Datasets:

notaphoenix

/

iesta_liberal_effective

like 0

<BOA> I am against Universal health care nuts should also be in favor of universal food, shelter, clothing, etc. because Fact: Thousands of working Americans lose their health insurance every day. Fact: Millions of insured Americans are one illness away from bankruptcy. Fact: Health care costs are spiraling out of control [1]. And here are some more facts for you: Despite popular belief, most doctors (nearly 60 percent) support UHC (Universal Health Care). In addition, 83 percent of psychiatrists, 69 percent of emergency medicine specialists, 65 percent of pediatricians, 64 percent of internists, 60 percent of family physicians and 55 percent of general surgeons favor a national health insurance plan [2]. These are bright individuals who work with patients every day, and know that for people without health insurance, their options are very limited -- they either choose to spend ALL of their income for whatever procedure/examination/medicine they need... thus bankrupting them entirely, which is not only bad for the individual, but for the entire state as well - OR - they just ignore their health problems which is also horrible for the individual as well as detrimental to society at large. Other countries with national health care programs (Britian, France, Canada, etc.) spend LESS on health care than the United States per capita, PLUS they achieve better results for patients [2]! This shows that there is definite need for reform in our country where over 47 million Americans live without health insurance. In that case, it is possible for UHC to be established and to benefit the people in this country in a way that provides better health services for a cheaper cost. Imagine that. Now if people achieved these results -- I'm pretty sure the United States of America is capable of competing with nations like Canada in terms of health care benefits -- remember that those who prefer privatized insurance programs can still go that route if we so choose. The whole "I shouldn't have to pay taxes for a program I don't agree with" argument does not and cannot apply; for instance the U.S. spends 12 BILLION DOLLARS on anti-drug programs that I do not agree with or support, yet I still have to pay taxes that fund these programs, don't I? Further, let's keep in mind that our taxes don't necessarily have to be raised (if so, not by much) if we would only change our priorities in terms of the allocations of funds. For instance, that $12B on anti-drug programs is unnecessary in my opinion. For those that don't agree, consider the fact that we spent upwards of $40 million dollars in terms of investigation on the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky scandals (by the way - we only spent $15 million for the 9/11 Comission to examine the terrorist attacks of 9/11). We also spend 168 million dollars on abstinence-only education! And let's not forget that we spend more than $341 million dollars PER DAY on an incredibly unpopular and unsupported (not to mention uninstigated) war [4]. If only these financial "priorities" changed, we would have A LOT more money to spend on health care. The cost of the war in Iraq alone is infinitely more than the cost of UHC would be for our nation. For these reasons and others, I support universal health care in the United States. I don't think this makes me a "nut" and I believe referring to advocates of this program as such is disrespectful and quite unintelligent, actually, if you really take a look at the facts. So in that case, I believe I have said what I wanted to say so far in R1. I will now respond to each of my opponent's claims from his first argument: "If universal health care crowd were capable of being a little more consistent, they'd be communists." -- Nope. What a blatant exaggeration. I understand this reference was intended for dramatic effect, but it should not be considered relevant at all in terms of this debate unless my opponent elaborates on how the complicated economic system of communism would ensue just from the implementation of universal health care. "Despite the fact that nowhere in our founding documents is health care declared a 'right,' proponents who want to make it a right point to the fact that health care is a human necessity." -- Well, I'm a supporter of UHC but I don't deem it an absolute necessity; I just think it's an important thing to have. Further, nowhere in our founding documents are we given the 'right' to privacy or travel, but these are things we presume to be 'rights' and therefore have firmly established them in precedent and law. There is no reason why we can't do the same with health care. "If the degree of necessity is the criteria for converting a private service into a public entitlement, why isn't universal food, clothing, water, shelter, transportation, etc. on the agenda?" -- Isn't it though? First of all, again, I don't deem health care as much of a 'necessity' as I do food, clothing or shelter. However these are all things that must be provided - by law - say by a parent to a child. Therefore government programs or other amenities have been established to guarantee the basic transaction of these goods, i.e. food stamps or [free] water fountains in public parks. Medicaid is a start, but as we all know, it is severely flawed and nowhere near provides the medical coverage services that advocates of UHC wish to see in this country. Further, it is more likely that someone receive their nourishment needs via government than their health care needs in terms of currently existing programs. "...So many people without health insurance forgo it voluntarily to make room for their car and even cell phone payments." While that may be true for some (very few) people, it's certainly not true for all! I suppose it's easier to assume that this is the case to ease a few consciences about not supporting UHC. However the reality is that there are very poor individuals - who yes, are working - and cannot afford any type of health care, phone (let alone cell phone), transportation, etc. Again I ask that for this misguided argument to stand, my opponent should provide citation of factual evidence proving that this is the case for a majority of circumstances, otherwise this claim should not be considered evidence as part of the debate. ---------------------------- Sources: [1] http://www.amsa.org... [2] http://www.reuters.com... [3] http://www.parade.com... [4] http://www.nationalpriorities.org... <EOA>

<BOA> I am with If war is murder, than it should be legal for anyone to murder anyone. because I want to start by once again thanking my opponent for this debate, its been interesting. I will keep this plain and simple as I can. If war is legal, so should murder on a smaller scale for the same reasons. I don't think a country would go to war because someone stole a bunch of bicycles, and certainly not children. If it is justified to fight a war for religious reasons, it would also be proper to kill someone for religious differences. Just because the number is larger, and its somewhere else, and someone else's problem, does not mean it is less wrong. I agree war is needed sometimes, so is murder. If you have someone come on your property and try and kill you, you have a right to kill that person, no different then a government. Lets say something happened such as the attacker killed himself and the victim. The family of the victim does not have the right to find the attackers house and treat the people there the same way, or worse. Government should in turn not have that right. My opponent t claims I contradicted myself, my point was not what a terrorist is, but what people consider terrorists. People can now say that anyone they don't like are terrorists and in the war against terrorists, they will fail to see the REAL threat and find a reason to attack, torture, and kill gay atheists opposed to the war. I never meant for it to be a definition, just a case. My copy and paste links were meant to show what happens in war. You can't just say "well that happens sometimes but not always..." It happened then, it happens now, and the only way to end it is to end war, not just a specific war but violating a country's right to live. War is not any more justified then vigilantism. If it is okay for the government to attack another government, then a person should be able to attack another person for the same reason. Again I thank my opponent for this debate and the voters for reading it and hopefully voting fairly. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against No one deserves to go to Hell because I accept this debate and thank my opponent, 000ike, and the viewers for making it possible. The proposition I will be refuting is this: "No one is deserving of going to Hell". I not only agree to my opponent's first four statements (and of course the last two), but feel they will only serve to solidly construct a convincing argument for me. As the first round is for acceptance only, the ball is in your court, 000ike. Good luck. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Should the US continue to have Welfare? because Very well. Since my opponent appears to have conceded in his final argument, I will wrap up my side of the debate with a few myth-busters and other facts as well as my personal opinion. Here we go... Myth: People on social assistance are lazy and do not want to work. Reality: Many people on social assistance want to work, but cannot find jobs to support themselves or their families. A study of social assistance recipients by York Univrsity found that the most commonly cited reason for leaving their 'best job' was becaus of a layoff or because the employer went out of business, closed or relocated. That people continue to need social assistance says more about the labor market and changing economy than about the character of people. Lack of work is the largest single reason why people are on welfare, and it probably accounts for more than half of all welfare cases. Disability is the second most common reason, and is a factor in one quarter of all cases. (Source: http://www.incomesecurity.org... ) And finally, to respond to my opponent's point that giving a lot of families a little bit of money won't make much difference, I am going to provide a link to a simple google search: Welfare Success Stories. Perhaps the 339,000 articles that come up might change your mind. http://www.google.com... Ps. I can't believe you're saying that it's better to give no help then a little help. I know it's nearly April but damn... maybe you need to brush up on A Christmas Story or something. The bottom line is that people need more jobs, not more schooling or ambition. In fact the Daily Bread and Food Bank reports that OVER 40% of food bank clients on welfare have some college or university education. Thus the problem is bigger than "laziness" and people who don't know the facts should not join the ignorant right-wing bandwagon who complain about poor people in need stealing their money. Our country should be ashamed of itself for the way we treat our poor considering our status as a world super power. There are so many lies being spread; for instance, that welfare rates are too generous, mothers on welfare have too many kids, that the welfare system is rife with cheating and fraud, etc. Except the reality of the situation is clear to people who take the time to reach out and check out the facts. The truth is that all welfare rates are below the poverty line by tens of thousands of dollars. Also, families on welfare tend to be relatively small. "Nearly half of all single parent families on welfare have only one child; another 31% have two children" -- Profiles of Welfare: Myths and Realities, National Council of Welfare, 1998. Plus, the rate of fraud found in the income tax system is approxamitely twenty times higher than the rate of fraud in the welfare system ( http://www3.uakron.du... ). <EOA>

<BOA> I am against People should be allowed to donate their bodies to cannibals and necrophiliacs after they die. because Pro, this is a very unusual and undeniably unique topic. I couldnt resist. I must alter your definition of "Necrophiliac: One whose primary sexual fetish is a fetish for the dead," to read "Necrophiliac: One who posses a sexual fetish of performing sexual acts on or with the dead" as your definition reads like a "Necro" (as I will refer to them) has a fetish simply for the dead. Pro says "However, they can not donate their body to those who may wish to consume it and/or have sex with it." - Both of these acts that said body would be donated to are illegal and morally wrong. There would be a separate debate entirely on legalization of those acts. But to donate ones body would be to encourage an illegal act, which is in turn morally wrong. Pro says "Most people with "normal" sexual fetishes can express themselves sexually without it being discriminated by the law." - How many states exactly have passed a gay marriage rights law? Homosexuality, I would consider, is a pretty normal fetish. If donating ones deceased body to satisfy another's sexual urges whos to say it isnt wrong for people to have sex with animals, or children for that matter? We cant just let people do whatever they want for sexual pleasure. Pro says "Not to mention, Necrophiliacs would be given the right to have sex as every other human being does." - Necros have the right to have sex as every other human being does already. They dont, however, have the right to commit illegal acts, and should not be encouraged to do so. Pro says "The system for distributing these bodies would have to be regulated. The deceased would have to either pick someone they know to give their body to, or let their body be given away on a first come first serve basis. Background checks would follow, of course, to make sure the criminals would not traffic the bodies for money." - How many cannibals or necros do you suppose would REALLY come forward and register for this? Part of it is the thrill of knowing that theyre dong something wrong, the crimes would still be commited and the registry or "business" would fail. Thank you for your opening arguement. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against should we be allowed to use ipods durind school for music because We are debating whether or not to allow iPods in school to listen to music. I do not think that we should because they create distractions, they can create problems by being stolen, and finally I believe that the attitude that everyone should learn with their own methods is extremely inefficient and impractical as a schooling program. My opponent made an argument that infers since Olympic swimmers use music prior to performing that students in school should be allowed to use iPods. There are two issues with this argument: 1. They are Olympic swimmers. Dedication and drive are inherent to their successes. They"ve already demonstrated their self discipline in their rigorous training and eating habits as well as long term commitment. One would not get such sureties from the average student.[1] 2. The Olympic swimmers listened to music prior to performing, not during practice or performance. iPods are distracting by their very design. They dont just have music capabilities. They have games, video, and cameras, along with a near unlimited number of apps for download.[2][3] One cannot candidly expect students not to indulge in such distractions to the detriment of their schooling. Along with this is the fact that these features open students up to more serious forms of distraction. Young people have been known to take and pass along lewd pictures and video. This is often discovered in school as they share these images back and forth and the children end up charged with charges for having or spreading child pornography.[4] Electronics can be stolen. There are rates of nearly ten students per every thousand that experiencing theft in a single school year. It's to be noted that those reports are based on thefts of items over $10.[5] The natural reaction to theft is anger, frustration, helplessness and sometimes vengeance. These are all distracting and often troublesome emotions for groups to experience. It would be detrimental to a school environment for children to experience this. As electronics become more commonplace, so would the theft of those devices, and the suspicions attached to them. It would be better if electronics were completely banned from school grounds. Finally, schools are institutions. Most often, they are public institutions, run by tax payer funding and government bureaucracy. Institutions require funding and staff. The reason schools are directed as they are is because they must educate large numbers of children and so variation must be restricted because there is no proper way to assess children with a sundry and varied approach to training without a huge, inefficient staff that would require a budget that is not even possible much less practical. Also, what is the intent of schooling? Is it to push every child through? Or is it to teach those that can be taught for future careers and to assess the others" weaknesses to send them to other trades where they are more suited? Not everyone is going to be a rocket scientist. I don"t believe that sacrificing the core group for those that can"t fit the mold makes any sense. It would be more helpful to identify those and put them into trade schools or otherwise. I had also mentioned that to teach every child to their specific pleasure will lead to an attitude that requires personal preferences to be met before any effort can be gotten out of individuals. Schooling doesn't just teach facts and figures. It gives an impression of society and our position in it. If students are allowed to pick and choose every day how they want to meet the day, what use are they as employees. What if they decide they can't work until after eight, while everyone else shows up at six? What if they decide they need their music when safety requires earplugs? How will they function if the world is bent around them? It will certainly not bend so well once they get out of school and head into the "real world". iPods are not conducive to a strong learning environment. They cause distractions. The argument that school should be fit to each and every student is not practical nor is it to be desired. Schooling serves more purposes than just learning. It conditions people to accept the rules and regulations and inconveniences of life. As such, I do not believe that iPods should be allowed in schools. [1] http://www.theguardian.com... [2] http://www.apple.com... [3] http://www.apple.com... [4] http://www.wgal.com... [5] http://www.census.gov... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Christian rapper (me) vs. Jewish rapper Rap battle/debate because Extend arguments and have a nice day. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Jesus Existed as a Historical Person who Started the Christian Movement because Reply to Con's rebuttal in round 2 con't: "It would seem more credible that opponents be quoted, showing that even "they" agreed it happened," That they agreed "what" happened? That he existed? I've already pointed out that Jesus' existence was not challenged at the time, making it unnecessary to cite Tacitus in support of his existence. Nor would it be useful to prove Christ divinity cause it doesn't mention such. This is a very negative reference to Christianity. It speaks of Christians as being "hated for their enormities," a "pernicious superstition," "mischief," "hideous," "shameful," and "hating humanity." To quote this as authoritative, might also imply that these negative things were true about Christians. Why cite a source to prove one point only to end up in conflict with the same source on so many others? Very few believers would be attracted to it; and since Jesus' existence wasn't in question they simply didn't needed it. "1) Let me reprint the Jamesian reference...Speculation is unavoidable here." Speculation is not proof. (1) The passage appears in all the most ancient copies of Antiquities, (2) All ancient writers who quote this passage do so without showing that they had any doubts as to its authenticity, (3) We have no record of any ancient writer challenging this as a forgery, (4) The passage is written in the style typical of Josephus. The facts lean more heavily in the direction that Josephus did write it. "2) Now, this "non-Christian terminology" would be easy to understand if the words "who was called Christ" had been inserted after the word "Jesus." A Christian insertion would more likely read "who was the Christ," rather than "who was called Christ." It is backward reasoning to claim that non-Christian language is evidence of Christian tampering. The phrase occurs in all the oldest copies of Josephus suggesting it was also in the original. Just because an interpolation would make this passage easy for Con to understand doesn't prove it was a forgery; historical truth is not determined by what makes more sense to Con. Even in our time people believe and do some very strange things, and just because we don't understand it doesn't make it any less real. So while this Jamesian passage would make more sense to Con if it were a forgery, this is no proper methodology for reconstructing history. Christian tampering is a "possibility," so is the existence of "unicorns," but the available data just doesn't support either! "I agree the emphasis is not on either Jesus or James, but on Ananus, which makes a passing reference strange at best." Very strange. A Christian would more likely place the emphasis on Jesus, which just goes against this being a Christian insertion. "3)…Tacitus does not praise Jesus, yet that is not an interpolation?" No, it isn't, and Con has not provided any solid proof that it is. Again, the Tacitus reference to Christ appears in all the oldest copies of Tacitus, and there is no record that any ancient writer was suspicious of this being a forgery. It is significant that people living back then didn't catch wind of any conspiracy to invent Jesus, but Con, who is much farther removed from the original events did! One would think that people living in the first three centuries would be in a better position than Con to know if Jesus existed, as they were closer to the time of the original events; yet not even the enemies of Christianity ever charged that Jesus was a myth! "the earlier Josephus reference "does" give praise to Jesus, yet this is "not" an interpolation?" If Con can produce a genuine statement from Josephus where he denies that Jesus is the Christ, was resurrected, etc, then he would have reason to doubt that Josephus could have said such things about him. But we cannot assume what the man believed. If he says these things happened, he must have reason to believe they did. Giving praise to Jesus would only imply Christian tampering if we know for sure that Josephus did not believe these things. Con hasn't proved that he didn't. This passage is found in all oldest manuscripts of Josephus and is in his style of writing, so evidence is good that it isn't a forgery. "Upon further research, I have found the Church Fathers were not familiar with Antiquities in the main)... I thus concede their lack of reference is not proof." Con has agreed the Church Fathers' lack of reference to this passage is no proof that it was a forgery on the basis that they were not familiar with Antiquities. If the early Fathers were not familiar with Tacitus' Annals, this would be yet an additional reason why they didn't quote this insulting reference to Jesus and Christianity. "Origen and Celsus did not debate his existence" Considering how Celsus was attacking Christianity, the Tacitus quote could have done more harm than good. Why bring in all those negative comments about the faith just to prove something that both parties in the debate already agree on? "Sadly, we only have Medieval copies from Josephus' Antiquities, as is common in ancient texts. By then, any interpolation long since would have been faithfully copied down." The earliest copy of Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War dates around 900 AD, a full 1,300 years after the original! Surely by then any interpolation would long since been faithfully copied down. We only have 8 copies of Herodotus' History, the oldest dated AD 900, a full 1, 300 years after the original, more than enough time for interpolations. The same can be said about the 5 copies of Aristotle (1, 400 years), and the 10 copies of Caesar (1, 000 years), and so on. If Con is going to question the authenticity of Josephus because there was enough time for interpolations, he needs to be consistent in applying this standard to all these other works of antiquity as well. We would have to throw out most of what we know about the ancient world if we apply Con's stringent standard of suspicion to other historical works. This is an unreasonable standard historians don't normally take with historical literature. Just because there's enough time for tampering doesn't mean that there was! "Origen, in his Commentary on Matthew, himself says "Josephus did not accept Jesus as the Christ" yet Josephus is supposed to have written "he was the Christ." Just because Origen claims Josephus didn't believe Jesus was the Christ, Con accept that it is so, but Origen also said that Jesus existed, and Con doesn't believe him! How's that for double standards? Con provides no quote from Josephus to back up Origen's claim that Josephus didn't believe Jesus was the Christ. "if Origen had not read the Antiquities he might not be aware of the reference, " Con has given us no examples of Origen quoting Josephus to prove that he was familiar with Antiquities, so we don't know that he was. "but had this been written before, it would have at least made some think Josephus was Christian." Only if Josephus believed in their other doctrines. Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus is the Christ, yet most Christians don't consider them Christians. Simply calling Jesus the Christ doesn't prove you are Christian. I know Hindus who believe he was the Christ and in his resurrection, but no one I know considers them Christian. Reply to Con's round 3: Irenaeus has John, not Jesus, living to the time of Trajan, and careful exegesis of his work shows he didn't believe Jesus was over 50 when he died. (see How Old is Jesus According to St. Iranaeus? by Mark J Bonocore) Irenaeus siad "those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also," the "he" who remained among them up to the time of Trajan is clearly John. I'll respond to the remaining objections in round 4. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against I am right, and you can't prove me wrong because My opponent has agreed that he was incorrect in multiple ways and therefore wrong. My response is divided into two parts, both agreeing with the mutual exclusion or right and wrong. The first challenges my opponent's first premise in his Part 2. The second negates the resolution regardless of my opponent's rebuttal. == First == Because right and wrong are mutually exclusive and the agreed-upon definition of wrong is "deviating from truth or fact," my opponent's statement, "The right thing to do when your error is pointed out is to accept the correction" is incorrect. There is no absolute factual way to respond to the pointing out of an error. My opponent has not met any burden of proving his opinion on the response to negative feedback to be objectively correct. Rather, it seems to be a subjective and moral "right" rather than an objective, factual one. == Second == I would like to identify that the resolution is two conditions ("PRO is right" and "CON cannot prove PRO wrong"), both of which must be true for affirmation. While my opponent may be currently correct, he has conceded that I have proven him wrong. Therefore, the statement "you can't prove me wrong" is false, for I have proven my opponent wrong. == Conclusion == The resolution is negated. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Funny Joke Contest because This one guy's hunting dog dies so he needed to go get a new one. He has an extremely pessimistic friend who says that won't find a new dog and if he does, it will not be a good dog. While he is searching for a new dog, he comes across one that can walk on water. It costs a fortune but he decides to buy it because he thinks that this might turn his pessimistic friend into a happy person. The next day, the two go hunting and everytime either one of them shoots a duck, the dog walks on the water to get the duck. At the end of the day, the guy asks the pessimist if he noticed anything about his dog. The pessimist says, "Yeah, your dog can't swim." <EOA>

