Datasets:

notaphoenix

/

iesta_liberal_effective

like 0

<BOA> I am with Should illegal immigrants be given pathway to citizenship? because This round is going to be brief, so I'm going to appologize ahead of time for short arguments. I would like to thank my opponent for the debate and wish him good luck. My opponent is not entirely sure what this new purposed system will be as we can see that it seems that my opponent is only theorizing a lot of the aspects of the status quo and I agree with him that the status quo is quite bad which is why I'm arguing for the change in immigration policy to permit amnesty. My opponent states that this will be a slap in the face to immigrants, but we are not sure what other things may come with this, perhaps there will be more benefits later down the road or maybe we will see tougher immigration laws post Amnesty. My opponent does bring up these long lines and fees, but this would generally help speed people up as we will be granting amnesting to tons of people within the US and coming in will become easier for the time being. We simply can't be worried on how we hurt other people's feelings as that is not really an impact in this debate. The fact that we can see that this argument has no valid impact in the debate and it shows that there isn't really a harm means this argument holds no weight in this debate. Even if illegal aliens, which under this resolution would become citizens, can buy homes and get licenses, what's the issue? This actually helps the argument that my opponent raised earlier in the debate about how much of an issue it would be since illegal immigrants have to have government service. Under this change of the status quo, they will help our economy as well as get them off government assistance. This actually solves my opponent's own argument which means that you have to either negate both arguments or they both flow into my favor. I do understand that refuggees are different and completely agree they are, but they are still under the same category since they would be living in the US without being actual citizens. If they are willing to become citizens under the scope of this resolution, then we would see increased government profit and economic growth. As for moving them to Canada, that may be an argument, but it is highly impossible. You cannot simply suggest that without giving or understanding the feasibility of the purposal. I had never stated that the fiscal deficet wouldn't matter. I stated that this is an issue in the status quo. There are a ton of issues in the status quo and that's why I want to fix it as well as my opponent. He doesn't have an actual plan in this debate other than show the stats of the status quo without showing disadvantages of amnesty. I do agree that this is a problem, but when given citizenship, they will seek to better their lives. That's why they came to the us and some come here just to send money back home, which was a point that I had previously brought up in my Opening arguments. My opponent makes an Appeal to Authority logical fallacy as he uses two people here in this statement to put emphasis on econ, however, I have shown previously that it may lower in the short term, but we will see an increase in the long term. I had also previously shown, and it was dropped, that many illegal immigrants tend to take jobs that no one takes and there are those who take high skill jobs, hence certain visas. My opponent keeps making the mistake here in income. They make this much now, but under the purposed change, these numbers will increase as they will no longer get $5 per hour, but a minimum wage job will be $7.50. I do agree that employers of illegal immigrants exploit their workers which is why under this resolution when they become US citizens, that won't be an issue anymore as they would then be able to be exploited and will get all the same rights of the average American. Hence my opponent's arguments are negated and you may flow this argument to my side of the debate. My opponent never actually stated that there is any actual issues. He continues to press that illegal immigrants vote Democrat, but what's the issue wtih this? There isn't an issue with them voting any party. The government offers many English Language Learner, ELL, classes that people can take. With that we can see that my opponent only seems to argue about issues in the status quo and does not attack the resolution at hand. Many of his own arguments either contradict each other or actually end up supporting my own side. It is for these reasons that you should cast a ballot in Affirmation. Thank you. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with The United States Federal Government's War on Drugs should be ended. because Thank you, 16kadams, for this debate. I hope you'll reconsider your stance on drugs after this debate. Contention 1-: The War on Drugs has worked I'm aware that marijuana use went down, but there is no evidence that this is due to the Drug War. Correlation does not mean causation, after all. According to Milton Friedman, marijuana use actually went down in Alaska through legalization [1]. Additionally, much of the high drug usage occurred before people really knew how dangerous drugs like morphine were; in this age of information, we wouldn't have that problem. Besides, while normalization may occur, the many negatives of the Drug War are not worth this one positive. My opponent claims that "taxing [drugs] actually raises users, but he gives no evidence for this. He also claims that the drug war can be "won," but evidently not everyone is deterred from using drugs by the law, or else the war would already be won. My opponent claims that substance abuse is America's #1 health problem (which is really odd if the war is working), but a Google search reveals that this could also be stress [2], obesity [3], or a lack of sleep; that's not an invitation for government to regulate all of those aspects of our life. It isn't the role of government to keep us healthy, but to protect our rights. Contention 1+: The War on Drugs is expensive My opponent does not refute that drugs may contribute to psychic income instead of monetary income, making his monetary measurements invalid. My opponent claims that emergency room costs would increase, but this is doubtful. With legalization, it would be easier for addicts to seek help for their problems, and it would be easier for people to get information on safe use of drugs. Milton Friedman pointed out how a pregnant mother would be able to talk to a doctor about her addiction and get the prenatal care her child needs [1]; this would occur at all levels of addiction. Regarding aggravation rates, "[t]he violence is due to prohibition and nothing else. How much violence is there surrounding the alcohol trade?" [1]. My opponent cites a study claiming that drug use may indicate exposure to violence, but it does not conclusively link drug use to more violence; in fact, they may both simply correlate with exposure to violence. Users would be less likely to overdose if they could get adequate instruction on drug use, but this can't happen without legalization. It's true that long term use of a drug can lead to personality changes, but the same is true for alcohol and many legal drugs, and yet alcohol is still legal. Now, the "few billion" dollars over the American population is actually about $700 over each individual's average lifespan, which is fairly significant. Contention 2+: People have a right to drugs My opponent claims that "if drugs were legal, people would be allowed to do it anywhere," but this is simply not true. Again, refer to nudity, which is legal on people's private property, but not in public, and there isn't currently some outbreak of nudity in the streets. Again, the drug use itself does not infringe upon anyone's rights.The resulting violence could, but I've already listed many currently legal things that people have a right to use that can also accidentally result in harm to others; my opponent never contested this, and thus drops the argument. My opponent entirely fails to address the constitutional problems of the War on Drugs; it is entirely unconstitutional. Any anti-drug action is left to the states. Contention 2-: Drugs promote crime My opponent claims that the drug cartels would not be harmed long-term by legalization, but that is only because they have other sources of revenue. It would still weaken them in at least some respect, and the violence specifically caused by the illegal marijuana trade would still go away. Naturally, stopping the cartels completely would be much more complicated. I even quoted in my first round a cartel chief saying the drug war was "good for business." I can't read my opponent's source regarding child abuse, but I would guess that the drug most of the child abusers used was alcohol, which is currently legal, so that contention is useless. Contention 3+: The War on Drugs has many unintended consequences. My opponent has little refutation here. He doesn't address the numerous tragic deaths caused by the War on Drugs. He hasn't proven that increased drug use in a legal environment would raise crime. The drug cartels would still operate if their drugs were legalized, but that's only because they're involved in other things; the drug violence itself would stop. He also failed to address the increased corruption of policemen and law officials, the spread of disease, the conversion of many people from non-violent drug use to a life of crime, etc. Conclusion: I have shown how much of the violence of drugs, well as other societal problems, are caused by the War on Drugs itself, which uses our money for an unconstitutional and therefore illegal purpose. Therefore, the federal War on Drugs should be ended. Vote PRO! 1. http://www.druglibrary.org... 2. http://www.stress.org... 3. http://www.cnbc.com... 4. http://articles.cnn.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am with The Confederate Flag Is a Symbol of Racism because Agree: A1: My opponent states that the reason why the states of the Confederacy rebelled was due to the fact ("For that reason...") that they wanted to keep their slaves. This saves me a lot of trouble. There is a popular myth that the Civil War was about States' rights and tariffs. I'm glad we can move past that and immediately recognize that the Confederacy was formed due to slavery. A2: My opponent states that the flag symbolizes the Confederate States of America (CSA) ("meaning of this flag...represented...seceded Southern states...[and] secession from Union.") I agree with this point. It's also a bit obvious, since it is called the "Confederate Battle Flag." A3: My opponent states that many Southerners still use the flag. I agree. Sources critique: My opponent uses no sources for this historical debate. Therefore, all of my opponent's claims must be considered entirely unfounded. My opponent did not offer any way for either myself or the voter for evaluating whether my opponent's arguments are true or false. My opponent: R1: Southern state legislature: Uncited. If true, it demonstrates sentiment that Confederate flag is offensive. The fact that "it" did not pass fails is not evidence that the flag is not racist: only that the issue is questionable enough not to ban its use. R2: American flag flew during slavery: Uncited but true, although it was a slightly different flag at the time [1]. However, because the American flag was the battle flag of the Union who eventually caused all slaves to be freed, and because the Union was not founded in order to keep slaves, and because the American flag was and is the symbol of United States (North, South, East, and West) during its entire history after the slaves were freed, it cannot be said that the American Flag represents slavery. And even if all the reasons I gave are false and the American Flag does represent slavery, it certainly does so to a lesser extent than the CSA flag. R3: North did not free slaves before South: Uncited. Also, even if it were true, it would only be true due to a technicality. The abolitionist movement around the Civil War was also concentrated in the Union, especially supporting Abraham Lincoln (though he was considered a moderate, willing to allow slavery in the South rather than compromise the Union). [2]. By 1810, 75% of African Americans in the North were free [3]. By 1840, virtually all African Americans in the North were free [3]. There were still slight numbers of slaves in the North, because some states choose to release their slaves through a gradual process instead all at once [3]. R4: South had integrated troops. Black persons also owned slaves [4]. Opponent assumes racial unity, that if some black persons fought for the CSA then Southern black persons as a whole sided with the CSA. This is obviously untrue, and actually quite offensive, though I'm sure my opponent did not intend to be offensive. R5: My opponent says that the northern states were believed to be enforcing "their overall political dominance, upon the Southern States in general," but does not say that this was the reason for the Secession, and also does not give any sources to back this claim, so this claim does not seem vital to the debate, and therefore I need not address it for now. Outline: Contention 1 (C1): The "cornerstone" of the CSA was slavery In the Constitution of the CSA there is a passage that states that no law may be passed that would prohibit or inhibit slavery [5]. The Vice President stated that the CSA was founded on the notion of the "natural" white supremacy over blacks and the maintenance of slavery, the "cornerstone" of the CSA [6]. The Civil War was not founded on States' rights or tariffs but slavery [5, 7, 8]. The Southern States gave reasons for secession, and slavery was in all of them and states' rights (except the right to secede) was in none of them [8]. Contention 2: Good intentions of flag-bearer(s) are irrelevant to the flag's being a racist symbol Since we are talking about whether something is racist, we must determine this from the perspective of a stranger observing the use of the flag, and not the owner of the flag. The stranger would not know that the owner had good intentions. Therefore, if the flag is often used as a racist symbol or if there is good historical reason to think that it is a racist symbol, than the "good intentions" of the flag bearer in no way demonstrates whether or not the flag is a symbol of racism. It would have to be the stranger who does not know the owner who decides. Contention 3: Many flag-bearers are racist and use the flag as a symbol of white supremacy [9] KKK and other white supremacist/hate groups use the Confederate Flag. While the swastika had many uses besides the symbol of Nazism, it became adopted as a symbol of that organization. Now, we can certainly all agree that the flying of the swastika in contemporary Germany cannot be taken as a symbol of German pride but of a symbol of Germany during the reign of Nazism, and therefore a symbol of hate. Similarly, the Confederate flag symbolizes the South during that unfortunate and embarrassing Pro-Slave movement of the CSA, as well as modern hate groups. Contention 4: The Confederate Flag symbolizes not generic Southern pride but pride in the South during the time of the CSA The CSA flag was the flag of the CSA. Before and after the Civil War the American flag flew. Therefore, the CSA cannot be taken to symbolize pride in the South any time before or after the Civil War, but only during the CSA movement. (I think my opponent agrees to this point, but intends to show that the CSA wasn't that bad. Let us determine this during the coarse of the debate). Contention 5: It is the perspective of the victims of racism due to the movement in question who are suited to decide what is racist (not the perspectives of white Southerners). Let us look at other more obvious symbols of racism to determine how we should evaluate the CSA flag. Were a swastika to be displayed in modern Germany, we would not ask the flag-bearer whether s/he thinks it is racist (this is unlikely because modern racism tends to be less overt [10]). Conclusion: The CSA flag represents the CSA, which was almost entirely based on pro-slave and racist ideals. The flag does not symbolize the South before or after the Civil War. Even if one ignorantly thinks it does and waves the flag, this person's "pure intentions" do not make the flag any less racist, since it was the symbol adopted by the Confederacy (Obviously. It is in the name.). Though my opponent attempts to portray the North as equally supporting slavery to the CSA, this is thoroughly untrue. The use of the CSA flag in contemporary society would therefore be symbolizing support for the ideals of the CSA, which were thoroughly racist in nature. Contemporary hate societies and historical hate societies both use the CSA flag, and thus an outside perspective has good reason to believe the flag is racist. Lastly, my opponent's arguments tend to come from the perspective of a white person who bears the flag rather than a person of color who sees it. My opponent also has no sources. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://americanabolitionist.liberalarts.iupui.edu... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.theroot.com... [5] http://www.britannica.com... (written by a professor of history) [6] http://teachingamericanhistory.org... [7] http://www.washingtonpost.com... [8] http://www.theatlantic.com... [9] http://asagordon.byethost10.com... [10] http://en.wikipedia.org... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Gay Parenting is Not the Best Child-Rearing Method because I accept this debate. I will give my arguments after my opponent goes more in depth. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against TROLL DEBATE: bacon and eggs are delicious. because R1. Liquid bacon is bacon soup, not bacon and eggs. Your debate specifies that "bacon and eggs are delicious", not "bacon or eggs are delicious". The "or" means that either can be fine on its own, provided it's in a soup and was prepared by a Jew. R2. I don't like the points you raise here, so I'm going to completely ignore them and assume that they're wrong. R3. They come from the same place and both turn into a disaster in the microwave. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with White Nationalism is not inherently racist because My argument from the beginning has been that White Nationalism has been, at it's core, mis-represented, mis-understood, and mis-labeled. The Dictionary's only further propagate that mis-labeling, so using one mis-labeling to justify the mis-labeling is nothing more than circular reasoning. A far more accurate understanding of White Nationalists and White Nationalism would be obtained from researching in the bowels of Stormfront [1], the largest white nationalist community. In there, you can see the wide arrays of white nationalists, from the overtly racist white supremecists, to simple white seperatists, to more moderate white nationalists. My opponent states, "Nationalism can indeed refer to mere patriotism and love of one's country, but as OreEle acknowledges, "there is no "White" region in the world", no white nation to be patriotic about, so the general definition of national pride is clearly not valid here." This is exactly why there is white nationalism, because there is no "white" nation is why white nationalists are often white seperatists (they want to create a new nation, rather than morph an existing nation). Saying that they cannot really be nationalistic about that, because there currently isn't one, is like saying there is no such thing as Irish Nationalists, because Ireland is not an independent nation, so they can't be nationalists. Or that the colonists couldn't be nationalists, because they weren't independent at the time. It should be clear from history, that nationalism stems from not being independent and fighting (either physically or metaphorically) for independence. My opponent also states, "We've established that white nationalists don't live in all white nations, rather, they want to create all white nations and on the whole they want the nations they already live in to become purely white nations." However, the second portion has not been established, and even has already been argued against. It was already argued, that just like other forms of Nationalism, the focus is around culture, not race. But that will be addressed momentarily. My opponent states, in regards to white culture, "While this seems to makes total sense from a rational and non racist perspective, we can't ignore the clear fact that white nationalists have an irrational and unscientific racial perspective of whiteness..." My opponent then goes on to talk about the Jewish people, and how they are not treated as "white" by some white nationalists. It is true that some white nationalists don't treat Jewish fairly, but if we are going to label Jewish people as "white" than any Jewish Nationalism would, by default, be a part of "White Nationalism," and so, also by default, not all white nationalists would feel that way towards jews. So either we say that the Jewish are not "white" and so the argument fails due to faulty assumptions, or we say that the Jewish are "white" and the argument fails because it is only looking at a portion of white nationalists and broad brushing them across other white nationalists. My opponent also states, "It is clear that white nationalists define their own whiteness in racial rather than in cultural terms." This is highly inaccurate because many European nations and America are no longer "white culture" nations, but highly emphasing multiculturalism, which is solidly against the preservation of a culture, such as a white culture. This is part of the reason the many white nationalists (in the US) move to Idaho and the non-coastal north west, where multi-culturalism is minimal. As stated earlier, with the Irish and Colonists, there were no real foriegn overloads. Since they are not independent nations, their rulers are not foriegn. Of course, in the nationalists' minds, they are foriegn, and so the resistance is justified. The reason that White Nationalists strongly oppose the illegal immigration, apart from being illegal, is that the american culture (as the white nationalist believe it ought be, and if we accept the Irish Nationalist for acting based on what they think things ought be rather than really are, we have to apply an equal standard to the white nationalist) is not being adapted to. Many white nationalists have no problem with immigrants, so long as they adapt to the new culture that they are moving into, and part of that is to learn the language. Just as if I were to move to China, I would be expected to learn chinese, and learn and adhere to their culture (including holidays and customs), but I would not go to China, not learn the language, request that the government place English (or whatever language I happen to be coming from) everywhere for my convience. My opponent claims, "The analogy of wanting one's own house is only comparable to white nationalism if we imagine a large shared house where everyone has a tenancy agreement but the white majority of tenants conspire with the white landlords to have the non-white minority of residents evicted on account of their race." This is highly inaccurate for many white nationalists, as many wish to take only their dwellings and form a seperate shared house, that doesn't involved the eviction of anyone. Many other also wish, not for the eviction of anyone, but the assertion of certain rules to establish a particular cultural habitat that anyone may choose to participate in. And if there are those that do not like the culture of the community living, they are free to leave and go somewhere else. To say that White Nationalists, as a common trait, want to evict all non-whites is a seriously false statement (again, you can look around Stormfront to see why). I would like to remind voters that this debate is about White Nationalism at its core, not just the traits of some of its members. We can see that many cats are a solid color, and many cats are calico. Because of this, we cannot say, "Cats are a solid." And if that statement is made, pointing out some cats that are a solid color does not make the argument true, while pointing out some cats that are calico, does, effectively refute it. The same is true for claiming that White Nationalism is racist. Pointing out some white nationalists that are racist does not make the case true, while pointing out some that are not, does effectively refute it. And to see those, a quick trip through Stormfront will show many that are racist, and many that are not. Thank you, [1] http://www.stormfront.org... <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Marriage should be legal in the United States. because I appreciate your time and your thoughtful responses. It would appear as if we are actually making some headway. ::Case Pro- Rebuttals:: Contention 1: Delegalizing marriage has many positive effects such as: "1. Government can no longer discriminate who can and can't get married." Abolishing all legal forms of marriage to end certain forms of discrimination is completely nonsensical. It would be like cutting off your entire leg to get rid of a pain in your foot. "2. People have more liberty to do what they want with certain rights." I don't seem to understand what you are saying. If people can't get married then they would have less liberty, not more. "3. All people would have equal rights, with no discriminatory benefits for those who people are willing to marry." Giving all people equal treatment, regardless of circumstances, is itself a form of discrimination. Some people deserve more than others by virtue of their status/achievements in a society. Like I have said earlier, married couples deserve more rights than single people because they have many responsibilities that do not pertain to being single. Furthermore, even though some married people choose not to have children there are other responsibilities which only pertain to two people in a relationship that do not apply to single people. Among these responsibilities include decisions that need to be made about end of life issues. If you are single then you are not legally responsible for the end of life issues of anyone apart from yourself. This is why it's ridiculous to argue that legally sanctioned marriages violate the fourteenth amendment to the constitution. ::Case Pro- Counter Rebuttals:: Contention 1: Discrimination between married and single people is justified. Unfortunately, Mongeese has created a rather lengthy and irrelevant argument in this section. The fact that some people have a hard time getting married is utterly unrelated to this debate. People do not have a constitutional right to be guaranteed a marriage partner. Moreover, if people want to get married just to receive certain benefits then that's their prerogative. It is not the government's responsibility to investigate whether or not married people actually love each other. Contention 2: Legally sanctioned marriages are good for couples. "The rights mentioned by my opponent should not be reserved to those who claim to be married, but to everybody." The rights accorded to marriage are open to everyone else, and thus, your argument is irrelevant. Certain rights just have to be sought out individually. Furthermore, your proposed method for people getting married, and presumably divorced, would very likely lead to societal dysfunction. If getting married were "as easy as pie" then marriage would significantly lose its value in our modern industrialized society. It is a basic fact of human psychology that people are more likely to back out of things if there is no social pressure guiding their decisions. Therefore, government sanctioned marriages are likely to be cohesive since they are intertwined with legal social contracts in a way that Internet "marriages" are not. In conclusion, these quick and easy marriages would inevitably undermine various social contracts and degrade our sense of moral commitment. [1] Consider the following thought experiment. Imagine that a friend has invited you to a party where it doesn't really matter whether or not you show up. And then imagine that the president has invited you to speak at a white house dinner where you are the guest of honor. Which of these two events would you be more likely to back out of? Obviously, you would be less likely to stand up the president because by doing so you would endure many negative social repercussions. So to is the case with legally sanctioned marriages. If people could just get "married" by going to some website then divorce would almost certainly increase. This would then foster societal dysfunction. [2] Marriages are done in churches and often at courthouses because this increases the likelihood that those marriages will not dissolve in a quick divorce. This also forces people to think at least twice about their decisions regarding marriage. Your argument in favor of legally unrecognized quick and easy marriages through the Internet is not only poor; it is very likely to lead to impulsive marriage decisions that would surely be detrimental to society. Contention 3: Marriage is good for society and should be promoted by the government. Mongeese, you seem to have misunderstood my argument. I do not argue that legal marriages are more stable than non-legal marriages. I simply point out that marriage, whether legally recognized or not, is in general good for society. And in order to encourage marriage the government would be wise to legally recognize it and subsidize it with benefits. Secondly, marriages are stabilizing aspects of society even if children are not involved. Contention 4: Laws or legal arrangements that produce maximal utility should be preferred in a society. "The positive benefits my opponent mentions would produce more utility if they were available to everybody regardless of marriage." This has already been dealt with in one of my earlier segments. Hopefully, we can reach some kind of a consensus by the end of this debate. And I look forward to your final round. ::References:: 1. http://www.iep.utm.edu... 2. http://www.divorcereform.org... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against The future does not exist and can therefore not be changed. because I thank my opponent for the debate. And welcome her to her first debate. My argument: My opponent has claimed that the future does not exist. And that therefore, there is no need to worry about the future since it cannot be changed. I would like to disagree. Stating that future does not exist is wrong. Scientists have actually predicted and made theories on how to travel into future. Einstein, in his theories of relativity, postulated that the measured time interval between two events, would depend on how fast the observer would be moving. This hypothesis has been proved by various methods. Tests have shown that travel by plane, increases a second by a few nanoseconds. In the laboratory, subatomic particles called muons, have been propelled at light speed in atomic generators, and have shown that their rate of decay slows dramatically in respect to their higher velocities. The author cites that cosmic rays, from outer space, can reach us on earth, because the resulting speed of these rays reduces their rate of decay, allowing them to reach us and be seen by us. Dramatic time warps start occurring near the speed of light. Mr. Davies gives an example of this phenomenon, by stating that if twins are born at the same time, and one travels at the speed of light for a year before returning to earth, the traveling twin would be one year old, while the earthbound twin could have aged 10 earth years. By traveling fast, namely the speed of light, time will slow down for us, while continuing at a normal pace elsewhere. Theoretically, calculations could be made to jump to a specific time and point in the future. It is also known that gravity slows down time as well. We know that time goes by faster in space than here on earth, because we are closer to the earth and the earth's gravitational pull. Subsequently, time in a submarine goes by even slower than those on land, for the same reason. Scientists have calculated that a neutron stars' gravitational pull is so strong, that it slows time down by thirty percent. Scientists feel that if an astronaut could zoom very close to a neutron star or black hole for that matter, he could leap far into the future. If a person can leap from present to future, then it means that Future does exist, right? This argument is purely scientific and proven experimentally. Source: astrophysics.suite101.com <EOA>

