still find it addictive and fun. that fact that a game is not sufficient to say that it sucks. By the way; I bet the hackers are having fun in the game, or they wouldn't continue to hack, So they prove this game provides joy for some. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Libertarian Economics are Inherently Immoral because Thanks Brian, I look forward to a fun and rigorous challenge. Note that Pro has not explicitly attacked the moral underpinnings of libertarians. Rather, he has made an emotional appeal to the unwed teenage mothers, implying that he has in mind some positive account of rights. This being the case, the onus is on him to show why we should accept such a doctrine. For my part, I'll be defending negative rights. Additionally, I intend to show that far from accomplishing the goal my opponent has in mind -- alleviating poverty -- state administered welfare programs do far more harm than good. 1. Welfare can never be morally justified a) Personal ownership, private property, and negative rights Whether or not one has any rights, and if so which ones, can only be decided by argumentative appeal. Moreover, in order to participate in ethical discourse, the right to exclusive ownership and control over one's person must be presupposed. To negate this would result in a performative contradiction, which occurs when the propositional content of a statement contradicts the non-contingent presuppositions that make the speech act possible.[1] For this reason, no one can ever coherently affirm slavery: at best you might convince me to perform uncompensated labor for you, but insofar as I agreed to be your slave, I wouldn't really be a slave at all. Our actions don't occur in a vacuum. One's actions are an extension of his person, and the right to property ownership must be extended accordingly. In order to take part in discourse -- or to perform any action at all -- we must also assume the right to allocate scarce resources for personal use. If, for example, I farm an unowned lot of land, no one has the right to stop me. Anything that interferes with my peaceful act of farming is a violation of my right to self-ownership. b) Indefensibility of positive rights Some, such as John Locke and David Conway, have offered that the homesteading principle is generally valid -- and indeed, it must be, at least in regard to some resources -- but that there are limits to what can be rightfully owned. However, the idea of such a proviso is logically incoherent -- if the proponent of such a theory is to be consistent, he would only be able to justify for himself the ownership of limited resources. If he were to interfere with another's peaceful homesteading activity, he would thereby illegitimately and inconsistently extend his own ownership claim beyond what is permissible under his own rule! In order to justify such an action, it would be necessary to appeal to some theory of collective ownership incompatible with the homestead principle and thus incompatible with ethical discourse. Just for the sake of argument, let's examine what the idea of positive rights entails. In an influential thought experiment, Judith Thomson asks you to imagine that you wake up one morning to find yourself connected by a series of tubes to a violinist. A famous concert violinist. The Society of Music Lovers has gone through all of the medical records and determined that you and you alone can save him from what would otherwise be a fatal illness. You'll have to remain hooked up to him for a period of several months in order for him to recover. Does the violinist really have an enforceable claim? Should it be punishable by law if you refuse to comply? How can the violinist have a right to my person when he has neither homesteaded it nor produced it? Hans-Hermann Hoppe notes that "need" can neither be objectively quantified nor measured.[2] People have died from love sickness, should they be entitled to a lover-conscript? How long should a needy person be entitled to receive welfare? Forever? What if my support causes me to become needy, or increases my future needs? Moreover, even if need could be established, it would be in general terms, yet could only be satisfied by definite, particular resources. To which particular resources would the needy be entitled? Mine? Yours? John Doe's? Why? 2. Poverty is a largely a creation of the state Governments create poverty and artificial scarcity through idea patents, restrictive licensing requirements, protective tariffs, industrial subsidies, military contracts, corporate bailouts, inflation of the monetary base, minimum wage laws, rent controls, and other harmful policies. Pro himself notes that if the libertarians were in power, he would no longer have to "subsidise country landowners' comfortable lifestyles through government and EU farming subsidies and neither would I have old people sitting at home supping tea and sucking cakes at my expense." Abolish these practices and society will start to look a lot more egalitarian. 3. Welfare policies create a vicious cycle The number of welfare recipients has what in economics is referred to as a positive supply function.[3] As the incentives to go on welfare increase, so does the number of people who apply for and receive it. When disincentives to go on welfare increase, the number of recipients decreases. This theory is born out by empirical data as well. From 1973 to 1987, only 18.3% of poor people who received welfare benefits escaped poverty. By contrast, 45% of poor people who never received benefits escaped poverty.[4] Additionally, children in families that receive welfare are seven times more likely to be on welfare as adults.[5] George Bernard Shaw once wrote "any government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul" and this is exactly what we see in today's political process. As the incentives to go on welfare increase and correspondingly the number of welfare recipients increases, so too does the political power that sustains and aggravates the cycle. Once a dependent class has been created, politicians can count on their support in perpetuity to retain power. 4. Private charities are superior to government programs Pro worries that in a libertarian society, the well off might be hesitant to donate to the poor. I don't find this objection particularly weighty, after all, he is relying on the same people who won't voluntarily give to the poor to elect politicians who will forcibly redistribute their wealth. Moreover, as Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron points out, there is good evidence that government aid crowds out private giving.[6] In 2008, Americans donated over $300 billion to charity.[7] Private charities, like the Mormon church, tend to focus on helping aid recipients find work, avoiding the pitfalls of dependency that government programs create.[h] Additionally, because private charities are smaller and more localized, they are better able to individualize programs and to deliver aid to the people who genuinely need it rather than those who are merely gaming the system. Finally, private charities are far more efficient than federal aid. Roughly 70% of all "welfare" dollars actually go to government bureaucrats.[i] The resolution is negated. References: 1. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. "The Economics and Ethics of Private Property." The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006. pg. 372 2. Ibid, pp. 415-416 3. Rothbard, Murray N. "For a New Liberty." The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2002. pg. 145 4. http://www.cato.org... 5. http://www.cato.org... 6. http://www.cato.org... 7. http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu... h. Rothbard, pp. 149-152 i. http://www.cato.org... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Best Yo Mamma Joke because Each user will post 3 jokes per round......... Yo mamma so fat, you could slap her butt and ride the waves. Yo mamma so fat, when she entered a fat contest, she came in first, second, and third. Yo mamma so fat she broke your family tree. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against The existence of the immortal soul because Thanks Pro: Though First I'll take your Irrational Interjections into Account: # Pro's Statement: <" Firstly I would like to address the beginning of your argument which is totally contradictory and therefore invalid. "> No, because you consider it contradictory with your poor knowledge of Consciousness, doesn't mean that it is really Invalid: This is your concept only, in reality it is not Invalid. Humans have an extended Mammalian Brain and all Mammals have this Illusion we call SELF. Our Illusion is usually grander and more abstract than the other mammals, because the extra extraction that our Evolved additions to the brain that give us the ability for Mathematical and Philosophical abstraction which is Great, but a downside is that it allows our Imagination and Imaginary Self Images to become more Abstracted and thus Further Divorced From Reality. For a good examination of how the Brain and Consciousness works, here is an Excellent Scholarly Video: It shows how our consciousness of our selves and others are a function of brain cells, and shows how "Theory Of Mind" is a particular ability developed from the formation of "Mirror Neurons". This is an Extremely Good, very Authoritative, Thoroughly Educational Video. It answers many of Pro's Issues with my replies. Professor Keith Kendrick explains how the Brain creates Consciousness, not external Consciousness is Required. the brain can do it all by itself. https://www.youtube.com... # Pro states: <" According to this line of reasoning you are stating that the consciousness of higher mammals is an illusion created by a human brain. " > Wrong! Humans illusion of self comes from the Mammalian brain that Humans share with all Mammals. Only as the mammalian brain becomes more complex, in the higher Mammals, the Illusion of Self, also becomes more complex. The Human Illusion Of Self, is only more Abstract than those of higher mammals like Chimpanzees. Here's the Basic functions of this jelly like lump of chemicals/elements/stardust we call the BRAIN: http://www.brainwaves.com... Here is a basic description of the function of the main structures within the Brain. http://www.brainwaves.com... Pro: <" Next you say that "This concept of the immortal soul is purely a fantasy created by the bible" Then right after that you say "The bible does not teach of any immortal soul, the immortal soul is actually from pagan babylonian and egyptian theology. ""> Confusing isn't it? Though most of those pushing the concept of the Immortal Soul are Christians who quote the Biblical concept of Heaven and Hell, as their evidence of the Immortal, Eternal Soul. So yes Christians site the Bible as their source of knowledge of the Immortal Soul. Which is contradictory to the Historical evidence that points to teh Egyptian, Greek, and Babylonian sources to the Immortal Soul. So, it is Christians that create this conflict of philosophies, by their Misinterpretation of the Bible. I'm not the one to blame for the conflict, I'm merely pointing out the conflict that currently Exists. Pro: <" With all these contradictions how can we even be sure your entire argument is not contradictory? Your whole argument is totally flawed because you claim that modern science accepts beyond a shadow of a doubt that consciousness is a product of the brain."> Indeed I am stating that modern science accepts beyond any shadow of a doubt that consciousness is the product of our brain. Most of Neuroscience, Psychology (esp. Forensic Psychology) and biology accept this as a matter of absolute FACT. Watch the first Video by Prof. Kendrick. He explains how zoology and biology are using the brain functions that produce consciousness of animals, including humans in manipulation of behaviours. Such manipulation of consciousness by tricking the sensors and brain would not function if they were not inextricably connected. Using pheromones (sensory/brain triggers) can change the consciousness processes in animals and humans. Most Of Our Knowledge Of How The Brain Produces Consciousness Comes From Brain Disorders And Disfunction: Injuries and disorders of the Brain can often produce changes in the Individual's Self-Image or Consciousness, Proffessor Kendrick also covers this in the above video. Here Is a Brief Summary Of The Most Common Brain Disorders And Their Symptoms: Some of those symptoms change the person's self image (Consciousness) beyond repair. Because these brain injuries change a person's Self-Image or Consciousness, is proof that they are inexorably Linked. If somebody working in the Brain Injury department of a hospital and still disbelieves the brain creates consciousness, they would have to be deaf, dumb and blind. http://www.rah.sa.gov.au... Pro asserts Eben Alexander, whose comments are considered nonsense by the rest of the world's neurologists. Even Sam Harris cannot be bothered with Eben Alexander who has forgotten what science is really all about. Essentially Eben Alexander has published nothing but Lies. The scientific Debunking of Eben Alexander: http://signell.wordpress.com... Here is Sam Harris, destroying Eben Alexander's nonsense. http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com... Eben Alexander is Wrong, I am Right: Refer to Prof. Kendrick. He explains it adequately, Why? Pro cites comments from Strawmen, who are out-of-touch with current knowledge. I haven't time to answer such occasional bit of poorly thought out misinformation. These are only a few dissenters, where the vast majority of Neuroscientists and Biologists are wholly on my side of the consciousness Fence. There have been studies that tried scientifically to Prove the existence of an Immortal Soul and the most prominent of all was Dr Sam Parnia's "Aware Project" which studied Near Death Experiences in order to demonstrate the existence of a Soul. Though after a quarter of a century of research, no evidence has ever been sighted. So it appears that Sam Parnia's attempts are a waste of time. Here is an Authoritative blog by, Dr Sam Harris on "The Mystery Of Consciousness". http://www.samharris.org... Though I really don't need to use anything but Dr. Kendrick's video to completely debunk Pro's argument. But: I did feel the need to rub it in! The rest of Pro's case cite's Richard Dawkins, a zoologist. Richard may not be able to explain consciousness, Yet Richard is also an Agnostic, who leaves the idea of an external consciousness open. It is commonly known that Richard Dawkins contradicts himself reguarly regarding consciousness, he is trying to keep both sides happy and appear open minded, which brings in itself conflicts. So Pro is only highlighting one side of Richard's inability to be consistent. Richard Dawkins Contradicting Himself: www. youtube .com/watch?v=8EebB1GRh4A Dawkins and Ricky Gervais: https://www.youtube.com... Sam Harris on Consciousness and Mindfulness: https://www.youtube.com... Here is a debate between Sam Harris and Depak Chopra, concerning Consciousness. https://www.youtube.com... Hope Pro and every body viewing this Debate have learned something: Though most important: It made you think and you enjoyed it. A great Thanks to Pro for the Opportunity. Enjoy! :-D~ <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Germany and Japan could have won WWII if it weren't for Hitler and Yamato because Germany could have won the war if it weren't for Hitler being the commander of the entire German military and Yamato attacking pearl harbor when he did. Con may present his first argument good luck and lets keep this friendly. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Donald Trump Is Racist and Is Greedy! because Alright here are your problems. 1.No definitions 2.No sources 3.Not enough rounds 4.Not enough characters 5.You can"t fix these problems Anyways the question is Donald Trump racist and greedy? You have nothing to prove he is racist or greedy except a rant you made. First let"s define racism and greed. Racism: Racism: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others. http://dictionary.reference.com... ... Greed: intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food. Let"s see what Trump has to say about this, "I am the least racist person that you have ever met," http://fox6now.com... you didn"t use sources therefore who"s to believe 1 person over three or more sites of information. Another source, Trump says, "When it comes to racism and racists," Trump said, "I am the least racist person there is. And I think most people that know me would tell you that. I am the least racist. I've had great relationships." http://talkingpointsmemo.com... In order to put down your claim that "Donald Trump is racist and Greedy" I would agree with greedy but in order for you to win he would have to be proved both. He is not racist because my sources and I say he is not. Therefore since more sources are on my side I win this debate. Vote Con! <EOA>

