Datasets:

notaphoenix

/

iesta_liberal_effective

like 0

<BOA> I am with its ok to be homofobic because My arguments still stand.. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Wierdman's Tourney: It wasn't Goldilocks' fault when she entered the home of the three bears. because Lol, that was disappointing. This is my last post, meaning that I couldn't respond to PR's next argument, so I hope he ethically abides to not construct new premises to rebut my arguments as it would seem unfair. Nevertheless, thanks PR, you did a splendid attempt to refute my arguments. But we all know, from what I argued, that Goldilocks is a delinquent, and may she forever be imaginary. Voters, thank you for the time and vote PRO! :) <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Chrysippus is not a noob. because I thank my opponent for the debate and the readers for the opportunity. BoP: My opponent is wrong. I must only prove that he is a noob by the definition that I presented, which is that a noob is a newbie. I have already established the definition of "noob" as a newbie. That is the only definition I provided, because that is the only definition for the debate. As Instigator, I set up the debate and used my provided definition. My definition was presented before my opponent's, which means my opponent's definition holds no water. Once again, my opponent has changed the definition, which she cannot because I already established one. It is unfair to change a prior definition. The remainder of my opponent's argument is irrelevant because she has changed the definition and had no right to do so. She has improperly argued semantics, for I already established the definition of "noob." My opponent changed the definition, and argued flawed semantics. Resolution negated. Thank you. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with I can post funnier "yo mama" jokes than my opponent. because Now 'stupid' jokes. 1. Yo mama so stupid she got locked in a grocery store and starved. 2. Yo mama so stupid she thought a quarterback was a refund. 3. Yo mama so stupid she sold her car for gas money. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with People can be proven wrong. because I. Hypothetical Scenario Con refuses to provide a rebuttal against the scenario itself. Instead, he focuses on one sentence of this argument where I state: " In this scenario, they met the BOP when they showed the tape as evidence in court." Con replies to the video evidence charge by saying the following: As I've pointed out to you over & over again, BOP is on the Prosecution in the so-called "criminal justice system". The prosecution CAN'T meet the BOP by showing a movie. It just doesn't work like that. Period. The prosecution isn't showing a movie though, they are showing video-tape surveillance of the man, who was charged with robbery, committing the crime. To correct my opponents misunderstanding regarding videos proving someone's guilt - here is an article of a man charged with 3 counts of murder after his video was submitted as evidence during his trial: http://www.nme.com... As you can see Con, video evidence most certainly upholds the prosecutions BOP. II. Hypothetical Scenario Two Con never provided a rebuttal for this in his last round, so I therefore extend this argument. III. Four other, real-world examples. Con never provided a rebuttal for this in his last round, so I therefore extend this argument. IV. Irrelevant arguments Con still hasn't provided any reason for these arguments to be considered relevant. I therefore extend this as well. V. L. Ron Hubbard Con states: I NEVER threatened to charge you with kidnapping, &, as I wrote before, how could a RELIGION kidnap anybody? I never said that you threatened to charge me with kidnapping. You threatened to sue me for defamation after I told you about scientologists kidnapping people against their will. Also, it wasn't the religion that kidnapped the people, only the followers of the religion did that. To be even more clear, it was not Scientology which kidnapped people, but scientologists. VI. Purity Again, no rebuttal was presented for this line of argumentation by Con. Thus, I extend this. VII. Absence of Evidence Con apparently drops this argument as well since there is no rebuttal provided for it. VIII. Additional comments made by Con Con states: You DID call me an autistic child. You DID call me a cowardly troll. You're a Lying, Crazy, Piece of sh*t. There is no way that you can win. My opponent is incorrect. What I actually said was: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 @ 12:28:19 PM Posted by: Blade-of-Truth Are you autistic or something? Can you confirm that you are for me? ** Regarding the cowardly troll thing, what I actually said was: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 @ 6:12:35 PM Posted by: Blade-of-Truth Enough talk, put your money where your mouth is and accept my debate challenge. If you don't accept it, then I hope you are content being a cowardly troll, because that's what I'd consider you if you don't. **** As everyone can see, I didn't "call" him these things like he claims. I believe at this point I am arguing against someone who has abandoned all reasoning and logic. This is evident with his following statement: You're a Lying, Crazy, Piece of sh*t. Con now relies on Ad-Hom attacks, which is a logical fallacy and extremely poor conduct for any debate setting. I would ask the audience/judges to please consider his incredibly rude comments to me when determining who had the better conduct. In closing, Con has dropped a majority of my arguments. I've extended each of those arguments as they currently remain standing unchallenged. I've additionally provided rebuttals in a respectable manner where they are needed, unlike my opponent who relies on the "not ugh" tactics and offensive name-calling. I would ask Pro to merely concede the debate if he wishes to continue acting in this manner, as it is offensive and borderline trollish. At-least, I hope it is trolling. If it isn't, then it's even more offensive. I now return the floor to Con for the final round. Thank you. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against DDO Members Union (Pro) vs. DDO Revolution Party (Con) because *This is a troll debate, agreed between me and my opponent. Do not vote seriously* Reasons why the DDO Revolutionary party is better then the DDO Members Union ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. We got numbers A. The DDO Revolution Party has superior numbers to the DDO Member congress.Bubbas group consists of 3 people... - Himself - RebelRebelDixieDixie01/ A notorious troll - A banned member named HM - Nebami B. Members signed up for the DDO Revolution party... - Jifpop09 (Supreme Leader) - Comrade Silly Otter (President) - Zarotte (Vice President) - Romanii (Consul of State) - Stalin (Supreme Commander) - LuckyStars (Party coordinator/Treasurer) - Subutai (Head of Streltsy/Secret Police) - BucketHead (Grand Ambassador) - Yay824 (The Nuke Guy) - Solar (Lower Official) - ActionSpeak(Lower Official) - YewRose (Lower Official) - Donald Keller (Lower Official) - Tophatdoc (Even though he will deny it he's signed up) - The Warrior (Lead Enforcer) - ProgressiveDem (The Drone Guy) - Gaurdian Rock (Enforcer) - BettaBreeder (Enforcer) - Theguywhoknowsnothing (Enforcer) - Soulja_N (Enforcer) - Russian Federista ( Multi account of Rebel Dixie) *Many of these people joined via pm or asked me to sign them up* http://www.debate.org... 2. We are honest about are goals... A. Bubba claims he will instill a fair system that will respect everyones beliefs, but it is all a lie. Put an end to biased voting Enforce tough laws against sexually explicit material/language on Debate.org Crack down on profanity on Debates, Forums, Polls, and Opinions He will lie to you, and pretend you have a say, but he will really just become a dictator. The DDO Revolution Party is above his capitalist trickery. Unlike the Facist, we will be upfront over our control, but unlike Bubba, we will for a anarchy forum, where you will be free to post without moderation. DDO Pirate Republic http://www.debate.org... Oh, and miniguns for everybody 3. Increased Moderation A. I bet we are all sick of people like madness and bgreen making offensive polls and adding nudity. THEY WILL BE CRUSHED. - No more one day bans. - No more obscene comments. - Every ban will be accompanied by a picture of a chick and a catchy song. 4. We will send anyone you don't like to DDO Bay A. Someone you don't like, that's just fine. We will take care of it. We shall restrict all actions on the website to a specifically made Prison Forum. Their, trolls will congregate in peace, out of everyone else's way. *We took care of Big Bird and Osama* 5. I will win this because I said so!!!! <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Obama's decision to not appear on Fox News was the beneficial decision to his presidency. because My opponent says: "But considering this reality, wouldn't it have been beneficial for Obama to have had the opportunity to appear on Fox and at least be heard? If Pro's point was that Fox can't even be bothered to broadcast Obama's speech, then how are Fox viewers supposed to be exposed to it? If all they're hearing are misrepresentations of the plan, then the viewers are no better off not having heard Obama than they already are." The thing is, when you are battling a news organization that is BLATANTLY lying to its viewers, twisting around the words of the people who appear on the show, and also, blatantly again, not showing not just one, but a multiple number of the president's speeches - you must make a real stand. Obama has had a strained relationship with Fox even prior to his election as president. He tried to bury the hatchet with Fox a couple of times, and yes, even appearing on Bill O'Reilly prime time ( http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com... ) So, it is not like Obama has not tried to refute claims against him or not gone head to head with Mr. O'Reilly, it's just that this happens to be the last straw for our president, and the corruption of a Network can only be battled so far. It doesn't matter who appears on Fox, what they say (like Richard Dawkins - people still watch O'Reilly, and Fox viewers, on vast majority, still dislike Dawkins). My opponent continues to say, "A good president would care more about conveying his plan to the people and gaining support for what he thinks would help them, instead of 'making a statement' to Fox News. Of course people have the right to exercise freedom of speech; however, it seems as if in this case, Obama pleaded the fifth... and you know what that means." Quite frankly, Obama did not plead the fifth. Obama visited everyone else, gave extensive background on his plan, covered MORE bases than any other president in a single solitary morning, and also publicly told the press why he would not appear on Fox News. This doesn't hurt the actual heart of his presidency. This makes him look like a force against corruption, a corruption that wouldn't even address what his plan is let alone have a civil conversation with him. My opponent doesn't seem to notice that it would actually appear WORSE for Obama if he appeared on Fox. Not only will people not get the true idea of his plan, but it will appear warped straight from the horse's mouth. Instead of looking to other sources to see what the inevitable health plan will consist of (and seeing this health plan in the light it is suppose to be seen in) - the viewers will get Fox's take on it, and think that Obama actually said the warped things they portrayed him to say (and they wont need to look to another network or to a newspaper - because "Obama" would have said it himself - thus helping Fox's claims DRAMATICALLY). Obama did care about conveying his plan to the people. That is why he appeared on just about every network under the sun. His statement that Fox News is a corrupt organization helps his people just as much. He is showing them he cares enough to not to feed into the "News Network" that is brainwashing the United States masses into blind stupidity. My opponent continues.... "Moving on, it's very true that Obama has made extraordinary efforts to be bipartisan thus far. I suspect that he'll keep it up for the next 4 years in an attempt to be re-elected; every president shows their true colors during their 2nd term." Readers, this is irrelevant information inserted by my opponent in order to shed irrelevant bad light on Obama - BEFORE it even happens. How does my opponent know for sure that Obama will not continue contributing to the GOP? He has done more, as I noted in my former argument, than most other presidents ever have at being bipartisan. It doesn't matter what he will do in the future for his current term as presidency and the view that the conservatives should have on him NOW which is the important thing, and what we are talking about in this debate. "Absolutely not. Bush's ratings didn't go down because the media said so. Instead, the media said so because his ratings went down." My opponent must be delusional if she thinks that the media didn't contribute an inch to Bush's popularity decline. The media controls the majority of the President's image. Con continues to say that Obama is punishing conservative America by not appearing on Fox News. Again, he has appeared on Fox before, and he is not punishing Fox. If conservative America can not watch any other news organization (any of the plethora of others, or even News Papers that covered what he said on television), that's their problem. His stand against Fox News does more for them than he appearing on it and getting warped for them. Fox News is so much of an entertainment/brain washing machine that the viewers will always be on Fox's side, no matter what anyone says. As my opponent mentioned earlier that Glick and Dawkins made O'Reilly look bad - the Fox Viewers did not consider this at all. They just thought of these people as "ignorant idiots" who attacked O'Reilly because he was asking hard questions. You can't win with an audience that is conditioned to be sheep. A stand against Fox News might snap them out of this more than a warped appearance on Fox that may carry vastly harder implications. My opponent concludes with, "I think Obama could have and should have been the bigger person in at least trying to PRESENT himself as bipartisan as much as possible." No, Obama shows himself as a bigger person by combating corruption - by being the moral figurehead of a fight against slander in the media. The media; the one thing that informs out populace. Obama has tried, again as I've noted, more than most presidents to present himself as bipartisan - more in the beginning of his term than even (as my opponent noted) the most conservative of our presidents; George W. Bush. If the intelligent conservatives can not grasp their minds around this, and remain sticking to Fox News' garbage, then they are far more lost than I could have even imagined. "1) Making himself look too scared to own up to Conservative newscasters 2) Not refuting false claims made about him and his policies, thus implying a verification of their legitimacy" I have constantly given insight on number 2 - saying that verification of policies will be shown on other stations - and that his stand was making a more important point - and also that his claims would just be twisted, once again. As for number 1 - I have also addressed this - showing that his high moral ground will make him look like a stronger president in the future - we just need to look past the current squabble we see around us. He doesn't look weak, as he is attacking the Network head on and has appeared on it in the past. I affirm that Obama's decision to not appear on Fox News was the most moral of decisions, leading a fight against media slander poised to misinform the American public. His actions will be views as positive in the future, and his actions will also help weed out the corruption that has stupefied our American public. Obama's decision to not appear on Fox News was a beneficial decision to his presidency. I have proved this statement as Pro. He will be viewed as moral and a man against slander. Just as President Lincoln wasn't at first viewed in a favorable light for his actions... Obama might not be in the beginning, but just like Lincoln, his stand will be noticed - and the view of his presidency will be benefited. His presidency is being put to use in favor of justice for the American people. There can be no more favorable of a stance than to bring justice and truth to the people. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against IVF Debate because Hence, the overarching issue with IVF treatment besides the side effects, extreme risks, evolution of new technology with unknown results is that when multiple eggs are extracted and froze for the couple to use later, who owns the rights to the embryos. "It has become the standard solution to leave the decision about stored gametes to the gamete providers about embryos to the persons for whose reproduction they are created"(Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies.1993. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. 1994.). However, IVF treatment leaves several couples, majority divorced, in a argument in court over who has the rights over eggs, to destroy or keep. In a now common case, Lorraine Hadley is taking legal action to prevent her husband from destroying eggs frozen during IVF treatment. Hadley, who wants another child, and due to a diagnosed condition may not conceive naturally and IVF is her only chance of having another child, decided on using the remaining frozen eggs. Therefore it would be using the sperm of her divorced husband, using part of his traits. Her husband feels that he does not want to have to take responsibility for the child since genetically it is his. "I remember we had to sign several forms but I do not feel they were particularly well explained to us. I don't think the clinic made the legal ramifications adequately clear," said Hadley. IVF treatment clinics are failing to communicate with their patients the rights of the embryos stored, making IVF treatment more complicated with blurred lines over legal responsibilities (Rebecca English). IVF treatment fails to regulate embryo rights and regulations prior to the procedure (Julie Shooter). All in all, IVF treatment may give the opportunity for a couple who are unable to conceive have the ability to possibly have a child, but the lack of research on long term effects technology can have on society regarding designer babies and the harsh side effects from artificially playing God in reproduction, and the legal and ethical issues surrounding how the eggs are froze, discarded, or donated outweighs the glory of having a child. Until major issues are resolved making the procedure more understood, safer, and less complex, then IVF should not be recommended in use for reproduction. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Abortion because There are lots of options for women who cannot have children but want them. Adoption, IVF etc . It doesn't directly affect that infertile woman's life, does it? If an infertile woman wants a child and doesn't look into adoption or any other method of obtaining a child then that is down to that woman and that woman only. Think about all those children without parents who long to have someone to care for them, to help them learn to be a child again. Think about them. I'm not saying that abortion is the only answer and that if a woman wants an abortion for any reason then she can have one. But what I am saying is that if there is no other reasonable option or choice then what's one child to another? Another child into care, another child that will become an adult at the age of eleven and another child that doesn't feel the love of a parent. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against The ACLU is Damaging the our Nation. because When I said "It is true that the ACLU is biased toward the Liberal side, but really who isn't?" I meant to say who really isn'y biased toward any part of the political spectrum. Sorry for the hasty wording. It would be a Utopia if absolutely everybody's rights were looked after in the U.S., but unfortunately that would be impossible because every organization is biased and will favor one group of people over the other. ACLU is only one of the lookouts for American rights and I'm sure other similar groups will cater toward different types of people. Most organizations looking out for our rights are mainly liberal so of course conservatives will feel neglected sometimes. Since when did conservatives care about the equality and wellfare of all races or sexual orientations? Everybody is biased and it is impossible to make everybody happy in government. I am just arguing that organizations such as the ACLU are important to have around. This does not mean that I agree with everything they do, but I am happy to know that if the government gets a little too power-hungry, groups like ACLU exist to say something about it. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Naruto seriously owns Bleach. because Before beginning, I would like to note to the almost exclusively male teenage audience that Naruto is the manga with 'the sexy technique' (or おいろけの術) [1]. It is described as "a Transformation Technique used to transform the user into a beautiful, nude woman in a very seductive posture with either mists of smoke covering her chest and groin, or in a bathing suit. Naruto uses it to distract or win over men, sometimes leading to an exaggerated nosebleed by the victim, though some men have been able to resist it". I would like the voters in this debate to seriously consider whether they have the power to resist such a technique; if not, the winner is clear already. With that in mind, my arguments will be thus: Bleach has a great number of annoying plot inconsistencies that demonstrate poor planning; the ending to the recent arc in Bleach was underwhelming, bordered on deus ex machina [2] and ruined the character Aizen; the characters in Naruto are more complex and engaging than in Bleach; and finally, that the fights in Naruto are more interesting, varied and generally bad@ss than Bleach. 1: Annoying plot holes and inconsistencies. a. The first Captain (highest ranked soul reaper) that Ichigo fights is Zaraki Kenpachi [3] whom he just barely defeats after taking severe injuries himself. Now, it's worth noting that this is before Ichigo unlocks his Bankai which is noted to increase the power of the user by at least 5 times and as much as 10 times [4]. That's right, he defeated one of the most powerful characters in the manga while at least five times weaker than later on! Nothing in the manga later on can account for such a massive power increase. Ichigo convincingly loses to the sixth most powerful espada WITH his bankai later on [5], and without Grimmjow even changing into his released form, while Kenpachi defeats the fifth most powerful espada without apparently increasing his power and later defeats the most powerful espada along with Byakuya [6]. Ichigo should be FAR more powerful than Kenpachi by that point yet he is seemingly weaker. b. Aizen forgets how to use Kyōka Suigetsu during the final battle with Ichigo. This was a MASSIVE let down for me. I was looking forward to whatever device the writers were going to use to allow Ichigo to defeat Aizen despite him having the ability to control the five senses. Was Ichigo going to have to keep his eyes closed, using only his other senses and ability to sense spiritual pressure? Was he going to somehow break through Aizen's abillity, able to distinguish between false sense data and real sense data? Well, none of that happens because Aizen never even uses his ability. He has control of his zanpakutō until the very end when it is destroyed and has used it in virtually every fight previously. Yet, inexplicably, he never uses it in the one time when he's being outclassed in power. 2: Poor ending to the recent arc. One of the most intriguing aspects of Bleach has been the main villain Aizen. He is a constant terror and incredibly powerful adversary; able to control the five senses and more powerful than all the captains. However, all this is horribly mishandled in the final battle between him and Ichigo. For a start, the fact that Ichigo is even on Aizen's level is just explained with a generic shōnen power up sequence [7] where he travels inside himself and faces his zanpakutō in battle and his inner demons which is lame and generic, as well as being a conveinient plot device bordering on a Deux ex machina. Secondly, the writers turn Aizen into a freakish looking monster of the week, with no special powers except to blow stuff up and regenerate [8], with is completely antithetical to what made Aizen a great villian in the first place. All in all, the recent finale was a botched job and a severe disappointment. 3: Characters in Naruto and Bleach. Character development in Naruto > character development in Bleach. Why? We need only look at the two protagonists. Ichigo...well, what exactly has changed with Ichigo except repeated power-ups? Has his personality changed? Has he become more mature, has he developed in any way from the slightly emoish kid at the beginning? I can't think that he has. Naruto, on the other hand, has changed from the beginning of the series as a childish prankster [9] to a mature teenager who has experienced the loss of his close mentor and had to challenge the facts of the real world - for instance, Pein's revelation that the hidden leaf villiage was responsible for keeping war going in the hidden rain villiage, leading to the death of many innocent people [10], and subsenquently blurring the naive border between good and evil. Sasuke is another example. Starting out as a child who experienced the loss of his entire family and clan at the hands of his brother, Sasuke has steadily became more consumed with hatred over the series, leading to his manipulation by Orochimaru and Madara Uchiha to become one of the main antagonists of the series. This has also had the effect of dissillusioning Sakura, who used to love him but recently attempted to kill Sasuke in manga, by tricking him into thinking she wanted to follow him, but couldn't bring herself to, and barely escaped alive [11]. As we can see, the characters are in constant flux throughout the series, with interesting backstories and developments. I've only scratched the surface; there simply isn't anything comparable in Bleach. 4: The fights. The fights in Naruto are simply more varied, original and interesting than in Bleach. Again, let's take the main protagnoist as an example. Ichigo's abilities are almost entirely 'theoretical' - i.e., they have no seeable effect but allow the writers to caim that he's more powerful. For example, his bankai increases his speed and his mask ability increases all his 'stats'. The only exception is getsuga tenshou, which is a generic energy slash attack. Naruto on the other hand, has a number of interesting techniques. He can create easily destructable clones of himself; he can create a water/wind energy ball that can be manipulated in a number of ways - formed into a shiruken ranged attack, used as a close range 'punch' attack; he can summon giant toads to fight alongside him; and when he gets exceptionally angry, he can transform into a monstrous fox-like creature which also has its own set of moves. Finally, he can gather 'nature energy' to dramatically increase his speed and strength temporarily - however it also has noticable effects in battle such as the ability to hit without the blow connecting, it is used to combat one of Pein's bodies by transferring it into a stone frog when it tries to absorb his chakra. Pein is another great example - he is one person controlling six bodies, each of which has its own powers. The ability to bring back the dead, the ability to manipulate objects through repulsion and attraction, the ability to summon monsters and so on. Are there any characters in Bleach with such a large and varied move-pool? Not really. All this leads to more interesting battles, such as when Naruto's mentor fought Pein but died in the battle, Pein slowly revealing his different abilities throughout, and then the subsequent showdown between Pein and the entire Leaf villiage where he destroys it. [1] http://naruto.wikia.com... [2] http://tvtropes.org... [3] http://bleach.wikia.com... [4] http://www.mangafox.com... [5] http://bleach.wikia.com... [6] http://bleach.wikia.com... [7] http://www.mangafox.com... [8] http://bleach.wikia.com... [9] http://www.mangafox.com... ; [10] http://www.mangafox.com... ; [11] http://www.mangafox.com... ; <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Epic Rap Battles of History. Andrew Johnson VS. Lyndon Johnson. because Look, you turn Democracy into Hypocrisy with your amendment opposition and vetoes, just go eat some Doritos. You say I"m weird for talking with my peers. But time is hard to lose when awesome is what you choose. I may have lost the war, but Lincoln was your only core, and you did no more. You were intoxicated when inaugurated, pardoned even the hardened, and publicity was like toxicity. Your reconstruction was charted, but almost destroyed what Lincoln started. I powered the Space Race that sent man into deep space, started educational bills that sent our state into thrills. I achieved more through my door than you did in your four. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against College admissions should give preference to minorities because College admissions should solely look at achievements, grades and test scores. However if a student had a peculiar/tough life written in an essay, they should be given a little bit more of a chance. However, this isn't on a minority-only basis. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against No using the letter "e": Abortion within 20 weeks of pregnancy is morally okay. because Point 1: God will f*ck you up. Point 2: You can stick it in a glass cylindrical thing and coldify it. Point 3: Throw it away, adoption. Point 4: If it is born, it will gain ration and do stuff on its own, including if it is born too fast. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Which Search Engine Is Better? because What Search Engine Do You Think Is Better? Ask.com Or Wikipedia.org I Pretty Much Like Any Search engine besides Wikipedia. Wikipedia Can Be Edited. It Is A Very Untrustworthy Site. Not Good For Children Doing A Report And Having The Wrong Information On His Paper. I Vote That Wikipedia Is The Worst Search Engine Out There -Thank You Tharlew <EOA>