<BOA> I am with It is impossible to prove that God is omnipotent. Christians only. because Thanks for your reply. 1, Since all those acts occurred in a reality where infinity is unprovable, we still cannot prove thet God is omnipotent. 2. We live in a one-way time. We can only see in front of us. We live in a space that expands in every way, so we cannot see it forever. We can see eternity, but not infinity. So we can't really see past time to find space. 3.He may be omnipotent, and we may never comprehend Him. However, since He cannot be provable in our existence, His omnipotence remains a theoretical, if not metaphorical, figure. Thank you for the debate. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Minimum Wage should be abolished. because Remember: - If the minimum wage were abolished, companies would reduce their worker's compensation. Those who depend on that income would now be impoverished citizens. This would only lead to an increase in the dependency of programs like welfare, an increase in the gap between the rich and the poor, and an increase in crime (i.e. drug dealing) for people who could not legally earn a reasonable living wage. This in turn would lead to more crowded prisons, an increase in taxes to sustain those prisons, etc. - Lower wages for workers will not mean lower prices for consumers. And even if the prices of SOME products dropped... say by $1... this would only benefit the middle and upper class; the lower class (who hold those minimum wage jobs) would not have any money to pump back into the economy. Ironically the lower class contains some of the biggest spenders, so this would overall be bad for the United States. - If people chose not to take on certain jobs because the wages were too low, illegal immigrants would take those jobs instead off-the-books... meaning more Americans out of work. - This would only be successful at making the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. However aren't the poor - earning only minimum wage - poor enough?! <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Christians should take the whole bible literally because While today, Christianity has become a cult, it really doesn't need to be that way. While Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism, all religions began as a way for people to explain the world they lived in, and create a moral framework. This is philosophy. Over time, things were proven incorrect, and some aspects of the moral framework were abandoned due to their immorality, many people still can live a rational life with religion in the background guiding them. It is the Christians who live specifically for their religion, unquestioning, that are a part of the cult. Perhaps the term 'slightly' was incorrect, but to extend my opponent's metaphor, people can have varying degrees of pregnancy. Some pregnancies are more pronounced than others. Some have varying symptoms. But just because somebody is not as visibly pregnant or has as many symptoms as somebody else, does not mean they are not pregnant. The same goes for Christianity. Just because one Christian does not share all the beliefs as another Christian does not make either one any less Christian. I thank my opponent for an excellent debate. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Napoleon Bonaparte vs. George Washington because Ok. Vote Con! <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Should Quebec be recognized as a sovereign state because Quebec has been recognized as a distinct society within Canada, with its own unique culture, politics, infrastructure, language, and history. Every couple of year's the question of Quebec's independence arises within Canadian politics usually do to civil unrest or tension between Quebecois and Canadians. When Quebec is economically stable and ready for independence the Canadian government should encourage and accept the sovereignty of a Quebec state as well as form a stable and strong economic bond to continue the success of our intertwining economies. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Dogs are better than Cats because Well I dont have much time so ill make this short and by the way just to make things clear, im only putting a question mark on some sentances because I am simply asking them if they agree on what I am saying. Yes? First Though you are saying that these all I am saying are only oppinions, I do agree, though it is only because a debate like this was MEANT for oppinion. I have never heard of facts about which is better. Second If cats and cat owners work together, then they may someday be able to work together and achieve things that dogs can also do. Argument Dogs are most likely to be thrown away. I am actually in fact watching an adoption commercial and there were more dogs that were homeless than cats. That is currently all I have.... So... Yeah I didnt really have well enough arguments so you know, juts vote up there...../\ <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Fathers Should Have a Say in Abortion because For the record: I am not in favor if making abortion illegal. I believe in the right to choose. I do, however, disagree with the notion of a "woman's right to choose." The last time I checked, it took both a man and a woman to create a child. So where do fathers come into play in this decision? We should be talking about "parents right to choose." I'm so sick of the notion that children belong more to the mother than the father. Of course, proponents of this argument attest that it's true until the time comes to provide financial support when suddenly men hear, "Well you're the father, so pay up." The way I see it there are only two ways to look at this. Either: A. The father is 50% the parent of the child B. The child belongs more to one parent than the other If you believe A, then you can't argue that a father should have no say in the decision of abortion. If you believe B, then you can't argue that fathers should be required to provide financial support for their children. Personally, I take the position of A. Fathers are responsible for their children. I will not, however, accept responsibility for a child without also being afforded the same rights and privileges to the child as the mother. When a woman seeks an abortion she should be required to declare the identity of the father. His written authorization should be obtained before the procedure may be administered. Should the father decide to not abort the child, then the mother should be required to honor his decision. The mother can always give the child to the father after he/she is born. In cases where the father is unknown, unavailable, or incapable of providing consent then the mother should be required to sign a legal document attesting to such. After the abortion is performed, should the biological father learn of what has happened (and he can prove that his consent was undermined by the mother) he should have the right to impose civil liability against the mother. NOTE: In cases where conception occurs through illegal means (such as rape) I do believe the father's rights should be forfeited as a result of his crime against the mother. I am leaving this debate open to anyone who would like to accept it. However, my opponent should not be someone who is Pro Life, as that is a completely separate debate. This debate is purely about extending the right of choice in abortion to fathers. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against resolved: In the United States, current income disparities threaten democratic ideals because Well... I'm gonna assume that first round is acceptance :D!!!! <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Epic Rap Battles of History. Andrew Johnson VS. Lyndon Johnson. because My name is Lyndon Johnson, I was born a Texan. Maybe we"re related, but don"t be elated, cause it doesn"t matter, I am higher on the ladder. You are a disgrace to the name; you were impeached and to blame. I created Medicare and Medicaid. You thought you had it made and almost finished the decade. But your one term proved that you didn"t have the people moved. Your democrat self didn"t work with the republican shelf. Against the confederate state you soon found hate, in the people you served who became nerved. My part is now completed, I hope you don"t feel cheated, even though I don"t care, next time you will not compare. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Intermediate's Debate Competition R1: US Gov should implement solar road highways within the US because Fast response! Thanks! Rebuttal 1: Jellyfish While it is an interesting argument, it is also a speculative one. There are at least three problems with this argument. One, of all the sources cited, not even one implies that the use of jellyfish in any projects at all will disturb the ecosystem. Two, no one has said that every jellyfish or (even the majority of jellyfish) will be needed to make the solar panels for this project. Three, we don't even know that Scott Brusaw is using jellyfish proteins in his solar roadways. Ultimately, if, in fact, jellyfish are being used for their proteins, they will not become extinct, and whatever is being used will also put a dent in the disastrous economical impact Con mentioned in Round 2, concerning the large swarms of jellyfish. Rebuttal 2: NF3 Though there was no source for the CSDS Institution of Oceanography study, let's assume for a minute that most companies DO use NF3 and that Scott Brusaw WILL be using it in his solar panel pieces. Let's look a little at the history of NF3. It was never thought to have such high global warming potential. With that considered, companies weren't too concerned with how much was being released into the atmosphere. It is only recently that they have been able to measure the atmospheric concentration of the gas, where they discovered the effect is was having on the environment. Greenhouse Gas Emissions have now amended their standards to include NF3 on their list of gas emissions in order to combat that. Meaning that, once again, assuming Scott Brusaw actually IS using NF3 in his panels, his company will be required to meet a certain emission standard during production. The previous emissions of this gas weren't the spiteful intentions of fraudulent green-energy managers. It was due to lack of knowledge within the scientific community about the ramifications of nitrogen-trifluoride. They have now taken steps to reduce that. ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) I'd like to point out however, that it is still disputable whether or not NF3 will even be used in solar panels, and, specifically, the ones used on solar roadways. According to the World Resources Institute: "NF3 is used in a relatively small number of industrial processes. It is primarily produced in the manufacture of semiconductors and LCD (Liquid Crystal Display) panels, and CERTAIN TYPES of solar panels and chemical lasers. " (Emphasis added). ( http://www.wri.org... ) Rebuttal 3: Economy My opponent brings up valid questions in regards to the financial aspect of implementing solar road panels. Some questions at this time cannot be answered definitively, but only speculated. Solar Roadways, the company created by Scott Brusaw was awarded a $100,000 research contract in 2009 to produce a prototype solar road panel. After successful completion, the company received a follow-up grant to take it to the next step by implementing a solar road parking lot. ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) The company in question is currently in this phase II (solar road parking lot). Until they receive further go ahead from the US Department of Transportation, many questions, including the total cost, when the construction will begin and take place, and who will be administering the plan can only be speculated. As stated in the previous round, the initial startup can be funded using the money already set aside in taxes for transportation and even green energy. President Obama included $1.83 billion in his budget for funding major transit projects in 2010. ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) An additional $16 billion in federal loan guarantees was granted to solar companies. ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) The Solar Roadways website lists at least five possible ways for generating revenue from the solar roads: 1) Electricity generation 2) Transportation of cleaned waters to municipalities and/or agricultural centers 3) Leasing conduit to entities (Telephone service, Internet, cable, etc.) 4) Advertising in the road with the LED's 5) Charging companies and/or people to recharge electric vehicles (in place of gas) The company came up with the following, and this is worst case scenario: The company bases revenue on electricity generation alone, targets the cost at $10,000 per panel (a generous figure - Brusaw estimates the panels will be about $5,000-7,000), and assumes that the price of electricity will NOT increase in the coming years (thus bringing in more revenue). They conclude that based on such a scenario the panels will pay themselves off after 20 years. Once again, note that such limitations on the criteria make it very probable that the panels will pay themselves off well before that. This also is supposing that material cost for production don't decrease as they become more widespread. ( http://www.solarroadways.com... ) Stating that some green industries funded by Obama have gone bankrupt is proof that solar roads will fail when funded by the federal government is a non-sequitur. The companies in question were not creating solar roadways, rather involved in other forms of green energy, and the cause of the bankruptcy most probably had little to do with the fact that they were funded by the government. Rebuttal 4: Environment As I have already shown that farming jellyfish should not effect the environment negatively, (and if anything, it will be beneficial) that argument no longer stands. I also already stated in the previous round that the article in question did not quote the inventor predicting its failure, so that argument does not stand either. Conclusion: Being a conservative myself, I often cast a skeptical eye on what may look to be costly and laborious projects. Solar Roadways, however, offers more than just a cool idea. They offer a new future. They offer added safety in all weather conditions by heating up the roads. They offer the possibility of eliminating oil as an energy source (which can decrease terrorist funding). They offer the opportunity for electric cars to be a realistic alternative to internal combustion engines. They will pay for themselves over time. The LED lights within the panels can warn drivers of impending wildlife, pedestrians, construction and accidents. They can produce 3 times the amount of electricity that is required in the United States. Solar roadways seem to be the epitomization of American creativity, productivity, and resourcefulness; they can pave the way (literally) to a brighter future. I would like to thank my opponent for a thought-provoking, enjoyable and respectful debate. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with I can disprove evolution like i could disprove a book having no front cover. because Right wow all you have done was disagree and reply inlogically, sure you wont see that because, YOU'VE been brain washed by your science teacher at school. Now your right on that I'm disproving evolution here and creation should really come into this and i shouldn't have to mention God either. Moreover if eveolution is disproven then creation would be the only sulution, thats all you are right on though. I cant say to much as all you have done is said your personal veiw on this topic. Yes you have given some links about laws of science but that is just proving science laws not evolution. Ok what i mean by a time limit, is that basiclly you can spend forever on the exsperiment otherwise you would never know if the theory is true. Yeah another correction a theory is not a guess. Lets put this to the test I'm guessing that the sun's core is -100*C (about) therefore its a theory No a theory is mad up with facts, depending how you place those facts depends on the out come. In evolutions part, for example you say fossils are millions of years old, the fact is that they are dead creatures, the thory is that they are millions of years old. The only thing what makes you believe that is because they are millions of years old is because they are deep in the ground, you date the fossils by the rock its in, and you date the rock by the the fossil it was consumed in. Thats circular reasoning Big tim, no not Big Bang. Big Time. (I was explaining what a theory was, no science was nessary). Right like my new theory (the suns core being -100 degrees yes that uses gravity, dont not mean its true. Yes evolution uses gavity too, i know this f=ma has little to do with evolution but i hope you get what im saying here? We know that the sun exists and we can tell the suns core isn't -100 digrees by feeling the heat of the sun. It would be inlogical to say the suns core is -100 digrees, yet because there is life and you dont believe in God you only, and i mean only can believe that life can arose is by evolution. Period! Yes there are theories with several laws, the law of time evolution includes that, the second law of phermeildinamics, which evolution includs phermeildinamies slighty, only for once life time but not generally as a fact that specises are getting worse and worse but instead better and better. Yeah find me a sulution to turn things better and better as they get older and i Will believe it. I know what you are thinking now, your thinking they get exspraince in the enviroment and creatures add genes as a result. Like i said before, i guess you don't understand how much information DNA contains? One tea spoon of DNA contains more information than all the books ever writen. How is this possaible by walking, swinging, climbing, flying and swinging and ever being still (coral) even over five trillion trillion year it would still be impossaible, because these actievitivies don't collect information not like study does. That gives doesn't it, tell me how did memory evolve? Next you said " A transposon are sequences of DNA that can move around within the genome of a cell. In this process, they can create/change the amount of DNA in the cell. When two transposable elements are recognized by the same site-specific recombination enzyme, it can very efficiently lead to the creation of new genes [1][2]." Tell me how genes appear, don't just gather words, you said "When two transposable elements are recognized by the same site-specific recombination enzyme, it can very efficiently lead to the creation of new genes" I would say that using a gene it had already! You are getting mixed up with DNA and RNA, RNA is a copy of DNA and yes the copying mechenism is very effected when genes already exist. RNA has around 20 mintes before energy is used up to work muscles, ever wondered way you need to drink a protein shake with in 20 miuntes after working out? Now you know. For example, lets take muscle, to have movment you need muscles, so bacteria has very small muscles. So by saying creatures add genes is like saying there must of added the gene muscle, how if they couldn't move? Answer that HUH? So when you talk about mutations are you saying that one day bacteria just got musclar genes? Thats what your saying dispite the increable amount of information. About the formula thing, if evolution didnt need one why are they looking for one, and offering a Noble prize? Secondly you said that evolution changes so a formula would be unessary, well gravity differs in strength but still has a formula, the concept of gavity is f=ma, what is the concept of evolution where is the formula for evolution? As numbers/algebra acounts for every language a formula is needed to define this with no different meanings or tranlations, formulas are a univeral language while the English language is not. You say evolution is mindless and uncreative there for you are both of those as your "part of it" (evolution) No men will never fly, but the other points maybe, we can run and swim, fly no because are bones are not hollow like a birds, i bet you going to say where are sweat holes are feathers will evolve. I'm aware evolution is not the survival of the fittest, because one of those ants might have a extra gene bla bla bla....inconcept of evolution that is indeed true. Ummm no ants are not the most sussesful animal on the planet, just because there is more, what if i added bacteria into this equeation, now you would say they are the most sussesful animal. Right? Putting a lion in a rain forest, umm ok that would help the others already there. Lions exists in rain forest so do elephents, they go to wide open spaces within rain forests, a gathering of elephents come to the water hole to drink, then they return back into the rain forest not seeing another elepent for a month or so. You ever watched Planet Earth? Its on there. That whole parograph you tpyed was pointless and incorrect. I wish i could prove it, evermore i would never put a gun to ones head. 1. Ofcouse the Universe needs a motavational sourse what got you up this morning, what makes loins hunt, i can answer that, hunger does. 2. Well there had to be a second where matter was none living and another second where none living matter was ALIVE! Theres no middle to this, your either dead or alive, no aliad the middle of death and life, if only the e and a were swapped around when i would have put, as a joke. You have been alied to. 3. Alians just move the problem else where, you didn't aswer this question dumby. And God isn't Mr magic man either, God is what He is, "I am who i am" God is God an eternal being, far beyond even the smartest imagenation. Going back to the helpless babyies, if evolution is true then in birds and mamales the offspring would be inderpent like most fish and repties, but wait birds came from replies so why is this. But wait again mamales came from fish millions of years ago, so why would mamales and birds give away sush a vital survival tool? How much more sussesful would birds and mamales be with out looking after their young. Im going to let you into flaw on my part here, maybe because birds and mamales can't carry so much young like fish can , so when they have young they look after it as well as they can. Neah i was joking there is no flaw here its the survival of the fit, so the offspring should be totaly interpendent from day one. Still dont get that then why didn't birds and mamales evolve a mechenism which could allow the to carry out more young, as they evoled a brian, that task shouldn't be to hard. Closeing comments: So what you having for tea....... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against ReganFan is a failure on this website. because In the light of your ridiculous opposition to the ADDITION I made to your definition, allow me to provide an entirely new one that you neglected to provide: Success: an event that accomplishes its intended purpose; opposite of failure ( http://www.google.ca... ) Successful: having succeeded or being marked by a favorable outcome ( http://www.google.ca... =) My argument therefore is still valid seeing as my opponent has yet to refute it: I have not been unsuccessful because my intention on this website was to be so far-right and ignorant that I make other conservatives look better by comparison. In R2 the only counter argument my opponent put forth was "He still has not refuted my argumentation, as I proved that ReganFan is a failure not only in debating but also on commenting and thread posts." The problem with this however(besides the fact that it was a very blatant attempt to make the debate about semantics) was that both of his points of evidence do nothing to prove I am a failure on this website. Thank You. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Puerto Rico should become a state because aw my links failed :( all of them worked for me except 1. Here it is again: http://www.independent.co.uk... ok lets do this. 1) only one didn't work. at least I tried to have sources. You had none voters I deserve those 2 points. 2) you have provided no source for this claim I have, your statements are unsupported. All of mine where supported second round so even if the links don't work I still have a source earlier. Yes there are 3 main parties, there are 2 in the US, but that doesn't affect voting. Texas goes republican even though they can choose from many other parties. So having multiple parties means nothing. 3) According to the 2000 Census, 60.0% of the population attained a high school degree or higher level of education, and 18.3% has a bachelor's degree or higher. [1] So sure they learn it in school but 40% don't finish high school. Unlike most schools in the United States, public school instruction in Puerto Rico is conducted entirely in Spanish. [1] So most of their classes are Spanish, and public schools aren't that good, as they use the same US system. [1] 4) lol skipped the silver thing. also what a fail because they have silver and their economy is terrible. Joining america won't make it better. So their economy now will just translate over, and I do not want another few million poor people in this country, and those rates would make our economy seem bad. And their debt that we would have to take would be bad. 5) It won't pass the first vote as the polls suggest. Also the pro-common wealth people would just go vote for independence in the second vote, the combined force would overdo your remarks. It will not become a state. (through them anytime soon anyway). 6) His conclusion says he has broken down my arguments, so fact less statements break me down? Not to be rude but really? (use sources it helps). You have not broken down my arguments. Vote con. I have proven my arguments with sources. I do not need to add on as he didn't have counter sources. Vote PRO as I have defeated his arguments once, twice, and a 3rd time. I used sources and logic. My opponent used...fat less statements. Remember vote pro. sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... [1] <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Should alcohol – the world's favourite drug, be banned? because I accept the challenge and thank Pro for creating this, to quote him, "interesting debate". I await Con's argument. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Aliens will come in peace not war. because My opponent states that I think this extremely untrue. First off, my opponent jumps to the conclusion that because I say a sleeper ship is plausible, that a whole colony is coming in it. I say again, it is more likely that if a sleeper ship is used, it will only hold a small group of people. Could have traveled any number of years, so its not very fair to jump to the number of 1 million. My opponent also suggested that on this sleeper ship, they will be observing earth. How is this possible if all of it's crew is asleep? This has all already been addressed. A sleeper vessel implies that that the alien race is incapable of acheiving near or faster than light travel. Such journeys will take a long time, millions of years are not an unreasonable suggestion. The only plausible purpose of a sleeper vessel is for colonisation. Colonisation may be peaceful, but as the vessel is heading towards earth we know that it intends conflict. The crew will likely be revived in the last stage of the journey. "I think it fair to look at what humans will do when we are in the situation to go to planets that we discover have life, or hope will have life. We will have protocol. We also have ethics. We know its not a good idea to go to a planet and just kill all the life forms on it and steal the resources. I think a highly intelligent life will have ethics also, and know right from wrong and try to do things the right way" I do not understand upon what my opponent bases this speculation, the Spanish conquest of central and south america, the Anglo-American aggression and genocide against the native Indians, the Belgian Congo, the US Conquest of Iraq... these are all examples where humanity has found a new region and exploited it's resources with violence. If we extrapolate from the human example we may infer that any other advanced alien race will display similar ethics. How is co-existence and genocide equally important? All of life on earth co-exists. Co-existence is a necessary part of survival and all of life will co-exist with the other life on it's planet. Genocide, on the other hand, is not important, but destructive and harmful to life. Humans frown upon genocide and other life on earth doesn't even consider genocide as a possibility. Other life will also realize how harmful and unhelpful genocide is. History and biology shows us that co-existence and conflict are of equal importance. The USA is founded upon Imperialistic violence, it only functions due to the high degree of co-operation amongst it's members. Life exists in a constant state of conflict, certain social animals may co-operate within the group, but outside the group they will compete (Competition may also occur within the group as well). It is reasonable to assume that the aliens are also a product of evolutionary conflict, and will co-operate or conflict as they need to. Co-operation with humanity is far less likely to give them a homeworld than is violence. My opponent concludes, "I don't think my opponent has made it clear that life will come for war. I believe that we only need to look at the intelligent life that we know of and compare, a.k.a., humans. Vote Pro." If humanity is to be used as a template it is almost a certainty that they have come for violence. I thank my opponent for an interesting debate! <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Meat production should be significantly reduced because I stand in affirmation of the above resolution I will start my arguments in round two, so this first round is just to get an opponent. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Should Gay Marriage be legal because gay-homosexual marriage-the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Both definitions from Merriam-Webster. Gay marriage, presumably a marriage which is somehow related to homosexuality, e.g. one or both partners are homosexual, is legal. Nearly every form of marriage is legal. There is no need to legalize that which is legal. It is far simpler to create a new, legal institution, a civil union, and leave the definition of marriage to the Church. I propose that civil union status, along with benefits, be given to all those who become, or are currently married, and that the government ceases to regulate marriage. I concede all points, excepting 4. An interracial marriage always fit the definitions, and when did we legalize polygamy? <EOA>