<BOA> I am with developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change because My thanks to my opponent for the debate, and I look forward to a fascinating dialogue. I must apologise for the poor quality of my response; I managed to misplace my AlphaSmart and shall be unable to locate it until Monday at the soonest. Firstly, I would like to ask my opponent for his sources; I am unable to locate the BBC article and the only Martin Anthony I could find teaches at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Note that Con's arguments will be labeled C1, C2, C3, etc.; mine will be labeled P1, P2, P3, etc. C1: The EPA does not only deal with climate change. It also deals with endangered species (though not to a great extent), hazardous waste disposal, and non-climate related pollution[1]. Furthermore, the efficiency of the EPA is irrelevant to a debate as to the moral obligation to mitigate climate change, unless it is showed to be common to all attempts to deal with climate change. C2: The greenhouse effect is well supported[2]. We emit greenhouse gases. If we stop emitting greenhouse gases, and even possibly start removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, then logically this would reduce the greenhouse effect, lowering the amount by which the world warms. P1: The Maldives are currently trying to buy land in other countries, as they expect to be underwater if nothing is done about global warming. If they do purchase land (in, for instance, Australia, which is one of their potential targets), then they shall definitely cause a problem as they, and the country surrounding them, adjust to having another sovereign country in the middle of them. Not to mention the possibility that some people living there might not take kindly the Maldives moving in.[3][4] 1. http://www.epa.gov... 2. http://www.skepticalscience.com... 3. http://news.bbc.co.uk... 4. http://www.guardian.co.uk... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Who was the worst political leader of history? because Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate. Before we begin, I'd like to point out a few discrepancies. First, what characteristics make a political leader the 'worst' are obviously subjective and thus it's up to my opponent and I to argue why the characteristics of our chosen leaders do in fact make them 'worse' than the other. For my selection, I choose POL POT to be the worst political leader of all time. Like Stalin, Pol Pot endorsed mass genocide and imposed horrendous living conditions upon his own people. He was ruthless, paranoid and implemented ridiculous policies that not only killed millions but even further damaged an already ruined country. Additionally, he made no great reforms or brought about any type of possible appealing or beneficial change to Cambodia. Meanwhile, Stalin can easily be identified for being an AWFUL leader, but you can't say that he didn't do ANYTHING beneficial for Russia which you can indeed say about Pol Pot. For these reasons and others, I am prepared to argue why Pol Pot was a worse leader than Stalin. Further, Pro insists that Stalin had "full control of his mental capacities" and says that he can PROVE this. I'd suggest being really careful with this claim or anything remotely like it, considering his psychological make-up can never really be fully determined without a one-on-one in depth analysis by a psychiatrist which is obviously not possible. Some insist that it was Stalin's personality rather than mental illness that drove his actions, and that may be true; however, that doesn't necessarily make his actions any less morally permissible, or indicate that he was sane while Pol Pot was not. Like Pol Pot, Stalin's actions show that he was a deeply vicious and paranoid individual. Even if he was not mentally ill, his actions indicate deep seeded issues of narcissism (amongst a lot of other things!) which right there already indicates a personality disorder meaning he wasn't in perfect mental health as Pro implied. Nevertheless, I'm sure the rest of the debate will speak for itself so without further adieu I patiently await Pro's first argument. Thanks and good luck! <EOA>

<BOA> I am against It is plausible that Santa Claus exists. because Certainly, my opponent has proved a worthy one. As for the quote on the North Pole web-cam, it is true that the camera is off-line, but if we continue to copy and paste, we learn that: "Web Cam 3 is a fish eye view showing sky and cloud cover. Each reading by the radiometer triggers Web Cam 3 to take a photograph. Images are taken every 2 hours, allowing visual verification and comparison between sky conditions and radiometer measurements." When you consider the space of two hours, as far as de-constructing and reconstructing an entire building, it seems nigh impossible that Santa Claus would be able to avoid human detection. Where would the time be to actually make toys and pack a sleigh? As for the ocean, humans have never been to the bottom of the ocean, besides, it gets extremely dark and an enormous amount of pressure is placed on objects as depth increases. This argument is irrelevant in terms of Santa because we know where Santa supposedly lives, however we used to have a web cam on his location, and still haven't seen him. The Reuters article, while certainly entertaining, has some flaws, and I encourage those of you who will vote to read this article. The two big points made from it are stretching the space-time continuum and nanotechnology. "'He understands that space stretches, he understands that you can stretch time, compress space and therefore he can, in a sense, actually have six Santa months to deliver the presents,' Silverberg told Reuters." Obviously by this statement, WE as humans understand these things, yet we can't slow time... how is this justified? "'We believe that he uses nanotechnology to grow the presents under the tree and really, what he's done, is he's figured out how to turn what we call irreversible thermo-dynamic properties into reversible ones and so he really starts with soot, candy, other types of natural materials, he puts them under the tree and he actually grows them in a reverse process to create the presents, wrapping and all.'" It stands to reason that across the world, hundreds of thousands of humans are working on nanotechnology. Nothing has ever been made using nanotechnology. How is one person supposed to have done this all by himself, let alone mass produce it? [1] The above arguments refute everything my opponent has stated. To extend my argument, I'd like to use some analytical thinking. Santa has existed for as long as anyone can remember. For all of my opponents arguments to be true, Santa would have to be using nanotechnology and bending the space-time continuum for decades! Undoubtedly, anyone who could perform such a feat would have contracted at least a minor case of God Complex. My opponent assumes that Santa has been using complex technology for DECADES! He'd be bound to come out and claim all the fame and glory associated with such an astounding discovery. Just some food for thought... For clarification, I am a guy SOURCES [1] http://www.zyvex.c... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against goerge bush was a good president because R1: Obama resolution =/= obama. No rules indicate a comparison. You are in a red herring. R2: spending My opponent just condeded my point. This argument prevails. R3: Education 1. you provided no source to prove ANY of your point. 2. He did have like 2 sources saying he did 3. use sources R4: tax cuts I have proven they didn't work. =conclusion= My opponent has NO sources to prove his points, therefore he has only starements. He ignroes or drops many of my points from round 1. Also he only has blank statements. I have sources + logic on my side. My sources trums sentencs with no facts. So I deserve soruces. Also I have refuted his arguments, as he has tried but failed to do, I have refuted already. Also his arguments are shorter then I expected. For reasons above, and his non proven arguemnts, I urge you to vote CON! I see no reason to contitiue as I was the really the one who started refuting. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against the Belgian UFO Wave is best Explained as Aliens because Thanks daley. Okay, firstly I'd like to point out even if one was to accept all of my opponent's arguments as fact (which I certainly don't), the only conclusion that could be made is that something happened which defies conventional explanations of known natural phenomena. The resolution however, refers specifically to aliens. In order to fulfil his burden, Pro should be attempting to establish why aliens are the most plausible explanation, not merely saying 'something really freaky happened'. I am under the impression that my opponent is a devout Christian, so why isn't a hypothesis of a miracle or a sign from God a more plausible explanation than aliens? For another example, my opponent is apparently a sceptic of the science of evolutionary theory, although it is the vast majority consensus of biologists. This would seem to suggest that he doesn't believe that humanity has by any means a complete understanding of all natural phenomena on Earth. So why is something unexplainable automatically aliens? I can totally understand why, if someone has a pre-existing belief that extra-terrestrials regular visit planet Earth, hard to explain events such as these would seem to confirm their expectations. However an open minded person exhibiting rational scepticism would not make the same conclusions. ___________________ A lot of Pro's arguments still consist of bare assertions and clear exaggerations and misrepresentations of the data. It seems that the only source he is using to back up his claims is Wikipedia, and while I'm no wiki hater, I think a few additional, original sources would perhaps give some his claims more weight. In referring to statements of ground witnesses, Pro keeps repeating the figure of 13,500 and making the implication that these huge numbers of people are all confirmed as witnessing exactly the same thing. This is clearly false. Pro's sole source makes it clear that this figure is a mere estimation and a small fraction of that number actually made proper statements. Regarding assessments of speed (and other details) from witnesses, Pro needs to establish how many people actually made these claims as well as considering their inability to make accurate judgements. Suggesting that it is my responsibility to prove inconsistency is a blatant attempt to shift the burden. Pro is claiming that this many people all saw the same things but has made no attempt to prove it. Quoting wiki stating that an unspecified number of witnesses "broadly corroborate" is vague and insubstantial. http://www.skepticreport.com... The report mentions that at one point the object seen on radar didn't change its relative position as the aircraft turned, this is particularly characteristic of equipment failure. Radar is far from perfect, for articles describing the many kinds of entirely natural phenomena that can give misleading radar data (known as clutter, or sometimes as angels) see these: www.foia.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-091007-151.pdf, http://www.radartutorial.eu... Pro: "So let's get this straight; 13, 500 people all hallucinated seeing the same things, moving in the same places in the same way?" This is not only an attempt to reduce my argument to absurdity, it is also a complete straw man (I referred to hysteria, not hallucinations) and a total misrepresentation of the data. As observed above, there are far less than this number of witness statements and no certainty that the statements that do exist match each other. Note also in the paragraph this is taken from that Pro has abandoned the vague phrasing of his source ("broadly coroborated") for his own interpretation: "matched exactly". As my previous links have shown the Belgian ufo enthusiast group SOBEPS were publcising a lot of spurious material around this period, creating a buzz around the idea of aliens swarming over Belgium .Referring to unscientifically minded individuals, I should explain that I didn't mean the witnesses themselves but rather SOBEPS and Meessen, who's analysis of the sightings is examined at length here: http://www.skepticreport.com... When I talk about the people on the ground suffering from mass hysteria, I am not suggesting that they all hallucinated similar objects that weren't there. I'm saying that, with this notion of aliens at the forefront of their mind, they were quick to jump to the conclusion of aliens whenever they saw anything remotely strange in the sky. This type of self-delusion is confirmation bias, if you observe something expecting a certain result, then sooner or later, you are likely to see something minor that you can attribute to your pre-existing expectations. The response to the helicopter hypothesis is another blatant straw man. I never claimed that the cause of the radar readings was helicopters, rather that a lot of the aircraft described in the witness statements bear a striking resemblance to helicopters. It is interesting that Pro chooses to sidestep the evidence such as the artist sketch and switches the focus back to the radar. Now remember, it is not my burden to prove what these lights or objects may have been, merely to cast reasonable doubt on aliens being the probable cause. I'm not denying that there were objects and/or lights in the sky on that night, or any other occasion. These things are common. Pro needs to explain why it is more likely that these were aliens, rather than any other explanation, from balloon lanterns, to fireworks, meteors, remote controlled aircraft, military experiments, atmospheric conditions, disco laser lights, reflection from surface lights, those little infra-red beam devices, birds with wet feathers that reflected light, box kites, helicopters, hang gliders, fireflys, fairies, pixies, witches, demons, Jesus, the devil or anything else. I shall leave it there for now and hand back over to daley. Thanks. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Gun Control because First of all, no one truly deserves to die, I'm not going to argue that. But what about those predators who think people deserve to die? Hardened, uncaught criminals who love to kill people? Their always going to be able to get guns somehow -- it's a rather unpleasant fact of life. I'm sorry to say, but you'll have to live with it. Second, back to your note of accidental deaths. It's unfortunate that these happen, yes. But I'd like to see your evidence of the so-called "many accidents involved with guns." I'm always listening to news. It's extremely rare that I hear of any accidental cases, and compared to abortions -- the largest killer of Americans compared to anything else, even war, over the last years -- or murders the number is minuscule. Third, taking away people's not only guns, but all firearms in general. If you take away the common people's guns, their power to fight back in not the pleasure of killing but self defense, then there will be more deaths than ever. And aside from that, read the 2nd Amendment, please. People who earn their Right to Carry permit most always have good reason for it. For example, a local conservative talk radio show host has a permit to carry a gun due to the fact that there are people threatening to hurt not only him, but also his family. In fact, there was an occasion where he had to be escorted by police out of the event because of a mob of people who hate him. That's an infringement on free speech. Fourth, and quickly I want to review a small section of the 2nd Amendment. It clearly reads that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."Obama's making a huge mistake in greatly hampering our military -- our very nation's ability to defend itself. Don't get me wrong on this little comment, though, I don't hate Obama just because he's a Democrat. Well, more of a Socialist if you analyze what all he's done, or lack of what he's done, over the past years. Fifth, I'd like to review my earlier comment on free speech. President Ronald Reagan repealed the misnamed "Fairness Doctrine" years ago from the beginning of his presidency. Before that time, the censorship doctrine restricted people from publicly -- whether out in the public, on the radio, television, or any other way -- voicing their opinion without showing the other side to. Basically, it completely disallowed the growth of free opinion and public voice. Quoting the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." In my opinion, whether you think it credible or not, is that gun control is a step towards infringement on free speech. The Liberal agenda is pushing to bring back the Censorship Doctrine, but now it's specifically for talk radio. This is where many conservatives do well, so to no surprise this is what party democrats and liberals would just love to shut down. With the previous election's democratic sweep this seems like a war to completely shut down not only those with conservative ideology, but maybe even GoP. Sixth and lastly, "If you banish guns there would be less weapons." That statement is true, very true. Only bodyguards -- well, maybe not even then -- and your all-mighty, corrupted, untouchable politicians on both sides would be able to have guns. But again, as I mentioned at the very beginning of this debate, it would most certainly not stop criminals from murdering people. Even if they were not cunning enough to find a way to steal a gun, they could get some other weapon, like a knife. A beautiful kitchen knife could be turned into a killing weapon in an instant. Controlling gun limitations would, if anything, raise the deaths of innocent citizens trying to protect themselves. And not only would it raise the deaths, but also other criminal activities which I'd not care to mention for now. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against I am not a troll! because #1 Mexi was not used in the Mexican American War unless you throw me a link that states that, cause my homies at wikipedia say there is no such ethnic slur and a simple google search doesn't pop-up anything about it being derogatory. Stereotyping "brown" people from Latino based countries calling them all Mexican would be derogatory but that is not what was presented. (I know wikipedia isn't a true resource to reference.) #2 This racist troll will continue to troll with derogatory statements and slurs. Do we even need to go into that trolls tend to throw around slurs more often than not cause they don't have a conscience in what they say because they hide behind their monitor. #3 Just comment that he is a troll and hopefully he will give up. Oh and he is trolling the terms of service about not using derogatory comments and profanity. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Rawslian theory is a justified form of government. because Pro seems to have misunderstood my first point. I don't see how it was unclear, but I'll try restating it. Actors in the Original Position are deciding what kind of society they want. But they aren't just choosing systems of organizing society (like democracy or anarchy). Rawls argues that they will pick a democracy that has a certain set of policies (specifically, policies following the ‘minimax’ principle, maximizing the well-being of the poorest in society). But, if we can pick not only what system we want, but how exactly the people in that system behave, then why pick a society with a government? Why wouldn’t actors in the OP say they want an anarchist society where everyone’s a really nice person and donates a lot to charity? Universal consent : You can’t just assert that people in the OP will agree on something, you have to prove it. Rawls argues that there is a specific set of policies that rational actors will agree on in the OP. I argue that there is no such set of policies, and that many different sets of policies can be equally rational (see: previous argument and risk-aversion argument). The only consensus people could reach in the OP are either A) No government, or B) A government. If A, then I’m right, and Rawls’ theory doesn’t justify a government. If B, then the views of some are necessarily forced on others, because there is disagreement and you can’t have everyone’s vision of society at once. But this isn’t even hypothetical consent, much less actual consent, so it can’t be considered a valid social contract. Risk-aversion : Rawls’ claim that we must be conservative for “primary goods” is nothing more than his subjective opinion on the matter. If someone values a small chance at being king more than he values a guarantee of getting welfare, then you can’t objectively say that he’s wrong. You can disagree, but it’s nothing more than a difference of opinion on the matter. [if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves /> <w:TrackFormatting /> <w:PunctuationKerning /> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas /> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF /> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables /> <w:SnapToGridInCell /> <w:WrapTextWithPunct /> <w:UseAsianBreakRules /> <w:DontGrowAutofit /> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark /> <w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp /> <w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables /> <w:DontVertAlignInTxbx /> <w:Word11KerningPairs /> <w:CachedColBalance /> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math" /> <m:brkBin m:val="before" /> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--" /> <m:smallFrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispDef /> <m:lMargin m:val="0" /> <m:rMargin m:val="0" /> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup" /> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440" /> <m:intLim m:val="subSup" /> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr" /> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif] [if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true" DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99" LatentStyleCount="267"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading" /> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif] [if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} </style> <![endif] “Am I risk-averse for investing in auto or fire insurance?” Yes, you are! I’d also buy those forms of insurance if I had a car or a house, but I wouldn’t presume that my purchases would be objectively rational and anyone who disagreed with me was irrational--we're both just at least somewhat risk-averse. As for the idea that risk takers would rationally choose a free society over a society where they wouldn’t be allowed to do risky things—this really misunderstands the idea of risk taking. If I’m a risk taker, is it irrational for me to go skydiving, since there’s a chance I might die and never be able to take risks again? Of course not—that’s a risk I accept, because I value the chance of the thrill more than I disvalue the chance of danger. But by Rawls’ logic, I, as a risk taker, wouldn’t rationally take this risk—which is obviously an absurd conclusion about risk takers. It misses the whole point of risk taking—accepting the chance that bad things could happen. Actual vs. Hypothetical consent : This takes liberal elitism to a whole new level. Not only do you and Rawls presume to know what’s best for me better than I do, as ordinary liberals do with the nanny state, you guys actually presume to know what I believe is right better than I do. Rawls’ conclusions about morality don’t necessarily follow, they only follow if you first accept his premises about how we ought to think about morality. And, as Rawls said, he “define[d] the original position so that we get the desired result,” egalitarianism. [1] He’s basically saying, ‘if you accept the premises of egalitarianism then you should be an egalitarian!’ Yeah, no sh­it. I’m quite certain that I don’t accept Rawls’ moral system, deep down or otherwise, and I’m sure many others would agree with me. His system is only the deeply held conviction of egalitarians. But even if Rawls’ beliefs were our hidden convictions, that wouldn’t make his hypothetical contract equivilant to actual consent. You can’t force someone to do something because you somehow just know that deep down, they really agree to it. Even if it were true, that deep down they really did agree with you (something that is, of course, not actually possible for you to know), it wouldn’t be consent. If I somehow knew that deep down, a girl really did want to have sex with me, but just didn’t know it yet, and I had sex with her, I’d obviously be a rapist. Even assuming that my knowledge of her beliefs was true, it still wouldn’t be consent—people have to bring those beliefs to the surface and act on them for consent. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with marijuana because Its illegal because the government doesn't want people to cross the boundaries in your mind that they have made! Out of every single drug in the whole wide world THC kills your brain the slowest. (Fact: Marijuana kills less people then coconuts.) You do have a point it does make you oblivious to your actions but that's why most of us stay in our houses and do it not wondering around outside so that actually means we are not completely oblivious to our actions. Like a wize man once said don't knock it until you try it. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Birth vs Acquired Disabilities because Thanks for the timely response KevinW. I know it's hard to debate something so very personal; thank you for remaining objective. ==Rebuttal to R1== *My opponent talks about premature babies* According to a recent article in Time Magazine, the number of premature babies is increasing in the U.S. The reason? Better incubator technology can now keep babies alive who would have definitely died 10 to 20 years ago. The earlier a premature baby is born, the more likely it will suffer a disability but also the more likely it would have died in years past. My opponent creates a false dichotomy – it's worse to be born premature than born normal. The correct dichotomy is that being born premature is a given, but it's better to be alive (and possibly disabled) than dead. *Timeline arguments* My opponent seems to argue that having a disability for longer is worse. However, all arguments in this vein are irrelevant because theoretically, a baby could acquire a disability immediately upon birth. A male baby could be born without a reproductive organ, but a slip of the doctor's scalpel during circumcision would achieve the same result. It is possible to have an acquired disability for your entire life as well. Thus, I am the only one making arguments specific to why acquired disabilities are worse – they are more likely to lead to depression and older people are less adaptable to the disability. ==Rebuttal to R2== *Epilepsy/cerebral palsy* I also sincerely wish that there were a cure for both. But I don't see a difference between someone who has the disease from day 1 of his life versus someone who acquires the disease on day 2 of his life. *If you told a blind man about the blue sky or the colors of the rainbow, he probably would figure that his experience is not normal* I'm sure he already knows he is not normal. But telling a curious, inquisitive boy who has been blind from birth what the sky looks like might be seen as a kindness. Telling a man who has been recently blinded how pretty the sky looks would probably be seen as cruel. *Neuroplasticity* I think my opponent misunderstands my argument. Someone who is blind from birth has his brain quickly compensate. The blind have been known to have the ability to make a perfect mental map of their environment. The left brain can often compensate for problems in the right brain, and vice versa. Someone who is disabled in adulthood will have a more difficult time learning/adapting since his brain is less pliable. *Karen Thompson evidence* She likely rounded 16.8% up to 17%. Her statistic is still valid: those who acquire a disability are 10 times more likely to suffer depression. *I reject the proposition that dealing with a disability is just a matter the individual* My opponent doesn't answer my grammatical analysis from his opening statement: the object of the sentence for "worse to deal with" and "being disabled later in life" must be the same. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against ReganFan is a failure on this website. because I would like to point out my opponents failure to provide a complete definition of the word "failure". Allow me to contribute to the definition: Failure - To not achieve a particular goal ( http://www.google.ca... ) Now to determine whether or not I am a failure one must understand my end goal or the reasoning behind my behavior on Debate.org: My end goal was to be so radically ignorant and to the right that I would make even the most hard-boiled and uninformed conservative on this site look very astute and moderate. Seeing as my intent was not to be a successful debater it makes my opponent's statement that I am a failure due to the fact that I have not won any debates irrelevant to this debate. This all adds up to the conclusion that I am in fact not a failure. Note: My opponent made a small error in R1, he stated "ReganFan is a failure on this website. He has been in over twenty-five debates, and has failed to win any of them. On the forums, he has created uselss threads and has turned into a troll. Here are several examples:" however he provided two links to the same thread post I would like to thank my opponent and the readers at this point. Thank You. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with God exists because =C.E. Jean-Baptiste Litre= The difference is that Litre was confessed as a fraud by his creator. God of the Abrahamic faiths is confessed as existing by all those who have encountered Him, and many have gone to their deaths not recanting. Kenneth Woolner would not have died in devotion to his make believe character. The point here is that you can't prove that you think, so how can you ask me to prove that God thinks? You have failed to engage the Descartes existentialism argument, so it carries. =Holy Texts= You are ill instructed about the nature of "Holy Texts". You just grouped three separate faith's Holy Writ, composed over 6,000 years, on three continents, in 4 languages, by over 40 authors, into one modern genre-- fiction. This oversight is breathtaking. Considering the Bible alone you have literature that belongs in several genres, including types no longer extant. They do not fall into our modern breakdowns of fiction and non-fiction, because they have elements of both, and neither. They must be examined according to the genre they were written in. http://helpmewithbiblestudy.org... The scriptures all describe various historic episodes (with shocking accuracy), this isn't needed to prove that these writings are also correct about God's existence, but it does negate your attempt to pour white-out on the largest body of pre and ancient writings man has ever known. I hope the judges penalize this horrible and offensive oversight. Further your point about the birth of Jesus is moot, http://www.comereason.org... , or at least impotent to invalidate the worlds largest religion. Even if you had been right, biographical oversight does not a fraud make. Even the encyclopedia makes mistakes. The fact that an error would be painstakingly recopied over 2,000 years actually argues in favor of the Bible's credible preservation. =Physical and Esoteric= Your example has the symbol of currency being shown, not value itself. This is a straw-man fallacy. Further, you're categorically mistaking the nature of God as described in the Abrahamic faiths, which is, intangible and incorporeal. You want me to put God in a bottle and hold it to your face, but that's like asking me to put love in a bottle. Shaking your fist at empty bottles won't disprove an intangible thing. The subjective existence argument is superior to your rebuttals because you misidentify God, are ignorant of other things having subjective existence, and desperately want this debate to be about if God is nice. =Problem of Evil= I'm not here to discuss variant theologies in the Abrahamic faiths, and your question of whether God is good requires exactly that. Each camp answers this question their own way, by seeing God's mission and intention differently. But all of them are united in declaring God's existence, even if He isn't nice. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Dogs are better than Cats because I would like to Especially thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate as I love cats and have been meaning to debate them but keep forgetting (I forget alote... *_*). Now anyway.... I will accept just rules and regulations but would like it if I could just make one teensie rule which is; there should be no abuse of strength. As in, you cannot say that dogs are better because they can scare a cat better than a cat can scare a dog..... And now this debate shall now begin.... *_* <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Is the best team in NFL History the San Francisco 49ers? because If you had the most super bowl rings in the NFL history then that would be considered amazing! <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Is the best team in NFL History the San Francisco 49ers? because Green Bay Still has more super bowl rings! Part of being the best team in the NFL is getting to the Super bowl, and Green bay has done that more than 49ers. I am not a Green Bay fan either. I am actually a Detroit Lions Fan. Born and Raised in the D. Hofers Records AND 6 SUPERBOWL RINGS! <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Faith Can Help To Heal Sickness because First of all, you're dosseydossey link seems to be somewhat disreputable, and unreliable for unbiased medical information. "If you look at this argument you see that it does not specify what this man's beliefs are. What if he just prayed without having the needed faith? The thing is, the person praying also needs to trust that the person he or she is praying for would be healed. It does not specify if they even believed that they were being prayed for. Neither does it specify the ones prayed for's beliefs." They asked local churches to pray for them. Based on the location (US) it seems likely that the vast majority were Christian, as this makes up 78% of the population [1] plus the many who are spiritual, but not part of any religion. "My opponent makes a mistake because he shows faith does work even when they believe something hurts them." The topic is that faith can help to cure sickness, not whether it can kill a person. "Wow, that was not a good thing done on the doctors' behalf. It was not right of them to take away an effect that worked. Basically, they took away the faith of the patients. This goes to show, faith works.(2)" It is not faith in the divine sense. We are debating that faith in a higher power can help to heal, not that faith in medicine heals. And they were not 'taking away' anything. I do not understand what you mean. "The Bible demonstrates faith healing. That is your ultimate proof." The bible is untestable, and unproven. This is a terrible source and heavily biased. In short, you have failed to prove that faith is better then placebos, and I have shown a reliable study where faith was detrimental to the patients recovery, and no other correlations were shown. We cannot draw conclusions on anything, and to all accounts by reliable doctors, and neuroscientists who did the experiment I talked about and several others, the brain controls a lot of symptoms and can fight the illness. This is not faith that kills the illness, it is the brain. The brain is a powerful thing, and giving someone a sugar pill is just as useful as telling someone to pray about it, and sometimes praying on it causes a negative reaction to the stimulant, causing more complications and death. [1] Gallup polls, CIA religious statistics and Pew Review all agree to this number, or one or two points off. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Should the US take military action against syria because I would not side with either. Both sides are guilty of human rights abuses. Both sides are waging a brutal and ugly war. I am no ultimate authority, and I do not know what is best for Syria, so I don't support my tax money supporting another potentially catastrophic military intervention as we have seen in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. You mention bias, yet you cite Huffington post, which is often criticized for its Left wing bias. But, I don't doubt the factual roots of the article. The same is true for everything I cited in my previous arguments. Also, thank you for showing me that, I hadn't ever heard about that happening. This being said, I would like to point out that the shooter was "unidentified", and likely will never be identified. You claim that Assad's troops fired on them. This is pretty illogical, as Assad would have no interest in killing U.N inspectors, as an open attack would ruin his credibility. There are a lot of people in the Middle East, and the world that resent the United Nations. It does stand as a testament to the instability and violence present in the region though. As I stated in my arguments, the FSA is guilty of dozens of reported human rights abuses, and there have very likely been more unreported ones. Many dictators and brutal authoritarian regimes have risen to power under the guise of liberty and freedom. Africa has been victimized by this cylce for decades: Dictator---War/Coup---"LIberation"----Dictator. If you need actual examples I will be happy to supply them. I I Seriously doubt that fear is the motivation for the FSA stealing from Turkish Merchants. If I were a member of the FSA (who is likely armed) and supposedly fighting for freedom, and I saw a foreigner near me, and my adrenaline was "pumping through my veins" the last thing I would do would be to rob that person. Regardless, these are the least atrocious of their violations which include Murder, torture and kidnappings. Also, the idea of intervening in Syria is wildly unpopular in America, (1) and after all our government exists to act out the will of the people. That's what makes us a democracy. (1) http://www.usnews.com... Other than that, you didn't really respond to any of my other arguments against intervention, so I can't really make any further comments. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against term limits because Thank you for your arguments. I want to welcome you once again to debate.org and wish you the best of luck. I have argued the following: In a democracy, the people have the right to elect whom they want to elect. Term limits limit that right. Therefore, term limits are unjust in a democratic society. I have not given any particular nation for which we were arguing about, but for the most part, it appears my opponent wishes to stick with the USA, so I shall (respectfully) do the same. My opponent has a few facts wrong. There are many different types of democracy, and in fact, a constitutional republic is one of those different types. Although it is not a pure democracy (there has never been a pure democracy) it is, in fact a type of democracy [1]. In the words of my opponent, "I do agree we need to vote for who we want", and if that person is someone who has served more than twice, then so be it. My opponent argues that there is a fear of a dictatorship, however, I believe this is a scare tactic. The constitution and the balances of power (Judicial, Executive, and Legislative) [2] balance the power to prevent this type of dictatorship from happening. The good thing about a democracy, is that if we do elect someone we do not like, we have the power to remove the person from office. Thanks. ____________ [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... ; [2] http://bensguide.gpo.gov... ; <EOA>