<BOA> I am with The Gospel of Jesus is a patchwork of plagiarized material from non-Judeo-Christian sources because To my worthy opponent, thank you for taking up this intellectual challenge. My opponent has strayed from the original point of this debate, namely my claim that ‘The Gospel of Jesus is a patchwork of plagiarized material from non-Judeo-Christian sources’, seeking rather to answer "How do we know that the new testament is historically reliable?" I am not here to debate the historicity of Jesus, the gospels, or the new testament. Let us return to the original focus of the debate, as I elaborate on the un originality of the gospel story. The Unoriginal ‘Jesus’ Savior Story Virgin birth of God-savior, Dec 25 . Dionysus / Bacchus, Heracles, Horus of Egypt, Krishna, Mithra of Persia, Zoroaster... Dec 25 a common birth-date for saviors. Born in cave . Common (in savior myths). Star in the east . Magi / Wise Men . Common. E.g. carved in the temple of Luxor, ancient Egyptian savior-God Horus. Parents take savior and flee to avoid his being killed . Common. Baptized , dove appears . Baptism of the Egyptian God Horus in the river Eridanus / Nile where the dove represents the Egyptian Goddess Hathor who brings Horus forth as an adult in a ceremony symbolizing rebirth. Baptism was common before Christianity. Sermon on the Mount, The Beatitudes . Stolen from Buddha’s sermon 500 years prior to the gospel story. Gift of Eternal life . Common. Savior speaks many wise parables to prove his wisdom . Derived from Indian Vedas as spoken by Krishna, Dhammapada, Lao Tzu, and Egyptian God Horus. Lord’s Prayer . Maxims of Ani, from ancient Egypt, contains this almost word for word. Tempted in the wilderness . Common. Water into wine . Common (priests had a device to do this to fool the people); story of turning water into wine at Cana was modeled on a Dionysian rite of sacred marriage celebrated at Sidon, and the gospel tale wording is copied almost verbatim. Miracles . Common. E.g. Honi the Righteous, and Hanini Be Dosa, resided in the biblical lands at the time of Jesus, known for their paranormal powers. Sabbath. Pre-dates Jewish religion. Raises Lazarus from the dead . Tales of resurrection common. Lazarus tale borrowed from ancient Egypt . Alpha, Omega . Egyptian Goddess Isis, "I am all that has been, that is, and that will be." Second Coming . Pre-christian, expected of several savior Gods. Casts demons out of swine . Seen in Egyptian scenes of the Judgement, where condemned souls are ordered back into the abyss, and then make the return pdonkeyage down to the lake of primordial matter by taking the shape of the swine. Rides a donkey into Jerusalem . Greek mythos Hephaistos ascends to heaven, at the instigation of Dionysus, and is depicted as returning riding on a donkey. The Last Supper . "This is my blood you drink, this is my body you eat" is a standard part of the theophagic (God-eating) ritual of many ancient pagan religions. Peter as rock, head of the church . In the Egyptian Book of the Dead, Petra (Peter) is the name of the divine doorkeeper of heaven. Mithraism had Pater as head of the temple. Peter denies Savior, 3 cocks of the crow . Found in ancient pagan religions. e.g. in the Zohar a cock crowing 3 times is an omen of death. Savior is betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, hangs himself in potter’s field . Sumero-babylonian Goddess Aruru was worshipped as a Potter in the Jewish temple, where she received 30 pieces of silver as the price of a sacrificial victim. Aruru owed the Field of Blood, where she mixed clay with the blood of victims so bought-- hence the origin of Potter's field. Sacrifice for sins of humanity . Common. A cloaked stranger throws off his cloak and runs away naked . Found in The Odyssey by Homer. The Pdonkeyion . Baal or Bel of Babylon/Phoenicia as seen on a 4000 year-old tablet in the British museum: Baal is taken prisoner, tried in a hall of justice, tormented and mocked by a rabble, let away to a mount, taken with two other prisoners (one of whom is released), sacrificed on a mount after which the rabble goes on a rampage, his clothes are taken, he is put in a tomb, he is sought after by weeping women, he is resurrected-- appearing to his followers after the stone is rolled away from the tomb. Sound familiar ? Golgatha ( “Place of Skulls", Latin: Calvary). Many ancient religions in the middle east had a habit of preserving skulls of the dead for later necromancy; their place of sacrifice was called Golgotha. Spear of Longinus plunged into Savior’s side . The Hindu God Vishnu (Bal-ii) was crucified with spear in his side. The Gods Wittba and Adonis were also crucified and "side-wounded" saviors. On the cross, cries out ‘My God, My God, Why has thou forsaken me!’ . Sacrifice of Aleyin by his Virgin Mother Anath, Like Jesus, Aleyin was the Lamb of God and said "I am Aleyin, son of Baal (Lord/God). Make ready then, the sacrifice. I am the Lamb which is made ready with pure wheat to be sacrificed in expiation." After Aleyin's death and resurrection by Anath, she told him that he was forsaken by his heavenly father El. "My El, My El, why hast thou forsaken me?" Temple curtain is rendered (torn) . Horus rends the curtain of the Egyptian temple. Sky darkens . No historian ever wrote about this. Odd. But this is found in other savior myths. Buried 3 days . Common. Resurrects . Common. Transfigures on the Mount of Olives . Mount Bakhu (mount of olives) was the way of ascent to the risen [Egyptian] Savior as he issued forth from Amenta to the land of the spirtis in heaven. A transfiguration on a mountain was common with many ancient savior Gods. As an unoriginal story, I find the gospel story of Jesus highly suspect in terms of being a story of an actual historical God-man. It seems more likely to be just a retelling of the common 'God comes to earth as a Virgin born man, provides moral teaching, is crucified and resurrected to provide a solution to mankind's universal fear of death'. A true Savior it seems to me would have a more undergone an original life story, have no need to plagiarize literally His entire story from previous stories. So again, I ask readers and my opponent-- what is there in the gospel story of Jesus that is original ? _________________________________________________ Sources: Sixteen Crucified Saviors by Kersey Graves (book). Biblical Origins in Ancient Egypt The Christ Conspiracy- The Greatest Story Ever Sold by Acharya S. 1999. Suns of God--Krishna, Buddha, and Christ Unveiled by Acharya S. 2004. The Jesus Mysteries-- Was the Original Jesus a Pagan God? 1999. Temple of Luxor, inscriptions Parallel Myths -- A Fascinating Look at the Common Threads Woven Through the World's Greatest Myths, and the Central Role they Have Played Through Time by J.F. Bierlein (book) 1994. Christ a Fiction by Robert Price (essay) Hindu, Buddhist writings and alleged sayings of Jesus: http://oregonstate.edu... http://users.cyberone.com.au... Jesus and Buddha, the Parallel Sayings (book) Mithraism and Christianity: How are They Related? by Donald R. Morse. Journal of Religion and Psychical Research, January 1999 volume 22, issue 1, pp.33-44. Rivalling with Incipient Christianism by C.F. Dumermuth. Asian Journal of Theology, October 2002 Volume 16 issue 2 pp 409-415 Ritual, Myth, Doctrine, and Initiation in the Mysteries of Mithras: New Evidence from a Cult Vessel by Roger Beck. Journal of Roman Studies. 2000. Volume 90, page 145-193. On Mithra's Part in Zuroastrianism by M. Boyce. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. 1969. 32: pp 10-34. The Competition by Everett Ferguson. Christian History. 1998. Volume 17 Issue 1. Mithras Myths and Legends of the World, John M. Wickersham editor in chief. 2000. Osirus and Horus-- Egyptian origin of Jesus savior myth? http://www.religioustolerance.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Why the steelers are the if not the best one of the best teams in the NFL today because Clearly, we are currently lacking a standard with which to judge if a team is "the best". Online Dictionary reference defines "best" to be: "of the highest quality, excellence, or standing" http://dictionary.reference.com... It is my position that to be of THE highest quality, excellence, or standing implies consistency. Let's look again at the Pittsburgh Steelers. First, we see that the resolution if the Steelers ARE the best team or not. The definition of "are" [ http://dictionary.reference.com... ] implies the present tense. For this reason, if the Steelers won multiple past superbowls, the resolution is not in any way affected in terms of the Pro side of the resolution. Now, in the present tense (or, in the NFL context, the 2010-2011 season)... Throughout the season, they were not *consistently* the best. Throughout the season, the Steelers did NOT lead the league in any category. Throughout the season, the Steelers did NOT lead the AFC. Throughout the season, the Steelers did NOT statistically prove their dominance. ~ This debate has become rather frustrating. My opponent has not provided a single falsifiable argument that can be debated, while he is refuting my arguments by applying an impact-turn to my entire case without any rational justification. I hope my opponent will actually begin to debate in the next round. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Debate is a Broken form of Argumentation because Before I start to answer my opponent point by point, we should be clear on few aspects. Debating within limits is skill: Any argument can be inflated beyond any limits. You can debate the number of angels that can dance on head of a pin for a really long time [1]. It is part of debating skill to limit your arguments. This may mean, rephrasing your arguments to be concise. It may mean focusing on key points. This does not mean that the debate is broken. Actually this leads to better quality debates, which focus on key aspect and assists the audience in making up its mind. In general, if you cannot complete you debate within limits, you lose. And the loss is appropriate, since you are lacking in one key component of debate. This does not violate the 3rd rule of valid arguments. The debaters are still free to bring in any valid argument. They may have to rephrase some arguments, while other arguments may be unfeasible if they want to win the debate. One of the most exciting shot in cricket is the 'hook' [2]. You can only 'hook' a ball when the bowler is bowling fast and he attempts a short pitched delivery. If the bowler is a 'spinner' or bowling full pitched, the batsman cannot feasibly 'hook' the ball. Does this mean that cricket is broken because the batsman is not in a position to play a particular shot in a particular situation? Abusive AID: The above rule has one exception. That is when one side is defending an issue and has clearly much more volumetric burden. Identifying such cases is easy. The attacker in this case lists multiple points and expects the defender to answer each one of them. In such cases, an appeal to judges can be easily made and should not lead to any dispute. == Rebuttals == Undue advantage: If we debate spam, the result will be a spam debate, which will be naturally broken. However we have previously assumed that the debate is a serious one and if I can show that there is no undue advantage to either side, the result is a serious debate which is decided by weight of arguments. This is sufficient to prove my burden. Definition Dispute: As we agree that the dispute is irrelevant, I will ignore it. Linguistic Asymmetry: I provided clear rebuttals to examples provided by my opponent. I can only provide a counter-example, after he has presented an example. In case of C&P attempts, adding a qualifier like ALL may provide a fitting solution. I did accept that linguistic asymmetry is possible. However as I pointed out, it is difficult to abuse in practice. Moreover, counters for such attacks are usually easy. As a result they do not break a debate. If they are appended to the end of debate, they can be attended in similar ways. The example presented by Pro works against him. The burden on CiRrk was clearly non-linguistic (as Pro acknowledges). CiRrk was able to relieve the burden up to some extent by using those abbreviations. That is clearly another simple technique which can be used to escape from any attack based on linguistic asymmetry. Pro believes that debates without limits will be more balanced. I disagree. If there are no limits, the debators can continue to inflate there arguments, ensuring that the debate becomes a trolling competition. All such debates will end up as draw, ensuring that debate becomes a broken form of argumentation! SID: In SID, some 'otherwise valid approaches' do become unfeasible or difficult to implement. However this does not break the debate. Hook shot is not feasible against slow bowlers or spinners. It does not mean that cricket as a sport is broken. The side which has the BoP usually has a better control over the number of arguments. Even if this is not so, all they have to do is to rephrase or rearrange the arguments to make sure they are within the limits and pass on the pressure to the other side. The shift of pressure will be automatic since it is a SID. This makes the debate more interesting! AID: Failure to anticipate: Anticipating AID is possible in most cases. It can be predicted by the topic of the debate. It can be anticipated through the history of debaters or from records of other debates on similar topic. On other hand, my argument does not hinge on AID being anticipated in all cases. Here is an example of debate where the instigator has successfully anticipated and blocked AID [3]. Limits argument: The attacker is still free to choose the arguments he wants to use. Refer to my 'hook' analogy to realize why it does not break the debate. AID within single argument: As I explained earlier, any argument can be inflated. However, if the defendant is unable to argue a single point within the specified limits, I think it is a clear case of lack of skill. Small AID pushing debates over limits: Then it becomes a test of defendant's skill, as to how she can manage to reduce the volume of his arguments by a small quantity, bringing it back under the limit. In the only example you presented, we can see that CiRrk managed to perform this task successfully, even when he was debating against a formidable opponent. The final result was decided by the merits of arguments and not the inflationary pressure. Difficulty proving AID: As I explained, debaters have to make full effort to ensure that they debate within limits. It is only in case of clear abuse that they can appeal. The clear abuse can be identified by asymmetric volume and the attacker presenting several arguments and expecting answers for each of them. Meta arguments series: Since the AID challenge is valid only in very clear cases, it should not lead to meta arguments. This debate is following SID pattern rather than AID pattern, and hence Pro should make his best effort to limit his argument, else he will lose. Pro attempts to inflate his own arguments beyond the limits to prove that debate is broken. To do so, he has attempted to create a deliberately recursive argument. If Pro fails to complete the debate within limits, it means he loses. He cannot prevent it - since as per his own position, he cannot introduce any rule against it. But wait, this is what he was trying to prove! This means is that his argument is deeply paradoxical. I am sure he will make his best effort to explain the paradox; however we need to be clear on one aspect. Pro cannot win the debate without winning it! Pro asserts that the AID rule can be abusive. As I have shown that the AID rule can be invoked successfully only in clear cases, that problem should not exist. If the defender incorrectly calls for this rule, chance is high that she will lose the debate. Pro complains that it invites judges to 'intervene and identify abuse'. But that is something that judges always do in case of abuse! Unless he wants to prohibit judges from judging on his debates, I fail to see his point. Judges would not have to argue over application of this rule, as this can be applied only in very clear cases. == Conclusion == By trying to break his own debate, Sieben states that this debate is 'lulsy'. I disagree. My position on this debate has been quite clear and consistent. However I agree with him that his arguments are recursive, paradoxical and 'lulsy'. And also "irrelevant". [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [3] http://www.debate.org... <EOA>

<BOA> I am with The Conquest of America by Spain was overall positive because My opponent contends that my argument hinges upon the figure of Bartolome de las Casas and that his man was an exception in the general depravity of the Spanish Conquest. This quite simply does not stand to reason. The position of influence of Las Casas was not a matter of pure luck but was rather given him by the Spanish Crown and regents. The contention ignores the fact of the consistent position in favor of the Indians by the Crown from the very days of Isabelle the Catholic. This was not isolated to her. When her husband was regent of Castille, this policy was maintained, after his death Cardinal Cisneros not only continued it but was the very man who appointed Las Casas "Procurer and Universal Defender of all Indians" (following that centuries taste for long-winded titles), Carlos I was the man who promulgated the Laws of the Indies forbidding the creation of new encomiendas (sentencing the institution to extinction, as they were not hereditary). (1) This general goodwill is also seen in other projects that took place in America, such as the creation of schools, hospitals and the first university: all for the use of both Spaniards and Indians. Now, were the American territories stratified societies. Yes, they certainly were. Then again so was peninsular Spain. Both economically and in terms of political organization, there was little difference between the laws of Castille and the American territories except the special protections given the natives that were not afforded Spaniards and the figure of the viceroy who was to act as the kings "alter ego". Now, it is true that these laws and this general goodwill faced difficulties in their implementation. Especially at first with the rebellion of the encomenderos, however the fact is that they not only held and were eventually implemented in full, but they were also subsequently expanded. Something is not "entirely the actions of one man" when it represents the juridical context in which the Conquest took place. I would argue rather that the rebellions and illegalities represent individual actions against the general rule. It is frankly bizarre that someone could point as proof that the Spanish conquest was cruel that those who wished to enslave the Indians in Peru rebelled against the government that wished to protect them. But let us take a look for a moment at the figures Con brings out as leading figures of the Conquest: Juan Ponce de León - A man whose obsessive search for the fountain of youth led him to Florida, from where he was ousted by the Indians to die an untimely death from the wounds sustained in battle. A man who didn't even conquer any territory and is remembered mostly by the discovery of Florida (which he took to be an Island) and the whole Fountain of Youth thing. (2) Hardly a "leading figure", and hardly relevant to our point. Hernán Cortés - The massacre at the main temple was due, as per you own source, to the fact that the Spaniards came upon a ceremony involving religious sacrifice. There are two sources claimed on that site, one contemporary (the Letters of Hernán Cortés to the king of Spain) and the other written four hundred years later by some anthropologist in the 1990s asking 20th century Mexicans who still speak Nahuatl what happened. (3) That is not sound history. As to the actions of Hernán Cortés after the conquest of Mexico, I am rather surprised you would cite a source that speaks of his efforts to establish "civil rights" in the territory. That is, his efforts to apply Spanish law faithfully. He was recognized by the Franciscan missionaries as a man interested in the fates of the Indians in the territories he conquered and most of what we know of the Aztecs we know by his detailed and praise-filled accounts of what he saw. (4) Francisco Vázquez de Coronado - It is simply not accurate to say Coronado began the war in question. According to David Roberts, author of The Pueblo Revolt (not exactly suspect of sympathy for the Spaniards), it was the Pecos Indians who, first killing the advance party and then attacking and destroying the first mission, started the war. They were an agricultural, territorial and highly warlike people. It is simply intellectually dishonest to posit that as an act of Spanish aggression when Coronado's journey took him over so many territories with so many different people with no incidents whatsoever. Nuño de Guzmán - Nuño de Guzmán, as per your own source, was " arrested for treason, abuse of power, mistreatment of the indigenous inhabitants of his territories and he was sent to Spain in shackles". Not exactly representative of Spain's objectives whatever revisionist historians and contemporary propagandists might have wished to make us believe. His inhuman treatment of the natives made him powerful enemies, among them bishop Zumárraga and Hernán Cortés. His powerful family connections freed him from the death penalty usually reserved for crimes such as his and he died either in the dungeons of the castle of Torrejón de Velasco or (according to some historians who found his name on a payroll) as a common castle guard in 1561. (5) You could, of course, doubtless bring yet another list of people who, in the course of the 500 year conquest committed crimes and abused their positions of power. My argument does not hinge upon every Spaniard being of noble character and acting according to the law. If it were the case that there were no abuses there would have been no need to have written the strongest laws of for the protection and benefit of a conquered people in history. What my case hinges on is this protection and interest for the material and spiritual well-being of the natives being the general tenor of the conquest. This I believe to be amply demonstrated by the facts, and that even those who abused their power and behaved cruelly would have been loath to justify cruelty in general, saying instead that their actions in particular were exceptionally justified (as in the case of Nuño de Guzmán, who claimed his executions and tortures to be for the greater good of the native population). In conclusion 1. Abuses were, in some periods extended, but these were always contrary to law and Spanish policy and were invariably met with objections, resistance and official condemnation. 2. The care and interest for the good of the natives was the general and mainstream position. 3. I note my argument as to the lasting effects of the debates in Spain surrounding the Conquest leading to present-day conceptions of human rights and international law has not been answered. We must then consider this point dropped or conceded. Sources (1) http://www.ecured.cu... (2) http://www.biografica.info... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org... (4) http://www.hechohistorico.com.ar... (5) http://www.biografiasyvidas.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am with THE OFFICIAL IZBO TRIAL; Resolved: Izbo10 should be permanently banned because Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, izbo seems to merely want to rehash old debates rather than answer the charges against him. Nothing he has cited justifies his continual harassment, vote bombing, and hate speech. I'll briefly answer his contentions, but all the charges against him still stand - unrefuted. == Rebuttal == R1) Izbo's debate with ReformedArsenal on the topic, "God is guilty of collusion to sacrifice a child in the case of Jepthah" The main reason that izbo lost this debate so resoundingly is due to the word "collusion." ReformedArsenal points out that in Judges 11:9, the Lord never asks Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter; Jephthah, in fact, unnecessarily makes this promise because as RA points out, the Lord's spirit came to *all* the generals of the Israelite's armies and promised them victory. God clearly did not ask for anything in return in this passage. All of the RFD's against izbo mention his inability to prove "collusion," which would require God to *ask* for a sacrifice, as he did in the case of Abraham, but *not* in the case of Jepthah. R2) Izbo's forum post asking Christians why they think murder is wrong If someone asks you "how would a Christian prove murder is wrong?" a legitimate response is, "how would an atheist prove murder is wrong?" The answer to both questions can be the same. Secondly, Man-is-good and others started questioning izbo's ability to prove that murder is wrong. In high school Lincoln-Douglas style debate, this morality debate is common. One topic was, "It is morally permissible to kill one person to save one or more people." Value systems like utilitarianism do not expressly forbid murder. Conclusion: the people izbo is complaining about were asking legitimate questions. R3) People can't grasp logic? It is worth noting that the thread izbo posts here is yet another "teaching" thread, where izbo purports to teach people about basic logic. Kleptin, a well-respected member of DDO, actually tried to engage with izbo in this thread: "Izbo, I want you to answer me honestly. Do you care more about teaching people what you want to teach them, or do you care more about the ego-boost of pretending to be an authority? Because it seems to be the latter. You're going to be met with resistance not because your ‘students' are ignorant or ill-educated, but because you come across as patronizing and arrogant. The best way to have others receive your ideas is to try to come across as an equal, not as a superior." Izbo's response was that people were too stupid to be considered his peers, so he'd like to continue patronizing and mocking them. This merely proves, yet again, that izbo is beyond help. R4) What is a zombie? A zombie is re-animated dead flesh; however, the flesh is still considered dead. Izbo asserts that the body is always re-animated by supernatural forces, but many zombie movies, such as Resident Evil and I Am Legend, employ a virus as the agent which re-animates the flesh of the zombies. A virus explains why people who are bitten by the zombies become zombies themselves. In this forum discussion, Izbo was arguing that if Jesus was brought back to life by supernatural forces, then Jesus was a zombie. The people who responded to izbo (all of them atheists) pointed out that zombies have additional characteristics, such as mindlessness or soullessness. Random House defines a zombie as, "the body of a dead person supernaturally imbued with the semblance of life and set to perform tasks as a mute, will-less slave OR a living person enslaved in the same manner after the soul has been magically removed." [1] Since the Jesus story asserts that he was restored to life with no defects, he would not be considered a zombie by most people. Izbo asserts fallaciously that anyone brought back to life is a zombie, but ignores the additional requirements for a zombie. Not all undead are zombies. In many shows that employ witchcraft (Buffy, Charmed, etc) a zombie only results from a resurrection spell *gone wrong.* This normal resurrection/zombie resurrection distinction clearly demonstrates that it is not the case that all formerly dead people are considered zombies. In addition, in everyday life we call people who look utterly exhausted "zombies," which demonstrates that the most important trait of a zombie is seeming mindlessness. Izbo never asserts that the resurrected Jesus was mindless. However, this point most perfectly exemplifies how izbo is trying to force this debate to devolve into silliness. R5) Izbo asserts that JustCallMeTarzan is too stupid to understand what an atheist is I'll merely show you JCMT's post and you can decide if he is too stupid to grasp the meaning of this word. JCMT wrote: "A pretty simple thought experiment shows that ‘non-theist' and ‘atheist' are not the same thing. First of all, Izbo only presents half the etymology. Atheist derives from Greek - A + Theos. In Greek, the prefix A- can mean ‘lacking' or ‘against.' So right off the bat, there is a semantic distinction to be made between one who lacks a belief in god and one who is against a belief in god. Second, in colloquial English, there are positions like Ignostic and Apatheist. This indicates that there is certainly not the false dichotomy that Izbo presents where Theist and Atheist are the only options. The case of Ignostic proves this to be the case - an Ignostic doesn't address the merits of belief, but first professes uncertainty for lack of a definition of god. But one cannot be ignostic with respect to a particular god. One can, however, be apatheistic with respect to a particular god, indicating that no matter what else, there is indeed a third position. To recap: Izbo's argument impermissibly generalizes all subsets of ‘non-theist' and calls them ‘atheist.'" Is JCMT too stupid to grasp the meaning of this word? You decide. R6) izbo contends he is being silenced by all the theists on DDO I think izbo is the first person to accuse DDO of being rife with theists. Most people on DDO are atheists. In fact, most of the people izbo calls "idiot theists" are actually atheists. Man-is-good is an atheist. JustCallMeTarzan is an atheist. Cerebral_Narcissist is an atheist. The reason izbo has so many problems with these users it *not* because they are theists and he is an atheist, it is because izbo approaches them in an unfriendly manner and is unwilling to calmly defend his arguments against devil's advocates. I demand that izbo produce evidence that he has been "attacked from all fronts" by massive groups of theists. I further demand evidence that Diagoras left because of the theist harassment that izbo claims is inherent to DDO. R7) Cerebral is a moral nihilist Izbo can attack this straw man all day. I never endorsed moral nihilism in this debate. This is irrelevant. This is not a morality debate. We all agree that this trial is about whether izbo's ban will make DDO a better place. 1 in 3 DDO users say that his ban will make them significantly happier to visit this site. R8) Izbo generates activity in the forums Remember, not all activity is good activity. Reviewing the threads izbo posted here, most of the "activity" he generated was counter-trolling. Izbo starts a thread and people started discussing their favorite foods and Shakespeare in an attempt to annoy izbo. This hardly adds anything to the Religion forum. Second, if we accept izbo's logic here, then we would have to allow all trolls to stay because they all generate lots of forum activity. However, a forum filled almost entirely with troll topics and counter-trolling responses quickly becomes an unreadable forum that no serious members would frequent. At the end of the day, izbo offers no real defense for his harassment and vote bombing. He merely tries to prove that his actions were all justified, which they clearly are not. [1] http://www.definitions.net... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Fancy Polite English Gentlemens Rap Battle because Oh dear! I'm late, I'm late, for a very important date! It seems I'm almost out of time to finish this debate! But regardless, my opponents dedication I do appreciate. And I do declare, what a wonderful saturday morning! What are my opponents plan for his weekending? Does his avatar suggest that he plans to pirate joyfully? Hmm perhaps I should warn the music industry... I digress, but will say it is unfortunately impossible for my friends nephew to be top of class at Oxford Because I am actually a professor of literature there and can confirm no student known as bench, not that I care! Who would like to join my for a nice smoke? I love puffing pipe tobacco until I choke! And sit chatting about philosophy, religion, politics, any subject that to speak about women are unfit ;) Given that last statement, I suppose the truth is unfortunately that my good friend Lord Bench cannot discuss with me. I'm just kidding with my good friend! Lord Bench is clearly quite a man! Why else would he spend such time in the whorehouses? I would not understand! The extensive libraries at Oxford have allowed me to gain access to images of my opponents ancestors in the crusades! As you can see: http://www.wle.com... , their contribution was huge! Without the noble bench's, we could not sit on our backsides after a day of abuse! So I thank my opponent, and I thank his family for their past! Indeed without them, MY family would've had none to sit on at last! My opponents rhymes are nice, I do admit so I shake his hand and thank him for his refusal to quit! <EOA>

