Datasets:

notaphoenix

/

iesta_liberal_effective

like 0

<BOA> I am against Nature v. Nurture (Nature wins) Intelligent is linked to the Good Gene because == Rebuttal == My opponent's first link about Stella McCartney is absolutely irrelevant and doesn't prove a thing; all it does is quote Paul McCartney talking about his daughter's good genes. His second link/argument regarding the race horse is also irrelevant considering that the horse is not human, and thus the relevant factors mentioned in my contentions that extend beyond nature do not apply. == Arguments == Please extend all of my arguments as my opponent has not responded to any of them. Thank you. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against .9999 repeating = 1 because To clarify before I start I'm going to be using the (%) sign to represent infinity and I'm going to us (~) as an approximant sign 1.One this first point I don't even have to prove that infinity is a number or if it even is finite all I have to do at this point is to prove that infinity has value and can be applied in an equation. Which I have done in 2 ways that my opponent has failed to attack 1st is the wiki definition, while my opponent does argue that it doesn't prove that it is a number but it does prove how it can be a value when it says that infinity acts as a number because it has value and can be applied in equations, this is further proved in power of infinity that my opponent has conceded as it states that infinity can have different values which I will use to latter on to further my arguments. The 2nd is from the youtube video when the person shows how infinity can be used in an equation which acts as proof to show how infinity can have value and it can be used in equations. Next my opponent tries to show to how the youtube video it trying to change the definition of a number but this completely untrue and all the video is doing is showing how infinity can be included in the definition of number, also it show that the mathematicians are not the final word on if infinity is a number not. a. Next my opponent tries to attack my statement from the first round but ignores the fact that statement was meant to be ironic. And even if you are going to try to listen to my opponents none of it matters because as I stated above that I don't even need to prove that infinity is finite all I have to do is to prove infinity can have value and can be applied in an equation. b.Next my opponent tries to attack my other evidence but 1st I would like to mention that my opponent attack my first new source which is enough to prove that infinity can have value and that value can change as is stated in the final section of this source. Next my opponent tries to attack my second new source by saying it shows that infinity is not a number because it cannot be reached, but this doesn't matter because as it states in the example about the fingers were it shows that even though you couldn't count to that final finger it was there and had a value this parallels the example I give about the infinite number of values between 4 and 5 how you could never reach it and acts a infinity thus proving my point. 2.The flaws in the rhs lhs equation happens because of the sub point A of the power of infinity which my opponent completely concedes that proves that infinity can have different values when use in a math equation. To show this in equation %-1 = % now while most people would think that this would prove my opponent's point but the fact is that the % that you get out of the equation is actually less than the original infinity that you started the equation. This is caused by the powers of infinity that would allow for one infinity to be less than another. Now to apply this to the rhs lhs equation The .99999… in the first step represents the first infinity in the example equation, while the 9.9999… has a number of nines equal to the second infinity in the example equation meaning that even if that there are an infinite number of 9's after the decimal in the second step it is still one less the original equation because it is a different power of infinity a.Next with the power of infinity even if my opponent tries to say that my arguments are based on a finite infinity but this is not true this theory can work independently of a finite infinity because no matter how big infinity gets the second infinity will always be one less the original infinity. 3.My opponent's arguments a..3333.. repeating- while most people think that 1/3 = .333…, but this is untrue, it is only approximately equal to .333…. To further prove I will work the problem out, if you divide 1 by 3 first you can't divide at all so you go to the digit behind the decimal then you 10 by 3 and you get a remainder 1 thus the answer isn't equal to one third, thus you do it again and divide 10 by 3 and get 1 remainder again and again the answer doesn't equal 1/3 this continues infinitely and you infinitely will get that remainder of one meaning that the answer will infinitely never equal 1/3 thus .3333… only approximately equal to 1/3. This means that .999… will only approximately equal 1. Then he attacks my use of the remainders to prove him wrong by saying that it would be .999..91 but this is not true because the 1 created by the remainder is added in on the last 9 meaning it changes to 10 which carries the 1 and makes the next 9 a 10 and so make it equal to 1 b. Next my opponent uses another equation to prove his point but there are some key flaws. The 1st is in between the 3rd and forth steps I would like my opponent to show the math behind how he was able to change the 9/10 became 1/10. The second is in between the 4th and 5th step is how the 1 goes from being inside the () to being out side of it because of the distributive property means that everything inside of the () is multiplied by what is outside of it meaning that that the 1 should change if it leaves the (). The third comes in the final step where I'm guessing that my opponent is saying that by dividing 1 by infinity you get zero, but this is untrue in that it only approximately equals zero as explained in this video at 1:50 . the final problem with this equation is that with you can prove that .9999…. can equal any number because at the point that if you don't believe the 3rd reason this is wrong then in the equation when 1 over infinity equals 0 then an thing that you subtract it from would = .9999…. 4.Other reasons why it is wrong On these points my opponent makes little to no arguments against them the only one he does make is that .999… and one are one in the same and that there is no problem. So to answer this I will this attack separately for each. a.Number line paradox- to answer my opponent's attack I will answer a challenge that my opponent made earlier in the round when he ask me to show a number between 1 and .999…. To this I will answer with .9 to the % decimal place plus 1, now you may think this a ludicrous that there something larger then infinity but this has its support from my power of infinity sub point that shows how infinity can have different values and can be effected by math equations. This means that theoretically there are an infinite number of numbers between .9 to the infinite digit and 1 because of the different values of infinity that can be applied. b.The law of functions- the problem with my opponent's attack on this is that both 1 and .9999… are in decimal form no if one was in fraction from while the other was in decimal I would agree that they could be in the same location but because the from they in it would prevent them from being in the same location. 5.Closing statements- after looking at the comment section of this debate I feel like it is needed to reiterate the fact that when you as judges vote on this round to weigh only what has been presented in this round and free from outside influence. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with The Riots Following the Murder of Michael Brown in Ferguson were/are Morally Justified because Rd 1 - acceptance and rules Rd 2-5. Debating Each debater must have a credible source for all definitions and claims. Treat each essay like an academic paper. Citations are a must. BOP must be shared, judges should vote for whoever made the best case. Nothing can be proven nor disproven since this is an ethical debate. Normally I'm more specific but I'm typing this on my phone. I trust my opponent will accept the spirit of the debate and not force me to define it ad nauseum. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Animals should not be kept in a zoo because If you were here professing that rocks and twigs deserve rights, I would call you a madman. Animals can be seen in the same way. Like rocks an animal has no soul, and only a soul begets rights. Most importantly animals aren't concious and cannot Think or be self aware for the most part, thus like a rock or a rmountain, they have no rights. So far you haven't proven that animals are any different than rocks, animals will consistently attack people without regret and even unprovoked, they don't care about us or our imagined rights because in their head all they care about is eating, sleeping and reproducing . I say that if we give rights to monkeys and tigers we then Must give rights to spiders and ants. The real reason that you want to give rights to animals is because they make you feel bad. Animals can feel pain, it's true, and when you see an animal cry or experience pain, you feel bad thus giving you the impression that they are somehow people or people in the body of animals. I'm sorry to tell you that animals feel pain but that doesn't mean that they are people. To be honest you haven't proven much in your entire speech. You have told me I am disgusting and stupid however this staunch cockiness doesn't help prove your point in the slightest, and in fact your lack of evidence shows how little you have to prove your case. You have failed to prove your point or even fulfill your burden of proof. I Agree with you on this point and none of my arguments reflect my personal opinion however I am disappointed in your argumentation, I wanted to see your points on the matter and see how you can hold up to basic arguments but to me you seem to have flopped in this debate. A lot of people would agree with the points I made even though I don't and even to someone who agrees with you on this topic I don't believe you have upheld the resolution. Thank you <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Star Trek technology is achievable because Con insisted :“ It must be the same person on the other end, and not a replica since nobody on Star Trek expected to cease to exist while another took their place .” Rebuttal : Again, my opponent assumes that personhood is lost in transport. Since the observable science dictates that personhood is governed by genetics and brain chemistry, we must conclude that the person is maintained. The only way a person would cease to exist, is if the transporter annihilated a portion of the human personhood that’s immaterial. My opponent has provided no evidence of immaterial personhood, such as a soul. --------- Con stated : If we cannot achieve a technology that is able to perform the above functions and applications, then Star Trek transporters are unachievable. Rebuttal : Straw Man argument. The round one premise dictates the burden, not my opponent’s objections. Again, I cite the burden of round one. --------- Con argued that the Higgs field is impossible, because “ to be theoretically possible is not to be achievable, and Krauss says why this method is prohibitive .” Rebuttal : Actually, Krauss said that it is achievable, if we can overcome certain problems in the process. Consider the actual quote: " If I could manipulate a Higgs field, that would be a first step in making a transporter, but the only way I know of to manipulate the Higgs field is to heat the whole thing up... ” [1] Krauss concedes that the method has not been developed, but that does not prohibit the mechanism from functioning. If we resolved to consider a mechanism impossible because it hasn’t been invented, then we