<BOA> I am with The Riots Following the Murder of Michael Brown in Ferguson were/are Morally Justified because People are trapped in history and history is trapped in them...One day to everyone"s astonishment, someone drops a match in the powder keg, and everything blows up." -James Baldwin- Anthony Crawford grew cotton in Abbeville, South Carolina. He married a kind woman named Tebby and started a family. They grew their farm into the most prosperous in the county. There was only one problem, he was a black man. In 1916 he was lynched by over 200 Whites because he refused to lower his cotton prices. The murderers walked free, they were never charged with a crime, and there was no response from local Blacks. The Crawford family was forced to lower their prices and the once prosperous family fell into poverty. Blacks were too terrified to riot, protest, or seek further legal action. The problem only got worse. Lynchings in the region continued with impunity. African Americans in the South and throughout the country were kept down and stayed down lest they face the fate of Anthony Crawford. (NBC, 2005: http://www.nbcnews.com... ) (Johnson, 1998: http://www.ccharity.com... ) Historians believe that at least 2-3 blacks were lynched each week in the American South throughout the 19th and 20th century. There are over 500 documented cases of lynching in Mississippi alone, the figure climbed to over 5,000 documented cases Nationwide from 1882 to 1968. (PBS, 2009: http://www.pbs.org... ) (Berea College, 1999: http://www.chesnuttarchive.org... ) Why did the Civil Rights movement begin in ~1954, and not 1914? Why did it blossom forty years too late for Anthony Crawford and the millions like him that were subdued through fear and intimidation? The answers to that question could fill many books, but there was one change that was critical to the budding of the American Civil Rights Movement. The beginning of World War II saw the mass recruitment and military training of African Americans. For the first time, unlike WWI, many African Americans fought on the front lines, led combat units, and engaged in special combat missions. Black soldiers came back home, organized and demanded respect. There were several race riots in major American cities throughout the 1940s, most notably in Detroit in 1943. Hundreds died, both black and white, and millions of dollars of property were destroyed. (PBS, 2013: http://www.pbs.org... ) For the first time, white society had an incentive to address the grievances of African Americans. For the first time, since the Civil War, there were serious consequences for the systematic oppression of Blacks in the United States. If a child never stands up to a bully he can be bullied indefinitely. Once the child stands up for himself, there will be a struggle, but the bully will be less likely to engage in the same behavior. The riots of the 1940s led to early reforms and in 1948, Truman desegregated the armed forces and began pushing for Civil Rights legislation. http://memory.loc.gov... But the Civil Rights movement was led by peaceful leaders such as Martin Luther King, right? Throughout the Civil Rights Movement there was a good cop and a bad cop unconsciously working together to compel progressive legislation. Police use the good-cop bad-cop routine to compel suspects to confess to the sympathetic good-cop because they are so afraid of the hostile bad-cop. There were several militant wings of the Civil Rights movement that served as the "bad-cop" the MLK"s "good cop." The government was afraid of hostile militant groups like the Black Nation-of-Islam, Black Nationalists, and the the Black Panthers. So the state negotiated and compromised with the sympathetic non-violent side led by Martin Luther King. Both sides were essential to bring about this result. The threat of chaos and violence gives society an incentive to share power with African Americans because they understand the current racist system will only lead to further riots and the collapse of civil society. http://library.uncg.edu... The Civil Rights Movement was not won by the moral arguments alone. Articulate champions of equal rights for African Americans have been around since 1776. Only when African Americans and their allies have seized power through violence or assertive political action has positive change taken place. http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us... Violent Factions Give Authorities a Powerful Incentive to Compromise with the Non-Violent Factions of the Same Movement This was true of many of the liberation movements of the mid 20th century. LBJ compromised with MLK because they were afraid of more riots and militant factions. The British compromised with Gandhi because they were afraid of militant Hindu Nationalists that had been widely militarized during WWII. Nelson Mandela"s political party and his allies eventually ended White colonial rule in South Africa because many factions in his party were well-armed and prepared to plunge the country into civil war. http://www.npr.org... TODAY many of the achievements of the Civil Rights Movement have been undermined by a lack of investment in communities of color and a criminal justice system that oppresses blacks and destroys hundreds of thousands of lives with impunity through police brutality and mass imprisonment. NOTE: I'm afraid I didn't have time to finish today due to family commitments during the holiday season. My humble apologies. Below appears an outline of the rest of my arguments so my opponent will have the benefit of knowing my entire case for this debate. I'll provide evidence and flesh out my arguments below in rd 3. Local Government Abuses - Ofc. Wilson fired 12 shots (6 hit) into an unarmed minor ii. Body of Brown lied in the street for over four hours Police did not complete report, did not know how many shots were fired iv. Repeated pattern of behavior, showing they have racist leadership and a reckless disregard for the lives of African Americans by using an inappropriate show of force against unarmed non-violent offenders A2. Federal Government Abuses Highest prison population in the developed world ii. African Americans have a high conviction rate than Whites for the same crime, especially for drug offense, though whites use drugs at about the same rate. Pattern of behavior: Trayvon, Cleveland boy x, Michael Brown, X, Y, Z, - in all cases police killed an unarmed black ma and faced no legal consequences. iv. Local & Federal abuses = lack of public trust in essential government institutions A3. General American Government Failures Lack of public education lack of proper welfare and rehab programs Failure of police, society, and justice system... Mass incarceration, felony law - no ability to get job A + B + C = NO HOPE".. NO HOPE for people = Loss of social contract". Altogether, the state has destroyed the social contract for millions of African Americans by failing to protect their natural rights. Collapse of social contract, no investment in communities of color: NO PUBLIC EDUCATION NO WELFARE THAT ENABLES SUCCESS NO FUTURE HOPELESSNESS, CRIME, ARREST, REPEAT "What happens to a dream deferred? Does it dry up like a raisin in the sun? or does it explode - " HOPELESSNESS = Despair & Genocide (destruction of life"s meaning and purpose) or Revolution". INHERENCY Government failure, on every level, to respond properly Failure of reform, political plutocracy Society far less democratic, democratic foundations of our republic are collapsing... Failures of non-government reform, Failure of non-government reform - corrupt WHITE media Myth of National _Ethical Debate_ is red herring distracting us from the real power struggle and oppression" Problem with national discourse". general bias".. White response to murder of black". a" hesitation reasoned - thoughtful" finds ways to moderate the response No indictment No charges" grand jury wasn"t even necessary... White response to murder of white Prosecutor indicts immediately and move directly to trial Most indicted (charged) with murder are convicted" especially African Americans... THEORY: Right of Revolt / Kritik US Declaration of Independence Jefferson and Enlightenment Thinkers Natural Law v. Man-made law Social Contract, people have the RIGHT to rewrite it and start over when government authorities violate social contract The government"s violation of the social contract suspends most man-made laws (vs natural laws) Suspension of man-made laws means that property rights and local ordinances about protest permits, noise ordinances etc. are TRUMPED by people"s right to reclaim power from the government so they can rewrite the social contract the government destroyed. Rewriting of the social contract and reforms can take place once (a) people reclaim power or (b) government realized people have the potential to seize power and begin negotiating with less militant party (American Civil War, Civil Rights Movement (good cop v. Bad cop) in South Africa, USA, India. ALTERNATIVE/PLAN::::::: Vote Pro and Affirm the right of Blacks to revolt against cultural genocide perpetrated by the American federal, state(s), and local government(s)... SOLVENCY: By demonstrating the people have the CAPACITY to seize power and abolish the government - it will spur the government to pursue reforms to preserve the government. Either the government must RESTORE the social contract or the people will do it by force... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against The world is doomed because Many things are likely doomed, but as " only facts count as arguments ," the world being doomed is far from a fact; anything which is a fact instead of a theory, should easily hold up to rebuttal. " If there is no Earth for humans to live on, then humans are also doomed. So if the World is doomed, so is humanity. " By this I take pro's definition of The World, to be the planet earth; I will however make secondary points in favor of humanity to maintain a sense of relevance to us; finally I shall attack the sources. Rebuttals: 1. Nuclear Warfare . " All it would take is one to get into the wrong hands, or even go off by accident, to start a chain of nuclear strikes as a 'defense' to the first one. " In summery a lot of hypotheticals, when he wrote the rule about using only facts. Even his source points out how hard it is for nuclear weapon to go off by any means other than their own control (his source lists many accidents, even armed bomber collisions with zero accidental nuclear detonations...). Pro proposes a Dr Strangelove [2] situation, where there's a doomsday device which will destroy the world if a nuke goes off in the wrong area, and there are zero fail safes on it. This is getting into the area of absurdity. Not to mention all the lost nuclear weapons are useless, unless the Neutron Generators (a component needed to cause the chain reaction) are replaced every few years [3]. The World: The earth is 4.5 billion years old, with a surface area of 197 million square miles, and is the most dense planet in our solar system. It has withstood worse conditions than mere nuclear wars. Humanity: The Japanese are the only nation which has suffered nuclear attacks, thus as experts on the subject. With the highest life expectancy of any nation, and 128-million people living on their island [4], it's safe to say the threat of nuclear weapons outright wiping us out is greatly exaggerated. Source: Pro provided an article written by journalist Benjamin Maack, a freelance writer for such informative titles as FHM and Fit For Fun, and editor of the video game magazine GEE [5]. Clearly only an entertainment writer, not a reputable source on the apocalypse. 2. Meteors and Asteroids. Pro proposes Deep Impact [6], a movie rated 53% lower on Rotten Tomatoes than the last one. The World: Not a threat to the earth. A truly massive one struck 65 million years ago, and life went on; kind of how we got here [7]. Humanity: NASA (in addition to other groups) have us covered. They've searched the sky and identified the possible threats which have paths that could shift into a collision course with us. Given how slowly things move through space (in addition to how empty it is), the odds of us having less than a century notice is 1 in 1000, but even then "There will be no great hurry, and no great panic. ... It probably would take only a small impulse (chemical rockets, or perhaps mass drivers) to divert it from a threatening path" [8]. Source: From pro " Even if we used nukes to try to blow the thing up, it would only result in breaking it apart and still having huge chunks hit Earth with major destruction. " Major destruction, not doom. Plus his own source disagrees with him: "NASA tested four nuclear scenarios: a surface explosion, a delayed surface explosion, a subsurface explosion and a standoff explosion (where the bomb doesn't come into contact with the asteroid). The surface and subsurface explosions are the most effective, but there's a good chance of splitting the asteroid . In the end, the space agency determined that a series of standoff nuclear explosions would be the most effective way to deflect an asteroid headed for Earth." 3. Disease. " Even if it's 'somewhat possible', it's not 'impossible.'" Somewhat does not even come close to a fact, thus this section is again going against pro's own rule. The World: The Earth is a clean planet, that would not go within 365 million miles of a loose planet like Jupiter. It has no known risk of catching any disease (nor are planets known to). Humanity: Strange as it sounds, diseases actually strengthen the human race. The Antonine Plague decimated Rome, and today we call it Measles. The worst disease we've ever known was the Black Death, and people surviving it is now connected to HIV immunity [9]. We worry about diseases for reasons of self preservation and compassion, yet the human race itself is in no danger. Sources: No source to counter. 4. Our Galaxy will collide with the Andromeda galaxy. "This will no doubt cause a catastrophe to the world." Unless you've read pro's source, which states all that will happen to us is a "spectacular evolution of the night sky," into something like this: The World: No threat expected. Humanity: No threat expected. Source: Pro's source claims " The great galactic union isn't expected to result in the destruction of Earth, the Sun, or any other planet in the solar system. In fact, no stars whatsoever are expected to collide becauase they are so far apart within each system." Which clearly favors the world not being doomed. 5. The End of the Sun. "T he Sun will cause all life on Earth to no longer exist." Such a long time from now the relevance is questionable. The World: Like in all of the above, the earth will keep going. Yes the surface will be blasted, but after it all here's what pro's source thinks the earth will look like. Humanity: In the last century alone human progress has been astoundingly fast, and seems to be accelerating [10]. Yet even at the median level recorded over the last 2000 years, 3,500,000,000 years gives us plenty of time to adapt in ways we cannot begin to predict. However looking on a much shorter time frame; according to Stephen Hawking, colonizing distant solar systems is highly feasible "the main challenges won't be technical. The first will be financial. ... For the society that made it, there would be little payback: they'd never see it again" [11, video link]. Thus if there is ever a threat to our presence on the planet, there will be the motivation to ignore short term factors of money and flee. Abandoning the Earth (which will take care of itself just fine without us) is a valid option for humanity. Source: Pro's source for the sun will die is Ron Miller, is an artist with a talented imagination. His website has some very interesting fantasy women on it, including naked-tiger-striped-furry-pirate-babes (NSFW, thus shall not be linked). Pro opted to begin his argument in the final round, forgoing defense of his points. His numerous arguments are unstable at best, and his sources have all been countered (some of them flipped to my favor). Yes it is clear the world and humanity will face problems in the future, yet mere problems and outright doom are not the same. Sources: [2] http://www.rottentomatoes.com... [3] http://www.nukewatch.org... [4] http://worldpopulationreview.com... [5] http://www.spiegel.de... [6] http://www.rottentomatoes.com... [7] http://www.cnn.com... [8] http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov... [9] http://www.bbc.co.uk... [10] http://theemergingfuture.com... [11] http://dsc.discovery.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am with THE OFFICIAL IZBO TRIAL; Resolved: Izbo10 should be permanently banned because Thanks for accepting izbo, although I'm not sure you heeded the stipulation that you couldn't, in the course of this debate, violate the TOS, which states, "No personal attacks against other members." In fact, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, all izbo does in round 1 is engage in personal attacks against specific members of DDO or the community as a whole. Unfortunately izbo's mockery does not even stop at the frontier of DDO, but extends to Facebook as well. According to thett3, izbo has "posted quotes from Man is Good, Justcallmetarzan, and reformed arsenal on his facebook page making fun of them." The fact that izbo's harassment does not stop at the doorstep of DDO is extremely troubling. I'll offer a quick rebuttal to izbo's points, then commence with the remainder of the charges against him. == Rebuttal == R1) Izbo claims: "JustCallMeTarzan does not understand a syllogism" This argument is a red herring: completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. A syllogism, however, could accurately describe izbo's defense in round 1: All DDO users are stupid. Stupidity is the ultimate crime. Crimes deserve commensurate retribution. Conclusion: Any retribution against all DDO members is justified. However, there are clear flaws with this line of argumentation. Not only are the people izbo insults far from stupid, but also izbo's perceiving someone as stupid does not justify his retaliatory harassment or vote bombing. DDO will cease to function if we are not accepting of divergent opinions. R2) Izbo thinks people are "too dumb" to understand his arguments It seems far more likely that "what we've got here is a failure to communicate." [1] I'm sure that some authors have advanced the same arguments as izbo but in a more compelling manner. The most likely reason that the individuals izbo mentions did not vote for izbo's arguments was because he advanced said arguments with bad grammar, incorrect spelling and syntax, and a complete lack of clarity of expression. To prove izbo's lack of communication skills, I cite his own defense attorney, Danielle, in her petition to declare izbo mentally disabled and thus unfit to represent himself: " Is Izbo Mentally Disabled? IQ tests aside, I've proposed a variant in the way mental retardation is defined or described. Some psychotherapists (particularly existential psychotherapists) describe it as a mere inability to communicate effectively. Nobody's denied that izbo has shown a complete inability to communicate effectively." If the above is the opinion of the very people who were supposed to be defending him, that does not bode well for izbo. R3) Izbo argues, "Cerebral_Narcissist is a moral nihilist" This is another red herring. Cerebral did not even help me one iota with the preparation of this case, so this entire attack on the morals of the "prosecution team" falls flat. Regardless, I never argued that we should ban izbo because the TOS is somehow sacrosanct. I argued we should ban him for: harassment, vote bombing, posting hateful comments, degrading the Religion forum, and scaring away members (Cliff.Stamp, Ninja_Tru, and untold others). The site cannot function while the above behavior continues. R4) Free speech is violated Free speech applies only to "public spaces." I am not required to allow izbo to give a speech about how dumb C_N is at my daughter's wedding, for example. A wedding is a private affair and as the person paying for the wedding, I can restrict speech. In the same way, it is well within Juggle's right to restrict types of "speech" that degrade the quality of the site, which is their private property. Additionally, hate speech and "fighting words" are not protected by the 1st Amendment. Many of izbo's insults would qualify as fighting words. Fighting words are written or spoken words, generally expressed to incite hatred, that are substantially likely to provoke a violent response. Many members of DDO would be substantially likely to take a swing at izbo if he cussed at and insulted them in such a fashion in person. As such, his speech is not protected because it is considered, by our government, to be dangerous. R5) Izbo claims his ban would lead to a lack of activity Not all activity is good activity. 90% of the activity surrounding izbo is comprised of complaints about his behavior. Even if some people support izbo's cause, a site full of active izbo supporters, who routinely harass and vote bomb their opponents, would quickly become a site that none of us would want to frequent. In addition, the Religion forum has seen a revival during this brief respite from insults that was izbo's temporary ban. == Further Charges == Charge 5) Izbo is a moderator's worst nightmare. Not surprisingly, izbo gets "reported" by other users frequently. According to a subpoena of innomen's records, 46 separate users have PM'ed innomen (the moderator) to ask that something be done about izbo. In addition, more than 300 reports have been issued against izbo, all alleging legitimate violations of the TOS. According to innomen, "when [izbo]'s on a particular tear, [there will be] 26-30 reports on him" all at once. Supposedly the only reason he hasn't already been banned is because he has a few staunch supporters (such as mikeee and 000ike) who vehemently oppose his ban. Izbo also has the gall to report other users, typically 3-5 reports at a time. For example, izbo reported people to innomen whose arguments he didn't like. Izbo said, "I want a warning against them, that if they don't actually add arguments they will be banned as trolls." Innomen will need a replacement for himself within 6 months. Would any of you be willing to moderate with izbo still here? He alone takes up 80% of the moderator's attention. Charge 6) He's getting worse not better Rather than showing remorse at his behavior, izbo finds this entire process highly amusing. He has shot down attempts to reach out to him, both by jharry and by his entire defense team. Danielle says that izbo trolled his entire defense team, choosing to spew (and butcher) various philosophical principles rather than accept their help. Recenlty, he has branched out from the Religion forum to the Debate.org Forum, calling for Man-is-good's ban and purporting to run for president under the following charming thread title: "Vote Izbo to stop fucktardery." The opening post reads, "This board is full of idiots and fucktards. We have idiots who don't understand their own position, cerebral, idiots who don't understand a syllogism or definitions, jcmt, and idiots who couldn't stay on topic if their lives depended on it, mig. If you vote izbo I vow to make this a place where intelligence and honesty are valued and not pissed on like these people do." [2] This is just obvious trolling. Ladies and gentlemen, if you don't vote to ban izbo, his behavior will only get worse. He will take your decision as a green light for his behavior and will consider the outcome of this trial as a mandate that he is immune from being banned. 7) We've banned other people for similar behavior We banned askbob for harassment. We banned NoNo for trolling. Innomen estimates that all-in-all, between 15 and 20 people have been banned for violations similar to izbo's. If we grant him an exception, we must allow all harassers and voter bombers to stay. The slippery slope would also require us to keep all trolls, as long as they "generated activity" in the forums. Remember, in a poll of DDO users: 23% said that izbo's ban would "significantly increase" their enjoyment of the site and 10% said his ban would "increase" their enjoyment. If one in three DDO users feel that their experience of the website is seriously degraded merely by one member's behavior, then that member clearly needs to be banned. [1] Cool Hand Luke [2] Subsequently removed by the moderator; http://www.debate.org... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against The United States of America should go to War with China because " Furthermore, taxes are the mechanism in which everyone in the United States would take part, paying for the various expenses of such an endeavour as going to War with China." War, the state of affairs, and War, the concert of the band by that name, are completely different things. Taxes involve you in a legal state of affairs. They do not, however, teleport you to a concert venue. See the difference? "Again, the United re sending representatives of the U.S.A to these talks, and the way in which every citizen contributes is through taxation for the bill involved. " Talks are a specific action. They may be involved in diplomacy in the general sense, but in the specific sense of talking this is not the case-- you cannot talk by paying taxes, talking is done with your mouth (unless you are Steven Hawking). "The United states was a generalisation for the majority of people within it" This is not true. I am a citizen of the United States, yet I am not a part of it's electoral majority. "If my opponent attempts to use this sentence against me, again, this is implying emotion, something an inanimate object cannot express" No inanimate object involved, just the distinction between majority and totality. "The fulfilment of my interpretation of the resolution is sending representatives. The fulfilment to YOUR interpretation of the resolution is the taxation each American citizen would foot." Neither is the case. A concert is a specific venue (as opposed to a generalized legal state of war), one cannot attend it via paying taxes. And one cannot attend it via sending representatives. Even if "the united states" referred solely to the majority, the wording still requires the majority to attend-- not their representatives. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against The Following Arguments Against The Existence of God are Valid because I see what my opponent was referring to: "if something is a conscious creator, then it HAS to have a physical body" I merely have to again state that something that is omnipresent cannot have a physical body. In fact, because God is metaphysical, he by definition does not have a physical body. My opponent asserts that the Law of Conservation of Mass disproves God. While this is irrelevant to the debate (because my opponent has now dropped all five of his original arguments by saying "the Law of Conservation may disprove the atom idea"), I will still answer it. The Law of Conservation of mass states that "The mass of the reactants must always equal the mass of the products." http://www.iscid.org... It concerns reactions in the physical universe, as I have stated before. However, a metaphysical god could still create matter and energy because The Law of Conservation of Mass concerns interactions in the physical universe. My opponent then turns back to the second option entirely, which has already been refuted. "But because of the lack or proof or even evidence, the impossibility, and the sheer ridiculousness of the idea, there is no god." My opponent drops in a new argument again in the 3rd round. I will still answer it, though this argument does not pertain to the debate. -The existence of God is not disproven deductively due to lack of proof (and I am not required to provide proof in this debate). -My opponent has not shown how the existence of God is an impossibility. He has merely stated it over and over again. -I may think that the idea of gravity is ridiculous. That does not deduce nonexistence. So, my opponent's original 5 original arguments were refuted and ultimately dropped. His additional arguments (conjured in the 3rd round) are also invalid in attempting to disprove God. Therefore, the resolution is negated. I urge a CON vote. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with This house would not ban smoking #3 because I modified from my round in other debates on the same topic since many points were similar. Essence 1: Harms to the users Down the bench in this debate, Con continuously discussed that cigarette is harmful but he never was able to connect that premise to this motion, discussing if there is a legitimate excuse to completely ban cigarette. I will point out how harm that Con talked about does not equal to legal reasons to ban cigarette. Firstly, the harm that my opponent is talking about is surely exaggerated and radical. As I have mentioned, researches shows on average, smoking habit only can shorten one’s life for about ten years. It is also a truth that it takes a long time for habitual smoker to have recognizable vulnerability to diseases. It takes about 40 years for one to finally have him/her life threatened by cigarette. Secondly, reasons for “death by cigarette” also include a lot of other factors such as exercising habit, dietary habit, lifestyle and etc. There is so much more than smoking habit. Cigarette is a scapegoat in this situation. What my opponent is doing here is similar to blaming Ford for all deaths caused on road by Ford cars, blaming Heineken for murders and rapes committed by criminals under the influence of alcohol . Thirdly, the addition of cigarette is drastically different than that of illegal drugs. Though cigarette might be addictive, the addiction is controllable. My opponent’s argument that smoking is no longer a choice will only work in case like cocaine where addiction simply cannot be quit without help. As to cigarette, it is very possible to quit with strong. Indeed there are countless cases where smokers succeed in quitting. It is just that it is hard. When it is so possible to quit on your own, how can one ever claim smokers are no longer smoking on their own volition? The fact that many people fail to quit smoking does not prove anything on my opponent’s premise that smoking is no longer people’s will. Just because many people fail to quit, it does not prove the extremely addictive nature of an object. Many fail losing weight but it does not mean overeating is addictive. There is a reason why gambling, alcohol, game and cigarette are legal when cocaine, heroin and ecstasy are illegal. The essence is the strength of addiction. Those things that are legal can be quitted by one’s volition whereas illegal drugs cannot be quitted without external help. Bottom line, my opponent’s claim that addictive nature of cigarette means that smokers are no longer exercising freedom to smoke falls completely flat. Do you ever see a smoker running desperately to 7/11 to buy a pack of cigarette and suck on them crazily, like how a drug addict might? Smokers are definitely choosing to smoke. Essence 2: Harms to others Even on this, it is evident my opponent exaggerated and misinterpreted. He enforced the idea of second hand smoking is analogous to murder. I will combat this shortly. As given from my previous examples, smoking is illegal in public. Law does not protect every freedom. Governments are free to encourage smokers to smoke less and prohibit them to harm others in public but governments cannot intervene more than that since anymore sanction than that, the government will have no legal ground to enforce. As for situations where nonsmokers have to be with smokers, there are so many alternatives. My dad used to be a smoker and he only smoked in one particular room of the house. This is actually very common in families where smoking member smokes in isolation to prevent secondhand smoking. Essence 3: Individual Freedom – Is the harm enough to marginalize individual freedom? This is the burden of proof that my opponent carried and failed. I ask voters to focus deeply into this part. He successfully explained some reasons why smoking might be harmful but he never landed those ideas to the motion. This debate was evaluating if there is an enough ground for a government to enforce a total ban based on the status quo. Before I start analyzing this main essence, I would first like to state that there is no problem in the status quo to deal with. Why shouldn’t cigarette be categorized under illegal drug? The reason is that in many different ways, cigarette is not nearly as harmful as illegal drug. Let alone the fact that cigarette can be quitted with one’s strong will when illegal drug cannot, the harm that illegal drugs cause to human body is incomparable with cigarette. Again, it takes a long-term abuse for one’s life to be susceptible to death. Viewing from the fact that only one country on the entire globe forbids cigarette, countries view the type of harm that cigarette causes to be insufficient ground for a total ban. There are also other things that are legal and should be legal and yet are analogous. For example, alcohol is an unhealthy substance that causes many problems but is perfectly legal. However, we know reasonable usage of alcohol does not cause critical damage to one’s health, and for that reason, alcohols and cigarette should stay legalized. Another analogy is teenage dating and game that are roots to many teenage problems. But does a government forbid teenage dating just because it causes problem? That type of privacy intrusion is not justifiable and is against right to pursue happiness. Lack of “benefit” does not mean a ban. Smoking is a recreational activity. Con fails to see the reality. If smoking was so painful and not enjoyable, are all smokers’ masochists to put a pain on themselves voluntarily? Also, Con is over relaying on the figure that 70% of smokers want to quit smoking. But majority wanting to quit does not disprove enjoyable nature of smoking. Game addicts will want to quit game but that does not mean games are boring. Put simple, my opponent’s statistics mean nothing. It is not the role of government to decide of a certain recreational activity is pointless or not. Governments do not intervene with personal choice to drink vodka until 3 a.m. in the night though it benefits no one but is harmful just like cigarette. By saying we should ban cigarette, we are also saying such behavior I stated above should be banned too. What does the court says? On lawsuits where cigarette companies were sued by sick, vast majority of the court verdicts admitted the fact that cigarette contributes in diseases but cigarette companies should not be legally accountable since cigarette itself is nothing to blame. The law does not even force cigarette companies to pay for the loss of individual smokers. That already proves that there are no legal ground for cigarette to be blamed for one’s death from cigarette since the potential harm was warned. Then how can the same law impose a total ban on cigarette? Cigarette is not a scapegoat to start blaming for one’s bad decision. There are social smokers who only smoke on some occasions. If we ban cigarette that is unlike illegal drugs, it opens up window for anything harmful to be banned. Games cause harm to children in many ways and is also addictive but can a government ever force a child not to play any game? Government can protect and try to help out but their action to ban is crossing the line. The spirit of democracy is not where governments babysit the nation. Essence 4: Money There is no doubt that the ban will annihilate an industry that worth hundreds of billions and returns multi-billion dollars of tax revenue just in the US. It is unreasonable to undergo such damage and enforce the unenforceable just because of a petty reason that they are harmful. We need to stop blaming others and become responsible. Conclusion Blaming cigarette and calling a ban is analogous to blaming Heineken and Ford for death caused by drunk-driving. Cigarette itself does not carry enough harm to be illegal. People should stop finding scapegoats. Please vote for Pro to avoid cigarette companies becoming scapegoats. Before this ends, I wanted to thank my opponent for engaging in this debate. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against The user s0m31john is a pedophile because "There is no 'age of pedophilia', rather, pedophilia is the queer attraction of underage, or to be more precise, prepubescent children." I provided the definition or pedophilia as "The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children." The problem arises with the controversy of whether or not loli is an equivalent to child pornography. I would argue that it is not, and in fact is it's own fetish is itself. Typical loli is drawn in a "kawaii" style, which in Western terms could roughly be translated as "tiny is cute". ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) The drawings are wildly different from real life child pornography. They are typically 2D, impossible for CP. They are usually drawn with bright colors, while real life CP is typically thought to be in the "dark underground" and is surrounded by a bad atmosphere. The characters depicted in loli are usually happy and willing to be depicted in the manner they are, this is not common in real life CP. These things put lolicon in it's own category and should not be defined as CP, but rather a fetish in it's own. The viewers of it should not be called pedophiles, as it's not real, but rather lolicons. This is why lolicon: You state that lolicon is a style of anime, but it can also be used to describe a person who is into the lolicon style of anime you describe. ex. "Look at those images on his computer, he must be a lolicon." It is commonly used that way on message and image boards where the material is prevalent. "In fact, there is already serious question as to whether or not he hides real child pornography on his computer, as he uses a program called "truecrypt" to hide his pornography-- this would not be unusual if he did not say the primary reason for this use of truecrypt was to hide said pornography from "the feds". I used truecrypt not because I have something to hide which is illegal, but because my computer may be used by other people at certain times. In my experience truecrypt is the safest way to know almost certainly no one will find your "stash." It's comparable to what some people do with their pornography folders when they have to share a family computer, when they create a maze of folders in system files to discourage unwanted people from finding their images. My way is just more certain and efficient. I do not know why my opponent takes me seriously when I say I'm hiding something from the feds, perhaps he thinks the internet is serious business. I close with my previous point. People who enjoy loli should not be considered pedophiles, leave that for people who ejoy real child pornography, but rather be in their own category of Lolicons. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against A united world consting of a democratic goverment that rules all because Greetings! I will be happy to accept the Con side of this debate (though I'd be happier if debate.org's text editor didn't cut out a letter here and there all the time), and wish my opponent good luck in what is sure to be a more unique debate! <EOA>