<BOA> I am with A debate on a plan because "1. Does increasing education eliminate poverty or does eliminating poverty increase education? Proponent showed only a correlation, not cause and effect. I gave the example of India, in which high educational levels did not eliminate, or even dramatically reduce, poverty. What dramatically reduced poverty in India was ending their ill-advised experiment in democratic socialism. Nonetheless, poverty still remains in India despite a good educational system. Another example is the economy of the Soviet Union, which crashed despite a good educational system." Certainly education causes wealth. Have you ever compared the salary of the cashier at McDonald's to a physician's? Education improves the job you can get. "The U.S. has both a free economy and a good educational system, but poverty remains. I grant that further improvements in education will make some improvement in reducing poverty, but the statistics Proponent offered showed that the probable improvement is at most 7%. Note also that the very high mobility also indicates that the educational system is not a major bar to moving out of poverty. However good or bad the education system, people move into and out of poverty in the US in one or two generations. The education system does not change that rapidly, so the main factors must lie outside of education." Our education was ranked by UNESCO as 22 in the world. That's not that great. Anyways, the modern problems of poverty tend to be relegated now to areas with horrible education (inner cities), and the mobility in those areas is much less present. "The data Proponent offers for the efficacy of vouchers is for a single Catholic school in Milwaukee, which was not even established to being attended predominantly by poor people. If highly motivated people have access to a better education system, I grant that they will get a better education. However, highly motivated people will escape poverty for the most part anyway. Proponent must demonstrate that improved education alone, independent of other factors, substantially reduces poverty on a statistical basis." First, it was established as being attended by poor students (85% of tuition from vouchers) and was chosen as a microcosm and a feel-good story. And furthermore, we want everyone to have an opportunity to climb the social ladder, we want the only slightly motivated people to be able to succeed as well. "The data Proponent offers for the efficacy of vouchers is for a single Catholic school in Milwaukee, which was not even established to being attended predominantly by poor people. If highly motivated people have access to a better education system, I grant that they will get a better education. However, highly motivated people will escape poverty for the most part anyway. Proponent must demonstrate that improved education alone, independent of other factors, substantially reduces poverty on a statistical basis." You accuse me of not providing statistics? I challenge you to do the same, you made the statement, prove it. "Most Section 8 housing is not built by the government, it is provided by the free market. The government provides rent subsides to the owners of the housing to make it affordable. Proponent has not shown that the free market has failed to provide sufficient Section 8 housing outside of inner cities, which he calls 'ghettos.' He assumes that to be true, and he proposes a government building program to provide more housing outside of cites. Housing outside of inner cities is in fact in oversupply, so how is building more of it going to help anything? The fact is that people could always relocate if they chose to, they simple choose not to. The reasons they choose not to include ties to family, community, and culture. Those who are in poverty due to problems with mental illness, drug addiction, alcoholism, and inappropriate social values get better services in the central cities that elsewhere, so they will not be inclined to move." My opponent obviously does not understand the situation of Section 8. Builders do not want their houses to be Section 8 houses, as this decreases their profit. That leads to Section 8 housing being situated mainly in the inner city, where real estate is already lower than that level. Also, I do not propose building new houses, I propose purchasing houses from contractors and real estate companies to be used as low income housing. "Proponent asserts that 'Section 8 housing does not let people live wherever they choose to live, it lets them live in areas that are specially designated for Section 8 housing, and that creates ghettos.' This is false. Section 8 is a rent subsidy program that provides payment to private landlords to accommodate low income renters. It operates throughout the United States, and is as available in rural New Mexico as it is in urban Detroit. It is a voucher program. I remind Proponent of the virtues of voucher programs:" As I said, landlords choose if they will allow Section 8 subsidies, and most choose not to, because real estate value goes down if they do. "Proponent claimed his plan would eliminate poverty. He now grants that a certain part of poverty cannot be eliminated. This concedes that his plan will not work. The best he can do is to argue that poverty that is a result of mental illness, drug addiction, alcoholism, and inappropriate social values (those values that lead to an unwillingness to work hard) are an insignificant part of total poverty. What statistics are there to prove that?" You place an insurmountable burden with your interpretation of my plan's goal. No plan can totally eliminate poverty. "The notion is clearly contradicted by the rapid escape from poverty of penniless immigrants who arrive in the US with very high motivation. A prime example are the middle class people expelled from Cuba by Castro, who have very rapidly succeeded in Florida. Refugees from rural Vietnam and Cambodia are another good example. In a society like the US that has many opportunities, motivation is the primary factor for success. This is true even if the opportunities are imperfect." Opponent does not support his claim that these immigrants are succeeding rapidly. "Professor Blumberg cites only the statistic that half the metropolitan poor live in suburbs. He gives no statistic on how many lack cars. We know that overall 75% of the poor have cars. To evaluate the effectiveness of providing cars we need to know how many people in poverty simultaneously (1) lack cars, (2) could use cars more effectively than public transportation, (3) are not disabled in such a way that they cannot drive, and (4) and are motivated to use a car to get a job. The upper limit is the 25% who lack cars. So what is the real number? Is it 5%? Proponent has made no argument that his plan would have a substantial effect." As I said, the statistic that 75% have cars is skewed. That means your data is false. ". Proponent grants that his plan will not end poverty. He makes no argument that it would even have a substantial impact. Therefore the proposition fails." The debate is about whether the proposition is good or not, not about whether it will totally end poverty (that would be pointless). As Con you must show it will not significantly reduce it. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Resolved: China is, or will have reached superpower status in the near future. because Extend all arguments. Vote pro! <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Abortion Laws Should Be Legalized. because Since laws, and rights, are being dealt with, I shall argue on the same matters. 1. An infant is dependent of the mother, yet it is not "part" of the mother. Unobrn children are NOT part of the mother's body. If the opponent's claim were to be true, a there would be far less expansion of the world. However, that isn't true. If a Swedish man impregnates a japanese woman, the child is still Swedish, the mother is not. Next, if it were true, the Genetic Code of both the mother and embryo would match. However, they are both different. In half of pregnancies, women give both to male infants don't they? There even needs to be a chemical substance to weak the immune system in the uterus for the "foreign" body, known as the unborn child. ~ http://www.abort73.com... 2. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, stated in a 1996 New York Times editorial that because of the advances in modern medicine, "partial-birth abortions are not needed to save the life of the mother." Sixteen years earlier, he wrote: "In my thirty-six years in pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be be aborted to save the mother's life." As General Koop has said, medicine has grown much in the past few decades, and has no need for abortion to save a mother's life. If her life even needs to be saved, abortion is not necessary to do it. The "right" decision? I ask my opponent to specify their definition of what's "right." ~ http://abort73.com... 3. Birth is done naturally, but we don't have the right, or ability to do it otherwise. Abortion laws should be made ILLEGAL, so the natural abortions are the only way someone can be aborted. 4. My opponent's plan would be somewhat pro to democratic destruction. If we start getting more and more mothers aborted, it can get worse eventually. Perhaps we'll be underpopulated from this. We also cannot put a value on a life. One of the aborted kids could've been in power if he/she lived, yet we will never know. There's also the traumatic experience on the mother whose "lost something." 5.1 The Emotional pain (as stated before) is highly more serious than any injuries. She's lost something, and having an empty feeling. It's traumatic for women who get an abortion. 5.2 Abortion is not unjust due to the economy. Wealthy people can ride first class, but the poor cannot. Is that unjust? No. And this all depends on where the woman is, and if abortion is illegal or not. My opponent has not been specific for this example. 5.3 There are many floors in Hospitals, and many doctors whom work in those rooms. It is highly doubted that merely abortions could substantially drain the resources at the hospital. As abortion is an option that directly affects society, I urge a Con Vote. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against One should be an Atheist Rather Than an Agnostic. because First off, I want to thank my opponent for inviting me to debate him on this issue. It will be fun to take a little break from my current debate (which has continued in the comments section, thankfully - it's an important issue to me and I like fighting for it). ==ATHEISM & AGNOSTICISM== My opponent has provided some basic definitions of both atheism and agnosticism. There is nothing wrong with said definitions, but I would like to expand them. Breaking down the word "agnostic" into two parts, you are left with "A", meaning "without", and "gnostic", meaning "knowledge". Therefore, "without knowledge". It is usually used to describe "without knowledge of gods", although, rarely, can be used to describe the absence of knowledge about other things. (Example: "I am agnostic about whether abortion is right or wrong.") >>The literal meaning of agnostic is one who holds that some aspect of reality is unknowable.<< -Gordon Stein, "The Meaning of Atheism and Agnosticism". Agnosticism is *not* just the sitting-stage between athiesm and theism. It is, as my opponent stated, a matter of knowledge concerning god/gods and not a matter of belief in god/gods. It is not correct to assume that an agnostic is someone who is undecided on the matter of god. It is not a third way - it is congenial with atheism and theism. Besides being epistemological, agnosticism can also be considered a moral principle: If there is a lack of adequate knowledge on the existence of an "ultimate reality", then it is ethical not to declare whether its existence or lack thereof is indubitable. ==COUNTER ARGUMENTS== That being said, I'd like to look at some of the statements made by my opponent. >>"Agnostics believe that absolute knowledge about God is impossible unless we had absolute knowledge of the universe. And this is true - but also pointless to state. Because ANYTHING that is not a posteriori can not be known with 100% certainty unless one has absolute knowledge of the universe."<< Perhaps you see no point in it, but I would argue otherwise. Recognizing the absence of absolute knowledge is recognizing humanity's flaws and the depth of the universe. Just because I believe there are aspects that cannot be understood concerning god does not mean that I am content with never pursuing that knowledge. My belief only enforces my curiosity. Until absolute knowledge exists (assuming that it could exist), there is a point to agnosticism. >>God's epistemological position should be no different from any other thing out there, which is why Agnosticism shouldn't be heralded as a separate position. If this were valid, then we would have a million more things to be "agnostic" about.God's epistemological position should be no different from any other thing out there, which is why Agnosticism shouldn't be heralded as a separate position. If this were valid, then we would have a million more things to be "agnostic" about.<< Agnosticism is not heralded as a separate position. Granted, it has its distinctions, but it is compatible with both theism and atheism. One could be a theistic agnostic, believing there is a deity but is aware they lack the knowledge to be certain. Atheistic agnostics believe there is no deity but are aware that they lack the knowledge to be certain. Those two forms are known as "weak agnosticism" (which is not to say that those beliefs are bad). "Strong agnosticism" is the belief that no knowledge concerning a deity is possible. Also, you would be technically correct in stating that you can be agnostic about many things, but this is irrelevant. The topic of this debate is atheism versus agnosticism, and I am assuming that what you meant by agnostic was concerning the existence of god. ==CLOSING STATEMENT== In conclusion, my opponent has not really made any statements that support his claims suggesting that agnosticism is sophistic. The decision of whether to choose a form of agnosticism or atheism depends on individual perception. It cannot be merely "wrong" or merely "right". There IS a case for recognizing the extent of our knowledge. This is what has driven the growth of human knowledge - when you recognize your limits, only then can you begin to push them. Respecting what is not yet known is anything BUT pointless. Whether you are theist, atheist, or agnostic, you can agree that there is reason to respect what isn't known. Christians often say that "God works in mysterious ways". Is that not recognizing and respecting the unknown? Science looks to the future, seeks to understand what isn't yet understood. If scientists decided that there was nothing left to explore, then would there even be a point to science? Agnosticism isn't arbitrary. It is based on our limits as humans - something that history, art, science, and other fields have always valued. I again thank my opponent and look forward to his response. =) <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Debate.org user "Acer" is a socialist and has contradictory views. because My opponent has offerred a definiton of socialism. Socialism is based in the theory that income equality is just and effective. http://petras.lahaine.org... 1. "Is it not true that the rich get richer" And the poor get richer, and the middle class get richer. With capitalism, everyone gets richer over time as they work and accumulate wealth. "When in the bank, it is not used." False. Banks use money to lend to others. When banks have more money to lend, interest rates go down. This works because of the common laws of supply and demand in classical economic theory and acknowledged by John Maynard Keynes in "The General Theory", even though Keynes and classical economists have disputed the overall effect of loanable funds on the economy. Further, the 'rich' invest in companies, supplying them with the funds they need to expand and grow, which Keynes also agreed with the classical economists about. http://www.marxists.org... http://www.theshortrun.com... My opponent's socialist arguments against income inequality are socialistic as well as based in fallacy. Interestingly, he sourced a capitalist who, when quoted in context, was referring to the harm that government regulation and taxation does to the economy. My opponent's view are collectivist because he believes that there is a class system and that the rich have money because the poor do not. This is false, a generation of the zero-sum fallacy, as described by economist Thomas Sowell in his book, "Economic Facts and Fallacies". So, my opponents are not "derived from logic", but a political view and bias against the evils of the rich and the grace of the government. This is a bias of socialists, which believe that all people should earn the same. Further, my opponent believes that government should have more wealth. The expansion of government is a socialist view as well. 2. "Not really. I said that people should spend their money. It is just who receives the money that is different." Actually, when people spend money, it goes to those rich people that socialists hate. "The second quote I realize now is a false statement, but they do not contradict." My opponent's argument that they do not contradict is: "It was simply a reply to my opponent saying lowering sale taxes were good. It says nowhere that people should not spend, however, it does say that the money that is spent should not all go to one person." Actually, that is exactly what you said: "Sales taxes are a very small part of what a person actually pays and in the end, the only benefactors are the store owners." http://www.debate.org... My opponent has argued that people should not spend money, because money goes to the store owners. He argues that this is a problem because: "One of the root causes of the depression is the money ending up in only a few peoples hands." http://www.debate.org... This is also false, as my opponent has conceded, but the views he expressed were contradictory. "It says nowhere that people should not spend, however, it does say that the money that is spent should not all go to one person." In all situations, this is false. You still hold this belief, even though you have conceded that it is false. This is clearly contradictory. The resolution is affirmed. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Adobe Photoshop Battle because first of all here are the photos forgot to link last time. caption thing (this was a terrible demonstration of Photoshop skill all you need to do is select the text tool) http://www.debate.org... product thing http://www.debate.org... Both of these sadly where rushed. and here is the funny random picture from your last challenge http://www.debate.org... and here is my creative one sadly I could not really think of anything creative and then at that point I was sick off it and had like 6 different things half made.In the end i went with the easiest http://www.debate.org... Now for my challenge we must create anything we want in Photoshop but we must not use ANY photos or other images. We must ONLY use the Photoshop program anything else no internet no word no gimp nothing ONLY Photoshop can be used. In fairness I will allow brushes to be made and fonts to downloade <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Should we change the electoral college from Population to number of actual voters because I believe so, our political system seems to be crumbling from the lack of voters that is plaguing our nation. When we look at an average person and the person who votes, usually the person who votes is the one who wants the change the most. The majority of young people have no interest in politics, they would not care if anything has changed. Why is it though we have all the time in the world to complain and protest but no time at all to actually cast in a small piece of paper. For myself, I live in a state and city, Los Angeles California, which has a horrific voter turn out each and every election. Here in Los Angeles, people are more interested in smoking marijuana and surfing the internet.Don't believe me, believe the actual numbers. The Los Angeles Municipal elections for this year alone were only 8.6%, http://www.latimes.com... , and according to the article it also says that Los Angeles voter turn out has been declining rapidly over the last few decades. And as for the whole state for the 2014 election it was a total of 30%, http://ww2.kqed.org... . How come the most powerful state when it comes to the electoral college is also the most apathetic state in the country. According to the article the highest turn out came from high income elderly white people. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against A movie should only be rated R only if there is nudity, extreme profanity and extreme violence because See above. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against knowledge is free will, knowledge is memory because I have stated already, opponent. I have proved that the definitions of knowledge, memory, and free will are different. If things are different they are not equal. A book does not equal a hamburger. They are different. Knowledge does not equal memory or free will, even by definition. That's how I believe I have won the debate. Thank you to all who read through this, and vote Con! :D <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Richard Dawkins because I apologize to my opponent for not wanting to argue semantics in this debate, but I was left with no choice. You called him a religious fundamentalist, I defined religious fundamentalist, we now both agree that he is certainly not one. Please note, voters, that my opponent has conceded to Richard Dawkins not being a religious fundamentalist. Thus, I've fulfilled my burden and all votes should be to PRO. I suggest that next time my opponent wishes to discredit a professional on a public forum, he do some research into the slanderous terms he's throwing around. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against should children have to wear school uniforms? because Resolved: Children should not have to wear school uniforms. My stance on school uniforms is that I believe that the claimed benefits of school uniforms cited by proponents of school uniforms are mainly false, and that the actual benefits of school uniforms are minuscule in comparison to the benefits of freedom of choice in what to wear. Contention 1: Studies that show positive effects of school uniform policies are probably false. Sure, we can all look at studies that compare uniform policies to things like test scores and school violence and they will show a positive correlation between wearing school uniforms and school performance. But the problem behind these kinds of studies is that most of the schools who have uniforms policies are private schools, catholic schools, preparatory schools, or schools other than public schools. Here's where the problem arises. By law, public schools must accept all children, regardless of intelligence, and must teach these students [1]. But private schools have the ability to select only the best students, students who are intelligent and students who don't get into trouble. Private schools also have uniforms policies, compared to only 18% of public schools [2]. Because of this statistical issue, studies and surveys suggesting school uniform policies are better than no uniform policy are skewed. There are many variables that can alter school performance, and since school uniform studies are done in the field, there is no way to accurately point out that school uniforms make all the difference since these studies aren't done in a controlled setting. Because of mainly this reason, I fail to see why students should have to wear school uniforms, especially since a consequence is that freedom of expression is removed and a socialist atmosphere is fostered. While this can have benefits, it doesn't allow students to think for themselves, nor make their own decisions, which deprives students the ability to see the consequences of their decisions. Personal responsibility is an important quality in life and when students are deprived of the ability to make their own decisions, such as what to wear, they don't have the chance to improve on their personal responsibility. Sources: [1] http://www.greatschools.org... [2] http://nces.ed.gov... <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Does God Exist? because Thank you for the debate atheistman, and good luck. The resolution is "Does God Exist?" My opponent (Con) does not think God exists, while I (Pro) do believe God exists. My opponent said "there is no evidence" and "it is physically impossible." I disagree. http://www.philamuseum.org... God is a 1917 scuplture by Morton Livingston Schamberg and Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven. Label: "Consisting of an inverted household plumbing trap mounted on a wooden miter box, this construction shares a spiritual kinship with Marcel Duchamp's notorious Fountain, a porcelain urinal turned upside down. The sacrilegious title reflects the provocative irony of Dada,and the use of ordinary objects owes a debt to Duchamp's concept of the readymade." The picture shows the evidence that God has existed and the physical possibility for God to exist. God clearly exists. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with KirstinKate is a kiddo because KirstinKate is a kiddo for many reasons. Those of which we will discuss in the debate. I will be giving her the edge by allowing her to open and close the arguments. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Bernie would have won. because I will be arguing favorably towards the notion that Bernie Sanders, as Democratic Nominee for President would have defeated Donald Trump and won the Presidency. Round 1. Acceptance only Round 2. Arguments Round 3. Counter Arguments Round 4. Closing Arguments <EOA>