<BOA> I am with GodSand's *other* proof of the existence God is logically invalid because I regretfully point out that my opponent's last post was nothing but accusations and poor sportsmanship. First, my opponent makes a brazen statement where he accuses me of saying something that I absolutely did not say. This is an obvious strawman fallacy since he then goes on to make an irrelevant argument against my alleged statement. Please do not listen to his lies, I never made any statement saying that DNA is a "random, good-for-nothing pattern", this is a figment of his imagination. My opponent claims that since DNA contains information, then DNA is a code. This is untrue as *everything* contains information. This is the essential flaw in his argument. My opponent assumes that the information we see in DNA is the same type of information from a computer chip or a website. What he does not understand is that although we can interpret DNA as a type of information, it actually is not, because it does not involve mental interpretation, but pure physical reaction. This is what makes it differ from all other types of information and why we cannot consider DNA to be a true code and a code developed by intelligence, but rather, a genetic code. My opponent cannot resolve this issue and has not resolved this issue. My opponent then goes on to make an argument that assumes that I conceded that patterns are the same as codes. I have made no such concession and will not. Codes involve mental interpretation, patterns are observed order, DNA is just a physical substance that humans can use as a code, but it is not naturally a code. My opponent then argues by design, using many design arguments that are highly illogical and fallacious. He has already proposed that we discuss it outside this debate, so I shall ignore all his arguments by design and simply tell him and the audience that I have answers to every single one of his arguments regarding Intelligent Design and hope to debate him on it afterwards. My opponent claims that since life comes from DNA, then it must be a code. Life comes from amino acids, from atoms, from molecules, these things are not codes either, they are physical occurrences just like DNA. The way that DNA builds life is not coding, but pure and undirected physical reaction. My opponent makes another claim that since we see DNA as a code, then it is a code. I have addressed this. Through the eyes of a layman, a simple-minded and non-scientific person, or one who is only superficial in knowledge, DNA will be a code. However, close examination and understanding shows how our own flaws in knowledge and understanding form this incorrect notion. Finally, my opponent argues that if DNA is not a code, then it should not be unique. First of all, this is a non sequitor. Something that is a code need not be unique and things that are not codes are not always commonplace. Second of all, DNA is not unique, RNA exists via a slightly different mechanism but almost the same. Third, my opponent does not understand evolution if he does not know why DNA seems to be the most prominent. It is because DNA out-competed others, as was shown in the video that my opponent obviously did not read. This is why there is 1 species of human as opposed to 500 similar species of human and why there is 1 dominant form of genetic code as opposed to 500. In conclusion: My opponent can offer absolutely no arguments. I have set forth a variety of rebuttals for the logical fallacy of his argument and he has not directly addressed even one of them, only go in a roundabout fashion to make different arguments. Whereas mine were direct disproofs, my opponent simply made arguments for his case that of themselves were logically fallacious or rebutted above. Please do not be fooled by my opponent's inclusion of design argument because design argument is inherently filled with logical flaws. Since he has not proven Intelligent Design, it cannot be admitted as evidence. WHY MY OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FAILS: A more complicated summary is simply that this argument is based on semantics. We see DNA superficially as a code because with DNA, we as humans can do several things with it, such as draw information from it. Since we can do X,Y,Z with DNA and X,Y,Z with other codes, we designate DNA as a code in that particular way. I can drink from a bowl and I can drink from a cup, but that does not make a bowl a cup. There are intrinsic differences between a bowl and a cup and there are intrinsic differences between DNA and normal codes. These differences were clearly illustrated and unrefuted. All codes involve human interpretation of information to be of use. DNA requires only physics. Bacterial flagella are not machines, packs of dogs are not societies, DNA is not a code. Since CON has offered no substantial counterpoint while I have offered many refutations that still stand, and since CON should not make new arguments in the last round, I urge a PRO vote. Thank you. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Most offensive funny joke. because 7 point win to who had the funniest joke. 7 point loss if one forfeits. Con starts R1, but doesn't make one in the last round. GO! <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Public schools provide better education than homeschooling. because It seems that my opponent is hung up on trusting the competence and experience of teachers, administrators, and other "accredited" authority figures in the public school system. If the public schools were so good, and the classroom 'discussions' with teachers, etc. are so valuable, why is it that close to 50% of students in many schools have illiteracy rates between 40% to 70% in many school districts, why the drop-out rates are shocking, why millions of students who graduate need remedial reading and math courses in college freshman year, if they get into college. We all know the horror statistics of the continual failure of our public schools, yet my opponent keeps advocating giving more education poison to students to cure the education poison caused by the government-controlled schools in the first place. Consistently, studies have shown that the children of "inexperienced" homeschooling parents' do far better in math and reading standardized tests than public-school students taught by "accredited" teachers in public schools. If public school education by "accredited" "authorities," is so much better than education by homeschooling parents, why do American public-school students now consistently score in the bottom 20% on standardized math and reading tests compared to foreign students of all European countries, Japan, Korea, and many other third-world countries? I recommend that my opponent watch the video by John Stossel on the 20/20 segment on YouTube, "Stupid in America", for further proof of the unending failure by our public schools, run by so-called "accredited" teachers and other "accredited" school authorities who my opponent has such naive reverence for. Moreover, public schools can damage children in so many other ways (see my book "Public Schools, Public Menace" for a full description of these ways), that even if parents taught their children NOTHING at home other than how to read well and do basic math, then let their child loose in the local library or in front of their computer to study whatever interests them to their hearts content, their children would be safer at home than in these violence, drug-infested, inferior-education institutions run by government employees, who my opponent seems to so admire because they are "accredited" by teacher colleges that are the laughing stock of the academic community. Again, the notion that because public-school teachers are "accredited" means that they somehow give students a decent education is a joke if you consider where and how these "teachers" were trained in their so-called teacher colleges. Also, even the best teacher in a public school has to teach 20 to 30 bored children in her class, and cannot possibly give any individual attention to each student. Homeschooling parents, however, can give their total attention to their child's education, and their child can learn at their own pace with a vast amount of education curriculum material parents can find on the Internet, in education software, in stacks of education book aisles in book stores like Barnes and Noble, etc. If a parent Googles "education curriculum material" on the internet, she will get literally MILLIONS of hits for books on every subject covered in public schools, software programs, low-cost Internet schools, and other resources she can turn to, to help her educate her child at home. My opponent seems to prefer that students be taught by public-school drones who either couldn't care less about each individual student's problems, strengths, weaknesses, etc., or has no time for such individual attention. Moreover, most homeschooling parents spend about three to four hours a day homeschooling their children, and find that they can rearrange their work schedule to homeschool in the evening, on weekends, etc. There is a saying, "where there is a will, there is a way." Millions of homeschooling parents with jobs who love their children and want the best education for them, manage to find many ways to rearrange their work schedules to homeschool their children. It's called "initiative", a word usually missing in public school education. There is an even more fundamental reason why children should be homeschooled, and that is parents' right to direct the education of their children in any way they see fit. It's called liberty, which is a concept my opponent seems not be be familiar with. Public schools are products of a collectivist government, and are favored by people such as my opponent who simply do not understand the notion of individual liberty. My opponent believes that government bureaucrats have the right to dictate children's education and force this factory assembly-line education on parents, regardless of parent's wishes, or whether parents think these government schools are incompetent or worse. My "socialist"-minded, collectivist-minded opponent puts his trust in government officials, and believes these government officials literally "own" childrens' minds and lives for twelve years, with the right to, in effect, lock up children in their education prisons, irrespective of parents wishes or desires. Public schools are simply education tyranny, on a massive scale, and are adored by people who either work for the government or believe government has the right to violate parent's rights at will. Moreover, even if some parents don't give their children a "better" education than the rare public school that gives a child a decent education, that is irrelevant. There is no inherent "right" to an education for any child. Education does not grow free on apple trees. Schools, teachers salaries, books, supplies must be paid by someone, and that someone is taxpayers who pay unconscionable real-estate school taxes. Yet millions of single-people, older people, parents with older children no longer in school, and parents with children in private schools must pay these school taxes to pay for the education of other peoples' children. That is, public schools therefore require organized theft of taxes of millions of Americans who have no children in these public schools, to give unearned money to support the education of other parent's children in these government schools. This is organized and legalized theft by local governments on a massive scale, done through the imposition of heavy real-estate school taxes. There is no more "right" to an education for a child, than there is a "right" to a child having sneakers, a house in the suburbs, or anything else. The notion of a "right" to an education that requires massive taxation from millions of Americans who do not have children in public schools, is as absurd as saying that because some parents do not feed their children properly, then there should be a Public Food system, whereby all grocery stores and supermarkets should now be owned and operated by government, just as local governments now own and operate the business of education with government (public schools). Since there is no inherent "right" to an education, the alleged problem that my opponent brings up that some parents, because they work or might not be good teachers, would therefore not give their child a good or even minimal education, even compared to most incompetent public schools, is just as irrelevant as arguing that many parents would not buy their children the best quality sneakers or give them the best quality food. The answer to that argument is that, sorry my friend, but in a free country there are no guarantees in life, neither for parents or their children. If my socialist-minded, authority-loving opponent craves to insure that ALL children get a minimum "decent" education, let him raise money from VOLUNTARY contributions for education for children who he thinks might not get the best education, rather than proposing that government continues to put a legislative and tax gun to parents's heads by forcing parents to send their children to incompetent pub <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Abortion because Yes people have abortions for stupid reasons but most people don't. Most people spend a lot time considering an abortion before actually having one. People spend weeks and sometimes months thinking about their options and that 'child's' options but come to the conclusion that abortion is the best one. It's not a choice easily made but it is a choice that has to be. Again, I'm not saying that women should have an abortion at will and without reason but there are laws that have been put in place to prevent abortions at any time during the pregnancy and TWO doctors must agree. From a religious perspective, abortions are wrong. But most people have developed their own ideas and morals about what's right and what's wrong and this is just one of those things that come down to your opinion. I'm completely pro-choice as, although I wouldn't have an abortion (unless under certain circumstances)myself, I believe that everyone has the right to do with their body as they please. Just because abortion in legal doesn't make you have to have one. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Prostitution ought to be legalized in more areas of the United States because I thank my opponent for accepting my challenge! I look forward to a fun and interesting debate! I will start by defining my argument with three contentions. My contentions are as follows: A) It is the choice of the person as to whether or not they engage in any activity regarding prostitution (Becoming, or hiring one) B) Laws against prostitution are invasive to the personal choices of Americans and, therefore, not as the founding fathers intended. C) Regulations and taxes on prostitution could generate revenue for the US government. D) Legalization with regulation would help prevent other more serious crimes/troubles such as Human Trafficking, Child molestation, Pimping, and the spread of infectious disease. My first contention regards the rights of each individual to choose for themselves. Any person wishing to engage in prostitution or to employ a prostitute should have the right to pursue that choice, assuming that they aren't infringing upon the rights of others. A person should not be able to force someone into prostitution, or force them to hire one. If a person chose to become a prostitute for money, empowerment, excitement, etc. that is their choice. The same is true for anyone wanting to hire a prostitute. This also strongly relates to my second contentions My second contention is that laws prohibiting prostitution are A) usually based on religious morals and therefore against the ideal of separation of church and state and therefore unconstitutional, and B) against the non-interventionist civil libertarian ideals of the founding fathers. This is evident in that laws against prostitution prevent people from their inalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. If being a prostitute is what truly makes you happy, or is necessary to reach another happiness, then you should be allowed to become a prostitute. My third contention is that regulation of prostitution and taxation could bring in extra revenue for the US government. If states put a special tax on prostitution there would be a significant increase in local GDP. Prostitution and pornography account for a whopping $122 billion dollars of untapped GDP in he US. My fourth contention regards the safety of prostitution. Human trafficking, violent abuse, child molestation, and the spread of infectious disease all spawn from the fact that prostitution is illegal and therefore not under any kind of regulation. (2) With prostitution legalized, the victims of said crimes could be better protected, and said crimes could be prevented, through organizations such as OSHA and ICPR. Prostitutes could work legitimately, and find better job safety. They wouldn't be dependent on a pimp. With licensing and organization, prostitutes could be given health benefits by legitimate employers, and protected from violent customers. Prostitutes AND their clients could be protected from disease through licensing, testing, condoms, and other safety measures that could be achieved through organization, legitimization, regulation, and, ultimately, legalization. I think I have clearly shown that the benefits of legal prostitution in the US shows great promise. I await my opponents response eagerly! 1. http://www.csub.edu... ... 2. http://www.mapsofworld.com... ... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Should hunting remain legal? because In this round I will refute Pro's arguments and state my opening arguments. As I had stated in Round 2, Pro has made no viable argument currently. Pro defined hunting as "to pursue for food or in sport". His arguments were both stating that killing animals for the purpose of population control is effective in reducing the amount of damage to people and property.(with state assigned sharpshooters) Neither of these are "to pursue for food or in sport". So, dismissing these, I will now start with my first argument of why Hunting(killing animals for food or in sport) should be illegal. Hunting for food is no longer a valid reason. Factory farms now mass produce meat, and animal products. It would have been permissible in hunting/gathering days, but now all of our 'hunting' can simply be to go to the store and buy whichever animal meat you like. I assume my opponent will debate that deer meat(venison) is not something you can typically find in a grocery store. While this may be true, unless you are in a region where that is a specialty, you can still find stores that specifically sell these types of wild game meat(manufactured in a slaughterhouse type of environment). Now of course hunting may be a staple source of food for many tribes in third world countries, and I reserve their right to it, but we are in fact, talking about the United States. Now onto my second argument, hunting for 'sport' should be illegal. Hunting purely for the entertainment of killing animals is disgusting. The United States has laws against animal cruelty. The punishment for animal abuse in the United States varies from state to state, where it is either a felony or misdemeanor charge. Of course this is not considering euthanasia, but this doesn't apply as people do not euthanize deer. If a person were to shoot a dog, this would be classified as animal cruelty, and the criminal could face upto 10 years in jail. Shooting deer however, is not classified as anything but hunting for sport. In case my opponent attempts to bring up the argument that dogs are domestic and deer are not, these laws do not only apply to domestic animals. They apply to other wild animals as well. In most states, the minimum age to qualify for a hunting permit is 10 years old. In missouri, the minimum age is 6 years old. How can we view this as acceptable? kids from 6-10 years old being taught that it's okay to kill animals, and not only is it okay, but it's fun? This is absolutely ridiculous. How would one expect them to know the difference between killing a deer and killing a dog? (There really is no difference) For the record, I am not a vegan or a vegetarian. I fully support the manufacturing of animal products, manufactured humanely. However, it is appalling that anyone would kill an animal because it is fun. Further, I refuse to believe that teaching kids to use guns to kill does anything other than promote violence. "The FBI has found that a history of cruelty to animals is one of the traits that regularly appears in its computer records of serial rapists and murderers" "Investigation's behavioral sciences unit, studied serial killers and noted,"Murderers like this (Jeffrey Dahmer) very often start out by killing and torturing animals as kids." Knowing this, why do we let children, or anyone for that matter, kill animals for the purpose of entertainment. Now, I'm guessing Pro will further run with the "population control" argument. Most hunting seasons are in the fall or winter months. These hunting seasons allow females to complete gestation periods and successfully birth healthy offspring. The seasons are purposely made so the number of deer will increase, thus more deer to hunt. You are right about hunting being profit driven. To attract more hunters (and their money), federal and state agencies implement programs—often called "wildlife management" or "conservation" programs—that are designed to boost the numbers of "game" species. These programs help to ensure that there are plenty of animals for hunters to kill and, consequently, plenty of revenue from the sale of hunting licenses. To Pro: I'm sorry to disregard most of your first argument. It was a good essay(with the exception of the division of topic), but holds no basis in this debate. Having said that, I actually did address your argument for population control, and disproved it. I would also suggest that you only debate on the deer hunting topic, as I believe it would strengthen your argument, and make this debate more coherent. If you choose to include the elephant hunting, I will still address it, though it seems that the ONLY possible argument for that is population control. Which, again, does not apply in this debate. I look forward to the rest of this debate, good luck Pro! sources----------------- http://www.the-deer-hunting-guide.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.pet-abuse.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Dogs are better than Cats because Well, First thing on the agenda is I would like to refute your arguments if you would allow me.... First: Cats can act the same as a dog. They can be loyal? They can stick by someones side if that owner was a very loving and caring owner? A cat can be loyal but comparing dogs and cats would be like comparing apples and oranges. They both are tasty in a differnet way so to speak. What im saying is that cats have their own type of loyalty. Cats version of loyalty is that it can be very helpfull around the house or anywhere they are needed. For example, a cat can help you get rid of mice that are in the house. Second: Cats can also be trained to do the things that dogs can do. If you are saying that dogs (but not cats) can do these things than you can also be refering that ONLY alligators eat meat and crocodiles are not allowed to? Third: Though dogs have keen abilities, that can be at some disadvantage. Cats are quiet, patient and never beg. But, dogs are mean, sometimes rabid, and they can definitly hurt someone. So although dogs can hunt down prisoners and tackle them to the ground, that is one one way you can use the dogs rabid senses and abilities to assist and now injure. Now it is time for my agrument..... Less work? Now although dogs are sometimes very nice and always want your attention, that does come with some disadvantages. Dogs are always hungry, they cannot ever get enough food sometimes and they would sometimes hurt you just to get it. But on the other hand, cats love to live in solitude so you just have to leave some food and a litter box and you can pet him whenever you want without having to be hurt whenever you pat him or stroke their fur. That sadly, has been the end of my debate and I hope you guys liked my arguments. :) Source(s): Truth that cat owners have better degrees: http://www.telegraph.co.uk... Loyalty difference: http://www.helium.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Crew the best sport because Crew is mundane and it requires little to no thought. An ideal sport should both work out the body and provide an arena for mental growth. (i.e. Basketball, Water Polo, Soccer, MMA etc...) <EOA>