<BOA> I am with It's time to bring back public duels because If you have ever watched daytime TV, you will surely have encountered programmes such as the Jeremy Kyle Show (1) and the Jerry Springer Show (2). If you haven't seen one of these programmes, essentially what happens is that some scumbags who are involved in a tawdry domestic dispute are invited on to wash their dirty linen live on air. A typical example would be a woman tells the man from next door that he is the father of her child. Meanwhile the woman's boyfriend is being wound up into a state of epileptic fury backstage before being released onto the set in front of a jeering audience. The presenter and the crowd then try to goad the two men into escalating the dispute into a violent conflict, at which point security guards are brought on to break up the fight. It's an enormously successful format on both sides of the Atlantic and could well be the key to revitalising depressed town centres. You see, over the years, people have increasingly opted to shop in out-of-town shopping malls, thus leaving once bustling town centres deserted, which is a shame. However, if public duels were were once more permitted, town centres could attract shoppers back by offering them the spectacle of two men fighting it out to the death. The format of the performances would be similar to the TV shows, at least to the point where violence is about to ensue. At this juncture though, the host would suggest to one of the aggrieved parties that he should challenge the other to s duel. If both of the men agree, they would be lead to the middle of the market square where they would be invited to choose their weapons. Firearms would not be permitted as stray bullets would present a health and safety risk to the crowd, and also mean that the action would probably be over too quickly. Instead, the combatants would be asked to choose from: 1 - A motorbike chain 2 - A cricket bat with rusty nails hammered through it 3 - A sock with a snooker ball in it 4 - A drug addict's AIDS-contaminated syringe 5 - A broken vodka bottle You can imagine what sort of wonderful performances these fights would be, especially if the girlfriend was thrown in to shout "stop it Kev, he's not worth it" or whatever. These live shows would mean that people will be able to combine their weekly shopping with free entertainment and traditional town centre shops such as butchers, bakers and greengrocers will, once again, be able to prosper. Thank you. (1) http://www.itv.com... (2) http://www.jerryspringertv.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Preschool Is A Waste Of Time because Yes, of course these things could be accomplished in 1st grade but most schools have an expectation that a child will come to first grade with these basic skills allowing them to focus on reading and other core fundamentals. If a child is not adjusted to spending time away from his mother or does not know how to play with other children, the child will fall behind not only in learning but will also not know how to establish friendships with other children. We all know that children can be tough on each other. It is important early on for a child to establish bonds with their classmates. No one wants to be the kid that is picked last to play ball. This can have a serious negative impact on the child that will live with him throughout his school years and the rest of his life. Yes life is scary but it is our responsibility as parents to make the world less scary by helping our children cope with fears and letting them know that even if they are scared, they will be ok. Not every lesson has to be hard, especially at such a young age. For example throwing your child into the pool and saying sink or swim is not the best way to teach them to swim and when you are teaching them to ride a two wheel bicycle- you hold on to the back until they get the hang of it before you let them go solo. School is the same way. Furthermore, I believe most kids enjoy preschool. For those that don't- it may not be the right school for that child or the right time for that child to participate. As for your last remark- Being a good parent first requires knowing your child and what will work best for that kid. If your child is bored at home or needs a new adventure then a couple hours away from his mother at preschool may just be the answer. Second, you do not give up your child to gain resources or to network. You draw on appropriate resources such as doctors, friends and relatives, schools, other parents, etc to ensure your child gets the best possible care, nurturing, entertainment and education that they can get. No parent should be so arrogant to think that they can or should do it on their own. Being a parent is just like every other profession you learn not only by trial and error but by others who have experience and expertise and who can help you to tackle the most difficult yet amazing project in the world- raising a happy, healthy, and well adjusted child. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with The Confederate Flag Is a Symbol of Racism because I wish to apologize for seeming to attack my opponent's ethnicity. I explained to my opponent in comments and message that it wasn't meant to be personal. Refused to Cite My opponent had the chance to justify the evidence s/he gave in her/his first round, but refused to do so. For a second time s/he did not offer a single source for her first set of arguments. "Common Knowledge(?)" Instead, s/he stated that all of her/his arguments stemmed from "common knowledge." S/he offered a website to demonstrate that common knowledge does not need to be cited. According to my opponent's own source, however, common knowledge must be "obvious," "factual," and "easy to confirm" information. The example in the website is "'George Washington was our first [P]resident.'" Rebuttal Review The information of my opponent to which that my rebuttals referred were neither "obvious" nor "easy to confirm," and sometimes not even "factual." R1 talked about Legislature referring to the flag. It's not obvious, since I didn't know about it and it wasn't famous. It's not easy to look up. I have no idea the years, which legislatures, and a whole bunch of other information. I have no idea if it is factual. My opponent dropped my R1. R2 talked about the American flag flying during slavery and might be the only common knowledge, but I agree that this happened, and my opponent and I agree that the Union/American flags do not represent slavery in any way. R3 talked about my opponent's claim that the South freed their slaves before the North. I explained that this is not strictly true, that the North freed virtually all their slaves nearly twenty years before the South [3]. There were very slight numbers of slaves in the North in certain states who had laws that freed slaves gradually, and that was all [3]. I should also add that rather than the South freeing their slaves willingly, it was the Union that forced the South to free their slaves [3]. If the Confederacy had their way, the slaves would never have been freed, since the CSA constitution forbid writing laws that hindered slavery. Therefore, saying that in general the South freed their slaves before the North is untrue, since almost all were freed in the North many years before and the South did not autonomously free the slaves but were forced to do so by the North. This info is not obvious and probably not factual. R4 My opponent agrees that black persons' fighting for the CSA does NOT demonstrate that the CSA was good to black persons. Here, however, I found the most grievous mistake of my opponent. My opponent says that black persons in the CSA were paid more and treated better and were integrated better than in the Union army. First of all, how is that "common knowledge?" My opponent does not give a single scrap of evidence for the wages of black person in the CSA army. Even worse, I found out that my opponent was radically mistaken. I found out why troops of "colored" soldiers in the CSA were integrated: *THEY WERE STILL SLAVES* [11]. Forty percent of the entire CSA army was made up of slaves [11]. They did the vast majority of the manual labor for the CSA, and were generally not trusted to fight [11]. There were one or two examples of groups of free black persons in the CSA army, and they were part of segregated troops, in direct contrast to what my opponent claims [11]. Additionally, they were used as honor guards and never officially trusted to fight [11]. There was only one black officer in the CSA, for an extremely short period [11]. In contrast, the "colored troops" in the Union were free [12]. They were trusted to fight in their own regiments with their own officers. Eighteen black Union soldiers were awarded the Medal of Honor (the highest honor) [12]. Many of the regiments became the famous Buffalo Soldiers, who continued to fight for the Union elsewhere [12]. My opponent's information was deceptive in claiming that the Southern soldiers were "integrated" and outright false in claiming that they were better treated and better paid. My opponent underhandedly or ignorantly suggested that this information is "common knowledge." Voters may want to consider this deception as worthy of marking my opponent down in both the "Sources" and "Conduct" sections. Additionally, the fact that even the black soldiers were slaves is evidence for the Confederacy being founded on slavery, so consider it in the "Arguments" section. R5: Oppression. My opponent claims in the second round that the CSA secession was caused by Northern oppression. This is contrary to her/his earlier statement that the Civil War was caused by slavery [A1]: "The rebellion states did not want anti-slavery...For that reason, the states declared a rebellion." Con is contradicting her/himself. Because of this, I now have to adjust my arguments. My opponent "justified" this claim by citing a Radical Right-Wing website obsessed with attacking liberals, and another one that is obviously Pro-CSA with no credentials. This website does not show where it gets its information, so it cannot be trusted. In contrast, I offer three sources that suggest the opposite. The Vice President of the Confederacy, and the legislatures of the Southern States claim that their succession is due to slavery, as well as the writings of a Professor of History and a trusted news cite [5, 6, 7, 8]. The CSA was founded by its own admission several times due to slavery, not tariffs, states' rights, or Northern Oppression (except for threatening slavery). My opponent does not refute these sources. R6 (new): The CSA flag does not represent the CSA? My opponent claims that the CSA flag was only from a few states (uncited), but later claims that it symbolizes CSA "unity." My opponent also admits that it was carried into battle. Therefore, it does symbolize the CSA nation. Also, in contemporary times it also refers to the CSA, which my opponent implies repeatedly; therefore, for practical purposes it does represent CSA. Please recognize that my opponent did not cite this (again). I never said the CSA flag doesn't represent slavery. The fact that it was similar to the Union flag is irrelevant: it was intentionally different, and unified the CSA troops on the battlefield. If you find that my opponent's links don't work, it is because they don't. I had to message my opponent. Contention 1: My opponent uses sketchy sources , but I have the original documents showing the Confederacy was all about slavery, including the VP (see R4, R5). Contention 2: My opponent drops that the good intentions of flag bearers don't matter. Goes to me. Contention 3: CSA is used by racist organizations like the KKK: Dropped. Therefore, a stranger has reason to think racist already. Contention 4: My opponent "disregards" my argument about the United States flag being flown before and after Civil War. Of course it is because the Union won. The national flag of the Southern states only changed during the Civil War, therefore the flag represents the CSA. Therefore, I win that symbolizes CSA. Contention 5: By this I mean that we must consider whether POC would be offended rather than whether white persons think it ok. It was not personal, so my opponents' criticism was somewhat misplaced. Because this argument flows through, we must decide if stranger has reason to be offended. Conclusion: The CSA flag has been demonstrated to be a symbol of the CSA ideals. These ideals have been demonstrated to be slavery and white supremacy with excellent sources. Therefore, the CSA flag to a stranger would be a symbol of racism in contemporary USA. Even more, the symbol was adopted by hate groups (uncontested), so there is certainly good reason for a stranger to find it to be a symbol of racism for that alone. Con had bad cites [11] http://en.wikipedia.org... [12] http://en.wikipedia.org... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Waterboarding should be legal in the United States. because Re: 1: The point I tried to make was this: It is nearly impossible that intelligence would lead to the certainty of the existence of a "ticking time-bomb" (in the ticking time-bomb scenario that the opponent proposed in his initial first argument.) The exact nature of the bomb, its location, its timing of the detonation, and the lives that at stake. It is also impossible to know that a suspect has information that will end up helping authorities locate and eliminate the bomb threat. And lastly, it is uncertain whether torture will be able to sway an individual to unveil this information (assuming that they, in fact, have it.) Hence, it is impossible to determine with any certainty the exact result (the potential to save lives) as well as the effectiveness of the means (torture) in helping save said lives. This makes it impossible to enter into the ticking time-bomb scenario's ethical calculation that would justify the means (torture) and the ends (saving lives). Re: 2: The opponent states that it is "immoral to let many people die in order to spare a terrorist from waterboarding. " This argument is ineffective unless one presupposes that waterboarding is an effective means to preventing the death of people. In the same way, one can say: "It is immoral to prevent a mass murder in order to not brush the killer's teeth." This presupposes that if brushing the teeth of the killer, in theory, were to prevent the mass murder, then it should be done; however, this is a complete assumption made for the sake of the argument, and it brings about a loaded question. Hence, without evidence of effectiveness, this argument does not stand. Re: 3: Waterboarding has, at some point, saved lives. In the same way, I'm sure at some point, someone's decision to bring a fork to his workplace saved a life. Effectiveness is in a completely different realm from this. Ali Soufan, an FBI special agent from 1997 to 2005, told the Senate subjudiciary committee that waterboarding was ineffective. Some CIA officers who were directly involved in the Abu Zubaydah interrogation agreed with Soufan; when interrogated normally, Soufan gave actionable information, but when coercive interrogation was used, Zubaydah stopped talking. After being submitted to coercive interrogation, Zubaydah (a 9/11 planner) was more reluctant to share information.[1] In this way, the waterboarding technique was not only ineffective but also detrimental to the operation. Soufan stated in a New York Times Op-Ed: "there 'was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn't, or couldn't have been, gained from regular tactics.'" [1] Furthermore, A nearly three-year-long investigation by Senate Intelligence Committee Democrats found that little evidence supports the claim that waterboarding is effective. [2] Re: 4: I disagree with the implementation of the rendition policy under the Obama Administration. However, its instatement does not justify its existence. Any claim stating otherwise would be putting forth an "is-ought fallacy." Just because something is just not mean that it ought to be . The opponent must argue that the administration is justified in doing this. Let us remember that the CIA recoiled at the prospect of using waterboarding in the post-WWII era, and the United States prosecuted countries that implemented it during that time. [3] The opponent states that "the alternative to waterboarding is rendition." This statement establishes a false dichotomy. There are other means of gathering information, such as interrogation, which has yet to be evidenced as less effective than waterboarding. --- 1: The opponent argues against the judgment of researchers, such as a Reed College professor who researched historical use of waterboarding. I am not in the position to defend the intricate details of the research, since I am not the one who conducted it; however, NUMEROUS studies suggest that serious, long-term psychological harm does occur. A journalist for the Sun wrote his experiences of waterboarding. During waterboarding he felt like he was choking and about to drown and die. Lastly, he said that he would have said anything the interrogator wanted to hear just to make the torture stop. [4] This experience shows how unreliable and torturous this procedure is. Journalists who get waterboarded tend to get waterboarded once and then call it quits. When one is repeatedly waterboarded (upwards of 50 times), as many tortured terrorists are, more damage is inflicted. Each time feels like drowning and a near-death experience. 2: If something sometimes works, it is not necessarily effective. And waterboarding's effectiveness has been discussed in a prior argument. The possibility of saving lives justifies torture? Any action has the possibility to save lives, and every action can "sometimes work." I could urinate onto my friend's lap thinking that his discomfort is justifiable if my urinating had the potential to save lives. The opponent's notion of "morality" is more vague than one may think, and the line that can be drawn is vague, indeed. And the ethical calculations that led to the opponent's conclusion here have yet to be portrayed. 3: The use of waterboarding encourages terrorists to continue using violent techniques, with the justification of retaliation. Without waterboarding, perhaps terrorists would not be fueled with revenge-fuelled hate, and they would hence be able to be more open to negotations to release prisoners of war. All in all, though, the use of waterboarding undermines the "moral legitimacy" that it has established for itself by making members of its own society doubt the moral foundation of the war against terrorism. Overall, the institution of "interrogation" is being delegitimized by the use of harsh methods of torture (e.g., waterboarding), especially due to their lack of evidential legitimacy. The resolution is deemed null. --- [1] http://articles.cnn.com... [2] http://www.dailystar.com.lb... [3] http://www.nytimes.com... [4] http://www.thesun.co.uk... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Scenario Debate because I accept for round 1. What are our scenarios being judged on? Realistic? Logical? Beneficial? To the doer of the deed? <EOA>

<BOA> I am with God exists because ===PRO CASE=== Contention 1) Self-Awareness, an argument from Rationalism. I have always found it fascinating that the Abrahamic God alone names itself an existential proposition. In Exodus 3:13-14, "Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?" God said to Moses, "I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' " Rene Descartes once used his rampant skepticism to doubt all aspects of the natural world until he fell upon, in his mind, one indubitable truth, which he related in the maxim "Cogito ergo sum" or "I think, therefore I am". It became the impasse of skepticism that if a thinker is conscious of their own thought and can thus state their own existence that this self-awareness empirically proves the existence of that person. The Hebrew God declared that his very name is the verb of being, AM, pronouncing a present state of existence. Almost a message in a bottle to later enlightenment thinkers such as Descartes that the mysterious and undetectable creator of the cosmos does exist, even by the standards of their new found rationalism. Contention 2) Transitive Existence, an argument from Postmodernism. The resolution doesn't provide a standard for measuring existence, which leaves a gaping hole from a postmodern view. See, postmodernism deconstructs anything we believe is objectively true to demonstrate that all truth is attached to subjectivity. Hot and Cold for instance have undeniable existence, even though "Cold" to an Eskimo is very different from "Cold" for an Floridian. Carry this same argument to the existence of God, and you have a very potent and insightful line of thought. Consider the Christian Postmodernist Soren Kierkegaard said of his religion: "In determining truth, the subjective acceptance is precisely the decisive factor; and an objective acceptance of Christianity is Paganism or thoughtlessness. In this way Christianity protests every form of objectivity. It desires that the subject should be infinitely concerned about himself. Devoutness inheres subjectivity, nobody ever becomes devout objectively." -From Kierkegaard's "Postscript" Put succinctly, Kierkegaard is arguing that all truth is subjective truth, and he demands that a Christian not tread into the "paganism" of objectivity, but rather celebrate the subjective reality of God which produces devotion. By this logic, the PRO easily affirms the resolution, as God does indeed exist in the hearts and minds of almost 3 Billion people on Earth (adding up all Abrahamic faiths). Oddly, and perhaps ironically this might even bleed into the correspondence theory of truth, which is, reality as informed by a shared perception. More than half the humans on Earth perceive of this God, by both the postmodern and correspondence standards of truth God therefore exists. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Euthanasia because Aw man that is too bad, I was really wanting to debate this. Since my opponent forfeited the round, all arguments are extended. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Students should be allowed to use their cell phones in school because Responding to my opponent's most recent arguments: Distraction: My high school allowed cell phone use in-between classes, but not during class. Students never got enough of texting during the 6-minute "walking period" or our 30-minute lunches. They would continue to text surreptitiously during classes. It's absurd to believe that teenagers would stop texting if they got an extra 6 minutes between classes to do so. For example, the NY Times reports in 2009, "They do it late at night when their parents are asleep. They do it in restaurants and while crossing busy streets. They do it in the classroom with their hands behind their back. They do it so much their thumbs hurt. Spurred by the unlimited texting plans offered by carriers like AT&T; Mobility and Verizon Wireless, American teenagers sent and received an average of 2,272 text messages per month in the fourth quarter of 2008, according to the Nielsen Company — almost 80 messages a day, more than double the average of a year earlier. The phenomenon is beginning to worry physicians and psychologists, who say it is leading to anxiety, distraction in school, falling grades, repetitive stress injury and sleep deprivation." [1] It is even worse to encourage this behavior at younger ages, like in elementary school, by permitting cell phone use during class. Safety: I agree fights could still occur off-campus. However, someone is less likely to "postpone" a fight, since his or her emotions will have calmed down by then. In addition, fights off-campus do not endanger other students or school administrators. Lastly, it is silly to think that a school policy can solve for problems that occur outside school. My opponent essentially agrees that cell phone bans in dangerous schools prevent large-scale fights from breaking out on school property. The bans thus accomplish all that they are designed to do. Laptops: You can't email or IM if your school doesn't have internet access available. This argument is irrelevant, however, since I would support schools banning laptops if they were used for social networking and IM. Contact friends: There is no good reason students cannot wait until after school to call friends. Contact parents: If a child is sick, the school nurse will typically call the parents using a school landline and the parent's emergency contact information. A cell phone is unnecessary for this purpose. Since all the tools and uses for cell phones could be accomplished through other means, but cell phones remain a major distraction during class and remain a safety hazard in some schools, I urge a con vote. [1] http://www.nytimes.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Politifact is biased because 1) Large sample size and comprehensive coverage The accuracy of reporting generally increases with increase in sample size. Politifact has a very large sample size of 820 facts checked during the 2012 presidential election campaign [1]. This is 3 times more than Pro's preferred Fact Checker, which rated 267 facts [2]. In addition, Politifact is staffed by a team dedicated primarily towards researching and checking facts[3]. The Fact Checker on the other hand is staffed by two reporters [7][4]. Michael Dobbs, the founder of Fact Checker admits to being often overwhelmed by the deluge of political information [7] due to the small staff size. It is no wonder then, that Fact Checker was unable to provide coverage comprehensive enough to match Politifact's standards which accounts for the discrepancies. Quantity is not the only factor however; quality matters as well. A quick glance at the front page of the Fact Checker shows a significant number of irrelevant facts checked as opposed to relevant scholarly ones. Examples include Obama's comments on Sesame street [5] and Romney's misfire on the national anthem [6]. While Politifact also checks occasional irrelevant facts, a glance at [1] shows that most of its facts are well-sourced and based on economics and politics. At best, the Fact Checker's individual claims are of similar quality. The sheer number of facts checked by Politifact however allows it to provide a more comprehensive coverage. 2) The Fact Checker isn't unbiased or liberal Nearly every article for the Fact Checker has been written by Glenn Kessler or by his predecessor and founder Michael Dobbs [8]. Pro says that many employees of the Washington Post (WP) voted for Obama. It is irrelevant. It doesn't make Glenn Kessler an unbiased/liberal reporter. Furthermore, pro offers this "proof" of WP's impartiality through Ombudsman Deborah Howell of the WP and tries to establish that the WP is either liberal/neutral. However, Howell herself has a conservative bias. In 2006, she got involved in a dispute with her readers over her claims that lobbyist Jack Abramoff who took millions of dollars from Native American tribes “had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties” [9]. However, according to Howard Dean “the Federal Election Commission (FEC) reports show that there is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any democrat any money” [10]. After being proven wrong Howell responded by saying that Abramoff 'directed' contributions to both parties. Yet, when readers of her blog pointed out that there was no evidence that Abramoff directed contributions to democrats [11], the management of the WP shut down and pulled all comments from the blog [12]. WP's ombudsman made false claims in favor of Republicans and when called out, she and management covered it up. Pro uses Howell's testimony to prove that the WP is neutral. It is unreliable. Prefer my evidence that WP has a conservative bias. Robert Parry of Consortium News which provides independent investigative journalism writes that the WP is creating a negative frame for the Obama administration by portraying the recession as an Obama problem while declining to mention in those articles a 6.2% drop in GDP in the fourth quarter of 2008 that the starting decline occurred under Bush not Obama [13]. Politifact ends up pointing out more Republican lies than Democratic ones simply because it is true. Pro claims that it contradicts the results of the Fact Checker but the WP isn't neutral, the Fact Checker is understaffed, and covers about 1/3 the number of facts covered by Politifact. 