<BOA> I am against The internet CAN run out of space because I am arguing that the internet cannot run out of "sace." Well, as my opponent is affirmative, the burden of proof is on him. Please post your argument, and I will refute it as quickly as I can. Thank you. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Polygamy should be allowed in the United States. because Thank you for accepting this debate I think it should be a fun one! My opponent argues that there WOULD be massive trust issues in the case of polygamy and also says that marriage is trusting one person. I would like to start off by saying yes there COULD be massive trust issues, but there IS already massive trust issues in marriages today (1 in 2 marriages end in divorce after the first 5 years) so does that mean we should ban those too? My opponent also assumes that there aren't people who can trust more then one person in a relationship. In fact there are many cases where polygamy was practiced peacefully and without problems until the government came in and deemed it as a crime. (See here http://www.theglobeandmail.com... ) My opponents definition of a marriage is between 2 people. This definition is tunnel vision view of marriage. Why can't a marriage be between more then two people? Is it because the bible says so? The Puritans came to this country for religious freedom from the Catholics; right now we are forcing our Christian beliefs against people who practice Polygamy. This is the same reason we got away from Britain, for FREEDOM. This country in founded on Freedom and as I said before, with freedom comes freedom of choice, whether it be picking out what color shirt you want to wear or same many wives you take. Who are you to tell what people do and don't do if it doesn't affect you? <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Homos that rape underage girls should not face prosecution because I thank my opponent for this very interesting debate on a controversial scenario. After reading through my opponent's arguments a few times, I found what I thought was the resolution which was: Resolution: Homos [Floresienses] who rape underage girls should not stand trial because they cannot be held liable for their actions, nor are they be capable of defending themselves, in the same way as modern humans are, and therefore, any trial would be unfair. My opponent gives three reasons to support the resolution. Here are my rebuttals: 1) Cannot be held liable for their actions My opponent does not give any reason why Homo Floros cannot be held liable for their actions. Raping a member of any species is wrong and the offender must be held liable by the species which the offender raped. If any species rapes a human, then they must face the human justice system. In the late 1300s, a bull was convicted for killing a five year old boy [1]. A French donkey was accused of savagely attacking a farmer, but was acquited when the farmer testified that the donkey was usually gentle [1]. When a pig killed an infant child by eating its arm and face, it was locked up with human defendents, convicted, and had its own arm and face cut off as a punishment [1]. I assume that it was later turned into a sausage and eaten. If pigs, bulls, and donkeys are held responsible for their actions by humans, so too should the Homo Floro. All animals have their own justice system. Bears don't usually attack humans but when a bear cub is taken, mama bear will bite [4]. Humans must protect themselves the same way. Homo Floros must be treated with respect, but when a Homo Floro rapes a human, humans must put that rapist in jail. 2) Not capable of defending themselves This is not accurate as Homo Floros are perfectly capable of defending themselves. They were advanced people who used fire for cooking [5]. They could certainly use fire in war. They also manufacturing sophisticated stone tools and hunted pygmy elephants [5]. Either way, their ability to defend themselves must not outweigh the fact that they committed an act of violence upon a Homo Sapiens. Homo Sapiens therefore must adequately dispense justice. 3) They might have intercourse with a young girl thinking that she was a sexually mature female Homo Floresiences This is extremely unlikely. Source [2] shows a female Homo Floro while source [3] shows a human girl. Upon opening both sources side by side, it can be seen that the two females look nothing like each other. The only similarity is their size. More specifically, the human girl is clothed and far less hairy than the female Homo Floro. The two also have hair on different parts of their body. While the Homo Floro has hair on her face and upper arms, the human girl only has hair on top of her head. These are few of the many differences. The only similarity is the size. I ask my opponent: Do male monkeys mistake human girls for monkeys and attempt to have sexual intercourse with them despite being the same size? To answer Con's contention, I would like to ask the voters to open sources [2] and [3] and see if it is more likely than not that the voter would mistake one for the other. Sources [1] http://socyberty.com... [2] http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com... [3] http://www.ayushveda.com... [4] http://tvtropes.org... [5] http://news.nationalgeographic.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Llama would win against a coyote in a fight. because I will begin my argument with my opponent's point that lamas would trample a coyote. However, due to the power and ferocity of the mandibles and speed of a coyote a lama would lose. For example, say a lama was charged buy a coyote. As all animals do it has a fight or flight instinct. Assuming it would fight, (my argument would be pointless if he ran) it is true it would probably try to trample the coyote. However, if the coyote could bite or wound even one of the lama's skinny legs it would limp and would not be able to walk. Then the coyote could use it's powerful jaws to attack the underside of the lama and spill its intestines all over the ground. Back to my opponent. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Three Philosophical Topics - 1C because Ah, even if you make an argument I don't mind. Free will does not imply you can't make decisions. As I stated before, you can have freedom of action without freedom of will. So your example of suicide can simply be rationalized from the incompatibilist in the same framework - those who suicide probably do so from a chain of painful experiences or circumstances. Whatever the reason may be, suicide is no different from any other activity that involves intentionality. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Richard Dawkins because "I claim that Atheist Richard Dawkins is a religious fundamentalist.Now ,we all know about christian and islamic fundamentalists.We see the havoc which they continue to spread daily.But what about Atheism?It is my arguement that this too is a fundamentalist religion which meets all the required criteria,especially as preached by Mr.dawkins.Leave aside Darwinism.Let us for the sake of arguement accept that Darwins theory is irrefutable scientific fact(which is what i believe).what Dawkins claims is that Darwinism proves absolutely that god does not exist!WHAT?HOW?This is clearly a religious statement,in that it requires a leap of faith and is not backed by any proof WHATSOEVER.Another aspect of fundamentalim is a stubborn ignorance regarding other religions.Dawkins is incredibly dismissive of ALL religions except his own.When he argues,he assumes that all christians believe in a corporeal God sitting on a cloud somewhere.But that is another arguement."Fundamentalism refers to a belief in,and strict adherance to a set of basic principles".....Namely that 1:There absolutely is no God.2:Darwins theory is proof of this.3:Whoever does not accept this is stupid or mentally ill.4.You cannot be a TRUE DARWINIST if you believe in or are open to the possibility of an intelligence beyond the realm of our own subjective experience.SCIENCE IS THOU GOD,THOU SHALT HAVE NO GOD BUT SCIENCE.Richard Dawkins.True believer." I will again define 'Religious Fundamentalist': "For religious fundamentalists, sacred scripture is considered the authentic and authoritative word of their religion's god or gods. This does not necessarily require that all portions of scripture be interpreted literally rather than allegorically or metaphorically - for example, see the distinction in Christian thought between Biblical infallibility, Biblical inerrancy and Biblical literalism. Fundamentalist beliefs depend on the twin doctrines that their god or gods articulated their will clearly to prophets, and that followers also have an accurate and reliable record of that revelation." SOURCE: [1] This definition makes it quite clear that a religious fundamentalist: a) believes in a god or gods b) takes scripture regarding that god as that god's word Your own post admits that Dawkins is an atheist, meaning he believes in no gods. Hence, he can't be a religious fundamentalist. You can call Richard Dawkins ignorant, over-zealous, over-certain, delusional, or anything else you wish to throw at him. Frankly, I don't like the man myself. But if there is one thing he is not, it is a religious fundamentalist. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Resolved: Military Conscription is unjust because Admittedly, though my arguments are not the best arguments in the world, you ought to extend them and vote in my favor. Thanks judges and Pricetag, please make a response. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against home work should be banned because Reason why homework shouldn't banned is that it helps you learn some stuff. Don't you want to become a doctor or a pilot? If you don't have homework, and play 24/7 or so called play all day, you might become a hobo or even homeless when you grow up. Homework also helps you improve your life. How?? Well here is some reasons: 1) Teaches about nature (science) 2) Learn from other peoples mistakes instead of doing it over again 3) Calculate easily when shopping (reccommended for girls :p) 4) Not become a hobo 5) Get married happily (some people dont want to get married :p) Also homework doesn't take like 5 hours. Normal school periods are about 5 and homeworks are 5 different types. They should be done within 2 1/2 hours. Without homework you wouldn't become smart, or if you are already smart you will become dumber, you will not know how to heal yourself (science), you will not know why you died, you will not know what the price with the tax is (mathematics), you will not know why moon fell onto earth (that might happen someday), you will not know when the heck is your birthday which is really embarassing. I thank my opponent for following the directions. As I have said earlier, if one of the debaters forfeit, the round is cancelled if it is a good reason. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against We would all be safer if everyone of sound mind was armed because My opponent appears to have forgotten his own resolution. "We would all be safer if everyone of sound mind was armed". What this means is that he believes, that a society in which every adult( I'm assuming adult. He didn't specify but semantics aren't really my thing) is legally allowed to carry a concealed weapon on them at all times would be a safer society. I am not arguing against the right to carry a gun. I myself have two. I just don't believe a fully armed society is better for anyone. My opponent has not addressed any of my points so extend my argument into the next round. My opponent did not post the source of his information, but nevertheless I've found it. http://gunowners.org... Let the record show that I do NOT argue against most of his facts as they make my case for me. Our current stance on gun control is working. Like I stated before 10% of violent crimes don't involve guns. My opponent thinks the world operates like Grand Theft Auto and every criminal has a gun. The truth is 90% of them can't afford it. But see if you're arming everyone, that number goes through the roof. Even if you make the case to say that ex-cons won't be issued firearms, every murderer has a first kill. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against ayy lmaos because Vote Con! <EOA>

<BOA> I am with DDO OT Final: US hegemony is desirable. because I'll respond to my opponents case. General critiques My opponent fails to offer up any real world alternative to US hegemony. This forces us to entirely disregard her case. I'm not trying to be cheap and get a free win, but it's literally impossible to weigh the desirability of US hegemony without a competing alternative. Saying "the US is bad" isnt enough to negate if all the other alternatives are even worse. Indeed, Cons arguments almost entirely lack explanatory analysis,it seems as if she basically just copy/pasted a bunch of "heg bad" cards without explaining how this negates the resolution and offers no over-arching view of foreign policy/relations. Note also that her arguments make no response to economic and cultural hegemony, only military aspects, and few if any of her impacts are outside of the US. Presume neg Con makes an abusive and unfair argument, apparently hoping the debate will boil down to the word "desirable". She argues that since I havent shown over 50% of the world wants US hegemony it isnt desirable, but the problem is that: A. She agreed to not make the debate about semantics B. The opening round which she accepted said that desirability is to be weighed by real world implications, so we have to look at the effect the US has on the world. C. Even if she was rght, finding a stat on this would be difficult. Still, the approval of US leadership is within the margin of error to meet her ridiculous burden[1], and tops by nearly double digits any other major power. Her entire analysis is useless and counter-intuitive to the purpose of the debate, hopefully this issue can be put to bed and we can debate the topic instead of what desirable means. Economy I have multiple responses. First, TURN: US hegemony aids the spread of free trade, aiding the global economy. Second, wars being expensive isnt an argument unless it's compared to some kind of alternative (like the economic effects of not going to war/having no hegemon). Even the poorly managed fiscal nightmares of Iraq and Afghanistan under the two most fiscally irresponsible presidents ever (Bush II and Obama) failed to crash the economy. Defense spending constitutes only 19% of the federal budget[2] and is easily outweighed by entitlement spending in costs. Third, this is an argument against the manner some wars are conducted, not US hegemony as a whole. We can see from examples such as the Persian gulf war that hegemonic war doesnt have to be very financially strenuous. Fourth, this is a US specific impact, what's the impact this has on everyone else? Fifth, Con doesnt quantify into real world terms how much the effects on the economy are. How are we to weigh her argument if we dont know what the true costs are? Sixth, there's no warrant on this being specifically a problem with US hegemony. Con doesnt explain how negative effects on economies from war spending wont happen if another country gets hegemony/in a state of multipolarity. Seventh, TURN: Her Eland card specifically says: "During wartime, governments usually commandeer resources from the private sector into the government realm to fund the fighting. This action leaves shortages of resources to make consumer goods and their components, therefore pushing prices up ." However, the government commandeering of resources is the worst in a state of total war, when virtually every available resource is taken up for the war effort[3](note the huge spikes during the two world wars), yet total wars only occur during periods of multipolarity thus affirming that US hegemony is good. Military spending as a proportion of the GDP has actually declined since the Soviet Union collapsed and the US gained total hegemony. Eighth, this is an argument against fed policy and poorly managed resources, not hegemony. Robert Hetzel, a senior economist at Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond explains[4] that the recession only turned very bad when the fed started intervening in the economy, specifically after the housing bubble and then proceeded to do nothing, making the recession bad. Indeed her only evidence doesnt establish a casual relationship between war and bad fed policies, it names a single data point. Moreover this doesnt at all outweigh, and other nations have central banks that screwed up during the recession[4] so the problem isnt unique to the US. Ninth, TURN: The US often creates allies who become economic powerhouses when it intervenes. The positive economic effects of US trade with South Korea, West Germany, and Japan are incalcuable. Compare this to countries the US let slip from its hegemony, hermit North Korea, East Germany, China which has only recently opened up to the US, and the Eastern bloc. It's pretty obvious which countries contributed more to the world economy when they werent under US hegemony (note that China only became an economic powerhouse when it left Soviet hegemony). Blowback First, Con asserts that other states are going to ally against the US because they hate it. This is an incredibly simplistic view of foreign relations. First look the to fact that most people prefer to US to the alternatives and second that the US has been the only superpower for over 20 years with no coalition of nations forming against it. The fact is that the US is a benevolent power on the world stage, and most nations recognize this. Secondly TURN: She argues: "t he history of modern international politics is strewn with the geopolitical wreckage of states that bid unsuccesfully for primacy", thus we should prefer the status quo of US primacy since it avoids the inevitable power struggle. The US already has primacy. Moreover, most her examples arent examples of unipolar systems but rather multi or bipolar situations. The Hapsburg empire was rivaled by France and the Ottoman empire, France was rivaled by England and Prussia, TURN: Victorian Englands hegemony was a period of peace until it lost its hegemony to Germany and Austria, casuing WWI, and the Third Reich was challenged by the Russians, Britian, and the US. Third, her blowback impact isnt unique to the US and she doesnt try to weigh it. What is the negative effect over all of blowback? Moreover, you can turn this argument against her since US culture tends to be less dominating and supremacistic than ther cultures, minimizing blowback that would occur. Blowback is almost certain to occur during any war/occupation, Con must show why this blowback is particuarly worse against the US. Fourth, Con has no warrant on US hegemony escalating/causing conflicts, her evidence literally just asserts it. If this is true, she has to explain the lack of major wars during the decades of unrivaled US hegemony. I dont understand what shes arguing here, saying that Europe doesnt need US help and Asia has good defensive terrain has nothing to do with US hegemony. Fifth, this is really easily outweighed by collapse into multipolarity. Even if you buy this argument, the resolution isnt "US hegemony is perfect", we just have to weigh the Pro's and Con's of each side. Sixth, this entire argument is cherry picking. Rather than assess the actual effects of US policies, Con gives specific examples of terrorism but the problem is that she doesnt say how this could be solved so we have no way of evaluating whether or not this impact is a necessary evil or not. Seventh, its unlikely that terrorism is the result of US intervention. Osama Bin Laden wasnt foolish enough to think that the US would not intervene more in the middle east after being attacked. TURN: Greater US hegemony over the middle east has led to the extermination of most al queda leaders and greater intelligence helping it prevent more terrorism. The resolution is clearly affirmed. Sources: http://www.debate.org... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against The US should authorize the construction of the Keystone XL crude oil pipeline. because THESIS: The potential risks of proceeding with Phase4 of the XL Keystone Pipeline outweigh the potential benefits. The KEYSTONE PIPELINE SYSTEM is a pipeline system to transport synthetic crude oil from the oil sands of Alberta, Canada, to refineries in the Gulf Coast of Texas. Two phases of the project are in operation, a third, from Oklahoma to the Texas Gulf coast, is under construction, and the fourth is awaiting U.S. government approval as of September 2013. [1] OIL SANDS are loose sand or partially consolidated sandstone containing naturally occurring mixtures of sand, clay, and water, saturated with a dense and extremely viscous form of petroleum technically referred to as bitumen. [2] Local Risk Alberta Let's begin our evaluation of the risk associated with the completion of the XL Pipeline in Alberta, Canada. Here, the plan is to extract petroleum from 3 major fields representing the second largest reserve of fossil fuels after Saudi Arabia. The difference between the relatively liquid oil under the Arabian Peninsula and the cold molasses under Alberta is that these fossil fuels can't simply be pumped out. There are a wide variety of methods for extracting bitumen with varying degrees of effectiveness. Generally, the most effective methods require the largest input of steam, oil, and caustic chemicals. In all cases, the top soil must be removed taking the wetlands and boreal forests off in the process. In Alberta's case, the size of the virgin boreal forest destined for removal is the size of New York State [3], necessarily destroying significant portions of Canada's remaining bear, moose, beaver, wolf, and eagle populations alongside hundreds of lesser known species. Boreal forests by their nature contain the world's largest percentage of wetlands, and Canada's boreal wetlands are visited by nearly half of bird species of North America. Current oil sands operations in Alberta use about twice the annual volume of its largest city Calgary, an amount that will increase significantly as production progresses. In spite of recycling efforts, almost all of this oil and acid and arsenic tainted water ends up in tailings ponds. Currently, these lifeless toxic pools cover only about 20 square miles of Alberta but many such ponds will be necessary to support increased production. Mass deaths among flocks of birds who land on or near these pools has been recorded since the 1970's. Last April, a flock of 500 mallards were observed landing on one pond and dying days. [4] "Wildlife is becoming tainted by toxins: fish and game animals are appearing covered with tumours and mutations. Fish frying in a pan smell like burning plastic. One study by a tar sands company concluded that some moose meat from the region contains as much as 453 times the acceptable level of arsenic. The Alberta government responded with an assessment that reported arsenic levels to be “only” 17 to 33 times greater than acceptable levels. Arsenic is a potent cancer-causing substance, and the estimates in both reports were well beyond the acceptable rate of additional cancers of 1 per 100,000 people." [5] Mid-West Beyond environmental calamity in Alberta, there are important risks associated with any pipeline transportation. Wikipedia lists more that 280 major pipeline incidents in the US since the year 2000. [6] The 2013 Mayflower rupture is a good example. Here, an ExxonMobil pipeline carrying heavy crude from the Athabasca oil sands developed a 22 foot rupture that inundated 22 houses and a popular fishing lake in Arkansas. Although, Exxon denies any long term environmental harm citing tests of surface water in Lake Conway, an independent analysis dredged the bottom of the lake and "Among the chemicals detected in the sample of the tar sands oil from the March 29, 2013 rupture of an ExxonMobil pipeline in Mayflower, Ark., were: benzene, a known human carcinogen; xylene, which can harm the nervous system; chromium, which can cause cancer and birth defects; and lead, which can cause serious and permanent damage to the developing nervous system. Other chemicals found by laboratory researchers were: Toluene (birth defects), Ethylbenzene (carcinigen), and 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene (respiratory irritant). Because of industry trade secrets, EWG was able to test for only a limited number of potential contaminants in the crude oil sample from Mayflower. [7] The cause for the rupture has not yet been determined. Exxon is, of course, battling the residents in court. [8] Although the original route of the pipeline through Nebraska's famous Sand Hill Crane rookeries has been relocated, the pipeline will still transport heavy crude over the Ogallala Aquifer, the underground water reserve that irrigates much of the agriculture West of the Mississippi and provides drinking water to at least 2 million people. Although the pipeline's owner TransCanada predicts only one pipeline rupture every 7 years, the existing portions of the Keystone Pipeline experienced 12 ruptures in the past year alone. [9] Portions of the route are seismically active and in one place experienced a 4.3 magnitude earthquake in 2002. [10] In spite of these concerns, TransCanada has applied to the US Government for permission to use thinner steel and pump at higher pressures than U government standard. [11] Texas There is also an increased risk at the refineries in Texas. Processing bitumen is 12-15% dirtier than lighter oil, so increasing the amount of crude production increases the health risks to the people living near the refineries of Texas and Louisiana. Aside from the real dangers of explosions and fires and the terrible smells, increased respiratory problems and cancer rates are strongly correlated to living near a refinery, an important reason why no new refineries have been built in the US over the past 35 years and an important reason Canadians would prefer not to build their own new refinery to process tar sands. Which brings us to some political considerations. National Risk There are some significant political considerations surrounding the XL pipeline. Chief among them is this: since the oil sand extracted in Canada is primarily intended for Asian customers, why should the US absorb such a substantial portion of the risk? We can understand why Canada would prefer not despoil her mountains with pipelines and her coasts with refineries without necessarily feeling any compulsion to save Canada those costs. TransCanada had 34 eminent actions against landowners in Texas and 22 in South Dakota. That is, unless US citizens agree to TransCanada's terms for pumping oil across their lands, the US Government will confiscate their land on behalf of a foreign interest. [12] Such confiscations hardly seem possible until we evaluate the millions of dollars TransCanada has been contributing to (mostly pro-oil Republican) politicians over the past few years. TransCanada has made some exaggerated claims about the number of jobs the pipeline might produce, but almost all the jobs are short term, low-wage construction jobs. Few new jobs will be required at the refineries and the extraction jobs are all in Canada. Worse, the new pipeline will raise oil prices in the agriculture heavy mid-West. "KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel. These additional costs (estimated to total $2–4 billion) will suppress other spending and will therefore cost jobs." [13] Most of the advantages of XL are exclusive to Big Oil and Canadian citizens, while US citizens absorb significant disadvantages. The Keystone pipeline is generally bad for America. Global Risk Scientists have documented that the the global surface temperature rose by 0.74 ± 0.18 °C over the last 100 years. [14] " Alberta's oil sands represent a significant tonnage of carbon... The amount of CO2 locked up in Alberta tar sands is enormous, if we burn all the tar sand oil, the temperature rise, just from burning that tar sand, will be half of what we've already seen"—an estimated additional nearly 0.4 degree C from Alberta alone." [15] In an era when scientists are cautioning industry to find ways to substantially decrease carbon emissions, can we really afford to rely on any solution that adds another 50% increase? Nor does Scientific American's analysis take into account the loss of trees and wetlands. Biologists like to describe the world's forests and wetlands and the "lungs of the Earth." So even as we are clogging those lungs with carbon emissions, can we afford another puncture wound the size of the state of New York? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4 http://www.naturecanada.ca... [5] http://www.greenpeace.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://www.ewg.org... [8] http://en.wikipedia.org... [9] http://tarsandsaction.org... [10] http://thetyee.ca... [11] http://thetyee.ca... [12] http://www.nytimes.com... [13] http://www.ilr.cornell.edu... [14] http://en.wikipedia.org... [15] http://www.scientificamerican.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against If war is murder, than it should be legal for anyone to murder anyone. because I thank my opponent for the timely response. ================================ Argument: For the first few sentences of my first argument, I explained how war is sometimes bad. My opponent responded with a series of questions and answers such as: "Which makes it right?" "It's always been that way so it must be okay?" "Shows how its wrong." To all of her questions, the answer is no. I was simply pointing out the facts that war has its cons. However, simply because war has cons does not mean that it does not have pros. That could be said about pretty much anything, drug legalization, gay marriage, health-care, ect… This part of my debate is of course not me arguing my case, rather, stating an obvious fact that should be said. My opponent has admitted that defensive war can be good, what my opponent probably does not know is that most wars are defensive wars! Most of the time, there is an attacker and a defender. Let us take the Al Qaeda for example. The United States of America is looking to hunt them down for what they have done (blown up buildings, killed many Americans.) The Al Qaeda is fighting the United States back with through war. Whatever position you take on this, one part of the war is as you say "righteous." Now, I on the other hand do not take your point of view on the matter. I would rather the United States kill the terrorists instead of the terrorists killing the Americans, but my thoughts are not needed. What I am saying here is that we cannot know all the facts to every war, there are even some defensive wars that are bad. Who decides whose land is who? Many people say that it was wrong to take the Indian's land, but they took that land from another Indian tribe, and so on. You seem to be getting revenge confused with justice. Justice means to receive punishment for one's misdeeds. Revenge is to retaliate to gain satisfaction. Punishment is necessary, or people will continue to do it. There are different punishments for different causes. If I steal a cookie, I will get a slap on the wrist, if organize a plan to attack a building with air planes, I die. You say that we should try doing things to punish countries instead of having war with them. The best way I have heard it put is this, violence is the only language that is understood by everyone. Picture if you will, someone breaking into your house, armed to the teeth and determined on killing you. He will not stop to listen to your reason and so for you the only way for you to make it out of that alive is to grab the shotgun from under the bed and kill him before he kills you. Wars are similar, just on a larger scale. You cannot simply say 'we should talk things over.' If that were the case, there would have been Six million more Jews in the world. Do you think Nazi Germany wanted to sit down and 'talk?' Same with your response to my North Korean war scenario, North Korea does not want to talk. Many have tried, but they refuse. As stated before, humanity is not perfect. We could not get the whole world to agree to punish one nation by not trading with it, it would take away from so much freedom. There would have to be someone in charge of it all, to make sure the nations are doing what they are supposed to be doing. Moreover, what if the countries don't listen? Then should the Nation in charge ban trading from them too, until all the nations are blocked? What about the people being blocked from trading? Their people would suffer with not enough food, the rich would have all of it. If the rich get sick of it, then they start a war. Obviously this idea of yours would not work. We have something similar to it (sanctions) but it rarely works. As predicted, you get into Semantics with the Trolley scenario. Obviously, the fat guy is not going to sit down and have a chat with you. If someone was running towards you and trying to push you onto the tracks, you would run for your life. However, it would still be moral and just to throw you into the tracks. You respond to my British to American example by saying what you would do if you were Britain. However, the point is, you were not! You were not Britain, you were not the colonies, you are lovelife, a girl with different views than Britain had. Maybe if the colonies saw that England was willing to let go of the Americas, they would not have fought. But it was obvious this was not the case. Both sides of this war were righteous, we cannot look at Britain and think bad of them. Of course they were not going to simply give up. If the state of Montana wanted to separate from the United States, of course the USA would fight back. The war with Britain was not a 'dirty trick' as you describe it. It was the only way that either of them would listen. The northern states tried talking with the southern states before the beginning of the Civil war, but the south would not listen. Do you think it would have been better to let the south break away from the north, and even keep slaves? For my Canadian example, you say how it would be right for Canada to fight back against the USA, therefore engaging in war. Even though you say that they could not crash planes in the US, nuke the US, or in any way attack someone that is not a US soldier or leader, it is still war. And a righteous one at that. I asked you a question about World War Two, you ignored it and skipped to Hiroshima. Maybe you believe Hiroshima was wrong, but that is not the point. The USA still had no choice than to enter the war. Do you honestly think the Japanese would sit down to 'talk?' Getting into the war and Hiroshima are two different subjects. But Hiroshima is a good example of what 'talking' does. The United States sent a message to Japan and said that they would bomb them with something huge if they did not surrender, Japan did not respond. The USA dropped the bomb, then sent another message warning that if they did not surrender, it would happen again, still no reply. So they dropped a second bomb, Japan finally got the message and surrendered. Again, this is not about Hiroshima. This debate is not even about the methods of war, it is about war itself. Now, you say that if you support the troops, if you support the war, you support murder. If this is the case then you indeed support murder. You yourself said that some wars are righteous. Your whole murder and war argument is extremely flawed. Remember, justice and revenge and two different things. We have already established that some wars are for justice and not revenge. But taking the law into your own personal hands is very different. There is a organization higher than us which is called the Justice System. The system is run by the government to insure Justice, not revenge. You say that If someone supports fighting for these causes, with innocent people being bombed, raped, attacked, orphaned, abused, tortured, just for living in the wrong place, or believing the wrong thing, it should also be acceptable by their standards, to support it on a much smaller scale. Again, war is not the things you listed. War is when soldiers attack soldiers. You continue to use the methods of war instead of concentrating on what war actually is. You keep taking the worst-case scenario, which of course is not a good example. I could say that swimming is bad because you are stung by jellyfish, eaten by huge sharks, and sunburned, this does not help my case, because that is not what swimming is. Your examples of why murder is right if war is right is way off. If we went around and took the law into our own hands, we would be doing it for revenge, not justice. Wars, although can be for revenge, can be for justice. I look forward to your response. Sources: (1). http://www.globalsecurity.org... (2). http://dictionary.reference.com... (3). http://dictionary.reference.com... (4). http://www.cfo.doe.gov... <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Resolved: China is, or will have reached superpower status in the near future. because Round One will only be acceptance. Round 2 will start with debate and rebuttals. Thank you very much. The burden of proof lies on myself to prove that China either is currently, or will become a superpower in the next 5-15 years. On the other hand, my opponent must prove that China is not, or will not become a superpower in the next 5-16 years. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against No one wins because Again, My opponent has forfeited his last round, so all of my arguments extend forward. I hope my opponent decides to post something for his final round. Thank you to my opponent and to the audience. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Prove that I, MeAmDumb, am smart. because I would forfeit this round in order to keep the forfeits equal, but then again, I need to conclude my arguments. You can extend every single one of my arguments here, and note that my opponent did not refute any of them. He may not have known what I meant, and claimed he is not smart, but in my four arguments I have proved otherwise. Even if he is not knowledgeable of my arguments, he is proved to be logical of: 1. Grammar 2. Spelling and Vocabulary 3. Computer use 4. Adjustment over time Because of this, I urge a vote for Con. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against I will not win this debate. because My opponent cannot vote. That only helps me. Now my opponent has an evil plot to make me win permanently. For one thing, this would take a whole lot of money, which I doubt my opponent would be willing to pay for a thing as trivial as a debate. For another, why would having a bunch of voters making me win immediately and permanently make me lose? As long as I am winning voting-wise, I am winning, and once my opponent is winning voting-wise, the resolution becomes negated forevermore, and I win. In conclusion, I'm going to vote PRO, then CON, so you guys follow suit by voting CON! <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Does evil exist because I will acknowledge the argument made against my original thought. Let us explore the psychopath, and the idea of the opposites. I will have to use another historical example, this one closer to home and more recent, and one who is widely considered to be a psychopath. Charles Manson. Charles Manson is currently serving life in prison, though he did not kill any one, and denies that he had any involvement in any person's death. That is beside the point. He attempted to ignite a racial war between the blacks and the whites because he believed it would leave the world in a better state than the one it was currently in. Most people disagree with his views, and that is mainly because they do not read up on him. A lot of the Charles Manson philosophy does make sense. Not all of it, but he did hit the nail on the head with a lot of the the things he believes. He was wrong for the things he did, and he was wrong for trying to ignite a racial war. Because of these things, most of the world sees him as an evil villain with bad intentions while the rest of us are good heroes with good intentions. Manson's intentions were not bad. He thought that a racial war would leave behind a better world and future for our children. He believed that he was doing the right thing. He also knew that no one agreed with him. In his eyes, he was the hero with good intentions while the rest of the world were the evil villains with bad intentions. There are the opposites, but from two different points of view. Now Manson had good intentions, but his method was bad. The judge that sentenced him also had good intentions, but his method was also bad. Any person who has good intentions but a bad method cannot be classified as evil. It is wrong to do so. It is the equivalent to the employee in the store who was trying to help you find the hot dogs, but led you to the underwear isle instead. His intentions were good, but used a bad method. That employee is not evil. He only made a mistake. Manson knew what he was doing, so I do not claim that he made a mistake. Psychopaths, assassins, and even the men who destroyed the World Trade Center, believed they were doing the world good. That doesn't make them evil. Just wrong in their methods. Depending on what my fellow debater argues in the next round, I will be tackling the idea of those who do have bad intentions, but why they are still not evil. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Birdman is clearly inferior to Rob1billion because The purpose of this debate is to haze this newcomer. I consider him my intellectual inferior, and will provide evidence to support this. Here is why I am better than Birdman: Contention 1: Birdman is is well-behind in his organic chemistry studies, and will most likely fail the class (or pass with a mediocre grade). This is because he is too busy eating sushi at Little Tokyo all the time and is not smart enough to realize he should be studying. I, on the other hand, take my classes somewhat seriously, most of the time. Contention 2: Birdman cannot beat me, most of the time, in tennis matches. The only reason he took me in 3 straight basketball games yesterday was because I clearly wasn't feeling well, and had a sore throat. Also, he showed up 45 minutes later than he said he would in an evil attempt to make me use the little energy I had before he got there. Contention 3: Birdman's guitar skills are sub-par. Can he even pull off a C-chord without having to squint his eyes at the instrument and fumble around with it for several seconds before sounding out the chord? I doubt it. Contention 4: listen to him sing: now listen to mine: <EOA>