must cease all funding to AIDS research. --------- Con stated : Naturally, Science does not work in this fashion. A theory is pursued until it becomes proven impossible. Rebuttal: Yet the research is expanding. Consider the University of Wien in Germany, which has become the leading research entity in Quantum entanglement. Their research has breached domains such as: Quantum Entanglement for Space Entangled photons over 144 km Free-space quantum channel 4-photon de Broglie wave Long-Distance Free Space Freely propagating teleported qubits Entanglement of Orbital Angular Momentum States Entanglement purification Experimental realization of a GHZ state Long distance Bell experiment First quantum teleportation Clearly, teleportation has not been proved impossible. In fact, I would counter state that it has been proved possible and we have yet to research it’s limitations. [2] --------- Con objected to Star Trek transporters navigating down hallways. He claims that “ it doesn't seem possible. ” Rebuttal: Radio theory dictates that waveform behavior changes with frequency. UHF and VHF frequencies travel in a line-of-sight, which limits the communication distance of the radio by the horizon. Consider, 1 Watt of transmit power allows RF wave propagation for approximately 1 mile. Technically, a 4 kilowatt amplifier should propagate an RF wave for 4000 miles. Yet, it doesn’t. The reason for this is the curvature of the earth. RF waves travel in a straight line. Eventually the curvature of the earth will angle too far downward for the wave to continue. My opponent assumes that a transporter beam would be limited in the fashion. However, the HF (High Frequency) range (which starts at about 4 MHz), is not a ground wave. This RF wave “bounces”, in a zig-zag pattern between the earth and the atmosphere. It’s called a “sky-wave”. The sky wave will continue bouncing until the wave has lost propagation. The higher the amplifier wattage, the further it will bounce. HF radios are used by ships and aircraft to communicate with stations on the other side of the planet. So how could we transport through cracks? The same way that you receive a cell-phone signal if you stand by the ground-level window in the basement. We simply adjust the frequency of the transporter to change the way the Quantum particles travel. --------- Con established :” Pro rightly pointed out that molecules can pass through barriers depending on the molecule and the barrier type, but that is irrelevant since we are talking about "barriers like we see on Star Trek," including the walls and enclosures of the space ships. ” Rebuttal : Irrelevant to the burden. We are speaking about real-world applications, not fictional Space-ship mechanics. Now my opponent objected to quantum tunneling by stating: that the article “ discusses electrons escaping from atoms without having the necessary energy to do so. So this article does not support Pro's contention.” The article explains that the rules for quantum particles are unique, which is why we observe electron shifts, even though the energy for it was absent. As the joke goes: “Knock knock. -Who's there? Quantum tunneling. -Quantum tunneling wh --- Nevermind, I'm already inside.” We know quantum tunneling works. We see it. We have duplicated it. It’s observed fact . My opponent has stuck his head in the sand, pretending it never happened. So to solidify my premise, please view the 4 minute video on Quantum tunneling. --------- Con objected : Pro ignored my argument about the energy that would be released if all the matter in a human body was convereted to energy. Rebuttal : This premise seeks to increase the burden. By stating that the Human body must be converted to energy before transport, you’ve excluded the possibility that solid matter teleportation is possible. Not to mention, the only reason you’ve insisted on this method is to negate the premise of transport through solid objects. It’s a myopic reduction of the argument. I have provided quantum tunneling as a mechanism for how a solid particle can (and observably) move through barriers. You’ve chosen to ignore that evidence. The matter does not need to be converted to energy because a solid particle can shift through solids without breaking the integrity of the wall. --------- Con objected to the recording problem. Rebuttal: My opponent needs to familiarize himself with how a computer stores information. I can convert complex information into a 5 kb text file without any hassle. Consider these 811 amino acids in this TEXT to DNA converter from Colorado State University. [3] Try it yourself: http://www.vivo.colostate.edu... Click – “Get Demo DNA” Click – “Translate DNA” Click – “Graphic output or Text Output” to view the data. I copied the information into a text file. It was 5.4 kilobytes in size. My 1991 Packard Bell 386SX has enough storage space to store over 10,800 copies of this file. My current hard drive could store over 200 million. The recording problem is a ridiculous objection. Arguments extended. --------- Con stated : I haven't brought the soul or religion into this discussion. I am assuming materialism just as he is.... But that is not sufficient to preserve personal identity. Rebuttal: My opponent indeed assumes a soul by presuming that personhood is based on anything more than materialism. As I’ve stated before, he is arguing from a perspective of religion and metaphysics. The truth is, my opponent has no real objection to my definition of personhood. His appeal to emotion was an attempt to morally “block ” teleportation. It has nothing to do with technical application or ability. He is asking a question similar to: ”What is the meaning of life?”, “If a tree falls in the woods….” [4] Yet the laws of thermodynamics would dictate that the person is fundamentally equal in mass, design and composition. --------- Sources: http://www.msnbc.msn.com... [1] http://www.quantum.at... [2] http://www.vivo.colostate.edu... [3] http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com... [4] <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Should Britain bring back the death penalty? because Thank you very much. I wish you the best of luck. My opening argument is the evergreen threat of the execution of the wrongly accused. There has been many cases in British history (and also a lot of other countries also) where innocent people have been wrongly accquited of a crime punishable by death; some cases more famous than others i.e. Timothy Evans (1), Derek Bentley (2). On the other hand, you could say that these are rare cases that scarcely happen, but, for it to be an efficient crime-fighting deterrent it would have to be efficient %100 of the time. Although there are no exact records to say how many people executed by British law were innocent, it is plain to see that there were too many miscarriages of justice for it to be a reasonable and rational way of enforcing law. It serves not as a deterrent of crime and in civilised society it should not be seen as "justice" as Desmond Tutu said: "To take a life when a life has been lost is revenge, not justice.". (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Hillary Clinton should be in prison. because First I should point out that round one was the acceptance round. Con posted their argument one round too early. This now changes the structure of the debate to: round one being initial argument, round two being rebuttal, round three being more rebuttal, and finally round four being the conclusion. My opponent is correct that Hillary Clinton has worked hard to become a presidential candidate. This is in fact her opportunity. I would not say she is the only viable candidate, but that is a matter of opinion and a complete separate debate in its own. However, nobody can argue the fact that she and her family have been in politics for many years. However, being a political figurehead does not exempt anyone from the law. When my opponent said "she and her family are not responsible for any actions they take in office", they were very incorrect to say the least. As Theodore Roosevelt once said. [1] "No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it.". In the email scandal alone, Hillary Clinton broke at least three State Department rules and Federal laws[2&3]: First- Mishandling Classified Information: Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code. These laws make it unlawful to send of store classified information on personal email Second- Violation of the Federal Records Acts of 2009: Section 1236.22 of the 2009 of the NARA. This law states [3] "Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system." Third- Violation of her Non-Disclosure Agreement: Section 7. Her NDA for being Secretary of State stated she must "agree to return any classified information" she gained access to, and further agreed that "failure to do so could be punished under Sections 793 and 1924 of the US Criminal Code." see first violation. Not only should she be in prison, if she gets elected, she has already disqualified herself. According to the Constitution in Article Two, Section Four [4] "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." [1] http://www.brainyquote.com... [2] http://ijr.com... [3] https://gop.com... [4] http://www.usconstitution.net... <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Fathers Should Have a Say in Abortion because "Fathers don't come into play in these decisions, because at no point after ejaculation are his concerns the primary concerns." This is the fundamental belief that makes me so angry. So according to my opponent, fathers are no more than sperm donors? When there is disagreement between parents regarding the abortion, then the result should be to go through with the pregnancy. NOTE: If the mother has valid medical evidence suggesting that the pregnancy would be a danger to her health then that medical evidence should override a father's decision to have the baby. I'm not saying that a woman should be forced to take unnecessary risks with her own life. However, if the mother and the fetus are both perfectly healthy then there's no reason to not proceed with the pregnancy if it is the father's wish. >>>>>>>> "The father doesn't get a say in abortion, because abortion is about a woman's right to make choices about her body." The father should have a say in abortion because it's his child too. And like any decent parent, fathers who love their children fight for them and their existence. No one contests a mother who wants to have her child. As a father, I'm not fighting for my child because I view him/her as property, I'm fighting for my child because it's my son or daughter the mother is talking about aborting. >>>>>>>> "Fathers should be required to pay financial support (if needed) because that's what the child needs." I couldn't agree more. >>>>>>>> "Should the father demand the child be born then the women should be strapped to a gurney so that she doesn't slip off and get an illegal abortion. If she dies due to complications, oh well." If the mother slips off and gets an illegal abortion then that was her choice and she should be held liable to the father. If she dies during complications, that's terrible and tragic. My only wish in that situation is that she would've gone through with the pregnancy and given the baby to the father after birth. In that scenario everyone would have won (including the child) >>>>>>>> "Your idea is predicated on the idea of equality, but it's really thinly veiled villainy." Never in a million years would I have thought that a father wanting to take responsibility for his child be considered villainy. This idea makes me very sad. >>>>>>>> The point I'm making is that fathers should be granted some say and some recourse in the decision of whether or not to abort. I'm not saying that the father's wishes are absolute and should always be honored. I'm saying he should have a voice that is protected by law. However, my opponent's disregard for fathers is so typical of how we view men and their relationships with their children. Personally, if I conceived a child with a woman and she: 1. Didn't tell me she was pregnant 2. Aborted the baby without my knowledge I'd be furious and devastated. I can't believe that any humane society wouldn't grant me some kind of recourse. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Natural Selection Disproves Theism because It appears there has been some confusion over definitions. I will respond in two ways, (first) that the definition is confusing and my interpretation of it was justified, (two) that my interpretation of the definition was more reasonable than pros and (three) the definition largely does not matter as pro's case fails either way (which I did actually argue partially for last round). Why my Interpretation of the Definition was Better The crux of this semantic confusion is under God's defined ability to "actualize any logical facts". Pro says this only means he can do the logical whereas I took it to mean he could make anything logical. I don't think pro is right that his definition was clear. While I do believe it's what he meant by the definition, viewers should only judge the debate by what the definition most obviously implies, and to me, it implies a different meaning to pro's. To "actualize" is to make happen, to make it be so. This doesn't really fit into pros meaning at all. I took it to mean God could actualize anything as a logical fact. Pros says no, but pros interpretation doesn't make much sense for what on earth would the "actualize" mean? How does God actualize logical facts? Aren't they already so? Aren't all facts actualized independent of God? If it's dependent on God, then that's conceding my definition. If it's independent of God, it makes no sense to say God actualizes logical facts because logical facts aren't a thing this God could actualize. God couldn't make facts, or have control over the laws of logic. It makes no sense to say he actualizes them. Saying that God can actualize any logical fact is like saying God has supreme control over logic and can make anything a logical fact. My view of the definition therefore makes much more sense than pros. I think pro was very ambiguous with his word usage. I believe my interpretation of the definition was not only justified, but a better interpretation than pros. Thus voters should still accept all my arguments that assumed an absolutest omnipotence. Definitions Aside.... But as I stated last round, the resolution is unsound whichever definition you take. Whether God has absolute omnipotence (the ability to do absolutely anything), or just common omnipotence (the ability to do only, but all, things logical). Now, I don't think my initial objections only apply to omnipotence. For being above morality does not actually have to do with omnipotence at all. Viewers should remember that my argument parted at two different distinct points which the first was, that logic was irrelevant and the second that morality was irrelevant. The definition said nothing about morality except that God was all-good. This entails nothing about whether God is under or over morality. Pro seems to have missed that part. While much of my case focused on the definition of omnipotence, being above morality has little to do with it. Any definition of omnipotence we use, we can still add the premise that God is supremely over morality and not bound by it without making a contradiction. Morality is not logic. God can be bound by logic but not morality. As far as I can tell, pro ignores this fact and treats being over logic and being over morality as the same. While pro believes his definition entailed God was bound by logic, there is absolutely nothing in his definition that stated God was bound by morality. And indeed, there is little reason to hold that he is. The nature of morality is not something that could be binding to a maximally great God. That's because there's little reason to say morality has any completely objective status, which is something it would need have in order to be binding over God. Morality, rather, is a product of certain types of agency. Humans may produce a type of morality that is partially binding, but it all remains a conceptual idea or system that bares no actual weight in the absence of agency. Lesser agents such as animals or lower evolved humans, have a lesser morality. The more advanced we get, the higher degree of morality we have. The thing about morality though, is that, though it is partially binding to us, we're also binding to it. It requires agency and is dependent on agency. God is also an agent. God is also a much higher agent than humans, in fact, the highest being of all. As morality is a product of agency and God is the most maximally great agent, I would say morality has no binding to God. God is transcendent, all powerful, knowing and good. Good and bad, as a conception of agency, have little baring over God. This does not mean God is not all good. It just means nothing he does can be absolutely bad. Furthermore, if pro wants to limit God in his definition, it makes little sense to say natural selection disproves him because we would have already conceded that God may have to have partially crooked means of accomplishing ends. In other words, natural selection, while not something God would want in itself, may be necessary for God's purpose. Pro would have to argue that there is no possible world in which God's plan would require natural selection. I think this is a rather indefensible position. We could have no idea what greater good natural selection could accomplish or what God's nature is like. God, by definition, cannot be known from our subjective perspective. We make inferences about other beings from our own experience with beings. But the only experience with beings we have is with humans and lesser beings such as animals. We make our judgements on God based upon our bias experience with humans which is an obviously fallacious thing to do. How could you even strive to understand an infinite intelligence? If you did manage to grasp such a being, I don't think you could ever say you knew what kind of purposes it would put out on the world. A child questions his fathers motives in his ignorance and we recognize this is done from lack of understanding. However, there is no one to recognize the exact lack of understanding God. All we can know is that we can't understand God because that kind of being is just simply impossible to comprehend. When we take the incomprehensibility of a transcendent intelligence, we should immediately drop any notions that something like natural selection could disprove him. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Resolved: We should name our daughter Ariadne because <3 Mothers Get to Pick He tells you that all of my arguments about how I am the mother are irrelevant because I have not proven that he is female. Ok, so I have two reponses. I the first is based on the definition of "mother". The mother of a human child in the individual who gives birth to her. Even if thett is female and we are really lesbian lovers, I am the preggo one so I am the real mother. In that case, my argument i still just as valid. Second, however, if you do take his bait, he admits to being male on his profile. The other day, dustpelt expressed shock that thett was female and had a "lesbian partner" (me) but was against gay marriage. Thett explained that he had posted pics the other night that proved that he was male. Princess Ok, so there were some princesses named Olga. Unfortunately for him, I am still outweighing in terms of awesomess. Ariadne is a princess who becomes a goddess. That trumps ugly minor princesses named Olga. Plus, Ariadne was a Christian saint, a Byzantine Empress, an actress, and a giant tarantula. Royal wins! (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... (disambiguation)) Unfashionable Only hags were petticoats. So, if our baby wore petticoats, she would be a hag. He refuses to provide pics of him wearing a petticoat, so his argument is invalid :) He then argues that hipsterism has revived the name "Olga" and that our children would not be making sammches eternally. The problem is that Olga is still considered an old-fashioned name, and people from old-fashioned families use it more often than hipsters. Moreover, it was more popular in the old era. This means that the probability of our child being a slave is much higher than the probability of her being a progressive. I outweigh on probability. Araidne is not Common I did not drop his response. Royal is Dominant Ok, I concede that Thett is dominant, but that just means that he should let me pick the name because I have to feel an investment in the relationship. Turn. Nuke War My opponent is misrepresenting his evidence that global warming is good. Although the Earth obviously does need to stay warm to an extent, the levels that we are obtaining are harmful. Current trends show that within the next 50 years, the sea levels will rise because of ice cap melting and many coastal cities across the globe will be flooded. Millions of people will die terrible deaths as a result of global warming. It is clearly horrendous. Extend the second turn on the Nuke War argument, namely that nuclear war is good because it reduces population sizes quickly and painlessly. This prevents future suffering from such problems as global warming, famines, and floods. Compromise The real purpose of this debate was to teach the readers that love is about compromising and is not about rivalry. Hence, thett and I have agreed ot name the baby Ariadne-Olga. Please vote for a tie. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Quickfire debate on welfare because "The point is that though the orginizations may exist, the govenment not intervening to save some ones life is as good as killing." Who are they killing again? There are institutions in place where that is not a set outcome? By such rhetoric the government is also responsible for every act of suicide, every alcohol overdose etc. "Welfare doen't advocate irresponsible behavior. Rather it advocates for human beings to help one another." No. It advocates the theft from one person to support the less willing. Helping others does not require state intervention in the least. Also how can it be advocating help of others when it actively forces one to participate? "Yes but by not providing welfare you are not protecting the populace and giving them the oppurtunity for happiness. In fact you are preventing it." Again. It is not the state's role to hand out happiness cheques at the cost of another's productivity. Think that makes those who pay taxes less happy? Why do those less willing get a higher "happiness" free ride from the state? Not paying taxes would make me happy - so the state, under your argument, should let me right? :D At any rate, if welfare induces ridicule as you say, then not being on welfare and being self sufficient would make them happier. :D "My point is that many people say people on welfare have a easy life. They do not. And to counteract your point of being forced to pay for welfare, it is exactly the same for me. I must pay for TWO wars I do not support. But this is how our government provides funding." Straw man - you are arguing against me, not "many people". Your profile also says you are 14 - not sure what taxes you are paying at that age. The fact that one must, and the government enforces it with threat of violence does not make it right either - that's a rather bad assumption to make. :D The government socialises far too much, too much is in state control - that is why they take taxes - not because it is right. "But as I stated before, people need welfare to survive, you can't change the cause." Wrong. People need to be productive to survive. The government restricts an individual's chances by their choices in economic and structural governance. Those who truly lack the capacity - the very few, to be self sufficient, can easily be taken care of in non state enforced manners. "I should have rephrased that , people need to help their families survive. And just finding a place to sleep at night would be hard enough." Plenty non profit organisations and religious organisations do that. Sleeping takes up a third of the day at any rate. Plenty time to work for the rest. :D "It has occured to me I will not have time to locate sources." Not sure anything you said required one. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Breathing is good for you because While my opponent has listed many reasons why one should breathe, my opponent has refused to debunk my arguments for situations in which breathing is bad and thus, not always good for you. unless my opponent debunks those points, my argument is dominant. 1. Too much deep breathing can cause lightheadedness and fainting 2. Not if you breathe in water or poisonous gas or insecticide 3. It can also make you unconscious 4. No, what you need is oxygen and glucose. 5. No. When we breathe, it's more than just oxygen. It's mostly nitrogen, oxygen, and some carbon dioxide. THe problem is, as I have said before, there may be other things. Smelly odors are another example of situations in which you don't want to breathe (though you can breathe orally instead of nasally, still. Another situation in which you don't want to breathe too much is if you are around allergens. Breathing around peanut powder if you are allergic will cause anaphylactic shock. http://www.medicinenet.com... I extend all my arguments forward, supporting my stance that breathing is not always good for you but can sometimes be bad. My opponent has responded to none of these points. I look forward to my opponent's final response. Thank you. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Funny Joke Contest because Way to forfeit, Jag. A guy walks into a bar and bets the bartender $50 that the dog can answer any question he asks it. The bartender accepts the bet. The guy asks his dog what's on top of a house. The dog says, "ROOF." The bartender, obviously angry goes double or nothing, but he gets to ask the question. He asks the dog who the greatest baseball player of all time is. The dog responds in a voice much like a bark, "RUTH." The bartender doesn't pay up and kicks them out of the bar. When they get out of the bar the guy asks what he was doing. The dog goes, "Should I have said DiMaggio?" <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Formal education (K-12) ought to be compulsory in the United States because PRO CASE 1A: 1. The data set I used stated that a high school diploma earned a person at least $200.00 more per week on average. But, since your resolution states K-12 education, that means that a person without a diploma is still unable to survive. Living wage went unrefuted. 2. Since the US workforce is so dependent on specialized labor, a college degree is becoming more and more critical to success. Extend the fact that my opponent agreed with my specialization arguments. 1B: 1. It isn't enough to merely "provide." As I proved in 1A, since education is necessary to the success of its citizens in a way that separates it from any other government service, it makes sense that the state would compel its citizens to participate in it. States may, via the social contract, require citizens to do certain things that don't violate their natural rights for the benefit of the state as a whole. See all US state and federal laws. 1C: 1. So, my opponent states that because millions of underserved students have a "damaged education" already, instead of attempting to fix the system because we know they can't succeed without education, we should demolish the only set of laws that actually *get* them to school. They can't magic their way to a diploma. 2. Capitalist system or no, our first priority is not to our economic theories, but our fundamental political ideology, which centers on equal rights. We cannot forsake any student without violating our core ideals. 3. I'm not sure what the deterrent portion of his response is referring to, but I can prove that not every American would receive access to education without truancy and attendance laws dexterously. It's described directly in the 1C. Students from poor homes, broken homes, or straight up no home lack the fundamental resources (parents, money, mentors, teachers) to seek out education on their own. Furthermore, students who come from these places find that the only safe place in their lives is at a school. It may even be the only place where they receive a hot meal each day (this is the case with a handful of my own students). It is tax dollars, allocated via the state because K-12 education is mandatory, that keeps them in school, with school supplies, and with lunch money. The millisecond education is not compulsory, you take away the state's obligation to provide those tax dollars. 2A: Cross-applying his 1 does nothing to diminish my argument. First, remember that his 1 has no warrants whatsoever that prove that schools teach 100% useless material. Second, the state educational standards actually work to ensure that useless skills and information are not taught in public schools. To prove my point, let's sample just a few of the standards that I am mandated by the state to meet: *EL.CM.RE.02: Listen to, read, and understand a wide variety of informational and narrative text, including classic and contemporary literature, poetry, magazines, newspapers, reference materials, and online information. *EL.CM.WR.30: Synthesize information from multiple sources and identify complexities and discrepancies in the information and the different perspectives found in each medium, including almanacs, microfiche, news sources, in-depth field studies, speeches, journals, and technical documents. *EL.CM.SL.04: Recognize and use elements of speech forms (e.g. introduction, first and second transitions, body, conclusion) in formulating rational arguments and applying the art of persuasion and debate. These represent reading comprehension, writing, and speaking skills that the state requires me to teach my high schoolers. The standards movement has hardly proved a pointless endeavor, and my argument seeks to prove that education is comprised of the above skills, rather than the nebulous affirmative's "pointless concepts." 2B: 1. My opponent admits that "adequate parenting" is required for students to gain life and social skills outside of CE. At that point, he's just lost this strand of argumentation. While he has no method or metric by which to determine parent involvement, school curriculums in the US *mandate* character education, life skills, and social skills (see the DARE program, etc.). The state's obligation is not to provide a perfect system. However, I am the only one maximizing the access to all of these essential skills. CON CASE C1: 1. You admit in RD 1 that you can't prove this argument to be true. And I quote: "Of course, it is impossible to provide proof for this but I would hope it is self-evident." It isn't self-evident. Look to my counter-evidence on state standards. 2. Unwarranted arguments don't have to be entirely untrue. I'm sure there are bad teachers, just like there are bad everything else's in the world. However, does that mean that we scrap a system that has inherent worth as proven in my advocacy? Not so much. He's given himself a huge burden here that he now has to hold to. He needs to prove to you that the flaws of CE are so vast that the system cannot be saved. My advocacy proves this patently untrue. In fact, my advocacy clearly shows that education is improving. 3. You still haven't linked this to CE. You try and dodge the bullet by calling my case ironically non-linking (see my above arguments about how I do link into CE), but don't bother to actually address my argument here. Extend that he can't prove causation. C2: 1. Already proved why homeschooling is not a viable option for all students. Con seems to be living in a fantasy world in which all parents are equal. 2. The link to those standards was to allow readers to peruse them to back up my claims of legitimacy. Reading some of them helps with this process. Luckily, I provided some above. 3. If the standards movement continues the way that it is, the gap between those extremely lucky enough to have dedicated homeschool parents and public school children with rapidly decrease. 4. Con's gonna have to explain that last couple of sentences. I'm not dropping it, but I have no clue what he's trying to argue. C3: 1. How does making public education voluntary *not* affect how many kids get their diplomas? Logic dictates that if CE is abolished, less students will attend K-12 school or even seek educational opportunities. This means that less students will get their GED or diploma. This means that more students will be cut out of the job market entirely. His whole point here is to get kids out into the work force sooner. However, at the point where he concedes that employment success is determined by graduating high school, you pretty must cast your vote for Pro. 2. Yet again, this blatantly discriminates against kids who don't have access to the parent support, community support, or resources to self-educate to the point of passing a GED exam. You can't possibly warrant that all people who don't have these resources just "don't want their diplomas." It isn't laziness; it's institutional discrimination. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against The theory of Evolution is incorrect because Con drops genetic evidence. In debate that is considered a concession. Con brings up God's existence. Red herring, this is about evolution, not God. Watching the videos, they claim the animals are they same because of a common designer... Uh ok. This is not a scientific response, as God is supernatural and cannot be tested. Therefore, this is not scientific, and has NO place in a scientific debate, and CAN NOT influence whether or not evolution is true or not. Further, his references offer NO proof of a God, rather merely assert it. Again, deducing logical answers from the fossil record are more convincing than Hovinid (who is currently in jail) making a statement. My opponment drops almost every claim I have made... http://i.imgur.com... http://jefferly.com... (in response to the videos) So, who do we trust: 99.9% of the scientific community, or a few dissenters who make claims with no evidence. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against A border fence is needed along America and Mexico. because Re-Starting this debate; had problems accepting the debate suddenly. So, my first round is acceptance, Pro will start with opening argument. No argument in the last round by Pro to mirror the initial wants of Pro, the initial debate instigator seen here. [1] Good luck to CountCheechula, and may this be a good debate. [1]: http://www.debate.org... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Quote Battle because I told my wife that a husband is like a fine wine; he gets better with age. The next day, she locked me in the cellar. Anonymous <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Evolution does not disprove the existence of God because Yes, this topic is a bit misunderstood because of its wording. As con, I am arguing that evolution and God cannot co-exist. (When I refer to God, I mean the Christian God, I am that I am) The theory of evolution and the existence of God cannot co-exist. This is a result of the following reasons: 1. Evolution proposes the Earth is billions of years old, while God says through the Bible that it is around 4,000 years old. Evolution says that it would need a lot of time (billions and billions of years) for the theory to be correct. The Earth is simply not that old. (According to the Bible) How do we know the Earth has been around for about 4,000 years you ask? Simple. The Bible tells us. There are many genealogies throughout the Bible. Here are a few: Genesis 5 Adam to Noah Gensis 11 Noah to Abraham Abraham to Moses is then counted Moses to Judges then Judges to Kings then Historical timelines. These lists state a precise account of ages of Biblical characters. Allowing for calendar changes, we can take the Earth to be roughly 4,000 years old. 2. "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." This is taken from Genesis 1:27 of the New American Standard Bible. This states specifically that God created man. He did not create primordial soup, which turned into bacterium, which turned into fish, apes, etc. GOD CREATED MAN. Because of these two reasons, God and evolution cannot co-exist. These are the choices for all viewers: (A) Deny the Bible's accuracy, therefore saying that God does not exist, giving CON the winning vote. (B) Accept the truth, that God and evolution cannot and do not co-exist, again giving CON the winning vote. "Evolution does not prove the existence of God." Negated. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Barack Obama is overall, a worst President than George W. Bush because I have just joined Debate and hope that I follow the rules as well as etiquette. I have looked at some of your positions and man we can debate a lot. I looked at your statements in the same as this debate title and you are the kind of person I learn from debating. Your statements are based for the most part on facts, you do not throw barbs and seem to be willing to stay on task. There are a couple of things that appear not on point for me. 1. There are not many people voting and I question if much can be derived from the results. 2. Not one for the con? Is that an indication of the leanings of the members of this site? Only four voted, all for you and one was you. Is this a who is going to win debate and the voting is stacked. Since this is my firs attempt, I would still like to give a whirl and see how influential the discussion can be on opinions. I do not care who "wins", I care if learning occurs and each is understood by the other - not agree or disagree. For this reason I have stated that I am con, my intentions and what I want to accomplish. If you choose to accept, I will make my opening statement. Thank you <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Worst [best?] way to die because I'm taking this as "worst way to die." I'm not sure why "best" is in brackets, but first round should be for acceptance, lets go! <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Absolute morals because Let me start with the rebuttals: 1. Your quote of Aristotle is still out of context, I do not understand how it connects to the topic, perhaps if you had given a sources then I would have read the paragraph and understood it; you however presented no source. As I do not fully get what the quote was I do not understand how it challenges summum bonum: however I can tell you that morality leads a person so that happiness is attained from virtue, this in itself is human transcendence. 2, The difference between morality coming from God, and morality coming from you has a tremendous difference, as you are confined to human reason, a priori and empirical knowledge. You are neither omnipotent nor are you omniscient. As for quoting Euthyphro's Dilemma you must realize you are arguing besides the point. The argument I lay forth has nothing to do with God in the premise. Remember I stated that morality is absolute, and my argument for that was both ontological, logical and synthetic a priori. You have not directly tackled my arguments, you have provided a counter. But still the reason Euthyphro's Dilemma does not play out here is because we assume only one God ( I most certainly was arguing for 1). And so the issue of division is removed and Socrates will be happy. Not to mention God is by definition good (see Theodice by Leibniz) and his opposite is Satan. It is perfectly logical to argue that morality comes from God. Needless to say my argument doesn't say that, it says morality is innate, something you did not tackle. 3. I never spoke of the Bible or of religion in general. As for how we can understand absolute morals, how to realize them , I will not take the added burden. My argument was: 1. If there is an objective law, then there is a God 2. There is an objective moral law, 3. There is a God In such the sub argument was of the second premise of innate and ontology. This was what you had to tackle however did not. 4. As for you giving the democratic structure such great authority you did not tackle the point of how there is a difference between goodness and morality and how morality is based on intention. You did not tell me how morals are based on empirical means. I feel Benji ( I have his permission to call him that) you ran a parallel debate, I gave my arguments and you left them untouched while I systematically refuted each of your claims, even when they were red herrings. I feel that my entire argument was not engaged and as the Opposition if you failed to show the absurdity within my logic, my argument will be assumed correct. Lastly, in the perhaps 5 or 6 rounds we have had, Benji, I have had great fun. I hope to debate you another time, and surely you no longer despise me either. Sincerely, Ajab <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Gun Control because Due to girlwithgoat's forfeit -- which she informed me was her barely-working computer's fault -- I have nothing to argue this round because she was unable to post a reply within the allotted time span. (gibsonm496 commented on this before I did since I'm trying to use up as much time as possible.) <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Fights to the death similar to those once held in the Colloseum in Rome should be allowed because "I still see no factual evidence that this would serve a purpose." I cannot provide factual evidence, only logic. My logic is that those who have nothing to lose might consider taking part in these fights rather than turning to crime. Why would someone become a criminal hitman and have to dodge the law all the time when he could do the exact same thing legally. "who can take the most heroin you ask? At what point does killing become a better example than that?" People who take heroin are only harming themselves. Killers harm others. This way killers would be killing killers and both would have agreed to fight in the first place. This is obviously preferable to killers killing innocent people. "I believe that instead of sending them against each other to kill we should be helping them." We don't know who they are until they have already killed and even then we have to have caught them. This way they would expose themselves to us and we could keep a close eye on them. "As in today's society, children model themselves after what their parents do and the things that they grow up around. If we tell them it is okay to fight in an arena to kill then they will no longer strive for excellence by going to school." That may be the case with some, but thats the same with every sport. Also high risk jobs tend to be the highest paid. The reason for this is because nobody wants to do them. It can't get much riskier than this. If the kid was bright he'd study. If hes not? Well, we'd just be allowing natural selection to take place again, which would be for the good of our species. "Today, we also have parents who will do anything to make their children succeed." In most case they just want their children to live well. I doubt these parents would think that sending them to their possible deaths would be a good way to guarantee this. And these fights would obviously only be legal for those that are over the age of responsibility. "Imagine a parent pushing their children to fight, to become ruthless, to kill, JUST FOR SPORT." The child would not legally be able to fight until he was over the age of responsibility. It is possible that in some cases the parents could have the child prepared for the time that he reaches this age, but these parents would obviously be crazy and murderous anyway and as you said "children model themselves after what their parents do". "Then what type of society would we be living in?" A society where killings occur in stadiums among killers and where those outside the stadiums need not live in fear. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against If of childbearing age, women should be sterilized before assuming the office of POTUS because My opponent has conceded the debate: "If outright sterilization is an issue, then a pledge signed under oath to forego childbearing while in office would accomplish the same purpose." The resolution is negated. All that remains is to vote CON. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with White Nationalism is not inherently racist because I thank Feverish for accepting this debate. I would first like to point out that the Princeton dictionary lists 4 different definitions for Nationalism and to fit under a definition, one must only meet a single definition, not all of them. So the one that he listed is not the only definition for Nationalism that would need to be met. The 4 deffinitions are [1]... •patriotism: love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it; "they rode the same wave of popular patriotism"; "British nationalism was in the air and patriotic sentiments ran high" •the doctrine that your national culture and interests are superior to any other •the aspiration for national independence felt by people under foreign domination •the doctrine that nations should act independently (rather than collectively) to attain their goals And we also find other definitions elsewhere. And we can see a simple trend in the definitions. It is a philosophy centered around a desire of national identification (meaning having an independent state) focused on either region, culture, or the current government. Since we are talking about "White Nationalism" this should obviously focus down to culture, since there is no "White" region in the world. And since "white nationalism" is often viewed against "multiculturalism," that only more strongly affirms that WN is focused around cultures. I would disagree that White Nationalism is exculsively focused around the belief that a white culture is superior to every other culture. We can see from the many definitions, that "superiority" only really pops un in one of the many definitions. I would like to open arguments by looking at various types of Nationalism in history, to show that "superiority" over others in not inherent to that word. Particularly, Irish nationalism and the American Revolution. Irish Nationalism [2] - "political and social movements and sentiment inspired by a love for Irish culture, language and history, and a sense of pride in Ireland and the Irish people. Today, the term generally refers to support for a united Ireland." Please note, that none of this involves a sence of superiority or a claim of "we're better than you." In fact, most Irish Nationalist, while many do hold some resentment against Britian (namely because they view Britian as the obsticle in preventing them from having their own nation), they really don't hold anything any view against American culture, or Chinese culture, or really any other culture. If we go to the American revolution, that was also a large nationalist movement to gain independence from England and to establish their own nation so that they could have their own rights. They did not view that they were superior to everyone else (I'm sure some individuals did, but the movement as a whole did not) [3]. If we expand that understanding of "nationalism" to "white nationalism," we see that white nationalism is really nothing more than the advocacy of a national identity of the white culture (remember, that nationalism is tied to either culture or region). We then come to having to ask, what is "white culture" and does it even exist? It may sound strange, since, in America, we are very much "multi-cultured," though we can get an idea that white culture does exist by looking at other cultures that we clearly know exist. We can clearly see that there is a hispanic culture, and that there is an african culture, and that there is an asian culture, and that there is a native american culture, so it should be only all too natural that there would be a white culture too. And within each of those larger cultures, there are many subcultures. For example, Chinese culture and Japanese culture, both fall under "asian culture" but are still different. And so we would also expect different subcultures within white culture. Third, I'd like to point out that wanting a place of your own (in this case, for your own culture) does not mean that you view others (in this case, other cultures) as infearior. If I want a house just for myself, that does not mean that I want my neighbor to not have a house, or that I think I'm better than him. It simply means that I would like a place of my own, and I can have no problem with him having a place of his own, or, if he would like, he is free to live in a community dwelling (i.e. multiculturalism). We can see this mentality a lot on state levels. Many states have different views on medical marrijuana, or minimum wage, or what have you. And so many of them choose what they want for themselves and they don't go trying to force other states to change. We see this a lot on the national level. We have our "house" (our nation) and we do with it as we please, and we don't try to force every other nation to do what we think is best (minus the occational dictator or two). This shows that we can have a single view for improving ourselves, without trying to force those views on others. This is what white nationalists want, a national identity for a white culture, whether that is in the US adopting that (most white nationalists), or having a small area break away and form an independent nation (white seperatists). They (for the most part) do not view other cultures as "infearior" but merely as "different" and that the differences should be respected and preserved. After all, we try to preseve our history, our environment, and most minority cultures (like some native american culture on reserves), so why can we not find a place to preserve a "white culture"? Because stupid Hitler had to go and ruin that idea for everyone. [1] http://www.google.