3) Responses to Pro's examples a) Rand Paul claims that federal workers are paid double that of private workers (120k for federal vs 60k for private). However, he added benefits to salary by doing the calculations himself. He based his analysis off of figures from The Bereau of Economic Analysis (BEA) [14]. His methology was to divide total compensation (salary and benefits) of all Federal employees by the number of current employees to get the per capita total. This is misleading because it includes the compensation paid to retirees but only divides by the number of current workers. So, the number is wrong [14]. Politifact was right. b) Rob Cornilles claims that Democratic state senator Suzanne Bonamici "has talked about separating herself from her party but the reality is she votes 98 percent of the time with the Democrats in Salem. I don't know how that represents bipartisanship; that represents to me more of the same.[15]" Cornilles used that 98% vote as a reason to argue that his opponent isn't bipartisan. Legislators take many votes that are routine so Democrats and Republicans often vote the same way on many issues. Politifact compared Bonamici's votes with the Democrats as well as her votes with 3 selected Republicans with strong Republican stances. It was found that Bonamici voted with the Democrats 98% of the time and she voted with the Republicans an average of 80% of the time. However, Cornille neglects to mention that Bonamici often voted with the Republicans. Politifact rated this statement as a Half-True statement which means “partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.” Pro's source skates over the part where Cornilles deduces a conclusion of partisanship while ignoring the number of times Bonomici voted with the Republicans. c) Apology Tour : Pro has not given any statement that he claims is an apology. In a point about semantics, this is important. If Pro does so, I will refute it next round. d) Affordable Care Act (ACA) : A television ad from a group called American Commitment claimed that the ACA “could cost upto $2 trillion, double what we were promised. [16]” They mentioned that their claim was from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). To provide some background, the claim made by the ad about “double what we were promised” referred to the contention that the latest estimates released by the CBO in March 2012 were double the estimates originally released by the CBO in 2010. This is false for 2 reasons: (i) The ad was considering gross cost from 2012 to 2022 (for 11 years) which was $1762 billion as opposed to net cost of $1252 billion [18]. It does not factor in the offset of $510 billion in receipts and other budgetary effects. CBO writes in its publication that while the gross costs are higher, the offsetting budgetary effects are also higher leading to a very small increase in net cost. Pro claims that there offsets are projected by the Obama Administration “on paper” and are temporary. He is wrong on both counts. The offsets have been projected by the CBO and have been projected for the entire 10-year duration[18]. With that point negated, it can be seen that using gross costs is essentially cherry-picking for political gain since they represent only part of the effects of the ACA as opposed to all of it. (ii) The ad compares apples to oranges. It compares a 10-year period (2010-2019) with an 11-year period (2012-2022). Calculations performed on a uniform 8-year time span (2012-2019) for both the original “promise” and the latest results and found out that the gross costs increased by only 8.6% and the net cost actually declined by 0.64% [22]. The CBO which the ad cited rebutted the charge that the costs have doubled [20]. Politifact correctly labeled this statement false. Sources [1] http://tiny.cc... [2] http://tiny.cc... [3] http://tiny.cc... [4] http://tiny.cc... [5] http://tiny.cc... [6] http://tiny.cc... [7] http://tiny.cc... [8] http://tiny.cc... [9] http://tiny.cc... [10] http://tiny.cc... [11] http://tiny.cc... [12] http://tiny.cc... [13] http://tiny.cc... [14] http://tiny.cc... [15] http://tiny.cc... [16] http://tiny.cc... [17] http://tiny.cc... [18] http://tiny.cc... [19] http://tiny.cc... [20] http://tiny.cc... [21] http://tiny.cc... <EOA>

<BOA> I am with I will not contradict myself in this debate. because I thank my opponent for accepting and look forward to debating her. 1. I have seen it several times, but I do not watch it regularly. 2. In general, I like to read. I like to read warning signs and signs that they have at stores so I am informed about potential danger or something like a discount sale. In reference to novels, I like to read a selective amount of them. I usually only read books that are required by school, but occasionally I read articles and magazines. I like to read things that appeal to me, generally. 3. I am a Christian. I believe it would be positive for people to practice my religion, but different people have differing viewpoints on different things. If my religion does not work for someone, then he/she probably will not practice my religion. All in all, I think people who are willing to practice in my religion can go ahead. I like getting my Christian views out to others, but it is ultimately their choice to listen or reject my views. 4. I believe people should have a religion if they want to have a religion. I may try to influence people with my religious perspectives, but it is all about opinion and preference. 5.Yes. 6.Yes, to a certain degree. 7. I believe that nationalism exists/has existed, but I do not support nationalism, although you may need to clarify. 8. graffiti- markings, as initials, slogans, or drawings, written, spray-painted or sketched on a surface art- the quality of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance I believe some styles of graffiti are types or art. I would need examples and scenarios to clarify. But no, graffiti is technically not art, because they have different definitions and are not exactly the same. 9. No, I do not use plastic water bottles. 10. No, my parents and I do not drive hybrid cars. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against People Can Only Be Theists Or Atheists because The resolution is 'People can only be theists or atheists' 1st round acceptance only. 2nd round is for main arguments, no rebuttals. 3rd round is for rebuttals and re-statements. No new arguments. I take the position Con and assert that there a person can be neither a theist, nor an atheist. Both positions can present their own definitions. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with The literal interpretation of the flood,as reported in the Christian NIV bible, could have happened. because Opening Argument Imagine its the year 400 A.D. and I tell you in the future one day, I will be able to get from Jerusalem to Athens in only a few hours with a special vehicle that flys. I will be able to talk to you while I'm on the opposite end of the Earth. Imagine I will be able to use a machine to record all sight and sound which I will then play back anytime I like! I doubt your mind would accept such a notion in 400 A.D. Now of course the opposite is true; I am asking you to fathom an awesome past event. My debate is simply to say that it COULD have happened, though I believe it did happen. I won't ask you to stretch your understanding that far but rather just that it MIGHT have. There is evidence to suggest that it did happen and there is such that suggest it did not. My debate is to lend credit that it could have happened. CONS (A) Con says it was flooded to the highest mountain and we need 5 times as much water. I Negate/Pros Rebuttal. Scientifically speaking the Earth can not have a global flood now. Scientifically speaking the current condition and that of the Earth 6500 years ago could have been entirely different. You can't use the current condition of the Earth to argue against a past happening. If the world was smoother back then and there was more underground water table then you would only need the amount we have now, not 5 times, to flood the Earth. The Bible suggest the water came from under the ground (Genesis 7:11 on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth) It would not be unlikely that there was much more water under the ground than currently. The receding water would create enormous pressure (not atmospheric) which would in fact raise the mountains that we know today. Further your argument simply lends credit to a biblical literalist in that it fails to address the condition of the Earth prior to the flood and you have done nothing except support a world wide flood would be impossible now. This lends credit because a Bible literalist believes that God promised to never flood the Earth and that he has set boundaries the water can not pass. Psalms104:6-9 Thus evidence that a world wide flood can not happen now is simply a testament to the bible literalist. Scientifically speaking no one knows what the geography of the Earth was like prior to 4500 BC, its just speculation. CONS (B) Con says the boat could not sail and technology may have not been available I Negate/Pros Rebuttal. There is no indication in the account that the boat sailed, most Biblical Literalist believe it was anchored and likely built high up on a mountain. Much technology has been lost from past civilizations, it would not be difficult to imagine some sophisticated technology we don't know about. Technology has repeatedly been lost through wars, disease, natural events and time when studying past cultures. From a bible literalist view people lived 500 plus years and would certainly create technology faster than now in addition to likely being more intelligent as poor genetic mutations have not began to harm our species to the extent they have today. Of course that can all be argued separately. In summary this argument is pure speculation, not scientific. No one knows for certain the amount of technology available to an individual 6500 years ago. If we look at the Maya civilization they had extensive knowledge of architecture, mathematics, astronomy. They could calculate the solar year with much greater accuracy than the Georgian Calendar used in Europe thousands of years later. The maya civilization was mostly lost prior to the Spanish coming. This lends credit that Noah may have had extensive knowledge not known to us and if he had certainly a large flood would destroy any evidence of that technology. http://en.wikipedia.org... PROS circumstantial evidence supporting a flood; I won't put too much, since there's just TONS of evidence to support it. I will just list the most significant ones in my opinion. A)World -Wide flood accounts There are numerous stories (over 200) of a worldwide flood found in many different cultures and countries. The account of the flood is told by the Hindus, Chinese, Greeks, Mexicans, Hawaiians, and numerous other countries. Although these stories are not the exact same as found in the Bible, the basic story is the same. Although it is impossible that all the differing accounts are true, they all do have core events that point to a historical basis. Along with the numerous stories of a worldwide flood are the historical documents that have been discovered by archaeology. Ancient clay tablets speak about a flood so large that it covered the entire earth, with 28 talking about an ark; 30 that mention a Deity; 30 tablets that speak about a large ship that came to rest upon a mountain top; and other tablets that mention how birds were used to test if the waters were receding. If nothing else, all the different accounts of a worldwide flood shows that there was a common origin they came from. B)Mass Extinction Scientifically speaking we know that there have been mass extinctions of animals in the past. There are large amounts of fossilized animal bones found in sedimentary. Scientifically speaking no one knows how the mass extinctions were caused. The flood is certainly a legitimate explanation when we look at other explanations. The most plausible theories include a global catastrophe. There isn't a much better explanation for the mass death and fossilization of animals contained with in sedimentary rocks than a massive global flood. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu... C)Huge Oil, Natural Gas, Coal deposits If a global flood occurred we would expect to see massive amounts of oil, natural gas, and coal deposits formed with dead carbon based life forms (plant and animal) under enormous pressure. D)Mid-Ocean Ridges Enormous Ocean Ridges evidence massive earthquakes and tectonic movement which could have been an avenue for the "springs from the great deep" to flood the Earth. http://en.wikipedia.org... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Society is getting worse. because I've had a problem with character limits in the past, so I'd like to get right down to the debate; however, I would also like to take this opportunity to greet the judges, my opponent, and wish him luck -- Welcome to Round 3! ------------------------------------------ Opponent's Contentions: 1. People are becoming more rude. 2. Entertainment is going down-hill. 3. Dependency on gadgets is devaluing society. My Rebuttal: First, I disagree with my opponent's evidence that people in today's society are becoming more rude. He provided an example that included a personal experience; however, in his opening statement he mentioned, "We should be debating society as a whole. If we are to make this the best possible debate, we should be looking at the general view rather than every single circumstance or just one circumstance." In that case, this whole argument is null and void. He mentioned that he lives in South Dakota where proper manners are still valued and upheld. However I was born and raised in New York City - possibly considered (or assumed to be) the rudest city in the country, and I'll admit that it is not always a friendly place. However I consider myself to be exceptionally polite, and the company I keep is very well-mannered as well. I believe that there are both good and bad people in this world in every location, and to assume that people of an earlier era were more considerate is a fallacy. Remember that times change and people's behavior do as well. For example there may have been more please and thank you's a few hundred years ago, but let us also recall that when a poor person passed away, their body was tossed into a cart and wheeled away for a mass disposal regardless of the family's feelings. Is that not rude to say the least?! Disrespectful?! Certainly. And as society placed a value on proper burial procedure, measures were taken to change that occurance. Today, perhaps a lesser value is placed on the word "please" and you may or may not agree... but society's shift in values does not necesarilly mean that as a whole we are getting worse. Consider instead the positive aspects of recent communication. For instance, there is now more caution than ever - especially amongst professionals - to remain PC (politically correct) in terms of their language and how they treat people or talk about people whereas there was a much greater lack of censorchip on opressive language in the past. I also oppose Pro's suggestion that entertainment is going downhill because of the few TV shows and movies he listed in his example. First, Sponge Bob - a children's cartoon - and television's reality TV shows are not indicative of anything other than a new phase of "what's hot." These fads are not new but have been around for centuries. Similarly, singling out movies such as Jackass and Napoleon Dynamite to determine the current/future direction of cinema is blatantly unfair and completely absurd. Pro noted some classics such as Casablanca and GWTW, which were praised for their cinematic achievements in the past including: advancement in terms of filming quality/techniques, direction, acting, writing, set design, etc. Movies today have expanded on those advancements and have in fact improved over time in terms of creativity and execution, as we can see from films like The Lord of the Rings trilogy, There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men, etc (not my personal favorites, but highly acclaimed). On the flip side of this argument, I would like my opponent to consider - like I said - the great advancements in movies and film-making, and note that the content of movies has also greatly shifted from the G-rated-only movies that existed in the 1930s. Today artists have the freedom and the ability to capture on film more intense, controversial, and in depth plot lines that educate and promote discussion, as well as more accurately depict every day life. I'd also like to mention that while Sponge Bob may in fact be playing on one TV channel, shows on the History and Discovery channel may be playing simultaneously for others to enjoy depending on preference. I'd like to remind everybody of the widespread hit Planet Earth (awesome). Finally I would like to completely disagree that our increasing "dependancy" on technology is a bad thing. In my opponent's example, his agitation at the thought of being without his cell phone for a day is hardly any proof at all of society going downhill. Afterall, there are still millions of people in this country that don't own a cell phone to begin with, and therefore do not have that problem. But rather than focusing on why cell phone dependancy is a BAD thing, perhaps instead our attention should be shifted as to why that "dependancy" exists in the first place. It is probably because my opponent (like many others) rely on their cell phones as a method of effective communication. Mobile phones are extremely widespread because of their convenience; you can reach people at almost any time for business, pleasure, or in case of an emergency. Cell phones aside, I'd also like to point out other technological advancements that have greatly improved our quality of life, including: iPods (music appreciation), internet (educational resources) and digital cameras (persoal momentos). Of course people have the capacity to abuse technology and use it for evil; however, that is not telling of the current times but rather human nature in general. ----------------------------------------------- In addition to what I have already mentioned, I would like to include the following contentions: 1. The quality of life. A. Medical advancements B. Society's tolerance C. Human capital 2. The future The average life expectancy has increased by 30 years in the past century. That means that if it were the year 1900, your parents would probably be dead right now. No doubt the dramatic increase is in thanks to many medical advancements, including vaccinations and prevention (awareness) of disease and infection thanks to continual and constantly improved medical research. We have also found ways to create/implement things for human comfort, such as artificial limbs or corrective eye surgery. As a whole (which is how my opponent wanted to argue this debate), these medical advancements have far outdone more good than harm. There have also been medical advancements in terms of psychology. Back in the 1960s, homosexuality was treated as a mental illness and "victims" were placed into mental institutions. Today society's tolerance has greatly increased. We no longer discriminate based on race and religion thanks in part to the Civil Rights Act of 1964; there will always be a few bad apples, but for the most part our government has taken steps to ensure equality over prejudice. Also in terms of society, "the fraction of the population living in poverty is falling, as are teen drinking, drug use, and pregnancies" -- Donella Meadows in The Global Citizen (11/23/2000). Human Capital includes the health and skills of the population. "Like other forms of capital, as this one goes up, so does the productive potential of the society. Like other capitals, human capital rises with investment, and falls with age and poor maintenance" (SAME SOURCE). Because what is considered "old" is increasing (in number) thanks to medical advancements and a longer life expectancy, it is fair to say that society's productivity is increasing. Improvements regarding healthcare and medical triumphs also helps to ensure a healthy population. Finally I'd like to mention the future. To say that society is getting worse is down-playing the many breakthroughs we as a society are seeing regarding fields such as space exploration, anthropology, archeology, sociology, psychology, and more! The phrase "You learn something new every day" exists because society as a whole seeks continual improvement. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Moter-boats should be banned. because First off, I note that my opponent has completely dropped the economic argument at this point. Secondly, I'd like to point out that the main reason motorboats are better than sailboats is not speed, but durability, it will break in the oceans such as the pacific due to heavy storms, therefore it will need to be made of steel, rendering the sail useless due to weight. Another fact is that the capacity of a ship is defined by it's buoyancy, which means that a heavier ship can carry more due to having more air pockets, also, a device has to be powerful enough to start the movement due to inertia, sails aren't, you can attach an engine as a start-up device, but that is much to inefficient to use due to obvious reasons. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Should there be a border fence? because 1) Although this may be true, my opponent did not clarify exactly what he wanted to debate in the opening round. I defined what a border fence was, and established an argument that supplemented a border fence with a border wall. No harm, no foul. My definitions were given when my opponent did not specifically define anything. Thus, my definitions stand. 2) My opponent's next argument merely attempts to prove that another substance could be added to fences to make them stronger. However, rebar was not mentioned in the definition and holds no water. Besides, even if people can get through both rebar and a wall with power tools, that does not help either side of the debate. 3) My opponent provides random facts that really do not help either side. At the end of his point, however, he states that in comparison to money spent in reference to illegal immigration, it would be a small sum to pay for a border fence. However, that does not justify the money spent on the fence. It would be cheaper to spend on a border wall, due to the relatively low prices of cement and the few breakthroughs that would occur. For a fence to be established, it costs relatively more money for the material, maintenance, and reconstruction after the fence has been either ruined from natural causes or immigrants themselves. A border wall would clearly be a more viable option than a border fence. My opponent left many of my arguments unrefuted. I heavily urge a Con vote. Thank you. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against The future does not exist and can therefore not be changed. because "I can't deny the existence of a future..... my idea about what and how it would pan out may not be correct, but that doesn't mean there is NO future. More importantly, even my own imperfect idea of the future, whatever it may be, clearly exists since it does impact and shape my present thoughts and actions."- rachael stuarz This is what was my point. Future is always there, it may be imperfect. But it is always there. And it affects our present. People are so often paralysed by fearful thoughts of the future, they make plans for the future, constantly think about the future and what would happen if..., trying to change their or others' future when in fact the future does not exist.' Well, that is the essence of life. We have choices, and we have a mind as to how to live our life. We think about our future because we don't know what our future is. It is something that is in our control and that is why it's so terrifying. But it does exist and that t\is what propels us to do better because future is something we can control. It is strong enough to affect our present, and thus, it exists. Thanks for the debate PS: sorry for the forfeit in the previous round, my server crashed. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with The current economic recession is proof that conservatism is ineffective. because Sorry this took me so long to respond. First of all we will not be saying president Bush did this or that, though he was a conservative all his actions may not have been conservative-like. To begin with it was not the idea of conservatism that lead us into an economic disaster it was liberalism/socialistic points of view by major democrats. For instance president Oboma voted for, extending the time that people would have to make their mortgage payments. Well, the major businesses were not going to let this go without a ketch. So, what happened was the major businesses added on more and more interest to keep things even, and of course, the people could not pay off there debt, thus causing these large businesses to loose a lot of money. But with conservatism, the idea is, that people take responsibility for there actions and the government stays out of the way. Also liberals love to tax, tax and tax some more, this causes businesses to cut back on workers so that they are able to keep there numbers in the green. This is exactly what is happening now, big businesses are having to cut back on workers to stay in the green numbers, some businesses have been hit so hard that they have had to close down. This then starts a chain reaction, since all these businesses are doing terrible, the stock holders begin to pull out so that they won't loose any more money (I for one don't think that is the best way to handle it, but it happens). So, this is what happens when the government gets to much control and excessively tax businesses. This is why there are so many local businesses that have left New York, since its so liberal up in that state, the taxes are so high. A lot of those businesses that have left New York are now down south where things are more conservative and government stay out of there way. Nothing good comes from government over involvement (socialism/liberalism), the only countries that are still strong believers in this idea are North Karea, Russia and China; but even then, everyday Russia and China are pulling more towards a conservative democratic democracy. Why? Because its the best possible way to run a government. So many times, liberals such as Jimmy Carter, who totally based his ideas off of a liberal government, got our economy in trouble. But, who cleaned it up? It was Ronald Regan, a strong conservative, who based his ideas off of aggressive conservative ideas. Thank you, Charles15 <EOA>

<BOA> I am against term limits because Thank you for a fun debate. I will restate my opening argument: In a democratic society, the people have the right to elect whom they want to elect. Term limits limit that right. Therefore, in a democratic society term limits are unjust. My opponent kept arguing that the incubinent keeps winning, so what? If the person is good and the people want him, why can't the people elect the incubinent more than 2x. | CONCLUSION | My opponent has not answered the question that I raised in round 1. If people want to have the same president more than 2 times, why should they be denied the president of their choice? Thank you. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Apathy is not a f****** ideology! because Let me just start off by saying that I'm quite intrigued by your choice of resolution, so this should be an interesting debate. First of all, I'd like to point out that, overall, you give absolutely no reason that apathy is not an ideology; you say it is 'beyond your understanding' why people consider apathy (defined by merriam-webster's as "lack of interest or concern") to be an ideology (defined by merriam-webster's as "a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture"); from that comment, you extend your argument into what you even admit are Ad Hominem attacks; this means 2 things: 1. You attack people who are apathetic, not the idea that apathy can be an ideology. 2. You claim that people who are apathetic are narrow-minded, but in attacking these people relentlessly, you yourself are being extremely narrow-minded, just the other side of the coin, so to speakl so really, your argument is setting up a giant double standard: ("If you are so narrow minded and motivation deficit that you would choose apathy to action you are scum. You do not deserve the life you have. To say you are a rancid infection to society would be offensive to the kingdom of prokaryotae.") While I may not agree with apathy, that doesn't mean that it isn't an ideology; it would be as hard to change their outlook on society and the human race as it would be to change yours. And honestly, society hasn't been declining for ONLY the past 3 years. There are plenty of times where society has been dismal at best. The Dark Ages, for example. So, to close out my opening argument, it comes down to this: Either you vote CON, because we have to accept that not everyone is going to be passionate about maintaining social bonds, and because my opponent doesn't actually defend his side of the resolution, or you can vote PRO, which advocates slaughter of anyone caught not being appropriately passionate about society (sounds familiar...), and provides you, the voters, with a lot of Ad Hominem attacks (which he admits puts a lot of flaws in his argument). So, CON = Acceptance of truth, PRO = Personal attacks and social "cleansing". I'll let you guys decide. Until then, I await my opponent's next argument. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Presidents should serve 6 year unlimited non-consecutive terms. because As math seems to be challenging to my opponent I will attempt a chart below. E=election year. A=Year with president A in office. B= year with president B in office. Number=Year 1EA 2A 3A 4A 5A 6A 7EB 8B 9B 10B 11B 12B 13EA 14A 15A 16A 17A 18A 19EB Count it! The time from A's first election to A's second election is 12 years (year 1 to 13. 13-1=12). While the time from A's first election to the END of A's second TERM would be the 18 years (year 1 to 19. 19-1=18). I don't know how I can make that any clearer. Unless I missed something big, I consider the math issue closed. _ On to real issues... >Election years can drive up the turnout and cause incumbents to lose or get through hard reelections. This would in essence give 2/3rds of the senate easy reelections permanently. Yes it can which is why you would have the Presidential election during a year that we don't elect senators, that way none of them would get the presidential election year advantage. And each of the senator elections would occur during the presidential term. All of the senate groups would have an election during a president's term thus giving the advantage to no one. > Staging presidential elections on odd years would simply add very costly extra elections for no good reason. For some reason my opponent thinks that an election every 4 years would be cheaper than an election every 6. Maybe elections are cheaper in bulk, maybe they're not, but that's arguing that the cost of an election is more important that the effectiveness of the office. _ > Presidents are elected for four years… That is why I said that a president CAN be in office for 8 years in a row. And allowing the president to focus on running the country rather than running for office is one of the reasons for nonconsecutive terms. > So you think we need this president out of office for a bit before we realize that he's an awful president? 6 years nonconsecutive terms would have forced Bush out of office 2 years ago. The Enron fiasco happened while Bush was in office, but the "creative accounting" that Enron was doing started when Clinton was in office. Just illustrate how the result of one president's actions or inactions would not occur until another president was in office. That is why we need a chance to see the real result of their actions. In the short run we just can't tell. _ > The president is the leadership. If my opponent thinks that "the president is the leadership" then why the concern over senate group advantage? Clearly by my opponent believes they are part of the leadership. My opponent is aware that we have 3 branches and the concern over senate group advantage clearly illustrates the importance of the senate's role in leadership. The executive branch is only one of the three branches. The president can't even write laws. The Supreme Court recently overturned part of the Patriot Act. And Congress can overturn a veto from the president, and pass the bill anyway. It is those checks and balances that make all of the branches "the leadership". ___ >> It [Unlimited terms] would allow us to get 6 years of subpar executive branch leadership. They would be 18 years older than when they previously were elected. I think my opponent was referring to the "nonconsecutive" aspect rather than the "unlimited terms" aspect, but my opponent's argument of "subpar executive branch leadership" still needs to be addressed. The leaving president would not be in the president's office, but that doesn't mean that they would just wink out of existence for 6 years. Whoever looses this election will likely go right back to the senate and work there. The "subpar" president could very easily have the "above par" president in an advisory position, or on the chiefs of staff, or heading the FCC for all I care. The point is that the "above par" president could do any number of things when waiting the 6 years before running again. In which case, that president would only be 12 years older than when he/she was first elected. ___ >> Also, if a president simply served at the pleasure of the electorate they would always be discouraged from such [last minute actions that would prevent them from being elected in the future] actions. This is why I am arguing for unlimited terms. If a president always had the chance to return that president would not make last minute actions like mass presidential pardons of friends and friends of friends as Clinton did. Not to pick on Clinton, he was just the last president that left office with no chance to return, and thus no consequence of his final actions. I'm sure that Bush will do something similar, because he too will have no chance of returning and thus no consequence of actions. Preventing these types of things are exactly the reason that presidents should be able to serve and unlimited number of terms. ___ My opponent's other suggestions: >>1) Expand the house to 1500 congresspersons. This does not address the president's length of term, return ability, or non-consecutive terms. As such it has no place in this debate. >>2) Presidents should serve until they are voted out of office (40% say out him and new election starts) by the people during the midterms. 40%? That would mean that we out someone that the majority (60%) wants in. And now it appears that my opponent has abandoned the earlier argument of election cost. And that would not give anyone interested in running adequate notice to start campaigning. Maybe an election is coming up midterm, maybe not. This frequency and unknown would not provide a stable government. >>3) Presidents elected by popular vote. Cool. And then that president could serve for 6 years, an unlimited number of terms as long as they were nonconsecutive. >>4) Run off elections for presidents rather than party primary. This is another good idea from my opponent. And then that president could serve for 6 years, an unlimited number of terms as long as they were nonconsecutive. __ Here are my standing points. Unlimited terms would: 1. Allow a good president to be elected repeatedly. My opponent has time and time again argued that a good president should be allowed to return if they are doing a good job. As all I am asking for is a chance to see how good of a job that president did, it would appear that we agree on this point. Non-consecutive terms would: 3. Prevent someone from staying in power for too long. My opponent's distain for Bush has clearly illustrated the strength of this point. 4. Allow the president to focus on running the country rather than trying to get reelected while running the country. My opponent has made no comment with regards to trying to run the country *while* also running for election. This point stands uncontested. 5. Let the people and business be able to plan ahead more accurately. My opponent's views have leaned on the immediate rather than the future. As a result my opponent has made no comment indicating that looking ahead would be detrimental. 6. Allow the people to see the long term results of any actions by a president before voting for them again. My opponent has made some argument here, but all of my opponents arguments seem to reflect the notion that whatever is going on at any given moment is entirely the fault of whoever is currently in office. 7. Help prevent presidents from starting wars just to stay in office. Here Bush becomes another good example. We invaded Iraq in 2003. 2004 was an election year. If Bush had no chance of being reelected, declaring a war would not have helped him to "run" the country for another 4 years for a total of 8. This is why I argue that presidents should serve for 6 year unlimited nonconsecutive terms. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest. because Well what we need to look at is the objective of Obama's plan. The troops that are being sent to Afghanistan will not be withdrawn immediately following the 18 month time period. As soon as that 18 month period is up, Obama needs to reacquire the ground situation. So if we look too see how incompetent the army is most of the troops will be in Afghanistan a lot longer than 18 months. The British General David Richard who has served in Afghanistan states that the war could last as long as 40 years. So what we can see here is that if we favor the lives of our troops Obama's plan is not the the best interest for the United States. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against World Peace In Prehistory (5) because Everything you posted in your argument can be attributed more towards human nature then the actual "consequences" of agriculture. Man has a duel nature, as pointed out by Niccolo Machiavelli, man has the ability to reason and to logical however he also has the ability to be savage and beast like in his actions. The idea of ownership would not be a problem if it was not in human nature to be jealous. Thus ambitious men will always find a way to deprive others of their possessions, whether it is by physical force or by intellectual wit. It is also reasonable to believe that even before the idea of ownership was established, that territories that were of high value would have been disputed, such as but not limited to hunting grounds, sources of water and places where edible vegetation were plentiful. If life was difficult and food not plentiful, it would be extremely likely that conflicts between clans would arise in order to compete for resources. For as history has told us that even natives who were ethereal with senses of nature, could be as cruel and savage as those of even the most brutal figures of history. Man is still man and if you strip him down to his most primal state, that is when he is the most dangerous and reckless. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that man's conflicts with each other were always brutal, and since the population of men was relativity low during the time of hunter and gathers, that a small conflict between two kin or clans would be the equivalent of a conflict with a high casualty rate if the two populations were proportionally assessed. For example, if you had a population of fifty and you lost ten of your clan members to a rival clan's raid, it would be equally as devastating if a city state had a population of one million and they lost two hundred thousand citizen soldiers in a war against a rival city state. However it would be easier for the city state to replenish their population as they have more potential mating partners and a better mortality rate then the clan. I would like to address the point of which you made, stating that it was the wealth that came from agriculture was the cause the deterioration of relations between groups of people. One can argue this as much as they want, however the fact is that wealth was just a tool for developing injustices, and without somebody operating the tools the tool itself would be useless. Men often seek for advantages over their fellowman and once the basic needs for survival has been satisfied then the ability to seek such advantages may be pursued. As Machiavelli said wealth alone can not establish a firm rule over other men. Men who establish their rule by wealth alone can be overthrown with relative ease if they don't lay down the foundations of their rule shortly after maintaining power, for allies who are bought by coins (or the fortune of others) rather then loyalty to the person can not be trusted. Men who obtain power by that of skill and ambition find it harder to obtain power, but once power is obtain their new reign is more secure then that one of bought by the coin. Thus it is reasonable to believe that wealth alone did not contribute to imbalance social system, rather the ambition and nature of man that caused for such deterioration to occur. Thus peace can be only achieved if man was governed in a totalitarian state (an example would be japan's long peace when the period of warring clans came to an end when it was united under the rule of a single clan through efforts of men such as Oda Nobunaga) or if the world reverted to a state where clans were isolated from each other and had to struggle to satisfy the basic needs to survive (and even then struggles within clans for dominance and leadership the clan would be inevitable). To address the issue of population pressure, biology has demonstrated that each ecosystem has a population limit based on the amount of biomass the ecosystem can support, and even then there are cycles of overpopulation and starvation within each ecosystem (refer to references [1][2]). However agriculture allows for for the expansion of the existing population limit by increasing the ecosystem's ability to maintain a larger amount of biomass. It is true that when there is a surplus, populations increase and thus the surplus dwindles until it is gone and there becomes a shortage. However advances in agricultural sciences and genetic engineering allows for greater and more reliable yields in a shorter time, thus keeping it's ability to keep up with the demands of the growing population. I would like to take this time to address the benefits that agriculture has brought man. "Where tillage begins, other arts follow. The farmers therefore are the founders of human civilization." --Daniel Webster Before agriculture it was impossible for arts to flourish, thus man was ignorant of the universe and the world around them. The establishment of agriculture allowed for the expansion of arts in a way which would have been impossible in hunting gathering communities. People could purse arts, science and religion in a manner that would benefit the entire human race. Advances in medicine, science and other studies which has increased the lifespan of a person would not have been possible. Fatality rates would be extremely high from minor injuries such as cuts, broken bones or illnesses, because there was always the risk of infections that would almost certainly kill a person. In pre agriculture life, the lifespan of a person was very short by today's standard (people had to reproduce at a early age, hints why kid's have the ability to reproduce in their early teen years). So agriculture and currency (the representation of a good or service) allowed for man to peruse self enlightenment and new technological wonders. For if currency never existed then the blacksmith or the healer would starve and abandon their career. Thus if it were not for agriculture and a surplus of food which can trade or sell to his fellow man then men would spend his life living like a beast, blissfully ignorant of the world to be discovered and conquered by him and his fellow homosapien. One may argue that our ability to reason and logic separates us from animal, this is true however animals have some sense of reason themselves. They've learned to adapt and evolved to ensure the survival of their species, this is no different from when man developed tools and developed hunting skills. I argue that the thing that separates us from the beast is our ambition to go on to do greater things, to learn the unknown, achieving the unthinkable and exploring new bold frontiers. So i conclude that it was not agriculture that was the great evil on the contrary it allowed for breakthroughs that benefited all of mankind. Rather it was man's greatest asset and biggest liability, ambition. For if a man who seeks self advancement in society in expense of others will almost always bring some form of misery vice versa, when a man is bent on helping those around him or in the name of the greater good by means of medicine or education or in any direct or indirect manner, he was almost always uncertainly bring good fortune upon those whom he seeks to help. [1] http://scienceray.com... [2] http://www.etap.org... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against All knowledge is founded on faith - 2 because I thank KRF for all of his patience! This will be quick and easy.... We will be assuming the materialistic view of the mind, that everything is physical, and thus the mind is physical (a manifestation of the brain). Let me reiterate: "Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." My opponent attacks Foundationalism as an improper answer to the faith problem. In fact, Foundationalism does rest on material proof - proof we call Qualia. Qualia is a conscious experience, like the taste of red wine, or the scent of perfume, or the sight of "redness". Philosopher Daniel C. Dennett writes that qualia is "an unfamiliar term for something that could not be more familiar to each of us: the ways things seem to us." These, are, in fact the most material of material. They are the foundation of proof, and thus logically deduced as A= A. One does not need faith to proclaim, "It seems to me that I am witnessing [insert qualia here]." Such qualia proof of "seemingness" is foundational to all knowledge. It is quite logical, in fact, to deduce that what something seems is what it seems. Again, logically, A=A. Foundationalism does not rest on faith. Proof, you ask? What more proof does one need than the qualia, the actual physical manifestation of how things seem in the world? To say that something "seems" as something does not rest on faith. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Megan Fox is Ugly because It's the nature of a debate miss :) <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Should we put constraint on media for national security because SO my opponents only response to my arguments is to say that the government will become a dictatorship, and he leads off to say about the present world, internet, paper, radio, and tv are the only links between news and the people. He leads off on a doomsday, saying that the government will be able to control all of humanity. WRONG. Look at it today. Perfect example. Look at the US. We have constraints on the media from finding out about military secrets, and yet we are still ourselves. No government dictatorship. Last time I checked, we still have freedom of speech, and the Bill of Rights. So really , my opponents still hasn't made a valid point. We can extend all my arguments. I urge an affirmative ballot. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against People do not value life in general. because Since there is nothing else to falsify, I'll await a response. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with My Life Sucks More Than My Opponent's because I stand affirmative to the resolution that my life sucks more than my opponents. "Sucks" obviously, is being used in a slang sense meaning "is really, really not so good". Below are my contentions: 1. I Am a Ginger Gingers are one of the most bullied forms of people in the United States, and unlike homosexuals and the obese, no spotlight is ever being given to us in order to be supported [ http://abcnews.go.com... ]. I go to school like e'rryday and get treated like much less than a human being. Being so discriminated against has brought me to sleep on railroad tracks some nights, hoping that the Polar Express will come to the rescue and run me over. Being a ginger has also driven my family to feed me only once a day as punishment. "We just want you to stop being this way," said my father, "and we will only feed you as much as legally required until you learn to change". Needless to say, I get pretty hungry once in a while. Finally, while the normal human being's heart is made up of four chambers and an aorta, the ginger's heart is more or less a tiny black hole, that slowly drains away any happiness I could possibly feel. Since I cannot feel any happiness, my life sucks to a maximum. Since my life sucks to a maximum, only a ginger's life can suck worse than mine. Since jdog is not a ginger, my life sucks worse than his. 2. jdog2016 is the Prince of Jordan (This is a troll debate, so now that I said you're the prince of Jordan, you're the facking prince of Jordan.) jdog2016 cannot possibly have a sucky life. He is the prince of Jordan. He is provided with any and everything he could ever want, including food, shelter, and most importantly, free hot tubs filled with Pepto-Bismol. Also, considering that he's the third son of the kind makes him fourth in line for the throne, since the king has a brother. So, there is a fine chance he will go the duration of his entire life never having to take on any royal responsibilities. For example, when one of the princes of England ran around Las Vegas butt-naked, he did so because he knew he had no reputation to lose seeing as he'd never be king. jdog has the same right. Being prince of Jordan gives him all power and no responsibility. That's a pretty non-sucky life if you ask me. I was going to post contention 3, but I was like nah bro. It's late. Still, the resolution is impenetrable. VOTE PRO. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against The Flying Spaghetti Monster and Jesus because Very disappointing... perhaps my opponent has been struck down for blasphemy against the FSM, claiming that this non-pasta-serving Jesus is somehow related to the Most Noodly FSM. Ramen. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Austerity is a poor way to help an economy. because Austerity, the practice of attempting to limit government spending in order to reign in debt, is a strategy pursued by many countries in the midst of recession. It is Pro's contention that while these policies may seem wise in the short term, they have a demonstrably poor track record at actually helping an economy to recover overall. First round is for acceptance. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against There is Substantial Fossil Evidence for Evolution because Ok, lets do this. "CON Claims: Fossils don't tell us if the animal being fossilized gave birth" That is right, fossils tell nothing of evolution, all you can know is that they once were living creatures. The fossils could have ended up in the ground in many ways. In that there is absolutely no way of even knowing those fossils even lived. If you asume that creatures came about by chance, you are tripped up by the fact that fossils formed by chance and had nothing to do with living creatures at all. And those bones you find of say a T-rex had come about by being shipped here from another planet. - This may sound ubserd, however it at least moves the problem of biogenisis else where for now. You have yet to prove other alien life exists. For in till someone does so, there is no reason to believe in either. Alien life or evolution through the remains of fossils. I explained the equal properties that evolution and alien life share, and you did not really display any reason why I was wrong. In one to one debates why do you state the obvious? Of course I will seem erroneous to you, as much as you to me. Anyway, like I was saying about aliens relating to that fossils meaning nothing to evolution or proving any evidence. If we got a signal from space which stood out from all the other random signals, such as solar wind signals. If earth received an intelligent signal such a the coding of DNA which is, A, G, C and T. If we continously received same old signals from otter space, earth would, with out doubt conclued there is intelligent life. Unless this occurs you are enable to responded to the signal unless you conclude that DNA is a signal from God. You go on to say that, "Yeah maybe one fossil alone will not explain evolution is fact, but many of similar fossils prove evolution" - It makes no difference, if you have a whole kind of dead creatures in a form of a fossil or one single fossil. Take it like this, fossils are contructed by old bones or young, say if I said one of those bones is one fossil. If I added up all those bones, and if I recived to correct bones to link them up I you get a compleleted fossil. Of course add some rock and a few minerals. And POW! We have a fossil. Now what do I mean by the bones, well its only really to see the different animals wth in one kind. As if the bones were the dones were the creatures in the kind, in that they can evolve into different creatures within their kind. That is called micro evolution. If you want macro evolution, you would need to work out how one bone which is totally ralated only within this particular fossil/creature. Now I know what you are going to suggest possibly. You would say that the other fossils, say I had two, are different planets. And each bone is a different kind. And that bones link up well, with the joints etc. However since you rejected my possible theory of other life on other planets, you are stuck in solving this. I for one do not believe in other intelligent life. You therefore can not prove to me that fossils have any benefit in proving evolution. I did not get any reply on my question of trust. - "Still trust these scientists who have said such methods are correct when clearly not. (I actually want your answer on this question)" - (Return to my previous round to see the reason why I posed this question) I am sorry I have left this short, there really is no excuse why I had to leave, I should had done this sooner. I got to go away for the weekend and I would have had failed to reply since the time would had ran out, therefore increasing my chance of losing this really enjoyable debate. However I will attempt to use up my 16,000 charactors when I return on Sunday and onwards. Take care. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Pressuring noobs vs Pressuring experienced players in mafia games. because Thanks, F-16. To be perfectly honest, this debate seems like a no-brainer to me. I'm surprised F-16 continues to challenge the strategy often credited to me of who to pressure on DP1, because it simply makes perfect sense :P The logic behind voting for someone who's style you don't know is pretty straightforward: 1) If you aren't familiar with someone's style, it's likely because they're a n00b. In most games, n00bs are not given particularly decent roles because of their inability to use them effectively. As such, if you pressure a n00b and they are forced to reveal a townie role, it's likely not going to be a power role (or the most important role). 2) Because n00bs usually need help, the town can help direct their night actions so they are not wasted or misused. The town benefits from having information, and it's best to know information that pertains to n00bs so we can help and let the more experienced townies play in the shadows. As a most recent example, royalpaladdin attempted to vigilante kill the doctor in Inheritance Mafia, killing another townie in the process. 3) Some mods used to put n00bs in the mafia specifically to help them with strategy. As such, it can be statistically in your favor that a n00b is likely mafia. This may not always be the case, though, so it's not my most important point by any means (I just figured I'd throw it out there since it used to be the case). Now onto the meat and potatoes of my argument... 4) The first primary reason to vote for n00bs is that they tend to SUCK at being mafia. I can easily dig up recent examples to prove this; hopefully F-16 doesn't make me (it'd be a waste of time). Thus if you pressure a more experienced player, they may completely trick you (bluesteel, TV, etc.). Their alignment is better left up to investigations or other night action revelations. Meanwhile, it is usually far easier for a n00b mafioso to mess up. For instance, in the Interwebz game CapLlock copy and pasted his role (resulting in a mod kill) - his MAFIA role. In other words, n00bs are more likely to fold under pressure, and not come up with good lies or explanations. This is true even though they may have help from mafia teammates. In the Miscellaneous Game, one mafia n00b PM'd other players (which should also result in a mod kill) rather than ask the mod or his teammates any questions or for help. 5) The second primary reason to pressure a n00b is that there is little to no benefit in pressuring an experienced player. Obviously they are going to participate, so you can rely on your reads and scum tells from them. There is no reason to pressure them because presumably you will pick up on whatever mafia tells you already know about them. In theory, you have figured out patterns that you recognize that can help you deduce whether or not they are mafia. With a n00b, you are completely blind to their playing style and have absolutely no idea what to look for or notice when they participate. 6) The final primary reason is that BECAUSE they are new, their behavior could easily be misconstrued as scummy. For example, royalpaladdin was convinced I was mafia in the Interwebz game even though ALL evidence proved contrary. Because she's a n00b, we can expect that kind of innocent bad playing. Meanwhile, if a more experienced player ignored all logic and evidence and played poorly, that would stick out as scummy. With a n00b, you cannot tell if their style is scummy or legitimately due to their inexperience. Of course any mafia n00b would always claim their n00bish behavior is because they're a n00b and not scum. However there's really no way to tell. That's why being familiar with someone's style is so important. In past games, I have figured out when more experienced players were mafia because their playing was so off. The only way to tell if a n00b's idiocy is legitimate or not is to get a definitive claim from them. As such, it makes a lot of sense to pressure them initially for claims. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So now I'll address my opponent's points... 