<BOA> I am against muslims have no contribution towards the progress of human civilisation because My opponent has merely re-iterated that sharia forbades science. Back in round3 I said: Kindly post in a format like this: Double concentric siphon- <insert violated principle here> - <insert relevant text from Koran> -<insert source here> My opponent has failed to provide relevant text from the Koran(or other relevant source) to back up his claim. It is therefore impossible for us to evaluate the merit of his claim("sharia forbade science"). My opponent had stated various forms of unlawful knowledge in round 3, the double concentric siphon(or the other examples provided)does not fall into any of the types of unlawful knowledge provided by my opponent, the reader is encouraged to verify the same. In conclusion: 1.I showed the contribution of muslims. 2.I showed that the banu musa(islamic scholars) worked under the 3rd Islamic Caliphate who is known as the one of the "rightly guided successor" . 3.My opponent failed to provide a violation of Islamic law in the given examples. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against My opponent will try to win this debate because ROUTE 1) PRO has failed to actually confirm that I've 'tried tp win. To try implies action, and as stated in the first, I've most certainly went about this by lacking action (in not advancing my position, which PRO doesn't seem to dispute, hence accepts). ROUTE 2) VIDEO. Based on # 1, I dare say that I have not tried to win this debate, hence the resolution is false. Based on # 2, PRO has failed to uphold his stance. Thanks for the debate. :D <EOA>

<BOA> I am with If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, it makes a sound. because Thanks and buena suerte to you too! :) I will begin with a few points to clear up our debate topic. Forest: a large densely wooded area Tree: A woody perennial plant having a single, usually elongated main stem or trunk with few or no branches on its lower part. Vacuum: a region that is devoid of matter I will now go on to my points. I. Sound is Always Created: ~The tree, while hitting the ground, will create vibrations. These vibrations will cause sound to be created. Period. There is always sound produced when a tree falls, due to physics. Any scientist will tell you this. II. Detection of Sound and Creation of Sound are Different: ~Detecting a sound means that somebody heard/hears it. The creation is just the vibrations made. Vibrations will always be made. That is proven and a fact. The detection of a sound can be limited in numerous ways: being deaf, physical blocks that keep the sound from reaching you, or just simply not being there to hear the sound. Now, you must not only refute my points, but also tell me why sound is not created. Thanks so much! :D <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Illuminati Existance Debate because My opponent was so fervently opposed to the idea that the Illuminati exists, yet he could come up with no counter-argument. All arguments exended. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against More underage clubs because Thank you for providing your first source. If you look at the source, you'll find that "Activities at underage clubs were attracting the attention of the public and a club called The Monastery was particularly notorious for allegations of sexual abuse, child prostitution, and drug and alcohol use." None of the arguments of Con have been refuted. All of the arguments of Pro have been refuted. Please vote Con. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Hillary Clinton Will Make A Bad President because I'll just refute. 1. Wealth distribution will not destroy the economy, it will just even out personal financial gains a tiny amount. Furthermore, to abolish capitol ggains she would need to have a bill passed through the appropriate govering bodies. It is unlikely that it will pass. Furthermore, if people know that she willl be elected they will begin adjusting their stocks accordingly well before the actaul abolishment takes place, so there will be no one single crash. Furthermore, there are many people who will not leave the market, such as hedge funds etc, so the market will not completely crash. In addition, many stocks are so steady they would probably not be affected, for example Berkshire Hathaway. Another point you are missing is foreign investors. When the capital gains tax does not apply to them, they will likely stay in the market and help to keep it stable. Finally, thereis a good chance that the market could easily recover from such a crash, as buying surges when stock prices go down. 2. Having health care, even if it is not fantastic, is still better than having none at all, as do many uninsured americans. 3. Making policy based on polls and public image is the purest example of democracy. A president who bases their policies on what the people want is a very good president indeed. 4. She has managed a health care initiative of 500+, and she was a close adviser to Bill Clinton, who was a president and as such had the staff and a beauracracy of one. So she definitely has experience. Furthermore, her style of governing very much relies on advisers and helpers, meaning a "lack of experience" (Which I dont think exists), is no issue. 5. If she is elected president she will not in fact be divisive, she will have won by a majority. Furthermore, noe of the other candidates, Democrats or Republicans, have as large a percentage of voters supporting them as Hillary does. So therefore she is the least divisive. Furthermore, you give no examples of when she has pit groups against eachother for political gain. As a final note, it is unfair to say that everything Bill Clinton did was also done by her. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against The Law of Parsimony Supports the Existence of Intelligent Extraterrestrials because Pro calls upon the Law of Parsimony to prove his case. If the Law of Parsimony is not a general law, but only applies in limited circumstances, then it does not support Pro's case. I gave reasons why Parsimony is at best suggestive, and only applies to similarly formed theories. Pro gave no rebuttal, only saying "We are not debating parsimony itself." If Pro uses it, I claim it's validity can be challenged. Would the universe be simpler with or without Tasmanian devils? With or without unicorns? Tasmanian devils do exist, and unicorns do not exist, but neither outcome depends upon parsimony. They are questions of fact. The answers of question of fact may be posed as probabilities conditioned on evidence, but that does not relate to Parsimony either. Parsimony applies when there are more or fewer variables in the explanation. A universe with or without extraterrestrials is no more simple or complex than if Tasmanian devils or unicorns are present or absent. A newspaper in New York City published an interview with a woman who witnessed a UFO hover over her back yard, do many amazing things, then take off with astounding speed. A report sent to investigate when he went to the local airport in Rhinebeck and found the restaurant was serving "UFO burgers." He later discovered that antique airplane enthusiasts were draping their biplanes with Christmas lights and flying in formation. Eyewitness reports are notoriously unreliable, especially when it comes to lights in the sky. There are very few observers trained to sort out what they are seeing in night events. The only eyewitness account Pro cites is from a pseudoscientific "research team" whose goal in life is prove that crop circles are made by ETs. That is not a credible source. It is like a spiritualist testifying that he saw a ghost. What is required is an impartial trained observer who is unlikely to be hallucinating, perpetuating a hoax, or easily tricked. I explained exactly how to create crop circle patterns of virtually any geometric complexity. Since there are mechanisms for creating lines, circles, measured angles, and measured distances in crop circles, Pro could counter my argument by showing a figure that could not be created with these elements. Note that two stakes and a wire loop can be used to generate ellipses, and there are simple mechanisms for other geometric elements. It does not require a genius to figure out how to form the patterns. Simple geometry overlays to make complex patterns. "Crop Circles can easily be used to help teach geometric symmetry to children K-12 because most Crop Circles seem to be created using combinations of basic mathematical symbols" http://www.papercropcircles.com... The top video shows how complex crop circle patterns are derived from the simple geometric elements. The geometry is shown in faint red lines after each crop circle. Note that there is complex pattern from Wiltshire, the site of the original hoaxers. Are we to believe that aliens are fond of Wiltshire as well? Note also the appearance of an image of movie-stereotyped ET in one of the patterns. The second video is an example of a complex crop circle being created by humans. That it is done by humans is revealed at the end. Students are documented creating a crop circle in four hours. http://web.mit.edu... The students had no prior experience in the art, so they are at the level of Doug and Dave starting out. Over time they could be expected to create more complex patterns, and to create them much more quickly. Why has the complexity of crop circles increased over the years? One possibility is that hoaxers have increased their skills. The other possibility is that aliens could travel from another planet, but could not figure out how to make complex patterns from the beginning, only figuring it out slowly over time. Which explanation is simpler? Why would aliens travel from another planet to flatten wheat fields rather than communicate conventionally? Pro claims, "They communicate through channelers, they communicate through writing on the internet, and they communicate directly on video." (I'm interested in the video. Is it on YouTube?) But they do not communicate by any means that could not be performed by a person perpetuating a hoax. They are not interviewed on the evening news, nor do they go to shopping malls. They travel from distant planets, but do not know how to communicate in any conventional way. Moreover, Pro supposes they want to communicate, but cannot master English or figure out television appearances. This does not make sense. Interplanetary travel implies technology that could also master communication. A stock market god or a hurricane god does not require anything close to omnipotence or omniscience. Their domains are extremely limited. One could alternately suppose that extraterrestrials actually control the stock market and hurricanes, and once you believe in extraterrestrials, the powers they would need are readily conceivable. More easily conceived than traveling faster than light. Pro argues that the stock market and hurricanes clearly have explanations within the realm of science, but that we just don't know what those explanations are. However, he contends that the geometric patterns of crop circles have no conceivable worldly explanation, and therefore ET or gods or something unworldly is more likely. Yet every observed pattern falls with the realm of lines and circles that can be accomplished well within the bounds of Doug and Dave technology. While the stock market and hurricane paths are outside of known science, crop circles are well within current technology. Therefore calling upon higher powers is not a simpler explanation. All the examples of crop circles Pro has shown are producible with lines and circles, using the "Doug and Dave" techniques demonstrated. Pro says "scientists" cannot explain them. What scientists? Moreover, scientists are not particularly good at explaining magic tricks, so what magicians cannot explain them? I granted that the simple round circles may be caused by wind. However, the "Doug and Dave" method would have worked fine in 1700. It is simple. It isn't necessary for science to explain each and every crop circle to be satisfied that they are all explainable. If cookies are missing from the cookie jar, but we have no evidence as to who took them, it does not follow that extraterrestrials are then the simplest explanation. The simplest explanation is that someone did it. Pro claims that he only needs to prove the strict wording of the resolution. First of all, the strict wording requires that he establish that the Law of Parsimony is in fact a law and that it applies as Pro supposes. He has done neither. Second, it is reasonable to suppose that his discussion of crop circles has something to do with proof of the resolution. The space allotted for typing resolutions is small, so it is common that the full exposition requires consideration of the opening argument. Pro clearly argued that the simplest explanation of crop circles was that they were created by ETs. that's not true, the simplest explanation involves Doug and Dave, or someone else, stomping down the crops. I'm inclined to believe that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, but that's based upon probabilities applied to a hundred billion stars in each of a hundred billion galaxies. It has nothing to do with whether the universe would be simpler or not. Crop circles are far more simply explained as hoaxes rather than visiting extraterrestrials flattening wheat. The resolution is negated. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Smoking should be banned from outdoor public places as well as indoor public places because In order to ban cigarettes completely my opponent needs to explain why we should get rid of all types of cigarettes. Since I've proven at least one type of cigarette that wont bother others or induce a lot of health concerns, Then we should not ban all cigarettes. My opponent has never tackled the fact that the government will raise taxes exponentially to make up for the lost revenue of 19 billion a year. Silence equals concurrence. With that being said my opponent hasn't rebutted any of my points. E- cigarettes don't cause cancer,lung disease nor does it produce an offensive smell that will bother others. Since I have proven a good form of cigarette so say, since I have proven the detriment of banning this I believe that con should win. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote because I will defend my own case, then move on to attack my opponents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------NC Observation 2) UN/felon and ex-felon --> OK, if you used my opponents logic then the UN database would barely consist of any words due to the fact that very little is shared by all nations. For example, the UN defines communism. Most nations are not communistic, but the UN still defines it. Same here. Although some nations do not differenciate between a felony and misdeamenor, the UN still defines it. Retain --> I am not making the resolution categorically false, because my opponent is changing the wording of the resolution with his false (and probably made up) definition. My definition is not inferior, because a definition (my opponents) that is made up is not superior to anything Value: Justice --> yeah, he kind of just gave up on his democratic society value. Hopefully you, the voting panel, will catch that VC: Maximization of Fairness --> he says I never defined fairness (sorry, common sense implied), so I accept your view of fairness. But this is why it is wrong. Notice, how my opponent says 'everyone' and 'maximizing the right to vote'. Okay, giving some child in Africa the right to vote would be giving 'equal rights to all' and 'maximizing the right to vote'. So, as you can see, this does not uphold justice and fairness to the people here. Cont: 1--> Retribution --> If ex-felon is a sub-category(under) of a felon, then felon is a superior category of an ex-felon, My opponent openly aknowledges the fact that his whole case is built upon ex-felons, which, according to him, is inferior on a resolutional scale to that of a felon. --> Okay, so now my opponent is saying you can only punish that which the felon violated. Let's take insider trading, shall we? Insider Trading does not violate anybody's pursuit of hapiness, yet, society puts them in jail which inherently violates their pursuit of hapiness. If you agree with my opponent, then you must rape rapists and asssault assaulters or just not punish them altogethher, neither of which would not uphold justice Cont: 2--> Legal Consistency --> states do not have different disenfranchisement laws through incarceration (outside the two that I argue should) You either retain your right to vote (which only 4% of states do, and I argue that they should do not) or you lose it (which they should) Cont: 3--> Double Standard --> my opponent did not attack this contention, therefore it can be extended through to the final round. My opponent is dropping more and more of my arguments [Rebuttal] Value: Democratic Society --> He concedes that my value is superior. End of Story VC: Maximizing Participation --> he does not defend my attacks on his VC. Therefore, you can extend to the final round. Cont: 1--> Contesting Views --> My opponent says that I did not understand my argument, so, therefore, as long as I prove that my first rebuttal was pertaining to his case, my attack stands through to the final round (he did not say 'well even if it was about my case, this is why it is wrong...') --> My opponent says 'basically, it oppresses other peoples views'. So, by oppressing you or your views, I treat you as less than a normal citizen, ergo treating them as second class citizens. Just for review, I will list THREE reasons that this is false --> 1) Becoming a second-class citizen means losing some rights. If felons did not lose any rights in jail, then punishment could not exist. He is dejustifying ALL punishment 2) Felons have brought this on themselves. By committing a felony, they treat their victim as a second class citizen 3) (TURN) This goes against my opponent observastion of felons being felons for life. If we are not to make them into second class upon re-entry, then we would not be treating them as felons for life. My opponent has an option: Drop this contention (his only one) or drop his felon-exfelon observations. They cannot coincide with each other [Chrystallize] --> His value is noy only inferior to that of mine, but he openly aknowledges that it is as well. His whole case is based on democracy (democratic society), so proving his value inferior should destroy the rest of his case, as well as my attacks on them --> His value criteria attack was dropped, and cannot be defended in the last rebuttal. He realizes that my criteria better upholds the value of justice --> I attacked all of his contentions (only one) and observations (only one). He dropped his attack on my third contention and accepted my first observation The negative reminds the voting panel that the affirmative, because he speaks last, cannot make any new arguments and only attack that which I have defended and defend that which I have attacked Thank you ladies and gentlemen, and that it why I urge a strong negation of the resolution <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Model Debate : Hot Girls because Natasha Yi Height 5'5 Weight 110 pounds Hotness factors : Asian, toned, nice chest and back, dark skin and thats the debate, thank guys I tried to get away from the typical only blonde thing XD this was fun <EOA>