<BOA> I am against I CAN HOLD A WHOLE CHICKEN WITH MY BUTT because Perhaps I was too quick to call your statement remarkable. However, an unremarkable statement still does require some level of evidence to back it up. If I made a debate entitled "I am a 50 year old black woman," I would have to prove that I in fact was. Anyone reading the debate would know that it's quite possible that I am in fact a 50 year old black woman, but that doesn't mean I am. I would have to verify in some way that I was, else I would not have met my burden of proof. Also, hilding it with your butt AND another object is not holding it with your butt. You would have to grasp the chicken with only your cheeks to be holding a whole chicken with your butt. By using the wall, your butt would not be holding the WHOLE chicken. Just as "I can fly" would not be proven with me riding in a plane, since it's the plane flying, not me. Regardless, the fact remains: not everyone has the cheek strength required to hold a whole chicken. You must give us some reason to believe that you have this capability. Simply stating it does not make it true, nor does coming up with hypothetical statements when we don't know if you can apply them in reality. You have simply stated something. Something that for all we know, could be possible. This does not meet your burden of proof. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Napoleon Bonaparte vs. George Washington because 1) Napoleon had a good reason for invading Russia. Russia had surrendered during the Napoleonic Wars, however Russia kept trading with Great Britain, which was the only country at war with France at the moment. Napoleon wanted to cut all trade from Great Britain, in order for the country to be strangled economically and this was called the Continental System. Russia was forced to do this in a treaty, but eventually disobeyed this term. Unlike British propoganda after the war which says that Napoleon was a mad man who wanted to destroy Russia just for his own empire, he really wanted to invade because they disobeyed the Continental System. The reason why armies were smaller during the American Revolution was because that generally adapted to the time of the war and when Napoleon came to power he created a corps system which allowed him to have larger armies. Washington got help from France during the war. As a matter of fact, if France was not in the war no end game at Yorktown could occur. 2) If Napoleon could not see foresight he would had not one the Battle of Austerlitz, his greatest achievment. Napoleon did not take the high ground at Austerlitz and he instead took the low ground and gave the high ground to his enemies (the Russians and Austrians). He predicted that his enemies would attack a weak flank he made in his defensive line. Sure enough, the Russians and Austrians attacked with practically half of their army. Napoleon sprang his trap that flanked and destroyed the Russians and Austrians and then launched an attack taking the high ground. Washington on the other hand could not even manage his own flanks at the Battle of New York City and lost the battle due to that. You would think he would secure his own flanks for future battles right? No! At the Battle of Brandeywine Creek, at battle where Washington outnumbered the British and had new muskets from France, Washington lost again the same way! He was flanked from one side and he once again was suprised from the attack the British made! I think if he had foresight he would able to learn from his mistakes? If he had foresight he would understand that the British were weakest in Virginia at Yorktown. The French instead picked Yorktown as the target, not Washington. Washington wanted to attack New York City which was a very strong base. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.virtualarc.com... http://www.britishbattles.com... http://www.britishbattles.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Empty apartments/homes and unused land should be subjected to a tax. because 1A - If a company is inefficient, taxing them won't help them to increase efficiency. Efficiency in business increases profit margin, so an inefficient company will have a smaller profit margin. Adding tax to that reduced profit margin can damage or destroy a struggling balance sheet. 1B - If a company will only make $1 from an endeavor, then it isn't worth pursuing. Corporations have to turn profit, and can't waste time, money, and resources on large projects that result in little to no profit. 1C - If ALFA is purposefully creating food shortages, then a competitor will step in and undersell them. This is one of the strengths of a free market. A sole corporation can try to manipulate prices, but anybody can jump in and steal their base by selling cheaper. Pro's premise for the debate didn't focus on corporations not using land for price manipulation, but rather unused land in general. Even if one corporation was manipulating prices, a tax on unused land would hurt any corporation who couldn't currently operate at full capacity due to lack of capital or lack of demand. Taxes won't be used to reduce the deficit. All taxes except for income taxes are used for the areas in which they are taken. Gas taxes are used for transportation expenditures. Local taxes are used for police, fire fighters, and schools. Taxes on unused land would have to be used in the development of land in some way. Pro's idea of using taxes on idle land to reduce taxes on farms is counter-intuitive. Taxing someone who isn't making money, to reduce the taxes of someone who is making money doesn't do any good for those who aren't making money. It would be the same as increasing taxes on the bottom 50% of Americans in order to reduce taxes on the top 1% of Americans. Further, Pro states that corporations who 'refuse' to use their lands will be the only ones taxed more. In any economy, corporations will try to get the best profit that they can. If a corporation isn't running at full capacity, it is either due to lack of capital, or lack of demand. Adding tax will not increase demand. 2 - The demand is for newer construction, not just newer appliances. Renters and buyers know that a new building will have less upkeep than an old building on average. The reason the developer made the new complex is because there is a demand for it. The existing complex would need renovation and perhaps price reduction to try and compete with that same demographic. Anyway, in a free market, the government can't force a company to increase or decrease their prices. Otherwise, the free market is lost, and that is not what we have built America upon. 2B - Taxing those who are running under full capacity(which means they aren't making as much money as they could) will not help the economy, and Pro hasn't stated any arguments as to why these taxes would help. More likely, corporations and complex management companies would go under financially due to having an added financial burden. Pro doesn't acknowledge the possibility that the complex management *can't* reduce prices. Perhaps if they did, they would be able to rent 100% but not be able to balance their sheet, causing them to go under more quickly. Pro wants to decide for businesses that they must lower prices if demand is low, but if demand is low, increased taxes will only hurt. 2C - New developers already have incentive to build the correct amount of apartments. They know that if they build too many they will lose money. They don't need a tax to teach them effective business practice. 3 - Pro is correct that the economy is better when land and buildings are utilized, but confuses cause and effect. When there is more demand in a market, more businesses are created and expand to meet that demand. When there is more demand for houses, developers build more houses to meet that demand. You can't stimulate demand by taxing land that isn't used. The land will only be used when the demand is there. In other words, supply is designed to match the demand. You can't increase demand by increasing supply. Pro hasn't stated a single example of how these taxes would stimulate demand in the economy. Without demand, the economy won't improve. Forcing people to pay more when there isn't enough demand, or sell their unused property when there isn't demand, is against the fundamentals of a free market and won't help in any way. As an example, if there is a corporation ACME that decides it wants to use ALFA's unused land for a new factory in which they will make a product that is in demand, they will approach ALFA and make an offer. If ALFA is losing money on the land due to lack of demand, they are likely to sell. This is how the market works. You can't force someone to sell unused land to someone else who needs it if the demand isn't already there. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against this house believes that breaking a promise is aleays immoral because A few things. Promise - 1. a declaration that something will or will not be done, given, etc., by one Immoral - 1. violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics. Threat - 1. a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc. (Source: Dictionary.com) Example 1: If I promise you something, but I die before I could execute that promise, that promise will be broken... is that immoral? Or just unfortunate? Now, if your argument {semantics} is that the BREAKING of a promise is immoral, meaning that my specific actions will have caused that promise to not be fulfilled, I argue: What about accidental interference? For instance, say I promised to take you to the movies after I attended a basketball game; however, there was traffic on my way to you and thus we missed the movie. A promise was broken. My action of attending the basketball game and getting stuck in random/accidental traffic is what broke the promise. Are my actions immoral? Example 2: According to the definitions of promise and threat (shown above), I argue that a statement can be both a threat and a promise. Say I threatened/promised to do something destructive and immoral to an innocent victim or group. If I broke that promise to uphold a moral principle, would that choice be immoral? Example 3: Suppose I promised to show up to your birthday party on time, however, on the way over I noticed a car on the side of the road that was broken down, and a frazzled driver that needed my help. Without my interference, the car may have been destroyed. I decided to help, and therefore showed up late to your birthday party. My direct action (choice) led me to break a promise to you. Were my actions immoral? Or was breaking my promise actually the moral thing to do? I'll wait for your response before continuing :) <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Should atheism be considered a religion? because My opponent seems to think that atheism has a distinct set of beliefs concerning the cause of the universe, but this is not the case. One atheist might believe in the big bang, while another might believe that the universe was never created, but rather has always been there. Since these are two different beliefs about the universe that my opponent has already admitted atheists can believe, how can one say that atheism has a distinct set of beliefs about the origin of the universe? Nothing about atheism in and of itself suggests any possible cause for the creation of the universe, therefore that fact disqualifies it as a possible religion. This is especially prevalent in this debate because my opponent has already agreed upon the definition of religion that I referenced. If a religion consists of a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, and atheism has no set causes then it cannot be a religion. It has nothing to do with the lack of a belief in God, because Buddhists don't believe in a god, but they do have a set of beliefs about how the universe was created. That makes it a religion. Therefore if my opponent agrees that that is the primary belief that defines something as a religion, then I challenge him to give an example of what atheists all believe is the cause of the universe. There is no common belief, no common cause, and considering that, it cannot be a religion. If my opponent fails this challenge and cannot give an example of the atheistic belief about creation, then I urge you to vote con. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with DDO three debate requirement to vote because DDO should have 3 debates, and possibly more C1) It stops people from doing what you are doing That is spamming 1 round debates to earn voting privileges. C2) It limits multi accounting It makes it more difficult on people if they try and cheat and vote for themselves. C3) It gets people adjusted to the site, teaches them how to debate, and gives them time to understand how to vote according to site regulations This speaks for itself. Ending DDO should keep it he way it is. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Defend your favorite band/artist... With songs. because Alright, so I have seen a few of these around, and I wanted to start one. This first round is for acceptance and stating the band or artist you chose to defend. You can only defend the artist or band using a song they have performed. However, the song can't be a cover, and it must have appeared on a studio album made by the artist. The band I choose to defend is Queen. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations because Judges ready? Opponent ready? FIRST AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE I. INTRODUCTION: I concur with the stated resolution. In my presentation I will demonstrate that compulsory immunizations not are not only justified, but are also necessary as deemed by respected medical professionals. II. STATEMENT OF RESOLUTION: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations. III. DEFINITIONS: I respectfully request that my opponent stipulate the terms: vaccination, immunization, and innoculation are synonymous. PUBLIC HEALTH - Public health: The approach to medicine that is concerned with the health of the community as a whole. (source: www.medterms.com) CONCERNS - 3 : to be a care, trouble, or distress to (source: www.merriam-webster.com) JUSTIFY - 1 a : to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable (source: www.merriam-webster.com) COMPULSORY - 1 : mandatory, enforced (source: www.merriam-webster.com) IMMUNIZATIONS - : Vaccination. Immunizations work by stimulating the immune system, the natural disease-fighting system of the body. The healthy immune system is able to recognize invading bacteria and viruses and produce substances (antibodies) to destroy or disable them. Immunizations prepare the immune system to ward off a disease. To immunize against viral diseases, the virus used in the vaccine has been weakened or killed. To immunize against bacterial diseases, it is generally possible to use only a small portion of the dead bacteria to stimulate the formation of antibodies against the whole bacteria. In addition to the initial immunization process, it has been found that the effectiveness of immunizations can be improved by periodic repeat injections or "boosters." (source: www.medterms.com) IV. VALUE PREMISE: Sensibility V. VALUE CRITERION: The epert opinion of medical professionals is often sought not only in matters relating to health, but also to testify in legal matters. Therefore, it is sensible to value the expert opinions of medical professionals in this discussion. VI. CONTENTIONS: CONTENTION ONE: Three of the most respected "go-to" professional organizations not only endorse, but also encourage immunizations. A. The Center for Disease Control states: "Vaccine-preventable disease levels are at or near record lows. However, we cannot take high immunization coverage levels for granted. To continue to protect America's children and adults, we must obtain maximum immunization coverage in all populations, establish effective partnerships, conduct reliable scientific research, implement immunization systems, and ensure vaccine safety". (source: www.cdc.gov) B. The American Medical Association states: "Immunization has been one of the most successful public health advances of the century". "The physician's role in providing education and advocacy on important issues regarding vaccination is critical". (source: www.ama-assn.org) C. The World Health Organization states: "Immunization is a proven tool for controlling and eliminating life-threatening infectious diseases and is estimated to avert over 2 million deaths each year". (source: www.who.int) CONTENTION TWO: It is quite sensible to prevent illness and disease by the the most cost effective measure available. It is clear that when a person is healthy, they are much more capable, in regard to physical ability, to work. When people are ill, they are either forced to miss work, or work at an often reduced capacity. Further, it stands to reason that the same illness could potentionally be passed on to other people, causing further illness and reduced productivity. Visits to physicians and pharmacies incur costs to insurance companies, people, or both. While it is somewhat beneficial to the GDP, it is both reasonable and sensible to avoid or prevent illness when possible. To immunize simply passes the common sense test. A. The World Health Organization states: "It (vaccination) is one of the most cost-effective health investments, with proven strategies that make it accessible to even the most hard-to-reach and vulnerable populations". (source: www.who.int) B. To quote respected statesman Benjamin Franklin, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". (source: www.ushistory.org) CONTENTION THREE: Despite claims to the contrary, vaccinations are virtually safe. With anything comes a certain degree of risk, yet where the rubber meets the road immunizations are worth the risk. By definition, vaccinations are certainly reasonable, right, and just. If there is a virtually safe way to protect against many illnesses, it is in fact just. Further, those who are able, cannot justify failing to receive immunization. False alarms issued by uniformed people cause undue panic and doubt. This is where the compulsory piece fits into the equation. Due to misinformation, people may elect to not get immunized. This should not be a choice, but a duty as a member of the human race. A. The Center for Disease Control states: "Vaccines are held to the highest standard of safety. The United States currently has the safest, most effective vaccine supply in history. Years of testing are required by law before a vaccine can be licensed. Once in use, vaccines are continually monitored for safety and efficacy". (source: www.cdc.gov) B. The Center for Disease Control states: "Evaluating Information on the Web Is the vaccine info found on the web accurate? Is there any regulation or standardization of info on web? Sources Are you confused by the amount of information on immunizations on the Internet? Concerned about the rumors linking vaccines and diseases like diabetes and autism? Below are some tips to help you navigate your way through all of the information available and determine its accuracy. Is the vaccine info found on the web accurate? Consider the source of information. A good health Web site will display who is responsible for the site. Also, there will be a way to contact the information provider or Webmaster. Information should not be slanted in favor of a Web site's sponsor or source of funding. Health information should be accurate and unbiased". (source: www.cdc.gov) CONCLUSION: I have demonstrated that getting immunized makes sense from a variety of viewpoints. I have quoted from the some of the most respected medical authorities. If people will not choose to make the right, justifiable, and sensible choice to get vaccinated, then the choice will be made for them. Thank you. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Gay marriage because Well said. Pro says: "I choose to acknowledge those verses that state God made all of us equally" Pro also says: "he loves us all more than those that could be interpreted as "hate" You contradict yourself. You say that God made all of us equally. If he made us all equally, then why would he love one more than the other as you state in the second statement? It wouldn't make sense that he would create all of us equally, and not love us all equally. Many Christians say God loves everyone. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against My oppenent doesn't care as much for me as I care for him because aww christina ur so sweet :) i luv u so much :) but like i said earlier, i dont wana keep the round going cuz of the way i know ill feel wen i see who wins... so im done <EOA>