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.associatedcontent.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against God Does NOT Exist, God is NOT Great, and Makes Life Worthless because Thank you, GeoLaureate8, for this debate. I look forward to an enlightening interchange. ====> G O D S - E X I S T E N C E <==== :::Argument from the Universe::: Geo engages in the fallacy of redefinition. In P1, he defines universe as everything that exists. In P3, he defines the universe as that which God created. When I substitute more accurate terms in his syllogism, the fallacy becomes evident: P1: The Complete Universe is everything that exists. [1] P2: If God exists, he is part of the Complete Universe. P3: If God is part of the Created Universe, he could not have created it. P3 makes sense on its own, but the universe he refers to is not the same as the one in P1 and P2. Therefore, his conclusion is invalid. :::Kalam's Cosmological Argument FAILS::: P1: Whatever begins to exist, has a cause. Geo is twisting semantics to convert the REAL Kalam's Cosmological Argument (KCA) into a straw man he can more easily defeat. Indeed, matter is neither created nor destroyed, but this premise does not speak about matter, it speaks about time and space. Everything we've ever observed has begun at a point in time. While the matter in Geo's laptop has always existed, his laptop began to exist at a point in time and space. P2: The universe began to exist. It is certain the universe is continually expanding from a singularity. [2] Alexander Vilenkin developed a unifying theory [3] in 2003 with Arvind Borde and Alan Guth. This theory, which is independent of our universe, shows that all expanding universes must have a singularity and therefore a beginning. P3: Therefore, the universe has a cause. I have upheld the premises and exposed Geo's fallacies in his refutation. Therefore, this conclusion follows. :::Ambiguity of the Uncaused Cause::: Geo is correct that we cannot make the leap from uncaused cause to God without more evidence. On the other hand, it also fails to prove God's non-existence and therefore fails to satisfy Geo's resolution. He must elaborate on how this actually proves his case. ====> G O D - I S - N O T - G R E A T <==== :::God Can't Be Great::: Ipse dixit. Geo has not explained WHY God must be finite. I can only assume he is appealing to his Argument from the Universe, in which he substitutes one meaning of universe with another. So long as that argument is refuted, this argument has no logical foundation whatsoever. :::God is a Tyrannical Dictator::: God being the self-appointed ruler of the universe has no bearing on his greatness. God is, by the mere fact that he is God, great. I think, perhaps, Geo needs to be reminded of the definition of Great: Great - 1. Very large in size. 2. Larger in size than others of the same kind. 3. Large in quantity or number: A great throng awaited us. See Synonyms at large. 4. Extensive in time or distance: a great delay. 5. Remarkable or outstanding in magnitude, degree, or extent: a great crisis. 6. Of outstanding significance or importance: a great work of art. 7. Chief or principal: the great house on the estate. 8. Superior in quality or character; noble: "For he was great, ere fortune made him so" (John Dryden). 9. Powerful; influential: one of the great nations of the West. 10. Eminent; distinguished: a great leader. 11. Grand; aristocratic. 12. Informal Enthusiastic: a great lover of music. 13. Informal Very skillful: great at algebra. 14. Informal Very good; first-rate: We had a great time at the dance. 15. Being one generation removed from the relative specified. Often used in combination: a great-granddaughter. 16. Archaic Pregnant. [1] None of these definitions speak of benevolence, which seems to be what Geo is truly attempting to refute. If that is his intention, he should revise his resolution in the next round, though I advise the voters to consider how that might affect the conduct vote. ====> G O D - D E G R A D E S - L I F E S - S I G N I F I C A N C E <==== One's life significance cannot be objectively measured. Life-significance is a human state of mind. Even Geo claims that we create our own meaning. Geo cannot objectively prove this portion of the resolution by virtue that he has himself has already shown that the matter is subjective in nature. ====> T A G <==== This is my argument to support my position: the Transcendental Argument for God's Existence (TAG). Truth, being that which affirms reality as it is, is the desired goal of academic pursuit. Debate falls within this pursuit. Strong agnosticism and other forms of skepticism are refuted at the outset on the basis that they are self-refuting. The claim that truth is not objective is itself an objective truth claim and can only be true if it is false. Geo has relied on logical reasoning, scientific induction, and even moral principles in support of his resolution. Clearly, he presupposes these things are capable of attaining objective truth. To do so, these principles must be abstract and absolute, as anything else reduces to absurdity. If logical reasoning is conventional, then it cannot affirm anything more than conventional knowledge. If nature is not uniform, then science cannot affirm anything more than present observations. If morality is subjective, then it cannot affirm anything more than ethical suggestions. Unless these principles are universally binding and abstractly independent from human thought, Geo's appeals to logical reasoning, scientific inference, and moral consquence are meaningless. For Geo's debate to be intelligible, logic must be necessarily true, the universe must be uniform, and morality must be universally binding. TAG asserts that God is the necessary precondition for these principles, and is proved via the impossibility of the contrary. God is the only precondition that can justify immutable logic, uniformity in nature, and moral objectivity, for He is perfectly true, immutable, transcendent, righteous, holy, infinite, and so forth. Without Him, these principles cannot exist in the state in which Geo requires them. The result is that Geo's attempts to disprove God's existence, among other things, ultimately relies on principles that can only be justified if his position is wrong. ====> C O N C L U S I O N <==== Geo's resolution is in three parts, and he must show all three to be true. He has not proven God does not exist as his arguments have been shown to rely on ambiguity of terms. He has not proven that God is not great; he has only shared his opinion on the matter. He has not proven that God makes life worthless; he has only espoused his personal perceptions on the matter. In fact, there is very little proof of his resolution at all in his opening round. On the other hand, I have offered proof of the contrary, which he will be tasked to refute. It is up to him to defend ALL his arguments and refute mine. If he fails to support even one element of his three-part resolution, then the voters are justified in voting Con. ====> S O U R C E S <==== 1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2. http://skyserver.sdss.org... 3. http://books.google.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Schoolchildren should have a uniform dress code because Students are defined as school going children and youths ranging from the age of 7-18. The format of the debate is Round 1 - Acceptance Round 2 - Opening Arguments Round 3 - Responses to Opening Arguments Round 4 - Defense of Opening Arguments and Conclusion. Please do not accept the debate if you are likely to forfeit any round at all. I look forward to the debate. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Communism: Are you for it? because Vote Con! <EOA>

<BOA> I am against My Life Sucks More Than My Opponent's because I close my eyes Only for a moment and the moment's gone All my dreams Pass before my eyes with curiosity Dust in the wind All they are is dust in the wind Same old song Just a drop of water in an endless sea All we do Crumbles to the ground, though we refuse to see (Aa aa aa) Dust in the wind All we are is dust in the wind Oh, ho , hoooooh YOUR MY BOY BLUE!! Your my boy... I'm sorry, I just had to get that out.... Blue was my only friend in this world, and yesterday he died. He was wrestling some hookers in a kitty pool full of Vaseline when he had a heart attack and a stroke at the same time. His body over loaded. He had a seizure so insane that he smashed his face into the sharp edge of his table. His teeth were ground down to a fine powder. The front of his face exploded out the back of his scull. He died instantly, the next day. Anyhow... 1. Your Gingerness You are 50% more ginger than me, however that does not mean your life sucks more than mine. Since you are 100% ginger, you cannot feel happiness at all, you don't even know what it's like. However my situation is far worse. The ginger blood took over my system when I was 7. I wish I was full ginger, anything would be better than this. You see, because I am only half ginger, I have the capability to understand happiness, and crave it. Before the ginger blood took over, I could feel happiness. Unlike you I know what it's like. However no matter how hard I try, the infinite hole of sadness, fear, loathing, (or anything else horrible that you can think of)doesn't allow me to feel the happiness. My mother was the only person who ever really lover me(other than Blue), by the way my father cheated on her, so she hung herself. Anyhow.. She once got me a guitar. I had asked for it for my birthday. She expected to see me happy, and grateful. I tried soooo hard, just to feel happiness. I tried, for myself, but mostly for my mom. I knew it would make her happy. That's all I ever really wanted, was just to make her happy. But I couldn't. I can't. Ever. And she knew. She saw it in my eyes. That was the day before she died. Sometimes I think she might have died from me. Or because of me. I killed her. She saw the monster inside of me, and couldn't live knowing she created it. Massive, do you know what that's like? To have to live like this. It's not even living really. I'm already dead... 2. Prince? Ya right Last night my father found out he was not my biological father. He disowned me. I am now no longer a "prince". I now live in a gazebo next to the butcher facility. Every night, I am lillibied to sleep by the sickening 'thunk' of a pigs scull being crushed. Or maybe I'll get lucky, and I can get misted with some feathers of chickens being grinded to pulp. All I have now, are the clothes I'm wearing, and my laptop. I have no food. I'm forced to eat what is left on the dead carcasses in the facility next to me. However I can't live like this anymore. Not anymore. It's time to move on. Nothing matters anymore. Not Mick Jagger, or bathrooms, or the rolling stones. The climate doesn't even matter. Not for much longer anyway. I've lost everything. I never had much, but now I have nothing. Nothing but fear, and pain. Now I can leave it all behind....no fear or agony. Just peace.. I'll see you in another life brother.... <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Facebook is better than Twitter because Thanks for starting this debate, Sumone2Every1. I am on the Proposition stating that Facebook is better than Twitter. Here are my arguments. 