<BOA> I am with The Sale of Human Organs Should Be Legal because I accept with the condition that you are excluding auto-transplants and allow for the donor system to usurp the notion that all organs must be purchased (regardless of transplant procedure costs). <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Incestous Marriage Should Be Permitted because Details This debate will address the notion of any and all Incestial marriage that, were the members not related, would be permissible otherwise. I.e. Arguments against underage incestial marriage would not be relevant to this debate. Full Resolution Incestous Marriage Should Be Permitted Definitions Incestous: Relationship between two people traditionally considered too closely related to be married. Including parent-child, sibling-sibling and between a parent's sibling and a parent's child. Marriage: A union that grants the same rights as what is generally considered to be marriage in society, granting legal & constitutional benefits/protections associated with it. A marriage may for the purposes of this debate be recognised "recognized by a state, anorganization, a religious authority, a tribal group, a local community or peers. "[ http://en.wikipedia.org... ...] Format: 48h, 10,000 words, 3 rounds BoP on Pro Round 1: Acceptance, Rules, Definitions Round 2: Arguments, Rebuttals Round 3: Arguments, Rebuttals Round 4: Rebuttals, No new arguments Best of Luck! <EOA>

<BOA> I am against A border fence is needed along America and Mexico. because Thank you for your response, Pro. The short nature of it allowed me to copy your entire argument and refute it point by point. Pro's arguments are in quotation marks. "I will choose to avoid the attacks for now., and move onto future arguments. I will have some form of mass rebuttal within the given 5 rounds." So, essentially, all my points up until now have been dropped for the time being. That"s okay, Pro only has two of those rounds left, lest one wants to ignore the "no last round" provision to make this like the original debate. "The wall satisfies all. Countries in Central America want a strong powerful government, compared to cartel anarchy. We as Americans would want to support a very Democratic-Humantarian cause. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We like puppet government and no horrible drugs Crack, Cocaine, Heroin, DMT, Salvia, and all forms of meth. The public and the officials in our Government want these things. The wall is "Oh! Thank God we had that!" type of project. Imagine in the future lets say 200-300 years. All of South America untie to fight America. By then we would add on to the wall since, but this is the cornerstone..." Only point relevant to the debate: A wall helps with defense. Currently still refuted. As for "adding on to the wall," adding on what? If it"s a really good wall, then how much defense is needed to man the walls properly; tunneling can be used, artillery can be used, grappling devices can be used along all points of the fence, not to mention air-power and naval support. That is of course if such groups would have gone Pro's border route anyways; if the southern countries were to ban together and attack, the Panama isthmus would be the first priority, followed by any shore east or west of the wall that is less defended. The wall, framed in these purely defensive arguments, doesn"t account for the most likely means that a south-american coalition could conceivably win with traditional forces. "We have governments, backed by the UN. Cartel controlled areas don't count. A common cause. Defense." You don"t stop drug cartels with a wall, and you seem to have U.N. nations going to war with U.N. member states; am I missing something here? "The Chinese never really stopped the Mongols. Maybe some walls only went 500 feet. But we learn from history, we surpass it. The wall is built from the edge of California to the Texas Tip. The river we can give the majority of Mexico because well Rio Grande! Unless tunnels are used, which hardly any work/end up collapsing. We have TV shows about it. It is gross propaganda and fear, tactics of conservatives." So, because tunnels are useless now, they can never be useful once the cartels want to have another avenue for smuggling? And they are not useless; they are used now in greater degrees of sturdiness, etc. for smuggling drugs [1]. The wall will eventually be passed over. Further, while the costs of tunneling are prohibitive now, they are more favorable if a wall is built; in such tunnels, depots for water could be maintained. In truth, a real invasion force would set itself up from a cornerstone tunnel system. "Thank myself for reminding myself! This would be so bi-partisan if all of other aspects fall into place. We will have more crossing and crossings than ever. I never specified the distances and measurements exactly. Adding 15 new borders, for more looser traffic and more security officers. Also remember the Towers." So now we are going with a resolution of 15 more borders? They have the same problem, and unless Pro (the one with the Burden of Proof) will state otherwise, having fourteen gates all at the border will be more burdensome to maintain than it will be for all the people that profit from bypassing them. "We have 1989 thousand miles of borders. we will add roughly 14 new crossings. Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and thee American governments are happy. Happiness equals peace. Source: COMMON SENSE Jamaica and other small Caribbean Island nations will lose out they might inherit more children refugees. But the power and complaints too stack high enough on the one world government. UN and BRICS don't care, it is not the 1770's anymore." First, since Pro is not in danger of using his character maximum; I request that a little more clarity be used in the fomentation of arguments. Second, happy government"s does not equal peace; 7 tyrannies constantly at war with their own people but not each other is still 7 states involved in great degrees of violence. A wall, in this case, keeps people from escaping tyranny; this argument of the wall bringing peace is odd. It ignores completely all views of international relations existing today; the realist vision would have power games being the ultimate decider, making the cost of a wall a big detriment in keeping power with the other States. The liberal vision encourages free trade; a wall will make trading more difficult. "Greatest Defense System ever. I suppose a scenario: BRICS nations are about to launch a global bank. The Bank will make up of Chinese currency. Not the US dollar. Look this is crazy to think. Not just arming America most the planet. No time in history of humans, have two major banks both globally and not at the same time. This will cause chaos. The stock market will crash massively." Most of the big crashes following the U.S. housing bust occurred because of the tie to the U.S. dollar; a tie to Chinese currency may well help to stabilize the world in the face of a U.S. recession, especially when considering that the U.S. may well bankrupt itself from the creation of this very wall. "Chaos will erupt. America and NATO nations might attack BRICS = Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa. Notice the first? Brazil they have many allies like Argentina, Columbia, Cuba, Venezuela. And even huge sway on Mexico. A war breaks out and if WW3 did go down. The world may establish a no nuke war because of immortality and innocents. A mass ground offensive from South America gets stopped by the wall." However the Isthmus of Panama is taken, the U.S. navy is divided, troops across the ocean have difficulty being moved back home, and the U.S. land offensive into South America is greatly hindered by the wall before the jungle environment comes to the South"s reprieve and preferred place of engaging the enemy. It is so good that the U.S. nearly bankrupted itself building this wall. "Thank you" And thank you, Pro. I look forward to a refutation of points I have made outside of defense. [1] https://www.youtube.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Abortion is Morally Justified because thankyou mr skeptic for this interesting debate round. first you say "Who ever said life was the category we are basing this debate on? We kill many things that are alive, like plants. Would someone who picks a flower out from the ground, sniffs it, then throws it away be charged with murder?" life was the category of this debate round the second the fetus was destroyed in an abortion. and are you going to compare human life to a plant? if you were to do that you could say it is alright to kill any man just as it is to kill a plant. plants are not human. we shall not compare them to humans. next you say "Ridiculous statement. Not all forms of life are human beings. Is a dog a human being? Is a plant a human being?" again were talking about human embryo's. you can take it however you like, but remember this is a debate on human abortion. next you say "Perhaps, but I did not argue this. I argue that the fetus is not a person, i.e. hasn't a fully functioning brain (until it's self-aware)." yes i understand what you ere saying. the point of this statement was to show that a fetus and embryo ARE alive. but thoughts don't always make somebody alive. if they have the intent to grow and live, just like anyone else, it should be considered murder to end their life. should we go kill every stillborn out there because they simply have no thought reaction? Next you say "This can be broken down into two parts: 1. You are threatening my life by saying I'm not alive? Contradiction anyone? But also, I never used life as a criteria, so bad analogy there. 2. I never used the "quality of life" as an argument. So again, bad analogy." 1. exactly your proving my point. it is a contradiction. one that should not be made, and me putting a gun to your head would be no different from an abortion. thankyou for expanding the true intent of my words. and again, life and quality of life became the issue the second the fetuses life became endagered by an abortion. 2.you didn't use the quality of life arg. i did. good analogy. next you say "Personhood. I doubt you have read my argument." first of all you have one argument, that we have been debating this whole round. 'is the fetus a person?' second of all i have given plenty good reasons to show a fetus is living. so all in all who is it really who has refused to read the others case? no offence mr.skeptic, but i don't think accusations like that are justified with out any evidence. so again i will say "who has the authority to decide when a human life begins?" Next you say "Irrelevant since I never used this as part of my argument; I'm well aware of the statistics." sorry sir but it became relevant the second you used the resolution "abortion is morally justified, meaning you must prove it is justified in all cases. me seeing that you dropped this argument tells me that you agree with it, and that should be held on note for the voters. and i used it as part of MY arguement, so there should be some kind of obligation to refute it as i have refute any point you have made. but any ways one arguments dropped for me :) Conclusion: seeing as my opponent dropped two of my arguments, it must mean he agrees with both. (silence is compliance) and i would like the voters to remember that. also remember that i have argued EVERY point of his. again i would like to remind you that we are not comparing plants to human life, because you wouldn't kill a man just because it is alright to kill a plant. plant life is not relevant to abortion. however do keep in mind that however irrelevant it seems to me, i still argued it. MY opponent has not given me any info as to when a fetus can be concieved as actually living. so again the fetus is alive when it is concieved. me telling you your life is not important because you are not a live would be a contradiction just as my opponent pointed so gratefully for me. thankyou and i look forwar for the next round <EOA>

<BOA> I am against The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan. because Criteria – The U.S. should not suspend civilian or humanitarian assistance. If we convince you this, you should vote for us because the AFF. Side has not shown that the U.S. should suspend ALL assistance. My first contention is - 1.Suspending aid drives Pakistan toward other sources, our enemies. Huffington post states, “As The Council on Foreign Relations reminds us, the last time we walked away was disastrous."As relations with the United States deteriorated, Pakistan pursued ties with the Taliban‐‐part of its "strategic depth" initiative to counter India and bring "stability" to Afghanistan after the Soviet occupation. It also continued an aggressive nuclear program too, complete with disastrous global proliferation." However, a Pakistani change in heart would not have to be so dramatic to have adverse effects on America. For example, if Pakistan were to align itself with China, China could leverage Pakistan into antagonizing India. According to the Washington Quarterly, "As India struggles to emerge as a global power with an ambitious foreign policy agenda, China can effectively scuttle Indian ambitions by continuing with its diplomatic and military support to Pakistan. Much to India's chagrin, China has given ample indications in the recent past that it wants to follow that path." The Quarterly also shows that should we suspend aid, this turn to China would happen. Reacting to the U.S. move to suspend some aid in July 2011, Islamabad's ambassador Masood Khan, was quick to suggest that ‘‘China will stand by us in difficult times as it has been doing for the past years.' Pakistan could also be driven to Saudi Arabia, a known hot spot for terrorists who could use nuclear bombs. According to Bruce Riedel of the Brookings Institute, In October 2003, when Crown Prince Abdullah visited Pakistan for a state visit. Several experts reported after the trip that a secret agreement was concluded that would ensure Pakistan would provide Saudi Arabia with nuclear by Text-Enhance" href="../debates/The-United-States-should-suspend-all-assistance-to-Pakistan./4/">technology and a bomb if Saudi Arabia felt threatened by a third party nuclear program in the future. Riedel found also however that no country can match America in its assistance to Pakistan, so as long as the assistance remains, this is not a threat.” My second contention is - 2. Pakistan controls U.S and NATO supply routes. Narenraju states, “The Council on Foreign Relations shows that Pakistan's assistance is crucial in our efforts in Afghanistan. We cannot fight in Afghanistan without the 80 percent of fuel and dry goods shipped through Pakistan. A responsible withdrawal of U.S. forces depends on an Afghan political solution that Pakistan will influence. The Brookings Institute finds that 80% of NATO troops in Afghanistan could not survive without resources coming from the port of Karachi. As Lisa Curtis, of the Asian Studies Center stated "The U.S. must avoid abrupt action like stopping all aid, which would come at a steep price to U.S. interests in the region. Pakistan could react by cutting off NATO supply lines that run through Pakistan to coalition troops in Afghanistan. It could also expel U.S. intelligence officials from the country, thus denying the U.S. access to valuable information that helps the CIA track terrorists. Peter Brooks of National Security Affairs finds If Islamabad closes southern supply routes, and we can't boost flow from the north, we'll have to look at reducing coalition forces and operations in Afghanistan, possibly resulting in a premature withdrawal from Afghanistan. Suspending is too rash, better alternatives exist. Suspending aid has the massive detriments mentioned above, as well as the imminent threat of nuclear war. Alternatives, such as applying conditions, suspending some aid, etc. are far more beneficial and will not threaten national security. Suspending aid will destabilize government. There are multiple impacts to this. First, Pakistan's economy will suffer, as it is not able to function without aid. Second, The government will be in danger of collapse. Third, this could be an opportunity for extremists to take control of a nuke-possessing country.” 3. Suspending Aid will help the U.S. Point A of my third contention is - Nuclear State Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons. One of the main reasons we supply money to Pakistan is to keep them on relatively good terms with the United States because of their nukes. We do not want the country to degrade into a terrorist state or become an anti-US nation like Iran is. While Pakistan may be corrupt it is a well known fact that you do not bite the hand that feeds you. Giving the Pakistanigovernment moneykeeps them warm towards the US which is something we must maintain in order to keep security in the region and in the world in balance. Point B- Allies We do indeed need something from Pakistan and that is friendship and cooperation. Pakistan may be seen as an enemy to the general public or at least not an ally but Pakistan has been a fairly good ally to the United States in the past. Pakistan allows the US totruck suppliesshipped into Pakistan into Afghanistan for our troops. They have cooperated in allowing US drones to strike their tribal regions on the Afghan border. They have been a great help to our operations in the Middle East and we need to maintain this friendly demeanor between our countries because they are a nuclear state and have a potentially unstable government. Money keeps them friendly and strong. Point C - Military We fund their military because their military protects their nuclear stockpiles. Can you imagine if a terrorist group managed to attack a nuclear site and succeed? The affects would be devastating. A strong Pakistani military is a huge step towards making sure this nightmare never happens. While their people may not like the United States we must make sure that their government always will. Point D - Balance of Power India and Pakistan are both nuclear nations with a bloody and bitter history. By the US giving money to Pakistan and maintaining friendly relations with India they make sure the two countries leave each other alone by providing them with a common ally. If the US pulled its aid out of Pakistan it might feel isolated or cornered by India and the United States and act rashly. It is better to maintain this power balance. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Women on US submarines because Before getting to my contentions, I'd like to address a few misconceptions. According to Con, I am portraying him as sexist and accusing him of trying to keep women down. I am doing no such thing. While I believe my opponent's POV is sincere, I disagree that women should be oppressed on the basis of their sex. I am against affirmative action; I don't think individuals should be advanced based on characteristics such as race, gender, etc. Nobody should be given preferential influence because of something they can't control (like sex); similarly I don't think anyone should specifically be HELD BACK for the same reason. As I have explained throughout the debate, I do not think women who do not meet the necessary qualifications to serve on a sub should be permitted to do so. However, if a woman proves to be just as qualified as a man, then it is morally wrong and impractical as well as illegal to hinder an individual from advancing their career based on what sex they happened to be born. That is oppressive. Con begins, "You show no concern for the sub's effectiveness. A sub is a $2 BILLION ship designed to deter enemies and safeguard freedoms, not a social experiment." Right here Con implies that women are not capable of doing the same job as men. This is contradictory to everything I have been saying throughout the debate thus straw manning my argument. If a woman cannot perform the necessary tasks for a submarine worker then I do not think she should be given the job based on demanding equality. However, if women have the same qualifications, experience and abilities as men then they should be allowed to serve. Therefore saying I have no regard for the ship's success is Con's way of (a) misconstruing my argument and (b) implying that women are too incompetent for the job at hand. I've already explained all of the ways in which women can be just as mentally tough as men and therefore can do just as good of a job. Again, performance and tolerance is subjective. There are undoubtedly some women who can handle this job. Con continues, "If you are concerned with equality, let the military defend against societies that treat you like dogs." This is a blatant red herring that distracts from the real argument at hand. It's also fallacious reasoning; Con says that if we want equality we must accept inequality. Next Con writes that military life is tough and that the problems in the military lie in the fact that it's hard work. Again, I never said otherwise. However just because it's a tough job doesn't mean that we have to accept law-breaking and ignore injustices. Nobody is denying that being a soldier can be rough, but that excuse (especially for this voluntary career) cannot be used to justify rape, sexual harassment or blatant disregard for professionalism. Con writes, "Lewin's equation states that behavior is a function of the environment and the individuals... To fix behavior, you must fix the environment." He then calls me callous for expecting adults entrusted and expected to be respected by civilians to espouse some maturity in their social interaction. All I see here are excuses about why bad behavior is acceptable. This is contradictory to Pro's own assertion. If to fix behavior you must fix the environment, then maybe adding a mix to the environment or external social factors to the environment will help improve conditions. Con continues, "You did not answer my point about women causing low standards in service academies." That's because the source Pro provided to back up the claim that claim does not work (his third source in R2). Until Pro provides a source I can look into, I won't have the opportunity to respond appropriately. Additionally this point is irrelevant to my case. I've already stated several times that women who do not meet the level of education or experience expected of men should not be given any preferential treatment. I never advocated lowering the bar to let women have an equal opportunity; instead I've said (and stand by) the fact that women should not be prohibited to serve on subs on the basis of their sex alone. Therefore when Con says, "Consider that women onboard ships have caused more harm than good" this again has nothing to do with my proposition. Also let it be noted that his assessment of Adm. Bruner is negative simply because the Adm. disagrees with his position. Regarding the tendency to become a "love boat," I don't see how this is relevant. For one thing I know a handful of women involved in the military and they are all lesbians (not asking and not telling, of course). For another, I don't see how one's personal romantic relationships effect the submarine's performance or objectives in the grand scheme of things. Obviously it will be a factor, but romantic relationships should just be discouraged like hazing is discouraged. However as Con knows, hazing is inescapable and thus if the military can't protect their own soldiers I doubt they will be able to prohibit soldiers from engaging in positive activities (like fraternizing among themselves) either. All they can do at that point is put certain restrictions in their contracts. Next, Con regards the government as being above the law in saying that it should be able to use its discretion in whether or not to abide by the law (CRA). In that case, every business owner should be given that same discretion considering "the government" is nothing more than a collective body of fallible individuals. The CRA states that one's sex, race, etc. should not be a factor in employment because one good be just as capable or qualified as another regardless of those factors. That is what I stand by. So far Con's only argument is that allowing women onto the ship is comparable to allowing incompetent people on the ship (which is not what I'm advocating) or trading equality with effectiveness and safety. Just because some people may start up romantic engagements in no way says anything about a soldier's ability to perform their job well. If they fail to complete their objectives, they should be removed. However if they are able to engage in a romantic relationship, or abide by all codes and expectations, then their gender or personal life should be irrelevant. Con's entire argument is based on fallacies (i.e. package deal fallacy, appeal to probability, base rate fallacy, etc.). Con also encourages the is-ought fallacy; something ought to be one way simply because it already is one way. Just because so far men and women may have not been able to properly integrate in the military doesn't mean efforts shouldn't be made to change that circumstance. Before segregation was forced upon people, blacks and whites could not coexist peacefully either BUT that was change due to federal mandates. Psychology isn't objective or definite. Con says the CRA doesn't exist "to advance the INTERESTS OF FEW at the EXPENSE OF MANY, like putting women on subs." It actually exists to ensure that irrelevant factors aren't used as tools for oppression. Con insisting that women are an expense is something that has gone unproven and is based on nothing but assumptions and selective reasoning (ignoring the fact that I think only qualified women should serve onboard). Women can cope with the harsh reality of the military so their lifestyle is irrelevant. Con says that a woman getting particular sleeping quarters on subs will hurt morale. Apparently only the morale of MALES is relevant. What about the morale of female soldiers (and civilians) not being afforded certain opportunities? He says that having women on board does not help the ship any but ignores the reality that it helps JUSTICE. It also assumes that a woman could not be an asset. Whether Con would advocate his sister serving onboard or not is irrelevant. Again, this is a personal choice that should be an option to all of those who are qualified regardless of their genitals. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against I will have the exact amount of characters that the character limit allows. because 1) PRO DID use the comments to help him. He said he would in his R1 and then went on to post in the comment section. Since he considered the comments as part of the debate, that's more than 500 characters on his part. There is nothing he can say to change this fact. 2) The proof of 8000 char. has already been explained in R1. In essence, it is something only administrators can do. All PRO is doing is doubting that Phil (the website owner) has any power over his website. Absurd. Vote CON! <EOA>