<BOA> I am against (GY) Worldwide dictators who violate the human rights of their citizens should NOT be assassinated because I thank joony for the topic. ==My case== C1) Right of Revolution In political philosophy, the Right of Revolution is a natural right of subjects of a nation to overthrow their government if it acts against their rights and interests. The Right of Revolution was central to the U.S. Declaration of Independence, which stated, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." [1] Without the Right of Revolution, the United States would not exist today. In the same way, the people of a country must have the right to rise up against a dictator and kill him, if necessary, to abolish a tyrannical government. As Napoleon showed with his escape from the island of Elba, powerful men can too easily return to power. According to a study by Benjamin Olken of Harvard University, revolutions are far more likely to result in a democracy if the assassination of the current autocrat is successful. [3] "The third paragraph of the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that so that people are not compelled to rebellion against tyranny, human rights should be protected by rule of law." [2] Thus, if human rights are not protected, people have the right of rebellion against tyranny and thus the right to assassinate their tormenter. C2) Successful assassinations According to the Sydney Morning Herald, there have been 59 successful assassinations of dictators since 1875. [4] Analyzing these statistics, the National Bureau of Economic Research concludes, "The successful assassination of autocrats produces institutional change - substantially raising the probability that a country transitions to democracy." [5] C3) Iran Iran has made numerous threats to annihilate Israel, is pursing nuclear weapons, and in its attempt to gain regional hegemony, is causing a great deal of instability in the region. It has murdered and oppressed its own people with abandon, particularly to quell protests and opposition movements. If an opposition movement successfully assassinated Ayatollah Khamenei or "President" Ahmadinejad and overthrew the current order, the world would be a much safer place. ==Rebuttal== R1) The rights of dictators We widely acknowledge that once someone violates the rights of another, that person gives up his own human rights. That's why we can violate the liberty of a murderer by locking him in prison – because in the act of depriving another of the right to life, the murderer cedes his own right to life and liberty. *My opponent says: the utilitarian idea would place all the leaders in the threat of being sacrificed for their people's sake* A ruler only rules by the consent of the governed. If the governed reject an autocrat's rule and the autocrat refuses to yield power, he can be forcibly and violently removed. This is the Right of Revolution. *My opponent says the next regime will use assassination as well* Assassination can only be justified if it is in reaction to a crime against the people. The people would view this State assassination as an abuse of human rights and would rise up again and overthrow the new government. The evidence from the National Bureau of Economic Research also proves that when a dictator is overthrown by his people, a democracy usually results, not another dictatorship. R2) Ineffective/harmful Extend my evidence that 59 dictators have been killed and the result is usually a democracy. This proves that assassination is effective and is not harmful. *My opponent says: After Sadam Hussein was executed, for instance, his supporters caused severe violence in the name of revenge* It actually wasn't Saddam's supporters that were causing violence – they all surrendered rather quickly. It was Al Qaeda inspired Sunni-Shi'ite violence, which sparked continual backlashes between the two religious sects. In fact, Saddam was only in power because the United States refused to remove/assassinate him during the First Gulf War, when we had the chance. Saddam took the opportunity we gave him to further oppress his people and consolidate his power. [6] The removal of Saddam has resulted in a democracy, as the National Bureau of Economic Research study would predict. * In addition, sudden disappearance of leader or national representative confuses the citizens regardless of whether they wanted it or not* Remember, the people hung Saddam themselves. We didn't do it. And they paraded through the streets in celebration. Al Qaeda-inspired insurgency efforts created the confusion; the vast majority of Iraqis were very happy to see Saddam dead. The failure of a strong democratic government to immediately materialize in Iraq is largely due to the lack of a strong, popular resistance leader. Compare this to the military junta in Burma, which has a strong opposition leader in Aung San Suu Kyi, or Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, which has a strong opposition leader in Patson Chipiro. If either dictatorship were brought down, the popular opposition leader could quickly head up a new democratic government. R3) Alternatives *My opponent cites the examples of Milosevic and Saddam as successful trials* Saddam was hanged to death by his own people; he was not prosecuted according to international norms. Milosevic was assassinated in prison while awaiting trial. [7] Neither dictator was going to be tried by the International Criminal Court – both were going to be tried by their own people, a trial they would have inevitably lost, no matter the circumstances. I don't understand why my opponent draws a distinction of legitimacy between a trial and an assassination. In an assassination during a populist uprising, the dictator is being tried by the court of public opinion. In a court of law, following a populist uprising, the dictator is being tried in a court of public opinion. Either way the outcome will be the same. *Magna Carta* This document wasn't enough to protect the rights of Americans against the abuses of the British Crown, such as against the forced garrisoning of troops in ours homes. Only the Right of Revolution was able to protect us. ==Summary== The people have the Right of Revolution – the right to rise up against a tyrannical dictator and take his life, if need be. The Benjamin Olken of Harvard University evidence proves that rebellions are more successful when the dictator is assassinated and the National Bureau of Economic Research study proves that successful assassinations of dictators are almost always followed by a democracy. In many countries, a successful uprising/assassination could yet result in democracy and an end to human rights abuses, such as in Iran, Burma, and Zimbabwe. Vote Con to uphold the rights of the governed to overthrow a tyrannical dictator. [1] http://www.ushistory.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.nber.org... [4] http://www.smh.com.au... [5] http://www.smh.com.au... [6] Andrew Bacevich, The New American Militarism [7] http://www.prisonplanet.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Best dirty rap songs because Haha this will be an interesting "debate" to say the least :P In Pro's first submission, Afroman basically talks about having sex with people of different races in different places. I can easily one-up that using a song with a very similar premise -- Lil Kim's "How Many Licks" which came out prior. This isn't my favorite Lil Kim song (nor her dirtiest by any means), but I couldn't find a YouTube version of my first choice without hassle due to censorship so I went with this. Dan my nigga from down South Used to like me to spank him and cum in his mouth And Tony, he was Italian He didn't give a fvck - that's what I liked about him He ate my pu$sy from dark till the mornin' Called his girl up and told her we was bonin' Puerto Rican papi, used to be a Deacon Now he be sucking me off on the weekend And this black dude I called King Kong He had a big a$s d!ck and a hurricane tongue... This verse goes out to my niggas in jail Beatin they d!cks to the double-X-L, magazine (uhh) You like how I look in the aqua green? Get your Vaseline Roll some weed with some tissue and close your eyes Then imagine your tongue in between my thighs [moans...] Designer pu$sy, my sh!t come in flavors High-class taste niggas got to spend paper Lick it right the first time or you gotta do it over Like it's rehearsal for a Tootsie commercial <EOA>

<BOA> I am with If you are less instructed, you believe more in God because I will show evidence that "instructed people" are less likely to believe in God and vice-versa. http://tinyurl.com... The people in the Royal Society have been "instructed" much more than the majority. "A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3 per cent believed in God - at a time when 68.5% of the [...] UK [...] described themselves as believers." "A separate poll in the 90s found only [7%] of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God." <EOA>

<BOA> I am against The United States of America should go to War with China because Both the USA and the PROC are terms for NATIONS-- involuntary groupings of people based on whether they live in territory under a given government's jurisdiction. In order for the statement "The USA went here" or "The PROC went here" to make sense, the entire population of the country has to go there. The estimated combined population of the two nations is over 1 billion, 600 million. Obviously, this greatly exceeds the safe capacity of any concert venue. If nomal speakers were used, many attendees to the War concert would be unable to hear. This means that they would be unhappy, and angry at the existence of the other nation that invited them to this ripoff. If somehow speakers that could reach that many people were invented, those closest to the stage would be deafened. Also, my opponent likes listening to the government about all kinds of things, including presumably fire codes, which would be ripped to shreds by such an occurrence, so perhaps he should reconsider. Also, many people do not like such sappy music. They would make wry comments about how music like this is why we can't be friends, and thereby be hardened against such friendship. The proposal to send a few individual politicians to a concert is irrelevant to the resolution, as it is insufficient to amount to the attendance of the nations. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Rap Battle because Vote Pro! <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Health Care because I'm just getting this off the challenge list. I assume: "Resolved: Cheese is a luxurious item." Cheese- a food consisting of the coagulated, compressed, and usually ripened curd of milk separated from the whey Luxurious-of the finest and richest kind Item- an object of attention, concern, or interest From Merriam-Webster Cheese encompasses a wide range of dairy foodstuffs. Some, like E-Z cheese, are certainly not the finest of their kind. They are a base foodstuff. Further, with such a wide range of foodstuffs, not all can constitute the finest of their kind, as some MUST be baser than others. Thus, not all forms of cheese are luxurious. Resolution negated. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Homeschooling is better than public school because I am a homeschooler who would like to debate the issue of homeschooling. The first round will be acceptance. The few rules that I have are as follows: no insults, support your arguments with sources and/or experience and/or logic (Wikipedia doesn't count), stay civil. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Which mythological god is the most powerful? because While I acknowledge that no one NEEDS to accept, I still wanted to. If all you wanted was a list of opinions, you should have posted in the forums, not created a debate. Now then, as Pro, I'd like to point out that Con has made this debate one round, and has not provided a God which he thinks in the most powerful (apart from in the Comments section). I win by default; however......... I choose the God of Abraham, and I'll provide a couple of simple reasons why: 1. He shares his dominion with no one. Many cultures depict a pantheon of Gods, all of whom preside over a particular part of the word; however, Yahweh is a lone wolf in this regard, sharing his dominion with no other Gods, even mythological [ http://www.allabouttruth.org... ] (see Commandment 1). 2. The God of Abraham is omnipotent; other Gods shared not only their dominion, but their power. Zeus was the God of Lightning, Poseidon of the Sea, Dionysus of Wine, and so on; Yahweh, however, is all-powerful; he shares his abilities with no one, and can manage to maintain a HUGE following WITHOUT interfering in the lives of men on an everyday basis. Now THAT'S power. I rest my case. :) ---Quick recap of points distribution--- Conduct: Pro - Con created a debate with no intention TO debate, and even suggested that no one accept it. S/G: Tied - In Con's one sentence, there seem to be no errors. Arguments: Pro - Pro is the only one who PROVIDED arguments. Sources: Pro - Obviously. 6 points to Pro. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Incestous Marriage Should Be Permitted because General Rebuttals Is/Ought Fallacy When an equivocation between what is objective, or is with what ought to be the case, then this fallacy has been committed, which Con has done rather abusively throughout his arguments.[ http://goo.gl... ] The only coherent context from which ought statements thus can be derived are If --> Then statements, derived from values etc. This is also categorically sound, since ny conclusions can only include terms included in its premises e.g.: 1. If A then B 2. A 3. Therefore B The is-ought gap essentially demonstrates that ought is not a term included amongst is -only premises, thus needs to be introduced (in the form of a conditional for example, such as substitution into P1 of the above) into at least one before an ought conclusion can be drawn. Religious Norms and the difference between Rights & Values Con needs to establish why religious values have anything to do with this resolution. Religious values do not dictate any single course of actions. Moreover they can only inform the public’s individual values, and only if the people adopt that aspect of their religion. For example drinking is against some Muslim’s values for religious reasons, however other Muslims will not share that aspect of their religion and thus have no problem with alcohol.[ http://goo.gl... ] For the purposes of the question of whether something should be legalised however, only the societies’ values can be considered, which may or may not be informed by religious reasons. Given that there are multiple religions with a range of different and contradictory imperatives, cannot in principle say anything on whether or not we ought to rule based on them, for what is against one’s religion will be permissible by another’s. Furthermore, religious values only provide an argument for why an individual should not perform a certain action. This resolution isn’t about enforcing incestuous marriage on those who do not want an incestuous marriage themselves – it is entirely optional whether or not people marry their close relatives. This debate is about the right to marry, rather than the act to marry itself. Thus even if one is morally or socially against an action – one can still be for the right for someone to do that action. A parallel for example can be drawn to freedom of speech, where the right to speak overrides what is being spoken: "I disapprove of what you say , but I will defend to the death your right to say it ." Thus, even if society is against incestuous marriage, the case for the right to incestuous marriage is unaffected. Slippery Slope Fallacy Con has attempted to get a lot of mileage out of the alleged slippery slope between permitting incestuous marriage and various other unpleasant consequences. However for such an argument to be valid he would actually need to justify all his premises that entail these, as well as the fact that such actions should also not be permitted. E.g. (in a formal construction) 1. Legalising abortion means we should allow some forms of murder 2. We should not permit any form of murder C.We should not legalise abortion Without justifying either premises 1 or 2, it becomes a slippery slope fallacy, since we have no reason to believe either premise. Thus when Pro appeals to paedophilia, zoophilic, euthanasia, etc. then he must actually justify both premises of his argument. Specific Rebuttals I. Incestuous Lawful Marriage is an incoherent concept Recall the definition of incest: “ 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.” The definition includes a traditional consideration and specific examples, thus it is not by definition unlawful. It may well entail acts that today are unlawful in some states, but then legalising incestuous marriage would also obviously entail legalising incest itself, Thus this argument is also a non-starter – and blatantly commits the is-ought fallacy (see prior rebuttal). This is equivalent to someone opposing the permitting the sale of cannabis by appealing to its current illegal status – obviously would also entail legalising cannabis. II. Incestuous relationships should not be permitted in a democracy Whether or not a society is a democracy is largely irrelevant to the question of whether or not an action should be undertaken, since the ethical considerations are essentially the same, and Pro would have to appeal to moral knock-on effects of a democracy/non-democracy to make an argument here. Furthermore I have already addressed most of these points in my previous round, so I extend all my previous rebuttals. 1. This is the first definition of democracy I found: “ government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by themor by their elected agents under a free electoral system.” [ http://goo.gl... ] Nowhere is it implied that the majority should rule the minority, only that we value election and supreme power laying with the people. This means all people, including minorities. Con’s position is quite bluntly to rule the minorities by the whims of the majority, yet ignores my defence to this and the absurd consequences it entails. Moreover, legalising incestuous marriage doesn’t obviously entail the minority ruling the majority in either case thus is a clear strawman. We largely prohibit actions which seriously risk harming society, which is a much more general value shared by democratic voters. Incestuous marriage simply doesn’t possess these harms as already argued. Given that democratic nations usually include explicit protections for minorities regardless of their backgrounds, it flat out falsifies Con’s assertion that people value ruling the minority.[ http://goo.gl... ] 2. “In democratic countries, which constitute much of the World, incestuous marriage should not be allowed.” This isn’t even an argument, it is a statement (with no justification either)! At best it’s an is/ought fallacy, see relevant section for rebuttal. 3. This is essentially the same argument as “ Incestuous Lawful Marriage is an incoherent concept” (this whole debate is about allowing incestuous marriage, thus stating it is not allowed is simply not an argument but a statement), I extend my rebuttals to this. Furthermore it is also a blatant is/ought fallacy (see appropriate section), and the non-democratic nature of a nation is largely irrelevant to what it should do as already discussed. III. Incestuous relationships should be restricted by social or religious norms 1. “If we don’t value social or religious norms, then we will have to concede all norms, for then, they should be all considered arbitrary.” It seems Pro is putting the horse in front of the cart, for norms generally follow values, and not the other way around. Our values dictate our actions, and our actions become social norms. Con would have to show why norms are relevant in how we legislate. Our values are quite independent of norms. For example we usually value not dying, yet a social norm may be to execute Jews such as in the holocaust. It is the value of not dying (and not suffering, etc.) which dictates how we should legislate, not the norms. 2. “If we concede all norms, then we have to concede the norms such as those of nubility (& thus age of consent), or bestiality, or human sacrifice, or infanticide. . .” I have no idea what Con is trying to say with “concede all norms” – the statement is not intelligible English. Social norms are a state of affairs, thus “conceding all norms” is like saying “conceding all apples” or “conceding all Ferraris” – it makes absolutely no sense. Furthermore Con provides no justification why his slippery slope assertions follow thus can be soundly ignored until he provides it. It also seems that his argument is a denying the antecedent, which is a formal fallacy.[ http://goo.gl... ] 1. Social norms include no bestiality, no human sacrifice, etc. 2. No social norms (or whatever the heck his statement is meant to mean) 3. Therefore, bestiality, human sacrifice, etc. I would dispute both premises here, for social norms are going to exist regardless of whether or not we value them in legislation. For example legalising murder would not entail everyone is going to murder each other. Legalising same-sex marriage doesn’t entail everyone is going to marry someone of the same sex. Furthermore social norms aren’t being destroyed/conceded/etc. here, they are simply ignored for purposes of law in society. 3. This first premise here is correct, his second premise is not: “such as those related to nubility, bestiality, voluntary suicide & human sacrifice . . . for they don’t infringe on the liberty of others nor harm others.” This is a slippery slope fallacy (already discussed). Furthermore nobility, paedophilia, bestiality and human sacrifice I would argue clearly do harm liberty – and also have pragmatic considerations within the context of harming liberty. Given Con has made 0 attempt to justify any of these assertions entails no harm nor impingement on liberty, then these can be dismissed as bare assertions (such as with euthanasia etc.). 4. “If we don’t value social or religious norms, then we should permit…” This like #3 is another slippery slope fallacy, yet in this case his first premise isn’t even correct, since it doesn’t follow that disregarding social/religious norms would entail permitting these (see my previous point about not legislating based on norms, but on fundamental values). Moreover, isn’t this an argument against social & religious norms, since many societies and religions actually permit paedophilic marriage & nubility (e.g. Islam), bestiality (some Hindu branches). Thus ruling based on these norms would entail these (such as what is currently the case in many Islamic nations).[ http://goo.gl... ] Summary I have shown that incest provides fun for the whole family. Vote Pro! <EOA>

<BOA> I am against The consumption of meat is ethically wrong because I accept, and I'd like to thank Chelsea for allowing me to debate this topic. I hope for another great debate! As you have the burden of proof, I will be brief with the introduction. Beliefs: -Animals outside of humans do not deserve the rights of a person, since the holders of rights must be able to distinguish between their own interests and what is right. As professor Carl Cohen argues, "The holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty governing all, including themselves. In applying such rules, [they] ... must recognize possible conflicts between what is in their own interest and what is just. Only in a community of beings capable of self-restricting moral judgments can the concept of a right be correctly invoked." (1) -I also agree with his response to the contention that brain-damaged individuals deserve rights as well. His response is that the test for moral judgment "is not a test to be administered to humans one by one," but should be applied to the capacity of members of the species in general. -Since animals should not be given the inherent rights of a person (and therefore not the right to life), people should determine what rights they should have on a human needs/desires vs animal suffering basis. I believe that killing animals for consumption can be justifiable since it is valuable to us, and our need/desire of eating meat trumps the suffering of those other species. -I believe that there should still be laws against animal torture as it has no value to humans outside of the pleasure of a few sick individuals. This pleasure doesn't trump the suffering that is inflicted. -There should be regulations to ensure that animal farms are as humane as possible, so as to ensure a maximum net value for the suffering caused. With my beliefs outlined, you may now outline your arguments for the motion. I look forward to Round 2! 1. http://spot.colorado.edu... <EOA>