1. Facebook is better than Twitter because it appeals to people looking to reconnect with old friends and family members or find new friends online. Facebook is user-friendly whereas Twitter is not. 2. Twitter has limited functionality and as a result, not all people find it useful. That's it for this round. I look forward to the Opposition's response of how Twitter is better than Facebook. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against I will not contradict myself. because Thanks Pro, for offering an interesting and challenging debate. I would like to add a definition for clarity. Moral: 1. involving right and wrong: relating to issues of right and wrong and to how individual people should behave http://www.bing.com... Questions: 1.) Do you consider yourself a moral person? 2.) From where are your morals derived? 3.) Could your morals be compromised due to a situation or event? 4.) Is your definition of 'moral' different from the one I provided? (if yes, explain) <EOA>

<BOA> I am against D.A.R.E. successfully prevents drug use and violence in its graduates because extend all arguments. I hope my opponent chooses to emerge from hibernation within the next 3 days <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Faith is the greatest falling of mankind. because I will briefly state my reasoning and will elaborate wherever my opponent wishes for me to do so. The mere ideology of belief through faith without reason will call upon great destruction in the hand of "free thinkers", this is as it limits our reasoning and dimmers our ability to understand the cosmos without prejudice. mankind: a species capable of great expression and reflection of complex mind states caused by it's surroundings, also one which owes it's survival to this very trait. As it was through greater communication and understandings man was able to adapt in his primitive environment. Religion: The greatest exploiter of faith Religion has it's origins through out customs and rituals preformed by early man, this symbolic free expression was given too much emphasis on the practicality of the art in it's self and far too less on its artistic expression; leading to the birth of tradition. This mentality is by far the greatest plague on mankind, it can be directly linked to (but not souly) for our self centered understanding of our own cosmos. Armed with this prejudice we have also embarked on several "holy" endures i.e. the crusades and the Holocaust <EOA>

<BOA> I am against I will have the exact amount of characters that the character limit allows. because It doesn't matter. PRO claimed that the character limit allows 500 characters when it in fact allows 8000 (allows = maximum). Problem is---PRO isn't an administrator, thus does not have the ability to use the 8000 during any round thanks to the way he set the debate up. Beyond that, if you'd look at the first post in the comment section, you'll notice that PRO used it to add onto his argument. Since the first round is exactly 500 characters, the additional amount loses PRO the debate still. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against My opponent is InfraRedEd because Resolved: My opponent is not the user InfraRedEd: http://www.debate.org... If he is my opponent, I have lost. Otherwise, I have won. He is the only one who could win this debate, but he is not my opponent. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with animal breeding because Don't you just love the smell of victory? <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Who is guilty of pregnancy of minor girls?parents of children? because It is to hard to blame somebody. I am against you, because how person can be fault on themselves, if someone fucked her. I am not going to blame that girl. I just protect her. Furthermore, their parents should bring up them properly, otherwise girls will have such situation... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against My photographs are, on the overall, "better" than my opponent's. because Squirrels are cute. One might add interest by replacing the squirrel with a hot girl wearing a bikini made from the pelt of the animal. Although whether that adds interest does depend upon the audience. Fur is also problematic these days, I know. Alas, I don't have anything *that* interesting either. For this round I have a picture http://quickshotartist.com... taken on a business trip to the port city of Yokohama, Japan, where I had a chance to walk to the waterfront. These pre-schoolers were far more interested in the seagulls feeding on popcorn than the museum ship. Note that about 75% of the way down the line there is one boy staring at me taking the picture. There is one of those types in every crowd. Notice all the backpacks and the yellow hats for identification. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Model Debate : Hot Girls because Note : This was an idea that either bsh or annie came up with, but I liked the concept. Each round each user will post 5 pictures of a model. All the pictures that are posted in one round must be of the same model. Meaning there will be 4 different models used throughout the course of this debate, with 20 pictures total. The name of the model should be included with their age, height, and weight. Con Will start the debate in round 1, and pass in round 5 to even out the rounds. Judges will vote based off of looks, pose, etc. Best of luck, post in comments if you want to accept. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with The meaning of life is definitely not reproduction. because I will allow my opponent to make a case first. Clarification: -"Meaning" means purpose. http://dictionary.reference.com... I await my opponent's case. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against With 30 minutes of preparation, the user known as Kleptin could feasibly vanquish a grizzly bear because I thank my opponent for what has been a spectacular debate, and hope that the next one will occur in less busy circumstances. My opponent has done a fantastic job detailing the methods by which I can feasibly vanquish this grizzly bear. However, from reading my opponent's last argument, I find it necessary to note that so far, my opponent has not been able to respond to my point of our very discussion taking far more than half an hour. What my opponent has been doing, is arguing that there exists a plan which, if carried out perfectly, will make it possible to vanquish the bear. However, this is not the resolution. The resolution is whether it is feasible that I can both feasibly DEVELOP a plan and feasibly CARRY IT OUT. The audience should take into account that my opponent needed to not only provide a plan, but also one that I myself could have come up with and put into action with 30 minutes of preparation. If my opponent develops a plan that is possible, but it is greatly hindered by the formulation and execution, then it no longer becomes feasible and regardless of the viability of the plan, we must disregard it. Please keep this in the back of your minds while I respond: TREE CLIMBING My opponent's points regarding tree climbing can all be answered with a simple analogy. Can I climb a bonsai tree? My opponent suggests that this parameter of his can apply to any sort of tree, and that no matter what, anything designated as "tree" will be completely climbable. I find this absurd. The act of climbing a tree is very common and I am sure we all know how the act is done. I find it very impractical to take this parameter and expand it unjustly. Yes, I may be well capable of climbing trees, but to be able to climb a tree that cannot be climbed using ordinary tree-climbing means is clearly not supported by this parameter. As for my opponent's suggestion of using the knife and wrapping my legs around the tree, but neglects that my weak leg strength is detrimental to this process. Assuming I have the force to drive the knife well into the tree, I would need a substantial amount of force to drive the knife out. This forceforce would propell me backwards as I am trying to grip the tree with my feeble legs and cause me to topple off the tree. LODGE HOUSES I point out that my opponent's plan to use the lodgehouse as a way to stall for time is indeed a violation of the 30-minute prep time because it takes place before the battle has begun. My opponent's suggestion is that I sit and hide in a lodgehouse to wait it out. Obviously, this must take place before the battle because otherwise, the bear will most likely catch up to me before I can make it into the lodgehouse. Thus, since I am buying time before I encounter the bear, I am prolonging the alotted 30-minute preparation time stated in the resolution. Second, I point out the violation of my opponent's suggestion that I hide from lodgehouse to lodgehouse. If I am in a safe area and the bear has left, the battle is in effect, over, and no vanquishing has been done. It is simply stalemate. We must assume that this bear has the sole purpose of trying to kill me and will be unfazed by other purposes. In addition, the bear could just as easily crash through a door and kill me. This makes the lodgehouse argument a poor one. VITAL SPOTS My opponent has admitted that the vital spots argument he made relied on the argument that I can latch onto the bear. As I have already made an argument against my ability to latch onto the bear, and my opponent has not responded to it, then the rest of his argument is similarly dismissed. To provide an actual point, I simply point out that the measured, precise movements that my opponent details are simply not feasible. While it is possible that administered perfectly, the plan is not feasible because the slightest digression from perfection would lead to certain death. ANIMAL CRUELTY This is where my opponent has misinterpreted my argument. My opponent is attempting to argue that if things go a certain way, in a certain fashion, then the outcome will be victory. If things go perfectly, then of course a positive outcome shall be possible. However, this is barring outside circumstances. A feasible plan must be both possible in conception and possible barring outside circumstances. My hesitation to harm this bear may cost me a full second or so of action which will decide whether I live or die. My opponent is focusing only on the feasibility of the plan and not the feasibility of execution to the standards that he sets. MY SIZE A bear's forearms and shoulders are considerably stronger since it walks on all four legs and supports its weight in that fashion. Despite my opponent's video evidence of size or shape, this does not negate the fact that in order to subdue an average sized grizzly bear, I would need strength far above and beyond what my opponent has listed in the parameters. THE THREE EXAMPLES The fact remains that in each instance, there were definite advantages that were deciding factors. In addition, as I have said before, these were black bears which are considerably weaker than grizzly bears, and the last one of which was a grizzly that was shot twice. The fact that the bear did not seem fazed is irrelevant, because metal tearing through flesh *will* have an effect. These stories are negligible because they bear little similarity to my case. FIRE My opponent's proposal to use fire is a good one. The problem is that I am sure all the inhabitants of that lodge as well as the people overseeing that lodge will do everything in their power to keep me from setting fire to the lodge, or luring the bear inside, or stealing their food. If I admit to my purposes, they would most likel see me as insane and call park services to dispatch the bear, robbing me of my victory and leaving me incarcerated for trying to endanger the welfare of others. ************************ As it stands, we have now spent several days thinking, plotting, planning, trying to come up with ways to vanquish this bear. Alas, even the combined efforts of us two bright, knowledgable people, along with the great database of the internet, we cannot develop a plan that is BOTH feasible in conception and feasible on execution. Admittedly, my opponent comes up with some very good plans, ones that might well work if we did not consider my own weaknesses. If I were a predictable automaton with precise physical motions and actions, then some of the combat techniques MIGHT be feasible. However, I am not. My weaknesses and flaws, as well as an extremely high amount of uncertainties make my opponent's suggestions highly impractical. Now, with all the testimony, it is up to you, the audience, to ask yourselves some questions. 