<BOA> I am with is Jesus real? because What was the question of the actual debate? Is Jesus real? The question wasn't if he was the Son of God. It is if he is real. I don't know who the 4 historians are since you did not have a source, but I'm sure that they didn't all live where Jesus was and preached. That could be one explanation as to why they didn't mention him. Now to the other Holy Books question. I know very little about other Holy Books, except for the Jewish since that is the Old Testament. Of course Jews wouldn't mention him since they don't believe he was the Son of God. They are still waiting on the Messiah, who has already come and gone. And from what I know about the Koran, Jesus is mentioned in it. Even Muslims believe that Jesus was a person. They just don't think that Jesus is the Son of God. They DO think that he was a great prophet though. The Bible was not directly written by God of course, but it is as close as it could be. It was written by people that were inspired by God and He told them what to write basically. Now, before everyone casts their votes, I would like to say again, the question was, Is Jesus Real? Yes. Even most Atheists don't deny that he was real. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to be a part of this debate. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with The ACLU is Damaging the our Nation. because Thank you for accepting this debate. It is important to have orginazations who keep an eye out for Americans' rights, that is true, but when an orginazation is biased (which, by your own admission the ACLU is) then it is just another danger. When you say keeping an eye out for "our" rights, then that should represent and include ALL Americans. When parents were outraged that an elementary school in California was making a course on Islaam mandatory, the ACLU came to the defense of the school, and saw to it that the school could keep the course. However, when a teacher was fired from a high school in the very same country for wearing a Christian Cross around her neck, and contacted the ACLU for help, she was ignored. They are selectively defending the rights of those with whom they agree. That is great for Liberals, but extremely dangerous for conservatives. And there are plenty of people who are not biased towards the Liberal side. I will admit, the mainstream media is extremely biased, and they do their best to paint this entire nation in a "liberal" color, but MSNBC does not represent the American people. The ACLU abusing its power to further their political agenda and defend the rights of other liberals and ignore the rights of conservatives makes them a danger to our society. Even if you were right that most people are biased towards liberals, (which I dont think you are-there is a reason Fox News doubles the ratings of CNN and MSNBC every night) it does not matter, if only one in every ten people were traditionalists, they should still have every right to equal representation. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with The Parole Board has failed in Protecting the Community because Extend. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with uniforms for kids because Not always some kids ware inapropreate clothes to get people to like them <EOA>

<BOA> I am with animal breeding because Well, I must say that this is the most interesting topic that I have yet laid eyes on! However I disagree with the statement, and will do my best to prove you wrong! 1) First, you are putting our freedoms at stake! You say we should take care of the orphans first. This is saying that if you want a dog, you must buy one that has defects, abuse, strange behaviour, bites like a pair of dentures etc. Buyers have the right to buy a brand new puppy if they choose! 2) Breeding is a GOOD business! Making a law to temperarily ban breeding would hurt many! With the economy the way it is, is it ethical to put thousands out of the job? 3) You are restricting the dogs freedoms too! Dogs mate naturally! It's not like we invented them! It is unrealistic to ban animals from breeding! Dogs do it all the time! They run away, meet a mate, and you know what comes next! What are people going to do? Give dogs tickets for "Uncontrolled Hormones"? I look forward to what you have to say. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Charities should be forced to prove where their money is actually going. because Well that's disappointing. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against ucla vs usc ucla FTW!!!!!! because I'd like to thank my opponent for his quick response. My opponent states statistics about degrees given out by USC and UCLA, which is irrelevant, considering that UCLA has far more students compared to USC. For statistics of student satisfaction [1] 87% would attend USC again compared to 85% at UCLA 83% were satisfied with their overall academic experience at USC (same as UCLA) USC didn't survey the students in the other two categories. "The average highschool GPA of UCLA has to be at least 4.2 while the average GPA for USC is only 3.7" This is an unweighted GPA compared to a weighted GPA (4.0 scale vs 5.0 scale). A more accurate, unweighted (4.0 scale) number from the university websites show that the average GPA for new undergrads enrolled in fall 2009 was 3.59 for UCLA [2] and 3.8 for USC [3] for those admitted. For GPA, USC has a higher standard than UCLA. "UCLA has a larger campus compared to USC. (419 to 155 respectively). There is room for buildings that can help improve one's education. UCLA has 870 registered student organizations, USC has 676." USC has a campus size of 226 acres [4] according to it's official website, a more accurate source than The Princeton Review. Even though UCLA's campus size is in fact 419 acres [5], this is irrelevant to one's education. Looking at Harvard, for example, the size is 210 acres but the quality of education is much higher than USC or UCLA. ASU has a campus size of 625 acres, but again, the quality of education of USC and UCLA is much higher than ASU. In terms of student organizations, USC's website shows a more accurate number, 725+ [6], and UCLA reporting 800+[7] on its website. When comparing the number of students to student organizations [8][9], the ratio is 48:1 at both USC and UCLA. For sports, even though UCLA has more options for it's students to participate in, the overwhelming majority of the students will be the ones watching the sports, not playing. A sports fanatic would much rather be part of a school whose sports teams win games than a school whose team plays a lot of games, but has a losing record against its rival school. Looking back at the rankings, USC is ranked 23rd overall in the country, while UCLA is 25th. In sports, USC beats UCLA constantly, with an overall record of 891-842-10 vs UCLA. For these reasons, I urge a Con vote. [1] http://sait.usc.edu... [2] http://www.aim.ucla.edu... [3] http://www.usc.edu... [4] http://www.usc.edu... [5] http://www.ucla.edu... [6] http://sait.usc.edu... [7] http://www.gdnet.ucla.edu... [8] http://en.wikipedia.org... [9] http://en.wikipedia.org... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against The NFL should kick racist teams out of American football because Let us examine your scenario: "Now look here, Yankee, I want the finest wine available to humanity: I want it here and I want it now. What do you mean 'this is McDonald's'? God damn your insolence, I'll have a bottle of Mouton Rothschild soixante-dix-neuf or I'll have your guts for garters….bloody Yankee sommeliers, they haven't got the first idea…" That, I think you would agree, would offend most Americans and I'd even venture to suggest that such a discourse in an American restaurant might elicit some negative comments the other diners. I entirely agree. In line with this, let us, examine a similar scenario: "Now look here, American, I want the finest wine available to humanity: I want it here and I want it now. What do you mean 'this is McDonald's'? God damn your insolence, I'll have a bottle of Mouton Rothschild soixante-dix-neuf or I'll have your guts for garters….bloody American sommeliers, they haven't got the first idea…" Having removed the horridly offensive term "Yankee" and replaced it with the neutrally descriptive "American," the derogatory nature of this scenario is neutered, yes? It is now completely neutral, with minimal chance to offend anyone. Hm. Perhaps not. What about this scenario? "My! You managed to find a glass of Mouton Rothschild soixante-dix-neuf, and an excellent vintage too! I have to hand it to you Yanks, you know your customer service!" Wow. A crude, pejorative statement like that is liable to get you shanked in an alley! To be more serious, the removal of the term "Yankee" doesn't affect the rude nature of the first scenario, nor does its inclusion in the second magically make it rude. It's clear that the harm of the word comes from its use and intention on behalf of the speaker. Regarding the accusation of racism. From your quote: "We work to remind people of consciousness of the use of the symbols resemblance to other historic, racist images of the past." This is selective. In the first round, your link specificly noted that the origin of the term was neutral. So the question is, why focus only upon the negative aspects of the phrase? No reason is given. Furthemore, offensive is not synonymous with racism. I provided criteria for racism: "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race, based on the belief that one's own race is superior" I haven't seen anything that shows that naming a football team "Redskins" or "Braves" or "Chiefs" or "Yankees" does any of those things. In conclusion, I will submit that the choosing of the names is, perhaps, insensitive and lacking in awareness of the sensitivities of others. But it is that at worse. Consider, if racism is truly the motive here, then how is that goal achieved through naming a sports team as such? Sports teams are intended to be a source of pride, a rallying point. So what's the thinking here? "Ha ha Native Americans, we wish to discriminate against you, so we're going to build a lucrative franchise and massive fanbase using a nickname for you. That'll teach you!" I'm sorry, but I don't understand how that works. Regardless, thank you for posting this debate, I found this enjoyable. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against vigilantism is justified when the government fails to enforce the law because To clarify any concerns about the following debate, here are the instructions/rules: -must be in LD (Lincoln-Douglas formatting) -no use of personal attacks -no debating in the commenting box (many people do intend to do that and it gets really out of hand) -well, and to simply have a fun and exciting debate, good luck to my opponent Now, I will proceed with my opening statement.... I will be presenting the side CON, which is against the justification of vigilantism when the government fails to enforce the law. The main subject we are discussing is vigilantism. The term vigilantism refers to someone who is a "vigilante". vigilante: someone outside law enforcement who takes the law into their own hands. A vigilante is an ordinary civilian who attains the idea that they will enforce the law. This person might have taken this path for various reasons that usually include revenge, passion, or compulsion. Regardless for why they are doing it, they have absolutely no jurisdiction, code, rules, or any restrictions to follow. As for a police officer, they have a jurisdiction and code to follow and enforce the law by any means necessary. For what ever they might do, they are authorized to do it, for they are trained and knowledgeable of the law. Vigilantes are not authorized and, chances are, not aware of the dangers it can cause. My main point here is trust. Can we trust a vigilante? By the definition of a vigilante, no we cannot. A person who is a vigilante can cause good and yet they can cause havoc. Therefore, their intentions are unpredictable. That makes it dangerous for the community since vigilantes cannot be trusted. I will provide more evidence in the second round.... Now, my opponent will proceed with his opening statement for why he is PRO.... <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Atheism is the default position because My opponent is attempting to cheat by not accepting the rule set in round 1 First round is for acceptance only. Instead of just accepting, he attempts to set new definitions. Total cheat. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god. The moment we are born, we have no beliefs at all. All babies are born Atheists. That's why it's the default position. The only way to be a Theist is to learn what a God is and choose to believe in it. That means you must BECOME a Theist from the default position of being an Atheist. Nobody is born a Theist. If you lose your faith in a God, you automatically (without having to choose to) go back to the default position of being an Atheist. It's that simple. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with school's should not make you wear uniforms because First, let me start off by explaining myself( although it is mostly self explanatory): school: an institution where instruction is given to persons under college age. uniforms: an outfit or style worn by members of a group, or in this case, students in a school. First of all, Uniforms are worn at schools so there won't be any gang colors being worn, and also so no one can make fun of you if you wear clothes from Wal-Mart, or a place that isn't "popular" like Hollister, or Aeropostale. But if someone is going to make fun of you because your not rich, they can still make fun of you. Uniforms don't hide how much money you have. And if someone is going to make fun of your clothes, and you have a uniform on, they will find something else to make fun of you for. And gangs can't be stopped just because they have to wear a uniform to school. They can "throw up" gang signs and stuff like that while they are at school, uniforms or not. It is also not fair to the people who followed the dress code before the school got uniforms. If they had always worn what they were supposed to they shouldn't have to wear a uniform just because alot of other kids at their school didn't follow the dress code. They will feel like if they follow the rules, they still might get punished. It will also make the kids, and some parents angry at the school. The school will get alot of calls from angry parents, and some of the kids might rebel, and stop doing their schoolwork. I look forward to whomever I may be debating, no matter if I win or lose, it will be a fun debate. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Mutilating dogs for aesthetic reasons because This is a debate on the mutilation of dogs, namely ear and tail docking and ear cropping, for aesthetic reasons. I shall be taking the 'against' role. I would like to begin with some definitions: Aesthetic and mutilation were taken from http://www.dictionary.com... - Aesthetic 1. Pertaining to a sense of the beautiful or to the science of aesthetics. 2. Having a sense of the beautiful; characterized by a love of beauty. 3. Pertaining to, involving, or concerned with pure emotion and sensation as opposed to pure intellectuality. - Mutilation: (Oxford Dictionary) 1. To injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting. 2. To deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part. - Tail docking: (The Veterinary Dictionary) 1. The surgical removal of a tail, but with approximately 2.5 inches left. - Ear docking: (The Veterinary Dictionary) 1. The surgical removal of an ear exterior. - Ear cropping: (The Veterinary Dictionary) 1. To artificially manipulate ears to point upwards through surgery. Please inform if these definitons are not satisfactory. I will begin by introducing the topic, but I shall leave the beginning of the debate to my opponent. It is popular belief that wolves were domesticated by Man thousands of years ago, for companionship and slave work (such as hunting). In modern society, dogs are still kept for work and as companions. They are all born with a tail and two ears; however, it has been common practice to crop ears and to dock the tails and sometimes the ears of particular breeds, such as the doberman, rottweiler, great dane and pitt bull. My question is why? It is still done in USA and many other countries; however, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 prohibited the docking of tails and cropping of ears of dogs purely for aesthetic reasons, in the UK. Thank you to the person who takes up this debate :) <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Official Debate Tournament: Badger is a Retard/Troll because Rebuttals: 1) Badger's debate record I'm here more to learn than to debate. I don't put much effort in when i do debate, most of the time, or get distracted and forfeit, or write rounds while intoxicated in some way. I suppose you might argue that the getting intoxicated and writing rounds was intentional, but that's not really fair... who doesn't do stupid things when they're drunk or otherwise intoxicated? :) 2) Badger's profile He's a cool looking llama! but are you sure he's a llama? And i am indeed a black Muslim teacher earning more than $150,000 a year.. though i live in Ireland. That bit was a lie. And i just don't particularly favour any colour over any other. What's wrong with that? 3) Quotes "Badger claimed "rob is an anarcho capitalist" - http://www.debate.org... ... Rob is a communist..." I later saw the light and agreed that Rob would be better called an anarcho communist green hippie dude, or along those lines. "In the same thread Badger claims that: "for there to be currency there'd have to be kingdoms/governments pretty much.." despite the fact that commodity money has naturally started outside of governments... for example cigarettes in POW camps" There is nicotine in cigarettes making them addictive giving them value. That i'd consider like people trading tea or coffee, much more practical commodities than gold or silver. If you wanted to argue with me on anarcho capitalism you should've just given me a resolution. "Badger writes: "you don't think anarcho capitalism must be minarchism to work?", apparently unaware that no-government and limited-government are not the same thing." Well i'm wondering who'd be given control of minting money and minding what it referenced? "He also wonders whether anarcho capitalism is compatible with currency." Well first i was wondering was it feasible at all. And now i suppose it could come about through a government precursor. And i do wonder if anarchism is compatible with currency. Sieben's conclusion: You can hardly classify a joy of intoxicating myself a severe mental problem, a mental problem maybe , but it's left me pretty able even if i do say so myself. I mean i'm not a black Muslim teacher in Ireland because i'm an idiot. my conclusion: My opponent has not to me demonstrated that i have intentionally enged in incoherant or moronic behaviour, though i'm irish and we'd probably have different standards to a lot of people. I'd still plead subjectivity if i was pushed to though :) Cheers i suppose lol <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Hillary Clinton should be in prison. because I will be arguing why Hillary Clinton should be in federal prison. This will be a 4 round debate: Round 1- acceptance Round 2- argument Round 3- rebuttal Round 4- conclusion Requests: No Plagiarism No trolling <EOA>