<BOA> I am with The United States Federal Government's War on Drugs should be ended. because Thank you, 16kadams, for your response. Contention 1-: The War on Drugs has worked My opponent's first claim is that Portugal's decision to end its own war on drugs, replacing it with decriminalization and treatment, worked. This gives no reason to believe the war worked; in fact, it's quite the opposite, because if ending the war improves things unexpectedly, then continuing the war will not. He also gives statistics on our own War on Drugs, pointing out that drug abuse went down about a third in twenty years, which is unimpressive compared to Portugal's 50% reduction in only ten years [1]. In fact, many countries see reduction in drug abuse after decriminalizing laws on particular drugs [2][3]. The seemingly important fact about cocaine usage dropping is more likely due to trends in drug use than any particular policy, being replaced by other drugs such as herion [4]. I find the fact that 95% of Americans do not use drugs unimpressive, as there is no indication at all that this was due to any action of government and countries without such massive wars on drugs have similar statistics. My opponent points to the (notably illegal) production of marijuana in the Netherlands, but it means nothing. Just because 100 tons were grown in one year doesn't mean that it is grown more than before, especially not relative to the rising population. My opponent is drawing a line from a single point; this is just bad math [5]. The "normalization" argument is just about the only legitimate objection to legalizing drugs, although it evidently does not occur in every society that decriminalizes drugs, but this is most definitely outweighed by the immense societal and economics costs of continuing the War on Drugs. Contention 1+: The War on Drugs is expensive My opponent claims that drug abuse costs so much money to American society, but the important question is, how? It is impossible to refute the claim without knowing what calculations went into it. Did they include what people could have been producing, but didn't, because they were high? If so, they made the mistake of disregarding psychic income (personal statisfaction from an activity [6]) and only focusing on monetary income; there is no reason to take their priorities over those of the American people. The sum also most likely includes the $110 billion "lost" to job productivity, even though my opponent tries to recreate this as a separate contention. While law enforcement costs may be lower than the total cost of the War on Drugs ($2.6 billion per year a few years ago [7]), that's still a lot of money, and there's no reason that the federal government should be involved in prevention and treatment when the states can handle that perfectly well if they so choose. My opponent also failed to address my concerns of the economic loss of jailing non-violent offenders, which includes both the cost of prison and the loss of production later in life and can lead to more damage to society by creating criminals. This does not offer the psychic income alternative, as I doubt anyone prefers being in jail to leading a productive life. Contention 2+: People have a right to drugs My opponent's examples of where we can't do anything we want with our bodies miss the point. Nudity is only illegal in public; no just government will outlaw being nude in your own house. Additionally, people can yell "hijack" all they want in their own homes; on airlines, however, people voluntarily give up their right to yell "hijack" so that the airplane industry allows them on the planes. There is no rights issue with an airline annoucing that those who ride on their planes may yell "hijack" to their hearts' content. He then demonstrates that he has quite likely never read the United States Constitution. He first claims that all American rights are listed in the Constitution, but nothing could be further from the truth; the Constitution even specifically states that there are rights not listed in the Constitution through the Ninth Amendment, which was appropriately enough written to avoid the very implication for which my opponent argues [8]. I have also never read anything in the Constitution stating any generalities about rights, although my opponent is free to show us where such a statement exists. In any case, the Tenth Amendment prevents the federal government from being involved, period. Drug policy is up to the states. I should add that states retain the right to continue the war on drugs within their own borders; this debate only concerns the federal government. The states can continue to inhibit drug use to prevent whetever concerns my opponent chooses to raise, but this would at least return that power to the individual states instead of the federal government. If the people of California think marijuana should be legal, then such is their right, and they shouldn't be forced to pay for drug enforcement in Massachusetts. My opponent claims that drugs hurt people, but this is false. People hurt people. Non-violent people can become unintentionally dangerous when they use cars, matches, power tools, guns, alcohol, and some other drugs, but does that mean that we should wage war on all of these things? Not at all. We tried Prohibition, but that failed miserably [9], and we see the same effects today. My opponent also points out that drug use can have negative effects on others, but so can going skydiving, joining a rock band, giving up a diet, not showering, overworking, or going without sleep for extended periods of time, but it would be a folly to introduce government regulation to stop these private decisions. The effects mentioned are all either negative effects already consented to by the party taking the drug, peer pressure that is still up to the individual to follow or not follow, and driving under the influence, which would still be illegal even if the federal government abolished every activity it currently performs. Contention 2-: Drugs promote crime My opponent's source actually suggests that the relationship between drug use and crime is very complex and not fully understood, but my opponent in spite of it concludes that drug use causes crimes. Milton Friedman observed that crime committed by addicts is necessitated by their addiction combined with the high cost of drugs resulting from criminalization, so less regulation would lead to less crime. Ending the drug war would also lower the profits of black markets and greatly reduce their ability to bribe policemen [10]. Therefore, it is not drugs, but the War on Drugs, that promotes crime. Contention 3+: The War on Drug has many unintended consequences I already pointed out how the War on Drugs kills many innocent bystanders [11, my previous link broke through a glitch]. Some of them were model citizens, and none of them deserved to die. I also pointed out how the War results in a plethora of other social problems and even strengthens the most powerful drug cartels. My opponent has apparently neglected this contention; I should hope he addresses it next round. Conclusion: The War on Drugs is an unconstitutional barrage on our rights that degrades society and kills many good, innocent people, and should be ended as soon as possible. 1. http://www.forbes.com... ; 2. http://www.reuters.com... 3. http://www.guardian.co.uk... ; 4. http://www.infoplease.com... 5. http://demonstrations.wolfram.com... ; 6. http://www.unc.edu... 7. http://www.cnbc.com... ; 8. http://civilliberty.about.com... ; 9. http://www.cato.org... 10. http://www.druglibrary.org... 11. http://www.drugwarrant.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Homosexual Acts are Immoral because TERMS Resolved: Homosexual Acts Are Immoral Rounds: 1. Acceptance only 2. Opening arguments 3. Clash 4. Closing arguments/clash Definitions: By "homosexual acts" I refer to sexual acts between members of the same sex. Specifically, I refer to homosexual sodomy. This is not a debate about homosexual orientation . I will have the burden of proof. No semantics. The time limit between replies is 72 hours. If one side explicitly concedes or violates any of these terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other. By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against I can post the funniest videos. because And of course, we must have a cat video. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Ron Paul running as a third party candidate will hurt Republicans like Ross Perot did in 92 because First off, Merry Christmas, solarman and to everyone at Debate.org. As for the subject of the debate: Will a Ron Paul independent / third-party candidacy "hurt" the Republicans like Ross Perot did in '92? My answer is two-part: (1) NO, because if Ron Paul does not win the nomination, the party will be irreparably damaged anyway. The problems Reagan created by the "fusion" of fiscal conservatives, militarist war-hawks, and Bible-thumping religious extremists are coming to a head with this election. The coalition lasted nearly thirty years, but like the New Deal coalition that preceded it, its days are over. The political elites have converged in bi-partisan consensus, leaving the majority of Americans feeling as though the two parties are essentially the same. The new winning coalition will be bringing these disaffected voters from across the political spectrum together with the unifying message of freedom. Ron Paul brings people together. The message of freedom is one that can even bring together solarman and Lindsay, if given time. (2) NO, because very few Ron Paul supporters will support a pro-war, pro-inflation neocon Republican. Even fewer are likely to vote for Hillary, but if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, then a good hunk of Ron Paul supporters will vote for him (if Paul does not run) over Giuliani, Romney, McCain, or especially Huckabee. (This is because a good number of Ron Paul's supporters are not constitutional scholars or Austrian economists -- they are attracted to Ron Paul's authenticity and honesty, and for whatever reason, a great deal of people see that in Obama, too. A fair share of Paul supporters are former Obama people who saw the light). Mostly, Ron Paul's supporters will vote the Libertarian or Constitution Party candidates (or another independent) if Ron Paul is not running, or they will just write Ron Paul's name in, which I plan to do (IF he fails to win the GOP nomination and does not run independent). Thus, in an electoral sense, an independent / Libertarian Ron Paul will neither hurt nor help the GOP in 2008 -- the Republicans will be doomed whether he runs or sits out. It makes virtually zero difference to me who the president is if it's not Ron Paul. The most fundamental political issue of our time is the Federal Reserve and the coming dollar crisis, and every single other candidate -- from Fred Thompson to Dennis Kucinich and everyone in between -- is in unanimity on that issue. I just don't see Hillary as a Great Satan that you do. Why would our country be any better off with another four years of George H.W. Bush than with Bill Clinton? They ran on virtually identical platforms, just as Hillary and every Republican (except Ron Paul) do today. If you voted for Perot, you should be proud of your vote. Even though he was a protectionist and far too liberal, he was worth voting for (just as many good liberals see Ron Paul as worth voting for). The fact is that we don't really even vote for president -- we vote for presidential electors. And our individual votes, by themselves, are unlikely to be the deciding factor in determining which electors get sent to the College. In 1848, Martin Van Buren (one of our greatest and most underrated presidents) ran as a third-party candidate, on the Free Soil Party ticket. He got over 10% of the vote, despite the fact that everyone who voted for him knew he could not win the election. But these voters could not bring themselves to voting for the pro-slavery Whigs or the pro-slavery Democrats -- they wanted to vote AGAINST slavery and for Free Soil. Similarly, Ron Paul supporters, by and large, will be unable to bring themselves to vote for a candidate who stands for the slavery that is imperialism, police statism, confiscatory taxation, and worst of all, inflationist fiat-money printing. Your vote is your ultimate expression of your First Amendment rights -- selling it out to the lesser of two evils is a rejection of American republican principles. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Why justin bieber should be prosecuted and sent to prison. because Vote Con. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against brawn is better than brain because I really wish I had time to provide the uber "be all end all" contention I had intended to provide, but my Internet service provider is being a jack@ss right now and I'm not sure about whether or not my Internet access will be functioning properly at any point before tomorrow. Thus, I will simply apologize for the verbal mistakes in the last round and extend my arguments. I'm pretty sure I can win with those alone. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against I will lose this debate. because I belive you will win not lose becuase you have the pittsburg penguins and there star player sidney crosby you also have 3000 in your name and that is the amount of debates you will win. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Debating on Debate.org is better with no pants because I thank Pro for presenting this topic and I look forward to a lively discussion. I agree with Pro on all points but one. This will be anything but a fun debate. Going pantsless, even during the seemingly innocuous task of debating on a website, is no laughing matter. I intend to approach this matter with the utmost seriousness and debunk what I can only imagine are the deranged utterances of a madman. My opponent's take on this resolution is dangerous for society and it ends here. It ends now. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with COD vs Titanfall because Since I will be on the side of CoD is better than Titanfall. It is one of the largest selling shooting games. Which kind of gives it an advantage when going against Titanfall. Call of Duty has a bigger fan base so it can get more ideas and have the ability to expand its franchise which also gives it an advantage. As for Titanfall you have to wait for the game to do a 2 hour update. WHile CoD probably takes about twenty minutes to update. In Titanfall they have really lowered the selections of what weapons there are to use against the enemy. While in CoD as they get bigger they add new weapons and other things that you can use later on in there new games that come out. These are reasons why I think CoD is better than Titanfall. I hope my opponent is ready to come right back at me. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Euthanasia because First let me start off by defining Euthanasia. Euthanasia: Ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness by lethal injection or suspension of medical treatment. *Euthanasia comes from the Greek word Euthanasia, which means good death* http://dictionary.reference.com... my opponent has argued "I think its wrong because it's exactly like murder and it should not be made legal" Murder:the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. Euthanasia and murder are very different. When a person gets euthanized, they choose to die. They no longer want to be on earth. When a person gets murdered, it is not their choice, it is the murderer's. Two very different things. My arguments: 1) People who are terminally ill (people who have cancer,etc.) feel that they are going to die soon anyways, and they feel that they no longer need to live. Why do they need to suffer until they die, when they themselves, are ready to die and feel no more pain. I don't know what your beliefs are, but maybe some of the people feel that their pain on earth is over and they need to go to Heaven. 2) The person on their "deathbed" may have a poor quality of life. They may have to make multiple hospital visits, and spend money on medication, which means they have very little money. They would also not get to enjoy life, with the suffering, pain, hospital and doctor visits. They may be very depressed that they don't get to live their lives normal, and they may even become jealous of everybody else. Why would you want someone to suffer if they were ready to go in the first place? 80% of people surveyed agreed that doctors should do PAS, or physician assisted suicide. (which is the same thing as Euthanasia) http://www.snn-rdr.ca... This is my argument and I cant wait to hear yours! <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Resolved: Military Conscription is unjust. because Greetings to my opponent, Jokerdude. I look forward to this debate. May the most flawless logic compellingly prevail. I plan on first making my own claim against the resolution, and then rebutting against each contention made by my opponent. I am negating the resolution that "military conscription" is unjust. Therefore, I argue that it is not unjust. I am not experienced with the specifics of LD debate tournaments; however, I assume that I can contend (rather than explicitly complying with) the definition initially provided by my opponent. I would like to say that military conscription does not have to include teens, and that it should begin after undergraduate education, at the least. POINT 1: Socialistic functioning and ethics. Statement: A society will be defined as a collective group of individuals having a specific organization and rules. Reason: Given. Statement: There are many, many different societies in the world. Reason: The world has many "collective groups of individuals having a specific organization and rules." Statement: Ethics are defined as the philosophical study of values and rules, right and wrong, applied to a society. Reason: Given. Statement: Ethics are determined by the collective society. Reason: Ethical values, applying only to a single society, reside in the only ones being affected by the ethics. Statement: The only ones being affected by the ethics are the individuals in the specific society itself. Reason: See definition. Statement: Each society may have differing ethics. Reason: Each society has the potential to have differing individuals (people who decide ethics). Statement: Military conscription is an "ethical" issue. Reason: By definition, it is either right or wrong. Statement: Military conscription has the potential to be just. Reason: The potential exists, as a specific society may derive, on their arbitrary ethical scale, that military conscription is indeed just. It is up to each society to ultimately decide its role, and therefore, this validates such a potential. Statement: The resolution states "Military conscription is unjust." Reason: Given. Statement: The resolution is explicit, meaning that the instigator must prove that military conscription is indeed unjust (and therefore cannot be just). Reason: Semantics. Statement: The resolution is evidently false. Reason: The resolution, inferring that military conscription cannot be just, leaves no room for the potential for it to indeed be just, in any circumstances. However, as evident in preceding statements/reasons, such a potential does exist, therefore invalidating the resolution, effectively making it false. POINT 2: Governmental decision-making. Decision-making and law establishment set forth by the government creates rules. The major role of the government can be defined as protecting its society, as well as providing for its society to ultimately aid in its amelioration. The government should, ideally, act in a manner that would best serve the collective society as a whole. Of course, it is ideal to have public input regarding decision-making at the governmental level. However, ultimately, the government legislates, enforces, and interprets the laws made. POINT 3: Patriotism. Military conscription would improve patriotic values more readily. Essentially, promoting patriotism would be beneficial, as it exemplifies support for the country. Such behavior is altruistic, willing to help assist others with no direct beneficial effect on the altruist. Ultimately, patriotic values help to bring about greater action of the collective in general. It establishes more grounds for trust between individuals in the society, as they are all focused upon a common cause to better themselves, and perhaps life itself. POINT 4: National protection. Military conscription would easily bring about more military personnel (hence its designed purpose). More military personnel mean that there are more people to help defend a society. In case of the need to engage in any type of warfare, a military would be large enough to combat unforeseen problems, preparing itself in case of emergency. POINT 5: Character attributions. Military conscription, leading to national service, would likely ameliorate character, building appropriate chain of commands, higher levels of trust, greater effort, teamwork, self-discipline, and elevated respect for authority. Such character is necessary in the military, later in life, as well as the workforce. POINT 6: Beneficial service to the community. It is appropriate for everyone, as a part of their collective society, to help serve their society in order to better it, and keep it functioning within normal parameters. A society, by definition (see above) is composed of individuals. It is therefore the responsibility of the individuals to form an effective and functioning society. In order for a society to be effective, it should have an effective defense system. As stated, the defense system would be more protective if there were a larger number of people to serve. A larger number of people to serve would be accomplished via military conscription. Such duties (ha) would be beneficial to the society. The military does not entail only fighting, combat, and weaponry. Rather, it also entails scientific research and such. Therefore, pacifists would also have another option, other than engaging in combat. It would seem logical to implement such military conscription. If any one of the points in which I have extrapolated is indeed valid in proving the resolution to be false, I, logically, win. I plan to rebuttal against the arguments of my opponent. "It has been realized by people 30 years ago that this is a bad idea." I would agree that there might have been some flaws 30 years ago. However, a more ideal system could be generated at the current. Military conscription does not mean fighting or combat, necessarily. Rather, scientific research or medical care for various branches could be considered viable alternatives. If the choice were given to citizens of the society, they could pursue what best suits them. Military conscription can vary from the conventional. Perhaps only volunteers could serve in other countries, allowing more leniency for those serving compulsory service (similar to a policy in the Swedish armed forces). "The Federal government has no right to mandate that citizens should have to go into the military. Under the Constitution we have the right to do as we choose so long as we don't infringe upon other peoples rights." First, as mentioned previously, the government, presiding the society, has an obligation to do what is right for the society as a whole. Secondly, an analysis of Locke's Social Contract theory implies, "people give up some rights to a government and/or other authority in order to receive or jointly preserve social order." In order to preserve social order, for the well being of the society, the government ought to implement military conscription. National defense ought to be prioritized. If my opponent's claim regarding the constitution were true, it would be optional to attend grade school. However, the government has realized that education is a necessity for the country, and thus, made it compulsory. The same ought to be likewise for military conscription. http://en.wikipedia.org... "There are other things to do to benefit the US in a positive manner then fighting in a war." Of course, there are many ways to help society. However, military conscription does not need to deprive people of other benefiting professions. Perhaps military conscription could be applied to mandate a lesser amount of time for serving, such as 1 year, or even less. Once completed, citizens could honorably resume their course of educational study. Cheers, Oboeman. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Robert Frost's poem "The Road Not Taken" sends a positive message because Where is the site of meaning in a poem? The answer to the above question has been the subject of much debate in literary studies: is the meaning of a text located in the author's intention or in the reader's experience? In Round 1, my opponent stated the following "precondition" for taking this debate: "Because there are no authorities for literature, do not use an outside source to defend your argument." My opponent has therefore conceded, as a precondition for taking this debate, that there are no authorities in the study and interpretation of literary works. That said, conceded may be too weak a word to describe my opponent's statement, as it was my opponent who made the precondition a precondition in the first place. By agreeding to the precondition, I was forced by my opponent to not use external sources to support my argument. On the other hand, my opponent unwittingly agreed thatthere are no authoritiesin the interpretation of Robert Frost's poem, "The Road not Taken." What does it mean to say there are no authorities concerning literature? For one, it provides a clear determination of the site of meaning in a literary text: the reader's experience. As such, the meaning of a poem can be understood to reside in the reader, and therefore, the meaning of any poem will be multifarious, each text having as many meanings as it has readers. So when my opponent claims that Robert Frost's poem does not send a positive message, my opponent has implicily accepted (by his own terms) an extraordinarly difficult burden -- my opponent must argue that the poem cannot send a positive message to any reader. For if a single reasonable reader believes, as a result of their reading-experience, that the poem sends a positive message, then my opponent has failed to fulfill his burden. At once, readers of this debate may note that the poem can send a positive message because, as exemplified by the experience of many readers of the poem (including myself), the poem has provided a positive message for many of its readers. How does the poem send a positive message? Note: the fact that I examine my opponent's argument in more detail does not take away from the fact that, even if readers disagree with my reading of the poem, my opponent has already conceded that there are no authorities on literature, and therefore, that my reading is just as legitimate as anyone else's reading. My response to the poem was positive. My opponent argues that the poem does not send a positive message because the last few lines are either a lie or sarcastic. To support his case, my opponent drects the reader's attention to the "sigh" in the last stanza. My only question is: how does this imply that the entire poem, in its reflection on the meaning of life, and the different roads one may take, is somehow negative? Sighs are just as often related to good things as they are to bad things; for example, people sigh when they are in love, people sigh when they recount memories that are dear to them, when they look back on times with nostalgia. Sighs, in relation to memories, are almost always a good thing. Consider what the poem is about: it is a reflection on the meaning of the choices we make in life. The poem concludes that, regardless of which choice we make, the choice itself was meaningful. The speaker notices that it is not the path or the conclusion that matters, but the choice. The choices we make have "all the difference," regardless of what happens afterwards. The poem is a statement of the meaning inherent in making choices. This is a positive message, as it is attempts to locate meaning in a world plagued by ambiguity, uncertainty, and in the end, powerlessness. In the light of these factors, these aspects of the human condition, the poet nonetheless attempts to find some meaning, some "difference." And it is the search for meaning itself, exemplified by the poet's desire for a "difference" (even if he is lying, the fact he lies is evidence of desire for meaning). <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Kerrigan skelly made an argument for god in this debate because I will accept this debate. Kerrigan Skelly in his debate against izbo10, made an argument for God by way epistemological argument for morality. Said debate can be listened to here but I warn you it is fairly long. http://www.blogtalkradio.com... I await my opponent's contentions. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Kobe is a better basketball player than Lebron because I would suggest that people vote on their own discretion. I hope you get a good opponent for the debate you want though. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with God most likely exists because Introduction In the course of this debate, I shall defend the existence of a cosmic mind which grounds reality. The premises might seem readily acceptable, however the conclusion will be counter-intuitive to many. Please do not let this affect your consideration of the argument. I shall summarize the argument, and then get into defending the premises. Please note that when I speak of “mental” I mean something which is contrasted to mindless physical matter in the philosophical sense. So we could read P1 as the logical obverse, "No mind is non-mental" [1] which basically states that mind isn’t reducible to something like mind-less physical matter. P1 Mind is mental P2 Nothing mental can interact with what is non-mental C1 Nothing mind interacts with is non-mental P3 Mind interacts with reality C2 Reality is mental I. P1. Mind is not matter. Off the top of my head, I can think of about ten different arguments to defend this premise. But for now I shall stick to one which I think is very convincing and will save the most room. Solipsism P1: IF mind is matter, THEN solipsism is impossible (exists in no possible worlds). P2: Solipsism is possible (does exist in some possible world). C: Mind is not matter. Metaphysical solipsism is the position that all that exists is your mind [2]. You might think there’s a real world out there, but in reality, that’s all an illusion. We also might substitute Descartes’ evil genius simulating the world around us [3]. So is there a possible world where all that exists is minds? There are good reasons to believe this. (i) This seems perfectly possible. There are no explicit contradictions in it. It certainly isn’t prima facie impossible. So we should accept it as a logically coherent possibility. (ii) It’s quite conceivable. If mind were made up of matter, it would be utterly impossible for it exist apart from matter. It's like saying “It’s possible for this pen made out of plastic to exist when plastic does not exist.” That’s absurd. Secondly, metaphysical impossibilities aren't even conceivable. Can you conceive of a square triangle? Or the part being greater than the whole? No. Because they're metaphysical impossibilities, which are incoherent in themselves. Consequently, if something is conceivable, it must be at least metaphysically possible. There's a "thing" there for us to understand and conceive, unlike impossibilities. Now please do not confuse metaphysical possibility with physical possibility. See the diagram below... So when I say that it is metaphysically possible, all I'm saying is that it's logically coherent, and could be the case in a possible world. So metaphysical solipsism seems at least metaphysically possible. Now P1 is much easier. It's just an application of Leibniz's law [4]. If the mind were some sort of physical or mindless substance, then this mindless something would have the same properties as the mind. But importantly, this includes modanic properties; properties of possibility. To illustrate… Thing 1 Thing 2 XYZ qualities XYZ qualities Exists in possible world A Exist in possible world A Exists in possible world B Does not exist in possible world B Since these two things have different modanic properties, they can’t be the same thing. The reason I think this argument is so strong is because it goes much deeper. Recall, that in order for the argument to succeed, I must just show that it is logically coherent for there to be a world in which only your mind exists, and matter does not exist. But wait! It might be the case that this world is a solipsistic one. So solipsism is not just a far off abstract possibility; it's a very real and immediate one. Make sure you understand this argument before proceeding. II. P2. Seperate substances cannot interact. I shall now debunk substance dualism and property dualism. 1. Substance dualism. Substance dualists hold that there are two completely different types of "stuff." [5] There's "mind stuff" and there's "physical stuff." But if mind isn't physical, how can it interact with matter as it obviously does? Does the mind put an electric charge into the brain? Does the brain affect the mind in the same way? In other words, interaction would have to come about through a common property which both mind and matter share. Some bridge which gaps between mind and matter. See the diagram below: But there's a problem here. Because separate substances, by definition, do not share any properties. If they did, they wouldn't be separate substances to begin with. So the notion of there being two completely different substances which somehow cause each other is incoherent. But the mind most certainly does interact with reality! Thus, there can't be two separate substances. 2. Property dualism. "Alright," you might say, "but affecting the brain affects the mind. So maybe the mind isn't a separate substance, but is a property of the brain." This is property dualism. It holds that there is one type of substance, "matter", but that matter has physical properties as well as mental properties. And mental properties is where the mind is. See the diagram below: Now this leads to major problems of epiphenomenalism and no free will, which I'll probably get into in later rounds. But besides having highly counter-intuitive problems, property dualism gets even worse. Let's take an example of a property. Let's say, "a ten pound rabbit." Now the property "10 lbs" is said of "rabbit." By itself, "10 lbs" isn't even a thing. Have you ever gone outside and seen a "10 lb"..... a 10 lb what exactly? Oh yknow, just a 10 lb. As you can see, properties are abstractions of a substance. By themselves, they're not really a thing. In fact, it's entirely impossible for them to exist by themselves, since they're abstractions! They exist only inasmuch as the substance they are a property of exists. Properties aren't things. They're properties of things. But remember the solipsism argument. We saw that it's perfectly possible (metaphysically) for the mind to exist by itself. There's nothing incoherent about that. If the mind were just a property like "10 lb" we wouldn't be able to coherently describe it as a thing in itself. However, we surely can. Thus, the mind cannot just be a property like "red" or "10 lb." There is also the huge problem of free will, which I touched on above. So property dualism is epistemic suicide, highly counter-intuitive, and even just plain impossible. Sounds like a defeater to me. III. P3. Mind interacts with reality. Now as we've seen, mind is fundamental. I've shown that it's fundamental ontologically, as well as epistemically. But mind obviously does interact with the reality we experience If I stub my toe, it hurts. I feel the pain. My mind has been affected. I can also make choices. This seems self-evident. Mind affects reality, and reality affects mind. IV. Explanatory power Now I've given good arguments to believe in idealism (all is mind), but it also has a huge ability to explain things. Any science is compatible with idealism. To bring up science is a futile task, since it's perfectly compatible with idealism. Furthermore, idealism can explain how mind and reality interact both ways. It can also explain the existence of the mind, something materialism has an immense difficulty doing, as shown in Chalmer's Hard Problem [6]. V. Occam's Razor. Technically, Occam's razor is only supposed to be applied when competing hypotheses have equal explanatory power, but I'll put this out there anyways. Idealism is highly favored by Occam's razor. It doesn't make the assumption of two separate substances, like dualism, but it also doesn't make the assumption that mind is identical to some neurons firing in my brain. As Sam Harris says "There is nothing about introspection that leads you to sense that your subjectivity is at all dependent or even related to voltage changes and chemical reactions going on inside your head. You can drop acid, you can meditate for a year...at no point...do you get a glimpse that there is a hundred trillion neurons in your head." [7] God Theism follows from this form of idealism. Remember that the conclusion follows necessarily; reality is mental. Now since reality is mental, and is independent of our minds, there must be another mind to ground it. True, it might be the case that reality is projected by our subconsciousness, and solipsism is true, but even then, God would exist... in other words, God, defined in this debate as the mind that grounds reality would still be there. I would be God. Of course, I don't think this is the case, since the world seems to go on regardless of me, but fleeing to the mysterious embrace of solipsism won't help my opponent any. Conclusion Remember when I said up there that the premises might be easy to defend, but the conclusion would seem counter-intuitive? Well now I think you see what I mean. Remember, the conclusion follows with necessity . If the premises are true, we cannot escape it; the conclusion must also be true. It might be a tough pill to swallow, but if it's true, all we can do is gulp. Thus, I have shown that it is most likely the case that reality is mental, and as such, there is a God, a mind which grounds reality. Thank you. ==Sources== [1] http://academic.csuohio.edu... [2] http://www.iep.utm.edu... [3] http://people.wku.edu... [4] http://www.oberlin.edu... [5] http://www.philosophy-index.com... [6] https://www.youtube.com... [7] http://youtu.be... <EOA>