<BOA> I am against terrorist are bad for the world because "1. Some of your points might be untrue, so that's why I said,"Where is your evidence?" 2. About what you said about the British, the Americans weren't terrorists. 3. You are supporting me on number 5. 4. There is another option available like just going to jail isn't as bad as just killing a lot of other people and yourself. 5. Terriost can also start a major fire like if you bomb yourself in an airport" 1: In none of my arguments was I making factually verifiable statements. These are opinion based, somewhat moralistic arguments based in logic. 2: Yes, they were. They attacked British troops, burned down buildings owned by the British, terrorized British citizens, as a rebellious faction, not an independent country (it wasn't a country till they won the war). 3: Your argument on #5 does not actually address my points though, so it is irrelevant whether or not I am supporting you. 4: You go to jail for killing other people. I don't see the argument here. If you are saying peaceful protests, that is all fine and well until the government starts breaking out the tear gas and "rehabilitation" camps. 5:Yes, yes they can. So? There has once again been no response to my primary point, which is that terrorism is primarily a means of expression. We arbitrarily label those terrorists who support our value systems to be heros, sometimes martyrs, who are revered, while those who oppose our value systems are just dogs murdering innocent people. The complete hypocrisy of this view means that there can be no choice but a Con ballot when we realize that terrorism is an expression of beliefs, whether we like it or not, and that numerous countries, considered "good" by our current value paradigm have been founded through terrorist actions. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Should Donald Trump become President because I look forward to arguing that Donald Trump should be the next president of the United States. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Three Philosophical Topics - 1C because I will present three philosophical debate topics and allow my opponent to have the opportunity to choose one of them to debate. The procedure is simple: in this round I list the 3 topics and my position on them, then in my opponent's first round he chooses the topic he wants to debate. From rounds 2-4 we have ourselves a classic three round debate! So here are the topics: ===================================================== PRO - Qualia is not an irreducible, non-physical entity. PRO - Free will does not exist. PRO - Moral error theory is sound/There are currently no adequate meta-ethical theories that secure moral realism.* ===================================================== A little clarification on each topic: *Qualia is the phenomenal character of conscious experience that you as a first person observer is able to access introspectively. There are several different definitions of qualia, some being more restrictive than others, so if there are any suggestions for change then leave it in the comments section. *Free will is the ability that rational agents have when they exercise control over their actions. The definition and interpretation of free will obviously needs to be expanded upon, but that's part of the debate. *Moral error theory is the meta-ethical school of thought that claims nothing is there are no moral facts. I am willing to defend either the global falsity version or the presupposition failure version. Furthermore, you will notice that I included another topic that is closely related to this topic; it's unique because I'm giving the opponent to choose either moral error theory or the claim that there is yet a satisfactory account for moral realism (essentially you get 4 topics). Also, to avoid redundancy if you choose the latter topic then I will refute it not by arguing for error theory (which is definitely viable) but rather by creating a positive attack on your proposed ethical theory (utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, Objectivism, virtue ethics, contractarianism, etc.). I'm PRO on all topics to coincide with the position I actually am for this debate - this is to make everything as clear and free of misunderstandings as possible. I hope we have a great debate. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Convert Me because Thank you very much. -- Content -- Rebuttal Section: • Argument 1 o Claim to be the True Religion o Jesus' Statement • Argument 2 o Creation in Six or Eight Days? • Argument 3 o Seven Heavens, Scientific Error? • Argument 4 o Preservation and Divine Claim o Weak "Hadith" Cited o Doubts About the Qur'an in Early Times? Argument Section[*]: • 1. Prophecies o Fulfilled o Signs of Day of Judgement o What About Nostradamus? • 2. Historical Truth o Evidence • 3. Mathematical Structure of the Qur'an • 4. Further Scientific Points in the Qur'an • 5. Explanation for Prohibition of Homosexuality (Due to my opponent's comment about it) -- Rebuttals -- • Argument 1 o Claim to be the True Religion My opponent said that Islam being the safest bet does not make it the true religion. I agree with this, and that is only a part of my other arguments. However, he made a thread[1] where he claimed that he wanted eternal life, and naturally, a happy one. If he wants it, then I ask, what is his best bet? Hinduism? Christianity? Sikhism? He has answered the question. o Jesus' Statement [John 14:6] Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." My opponent said that Christianity claims exclusivity, and used the verse above as evidence. Firstly, it is a criteria of Christianity that one believe sin Jesus (peace be upon him) in order to go to Heaven. I mention such criteria in the previous round. Secondly, as a Hindu, I agree that you will not be saved from punishment if Christianity is true, because Hindus do not accept Jesus. What about the Muslims? In Islam, Jesus is regarded as one of the mightiest Prophets in Islam. It strongly disagrees that he is God, but he is nevertheless a Prophet, and we Muslims accept him. Now, the passage above does not mention Jesus saying that no one goes to the Father except if believing that Jesus is God. It simply says "through him," meaning by accepting him, having him in your heart. Islam agrees with this: no person is a Muslim if he denies Jesus' words, and he will not have access to Paradise. Therefore, truth of Christianity is not excluded for Muslims. In fact, "Christianity" is not found in the Bible. • Argument 2 o Creation in Six or Eight Days? My opponent claimed that in one place, the Qur'an concludes that the heavens and the earth were created in six days, but some verses describing it seem to make the result of eight days. I will explain what the Qur'an really says about it. [Qur'an 41:9-12] "Say: Is it that ye Deny Him (Allah) Who created the earth in ? And do ye join equals with Him? He is the Lord of (all) the worlds. (10)He set on the (earth) mountains standing firm, high above it, and bestowed blessings on the earth, and measured therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in , in accordance with (the needs of) those who seek (sustenance). (11)Moreover, He Comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: 'Come ye together, Willingly or unwillingly.' They said: 'We do come (together), in willing obedience.' (12)So He completed them as seven firmaments in two days and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We (Allah) adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) The Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge." Reading this, you will find no contradiction. Why? Because the word 'moreover' is used in verse 11. The Arabic word used there is "suma" and means moreover, simultaneously, then. In this context, the words simultaneously/moreover are the correct ones, because the creation part is six days, and the Qur'an refers to it. Some translators translated 'suma' as 'then', but that is their own mistake. The translation I used has the correct word. There is no contradictions here. • Argument 3 o Seven Heavens, Scientific Error? My opponent argues that the Qur'an is erroneous in the part where it mentions "seven heavens." Firstly, heavens refer to the universe, too. Science has no objection to the fact that there might be seven so-called heavens in the entire existence. In fact, we humans have a lot to find out about our universe. This is therefore not a scientific error, but scientific theory. Secondly, a few hundred years ago, one would think that the following verse is a scientific error: [Qur'an 51:47] "And it is We who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it." This refers to the universe being expanded. Only almost 100 years ago, it was known that the universe kept expanding. The Qur'an mentioned it, and while it seemed to be an error, we now know that it is not, thanks to science. However, as for seven heavens above one another, let us apply it to the atmosphere. The atmosphere consists of following layers: Troposphere Stratosphere Mesosphere Thermosphere Exosphere Ionosphere Magnetosphere These layers of the atmosphere have their own tasks, and they all help in preserving life on our planet. Now, compare it to the following verse: [Qur'an 41:12] "So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command." • Argument 4 o Preservation and Divine Claim My opponent claimed that preservation of an old text does not in itself confirm its truth or message. What is important here is to know that the prophecy in the Qur'an, that it will always be preserved, is fulfilled, and that it is the only religious book out of all others that stands out this way. In fact, it is the book preserved perfectly for longest time ever. 14 centuries old, and it is untouched. o Weak "Hadith" Cited The citation of the son of Caliph Umar is not one I can seem to find in any collection of authentic hadith. If this was said, we would have seen it in many authentic hadith, since they describe incredibly many events, sayings etc. This citation would be no exception, but I cannot even find a narration of it in authentic hadith on Google.[2] o Doubts About the Qur'an in Early Times? Due to restricted character usage, I will present a short argument of this. Please read source #3.[3] The Qur'an was revealed in the Quraish dialect of the Arabic language, which the beloved Prophet spoke. It is the most advanced of the Arabic dialects. During his lifetime, people memorized the Qur'an in this original dialect. When he died, some people started writing the Qur'an down, however, it was with a different dialect, which would distort the original one. When Uthman was in power, he feared that the Qur'an would be vulnerable, so he ordered that all the Qur'an copies got collected, except the original one, and then burnt. It was successful, and the original Qur'an was preserved, and is today in a museum. Although missing some parts, there are other old Qur'an copies, all matching each other, and I have presented sources in the link I referred to above. Therefore there was no confusion to begin with, rather because people wrote down what was unoriginal, but it was all solved, and today, there is only one Qur'an. Uthman only preserved one version, not several others. -- References -- [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://www.google.com... [3] http://www.debate.org... [*]Due to limited character usage, I will present the arguments in the next rounds. They are on the list of content here because they are meant to be elaboration of Round 2. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Math owns! because Well i guess my opponent does not want to debate seriously, or attempt to even debate at all. Suggestions for your next debate, provide defintions, tell me what you are arguing towards, and provide some definitions. In light of this all, I urge a CON vote. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against The Christian god's existence is just as likely as the invisible pink unicorn's existence because My opponent concedes that the Invisible Pink Unicorn cannot exist. "Also, a god cannot be omnipotent because he cannot create a rock too heavy for him to lift." 1. Where exactly is it said in the Bible that the Christian god is omnipotent? 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... "1. A deity is able to do anything that is logically possible for it to do." 3. God could create the rock that he cannot lift, and then use his omnipotence to flood the surrounding area with water, allowing him to lift the rock due to water's ability to make lifting things easier. http://wiki.answers.com... So, the Invisible Pink Unicorn cannot exist, but the Christian god can. This negates the resolution. "Oh well, I will probably lose to religious bigots but what the heck." No, you will lose because of the three reasons above. "Vote PRO." Vote CON. "Thank you." Thank you, as well. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against I would beat your up because I would like to thank my opponent for his quick and timely response. <<1. The resolution says I will beat you up, so this assumes the fact that we are face to face.>> Agreed. <<2. I am extremely rich, I will go to you on my private jet, and fly to where you live, look you up on the internet, and go to your house and affirm the resolution. Here is a picture of my private jet. http://www.blavish.com... ; This statement relies on the fact that you: A. Truthful You said,"Well many people put false information of their profile, which I did.", so it is obvious that you are not truthful. This means that anything you say cannot be held as true unless proven so. B. Able to find me on the internet Go ahead and look for me on the internet, you will not find me. You may know my city but there are hundreds of thousands of people living in this city and you will not be able to find my specific address. If you can't find me, you can't beat me up. You also claim that this link, http://www.blavish.com... ..., is your private jet. I find this extremely unlikely because: A. It is the first picture to come up on google images when you type in "private jet" ( http://images.google.com... ) B. The interior of "your jet" is the fourth picture to come up on google images when you type in "private jet" ( http://images.google.com... ) If you look even closer you realize that the two pictures are of two different jets. Also, the pictures are of private jets which can be rented out from two differen companies at two different prices. 3. Once again, we cannot tell if you're telling the truth. Not only is that women obviously not 99, she is also a man judging by the bulge in the bikini. All you did this time was go on google and type "buff women" and choose the second result. ( http://images.google.com... ) < > That picture was taken almost 2 years ago and I have grown much then and worked out a lot. I am not the same person and so I am sure I would adequately be able to defend myself. 4. This is just proof that you are a liar. <> How do you know they are no match for you? I have many friends, and we could easily overwhelm you. Many of them are in sports as well. Not to mention the fact that there's teachers, janitors, and adults around everywhere in my life. To top it off police officers patrol my school and there's only one way in which is guarded by a police officer which won't allow you access unless you're a parent or school employee. 5. Look to point 4. 6. You did not refute this point and so you concede it. ::CONCLUSION:: My opponent bases everything off pictures from google which mysteriously come up on the front page when generic terms are typed in. He didn't even take care to check that the two planes were the same one which he claims is his and he also calls himself a liar. He cannot find me and even if he did he couldn't hurt me because of the support of the masses around me. I await your response. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Ban on all guns because We should ban guns as that means there will be no more gun crimes. We have banned cocaine and there is no more cocaine in this country. Including myth, marijuana...... Drinking and driving is outlawed. I am glad I don't see on the news of drunken driving murders anymore. This Colorado maniac purchased 10 gallons of gasoline to be part of his bomb that was setup as a trap. That excess amount of gas should have been regulated. Who needs more than a gallon of gasoline from the pump!!! We need to ban such high amount of gasoline purchase right away. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against (If it was medically available) Should it be legal to choose the sex of your child? because Starting off with some refutation: 1. Genetic disorders past on through gender If parents have genetic disorders, they can simply choose not to have children or adopt instead. This is what is happening now, and it works fine, and people are satisfied. There is no reason to push for the legalization of choosing your child's sex, as it will have much more disadvantages than advantages, which I will get into detail later. 2. Cultural gender bias That is exactly the problem. Don't you see, if everyone has a bias towards males, for example, that everyone will want a male baby? This would vastly increase the population of males over those of females, and this could lead to some serious problems. In fact, this is the current state of China, and there are not enough women to go around as brides. If we continute to allow familes to have this gender bias, we are building towards an unequal society. When one gender vastly out-populates another, many problems would arise and get worse, such as discrimination or sexism towards the minority gender. When we make gender selection so easy and accessible by the public, everyone will start using it. Look at the number of chinese familes in the world. They outnumber many other races. As such, there will be a massive overload of males, and not enough females. This is not ideal. It would also harm human growth, as with a majority of a specific gender, reproduction will slow down. Furthermore, your argument does make any sense. You talk about the prevention of abandonment. But there are solutions to preventing child birth, such as birth control or abortion (when you find out it is the opposite gender of what you wish). That is what we should be promoting instead. This also solves the issue you are talking about, and we don't need to bring in gender selection. Thus, gender selection offers no additional benefits. 3. A better life for a wanted child Again, ultrasound can be used to determine gender, and abortion can be used to abort the gender they dislike and they can try again. if the parents have their heart so set on a specific gender, that you make it out to be, then they would obviously try to do everything in their power to achieve that gender. Abortion is the solution, not this gender selection process. Now, you may argue that abortion kills the fetus, and causes pain and harm to the baby. This is true. But is this any better than your proposed gender selection solution? You don't know whether or not gender selection causes harm to the baby or kills the fetus. It may even cause the same physical pain as abortion. As such, again, it offers no extra benefits, and there is no reason to introduce it. You may also say that abortion puts the baby through pain, and mothers don't want that. However, you previously mentioned that when mothers have their heart set on a specific gender, it usually creates an unwanted child. Would this not also create emotional pain on the child? Who are you to decide which pain is worse? 4. Choice , Not on a small scale, no. But multiply that by the millions of families on this planet, and it does cause a detriment to our global society. 5. Other small points 5a. Hello adoption? Also, I would think that if a family miscarried a child, they would refrain from another child from fear of having another miscarriage. They wouldn't jump right into another child straight away. 5b. Yeah, I agree. But you can't say for sure that it will not cause physical pain to the child. As such, we should stay away from gender selection because of this risk. Points I outlined alot of my points in my refutation, about the possibility of a specific gender dominated society, and the risk of discrimination. I also outlined the risk to the human race, as reproduction will slow down vastly. I also stated how it could cause possible damage to the baby, and we should not take that risk. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against I will not contradict myself. because 'Now I will show Athos violated terms of debate: 1. political or moral questions. He asked quite a few religious questions that didn't have to do with morality...' How is that possible? My first 4 questions all contained the word 'moral' thus, they were questions concerning morals. Concerning 'religious' questions. You brought up the topic of religion when you answered Q2 'I believe for all intensive purposes morals are absolute and come from God.' God equates to religion. Rule '1. political or moral questions.' If God is the source of your morals, the source can also be questioned. If morals come from God, God can be questioned. Therefore, Q 5-10 are completely valid. You failed to answer Q's 5-10. ' 2 .They must be able to be answered simply yes or no but may be answered more complexly. Quite a few question were how or from, these questions cannot be answered with a yes or no.' I did not violate rule '3.They must be able to be answered simply yes or no but may be answered more complexly.' This rule is actually not a rule at all, it's a 'non-rule", as it provides no guidance with regard to answer form. As stated, It is ineffectual. It would be no different if the rule were stated : Questions that require a yes/no are applicable, and also questions requiring a more complex answer. Are there any other ways to answer a question besides "yes/no" or 'answered more complexly.'? //Note: How many 'I will not contradict myself' debates have you seen on DDO where Pro actually admitted to a contradiction? This was pretty fun, I think I'll create a debate like this one in the near future. It'll probably be more challenging for me, being that I'm a walking contradiction.// <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Morality is not intersubective because Thank you for accepting this debate. Now you define people as a class of animals that is CAPABLE of free, rational action. Therefore, a person need not always be rational, simply have the ability. So a person can make a moral decision with out being rational. Also, a person can choose to die, but not actually die. For example, an individual can decide it is morally right to die to save a baby, but that does not mean the person is ever placed in the situation to die to save a baby. That indivdual has the moral code to die, but has not died. So you are wrong when you say that if a person chooses to die, they no longer exist. I can choose to die if it would save the life of my parents, but I may never have to die to save my parents. I am still capable of rational action because I am still alive, so I am not excluded from the class. Thus, all people may not have made the choice to live. The "starting point" itself is subjectve. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against x-x/=0 because Thanks to my opponent for starting this debate. "Don't accept this debate and tell me "infinity is just a concept, you cant do anything with it" because thats a load of crap." No, it's not a load of crap, your set of equations is a load of crap. We can't use infinity like a real number, that's it, case closed. The very fact that you can say nonsense like '1+infinity = infinity' means that infinity is not a number. ===== "Since infinity does not follow the rules laid down for numbers, it cannot be a number. Every time you use the symbol {infinity} in a formula where you would normally use a number, you have to interpret the formula differently." [1] ===== This is why you appear to have proven that (x-x) does not have to equal 1, because you have broken the rules of mathematics. For my opponent's future reference, (infinity - infinity) = indeterminate. [1] Thanks. [1] - http://en.wikibooks.org... <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Mandatory Sterilization of Profoundly Mentally Handicapped Persons because Look your completley off the point you failed to answer my questions and changed the subjects . I cannot argue with you if you are not going to answer me questions and go completely off poin we are not aruging about other conditions or perfectly healthly people having children born retarded , we are aruging about mentally handicapped people. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with A debate on a plan because Okay, so what will happen is I will post a plan, that is a solution to a modern problem. My opponent will attack the plan, and try to disprove it. Here's my plan to eliminate poverty. Step One: Education Education is the most important tool to escape poverty. Obviously we must provide a higher quality education for impoverished children. UNICEF ranked the United States' educational system 22nd out of 30 developed nations. That is clearly failure. The school system is choked by bureaucracy and standardization. There is no accountability for schools. If they fail, they aren't hurt, if they succeed, they aren't rewarded. The solution is clear, a private school voucher system will improve education. A voucher system would create a market-style school system, if a public school fails, students zoned for it will go to private schools. In a way this competition already exists, but not to its full extent. In many cities the schools are failing. This is for a variety of reasons, most of which stem from the socialist model, but those who can afford to go to private schools go to private schools. Poorer children are left in the failing schools. They have no where to go. As long as the school has a captive student body, it has little incentive to improve, and the children who have to go there are left with a very poor quality education. Also, many low income students are stuck in bad schools, schools described by the Chicago Tribune as "An institutionalized case of child neglect." If these schools are failing, children need a way out. Vouchers provide a way out. Education used to be a child's ticket out of poverty, but now it is what keeps them impoverished. In Colombia, a nation with a fairly similar educational system, a voucher program was developed. Unfortunately, as Colombia is a poor nation, only 50% of those eligible for vouchers could get a voucher. Luckily for us, this allows us to compare the success of the vouchers to the traditional system. The Brookings Institution performed a study of this program and it found that there was an increase among voucher winners in those taking college entrance exams, voucher winners being about 9% more likely to do so, a 5-7% increase in high school graduation among winners, and winners were much less likely to fail a grade. The authors of the study said "On balance, our results suggest a substantial gain in both high school graduation rates and achievement as a result of the voucher program. Although the benefits of achievement gains per se are hard to quantify, there is a substantial economic return to high school graduation in Colombia." Also, in 1994, a conservative government in Sweden made a voucher system that was so successful that when the liberals took over, politically they could not end the system. The world has tried vouchers, and they have been a wild success. We need the best for our children. Vouchers have proven that they work best. Also the problem with public schools is not money. Public school systems spend an average of about $10000 on every student, whereas private schools spend substantially less. It is not money, it is how the money is spent, and private schools that by nature are forced to compete have shown they can spend the money better, it is better to let people make the choice to instill competition, than it is to consign people to failing schools that seem broken beyond repair. Money is not the issue. We save money with vouchers, and we get a much more educated populace. Step Two: Eliminating the Ghetto Ghettos place a lot of desperate people in one place. This leads to gang violence, drug abuse and other problems. The solution to that problem is clear. We must eliminate the ghetto. This can be easily done. The answer is to spread low income housing. If we put one low income household on every block, the low income families would be spread out, and would also be placed in areas that have affluent families ready to help out. Spreading them out eliminates urban slums, which increases urban real estate value, and it reduces gang violence by eliminating the need for a gang. Also, affluent neighborhoods tend to have access to better public services, which would also improve the quality of life for low income families. Step Three: Increasing Employment Opportunities The Brookings Institution writes "The decentralizing U.S. economy has, in many metropolitan areas, led to a spatial mismatch between where welfare recipients live and where jobs are available. In Milwaukee, for instance, nearly 90 percent of full-time entry-level job openings in May 2000 were located in the suburban/exurban parts of the metropolitan area. Only 4 percent of full-time and part-time entry-level job openings were located in the central Milwaukee neighborhoods where most W-2 (Wisconsin's welfare reform program) participants lived. An October 2001 survey showed that there were only 2,700 full- and part-time jobs available in central city Milwaukee for the 13,100 persons actively seeking work there." This problem has a number of solutions necessary. One important solution is the elimination of the ghetto, and the movement of low income families from the city to the suburbs. Also, welfare programs must focus on providing employment. This entails providing a car. Most low income families do not have an automobile. This prevents them from getting jobs far away from their residence. Providing an automobile would drastically increase employment. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Is ronaldo better than messi? because Messi is the better player. Vote Con!!! <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Capital Punishment because lol I win!! yay! <EOA>

<BOA> I am against The U.S. regime should be held accountable for sponsoring terrorists in Syria because The other day I listened to a debate ( http://www.democracynow.org... ) about the conflict in Syria and the legitimacy of the Free Syrian Army. It got me to thinking about all the ingenious arguments Pro might come up with for round 3. I thought a lot about how I would respond to these arguments and I was prepared for a serious discrediting of the FSA. So, despite looking forward to responding to some powerful arguments by Pro, I must admit that any concerns I had about the debate were put to rest after reading his third round. Continuing his utter disdain for citing legitimate sources, he literal references the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad to support an argument. "The free Syrian army are terrorists, and Asad has said that the majority of them are foreign fighters." It's great that you're such a big fan of this dictator, but I think the voters might consider him an illegitimate source. The rest of his arguments are simply unsupported ipse dixits , calling me a "shill", more disdain for citing sources and, for whatever reason, copying all my sources into his round. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Rap Battle because You seem a bit edgy today Eat a Snickers, if you may Now, I can tell that you like it rough But that's no reason to act all tough Bring your buzz saw, if it's even legal Cause I sleep with a loaded desert eagle Hong Kong is nice, don't get me wrong But you'd be better off in Colorado, Con Weed is legal there, even for old gramps Too bad you can't buy hemp with foodstamps <EOA>