<BOA> I am against I am God because Alright, ill give. If you are God, the creator of the universe and everything in it than surely you will be able to answer a few simple questions about your creations. All numbers must refer and be answered in the human (American) numerical system. All names of any objects, animals, etc must be answered in the American given names. 1. How many hairs are currently on my head? 2. What are my 4 pets, and what are the breeds/species of said pets? 3. What kind of flowers are currently planted in my back yard, and how many petals are there on all the plants combined? 4. How many blades of grass are currently in my yard? 5. How many blades of grass did i just pull up from my yard? 6. How many freckles are on my face? 7. How many teeth do i have in my mouth? If you are truly the creator of the universe and everything in it, the all knowing God, than these are easy questions for you, if you cannot answer them correctly than you are not the All powerful all knowing God, creator of the Universe, and the resolution fails. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Life breeding hate because "Life is breed from sex, therefore it is a survival instinct. Sex occurs, therefore someone living had sex. Sexual relationship is an instinct in which on commits to one another (rape not included). We choose mates based on who would make better babies. This makes a level of commitment. When someone has something will covet it. Therefore, commitment makes jealousy Jealousy is a type of anger, therefore for it to occur, anger must" This argument makes little sense and is mainly a rewording of the last argument. You have failed to demonstrate how this means that life is the cause and is equivilent to hate. Pro has not made any coherent argument or response to my counter argument. I urge the voters to vote con. Thank you. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Bernie would have won. because 'his arguments give links to entirely separate ideas and statements' Since I was running out time and space I clearly explained that I would provide the proper order of sources in the comments. Final Rebuttal - Demographics Con accuses me of giving 'too much notice' to the Millenial voting bloc, and ignoring the importance of African-Americans, Asians, and others. Not only does Con misunderstand the key importance of Millenials, (as SALON puts it, 'The Millennial voting bloc is large enough to literally decide who wins.' [1]), but the fact remains that the millennial bloc is extremely large in numbers , ( 69 million Americans )[1] and ultimately, Hillary Clinton's poor performance among that age group is one of the many reason she lost this election. In other words, yes there is an America of the African Americans, Asians, etc., but that does not excuse the fact that Hillary seriously underperformed with the millennial bloc, thus costing her the Presidency, a group that was quite remarkably attracted to Bernie's agenda. He then goes on address Hillary's poor showing with women. 'Contrary to Pro's argument, Hillary Clinton only lost one percentage point to Obama's vote' that statement does not stand opposite to my argument, at all. Why is it, that the first female candidate for President could barely garner over 54% of the female vote? Why is it that the first female candidate for President lost the white women vote? Regardless of Con's arguments, that is a poor showing by any definitions in the book. She had a considerable amount of money, the staff, the ads, the support of the entire party establishment (contrary to Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump), and yet, she blew it. Simply because the economic challenges that factory workers faced in the Rust Belt were felt by both men and women, and while Trump was addressing the disenfranchised crowds, and promising an end to the trade deals that caused their loss of jobs and an end to the 'elites' that signed them, Clinton was holding private fundraisers with multi-millionaires. [2][3][4][5] (seriously, that many private fundraisers with the ultra-rich, and then to turn around and pin Trump as the 'out-of-touch' candidate, how was that going to work?) Con's statement defending Chuck Schumer's statements simply outlines what's wrong with the establishment democratic Party. He (Schumer) literally argues against working to attract blue-collar working class workers, and instead, appealing to moderate Republicans. That statement received a lot of criticism at the time as well, thus negating Con's argument that it made consensus at the time. 'The claim that the key states of the election were the Rust Belt states is mostly false.' Jesus-Christ, that's wrong. A simple glance at the electoral map of 2012 and 2016 proves it, The key states Obama won in 2008 & 2012, thus guaranteeing the White House? Ohio, Pennsylvannia, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and West Virginia. The states Trump flipped from blue to red thus winning the White House: Ohio, Pennsylvannia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and West Virginia. She lost every key state that guaranteed back-to-back Obama victories. And they're all (minus Florida) located in the Rust Belt, contrary to what Con would like you to believe. It's not up to debate, the Rust Belt played the biggest part in this election. 'False, because if Clinton had won Pennsylvania, she would have beaten Trump' not sure how that plays in the narrative that 'rust belt states weren't key' seeing Pennsylvania is a state in the Rust Belt... [6] He then says, 'Pro has stated that voters in the primaries are not far left, and results correctly represents the results in the general, if it were true Clinton would have won Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvannia, this clearly did not happen.' That's incorrect. I stated that the 'far left' and 'progressives' in America identified as Independents, and thus did not vote in the Primaries of New-York, and other large states that barred voting rights to Independents. 'and results correctly represents the results in the general' Con has literally put words in my mouth.. I will skip the empty, unsubstantiated, ill-founded attacks on Bernie's agenda 'how could you be able to lower taxes for the middle class and increase government income at the same time without getting involved in other financial budgets', because Con goes on to claim that, 'the USA, the sprawling, militaristic, destroyer of communism and police of the world can't be turned to something similar to Finland or Sweden. The idea is utterly ridiculous.' This is exactly what cost Hillary the election. Americans reject that flawed idea that the United States should be the policeman of the world, while American jobs are leaving, infrastructure is crumbling, and income inequality is at an all time high. Con goes on to defend the vote for the war in Iraq, which is simply undefendable. It is up to politicians to persuade the general public, Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders fought the war, and spoke out against it. If Hillary was morally opposed to the war, she would've done the same. And while yes, politicians changing their views on a topic is frequent, Clinton is known for her flipflopping, she said it herself, 'it's best to have a private and a public opinion' Sanders, on the other hand, has a record of integrity, and consistency. For over 25 years he has fought for the same agenda he is currently advocating, therefore when Con says that Sanders who has been in Congress leading the progressive fight, is a 'recent star and represents the current viewpoints' is questionable. My final rebuttal concerns the article he pulled from Medium, a platform where everyone, regardless of political knowledge can write articles, and thus not a 'news site', that supports the claim that multiple states aren't 'Ready to see a Jew in the Oval Office', I continue to believe that argument is a just a hack argument and in truth, is passes as a poorly elaborated one. Con asks a question, I will answer it, when voters in the Wisconsin democratic Primary handed him a landslide victory were they not making a statement, were they not 'ready' for a Jew in the Oval Office? When millions cast a ballot across the country, voting for him to lead the democrats to victory in the general election, were they not 'ready for a Jew' ? Conclusion Hillary's loss to Donald Trump will remain in U.S Political history as one of the biggest electoral upset. A true statement by the working class, against the establishment. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Bernie Sanders would've won the crucial blue-collar states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, West Virginia and Ohio. His working class appeal was clearly evident throughout the Democratic Primaries, with no political capital, no SuperPac funds, no Media Coverage, he managed to win 23 primaries and caucuses. That should've been a warning to Clinton's campaign, that the American populace was beginning to reject her Neoliberal policies, but instead the Clinton campaign stuck to their brand of identity politics. The tide is shifting, a new brand of politics is taking birth, and that was made evident by Bernie's impressive run, managing, despite a Party stacked against him, to win 23 contests and upset pundits. His appeal to the working class and clean record would've beaten Donald Trump in the fall. Thank you, Con, for debating me, as well as the readers/voters. [1 http://www.salon.com... [2 http://www.nytimes.com... [3 http://www.zerohedge.com... ; [4 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com... ; [5 http://fortune.com... ; [6 https://en.wikipedia.org... Rust _ Belt <EOA>

<BOA> I am against President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest. because What you must see is Obama's plan is not in the best interest because the Afghan army is corrupt and training them will be near impossible. First off we need to look at the past, one of the objectives of the war on terrorism was to successfully train an Afghan security force enabling the United States to leave as soon as possible. Although the U.S. has officially trained 94,000 Afghan soldiers, there's no signs of an effective Afghan security force capable of fighting the Taliban. Also the Desertion rates are high; an estimated 1 in 4 soldiers trained last year deserted the army. Drug usage is rampant throughout the army, and police force. Corruption is a huge problem too, the soldiers and police are all underpaid, so they rarely if not at all feel guilty about accepting bribes. Too note how widespread the problem is lets look towards the 2009 election, where Hamid Karzai, the current president committed election fraud. Now if we look at the deadline Obama's set there is no way an entire country can change its mindset in just 18 months. Now we need to look at the opportunity costs of Obama's plan. According to David Rothkopf, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "Afghanistan is a costly distraction for the president, and the military. Every minute the president is focused on Afghanistan and every dollar we spend there is a withdraw from some other account, some higher priority." Rothkopf lists nine priorities that are more important than Afghanistan in the Middle East alone. This seemingly endless war will waste the lives of the Americans sent there along with an estimated 2 billion dollars a year. Now ask yourselves, is it in the best interest of the American people to be devoting so much in terms of resources, to train an army that is so incompetent? With all of this money, it could be spent elsewhere for example the 9 other higher priorities in the Middle East alone. Or better improve our own infrastructure and education systems? Is is in the best interest of the citizens to be fighting an endless war; or to be allowing that money to be better spent elsewhere? <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Marriage should be legal in the United States. because Thanks to my opponent for instigating this debate. Hopefully, we will be able to resolve some of the main issues that got somewhat obscured in the previous debate we did on gay marriage. Our goal in this debate is to decide whether marriage should exist as a legal institution, not to argue over the legal merits of specific types of marriages. ::Case Pro- Rebuttals:: Contention 1: The legalization of marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Mongeese rightfully observes that our legal system is set up in such a way so that single people are treated differently than married people. However, the conclusions he draws from this fact seem wholly unsubstantiated. Married people have reached a status in society that justifies their special treatment. They simply have many more responsibilities than most single people. Given this fact, it is unreasonable and legally preposterous to argue that treating married and non-married people differently violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. One of my main purposes in this debate will be to show that a legal distinction between married and non-married people is justifiable. ::Case Pro:: Contention 1: Discrimination between married and single people is justified. The dichotomy of legal treatment between those who are married and those who aren't is warranted. Married people take on extra responsibilities that are not undertaken by single people. For instance, they often raise families, which requires quite a bit of time, effort, and money. People that get married have lots of responsibilities, and thus, it is not unreasonable that they should be rewarded for this in a way that single people aren't. Furthermore, if single people want to receive the benefits that married people receive all they have to do is get married. Marriage itself is not an inherently segregated or discriminatory institution. Anyone can get married whether they are rich or poor; educated or uneducated; white or black; or completely incompetent. There is nothing stopping people from getting married. Every legal resident of the United States, except gays, is on a level playing field in terms of their ability to be married. Therefore, single people do little more than gripe when they argue that married people receive legal benefits that they don't. Contention 2: Legally sanctioned marriages are good for couples. As the DDO member andre points out in one of his debates, marriage has many useful functions that are intrinsically valuable to a couple. [1] Among other things these benefits include: - Inheritance of property - Rights to make a medical decision for a spouse, or making other decision such as funeral arrangements - Joint tax filing and joint adoption - Rights to non-resident or alien partners - Marital confidence privilege and spousal testimonial privilege - Parenting rights (access or rights of both partners to make decisions for their child) - Custody of children - Shared property and shared bank accounts It is, of course, true that these benefits could be achieved through various other methods without the legal sanctioning of marriage. However, what would be the point of reworking a system that doesn't appear to be broken? Legally sanctioned marriages provide all these benefits in one easy step. [2] If each of these rights had to be acquired individually or in groups the entire process of "marriage" would become needlessly convoluted. Contention 3: Marriage is good for society and should be promoted by the government. Marriage helps provide a safe place to have children and raise a family. And the importance of this institution really cannot be overrated. In fact, many aspects of societal dysfunction can be positively correlated with broken homes or otherwise dysfunctional families. [3] [4] Indeed, there is hardly another factor more foretelling of a persons status latter in life than the condition of the family they were raised in. Therefore, if a government wants to increase the well being of the nation that it's ruling it would be a good idea to promote marriage by subsidizing it with financial incentives and other benefits. This helps encourage couples to get married and in a small way helps improve marriages by making them financially less strenuous for people. Contention 4: Laws or legal arrangements that produce maximal utility should be preferred in a society. According to the philosopher Jeremy Bentham actions can be said to be good or bad depending on the consequences they produce. And among his many contributions to philosophy was his development of the hedonic calculus. [5] [6] To put this principle in simplistic terms it basically states that any action can be considered good depending on how much pleasure it produces when the well being of all of those affected is taken into consideration. Given this understanding of ethics, it is then easy to realize that legally sanctioned marriages are valuable because they produce many positive benefits in society for lots of people. Legally sanctioned marriages are key aspects of a healthy and functional society. Conversely, there is no reason to think that society would be any better off if my opponent's views were taken to their logical conclusion and we abolished marriage. Eradicating marriage as a legal institution would simply be a risky venture with no discernable benefits. And unless my opponent can demonstrate that abolishing marriage is good for society then he doesn't really have a very strong case. Hopefully, that should be enough for now. I look forward to your response. ---References--- 1. http://www.debate.org... See Con: Round 1 2. http://www.nolo.com... 3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://plato.stanford.edu... 6. http://www.bartleby.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against intermediate students should be able to date and show their affection at school because Intermediate, so as to say middle schoolers? 5-7th graders? If this is the case, I'll be happy to debate with you. Intermediate-aged students aren't mentally mature enough to truly, emotionally date. At least, not fifth-seventh graders. They're still going through puberty and are only just developing feelings remotely close to attraction to the opposite/same gender in a romantic light. Their minds are overwhelmed with this new information and whatever they learn from older kids. I look forward to your response. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against me grammar suck because To win this debate I have to demonstrate that pros grammar does not suck. If we look at his other debates we will find that he has fine grammar. http://www.debate.org... In this debate pro uses commas, capitalization and periods. His grammar does not suck. Now my case is very believable. It is obvious pro has purposfully had bad grammar in this debate. Just look at the title. We cannot go by this debate on whether pro has good grammar. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Video Games Cause Bad Behavior because I was looking through debates and saw this one occur a few times. I looked into them and saw about two that actually went to the final round, even though one of the two had a forfeit. I want this debate to be a mix of facts and opinions to show what we feel and what a wide range of people feel. I stand that video games don't cause bad behavior. This is an acceptance round and I hope you will stick around the entire debate. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Gum Chewing in school because 1) "Even after brushing=bad breath" This is not true at all! If people are brushing their teeth, they loose the bad breath. Kids also normally eat breakfast in the morning as well. This also gets rid of bad breath. Bad breath is really not that big of a deal. Kids can breath out of their nose, and only kids that are very close to them will smell the bad breath. My school doesn't allow gum, and their has NEVER been a problem with bad breath! 2) "It is a proven fact that it helps and i have never heard of smacking, and a lot of people at my school chew gum" It is NOT proven! The research started in 2002 and they have not done enough studies to prove that it helps your brain at all! Really, its much better to just know your stuff and not have to be extremely worried about whether the gum is actually going to help you or not. 3) "Enough people do that it spreads, I know from my school that there is only 1 or 2 incidents people have left gum about." I really wish you would have been a little more clear about what you are talking about, but I will work with what I have. Okay, so that's what you know, but why don't you try talking to the janitor? They will assure you that gum is EVERYWHERE! It is disgusting how there is gum under everything. Also, try putting your hand under your chair at school and you'll see what I mean. 4) "If teachers can't hear they are not smacking, its as simple as that a classroom isnt that big that you can't hear from the front." Actually, when a teacher is talking at the front of the room, it can be very difficult to hear smacking. Many times a student will turn his/her head and smack in the face of the person next to them, just to annoy them. This will direct the sounds elsewhere, and it will not reach the teacher. 5) "GUM=Focus, good breath, respect, and responcibility" Gum does NOT make people more responsible. Seriously, when has a study been done to prove this is true? Never. This is something my opponent made up. 6) My opponent still has not answered my question of why spend extra money on gum so you can chew it in school. I would like an answer to this please. Remember gum in school is distracting, annoying, messy, and costs extra money. With so many holes in the argument and punctuation mistakes on my opponent's side, vote CON! <EOA>