<BOA> I am with The U.S. ought to submit to jurisdiction of an int. court designed to prosec. crimes agnst. humanity because I'll go NC, then AC V- Peace VC- Maintaining Hegemony --> I have 3 responses: First, he never makes an warrants why this value structure does the following: a. Provide a weighing mechanism for the round b. Provide a link to the resolution c. Therefore, you can immediately drop his V/VC Second, I would argue that his value structure is inconsistent between the V and VC. Peace is achieved with consent of the whole global community, bot from the dominance of one country over another, i.e. hegemony. For example, the US is forming a hegemony in the Middle East, but there is obviously no peace. Third, I would argue that it provides no solvency, and thus should be rejected. I.e. his value structure provides no benefit and solutions. Ob. 1 "One important goal of the U.S. is to get as close to a democracy as we can. Therefore, we do not want to impose any ideas without the proper consent." --> Inconsistent with proposed value structure. He claims "Therefore, we do not want to impose any ideas without the proper consent." If that is true then you are going against your VC of Maintaining Hegemony. Contention I: By forcing the U.S. to inevitably destroy itself to benefit all, you are causing chaos among nations in general. a)Submitting to an international court would cause another document to be valued higher than the constitution, which devalues the existence of the U.S. --> I have 3 responses: First, again, he makes no warrants as to why his premise is true. Second, valuing a document higher would not lead to the destruction of the US. Third, I would argue that it is not valuing a document higher because joining doesn't violate our national jurisdiction. According to the Rome Statute, joining the Court System does not violate national sovereignty, rather it is a mechanism designed to prosecute those that violate a countries own dignity. For example, the court system would have been able to prosecute those that lead the genocide in Rwanda. They have the right to violate sovereignty based on the fact that those crimes against humanity warrant that violation. b)When 1 hegemony is gone, another needs to rise. The 2 contenders being China and Russia would end up fighting for the new position. --> I have 3 responses: First, again, no warrants as to why his premise is true. Second, simply joining won't undermine US hegemony. Furthermore, joining does not give any reason that Russia and China would fight for that hegemony. Third, even if you don't buy my 2nd response, I would argue that the fight between Russia and China would ultimately hurt them both, ergo they would not have the ability to make hegemony. [AC] I affirm: The U.S. ought to submit to jurisdiction of an int. court designed to prosec. crimes agnst. humanity For clarity I offer the following definitions: 1. Ought: should 2. Jurisdiction: area of law 3. Crimes against humanity: crimes down on a systematic and widespread area, e.g. genocide For analysis of the resolution I offer the following observations: 1. The resolution is a contextualized as a realistic resolution rather then an idealistic one, because it states the US. 2. The function of this court is to prosecute crimes agaisnt humanity. The affirmative values Justice, which can be defined as giving each their due. This is an appropriate value because the obligation of a court system is to distribute justice to wrongdoers. This value is achieved by the criterion of Promoting a Safer Society. The link between the two are clear. The court distributes justice, and convicts wrongdoers, which in-turn makes a safer society. This has two impacts: First, the resolution gives two evaluative statements. 1. The US ought to submit, and 2. prosecute crimes agaisnt humanity. The value structure impacts because the Us ought to submit, if it promotes safety by prosecuting crimes agaisnt humanity. Second, ought implies an obligation, and an obligation of a court system is to promote safety within society. Contention I: Legitimacy By submitting to the jurisdiction of the court, the US is granted legitimate use of law enforcement to promote the court. For example, the US has no right to intervene in Darfur because it has no legitimate backing to use force. According to the Rome statute, a country can have legitimate authority to sue military force in which it will be sued to capture and bring the criminal to the court for prosecution. Therefore, if the US joins the court, it now has legitimacy behind it to intervene because it would be able to enforce the laws of the international community, and thus bring the leaders of the genocide to the court. In-case turn: The negative wants to promote peace by maintaining hegemony. However, use my contention as a turn agaisnt his case because I am the one giving the US legitimate backing to use force. For these reasons you can affirm. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Direct popular vote should replace the electoral college in U.S. presidential elections. because This will be a PF style debate. Round 1: Pro begins debate by presenting its case. Round 2: Con presents own case and attacks opponents' case. Pro defends his case and attacks Con's case. Round 3: CX. Con questions. Pro's responses and questions. Round 4: Con's responses. Pro's "final focus" (telling why they think they won) Round 5: Con's "final focus". Pro does no arguing or rebutting (pro started the debate so Con should finish it to keep the debate as fair as possible). Also, I would like to ask the voters to only vote on who made the more convincing arguments and who used more reliable resources. (a forfeit in any of the rounds will result in an automatic loss) <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Evil proves God does not exist (Part 2) because Pedophile island I maintain, that if the pedophile derived more pleasure than the victims sadness, it would be a moral act. My definition of morality is the only one I have heard that can be used meaningfully in this type of conversation. Again, I am willing to consider another definition of morality, good, or any other term. Defending my Arguement An observent reader might note that I mislable my arguement, specificly there are two B6 and B7s. To clarify this, B7.1 refers to the first, while B7.2 refers to the second. Likewise with B6. Con objects to B7.2 "God would remove evil" This was based directly the previus two points B7.1) God would want to remove evil B6.2) God is capable of removing evil I do not see how I have a hidden premise between these two points and B7.2. Remember, any additional property of God that makes him do something perfectly moral, means that he is no longer morally perfect. But as he was defined as morally perfect, he is then internally contradictory. Evil and objective morality As I stated before, Con has already agreed that this debate assumes evil's exsistence. I have brought this up in the previus round without a challenge. In this arguement, pro is saying that evil does not exist. As my arguement is a proof by contradiction, it would need to remain true that evil does not exist even if God exists. Therefore, this arguement does not do anything to show how evil and God can coexist. As I have stated previusly, moral can not be defined in terms of God, because God is defined in terms of moral. That would be like saying foo is goo, and goo is foo. Now you know what foo is. I have also explained my objective moral standard. I admit that it is subjective to bob if my texting makes him sad. However it is an objective fact that my texting makes him said. So, all other things being equal, it would be immoral for me to text. This of course assumes that my texting does not effect my happiness, or that of anyone else, or any other consequence it could have. I admit that quantifing happiness is practicly impossible, however as happiness is a function of the brain, an objective measure does exists, we simply have to way to determine it, making our moral views a best guess, at what the true moral value of an action is. I must admit, I do not understand what con means by evil. I would like a formal defintion in the form of Moral=, or Moral is. Under any definition you give, please provide an example of something that would be moral or imoral, and an explanation of how that is derived from your definition. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against The cake is a lie. because Unfortunately, Pro's last round was almost entirely irrelevant. Contrary to his statement, given the definition he provided, the resolution is still impossible. Let's look at Pro's interpretation of the resolution: 'I assert that the cake at the end of the game Portal is an assertion of something untrue by the speaker *Glados* in an attempt to deceive the player and ultimately kill them.' But a cake cannot be a lie. A cake is a physical object, not a statement that could be true or false. A cake is not an assertion or a belief. A cake is, by Pro's definition 'A sweet baked food made of flour, liquid, eggs, and other ingredients, such as raising agents and flavorings'. Clearly, Pro's definitions do not agree with him. For comparison, look at a statement which could be true or false: 'I will give you cake after you complete these tasks' This statement could be a lie, or it could be the truth. From the game, it would be a lie from GLaDOS to motivate you. However, just the object 'cake' cannot be a lie, or the truth. It is just an object, not a statement about reality. A cake can neither be truth or lie, therefore the resolution is negated. Vote CON. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with This is Gay Recruitment because I do not believe the Huffington post is "recruiting" people to be Gay. They are showing the diverse culture that exists in our society. The simple fact of the matter is: Gay people exist! Homosexual relationships aren't just some made up fantasy. The huffington post are simply showing anyone who wishes to view their site what our world is like; the job of the news! Here are some examples of other photos they show in their articles: They show heterosexual couples, and with the recent legalisation of Gay marriage in the UK, it is no wonder that they're showing pictures of homosexual couples! It isn't showing children that homosexual relationships are "incredibly cool", it is simply showing pictures that relate to the article. If we are to avoid discrimination of any kind, both heterosexual and homosexual couples must be seen in the media. Those who are Gay need to see people who they can relate to, otheriwse we risk damaging the whole community. Here are some statistics for Gay teens who commit suicide: Between 30 and 40% of the Gay youth ( a collection of different ages) have attempted to commit suicide The Homosexual youth are more likely to try to commit suicide than their Heterosexual counterparts Here is an interesting statistic found by GLAAD on the media : homosexual couples make up about 4.4% of the media we see today (at the start of 2013). This figure is shocking! The only way we can hope to destroy the hateful discrimination the LGBT community faces is by showing the youth of today the truth! By shying them away from the reality will only push those who need help further away. https://www.glaad.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... <EOA>

<BOA> I am with space exploration is not a waste of money because As expected, Con forfeited the last round. Extend my arguments until next time. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Can something be true for you, but not be true for me? because The problem here is that it all comes down to ones own perception. I might just want to add that the impression comes first, then the idea. So our first observations we make are one's of objective truth. It's the observation of one's environment with his limited senses. Later on, when the brain continues to develope, you then have the ability to have thoughts about observations. This gives one an idea. About love, emotions, and so on and so forth. So, we are all relativists in some way. If you really believe in what the bible claims then you can, with no doubt say that your belief is subjective. Like an ideology or a theory. Done talking thank you to my opponent for an intriguing debate <EOA>

<BOA> I am against The Existence of God because My opponent seems to be egregiously confused about his own resolution. He is supposed to be defending the First Cause argument, yet concedes that he "know[s] the proposition is self defeating." Perhaps I can make his own position clear to him... Responses: >> "Yeah but Quantum events are dependant on time and space. That is why Quantum mechanics can attempt to explain it." Dependence on the framework of time and space is not the same as causality. >> "Yeah and you cannot imagine everything exploding from nothing because you have no idea what nothing is. Does that mean that this is impossible to you?' Something coming from nothing? Only in quantum mechanics, but certainly possible. If you're referring to the Big Bang, I suggest you read up on the theory... >> "Time will have an end." No it won't - it can't. Time is not dependent on the existence of space. Everything, even the universe itself could be destroyed, but time would remain. Time is not any sort of physical entity - it is merely a means by which we measure the relativity of two events. >> "How could time exist in a place that has always been. It wouldnt be possible. " Again, it surely would. Your own reference above even contains the time-dependent term "always," which, in metaphysical or space-time terms simply means, "at all times" ("times" meaning points of observation, even if only possibilities). There is absolutely no reason for my opponent to make the above claim. >> "Gravity has no effect on time or space. You misunderstood me." No - I understood you perfectly. You do not understand astrophysics. Gravity creates a warping of time and space. Gravity has EVERYTHING to do with time and space. The best way to think of it is like a bowling ball (our sun) on a trampoline (spacetime). The trampoline bows inwards towards the object (albeit in all dimensions instead of just 2), representing the curvature of spacetime caused by large objects. This curvature means that objects moving away from the massive object have to "climb" up the gravity well to reach escape velocity. Since the universe is expanding and trying to race up IT'S OWN gravity well, it will eventually fail and begin to fall (contract). >> "I know the proposition is self defeating." The proposition he refers to is my statement: "If one can conceive of an uncaused cause or something that does not need a cause, then one has already accepted acausality. And once this has been done, the need for a first cause entirely disappears. The proposition is self-defeating." Sounds like a concession to me. ********************************************************** >> "the only way I can make them fit with each other is by introducing a first cause, which unfortunately must have been infinite and must not have had a cause." I suppose for giggles I'll re-address this, since my opponent didn't understand my rebuttal... If the first cause is infinite and acausal, you have already committed yourself to something that does not follow the rules of causality. Once you make this move, you abandon one of the fundamental principles that your argument was founded on (causality). The first cause argument cannot stand because it is based on a form of argument that uses a premise only when it is convenient. When one makes the first cause argument by abandoning causality, the proposition cannot stand. If the first cause had no cause, then my opponent must provide some sort of explanation of WHY it had no cause. Abandoning causality destroys the entire infinite regress notion. Your argument basically asks the voters to support a notion where the premise of your argument ("Absolutely everything we are capable of observing in the universe around us has had a cause or causes") is suddenly abandoned for one instance of the very thing your premise is in regards to. Consider: All E are C. At least one E is not C. Your argument does not stand. NEGATED. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with the fact that Russia is a nuclear hellhole, does not make it a unlivable place. because I will wait for my opponent to begin. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against The death penalty, is it A- Morally Right and B- Logically Right because Well, my fine future opponent, be prepared for a beating as I am going to disprove the death penalty! A short snappy argument, a short snappy rebuttal (Optional). Rounds are as follows: 1 - Acceptance Round / First Argument From PRO (Cause I'm that kind!) 2 and 3 - Arguments Only 500 Characters!? Oh No! This time, we cut the crap and get straight into the discussion. Good Luck, You'll Need It! <EOA>

<BOA> I am with IQ Tests Cannot Assess a Person's Intelligence because Thank you, Nags, for accepting this debate. "By the basic definition of IQ tests, they do in fact assess a person's intelligence, because IQ = intelligence quotient. And they do so in high/low measurements because tests measure knowledge on a scale, and scales are high and low." I am not arguing about what the IQ tests claim that they can measure, but rather about their credibility regarding those measurements. To this I will bring my contentions. Contention 1: Someone who is credited as a genius can be a genius in a certain aspect, and yet be quite mediocre in other areas. http://en.wikipedia.org... If that said genius were to take a typical IQ test, he would score highly in his strong area, yet fail in his weak area, thus bringing his score down and making him look average. Possible Situation: A prestigious engineering university who will look for logical students, will reject the 115 IQ student who is in fact a logical genius and yet has a very poor memory. Contention 2: The IQ test is, after all, a test that one has to sit down and do, and as I'm sure we all know, the performance during a test can be highly swayed by emotional and physical aspects. Examples: If a person's leg is giving him shooting pains, or that person has not slept well for a week or so, or if there is tremendous pressure on that person to do well on the test, he will be less likely to do as well as he would normally do. Human nature dictates that there is usually something bothering us. Contention 3: Much of the IQ test's testing tools, such as memory games, solving mathematical problems, etc. are areas that with practice one can improve. Thus I cannot see how performance in these areas can possibly prove anything other than how good that person is at that specific game, type of problem, etc. Someone can take an IQ test, score X, practice, go back and score higher than X. To conclude, little value can be attributed to the IQ test. While I concede that a hopelessly simple-minded person will score low, and an all-around genius will score high, an accurate evaluation of relative intelligence cannot possibly be determined. Resolution affirmed. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Resolved: Military Conscription is unjust because Greetings voters, opponent, and judges, today you will [hopefully] learn more about the pushing issues regarding Military Conscription. I have acclaimed the negative position as granted by tournament director, Luke Cumbee, with that said, I negate the resolution which reads, "Resolved: Military Conscription is unjust" Definitions: The definition of military conscription is, "a general term for involuntary labor demanded by some established authority. It is most often used in the specific sense of government policies that require citizens (often just males) to serve in the armed forces. It is known by various names — for example, the most recent conscription program in the United States was known colloquially as 'the draft' ( http://en.wikipedia.org... )." Military Conscription is a term of art, as implied by the resolution, therefore we ought to look my definition as it is the most topical and provides more clash. One must also observe that term "Military Conscription", by definition, is not specific to the United States. Unjust shall be defined as lacking the qualities of justice. Justice shall be defined as the quality of being just. and Just shall be defined as guided by truth and reason in accordance with standards or requirements; proper or right. All of the above definitions can be found in http://dictionary.reference.com... , with the exception of military conscription. Because the resolution asks us the determine whether or not an action is just and because the only way we can determine this is by the effect an action has on society, justice and societal welfare are the most applicable values for the round. My opponent does not offer a value, therefore you ought to accept these. Since, the value of societal welfare insinuates that we ought to look to the ends of an action, the concept of utilitarianism is the most applicable values justification or value criterion. Hence, the value criterion will be "adherence to utilitarian principles". I shall only offer a mini-case, because my main intention is to dismiss my opponent's case in it's entirety, so that you can default the negative position. _____________________________________________ Negative Case: V: Justice and Societal Welfare VC: Adherence to utilitarian principles Contention: Military Conscription provides safety Because Military Conscription only occurs in the most desperate of cases, the intention of it is solely to protect it's citizens. This is a maneuver used to preserve the nation's sovereignty, this is shown by the very definition of "Military Conscription" because the conscription phase would only occur whenever the government needs it most. As proven in the past, "drafts" only occur as means of self-defense and are typically successful, thus, the end result of military conscription is protection, though a few may die or get injured, that is not enough to deem it as unjust. This links back to the values because it is the proper and just action for the government to preserve itself, this is also consistant with societal welfare because it would protect society. The majority of the civilians would be protected through this action, thus it is consistent with utilitarian principles of, "the greatest good, for the greatest number." ______________________________________________ My opponent believes that the primary grounds for affirmation is that Military Conscription is inconsistent with U.S. principles, he quotes the U.S. declaration of independence as well as recognizing our individual unalienable rights offered to us by our founding fathers. He articulates the very notion that our founding father's would disagree with the act of military conscription. This is a summary of 5 out of 7 paragraphs in my opponent case, therefore he intentionally, or unintentionally, makes this founding fathers argument the most important issue for this debate. I contend that very analysis. Though the founding fathers are respectable figures here in America, they are not the arbitors of what is or is not just, both here in the US and internationally. The resolution ought to be taken as an internationally, one that applies to all, not just the United States, but the rest of the world as well. My opponent has established his own burden, now, he must prove to you that the US founding fathers are of such international influence that they, this group of all-white, primarily British old men, represent the ideas of the people internationally. The second burden that my opponent has is to prove that these men have the capacity to be the arbiters of what is or is not just, in that such a notion is utterly absurd, essentially, my opponent has lost the debate already, through his own words. I ask you to recall the terminology of the resolution, in that it does not specify a nation, we must refer to military conscription in principle, and not specific to any location. This is enough to dismiss my opponent's case, as he is not proving anything in his case until he establishes the fact that our founding fathers speak on behalf of the present-day international community. ______________________________________________ My opponent then offers another reason to affirm, his reason is that the minorities and the poor will suffer. He states that since the wealthy and well-connected have the capability to allow there children "escape the horrors of war", the minorities and poor will suffer. I would argue that, FIRST: My opponent is assuming that minorities are poor, which is not only empirically denied (Oprah WInfrey, Will Smith, Tyra Banks, Condoleezza Rice), but is also quite racist, I'm not saying that my opponent is racist, but, it is degrading to assume that minorities cannot be wealthy and well-connected. Also, look to South Africa, the Afrikaners are a minority population in South Africa, yet, they are primarily wealthy and extremely powerful. SECOND: I would argue that, this doesn't necessarily mean the minorities and poor would suffer, rather, if we look at it in a different, more logical light, the few rich and very well-connected would "dodge the draft", my opponent has yet to prove that because some, extremely few, wealthy people can "dodge the draft", Military Conscription is unjust. I await my opponent's response. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Society would be better off without religion because I still don't think that teaching intelligent design is against the first amendment. If you teach both, which is what I said, then you aren't censoring anyone. If you only teach one thing that means that you are being biased. Maybe don't teach Intelligent design in science class, but maybe in history or literature. Many books that you read need you to have basic knowledge of the bible to understand them. Or in history when you need to know about the roman religion. Don't ban it's teaching, but teach it in ways that allow both sides to talk. I couldn't quote it because my keyboard was all ghetto. But I didn't feel like re-wording it so sorry about that. I fixed it so if I do it in the future then I can quote it. Sorry about that. I didn't think italics would be appropriate. Our evaluation didn't create morals until religion made a basic foundation. Many of these tribes believed that the bear or the sky was their god. Maybe paganism. So their morals were more flexible, like kill people who believe in different things, but these were created by their religion. Before this people would 1. get food, 2. get water, 3. make shelter, 4. get a mate/wife whatever you want to call it, and 5. bash you neighbor with a rock. well those bear religions didn't sound good, but this was just kind of a random rage. When the main religions began to form more civilised morals came to form. So a few morals where through evolution, but the big ones (not killing for example) was because religion said not to. You say that the benefactors are less then the disadvantages. Radical Islam is one of your sole examples. Radical Islam isn't a religion. Muslims look down on them and think their traitors. My Muslim friends say that their the most sinful people on earth. If there is one true God, why would he desire death, martyrdom, war or murder in his name? Muslims, Judaism, Christianity are not about killing. If you go into depth into the Jihad belief it is that killing is self defense. It needs to be self defense. So the radicals are exaggerating their faith so much that Muslims don't consider them a religion. This is my first philosophical debate so please write down on you vote or in the comments on my performance so I may critique my performance, and know why I lost/won. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Quote Debate because alright now it's my turn... my quote... "Don't be discouraged. It's often the last key in the bunch that opens the lock." - Author Unknown man is this quote true if your a janitor <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Should alcohol – the world's favourite drug, be banned? because I thank Pro for his timely response once again. I am rather confused on his allegations about being unprofessional, informal, and rude. But let's move on, the purpose of the debate is not to throw around ad hominems but rather to argue the facts of the resolution. Contention 6. Medical alcohol I agree with Pro that the medicinal use of alcohol is only true for those that use alcohol with temperance. That is my whole point. There are people that use alcohol correctly, and they get a huge benefit. It's similar to the argument for legalizing marijuana: there are medicinal benefits and some people aren't just there to abuse it. But marijuana is a different topic altogether. Pro continued to list many negative benefits of alcohol abuse , and I agree that those are negative effects of alcohol abuse. But I was talking about temperate usage . Also, he continues to back up my point because alcohol usage will go up, and thus the negative effects of alcohol will be worsened by the amount of abuse. Furthermore, there will be no more medicinal use of alcohol if it was banned. The people that use alcohol for the right purposes tend to be more ethical and would follow the law. If alcohol was banned, there would be no more medicinal use and it would all be abuse. Thus, the ratio of abuse to temperance would be increased. >>> "Drinking wastes your money" It wastes your money if you are using it to get drunk, not if you're using it for medicinal purposes. Also, although it may cost money to the individual, the government gains money. Pro did not respond to my argument about economic loss in this last round (this argument has to do with individuals not government), and thus the argument is conceded. He has conceded contentions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. >>> "Drinking and driving" I agree that drinking and driving is a terrible thing, but once again usage of alcohol goes up by banning it, as my source stated in the first round and Pro has conceded. Summary Because Pro has conceded the main point of the debate: alcohol will go up ^ by banning it, and he can not bring it up since it's conceded, (well he can mention it but not argue it), Pro has not fulfilled his burden to prove his side. Once again almost all of his arguments hinge on whether or not alcohol abuse goes up by banning it, and I have proven it does. Thank you, and I urge you to vote Con. Note: I hope I was less "rude" this time? <EOA>