<BOA> I am against No one deserves to go to Hell because Thank you, 000ike, for your response. To begin, I would first like to refer to my opponent's two very strong premises: 1. Hell is only a justified punishment for a person who has free will. 2. No person has free will. The conclusion drawn from these two premises is, of course, that Hell is an unjustified punishment for any person. So, where do I fault in these statements? Ladies and gentlemen of the audience, I find no fault in either of these premises. I wholeheartedly agree with both of them and the conclusion that logically follows. "What?" I hear you gasp, "Have you receded from the debate? Admitted defeat?" I shall ease your doubts; this is no resignation. In fact, it is the exact opposite. Everything my opponent has said thus far points to only one logical conclusion: there IS one who is deserving of going to Hell. Allow me to explain. We have already established that the eternal torment of Hell is an unjust and immoral punishment for all mortal souls to be judged "deserving" of. Therefore, every time a soul is unjustly sent to Hell, it counts as another immoral act toward one being's ever-growing criminal record: the greatest criminal mastermind in history, the one responsible for the creation and continuation of the draconian cruelty and injustice that is Hell, the one who is ultimately accountable for every wrongful sending of souls to this Hell, God Himself! That's right: by deduction of my opponent's own logic, God is the only being in the universe who deserves His own punishment of Hell. He's the one who created human beings without free will; He's the one who created Hell to punish them for actions outside of their control; and He's the one ultimately responsible for sending them to Hell when it is within His power for them not to. And God, having free will, is excluded from the problems presented by my opponent's premises. Since God has free will, He SHOULD be held accountable for His undeniably immoral actions and Hell would be a just punishment for Him. Therefore, as there IS a being deserving of the punishment of Hell, my opponent's proposition is false. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with There is evidence for creationism. because For the elves to be responsible for the beauty in the world, music, the stars, etc, they would have to have created it. They would be intelligent being, and therefore, my opponent's hypothetical affirms creationism. Whatever being you claim responsible, you will be affirming creationism. My opponent and I seem to have a disagreement on what evidence is. As my opponent suggested, we will be taking ignorant stances, so please, disregard any scientific theories that explain the 'phenomena' we're talking about. Evidence, as defined in the Oxford dictionary, simply needs to indicate that something is true. Indicate: http://www.askoxford.com... be a sign or symptom of. Therefore, something nearly needs to be a sign that would lead one to think that there was indeed an intelligent creator. Evidence does not need to be proof, and usually isn't. It simply needs to be a piece of information that is a sign of an intelligent designer. My opponent once again confuses what we're trying to prove here. He says that perhaps pretty girls were the creators. However, this is still creationism. While creationism is often used to indicate a strict belief in some religious creation story, it is more broadly defined as the notion that what we see around us was created by an intelligence, not by natural processes. Also, I hardly see how your parallel is valid here. When we see a light in the sky, we have more than just evidence that there is a light in the sky. We know something caused it. And something caused that. And something caused that. We know there must somewhere down the line be an ultimate cause we can draw it back to. However, everything natural requires a cause. Therefore, it must have been something supernatural, and since the only supernatural explanation we have is a god figure, it would seem to indicate the existence of one. Therefore, even my opponent's parallel is evidence that a 'god' (read: supernatural being) exists and it is the ultimate cause of the universe. Ergo, it created the universe. I have provided evidence, therefore I have disproved my opponent's side of the resolution. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Michael Jackson faked his own death because Many thanks to my opponent for agreeing to debate this delicate matter. I realise that many people feel personally affected by the reports of Michael Jackson's supposed death, even though they may have never met him, and unless they go shopping on the Edgware Road, probably never will. I suspect that these are the same people who refuse to believe that Michael Jackson sleeps with little boys - even though he has admitted to it himself on television. Sadly, it is this type of blind loyalty and refusal to accept uncomfortable truths that has enabled Jackson to dodge his responsibilities in the past and has allowed him to pull the wool over the eyes of the public this time as well. My opponent wrote that Jackson hadn't been feeling well recently. Please remember, on his next birthday he'll be 51 years old and all middle aged people get a few aches and pains every now and again. However, most people don't have their own personal doctor looking after them all the time like he does. Wacko Jacko's quacko was in the room when the 911 call was made so why didn't he do anything to help him? And why did he suddenly go missing after 'Michael Jackson's body' was taken to hospital? And why has his car been impounded by the police? And why are the law enforcement officers so keen to speak to him? http://www.nypost.com... I'll tell you why. Because they smell a rat. Jackson and his henchmen have put one over on the LAPD before and they're not going to let him get away with it again. If I were Jackson, I'd be quaking in my diamond-encrusted slippers right now. He can run but he cannot hide forever and when they catch up with him and expose the truth to the world I doubt even his most loyal fans will forgive him and the people he owes hundreds of millions of dollars to most certainly wont. Thank you. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Napoleon Bonaparte vs. George Washington because Now it was a while ago that a show called Deadliest Warrior which puts warriors that never fought each other. Now you can find the show if you wish, but here is a quick look at the weapons they used: Artillery Napoleon's 8lb vs. Washington's 6lb Napoleon won the artillery round with his cannons proving to be more powerful and more advanced. There was a test at round shot and then a test at grape shot. The grape shot that Napoleon had was used against Washington's shrapnel because there was apparently a lack of grape shot in the revolution. While Napoleon did deserve the win for having a better cannon for being faster and more powerful, Washington's was faster. Muskets Napoleon's Charleville vs. Washington's Brown Bess and Pennsylvania Long Rifle I do not recall the name of the rifle, but it had a greater range than the French Charleville. Washington also used the Brown Bess so he got two guns. Napoleon's standard was the Charville that could reload far more faster. Washington was proven to have better muskets. Swords Napoleon's Cavalry Saber vs. Washington's Colichemarde Sword The Colichemarde was proven to be better with the cuts it made than Napoleon's sword. They also included tactics where Napoleon won and logistics where Washington won. Several X factors were included in it. Then the battle was computerized and it turns out Washington beat the battle against Napoleon. Now despite what a computer simulation puts I do not think that Napoleon could beat Washington. I do not hate the show, but I just do not agree with their argument. We must know that the computer is not really them, but just representing them and their army through weapons and factors. In this debate I will do everything I can to prove that Napoleon would actually win the battle than Washington. I am against what the show said that Washington would beat Napoleon. The opponent must defend Washington. Now apparently videos are not well liked in this debate site. So I will only allow that you can use 1 video in the entire debate so you must choose wisely what video and when it will help you best. Who will accept the debate? <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Star gate better then star wars because First a light saber can not die and the light saber can not be paralyzed. My second argument is that the emperor has a large army full of a variety of soldiers. The emperor also has a spaceship that blows up planets. The emperor also has the force and Vader. So I believe the star gate army will lose to the empire. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Sarah Palin would be a good president of the United States. because It's certainly a pleasure for me to get to take up this issue with such a distinguished opponent. I don't anticipate that this dialogue is going to be bogged down too much by my opponent and I attempting to define "good". A "good" president helps promote human wellbeing, justice, and also helps to maintain a functional society. As such, I am inclined to agree with my opponent's standards for "good". However, I would also add rationality to the list of qualities a good president must possess. So, with definitions taken care of, let's get into the crux of the debate. C1: Sarah Palin's views are incongruous with the pursuits of a civil society. My opponent opens his critique of my first argument by stating that the religious views of past presidents have traditionally never been an important factor in their administrations. This is probably true; we've never had anyone like Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin win the office of the presidency. People like Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin really are motivated by the basis of their religious convictions. On the other hand, all of the past presidents that my opponent has listed such as Nixon, Kennedy, Carter, and Obama are all deeply secular in a very fundamental way. All of those men understood the importance of the principle that church and state should be kept separate. To take just one specific example, Barrack Obama is only nominally religious. In other words, he is totally a secular leader, although he may hold certain nebulous and numinous religious convictions. This is evident every time he talks, despite the views of the church he may have attended for political reasons. Moreover, this is especially evident in one speech that he gave on religion. [1] Thus, Roy, your analogy is a false one. C2: Sarah Palin doesn't posses the intellectual prowess necessary for high office. My opponent has argued that intelligence isn't necessarily the defining quality of a good president. However, it's important to realize that people like George Washington governed in a completely different era than today. Further, Palin seems to have difficulty with talking about even basic things that a political figure should know. Consider, for example, her interview with Katie Couric. Katie Couric asked Palin, "Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? Allow them to spend more, and put more money into the economy, instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?" Sarah Palin responded by stating, "That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in. Where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh, it's got to be about job creation, too. Shoring up our economy, and getting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade -- we have got to see trade as opportunity, not as, uh, competitive, um, scary thing, but one in five jobs created in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation." [2] Speaking in tongues may be acceptable in the church Palin attends, but it is certainly inappropriate to engage in this behavior while being interviewed by a professional journalist. That was truly the most incoherent response that I've seen from a major political figure, and the rest of the interview with Couric was just as bad. Bush got hammered a lot for being thick, but even he possessed an admirable level of intellect. I can't, however, say the same thing about Governor Palin. She is a living, breathing repository for clich�s, talking points, and platitudes, and the interview she did with Couric proves it. A1: ‘Sarah Palin is honest and has sound principles.' Among other things, my opponent claims that Palin is honest. Nonetheless, she has been caught telling lies, even during the 2008 presidential campaign. For example, Palin practically made it a campaign slogan to say that she opposed the "bridge to nowhere". But this is false. She supported the "bridge to nowhere" before she was against it. In fact, Charlie Gibson pointed out that she even used to wear a t-shirt that indicated her support for the bridge. [3] In addition, Steve Schmidt, McCain's most important advisor during the 2008 elections, went so far as to say that, "There were numerous instances that she [Palin] said things that were — that were not accurate that ultimately, the campaign had to deal with […]". [4] Clearly, she isn't above cynically manipulating the truth. A2: ‘Sarah Palin has good administrative skills and contextual intelligence.' Even the people that worked closely with Palin thought she was helplessly ignorant. In fact, one of McCain's closest advisors has come out to call Palin a "whack job". [5] Now, I don't know a lot about the intricacies that go into the political process; however, I do know one thing: loyalties run deep in politics. Here is one of McCain's closest advisors referring to Palin as an idiot. Moreover, John Heilemann and Mark Halperin – the authors of ‘Game Change' who had unprecedented access to Palin - also described the governor as quite ignorant. [6] Therefore, it seems safe to conclude that Palin is even less impressive behind closed doors. Additionally, Palin's decision to quit as the governor of Alaska halfway through her first term demonstrates her incompetence, not her political intelligence. This is the very type of decision one would expect from a bad administrator. Likewise, her motives for quitting also seem to be suspicious. She called it quits right when an ethics investigation was overshadowing her administration. [7] This was probably a wise decision on her part considering the fact that this investigation found that Palin had abused her power as governor. [8] ::Conclusion:: Palin is shockingly unqualified to be president in terms of her principles and her political knowledge. To take just one more example, during a prayer for the former governor in her church, she was rebuked from every form of ‘witchcraft'. [9] This leads one to wonder, what forms of ‘witchcraft' are afoot in the Alaskan tundra? Perhaps Harry Potter came to Wasilla in order to get his revenge on the governor for her disavowal of his book series. At any rate, this whole spectacle speaks to a larger problem. Governor Palin may be charismatic, but her entire career exudes an aura of ignorance – a clinging and systemic ignorance that is beyond the power of exorcism to dispel. What the United States needs now is not leaders who are guided by medieval incantations. If anything, it should be obvious that such techniques are unlikely to produce results in the real world. What is needed now is the application of reason – and swiftly at that. Sources: 1. "YouTube - Barack Obama Versus Religion." YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. Web. 12 June 2010. 2. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com... 3. "YouTube - Palin: Okay, I Didn't Quite Say "Thanks, But No Thanks"" YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. Web. 12 June 2010. 4. http://www.politico.com... 5. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 6. http://www.nydailynews.com... 7. http://online.wsj.com... 8. http://www.msnbc.msn.com... 9. "YouTube - Raw Video: Palin Saved From 'Witchcraft'" YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.Web. 12 June 2010. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against My opponent has just lost the game. because Thanks to pro for a quick response. I'm not "always" thinking about the game, but I had been the entire time, since learning about it, thus becoming a participant. Pro's argument serves to prove my point. He says, "... you just lost the game on an identically themed debate. And you re-lost on this debate." He's absolutely correct. I had "just" lost the game when I began reading the other debate. He says that I re-lost on this debate, but the resolution has nothing to do with "re-losing", it says "just lost". "Just", as used in the resolution, implies at this instant. By his own argument, the resolution is negated. Pro states that my argument is invalid, but does not show that it violates any of the rules that were agreed on. Therefore, it should be extended. I look forward to the next round. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with The Conquest of America by Spain was overall positive because I am asked to define better what I mean by "overall positive", but I must admit I am at loss to find a clearer way of saying "mostly good". I hope what I mean will become clear by my arguments. The justification for the conquest of America was not, as in the case of the English or the French, for economic motives. The title of legitimacy was the papal bull which gave the Spanish monarchs the prerogative to evangelize the newly discovered lands. A cynical or materialist historian would argue that all historical events have an economic motive, and I do not mean that individuals were not motivated by gold and glory. We cannot know what their innermost motivations truly were, nevertheless, material gain was not the official focus, and this had concrete effects beyond mere words. The first of these effects was the obligation to take missionaries wherever the explorers or conquerors would go. Today, this is generally seen as a bad thing; an imposition of one moral and cultural code over another country. We cannot uncritically transfer our value system to another time without first understanding their point of view and motivations. This was seen as the greatest benefit possible: taking the truth and salvation to people who had up to now not had the opportunity to know it. This was seen and intended not as an unbearable imposition, but as an incalculable benefit: and it did indeed have benefits, as it was precisely these missionaries who served as a defender of the rights of the natives, as we shall see. The second of these is a mindset of protection of the natives by the Spanish crown. The Testament of Isabelle the Catholic made clear that the natives were to be given every protection: "As we were granted by the Holy Apostolic See the islands and firm land (...) discovered and to be discovered, our main intention has been (...) to induce and bring its people to our Holy Catholic Faith and send those lands (...) prelates, religious and clergy (...) to instruct [them] in the faith. (...) for this reason I implore the King, my lord, most affectionately, and charge and order the Princess my daughter and the Prince her husband that (...) this be their principal end (...) and that they not allow that the [Indians] (...) receive any grievance in their persons or goods; rather I order that they be well and justly treated. And if they have received some grievance this be remedied so what is charged and ordered us by the Apostolic letters is obeyed in all things." Bartolome de las Casas could be considered the world's first lobbyist. When he saw the abuses of the encomienda he set out to denounce them (by exaggerating his case to the point of libel, but for a good cause nonetheless) and make sure that Carlos I (V of Germany) follow Isabelle's last will and testament. So ardently did he preach to the Emperor saying his soul was in danger should the Conquest continue that Carlos I actually ordered a stop to the conquest. No land should be taken until he were sure it was not a mortal sin. He therefore called for all the greatest theologians of the day to get together and decide what the course of action should be. This was called the Controversy of Valladolid. Las Casas took to himself the defense of the Indians while Sepulveda defended the conquest. And Las Casas won out. That's right, the King of Spain and Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, the man who owned half of Europe (including Italy) and had power over the new lands to the West decided to back Las Casas instead of the guy who said he was right in everything he did. The Controversy of Valladolid led to two consequences: the writing of strong laws in protection of the natives called Leyes de Indias (laws of the Indies) and the appointment of Bartolome de las Casas as bishop of Chiapas by recommendation of the emperor, as well as his title as "Procurer and Universal Defender of all Indians". de las Casas continued his lobbying efforts and was able to get further protections from the crown. In addition to the immediate effects, the Controversy of Valladolid, and the intellectual output leading up to it, had tremendous effects that still last for all of us today. Francisco de Vitoria, who was dead by the time of the Controversy, but whose work influenced its outcome more than any of its live participants is recognized as the father of international law and the man who laid the groundwork for the present conception of Universal Human Rights. His ideas about the natural law and rights over and above the impositions of the State not only countered the idea of absolute monarchy before its advent, it also pioneered the idea of conscientious objection as an inalienable right of man against even the Emperor. Your soul is yours, he argued, and if the king should order you to do something which would put your soul in jeopardy it is still you who sill answer to God for those actions, and not the King. (The basis, by the way, of the verdict of the Nuremberg trials against the Nazis owes its argument to Vitoria, merely changing the language from that of a moralist to that of jurisprudence: rather than saying immortal soul and mortal sin, saying crimes against humanity and genocide). The very framework, therefore, that is used to attack the Conquest (accusations of genocide using the bloated figures given by las Casas and by Spain's political enemies and the like) owes its existence to that very Conquest. Other countries never stopped to think of the conquered as anything more than the "other" to be exploited or exterminated. In the case of the Spanish Conquest such actions were contrary to the nation's policy and met with opposition both in America by the missionaries and in the peninsula by the Crown. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Flag burning should be illegal on public property on U.S. soil without being sanctioned by gov't. because 1. Re: I think it warrants an arrest because a flag is the symbol a country, and to burn the flag is to burn the country. That is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard! Clearly burning a flag does not actually (nor does is it even intended to represent) burning a country. This is a far fetched argument rooted in a blatant lie. 2. My opponent agrees that throwing people in jail for protesting the government is has the resemblance of a Chinese or Afghanistan ideology. In other words, my opponent is agreeing that such a practice would be in direct opposition with American ideals: freedom. 3. There is no specific symbol for America or anywhere else. There are some widely agreed upon symbols, i.e. flags, but symbols are really just means of identification for humans to relate one thing to another. Not everyone views symbols in the same way, and not everyone should have to adhere to the respect of another's symbol (so long as the symbol in question or being destroyed is not someone's property). 4. My opponent says that he's proven that flag burning can be harmful. He has not. He merely listed a set of potential harms that things on fire can do. This is utterly useless to the debate. That's like saying because someone can hit someone over the head with a bat, baseball (Hey! Another symbol of America) should be illegal. FAIL. 5. Re: The government needs to protect the public property. If flag burning poses a threat to public property (which it does), flag burning can be prohibited on public property to preserve the public property. The flag in question would being to the person burning it. That is THEIR private property, and burning it would cause no physical harm (barring the outlandish and far-fetched scenarios my opponent pitched) to others. The flag is in on way public property. And even if you buy into the fact that something bad could happen as a result of flag burning on public property, consider that car accidents happen on public property all the time (streets). Should this mean that driving automobiles be made illegal? Clearly this is faulty logic. 6. Using the word "combustion" or any variation thereof does not make one's argument more grammatically correct. I'd recommend that Pro focus more on his arguments than trying to use $2 words to try and make it sound better (it's not really helping :/ ). 7. Re: The point is, the freedom to burn things is NOT protected by the Construction, which was one of your arguments. Like I said, the Constitution doesn't exactly give us the right to chew gum either. That doesn't mean we should not be able to. Further, I can argue that the constitution absolutely defends individual LIBERTY. Therefore, one should have the liberty of self-expression (a.k.a. freedom of speech, a.k.a. also directly protected by our Constitution). 8. Re: The Constitution does grant freedom of assembly, but as I already said, it lacks freedom of combustion, which is imperative to your case. And like I've already said, one's right to "combust" things is entirely irrelevant. It is certainly not "imperative" to my case. See the point above. 9. Re: Putting the American flag on your birthday cake is not desecrating it. I don't see where you get that notion. My point is that cutting into the image of the American flag seems like it would be a negative thing by your standards. It has the image of the flag (America's symbol, right?) being cut into or destroyed... so by your logic, that would mean you are destroying AMERICA, right? Psht. 10. Re: Thoughts have never been illegal, so I don't know where thoughts came into this debate. The act is the important part. So... Pro's saying that we shouldn't be able to express our thoughts, even if that form of self expression doesn't directly harm others? Hmm. Well, what about art? Pro consistently neglects these important questions. 11. Re: You said that the American flag represents a man's freedom. If you burn what represents your freedom, you could be said to have burned your freedom. And when you burn your freedom, you don't have freedom. Capice? Capice? S�, ho capito. Sei colui che non capisce. ... In other words, what you're saying makes no sense. A symbol is just a representation - it doesn't indicate the "real" thing. For instance, at weddings, the bride and groom exchange rings as a symbol of their eternal love. If one of them happens to lose their ring, it doesn't mean that they have lost their love. To suggest such an analogy (that burning "freedom" in the form of a flag actually eliminates your freedom) is ridiculous. Plus, Pro seems to be missing the point that the burning itself is an ACT of freedom. Thus, I can use his logic against him: To inhibit one from burning their "freedom" is actually what's eliminating freedom. 12. Re: (The law) would mandate that the symbol of the country's heritage, history, and everything it stands for not be desecrated in public. At the expense of losing individual liberties? Nay. Not worth it. You haven't proven why it should be, either. And even if you did/will, I'd rip that argument to shreds. Go for it! 13. Re: Public safety argument ... What a joke. Pro ignored all of my questions and skepticism regarding his claims. Until he addresses them, i.e. the likelihood of an actual tragedy, this point is moot. 14. Re: Fires are hard to contain... If people started burning flags in the streets, I know that I would watch... Instead of me trying to prove a negative on your statement, you should be proving the affirmative. So you're saying that because fires are hard to contain, and people are tempted to look at things on fire, that lighting things on fire should be prohibited? Or even just in public? Okay, then campfires (especially those done in parks or other public places) should be outlawed, according to Pro. Further, he ignored every single aspect of my argument regarding other potentially dangerous things being made illegal, i.e. driving and other examples. Moreover, why should I be proving the affirmative? Pro is PRO in this debate, not I. Moreover, he is the instigator. Way to try and shift the burden of proof, Pro. Unfortunately for you, I have not only refuted your weak arguments, but made a strong case of my own (especially regarding liberty, freedoms and rights)... hmm. Nice try. 15. Re: Should I be allowed to run out into a park with a burning flag, waving it around everywhere in protest, with sparks flying everywhere? Whoops. There goes the playground. Whoops. Sorry about the spark in your eye, sir. I'm just being an inconsiderate little rebel who doesn't care about fire safety. ^ This is a complete exaggeration of what would likely happen at such an "event." Moreover, if someone harmed others during their flag burning session, then that harm caused should be a punishable offense. However, this debate isn't about the HARM that flag burning MIGHT cause; it's about the flag burning itself. - - - - - - - Back to you for now. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against NCIS is the best TV show. because Thanks to mongeese for the fun debate. Because my opponent has presented little new information this last round, I will summarize what conclusions have been drawn thus far about both shows. 1. Plotline Pro concedes that NCIS' storyline is unoriginal, but humorously claims that means it must is good. In reality, this only means it is clich�d. I have shown Seinfeld's story to be original, admired, and yet to be successfully replicated. Pro's rebuttal: "I just don't get it." 2. Running Time My opponent has conceded this point for 2 rounds. 3. Cinematography Pro has refused to acknowledge my argument that near-identical "camera tricks" are used by numerous other shows, reinforcing NCIS as just another crime drama. 4. Characters Pro claims the characters on NCIS are superior because he thinks they are. On the other hand, I have provided evidence that Seinfeld not only has a wider cast of characters, but also that its main characters are far more celebrated than those of NCIS. Add on this fan approval with approval from the critics and it is clear which cast is superior. 5. Ratings Seinfeld has placed higher in ratings, viewer totals, and top 10 placements for all 6 of NCIS' seasons. My opponent has not and cannot refute this fact. Instead, he complained that ratings are skewed because shows were less impressive during Seinfeld's day. Not only is this point completely immaterial, it actually works against his case. If more people are watching television today than 10 years ago, the fact that Seinfeld still had more viewers than NCIS does now shows just how much better it is. 6. Awards Seinfeld won 3 times the awards and received 7 times the nominations of NCIS during the same time span. Afterward, Seinfeld went on to receive an additional 18 awards and 60 nominations. To match this performance, NCIS would have to receive more honors in the next three years than is physically possible. Pro tries to credit Seinfeld's awards to its longevity, which clearly makes no sense as Seinfeld received its awards while still on the air. 7. Recognition Seinfeld has amassed far more public recognition than NCIS and is widely recognized as one of the best shows ever made. Once again, Pro has not and cannot refute this fact. Notice my opponent's lack of sources showing any amount of public recognition for NCIS. This was not an oversight, but rather a sad truth of the show; NCIS is simply not as well received as Seinfeld. 8. Influence & Longevity Seinfeld has become a pop culture icon, influencing media and society on a level reserved for only the most distinguished series. It has and continues to produce amazing amounts of revenue and still out-performs new primetime shows. Pro has not offered a single claim that NCIS can match any these feats, despite the fact that it has been on the air for 6 years now. ::Conclusion:: Note that my opponent has not presented any actual evidence showing NCIS as superior. Instead, he has spent this entire debate simply explaining why he personally prefers the show. Sadly, his preference could not stand up to scrutiny; I have shown NCIS' premise to be clich�d, its editing to be overused, and its characters to be painfully obvious stereotypes. In the mean time, Seinfeld shined in nearly every category presented. It's considered better by fans because of original storytelling and beloved characters. TV critics prefer it, rewarding it 3 times the awards of NCIS. It's better liked by the viewing public, producing ratings that surpassed NCIS every single season. It even became a part of our culture in ways NCIS has not begun to approach, nor likely ever will. While Pro may complain that Seinfeld's success is due to its age, such longevity is just another point in its favor. The choice is clear, vote Con. Happy Festivus! <EOA>

<BOA> I am against subsidies/loans instead of insurance because You clearly know nothing about economics. Our country is already in deep economic trouble, we are in a recession, crashing. We are nothing short of SCREWED. The fed keeps cutting interest, loaning money, etc etc. We cannot afford to finance expensive medical care to Americans for many reasons. 1.It would put us further in debt. We're already 9 trillion in, we need stop spending. 2.Once I had a life saving operation, the motivation to keep paying diminishes exponentially. 3.The problem exists with the insurance companies and our economy, we need to make the Insurance companies accountable for their terrible ethics. Besides, the government should not be involved at ALL! What should be done is that these insurance companies should stop being public companies and be made into private corporations who have accountability to one group, their customers, and not to both their customers AND their stockholders. <EOA>