<BOA> I am with The Kleptin Brand "Pick-Your-Own-Debate!" because My opponent's argument was incomplete and I do not accept his resignation :P Though the Metal Gear games were admittedly good for their era, I would argue that the best series of video games is not Metal Gear, but Final Fantasy. http://en.wikipedia.org... Final Fantasy had modest beginnings, but was a brilliant idea that eventually allowed it to spread its wings and branch out as one of the most stunning aspects of gaming to ever grace the several systems it was on. Coming from a generation of dungeon crawlers and other fantasy-related games, Final Fantasy set a benchmark in its ingenuity, especially in the concepts of battle, random encounters, the world map, and plot. The franchise has expanded far from FF1 and is now allows for the freest, most diverse type of gameplay out there, while remaining true to its fantasy roots. I shall add more later. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against I will not contradict myself. because My opponent's contradictions: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Is there a number that can be considered greater than infinity? ---Yes Is a dictionary a reliable source? ---Sometimes. Not all definitions are applicable to any situation. For example, school does not always refer to fish. Well, I do believe that the definition of "infinity" that would be applicable in this situation is most likely: -The quality or condition of being infinite http://www.thefreedictionary.com... ...And the most applicable definition of infinite would be: -Existing beyond or being greater than any arbitrarily large value http://www.thefreedictionary.com... So, If a dictionary's applicable definitions are valid, then a number cannot be considered greater than infinity. If a number can be considered greater than infinity, then applicable definitions in a dictionary are not valid. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Can God lift anything? ---Yes Can God lift everything? ---Yes Can God create a stone that he cannot lift? ---Yes God can lift anything and everything, yet he can create a stone that he cannot lift. So, If God can lift anything and everything, then he cannot create a stone that he cannot lift. If God can create a stone that he cannot lift, then he cannot lift anything and everything. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Does banning 'abusable' drugs infringe on one's ability to make decisions regarding their own health?" ---Yes Should people be able to make decisions regarding their own health? ---At the age of responsibility. Does your profile say you are against Drug Legalization? ---Yes Do you agree with all your own positions on the BIG issues and with the religion stated on your profile? ---Yes, assuming that I get to define what the BIG issues to how I interpret them. (I don't see any other way to interpret "Drug Legalization" without contradicting the applicable definitions in the dictionary). Drug Legalization obviously refers to the un-banning of abusable drugs. So, If my opponent believes that abusable drugs should be a decision available to individuals at the age of responsibility, then he would support banning them. If my opponent believes that abusable drgus should be banned, then he believes that individuals at the age of responsibility should not be able to make such decisions regarding their health. As further evidence of contradiction: 5. Is smoking tobacco acceptable at the age of responsibility? ---As long as it does not affect others. 6. Is smoking marijuana acceptable at the age of responsibility? ---As long as it does no harm to others. Should it be legal to smoke marijuana at the age of responsibility? ---As long as it does no harm to others. Should it be legal to use pain relievers when not in pain at the age of responsibility? ---As long as it does no harm to others. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The contradictions are plain as day. However, the rules state that my opponent has the opportunity to "use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over." I'm hoping for the "PRO admits defeat" option. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with My opponent has just lost the game. because R1. You are always playing the game, and no consent is required to play. Lack of consent means nothing. R2. The rules of the game mean that you are always playing the game. Authority is irrevelant. You can only set off losing by not playing. Thank you. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against High heels should be illegal and destroyed as well as halting production of high heels. because I thank my opponent for instigating the debate. I am going to argue devil's advocate against the position that high heels be banned. As my opponent has not presented a debates structure, I will proceed by offering both my opening argument and rebuttals this round. Constructive case C1) Self-esteem According to studies, short height leads to a feeling of inferiority, paranoia about people around you, and lack of confidence. Taller people are also more likely to be able to find a romantic partner, succeed in their careers and go on to higher education. It is clear that height is an important part of self-image and higher height will lead to higher self-esteem and better social connections. High heels increase your height, and thus is capable of boosting your self-esteem. (1) In fact, attractiveness to men of women has been directly linked to high heels. (3) C2) Pragmatic uses High heels allow shorter people to be able to reach books on higher shelves in libraries, on cupboards in kitchens, and so on, without the use of stools or other aids that may pose a stability risk. People with short legs can also have their feet touch the floor when they sit down if they have high heels. C3) Freedom of expression Fashion is a means of personal expression. (2) As high heels is a form of fashion, high heels are therefore a means of personal expression. A person might wear high heels as a symbol of power and status, for example. To ban high heels is to limit expression. C4) Cultural implications High heels are an important part of human culture. As said above, they are a symbol of power and status. Many professions also require it as business attire. For example, a law firm has advised female lawyers to use high heels to maintain a professional image and thereby boost their chances of success. (4) A ban on all high heels will render this impossible. C5) Economic benefits High heels offer economic benefits to seller and buyer alike. As I have explained above, high heels can boost your chances of professional success because of improved self-image. Moreover, high heels generate $40 billion in revenue annually. (5) A halt in the production of high heels will doubtless lead to undesirable economic impacts such as unemployment (and by extension social unrest), a drop in share prices in the shoe industry, and heavy resistance from business and labour unions alike. C6) Feasibility There will inevitable be difficulties in implementation. For example, how are high heels defined? There will have to be a line drawn: at what height is a heel considered a high heel? Moreover, my opponent suggested destroying high heels, which is even less feasible. How can you make sure people destroy their high heels? Should police enter people's homes and remove their high heels for destruction? That is very hard, not to mention invasive to carry out. Finally, a black market will be created if high heels are banned. The consumers do not enjoy the same consumer rights protection as they do in legal markets. They cannot complain about the low quality or negative health impacts of their shoes. This will only make the industry harder to regulate and disincentivise healthy high-heel designs. Rebuttals R1) Appearance My opponent claims that high heels are not aesthetically appealing. However, this is entirely subjective, and laws should have an objective basis to them, rather than being judged by subjective value judgements. Moreover, ugliness alone cannot justify bans, or there would be a lot of objects we need to ban. R2) Alternatives My opponent claims that there are viable alternatives to wearing high heels that brings the benefits without compromising health. However, he or she has not told us what these alternatives are, nor demonstrated how they are, all things considered (including health, confidence and others), more beneficial than high heels. Moreover, there can be methods to lessen the impact of high heels, such as only wearing them on occasions which necessitate their use, using heels of shorter height, and so on. Some people are even working to improve the design of high-heeled shoes using physics. (5) Moreover, it has been found that high heels have positive impacts on pelvic muscles, and may therefore benefit health. (6) (1) http://www.theguardian.com... (2) http://www.pbs.org... (3) http://www.cbsnews.com... (4) http://blogs.wsj.com... (5) http://www.businessinsider.com... (6) http://www.europeanurology.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Execution is more important than an idea for a successful business. because Business Objectives: 1. Profit 2. Customer Satisfaction A bad idea, no matter how prepared or well executed, will not be successful. Why? People won't buy into the idea, thus negating customer satisfaction and a profit. A good idea may not be well executed, yet because the idea is good, you will probably succeed regarding at least one of the two objectives. Example: Say I live in an area where there is a high demand for toy stores, and no demand for shoe stores. Opening up a shoe store would be a bad idea; it would not generate any business no matter how well thought out or executed my business plans may be. Thus, 0 customer satisfaction (demand), therefore 0 profit. If I opened up a toy store; however, but priced my items too high, that would be an example of a good idea (opening up a toy store where there is high demand), but bad execution (high prices). Because there is a high demand directly correlated to the good idea, customers would in fact shop at my store despite their lack of satisfaction. Thus I may have failed in one aspect of my objective, but the profit I would make from the customers (even if there were few of them) would mean that I was successful in at least one of my endeavors. The same would apply if I implemented the opposite - good idea (toy store), bad execution (prices too low). The good idea of a local toy store matched by customer's desire for affordable items may mean no profit, but there would be high customer satisfaction. In other words, SUCCESS. This could only be disputed if my opponent deems both objectives be met at the same time in order for something to be successful. However, because this interpretation of success would be impossible to prove (and only rooted in opinion), my reasoning stands. The point is, having a good idea put forth with bad execution has a better chance of generating success than a bad idea with good execution. If the idea behind a business is bad, what does it matter how well a business is run if there is no interest in the product/service? Without a good idea to begin with, no execution is necessary and therefore doesn't even matter. Thus, clearly ideas are more important than execution. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with I can post funnier "yo mama" jokes than my opponent. because I'd like to thank my opponent, whoever that may be, for accepting this debate. The topic is "I can post funnier 'yo mama' jokes than my opponent." First round will be 3 'fat' jokes. Second will be 3 'stupid' jokes. Third will be 3 'cheap' jokes. And lastly, fourth, 'old' jokes. Here are mine: 1. Yo mama so fat that when she tried out for Survivor, they said,"Sorry. We already have an island." 2.Yo mama so fat that I took a picture of her last Christmas and it's still printing. 3. Yo mama so fat that she stepped on an airplane and it turned into a submarine. I look forward to the response. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Queen is easily the most popular and influential band in the history of the post-Beatle era. because First of all, if your gonna argue topicality then thats great and all, but I think the underlying message of this topic is clear. I did not add an "s" to Beatle- but i don't believe that will make much of a difference. 1) Your polls: who the hell made them? There is no citation of the author listed on the page. Therefore, I can safely assume that this is a biased piece of evidence that should be disregarded. Also, that website was updated on 4-17-05, which is 2 YEARS ago! These polls are misleading- Queen was placed way below than they should have been. 2)Queen DOES qualify as post-Beatles era: a quote from Wikipedia states, "1970–present: Shortly before and after the official dissolution of the group, all four Beatles released solo albums, including Lennon's John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band, McCartney's McCartney, Starr's Sentimental Journey, and Harrison's All Things Must Pass." George Harrison's "Let It Be" was recorded without John Lennon ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ). In addition, John Lennon announced his departure from the band in September of 1969, BEFORE Queen was formed. 3) Popularity: As of 2005, according to The Guinness Book of World Records, Queen albums have spent a total of 1,322 weeks or twenty-seven years on the United Kingdom album charts; more time than any other musical act including The Beatles and Elvis Presley. ( http://news.scotsman.com... ) I think this answers your argument on popularity- Queen was the only band in the WORLD to ever achieve this feat. ( http://en.wikipedia.org... )has a list of artist who believed they were influenced the most by Queen, including Anthrax, Ben Folds Five,[45] Boston, Blind Guardian,[46] Def Leppard,[47] The Darkness, Extreme,[48] Foo Fighters, The Germs, The Go Go's, Davey Havok, The Killers,[49] Steve Vai,[50] Guns N' Roses,[51]Helloween,[52]Iron Maiden,[53]Judas Priest,[54]Kansas,[55] Metallica,[56] George Michael, Marilyn Manson, Kaiser Chiefs, Muse, Mika,[57]My Chemical Romance,[58] Nine Inch Nails, Panic! at the Disco, Radiohead, The Smashing Pumpkins, Switches, Max Cavalera,[59][60] Styx,[61], Sweet,[62], and Dragonforce. Ironically, many of these bands on your poll were placed above Queen lol! <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Does evil exist because I cannot agree with the statement; "The good of the many outweigh the good of the few." Since we are speaking about Evil, we would have to acknowledge the morals and beliefs of the many that would place certain people and things as evil, against the morals and beliefs of the few that would do the same thing. The "good" of the many change on a decadently basis. Less than 200 years ago, Most of white america found black people to be ungodly, unmoral, and evil creatures. They did believe that black men were works of god out of mans evil ways, and to be lesser than the white man. Little less than 50 years ago, its was the same thing, only with less slavery. Today, Gay marriage is becoming more and more acceptable where 10 years ago, it wouldn't even be thought of. Today you still see a lot of Americans complaining that Gay marriage is not moral, its wrong, and yes a lot of them use Evil as an argument. People like Martin Luther King, Harvy Milk were people who went against the many. We now know that before the many was wrong, and that Martin Luther King was right. King was the good. The good of the few out weighed the good of the many. Times change and the many's perceptions of what is good and evil change as well. We cannot get a good handle on what is good and evil, because there isn't one. As I said in the last paragraph, the ideas on what is good and evil, change. Evil is the ultimate bad, and there is nothing on this planet, or any other, that is an ultimate bad. Every single one of us have good and bad traits. Dr. King found that Gay's are an abomination, evil, and should never have rights. Most of us do what we believe to be the right thing, and we try to make the world a better place. We have faults though. We do things wrong, and often enough we do things wrong while trying to fix things. Hitler, Manson, even Dr. King were trying to help, but they either had some parts of their philosophy that were misguided, or did the wrong thing when trying to make things better. They knew what they were doing. Having differences in opinion does not make either party evil. Both think that they know what is good for the world. There is no evil there. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Immigration is changing rural England life because The end. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against The current economic recession is proof that conservatism is ineffective. because Thank you. This is my second attempt to do this. This exact same thing happened last time. It is truly a shame. Vote CON. Or just try to make this an even tie. But If I lose this debate then I will report the voters. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Expansionary monetary policy does not lower interest rates. because If the Fed pursues expansionary monetary policy by increasing the supply of money then the nominal interest rate will fall, investment will rise, consumption will rise. o interest sensitive purchases are less expensive o people save less and consume more o because the supply of money rises, people buy more goods and services. As the business cycle expansion gets underway, wealth rises and people buy more financial assets as well. the fall in the nominal interest rate will mean that net exports will rise since the value of the dollar will fall. Note that dollar denominated assets will have a lower return when the nominal interest rate falls and investors will no longer wish to hold as many dollar denominated assets as they did before. When investors unload their dollar denominated assets they take the dollars that they receive and purchase assets denominated in other currencies. When the value of the dollar falls exports are cheaper and imports are dearer. In sight of these points, I urge a Con Vote. I thank my opponent for the debate. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Rap Battle Rematch: Lannan13 vs. Truth_seeker because Lannan evenly spaces his lines out, that's using emotional appeal But he's already been ate in this lyrically malicious blood meal You talk about weapons, but online, you couldn't get this softer Brag about killing, but you are afraid of death before dishonor (1) No wonder you were enlisted in the U.S marines, all goons know is how to fight Same old raps about shooting, if the pen's mightier than the sword, i'ma write Your so quick to end life in war that you forgettin' the concept of protecting life Your a contradiction to your self Americanized dream, preaching rejecting strife! Your a patriot but a hypocrite, not intelligent, just irrelevant, look at this crippled spit! You affected by post traumatic stress disorder, you need therapy for your sicko spirit! While you fighting a war out in the streets of Pakistan, lets see who is the realest! A narcissist worried only for his reputation or the man who dies for his wife and kids! This loner doesn't have anything to protect, cuz he doesn't know what a real man is! What you know about paying for Google Chrome, going off the top of the dome! Investing money in the things that you own, stop Ebola from making the hot zone! Making sure America doesn't become Rome and fighting the war at your home! Nothing! You just a man who demands respect just cuz you wear badge! You bicker about what you do, but face the fact that you lost this match! Sources: 1. http://www.urbandictionary.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Are cheat codes bad? because Pro has dropped every argument. I extand prior arguments: I extand all my prior Arguments as they were not answered. Rebuttals: Still cheat codes can glitch your game and, mess it all up. Than that's your fault for using the Cheat Code. This makes the bad Cheat Codes bad, but not all Cheat Codes. Some Cheat Codes are bad =/= All Cheat Codes are bad. Few Cheat Codes mess up. Most games do not even have Cheat Codes that mess up. Almost no game in the world has a Cheat Code that messes up the game so bad that yo can never play it again. Pro is confusing the Game Designers being bad at programming the Code with the Code itself being bad. The Cheat Codes are all good, and bare good ideas... If one doesn't work right, it was still a good idea... It's not bad, the programmer was. =================================================================== <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Girls should be able to do less exercise than boys in gym classes. because Hello fellow debaters! I am quite new to Debate.org and this is my first debate. I am also quite new to debating and I see this site as a chance to improve my skill and have fun at the same time. Without further ado: I believe that girls and boys should be required in their Physical Education classes to do the same amount of exercise. There have been famous athletes in both genders. According to nextgenjournal.com the number of female athletes outnumbered males on the 2012 Olympic U.S. team. I believe this proves that girls can do just as well as boys in gym classes. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against The user s0m31john is a pedophile because We meet again DucoNihilum, this time outside of Skype. First some background info on Pedobear, for those of you that may not be up to date with all the *chan memes. I will be using Wikichan as my resource, as it pertains best to the topics at hand. "A meme is a thought, idea, or memory that's passed around like mental AIDS, usually based around some sort of joke, comment, or line." ( http://wikichan.org... ) "Pedobear is the 4chan re-make of the 2chan character known as Kuma-san (Mr. Bear). The "Americanization" of Kuma-san turned him into the sinister Pedobear, known for molesting female children and giving awards for those who do it like he would." ( http://wikichan.org... ) ------------ Pro assumes I use Pedobear to proclaim my sexual preference. Pedobear is one of the most widely known memes from 4chan, and by using it as an avatar it proclaims I am a member of the community 4chan, also called anonymous. The avatar does not define my sexual preference, but was rather picked because it is a widely known and accepted image that would tie me *chan. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with People should be allowed to donate their bodies to cannibals and necrophiliacs after they die. because I believe that people have a right to their bodies. People should be allowed to choose what happens to them after they die. And for the most part, they can. They can be buried, cremated, or donated to science. However, they can not donate their body to those who may wish to consume it and/or have sex with it. I believe that if donated their bodies to cannibals/necrophiliacs, less cannibal/necrophiliac crime would be committed. Also, this would ensure necrophiliacs the same rights that normal people have. Most people with "normal" sexual fetishes can express themselves sexually without it being discriminated by the law. However, several more "taboo" fetishes are illegal, necrophilia being one of them. Many crimes each year are committed by necrophiliacs, but if we give them the opportunity to express themselves sexually, I believe these crimes would be lower. Not to mention, Necrophiliacs would be given the right to have sex as every other human being does. The system for distributing these bodies would have to be regulated. The deceased would have to either pick someone they know to give their body to, or let their body be given away on a first come first serve basis. Background checks would follow, of course, to make sure the criminals would not traffic the bodies for money. Thanks you to whomever decides to take up this rather off-beat argument. Definitions Cannibal: One who consumes human meats and fleshes. Necrophiliac: One whose primary sexual fetish is a fetish for the dead. The Deceased: The Deceased will refer to a theoretical person who has died and wants to donate their body to a cannibal/necrophiliac. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against A united world consting of a democratic goverment that rules all because Why, thank you. I have to admit, that's quite an unexpected end to a debate, lol, but, it certainly did serve to make the debate even more unique than it already was! A pleasure debating you, sir. :) <EOA>

<BOA> I am against This economic system will end the monster that is inflation and is thus necessary because I thank my opponent for their previous round. However, they mischaracterized my arguments. I did not claim that it would have not growth BECAUSE of no inflation. I was asking which is more important because economic growth is dependent on so much more than just inflation. It is also unfortunate that my opponent did not answer my questions. Because of the limit of rounds, I will have to continue based on the information that we have. === Con's Case === There are a number of flaws which would cause such an economy to fail. 1) As described, everyone would be paid before doing their work and expected to work off their debt. As we can see with our current society, many people will take the money, spend it all, and then not work it off. While the economic plan says that it will remove money from the money supply, many people will not have money left, but rather a number of possessions. The stated policy has no way to account for such fraud and so must either allow inflation to occur, or take money from others. 2) In this economy, people have to work off the money that they've already taken by doing "labor of equal value." However, how does one determine "equal value"? In an open market, it is the people that decide how much items are worth, and then the company that makes those products decides how much the labor to make those items is worth (and if workers agree to trade their labor for that amount). However, when people have the money in their hands to begin with, such transactions cannot take place. It would have to be determined by a person or group of people, rather than the market. As such, this allows for inaccuracies which would cause bubbles (booms and busts). 3) With people getting money right off the bat, companies, regardless of how bad their product is, cannot fail. Since all the employees, owners, and everything gets paid already. It doesn't matter if no customers want their products, they can just keep producing them and spitting out trash, since they got their money. Since labor will be wasted on un-wanted products, and the market will not be able to adjust, the real desired items will not be produced at ideal rates, and so they will be more expensive than otherwise (standard supply and demand). This will cause both a collapse in the economy and massive inflation (when people get all the money they want before working, the demand skyrockets, and when not as many are being produced because of the inefficiency of the economy, the supply drops. When demand goes up and supply drops, prices goes up, ergo inflation on what people want. Sure the crap they don't want will see plummeting prices). 4) There is also a concern that while economic forces are acting against each other as my opponent said, he does not show that they perfectly offset. The force of inflation is not likely going to be exactly equal to the force of deflation. And since I also explained that the things that people want will go through inflation and the crap that they don't want will go through deflation, even if they do average out, inflation is still occurring, it is just being masked by a bunch of junk that is being made that no one wants. I will let my opponent address these. Most of what I explained is fairly standard economics so sources should not be needed, however if there is any need, I can add them in next round. Thank you, <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Pick your own debate - 1A because Well, this is turning into an enjoyable debate. Thank you opponent for keeping up with the postings. That is unfortunately becoming rare on this site. Lets begin. I will first address my opponent's evidence, and then my own. His entire argument is based on the fact that the Bible reflects reality. Again, please stay true to the resolution. You are straying from it. He claims his evidence is so old. The debate of radiometric dating is for another round. We are debating on EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE BIBLE. NONE of my opponent's evidence is relevant. He says that the Bible reflects reality, but he does not show you where in the Bible it says it. He must do this in order for his evidence to become valid. On to my case. His only attack is that my interpretation is faulty. His only defense of this is that "reality shows" the Earth to be 4.54 BYA. Again, please keep your evidence relevant. If you want to say that the Bible reflects reality, SHOW ME WHERE. Where in the Bible does it specifically support OEC? My opponent claimed in the second round that the Bible is true. Why would it not be written with truth then? Why is THIS part of it not true? If anything else was meant, that is what it would have said. Please see specifically :"...there was day, and there was night, and that was the first day." This is explicit content from the Bible. Day, night, one day. What is confusing about this? Having supported my side, I must demand this of my opponent: If you want to claim that the Bible reflects reality, SHOW ME WHERE. GIVE ME THE EVIDENCE. If you cannot cite your finding, then you are just making rash claims. You evidence only becomes valid in this debate if you can show me the verses IN THE BIBLE. Then, and only then, will I accept your claims. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with tablets vs textbooks because Is using tablets in school better than using textbooks? <EOA>