<BOA> I am against IVF Debate because While there is the opportunity for doctors to identify and study diseases early, the procedure grants the mother abdominal pain, severe nausea, and OHSS, Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, which has the potential to cause bloating of the waist, shortness of breath, pleural effusion, dark or ceased urine, calf and chest pains, as well as lower abdominal pains. Finally, IVF leaves the family with an increased chance of birth defects according to Mamashealth.com. As DNA co-discoverer James Watson said: ""You can only go ahead with your work if you accept the necessity of infanticide. There are going to be a lot of mistakes. What are we going to do with the mistakes?" <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Resolution is to long and will be posted in first Argument: Regarding Merit Pay. because Resolution: Merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teacher compensation in United States public schools. This is my first debate. This will be a Public Forum style debate, mainly because the case I wrote is for Public Forum. I would like to provide a general judging scale for a Public Forum Debate and clarify that a Public Forum Debate is scaled on evidence that supports the competitors position. Thank you for accepting and I would like to open up first. INTRO: "Like the dusty blackboards still found in some school classrooms, the single-salary schedule has served its purposes and outlived its usefulness." In response to this need, the authors developed a framework for a performance-pay system that is "fair, strategic, and likely to win teacher support." Their recommendations include the following: (1) Reward teachers who help their students make significant academic gains. The research supports plans that measure student gains over time; that recognize both individual and team performance; and that allow schools to use credible data from classroom assessments. (2) Provide more pay for additional degrees and professional development that are relevant to school and district goals. (3) Offer incentives to teachers in low-performing schools but only if those teachers can demonstrate that they are effective with high-needs students and will be able to address the school's specific learning needs. My partner and I stand in affirmation that merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teacher compensation in United States public schools. DEFINITIONS: Student achievement- Is a term that when applied to merit pay, has various meanings. The two most commonly known are student scores based off of a state test, and the progression of student education in schools that house students that don't normally score high. CONTENTION ONE: Merit Pay is an improvement. A performance pay system will tend to attract and retain individuals who are particularly good at the activity being incentivized and repel those who are not. In 1963, Hoxby and Leigh found, teachers from topnotch colleges earned significantly more than teachers from so-called safety schools. As of 2000, teachers earned the same regardless of their alma mater, the study found. Offering teachers merit pay might lure smart people to the job, Hoxby suggests. The national union's opposition to new forms of compensation is "wrongheaded," said Brad Jupp, a former vice president of the Denver Classroom Teachers Association, an NEA affiliate. Mr. Jupp, now an adviser to the 72,000-student Denver district, helped design an alternative compensation program while he was the Denver union's lead negotiator in 1999. The union agreed to pilot a pay-for-performance plan. The plan, which has since been adopted districtwide, rewards teachers for improving student achievement, choosing to work in hard-to-staff schools, and earning positive appraisals from peer evaluators. CONTENTION TWO: Merit pay gains support from most of America. Barack Obama wants to start a new program supporting an innovative-schools fund that his campaign says would allow districts to create "portfolios" of schools modeled after existing success stories. In short, our presidency supports this idea of merit pay. Sens. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., Mary L. Landrieu, D-La., and Joseph I. Lieberman, IConn., and others put forth a proposal this month on major changes to the No Child Left Behind Act that includes incentives for states to look at performance-pay programs to attract teachers to underperforming schools. This shows that merit pay is being recognized at a federal level. 72 percent of respondents say they favor merit pay in general for teachers, with advanced degrees, student test scores, and administrator evaluations ranking as the top measures for assigning raises. Competition is good, not bad. And parents have a right to demand high, measurable performance from those who would teach their children. Lawmakers should listen to the public, with its common sense born of experience, not to the union bosses who want more benefits for less work. Finally, the public demonstrates that they favor merit pay for teachers. CONTENTION THREE: Traditional salaries are ineffective. The chances of a high-performing student becoming a teacher fell from 21% in 1964 to just 11% in 2000, according to a University of Maryland study. Although the obvious culprit is new opportunities, fixed pay in education also contributed to the nosedive, said Caroline Hoxby, a Harvard University researcher who conducted the study with Andrew Leigh. Supporters of merit pay plans believe that the old pay structures are outdated and don't give teachers incentive to achieve or reward good performance. "Some of our first- and second-year teachers who are at the bottom of the pay scale do brilliant work that often goes unrecognized," one younger teacher told us. "Conversely, there are teachers at the top of the pay scale who have not changed teaching methods in twenty-five years to meet the needs of the kids they work with now." For these reasons my partner and I stand in full support of the resolution. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against My opponent has just lost the game. because I would like to remind about 1 rule. When voting on a debate, one should only consider what is said within the debate and nothing that is said outside of the debate. Thank you So I saw that Brainmaster had created another debate, though I'll have to admit, I didn't even both reading the title or his argument. I just had so much fun on the last one, that I figured that I would do another with him. I'm assuming that the first rounds are for introductions and so no need for an argument. Hopefully I'll have time to read his arguments for the next round. Thanks, <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Donald Trump Is Racist and Is Greedy! because I accept and I will be quite happy to argue whatever you have to say. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Gay Marraige Should Be Allowed. because I would like to thank my opponent for being willing to debate said topic. .;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^? Gay marriage should NOT be legal for the following reasons: 1. Laws should not be passed if they are specifically in violation of the will of the people. The majority of people in the US are against homosexual marriages (1). Therefore, it does not follow that we should permit same-sex marriages. 2. It is reasonable to believe that homosexuality is sexual perversion. There is no evidenced gene, biological necessity, or evolutionary benefit for homosexuality. To accept my opponent's argument of "innateness" is to also accept, by logical necessity, pedophilia, zoophilia, and other sexual abnormalities. 3. Homosexuals have no more and no less rights than heterosexuals. The idea of any inequality existing in terms of rights is balderdash. Moreover, civil unions offer the same benefits of traditional marriages. Homosexuals are NOT segregated, nor are they given less rights. 4. By virtue of permitting individuals to marry partners of the same sex, marriage will quickly lose meaning and purpose. Who is to stop a man (or woman) from marrying, not just one, but two (or three) partners? If the logic used to permit same-sex marriages is to be used, what logical reasons does one have for barring polygamy, polyandry, or even pederasty? .;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^? Now in response to my opponent's assertions: "let me state that a civil union is not a reasonable compromise for a legal marriage." Indeed, it is not a compromise at all. Both homosexuals AND heterosexuals have equal rights to marriage and civil unions. ----- "The concept of ‘separate but equal' has already failed. Segregation is not a solution when it comes to rights. History has proven this." To begin with, as was evidenced with proposition 8 in California, gay marriage is not a civil right. Also, there is absolutely no analogous connection between segregation and gay marriage. Homosexuals are given the exact same rights as everybody else – and they are most definitely not separated. ----- "Secondly, where is the benefit of oppressing gays from marrying?" Nobody is being oppressed. There are, however, plenty of negative repercussions. School sex-education programs would have to be entirely revamped to support equal say; it opens doors to polygamy and other such sexual aberrations; it is contra-popular vote. What are the benefits? They can have all the rights of marriage except for the name. A couple does not need marriage to be happy, comfortable, and free. ----- "Those who claim it is immoral are really just ignorant and foolish." Everybody is ignorant of something, but it is not my ignorance and foolishness that you should be concerned with. Who are you to claim proprietary rights to what IS and IS NOT moral? How are you defining morality and by what objective source is it obtained? What makes your moral standards obligatory and trumping? It may very well be immoral, but it is a bad idea irrespective of morality. ----- "In the case of Christianity, the bible states to do unto others what you would like done onto you" And I would be quite thankful to the chap that informed me that my actions were in moral error. Are you willing to use the entire source in which the above quote is derived? If you are not willing, then do not use it as part of your argument – because as you will surely find, it is not your position that it supports. .;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^? Conclusion: My opponent has given no practical benefits for same-sex marriages. She has failed to show that homosexuals are not receiving equal rights. She finds no moral compunction in unilaterally trumping the popular vote of US citizens and permitting same-sex marriages – this is against the ideals of our nation. She calls homosexuality innate without proving it as such. She apparently lays claim to an unspecified moral objective that is both binding and obligatory. She calls me foolish and ignorant – and to this I can only chuckle. I look forward to my opponent's response Inquiretruth .;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^? Sources: 1. http://www.quinnipiac.edu... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against To poop or not to poop, that is the question.. because extending my arguments <EOA>

<BOA> I am with There is proof that the Christian god exists because I am not arguing that Christianity follows logic. However, the resolution is true. My argument is simple. Jesus Christ is revered by Christians as God in his entirety. He exists. Therefore, the Christian God exists. It is not necessary to prove the existence of the entire trinity. Logically, the resolution is upheld. At any rate, you ought to have brought this up in an earlier round. Thanks for the debate, thanks for reading, and vote Pro. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Paramedics disposal of deceased patients because No need for Rebuttals nor extensions.. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed t because I will again just go down the flow. Going back to the definitional debate over a crime against humanity, we must look that it is "an inhumane act against any civilian population. We must look at two things first. First, a population is defined as "the total number of persons inhabiting a country, city, or any district or area." Therefore, the act cannot occur against one civilian, but against a large amount of persons. Next, my opponent makes the fact that inhumane is defined very loosely. However, we must look at the way this definition of crimes against humanity has been applied over the years. This will set the standard and how we will look at crimes against humanities in the future. In the cases it has been applied it has not been used against such crimes as tripping someone. Instead, it has only been used on large scale atrocities, and has not violated any countries autonomous judicial systems unless it was a large scale atrocities. Therefore, by the way this definition has been it shows that it has only been used when absolutely necessary, and not for tripping someone. Next, moving on to my opponents attack that we will have a world standard, and that it strips a country of its identity. First, you cannot even consider this argument, because it is a new argument. According to LD rules, you cannot create new arguments in rebuttal rounds, that support your case. However, in case you do not buy that, no country will have to change its laws. Instead, they just have to submit an international court which will be more effective according to my contention 1b. As well, against individuality argument, no country can be completely individual. Countries do have to deal with each other, for example in trade, and this is an example of where they have to have a multilateral approach. This multilateral approach is necessary, because the U.S. has not been effective in punishing for these crimes. Therefore, it does not strip this individuality and change laws, but instead advocates a multilateral approach, which will better protections of freedoms and liberties. This would lead to justice. However, with this argument my opponent fails to make any impact to protecting freedoms and liberties and justice. My value criterion does not advocate a worldwide equal judicial system, but instead adequate protection of freedoms and liberties. Therefore, all I have to show is why the U.S. does not provide this adequate protection of freedoms and liberties, which they do not. Also, since the resolution only deals with the U.S., we must only look at why the United States should join the international court. This leads to my first contention subpoint a, which my opponent concedes and agrees with. This is a key factor in this round because this shows the U.S. fails to protect freedoms and liberties in cases of crimes against humanity. So, my opponent now can have no impacts to the value and value criterion debate. Against this he says that the United States can change at an individual level. However, the fact is that the U.S. has not changed at an individual level. It was a 50 year span between Japanese internment, and the water boarding incident. This again shows why crimes against humanity requires a multilateral approach to prosecute. My opponent dropped my contention one subpoint b and my contention two. This leads you to flow both arguments through for the round. My contention one subpoint b shows that the international court will do an effective job prosecuting, and will do a better job than the U.S. protecting freedoms and liberties. Since my opponent agrees with the value and value criterion structure, this shows that the international court will do a better job than the United States protecting freedoms and liberties, and achieving justice. Therefore, I clearly have better impacts to the structure of the debate. My contention two also shows how it has legal safeguards which provides for this protection of freedoms and liberties, and in turn the achievement of justice. This shows how the affirmative case completely stands, and how the affirmative has better impacted to the structure. Next the neg. He says that the way the court will prosecute will be based on western philosophy. However, this is clearly a flawed argument. He fails to attack the fact that each country has equal say in the international court. This shows that it cannot be based on western philosophy, because each countries opinion holds equal weight. This leads to better prosecution as I have shown in my contention one b. He continues on with this argument, by saying that the only countries in it right now are random countries with no pull, and when the U.S. join it will mold the decisions. However, he again failed to address the fact each country no matter their standing has equal weight and opinions. That Madeline Norris quote illustrates, and applies still if the United States join. He fails to address this fact that their opinions have equal weight. This is true because the courts prosecution is done by judges. The judges represent different nations and their interests. The U.S. judge would have no more say than a judge from any other nation. The reason the international court is around is for impartial prosecution. That is why the U.S. would join. This impartial prosecution would better protect freedoms and liberties and in turn lead to Justice. My opponent still maintains the fact that the ICC has a horrible record. However, he drops the point they have no military or police force to actually arrest people. They only serve as a forum for where one person may be prosecuted. That is their only purposes as a judicial branch. However, if the United States feels like "we are the one arresting everyone, we should try them based on what we say", they cannot do that. They cannot do that because as I have stated early each nations opinions are represented equally. The reason the U.S. would allow the ICC to prosecute is for these impartial prosecutions as I have stated. Therefore, this refutes this point as well. My opponent goes on and restates the fact that the countries have no independence, and each citizen for harming one another would be taken in. However, again these arguments are both flawed. Complete independence is impossible to reach, and this is only requiring a multilateral approach in cases of crimes against humanity. I have shown that with the U.S, in order to protect freedoms and liberties, must have this multilateral approach, which leads to progress. Also, his definition argument has already been shown as flawed. Voter Issues My first voter issue is the fact my opponent dropped my whole case. He agreed with my value and value criterion, agreed with my contention one subpoint a, and dropped the rest. In each of those contentions I made a clear impact back to the value and value criterion. I showed how the U.S., in cases of crimes against humanity, cannot protect freedoms and liberties. I also showed how the international court will adequately protect freedoms and liberties, and has sufficient safeguards to secure this. All this leads to the value of justice. My second voter is my opponents argument that it violates individuality. This is one of the few arguments my opponent has left. I have successfully defeated this argument with my arguments against it. Also, since it is a new argument you cannot consider it anyways. Finally, it has no impact on the value or value criterion. Therefore, this cannot be considered. My final voter is my opponents U.S. molding argument, and the ICC bad. I have shown how the court provides equal consideration to all nations, so U.S. cannot not mold it in their favor. Also, the ICC can only prosecute, and serves as an impartial forum. Again these arguments have no impacts to the structure. So these arguments have been refuted. Now you can only vote aff. I would like to thank my opponent for a great debate. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Bernie would have won. because I thank Con for providing his arguments. Rebuttals Con begins his statement with a baseless claim that 'Bernie Sanders' person would not be substantial enough to defeat Trump' This argument is simply ridiculous. His policies have resonated well with a large number of Americans [1], as for his 'person' as Con puts it, not being 'substantial enough' to defeat Donald Trump, that is simply irrelevant and must be ignored. He goes on to say that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote 'because of her outstanding experience, record for goodwill and resillience during endless tirades of baseless allegations' This groundless praise of Hillary Clinton is incorrect. The remarkably low turnout of voters [1] who voted Democratic is anything but proof of the American people rushing to the voting booth because of her outstanding experience and 'record for goodwill', and while yes, she did win the popular vote, it is not the measure by which the President of the United States is chosen and thus plays an irrelevant part in the conversation. As for the 'baseless allegations', one could call them baseless while the other would not, the fact of the matter remains that Bernie Sanders, contrary to Hillary Clinton did not (and does not) have a track record of disastrous and controversial decisions (Iraq War vote, PATRIOT Act vote, TPP lobbying, Paid speeches to Wall Street firms, the remarkably careless decision to use her own private e-mail server, her push for regime change around the world, on and on) Instead, Bernie Sanders would have been the clean, scandal-free candidate that Hillary was not. He then goes on to state that no democratic candidate would have won, an incredibly erroneous statement, because 'the Electoral College' leads to the Republican candidate succeeding. That argument is by default erroneous, President Barack Obama led the party tolandslideback-to-back Electoral College victories. Con simply puts forward a fallacious mentality used by Pro-Clinton crowds, to blame the Electoral College system. Yet, she knew the rules of the game and she partook in it. And while it's true that the smaller states receive more votes than they should, it's simply ill-founded to even entertain the idea that Wyoming and its 3 electoral votes totally tipped the election to the Republicans. Truth is, Hillary Clinton seriously underperformed. All that was necessary was to hang on to Obama's coalition, it would have suffised to see the Democrats keep hold of the White House. But she continually snubbed blue-collar americans, progressives, millenials, stuck to a brand of identity politics that completely back-fired on her (see diminished female vote, millenial vote and even latino vote [3])  Rebuttal to 'Socialism and Judaism' This is where it gets interesting, and also extremely flawed. Con begins by stating that Bernie Sanders is a self-proclaimed Socialist, which he has denied multiple times. He has stated himself as a Democratic-Socialist. And while it is frequent for the Centrist wing of the Democratic Party to brush him aside as a radical socialist nut job, they're quick to forget that in the span of a year, with no Super Pac funding , absolutely no Political recognition , and a position of 3% in all national polls , with the mainstream media giving him little to no chance of winning a single state , he managed to win 23. [4] Despite ridiculously low media coverage, Sanders completed one of the most improbable run in American political history, challenging the Clinton establishment, and giving them a run for their money. With that in mind, the idea that the American populace would massively reject his 'socialist' ideas is totally flawed, rejecting trade deals, foreign interventions and globalism, are not 'socialist' ideas, they're populist ones. Furthermore, his agenda polls extremely well. Therefore rejecting this flawed notion that 'Americans would not even consider' him [5] Con goes on to ridiculously state that the American population would not elect a Jewish candidate to lead the country. This is simply ridiculous to claim about a country that elected a black man to lead it, twice. That same jewish candidate Con brands as unelectable won 23 state primaries and caucuses. And while, yes, there is plenty of discrimination and plenty of work to do towards reaching perfect racial and religious peace, there's simply no way 'he couldn't have won because he was Jewish' passes as credible argument. (also, no sources to back up the idea that a jewish candidate is 'unacceptable' to a 'surprisingly large number of voters') 'Primary voters often are quite extreme supporters of their party and rarely are centrists or even moderate supporters' this absolutely unfounded claim would outrage anyone with a basic understanding of the Democratic Party and its primaries. Most Independents are Progressives (thus explaining Bernie's significant success among that group)[6] and independents were shut out of many important primaries throughout the Democratic Primaries, thus costing him multiple contests Conclusion -- Clinton's campaign played on identity politics to try and deflect from decades of poor judgement and poor decisions by Hillary Clinton. Their cockiness led them to take the election for granted, and, for instance, completely ignore states in the Rust Belt, that she assumed were safe democratic states (she never stepped foot in Wisconsin during the general, for instance. Then blames racism and sexism as to why she may have lost it.) This is why it is evident that Bernie Sanders would have defeated Donald Trump, he had appeal to blue-collar workers in Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, states that she lost. He had appeal to millenials, progressives and independents. He was scandal-free, and has a record of consistency fighting for populist causes, in the election were Americans turned to populist candidates to lead. Sources -- (proper order will be in comments) https://en.wikipedia.org... http://state.1keydata.com... http://www.cnn.com... http://www.vox.com... http://www.businessinsider.com... ; http://www.cnn.com... ; <EOA>

<BOA> I am against I will lose this debate. because you will win because you posted your arrgument first and its better to be first then second you also are winning right now <EOA>

<BOA> I am against This economic system will end the monster that is inflation and is thus necessary because My opponent has forfeited their final 2 arguments. I will pass this to thee voters. Thank you, <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Gangster Rap should be banned because This is my first time starting and as well as being in a debate at this or any website. My topic is Gangster Rap should be banned. There are many gangster rappers that sing about sex, drugs and violence in a harsh language.. As many teenagers listen to the genre of music, they are being influenced in aggressive behavior as possibly joining gangs and committing acts of vandalism through marking one's nickname or gang name on another's property. Gangster Rap, indirectly promotes these acts through their lyrics. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Should ethical dilemmas be resolved before permissions granted and actions taken? because 1) My opponent forfeited the debate. 2) My opponent failed to meet the burden of proof placed upon him by the resolution. 3) I provided a reason to vote CON. Ergo, you vote CON. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against I will not contradict myself. because I thank my opponent for this challenge. I, the diabolical wizard, will now proceed to conquer. I accepted on the premise that PRO would not change his BIG issues. I have taken a screen shot and hope to have a fair debate. 1. Is a dictionary a reliable source? 2. Do you agree with all your own positions on the BIG issues and with the religion stated on your profile? 3. When in conflict, should public health be valued over liberty? 4. Should people be able to make decisions regarding their own health? 5. Should people be able to smoke cigarettes in their own home? 6. Can God create anything? 7. Can God lift anything? 8. Can God create everything? 9. Can God lift everything? 10. Is God omnipotent? <EOA>

<BOA> I am against What would happen if Pinocchio said, "My nose will now grow"? because As per rules, first round is acceptance. So accept. It's been a while since I debated this particular individual so it should be fun. Good luck! <EOA>

<BOA> I am with The Sale of Human Organs Should Be Legal because i accept your concession and note that the victory and points should be awarded to me. thank you <EOA>