1) F-16 claims that n00bs typically fight when you ask them to claim, whereas more experienced players tend to give up their roles right off the bat. That is not entirely true. I know if I were pressured right away on DP1, I would fight it because it would seem non-sensical to me (for all aforementioned reasons). Meanwhile we have seen many cases of n00bs being forthcoming with their role. This is a shoddy contention because it requires on a lot of maybe's just like my 3rd contention (that's why my last 3 are the strongest). What F-16 is essentially saying is that a n00b is likely to challenge pressure, thereby making themselves look guilty even if they are not. This SUPPORTS my position, because it confirms that n00bs tend to seem guilty unnecessarily. As such, character and role claims are often the best way to confirm them. Further, experienced players already know that this is typical n00bish behavior (hence F-16 bringing it up in the first place) meaning a more experienced player would NOT necessarily accept hesitation as scummy, and again getting a claim is the best possible way to confirm allegiance. This point of my opponent's supports my position. 2) Pro writes, " Each player reacts to pressure in a different way and has specific styles of playing. If the person pressuring is aware of the player's style, they would be able to read the player more easily than a player whose style they are unaware of." This is completely non-sensical. F-16 just said that with a player you know, you can read their style thus assess their guilt. However YOU DON'T NEED TO PRESSURE SOMEONE TO SEE THEIR STYLE. Their style can be assessed through what they say, how they say it, how they vote, their activity level, etc. Meanwhile, claims only give you that - claims. Therefore it makes perfect sense to pressure someone for a claim who's style you cannot read. Keep in mind that pressuring someone is not the same as INITIALLY pressuring someone. You might have a reason to pressure an experienced player, say if they seem guilty for Reason X or some night actions placed suspicion on them. F-16 asks, "Why pressure a player whose style you don't know if you are not going to be able to assess their guilt based on their response?" This question practically answers itself. You don't know how to assess their guilt, therefore a claim from them is the best way to determine their likely guilt or innocence. An iffy claim means they would/should be subject to investigation. The better question is why ask for a claim from someone who's style you CAN read? If they seem shady, pressure them. If they don't, leave them be. If they are guilty and you know how to read them, then chances are you will realize that based on how they play - THEN you can pressure them for a claim. Remember, I'm not against pressuring experineced players. I'm arguing that it's more beneficial to INITIALLY pressure a n00b. 3) Pro says, " Overall, pressuring noobs is likely to hurt more than help if they are town by making them look suspicious or revealing more info about their role than is beneficial to reveal in DP1." This is completely not true. If they reveal a lot of information about their role (including a power role), it likely confirms their innocence - not guilt. It also doesn't distinguish how this pertains to n00bs in particular. F-16 is basically saying that someone will look guilty for telling the truth. This seems irrelevant and I completely disagree with this assessment anyway. Anyone with significant pressure should claim and probably be truthful about their role. He writes, "A new player is far more likely than an experienced player to reveal a powerful role," but that's not a problem and certainly not a contention in his favor. 4) I've already responded to C4 -- I'll explain further if need be. Back to ye. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Economic Sanctions ought not be used to Achieve Foreign Policy Objectives. because --"His second burden is explained to be accomplished by me (1) proving that they cause more harm than benefits of merely achieving FPO." 1. The argument is that we're not using sanctions for unimportant things. For example, we're not sanctioning Nepal because we don't like their weird looking flag: http://www.mapsofworld.com... . We're sanctioning countries that have threats of genocide and nuclear proliferation (these are PRO's own examples.) We always take the risks of sanctions into account, so there is no reason to assume that we would ever use sanctions in a situation where the harms would outweigh the benefits. 2. Like PRO said, our citizens come first. It's always superior to do more harm to them and less harm to ourselves. That's the reason we go to war to defend ourselves instead of letting countries just run us over. It might cause more harm to them, but the goal is to protect our citizens. --"He doesn't bother to even give a warrant to explain how Sanctions are superior than the alternatives." It's PRO's job to prove there are good alternatives to sanctions. Until he does so, I see no reason why we would assume such is true. --- --"His second contention, again, never gives any warrants. He refuses, nor won't, say how they are helping to achieve FPOs." Coercion It's not a great leap in logic here: We are killing tons of their people and depleting all their resources, but promise to stop if our demands are met. There's a pretty good chance that our demands get met. --"He is just merely contradicting my own cards against me, and thus shouldn't be used in a standard LD NC; rather, in the rebuttal against my case." What? I'm using evidence to support my case that sanctions effectively achieve foreign policy objectives. It's not my fault PRO used these counter-intuitive cards in his own case. "Thus, you can ignore both of his cards to the point where is he is left without warrants, and cards, only with contentions." I'm not understanding the logic here? Because PRO posted the evidence first, it's impossible for it to support my case? Why would these warrants be invalidated for me, and only me? --- --"To extend my criterion, I'd like to add that throughout my case I explained thoroughly how I am justifying, and increasing the quality of life. His side is only hurting it through the sanctions, thus, my argument directly links to the topic at hand." Proving that affirming meets your standard is not the same thing as proving that your standard should be used. Suppose my criterion was 'greediness.' I could very easily throughout my case prove that hoarding our resources via sanctions better upholds greediness. This is exactly the same logic PRO is using. Do you see the loophole? There is never a justification why my criterion of greediness (nor his criterion) is actually a good thing, just that my side of the case better upholds it. --"To extend his arguement - We have no obligation to protect a foreign country's citizens;" This is directly contradictory to his own (unwarranted) criterion. --"we also have no right to directly hurt them in the means of death just because of need to sanctioned them" We're directly hurting them? By not trading with them, we are directly causing them harm? PRO has not traded with me whatsoever, this clearly means that he has directly caused me harm by his logic. That's just asinine! THEY have no right to force us to trade with them. We are in no way directly harming anyone. Sanctions just exercise the right to property that the other country has no right to demand us to relinquish for their sake. --"Sure, the sanctions caused deaths, which CAN be the goal of Sanctions, but what if the goal ISN'T to cause deaths." Then we wouldn't sanction them... --"You are causing un-needed harm, and drastic consequences to your own title" This is another contradiction to his own C-X testimony. These sanctions are needed to stop genocide/nuclear proliferation. They are not 'un-needed harm.' They are quite necessary, which is why we have historically used them. --- --"To extend my second contention. Again, what if more harm is being caused." He's extending a question? Pardon me for saying that I don't quite follow. --"By shortening the resources, more health of the population is being weakened; more people die each year as a result." That's exactly the point of sanctions... --"The countries cannot afford the materials needed to even buy Vaccinations for the population; thus, the right to life is being denied." Again, isn't this exactly what we use sanctions to achieve? Isn't a good thing that they are effective? --"as linked to my criterion, is lowering the quality of life to the foreign country." The key word here being 'FOREIGN.' Like PRO says in CX. We don't care about them, we're saving our own hides with sanctions. --"With such funds lost, they lose all ability to buy enough food, water, and materials needed." Isn't this just the definition of sanctions? We are doing this to them on purpose. It's not some unintended consequence. --"Thus, you cannot say such damages can justify the means of accomplishing the act of achieving FPO." Why? --- --"Finally, I shall extend my criterion." Didn't he already do this? --"Does it sound reasonable to kill innocent lives over achieving basic FPOs? Does it seem just to hurt the population over a country over possible threats? Does it sound right to cause more deaths than a war?" A lovely emotional appeal, but: 1. The logical answer is YES, because the benefits outweigh the harms. 2. This is a new argument for his criterion that wasn't provided in his original speech. --"I'm obviously winning the value debate" We agreed on the value... How is this possible? --"I've given cards to support those warrants, warrants to support those cards" Isn't this circular logic? --"Thus, you can ignore my opponent's words on their contentions, cards, and their burdens as all they did was state them - no reasons given." This seems very hypocritical, seeing how this is also just a statement with no reasons given... ======== =Summary= ======== My opponent has absolutely no clue what the word 'extend' means. This is the most important thing in the round because the way he is using it is really annoying me, but if you don't buy that, just refer to the above arguments where he has: 1. Made no arguments against my criterion 2. Not linked to my criterion; thus, 3. Not fulfilled his burden of proof. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Should colleges be free because Colleges should not be free because of the following reasons: 1) How will the colleges pay for the teachers and professors that teach the students the course and material without having the students pay for their education fee? 2)Do you really you think with the capitalist society America is rooted on that anything at the most part will be free? Sure there's public education. You still have to pay taxes for that. Virtually, colleges cannot be free. This leads to my third point. 3)There's this thing called community college. It's cheap and inexpensive. Most people that go there either need to save money or just extend their studies before they transfer to a better college. 4)Scholarships help a lot with loans. Most students can get a scholarship. Not the big flashy "Bill Gate Scholarship", but a small one that pays for a part of your tuition. All in all, the way colleges run is that they provide education in return for money. Also, public colleges are funded by the state. Private colleges aren't. This is why they are usually more expensive and in return you get better education. And that's pretty much it for my side of the debate. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with GodSand's *other* proof of the existence God is logically invalid because It appears that my opponent has decided not to respond. In that case, all of my arguments extend to the next round. Thank you. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against A movie should only be rated R only if there is nudity, extreme profanity and extreme violence because Forfeits are not fun. :( <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Resolved: Brendan is a Buzz Kill because As one reads the closing argument of my opponent, one question is left unanswered, "Did this dude even read the preceding posts? On either side?" Indeed, if this were a contest of showmanship, then perhaps my opponent would win with his John Grisham novel which left us all so riveted. However, as exciting as his stories may be, they nonetheless evade all of the arguments which have been given. This exchange has firmly established a number of things, First, we have seen that Brendan is a great supplier of buzz, giving articles and insights that enhance conversation, enjoyment, knowledge and overall appreciation of the world. Second, Brendan's responses to other people's posts and arguments have furthered debate, enriched exchange and made everyone's lives better. Finally, we have witnessed as Wrath of God has twisted and abused Brendan's gifts of knowledge leaving clear that if indeed Buzz has died, 'twas Wrath that pulled the trigger. Now I have returned to the more somber note which was earlier held and for that I apologize. However, it has been necessary, as Wrath has made clear, we are dealing with the serious offense of buzz murder. Can we help but to approach this subject with anything but the most sober recognition of the holy duty which justice has placed upon us? Judges! Rise now to the occasion which your responsibility as citizens of this website has set before you! Ignore the flashy lights of deceit with which Wrath has attempted to distract and vote as the arguments demand. The facts are clear, Brendan is no killer of buzz, but rather breathes life into buzz. I now leave you to vote as you see best. But as a final note, I wear these shoes because they make me feel beautiful and strong at the same time which is important when you have as stressful of a life as I do. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Girls should be able to do less exercise than boys in gym classes. because Thank you for your response. I noticed that I failed to site my source from my previous argument, but here it is: http://www.nextgenjournal.com... I can understand where you are coming from with your argument. Yes it is true that boys and girls differ in levels of competitiveness. However there are also boys who may feel weak and out of shape when seeing other more physically fit boys and girls. There are also girls and boys in gym classes that are obese and out of shape and give up on P.E., because the exercises that are done are to strenuous for them. A possible solution to this is to have different gym classes for different weights. It is possible with this solution to help both genders get in shape. I must also include your argument about shy children. These children are not necessarily obese, but may be not as fit as the others. Special classes for these people would also help. When you are surrounded by others that are the same weight as you, you are less likely to feel shy, because you know that the entire group will perform almost exactly the same. Although they react differently to tasks, if they are surround by members of their own weight they are more likely to be able to perform better and do the exercises. I guess what I am trying to say is that they should be separated by their ability to perform not their gender. Those members of different genders with the same ability to perform should do the same exercises. <EOA>