<BOA> I am against The theory of Evolution is incorrect because Pro says the fossil record only shows evidence for evolution when interpreted that way... So we should deny evolution because... My opponent says so. And he doesn't even use evidence for his assertions. Again, he drops most of my points from R1 and R2, meaning he concedes them as true. Pro's argument doesn't even make sense, honestly. I don't believe in Windows 7, BECAUSE I interpret it as Windows 8. Just because I intepret it incorrectly does not mean my interpretation is correct. The scientific intepretation is supported by the fossil placement, the homology itself, genetics, how biology works, and even evidence from microbiology. The fact is, which interpretation is more likely correct? The answer is pretty obvious. Evolution is well proven, much more than any creationist viewpoint. http://www.bio.miami.edu... ; <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Famous Poems: Poetry Competition because I thank my opponent for being gracious enough to allow me to post both my rounds this turn. I ran out of time in the previous round, and I apologize for forfeiting. Once more Darth is a most fair competitor that he allowed me to post both my rounds. My third round is on the docs.google link, and it is within the 8, 000 character limit. Link for round 3: https://docs.google.com... For my last round I shall post a most wonderful poem. This poem is not one most will be familiar with, its a poem which was originally writted in Punjabi by a writer named Baba Bulleh Shah. The poem embodies Sufi thought, alongside mysticism, and preaches an open love. It also asks an important existential question, and seeks to determne "what we are". More analysis later to come, allow me to post the poem. Once more I shall explain later, but Baba Bulleh Shah is one of the most esteemed Muslim saints, he is given great respect throughout the Muslim world, and his poetry is praised throughout for its mental indepth. Bulleh Ki Jana Mein Kon? (Bulleh Who Knows Who Am I?) by Baba Bulleh Shah translated by Mahmood Jamal Bulleh, Who knows who I am? Not a believer in the mosque am I, Nor a disbeliever with his rites am I. I am not the pure amongst the impure, Neither Moses nor Pharaoh am I. Bulleh, Who knows who I am? Not in the Holy Books am I, Nor do I dwell in bhang or wine, Nor do I live in a drunken haze, Nor in sleep, nor waking knwon. Bulleh, Who knows who I am? Not in happiness or in sorrow am I found. I am neither pure nor mired in filthy ground. Neither made from earth or water, Nor am I in air or fire to be found. Bulleh, Who knows who I am? Not an Arab, nor Lahori Not a Hindi or Naghouri, Nor a Muslim, or a Peshawari, Not a Buddhist or a Christian. Bulleh, Who knows who I am? Secrets of religion I have not unravelled, Nor have I fathomed Eve, and Adam. Neither still nor moving on, I have not chosen my own name! Bulleh, Who knows who I am? From first to last, I searched myself, None other did I succeed in knwoing. Not some great thinker am I, Who is standing in my shoes, alone? Bulleh, Who knows who I am? Here is an audio: I t really is a beautiful poem. For those confused, Bulleh does not mean anything here, it is the poet addressing himself. Bulleh Shah wrote in the classic kafi style of poetry which was both exciting, and original. He is one of the foremost Punjabi poets, and his works on the Quran, Hadith, and mystic ideology is revered throughout Pakistan. He is also knows for his criticism of classic Muslim dogmatists, where in another poem he urges them to "read your Self" even if you "have read a thousand books". He marks an important point in metaphysical thought. The entire poem asks who one is? It questions how one ought to define oneself. In the end who is one from the inside? Bulleh Shah acquired many disciples many of whom were Hindus, he preached love for everyone through his poetry and his sermons. He also uses many metaphors like "fire" to refer to angery, hatred, and distrust, and "water" to show flow, happiness, contentment. The motif that no one is perfect, that each person has their flaws, and that we are all in between somewhere is evident. In the end when we must unite in Spirit then we must not consider which country we are from, or anything such. Bulleh Shah wasa firm believer that humans are not to be held how they are born, but who they choose to be. He was vehemently opposed to the cast system, and chose to walk around barefoot. Bulleh Shah was also a descendnt of the Holy Prophet Mohammad (pbuh). In that age there was a custom that any person who is a descendent of the Prophet will not be taught by an ordinary man, no matter how pious. Bulleh Shah broke this custom and took Hadhrat Inayat Shah Qadri, a great man, but not a descendent of the Prophet as his mentor. He constantly preached that how or what we are born is, is not us, but we choose to be one or the other. He humbly admits that he is more of a mystic that a scholar, and that his focus is in "loving the Divine, and fearing that my eyes should ever turn anywhere else". Through out the poem the message of universal love is preached, the lesson that we choose to be who we are, and that we must analyze ourselves before anything else. Just as Socrates says: 'the unexamined life is not worth living", Bulleh Shah speaks to us for understanding Ourselves. In that there is the annihilation which Sufis are obsessed with, to reach a point where we forget who we are, or what we are. "It is you alone, Not I, my love. You are; I'm not" As the above excerpt from another poem exemplifies the meaning of this poem, we must annihilate ourselves after identifying who we appear to be. We must become lost in the Divine, in Love and in nothing else. This poem is a summary of that entire message and more, it is a guide to the path, and an argument, it is beauty, it is simply Divine. I hope you enjoyed. Ajab <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Debating on Debate.org is better with no pants because My Case 1) It's true, we're all busy. With arguments due, we're bound to log in at lunch hours, during lectures, or a cousin's Bar Mitzvah. It's hard to be discreet, though, without pants. Don't risk a forfeit as you try to explain to the authorities that your legs just wanted to be closer to nature. 2) Now, we know what's on our minds. It's in our names [1], our debates [2], our topics [3]. Pants are our last, best defense against our most lustful urges when alone. Without them, we'd never have enough blood above our waist to even write an argument. Rebuttals Pants hurt: Unless he's using tummy control pants [4], Pro shouldn't get pinched. I encourage him to embrace his curves and join the rest of us in loose-fitting comfort. Nudity releases ideas: The only ideas people get when sans pants are either temperature-related or too inappropriate to discuss here. Sources 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. http://tinyurl.com... 3. http://tinyurl.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Evil proves God does not exist (Part 2) because In defense of hedonism. On pedophile island, i suspect that the act of raping the child would create more sadness in the child, then happiness in the pedophile. As sad is defined as negative happy, we can say that the net result of the rape is bad, making it immoral. I will grant that in my definition, if the pedophile gains more happiness than the victim sadness, all else being equal, it would be moral. Having sad that, if con would be willing to provide an alternate definition i would be willing to consider it. Con proposes that we use God as a moral standard. This is a problem, as we used morality to define God, so any definition based on God would make it meaningless. Anyway, from round one it sounds like you grant that evil does exist, and you did not challenge my saying that i need only show that evil is contradictory to God, so what defines evil is not entirely relevant. As my definitions are on hold, I will proceed using what i think are the excepted definitions, which I believe are what i proposed, just not formally defined. B0) Assume God exists B1)Evil is bad B2)A moral being would want to do good B3) The removal of bad is good B4) The removal of evil is good B5) A moral being would want to remove evil B6) God is a moral being B7) God would want to remove evil B6) God is capable of removing evil B7) God would remove evil B8) Their would be no evil B9) Their is evil B10) Our initial assumption that God exists is false, as it leads to a contradiction. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against I am unintelligent because Oooooooooooo.... kay. Let me rebut your arguments "For all you know, someone I know could be pretending to be SouthernDeadhead while I am insane and babbling having lost the ability to think and reason. For all you know, I could have drug overdosed and lost the ability to have a functioning brain." Well, you are whoever posted the debate, so it really doesn't matter. Whoever is "controlling" southerndeadhead's account has to prove that THEY are unintelligent. SO PROVE TO ME SO. "According to my definition unintelligent means to be dull or stupid. For all you know, I am dull. For all you know, I have such a monotone voice that I put people to sleep. For all you know, People find me so uninteresting that I am dull to them. For all you know, I basically do nothing all day, but read the dictionary. For all you know, I'm that dull. For all you know, I am stupid. For all you know, I don't know how to spell without using spell check on every single word. For all you knnow, I can barely read. For all you know, I have a kindergarten education level and can barely function. See, from this point, you cannot tell me I am intelligent because for all you know I could be a dummy or unintelligent fool. Because you do not KNOW I am intelligent, you must assume I'm unintelligent." What the heck? For all I know, you could be lying. Half of these claims are contradictory anyway. If you can't PROVE it, it's almost like you're making it up. This isn't evidence at all. So far, you're completely wrong. I'm sure we can agree that the prefix "un" means not so unintelligent means "not intelligent" Definitions of Intelligent from Merriam Webster 1: the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason 2: the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests) 3: the act of understanding : comprehension You being a LIVING THING, you have to have intelligence. In your everyday life, you are forced to react to stimuli. If you are capable of typing a page in response to my arguements, then you must poses intelligence. You are able to understand what I'm saying! My opponent has came up with all these hypothetical situations, trying to play the "you don't know, so you must assume this" card. My opponents logic is like this: I don't no who gave me a christmas present. For all I know, Santa Claus could have did it. Therefore, I must assume that Santa Clause did it! I have proven that my opponent isn't "not intelligent" because I proved that intelligence is necessary for logic and reasoning. My opponent will lose if keeps failing to provide evidence that proves his point. So please vote CON. Thank You. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Bullying is good from a young age. because I greatly disagree with your statement. Yeah, one of the potential outcomes of bullying is gaining personal strength from it, but it's not very likely. Term 'bullying' can include one or more of the following terms: "Violence, extortion, exploitation, abuse, torture, hazing, mental tormenting, harassment, humiliation, dehumanization and social humiliation or defacing. A victim may be bullied by a single offender or by a group of offenders, privately or in front of audience (that may or may not be encouraged to join). To point #1 : Children have plenty of opportunity to confront with others. Every child encounters injustice, disagreement and probably a fight, too. That's plenty of room for the kid to learn how to react appropriately. No bullying is needed for that, and in fact bullying is far beyond acceptable as it may likely to cause the victim a severe emotional trauma with life-time consequences, from sleep, mood and eating disorders to the point of actually committing suicide. The children are the most fragile victims. An experience with bullying can negatively impact victims self-esteem, self-image, development, personality and even abilities in adult life. Every therapist will always examine the patient's childhood assessment, because emotional traumas from the childhood are the hardest to overcome and known for scaring the individual soul at most. Point #2 : There's no such instinct. The instinct tells you to live in your natural habitat (the community), to get along and to belong. And again, bullying doesn't help it at all. While negative feedback is appropriate and helpful for an individual to understand what's acceptable and what isn't, bullying doesn't belong to functional human civilization. Point #3: That's very incorrect. When a bully scares the victim "to death" and makes threats e. g. - "if you tell your parents I'll shoot your dad/mum; or I'll tell my brother who's just out of jail to do this and that", the parents won't know and they'll wonder why the kid acts strange, why doesn't eat or sleep or behaves in a strange fashion. And bullies often keep their victims in such a deadlock which gives them opportunity to further subdue and control the victim. This obviously damages the child permanently. I'd like to believe you don't endorse bullying. I hope you just didn't realize what's the actual extent of bullying, and maybe confused it with some sort of friendly "yanking one's chain". <EOA>

<BOA> I am against We should modify beaches to make the sand lower in density so that the obese sink. because Pro concedes my Contention 1, that making sand less dense will not cause fat people to sink. Pro does not dispute that it would be incredibly time consuming to convert all the world’s beaches into low density sand. It would also be very time consuming to bury fast food under all the world’s beaches. A much better solution is to shoot fatties with some sort of density altering ray gun so that they float away into outer space. This solution solves all of Pro’s problems and keeps are beaches free of exploded human meat. Pro claims exploding fat people will cause it to rain fast food. This will just tempt the bronze Adonii of the beaches into eating French fries and becoming fat themselves. Not only will Pro’s plan ruin beaches by covering them in half digested McDonalds, it will ruin the beautiful people who belong on beaches by making them exceedingly rotund. We ought not pursue Pro’s silly plan, please vote Con. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against I say, "God does not Exist." because My opponent points to one source that claims evolution exists. This does not equivocate to God not existing. While this may seem to contradict the bible particularly, the chapter on genesis. If you were to read this chapter and just took it for it's face value then yes they contradict each other. One must remember that the bible is one interpretation of God's image as seen through the eye's of a few select men and it is not the same as God's exact words. BILLIONS of people believe in God http://www.adherents.com... to just say God does not exist and just provide 1 link that say's there is evolution is not sufficient enough to deny the extensive of a being who has provided BILLIONS of miracles http://www.christian-faith.com... . My opponent has also failed to answer my first contention that everyone has to be created by something and that person is accepted to be God by most of the world. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Schoolchildren should have a uniform dress code because I thank Con for his arguments and responses, and also for adhering to the format of this debate. I shall be presenting my counters to his arguments in the following points. Paragraphs 1 and 2: Creativity I agree with Con, that creativity is an important trait to inculcate in children. It does not follow logically, however, that wearing the same uniform makes everyone think the same way. That would suggest that individuality in thought is devoid in many of the professions that populate our world today. If Con had opened the link to my first source, however, you would observe that Katherine Smith, an ex-teacher and the former President of the Group Resolving Anti-Social Problems has opined that the benefits of inculcating creativity through clothing is overshadowed by its disadvantages. She says instead that "individual self-expression can be exercised in school through art, creative writing, music, etc. Self-expression in clothes is appropriate after school, on weekends and vacation." I am sure that Con would not disagree with me when I affirm that art, creative writing and music are examples of more productive avenues for children to realise and express their creative side. In paragraph 2, Con mentions that not allowing children to dress themselves limits their creative potential. I would like to remind Con that their dressing is limited only in school. They are free, as mentioned in the source quoted above, to dress as they please after school, on weekends and on vacation. The positive effects of a free dress code that Con mentions, is thereby not limited by a uniform dress code in school. Paragraph 3 - First Amendment I am rather confused by Con's argument. Con acknowledges that the First Amendment outlines that freedom of speech and religion as a universal right of U.S. citizens, but applies it universally nonetheless. I am also in the dark as to what a uniform dress code has to do with either freedom of speech or religion. Uniforms do not curtain a student's ability to speak on issues that matter to him/her, or his/her ability to profess and practice any religion. Con says that the freedom to "dress and represent your culture, heritage, and religion should not be hindered by any person or any rules". I would like to mention that students seldom come to school in a dress that "expresses their culture, heritage and religion". It would be very odd to see a Indian schoolchild attend an American school class in a sari, a Korean schoolchild attend class in a hanbok, or a Jordanian, in a kaffiyeh. Instead, they would wear clothes that best allows them to assimilate into the environment in the school. This often manifests in chasing after "status clothing", which is not expressive of culture, heritage or religion, and has several negative side effects, as mentioned also in opening arguments. To allow students to express their culture, heritage and religion, it is not necessary to have a free dress code. Indeed, countries such as Singapore have "International Friendship Day", and "Racial Harmony Day", in which students dress up in clothes that represent their cultures, or those of their friends. Paragraph 4: Comfort I agree completely that a student's comfort is essential to a conducive learning environment. I am not convinced, however, that a free dress code can achieve this. As I have mentioned in my initial arguments, a uniform dress code blurs barriers of social and wealth class, acts to bring about unity in team spirit, and erases worry about being judged based on attire. It seems to me that a uniform dress code is far more effective at bringing about comfort for every student than a free dress code is. Another issue here is that a free dress code encourages an unhealthy and unproductive competition in terms of appearance. This is bad especially because it distracts from the objective of learning in school. Paragraph 5: Factory-like education system I am rather confused as to how a uniform dress code limits a student's ability to pursue their own passions and contribute to society in their own way. I am also rather befuddled as to how allowing a student to dress as he/she pleases can improve the school's ability to cater to their "needs". What kind of "needs" can be addressed by students wearing what they like? It appears as though Con is suggesting also that since the system is archaic, therefore it should go. This is a logical fallacy, because the age of a system or policy has very little to do with its effectiveness. If Con has an argument as to why it does not apply in this day and age, I would be delighted to hear it. Paragraph 6: Financial difficulties Con makes a good point that many families may not be able to afford school uniforms. I have two responses to this. Firstly, the solution to financial difficulty is not to get rid of the system. Such families have equal difficulty with purchasing books stationery. We do not solve these by asking them not to buy books and stationery. Instead, schools usually have funds for financially struggling families, which allow them to give their children a decent education at subsidised rates. My second response is that it is exactly these families who will benefit most from having a school uniform. There is a significant potential for their children to be judged (potentially either consciously by students or subconsciously by teachers) based on their social class or wealth (or lack thereof), and this will manifest very obviously in the clothes that they wear. If we are indeed committed to ensuring equal opportunity for all, a uniform dress code offers the best way of achieving this. If there is a concern with the specific uniform worn in a certain school, it would be a good exercise to address the gender stereotypes it propagates in its specific context. Eradicating a uniform dress code instead, is a means of running away from the problems of gender stereotyping in our world and pretending that they don't exist. Even if children grow up with little conception of gender stereotypes in school (which is unlikely, with or without uniform dress codes), they will definitely be exposed to the same when they grow up. It is the duty of authority figures in their lives to ensure that they are prepared for this occurrence, and will not get a rude shock when it happens. I maintain that a uniform dress code policy is the best policy, both in a short-run and a long-run situation. I thank Con for his arguments and await his rebuttal of my points. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Did Luke Skywalker Die A Virgin? because Contention 1: Why should we? Luke Skywalker's sexual life is not important in the whole storyline, and trust me he had plenty of downtime at the rebel base. Contention 2: First off, he didn't become a jedi until later into the storyline. Right around the time when he blew up the Death Star, he was just a fighter pilot. I mean, the night after he did that I'm sure the ladies were fighting to get to him. I mean who could resist a guy who destroyed something that could destroy planets? I have no doubt Luke got layed during his time at the rebel base. Secondly a jedi was maybe not supposed to get married but, hey, every warrior who is protecting the very universe needs a little something-something every now and then. Plus, all the others were killed in the clone wars, so who's gonna watch him, the ghosts? They can't touch him anyway. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Better to rape a baby than be raped by one. because better- more advantageous or effective, usually in a positive way. Why raping a baby is less effective than getting raped by one. Positive Effects of Child Rape- Nothing. Negative Effects of Child Rape- Injury Depending on the age and size of the child, and the degree of force used, child sexual abuse may cause internal lacerations and bleeding. In severe cases, damage to internal organs may occur, which, in some cases, may cause death. Herman-Giddens et al. found six certain and six probable cases of death due to child sexual abuse in North Carolina between 1985 and 1994. The victims ranged in age from 2 months to 10 years. Causes of death included trauma to the genitalia or rectum and sexual mutilation. Infections Child sexual abuse may cause infections and sexually transmitted diseases. Depending on the age of the child, due to a lack of sufficient vaginal fluid, chances of infections are higher. Vaginitis has also been reported. Neurological damage Research has shown that traumatic stress, including stress caused by sexual abuse, causes notable changes in brain functioning and development. Various studies have suggested that severe child sexual abuse may have a deleterious effect on brain development. Ito et al. (1998) found "reversed hemispheric asymmetry and greater left hemisphere coherence in abused subjects;"Teicher et al. (1993) found that an increased likelihood of "ictal temporal lobe epilepsy-like symptoms" in abused subjects; Anderson et al. (2002) recorded abnormal transverse relaxation time in the cerebellar vermis of adults sexually abused in childhood; Teicher et al. (1993) found that child sexual abuse was associated with a reduced corpus callosum area; various studies have found an association of reduced volume of the left hippocampus with child sexual abuse; and Ito et al. (1993) found increased electrophysiological abnormalities in sexually abused children. Some studies indicate that sexual or physical abuse in children can lead to the overexcitation of an undeveloped limbic system. Teicher et al. (1993) used the "Limbic System Checklist-33" to measure ictal temporal lobe epilepsy-like symptoms in 253 adults. Reports of child sexual abuse were associated with a 49% increase to LSCL-33 scores, 11% higher than the associated increase of self-reported physical abuse. Reports of both physical and sexual abuse were associated with a 113% increase. Male and female victims were similarly affected. Navalta et al. (2006) found that the self-reported math Scholastic Aptitude Test scores of their sample of women with a history of repeated child sexual abuse were significantly lower than the self-reported math SAT scores of their non-abused sample. Because the abused subjects verbal SAT scores were high, they hypothesized that the low math SAT scores could "stem from a defect in hemispheric integration." They also found a strong association between short term memory impairments for all categories tested (verbal, visual, and global) and the duration of the abuse. Psychological harm Child sexual abuse can result in both short-term and long-term harm, including psychopathology in later life. Psychological, emotional, physical, and social effects include depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, eating disorders, poor self-esteem, dissociative and anxiety disorders; general psychological distress and disorders such as somatization, neurosis,chronic pain, sexualized behavior, school/learning problems; and behavior problems including substance abuse, self-destructive behaviour, animal cruelty, crime in adulthood and suicide. A specific characteristic pattern of symptoms has not been identified and there are several hypotheses about the causality of these associations. A study funded by the USA National Institute of Drug Abuse found that "Among more than 1,400 adult females, childhood sexual abuse was associated with increased likelihood of drug dependence, alcohol dependence, and psychiatric disorders. The associations are expressed as odds ratios: for example, women who experienced nongenital sexual abuse in childhood were 2.83 times more likely to suffer drug dependence as adults than were women who were not abused." Long term negative effects on development leading to repeated or additional victimization in adulthood are also associated with child sexual abuse. Studies have established a causal relationship between childhood sexual abuse and certain specific areas of adult psychopathology, including suicidality, antisocial behavior, PTSD, anxiety and alcoholism. Adults with a history of abuse as a child, especially sexual abuse, are more likely than people with no history of abuse to become frequent users of emergency and medical care services. A study comparing middle-aged women who were abused as children with non-abused counterparts found significantly higher health care costs for the former. Sexually abused children suffer from more psychological symptoms than children who have not been abused; studies have found symptoms in 51% to 79% of sexually abused children. The risk of harm is greater if the abuser is a relative, if the abuse involves intercourse or attempted intercourse, or if threats or force are used. The level of harm may also be affected by various factors such as penetration, duration and frequency of abuse, and use of force. The social stigma of child sexual abuse may compound the psychological harm to children, and adverse outcomes are less likely for abused children who have supportive family environments. Dissociation and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) Child abuse, including sexual abuse, especially chronic abuse starting at early ages, has been found to be related to the development of high levels of dissociative symptoms, which includes amnesia for abuse memories. The level of dissociation has been found to be related to reported overwhelming sexual and physical abuse. When severe sexual abuse (penetration, several perpetrators, lasting more than one year) had occurred, dissociative symptoms were even more prominent. Child sexual abuse independently predicts the number of symptoms for PTSD a person displays, after controlling for possible confounding variables, according to Widom (1999), who wrote "sexual abuse, perhaps more than other forms of childhood trauma, leads to dissociative problems ... these PTSD findings represent only part of the picture of the long-term psychiatric sequelae associated with early childhood victimization ... antisocial personality disorder, alcohol abuse, and other forms of psychopathology. Children may develop symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder resulting from child sexual abuse, even without actual or threatened injury or violence. Positive Effects of Getting Raped By a Child- Nothing. Negative Effects of Getting Raped By a Child- It can be detrimental to the victim's psyche. I.E, Embarrasment. Sources- http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.merriam-webster.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against People do not value life in general. because A shame we're doomed to a mere 1000 characters. And citations to your generalizations? Contentions: 1.) Prove this. Man's improvement in modern medicine and decreased death rates only prove man's desire to live. Human productivity through the ages, whether in science, art, or philosophy, usually bears the intent to BETTER human life. 2.) This must be why we don't have a UN and why people don't ever donate to Africa. 3.) "without any regards to what is important to life." Value judgment, which I found to be again, a generalization, which no basis of argumentation can be formed upon. "People live for money." Think about what currency really serves. One earns money by working, which ideally, is to benefit human life. In turn, the worker is awarded money, which buys the worker food, shelter, clothing, and indulgences, which are to make the worker appreciate life more. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Euthanasia because Seeing as to how my opponent didn't attack any of my arguments, he must agree with me. I will now argue his: "It is legally wrong and prohibited to kill a human being even if he or she is terminally ill because it is against the ten commands of the holy bible" It is not "legally" wrong if it is against the bible. Also, the people getting euthanized may not share your beliefs, and it is okay to them. "it clearly states do not murder and if you do get charged with murder in this case by euthanasia and say you did not you break the rule # 9 do not lie so it strictly forbidden and it will condemn your soul" Like I said before, it is not murder. Murder is when an unwilling person gets killed. They would not be lying if they said they did not commit murder, they would be telling the truth. Thanks for starting this debate, and thanks to whomever votes. Rachelle <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Santa Claus=God because I give thanks to Con for accepting this debate. Let us start! Santa Claus doesn't necessarily have to represent God as adults know Him, but rather "God-for-Children". A "less intimidating" way of setting children straight. To wait an entire lifetime to go to heaven would be a really long time for a 5-year-old to be "good". So in this case it's shredded down to 1 year in waiting time. Lets look at the similarities here: 1. God has songs written in his praise called hymns, Santa has songs written in his praise called carols. The comparison here is both God and Santa have songs that praise them. 2. God demands tithing, by way of the church, Santa demands that you set out milk and cookies, by way of tradition. The comparison here is God and Santa Claus both demand something in return. 3. God has angels to do his will, Santa has elves to do his bidding. The comparison here is simply God and Santa both have workers to do their will. Elves make toys for the good little boys and girls who deserve them. Angels bring answers to prayers to people who deserve them. 4. God punishes by an eternity in hell, Santa punishes by a lump of coal in your stocking. The comparison here is simply not getting what you want because you've been "bad". You don't want to go to hell and you don't want to get a lump of coal that would ruin any child's Christmas. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Austerity is a poor way to help an economy. because My thanks to my opponent for accepting the debate. I would like to open, by drawing out attention to the country of Iceland. In 2008, Iceland's recession, --part of string of countries that ended up in hot water due to their reliance on horrendous banking policies-- was not only the worst Iceland had ever seen, but also the deepest in terms of debt versus anywhere else on the planet. Austerity had its advocates there. "Cut our social programs! End our welfare! reign in our universal health care coverage!" they cried. But the Icelandic people wisely chose to reject this 'race-to-the-bottom' style of thinking. Paradoxically, by going into MORE debt briefly in order to stimulate their economy and salvage their social safety net, Iceland has bounced back stronger than ever into a position of economic leadership in the region. http://www.bloomberg.com... By contrast, let us look to Greece, who, unlike Iceland, has been dragged kicking and screaming through austerity measures by the IMF (who loaned money Austerity-Anchor free to Iceland) and is still in horrific depression as a result. The complete lack of consumer spending has not magically resulted in the generation of new savings, nor have the deep cuts in social spending somehow translated to a strong and balanced budget. Rather these measures have utterly demolished both the prospects and morale of the Greek people. https://www.commondreams.org... Both these cases underscore the argument I laid out in my opening statement: Trying to focus an economy on being debt-free in the short-term in the hopes of boosting loan-confidence and savings, while it may bring debt down in the short term, does nothing to actually fuel economic growth or end recession. By contrast, a focus on stimulus, while raising debt in the short term, allows for enough financial gain in the long term to reduce or eliminate debt with the extra money that will eventually be generated. To break the whole thing down in very simplistic terms, stimulus can function as the kick-start to get an economic motor running, and once running, that motor will eventually cover its own motion. Austerity generates nothing but moralistic, self-righteous smarm. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Abortion because I am glad we accept the same definition of person. I will first argue that your understanding of being alive is wholly inadequate. A couple of points are in order then. First off, your link is to a definition of the word "born" not the word "alive". However, this is a quibble because I'm not worried about nominal definitions. I'm worried about what we fundamentally understand alive things to be. If I'm understanding correctly you understand the class of "alive" things to be co-extensive with the class of "born" things. But there are so many counter-examples to this. Cells which reproduce by splitting from other cells don't fit into the class of "born" things. Yet they are certainly alive. Trees aren't "born" and yet they are certainly alive. And besides, it seems utterly implausible to suppose that a fetus is a non-living hunk of matter. It exhibits the functions and characteristics of other living things. I'm not sure what the dependence of the fetus on the mother's womb is supposed to show. It's an interesting fact, but I don't understand what you're trying to infer from it. In charity, I'm assuming that you mean because the fetus is dependent upon its mother that it doesn't have any rights. But how does that follow? A born baby is dependent upon its mother for food, nourishment, and upbringing as well. Hopefully you can explain in more detail the point you're getting at. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Ronald Reagan Should have Been Convicted of Treason and Impeached because I thanky my opponent for their response. "Well the only main point I'll point out is that it was a tough situation and any president is going to handle it differently." I assume that this means that my opponent cedes that Reagan did commit what qualifies as an act of treason. I forward all of my points. As for the rest of my opponents argument, they make the point that no president is without fault. This is true, but when a president violates the law, he must be impeached. Clinton was almost impeached (for purgury not adultery. Adultery is not illegal). Hoover recieved much negative attention, but was technically operating within the law. Nixon was impeached for purgurey as well. Reagan commited actions that constitute treason, a crime punishble by a minimum of 5 years in prison. A president, under US law, is impeached for any type of crime they commit. Treason is a crime that is of incredibly serious gravity, and just because someone is the president, doesn't mean that they are immune from the law. In summary, my opponent justifies reagans act of treason by comparing it to other US scandals, that typically did spur the impeachment process, or weren't even violations of US law. Reagan violated US law and committed an act of treason. He deserved impeachment and conviction. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Resolved: China is, or will have reached superpower status in the near future. because I don't find Wiki credible and Google isn't a source. The Google one needs a website. Thanks. 1) Military Power China's military is far far behind most of the major countries today. Far behind the U.S. , Russia, Britain, France and Canada. Their military is at least 20 years behind. [1] You also stated that they have "the most modern and advanced navies in the world" which could be considered true except for the fact it isn't. Their very first carrier used "a 20+ year-old Soviet hull with updated electronics"[1]"Even China's newest military gear is reminiscent of Western or Soviet technology from about 20 years ago"[1] Even the Chinese officials agree. "There is a 20-year gap between China and the U.S. military in equipment, weapons and systems, Chinese Defense Minister Gen. Liang Guanglie told the 10th Shangri-La Dialogue on June 5 in Singapore. "I would call the gap big," he said. Liang acknowledged that China's military modernization has improved, but the "main battle equipment of our services … is mainly second-generation weapons." China does not have a large arsenal of third-generation weapons, systems or platforms. "For example, the army is still being motorized, not mechanized," he said."- Chinese Gen. Liang Guanglie [1] You also brought up there "advanced air fighter" it to isn't advanced. "Even its stealth fighter is rumored to have been build with secrets stolen from the USAF's 30 year-old F-117A design"[1] They like to throw around the amount of troops they have which does help. One problem with that is that their mass numbers don't make them very good fighters. It actually hinders them because it is a lot easier to train 2,000 troops extremely well then it is to train 20,000. Numbers don't win wars, skill, preparation and support does. China has a drafted army which throughout history has been the worst means of military strength. They lost the Sino-Vietnamese War, they argue that they achieved their goal except the Vietnamese stayed in Cambodia for quite awhile longer. You could argue U.S. sort of lost Vietnam. They didn't because their goals were actually achieved but they didn't completely obliterate them like everyone would expect. A bigger point is they are too dependant on other countries... We will get to that. I find no source that says "China dominates the Pacific Region". Though I do find that they control the Asia-Pacific. The U.S. still controls the Pacific. 2)Population. I quote you. "Without a doubt, a sizable and strong population is a necessary component of the superpower status. China once again achieves this." and I agree. Problem for you is that word strong. That means a usable population. So babies don't count and neither does the elderly. China has this limiting babies problem. So they inherited this " 4-2-1 phenomenon, in which one child is supporting two parents and four grandparents"[2] They are by law forcing their country to become a country of the elderly.With the working class not consisting of people under 18 or people over 65 by "2039, less than two Chinese taxpayers may have to look after one retiree."[3] 3)Economic Power. On the SURFACE this one seems completely true. But really it isn't. Like I said before. The more workers then non-workers speaks of how well a country will thrive. Problem is they are doing the exact opposite...like on purpose. By 2050 the amount of elderly people will rise" from 10% now to 40%" [4] Now we can't compare them to America yet because we are talking about the World. So lets look at other developing nations. "From about 2030 the country will have more elderly dependants than children (see chart 8), whereas in most other developing countries the opposite will remain true for the next few decades. China's pattern of ageing is very similar to that in Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan. The difference is that in China this is happening at a time when the country is still relatively poor."[4] Now them surpassing America is a myth. In fact Forbes agrees "Myth No. 2: China could surpass the U.S. as the largest economy in 10 years. Truth: There is a reasonable chance that China will never surpass the U.S"[5]. China has been on a growth but now they are reaching their peak where they will start declining. "The last 30 years were characterized by demographic expansion very favorable to growth in the PRC. The next 30 will be generally characterized by demographics unfavorable to growth. The transition from growth-conducive to growth-hostile demographics will begin about the middle of this decade and continue indefinitely"[5] They also rely too much on other countries. They are a very export country. Which is great except when no one wants your goods anymore. Then you have this problem that you weren't producing anything for your country. So no you are not making money and not making goods that can support your country. Even their currency is dependant on other countries. "Without the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency and the American bond market as safe haven, China's exchange rate and balance of payments regime could not function."[5] 4) Nuclear Capabilities I think this is useless anyway because almost all developed countries have nuclear capabilities. They start teaching about nuclear reactions in Beginning Chemistry. Anyway the technology isn't what makes them a superpower. In that case North Korea is. It is the ICBMs or other means of transportation that make them a Superpower. China has a whopping 20 while the U.S. has a not so whopping 830 and Russia has more. [6] By 2015 China will have an extreme amount of 75 missiles focused on the U.S. The U.S. will have a boring amount of 780 on China.[6] China is really not looking to get a huge nuclear capability. "China has never responded by building large nuclear forces of its own and is unlikely to do so in the future". They don't seem to want it that bad. They might even be the first country that truly wants global peace! 5) Influential I 100% agree that China is influential. But I do not agree that it is relevant to a countries Super Power status. Greece is not considered to be a superpower but they are influencing decisions in the U.S. now. Most of Africa can't be considered at all to be a superpower but they influence decision as well. Modern day times every country is tied together by more than a thread. The only influence that matters is the influence they have to force another country to do as they wish. China doesn't do that. They are right beside North Korea and could easily obliterate them but have done nothing. They may have the capability but they don't ever try. You issue about when their population wants something they get it is utterly false. It isn't the amount of people that want something its the amount of money they have. China is a poor country their people don't make much money. When they want something they don't normally get it. Conclusion 1) China's military is large but far behind in technology and technology wins wars. They are also not very well trained. 2) Numbers don't matter if they are people that are not working. They are also poor people. Their population seems to have no relevance. 3)"China will have the world's largest economy (by 2016, in 5 years)" Completely false. Their economy is on a decline. 4)China has very little nuclear warheads 5)every country is Influential. Influence is irrelevant Economy, Working Pop. and Military is what is relevant. China has or will have none of these [1] http://defensetech.org... [2] http://www.ibtimes.com... [3] http://factsanddetails.com... [4] http://www.economist.com... [5] http://www.forbes.com... [6] http://www.atimes.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Islam is a peaceful religion because "lets not assume this photo represents the Islamic teachings." What you are missing is that they do everything thay do in the name of Islam. If you look further into the Qu'ran than you have already, you will find that it teaches that if your enemy is weaker than you, you should conquer him. S. 47:35--- "So be not weak and ask not for peace (from the enemies of Isl�m), while you are having the upper hand. God is with you, and will never decrease the reward of your good deeds." It also says: Surah 2:216--- "Fighting is prescribed for you, and you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and that you love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows and you know not." "When a fundementalist christian shoots an abortion doctor, we don't say that represents the entire Christian faith." Of course we don't. Murder is STRICTLY forbidon in the Bible. "To assume the men in this picture represent Islam on a whole scale level is very ignorant and intolerant." Excuse me, but these men represent the Jihad. The Jihad is Allah's chosen way of fighting infidels. Look at the verses I have quoted above please, and respond to THEM. "It would be as grave a mistake to see Osama bin Laden as an authentic representative of Islam as to consider James Kopp, the alleged killer of an abortion provider in Buffalo, N.Y., a typical Christian..." May I point out the fact that Osama din Laden, whenever he appears on TV is quoting the Qu'ran. A former Muslim, Egun Caner, says " "It is difficult to take the Qur'an out of context,". If bin Laden is quoting the Qu'ran, he is obviously in accordance with it. In this case he would be doing nothing against the Qu'ran. Does THIS make the Qu'ran sound peaceful? "Now I now my opponet said he/she doesn't care if it preaches forgiveness but I say turning the other cheek is peaceful." Your not getting me. Yes, turning the other cheek is peaceful, but the Qu'ran allows revenge as well. THAT is not peaceful. "But still defending yourself is different than flying a plane into a building." And flying a plane into a building is not permitted? Surah 2:190--- "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you. And slay them wherever you catch them." America is sending missionaries into Islamic countries. Would this not be seen as fighting Islam? According to the doctrine of Jihad, there are three waves of Jihad. The first wave is shock, the second is to show the people that they are vulnerable, and the third is to humiliate them. They are commanded to do this to all who fight Islam. NOT peaceful. Peace is not taught here. You have yet to counter my verses. Please site the what part of the Qu'ran your passages come from. "(4: 90)" means nothing to me. Thanks! Renzzy <EOA>

<BOA> I am against LM Classic: mongeese vs. Yraelz because Let's finish this! 1. Yu-gi-oh a. Dark Bakura wouldn't appear. Why? Because Yugi is wearing the Millennium Puzzle which as my opponent already mentioned can break other millennium item's powers. Secondarily he's a game player meaning if he wanted to continue on in the world he'd allow yugi to lose thereby passing the ring on to someone awesome on my team. Finally even if Dark Bakura could try to take over Yugi, Yugi would be able to fight back. Buying my team time. Additionally the scale's powers are mildly easy to use seeing as they simply balance whatever is inside of them. Also it would make sense that Dark Bakura could use the scales seeing as he is thousands of years old and might possess the knowledge. Finally I'm the only person in this debate round proving that the Millennium Ring uniquely is hard to use through my warrants on normal Bakura not being able to. Yugi can't use the scales. b. I think my opponent is just wrong about the cards effects. He argues that chain energy did not do the effect that the card said it should. I definitely think it did, the card drained 500 life points and then by binding them with a ring. Moments later, after the ring drains the point, they are let go and they show up in time for Dark Bakura to summon some more monsters. Next Yugi would have to know how to use the Millennium ring to transfer cards to souls. And he'd have to see my team. My opponent argues collected power did more than it says in it's appearance. However if you read his source I'd argue it doesn't. It just removes equipped magic. http://yugioh.wikia.com... Plus Sephiroth doesn't have any cards equipped period. Finally my opponent states that in the virtual world Joey used trap hole on nothing in particular. I'd argue that the virtual world doesn't have the same rules as the real world and thus doesn't hold any bearing on what would happen in New York City. It's a make believe reality with it's own rules. This ultimately means that my opponents cards only work.... on monsters, destroying the majority of his strategy. c. The only piece of evidence we have for anyone using a card was when they could see their opponent. I'd argue that this intuitively makes sense, and as the only piece of evidence is devastating to my opponent. Sentry is never seen and thus slaughters Yugi. d. My opponent misportrays my argument by only citing half of it. My complete argument was, "even if this could happen we're pitting little duel monsters who can't kill one or two other duel monsters against people like Sentry and Sephiroth who have attempted to destroy worlds before." I then expounded this in my last speech to mean the duel cards would be powerless. My characters are simply too powerful to be affected. e. Sephiroth being the most powerful character of FF7 has been known to have a wide assortment of Materia. He uses the black materia to summon meteor. He throws a destruct materia at Cloud. Considering reflect is a common materia and easily attainable I'd argue he easily has it (especially when he has the incredibly rare materia). And yes, it's true, Sephiroth's Materia is magic. It however, is not a card. And more importantly Kaiba, not having a Millennium Ring, can't use his cards. This means Sephiroth casts reflect on his party thereby guarding them from any yu-gi-oh magic. Finally, Reflect bounces back magic spells. While some spells have the ability to break it those are spells that specifically are intended to negate it. My opponents cards are not. f. Sure, why not? The problem being that any use by Yugi of cards is magic. Since my opponent, in the order of things, allows sephiroth to get reflect off, this would just mean that Yugi de-spells himself. Also, de-spell destroys spell cards, not magic Materia. Speed Blitz. ^.^ ============ My opponent claims I've dropped his argument about finding my way through the maze for a second time. On the contrary I offered a pretty sweet explanation, which my opponent dropped, and will be his undoing: "Additionally he can do this using a Parabolic Arc in which he can continue accelerating. But even if I conceded he had to slow down to 1/10th of his top speed to navigate he'd still be traveling 1/40th the speed of light which would put him on top of Yugi before Yugi could draw a card." I argue that Sentry could travel in a parabolic arc. This would be easy in New York because it would just mean he travels on a circular path over buildings. My opponent never makes any response. But even if the judges aren't giving me that argument I make massive concessions in my last speech that go ignored. I argued that even if Sentry had to slow down to 1/10th of his normal top speed he'd still be going 1/40th the speed of light. This, would put Sentry on top of team Pro in less than a second, since he knows where they are. He is not obligated to travel through the maze, considering he can fly. Which means, to win this round, all I have to do is negate my opponent other claims: a. The wiki article says a serum was used on him one time to give him super powers. That's all. e. Sentry's blinding light would hit Yugi before he could close his eyes. He'd be stunned by the sheer intensity. Closing his eyes wold do nothing, which would also mean he wouldn't play cards because he is dazed. Finally, I don't think his cards do anything to Sentry since he is invisible and not a duel monster. Mind control ======== a. Evidence? This is a massive change of argument. I'm pretty sure Joey Single handedly overcomes it. b. Even if the Millennium Rod could unconditionally mind control all except others with Millennium powers, I'd argue that Emma Frost is so powerful in her telepathic abilities that she would still override it. c. Nope, not true at all. Yugi can't use cards against players, just duel monsters. And Reflect works throughout the battle. Reflect is a status effect spell, it stays indefinitely, or till a new battle. Side Note: Atem started out as a separate person and is a separate person at the end. The Hulk and Bruce Banner were never separate, same person, different personalities. Atem is illegal. d. Two minds would just make it a moment more difficult for Emma anyways. Black Alice a. My opponent attempts to argue that Black Alice can only use her powers on beings. If that be the case then my opponent is still completely screwed as it means that she steals Yugi's ability to use the heart of cards. Secondarily though I'd argue that the cards proper are Yugi's power thus she has the ability to steal those powers. I'd argue this is especially true if you're believing my opponents argument about the cards doing "things" that they don't even say they do. I'd say that part of the "hidden" clause must be that these cards are "beings". b. Black Alice most certainly did not look up into space. First, she can't see that far. Second, she was in a prison. Prisons have roofs. c. Black Alice steals the abilities of at least Yugi and probably his cards also. This quickly leads to Yugi's defeat either way. Kirby === a. Logic. What would be the point of any Kirby anime or game if he could simply eat the boss? He can't eat bosses or mini-bosses. He can't eat my characters. Bahamut ====== a. Would be a good point, except Zorc is in the shadow realm which allows the Yugi Cards to be real entities. b. Bahamut literally destroys a real city. c. The source says nothing about him having the power to destroy the world, just that Zorc tries. d. Finally Dragon Master Knight ultimately loses.... As a last note, I'd like to point out that my opponent never offers a scenario for Sentry dying. He says that Sentry will epically crash into a building but that still leaves him alive to find and destroy team Pro. Thank you also for the debate Mongeese! <EOA>

<BOA> I am against sportsmen and women are overpaid because Alright so my opponent forfeited the last round and did not respond to any of the numerous contentions I mentioned/strengthned in R2. Therefore I'd just like to give a quick re-cap of my arguments: The economy is based around supply and demand. Athletes get paid higher wages than soldiers, for example, because athletes demand higher wages and people oblige (via watching games, buying merchandise, attending ball games, etc). Soldiers on the other hand are awarded only what the government can afford to give them or offers them. How is that the fault of the athletes? They are obviously very skilled and earn a lot of money not only through their playing but through marketing, PR, endorsements, etc. They sell tickets and generate billions of dollars worth of profits. If an investment banker generated millions of dollars worth of profits, would people claim that he didn't deserve HIS money? I don't think so. Bottom line is that athletes are simply valued more in today's society because of how they stimulate the economy. It's not about ethics, it's about $$ (not saying it's right - just sayin' how it is). <EOA>