1. With all that was discussed, is it FEASIBLE that I can think up these ideas all by myself, within 30 minutes? 2. Since this several-day-long discussion has yielded no fruit, would it be FEASIBLE to say that I will cancel out these plans and proceed to one that works? 3. If you honestly believe that one of these plans my opponent listed is a good one, is it FEASIBLE to say that *I* would come up with it by myself and implement it perfectly? Taking into account the depth, the precision, the detail, and the length of time involved in this fruitless discussion, you must understand that it simply is NOT FEASIBLE for me to conceive of, develop, and implement the perfect plan out of thousands of possible ideas leading to my certain death. So while I thank Logical_Master for using his brainpower in an attempt to lead me to glorious victory, I must conclude that such a plan is simply not feasible. I will most likely ask a Park Ranger to remove the bear and lead me to safety. Afterall, who knows me better than myself? Thank you to the Audience and to my opponent. Vote CON. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against That the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will successfully mitigate economic slowdowns next year. because I don't' need to address any of your professors speculations on what might or might not happen if the fed prints more worthless money. No one can predict the economy. If they could they would own the world. I don't even have to read what these professors of yours have to say. It is all speculation, no matter how many numbers and scenarios they present they have absolutely no idea what will happen when the fed floods the monetary system with worthless cash. I have been around for almost 50 years and I have seen the fed do this before and all it did was cause inflation. History is on my side, pure speculation is on your side. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with God most likely exists because I'd like to whole-heartedly thank Sswdwm for suggesting this debate and for doing such a great job in it. Give him a round of applause for not being as long winded as me! Best of luck to him in the voting! God My opponent drops my arguments for God. So if I can show that reality is mental, then God's existence follows necessarily. (Since of course, mind is fundamental, and can't interact with non-mind, reality must be mental). Materialism, free will, and explanatory power My opponent wants some clarification on the mind and brain in idealism. Now there's many different versions which could work for this. We could argue that the brain is mental in nature, or that the mind is self-collapsing wave functions, etc. However, I'd rather argue that the mind and the brain are two different things. Not different types of things, but still different things. And affecting one affects the other, since there's a connection between the two. In other words, we are "embodied" minds. Under idealism, disembodied minds, such as God or angels are also perfectly possible. So the brain affects the mind, and the mind affects the brain. However, the brain has more of an impact on the brain than the mind. We have to really focus our minds on something to break bad habits, and it's much easier for the brain to affect the mind through hormones and drugs, than it is for the mind to control the brain. My opponent also admits that if free will is true, materialism is false. The reason is that there just is no place for free will if everything is physical. Whatever is physical is either random or causally determined. There's no "free agents" in physicalism. For materialists, free will can't exist. Now I've asked my opponent: If free will can't exist why is there such a huge illusion of it. He's given examples of times when we think there's something there, but it's not. Well yes, I've admitted that free-will could be an illusion, but if free-will is an illusion, my opponent needs to show how. Either free-will is metaphysically possible or it is not. If it's metaphysically possible, it's the best explanation for what we experience and materialism is false. If it's metaphysically impossible, my opponent needs to show how we can be under the illusion that there exists something which is completely impossible in principle. I also don't understand my opponent's examples of "impossible shapes." The example he gives isn't an impossible shape. It just looks like it. But under further examination, we can see that it's not really an impossible shape, just that is looks very similar to one Now onto explanatory power. There's.. (i) Good reasons to believe that idealism is true. (ii) It makes sense of free-will and the idea of mind being first person and matter third perso But on materialism... (i) Absolutely no good reasons to believe it. (ii) Can't explain free will (the illusion thereof) and can't explain how there can be "first-person" (a property that physical matter just doesn't have). Arguments against idealism My opponent references a TED talk, but all the talk states is that there's an intimate relationship between mind and brain. That affecting the brain affects the mind. But this doesn't show that the mind just IS the brain. My opponent is affirming the antecedent it seems... (Correct me if I'm wrong) P1: IF mind is matter, THEN there would be an intimate relationship between the two. P2: There is an intimate relationship between the two C: Mind is matter. But this is invalid. If he formulated it P1: If there is an intimate relationship between mind and matter, THEN mind is matter. P2: There is a relationship. C: Mind is matter I'd see absolutely no reason to accept P1 as true. Under one formulation, his argument is invalid. Under the other, the premises aren't shown to be true. Both are unsound. Furthermore, they need a monitor to show the images that they interpret from the information in the brain. This just goes to show that the images and the information in the brain aren't the exact same thing. From the talk... "They've been able to decode brainwaves into recognizable visual fields" Well this doesn't work. Because if the brainwaves just are visual images, we shouldn't need to "decode" them. Occam's razor Yes, idealism posits an extra entity, God, to ground reality since this is needed in principle. But, as I've argued many times, there are good reasons to think that we need this entity, and the idealistic worldview makes more explanatory sense of the world. So Occam's razor shouldn't be applied. Bunnies and chew Now this argument didn't merit much response from my opponent, but let me try to be more succinct. I'm not sure how to put analogous reasoning into proper logical form, so bear with me. P1. The bunny/chew comparison is structurally the same as the mind/brain comparison. P2. We are perfectly justified in inferring that the bunny is not the chew, even if they are causally related. Therefore, we are justified in inferring that the mind is not the brain. Now I've defended both of these. So my opponent needs to show (i) that the analogy does not hold, or (ii) the analogy does hold, but we cannot infer that the bunny is not the chewing tobacco. Let's push the analogy further. Suppose every time that the bunny hops forwards, the pouch of chew gets bigger. When the rabbit turns, the pouch of chew rotates. This happens, every. single. time. Now we can look at the rabbit, and see what it's doing, and then (presumably) infer what the chew is doing. Let's say that there is such a close relationship between the two, that someone even gives a talk at TED that we can monitor the bunny's activity and then find out what is happening to the chew! We'd probably still say (or we should), "Just because they're somehow causally related, this does't mean they're the same thing." Which is what I'm saying here. Just because two things are extremely related, this proves absolutely nothing. Nil. Nadda. All it shows is that two completely different types of things are somehow related to each other. And once again, my opponent is not arguing that the mind is a property of the brain, but that the mind just is the brain. So this argument holds. His internet analogy is also flawed. What does he mean by "the internet"? Does he mean the mental sensations I have when I look at my computer screen? Or does he mean the physical energy of the electricity? He's equivocating the mental images and sensations I have when I'm on my computer with electricity, which is exactly what we're arguing about. This is essentially the old "Well, if you didn't know water was H20, you'd think they were different things!" argument. But, as I've shown above, and as atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel points out, this rests on equivocation. "We ordinarily identify water by its perceptible qualities qualities, but our perceptual experiences aren't part of the water; they are just effects it has on our senses. The intrinsic properties of water, its density, electrical conductivity, index of refraction, liquidity between 0 and 100 degrees centigrade, etc., are all fully explained by H20 and its properties. The physical properties of H20 are by themselves sufficient for water." [1] Also, as mentioned earlier... P1: IF mind is matter, then when we introspect we are examining neurons (doing neuro-science) P2: We aren't doing neuro-science every time we introspect. C: Mind is not matter. Solipsism Due to my opponent's passing over of my above argument, I don't think his objections to my solipsism argument work. He's also dropped his Goldbach's Conjecture example. Let's put it this way. Either solipsism is metaphysically possible, or it's not. If it's metaphysically impossible, then this is either explicitly so, or implicitly so. It's obviously not explicitly contradictory. Also, given the dissimilar nature of mind and matter, as argued above, it's most likely not implicitly contradictory. Therefore, it's metaphysically possible. My opponent's diagram is also wrong. There is a section where some things are conceivable and metaphysically impossible. If something is impossible, it means it's a "non-thing". Our minds only grasp and perceive actual things. This is simple apprehension, the first act of the intellect. When I say "dog" you just simply understand what a dog is. You don't even need to have a visual image, you just understand it. But if "dog" wasn't a thing (as metaphysical impossibilities are) it couldn't exist in your intellect in the way it does. So if something can exist coherently in your intellect, it must be metaphysically possible. Now it might be the case that we can't really conceive of solipsism and just think we can. We might think we can conceive of a square-triangle, but we'd actually be conceiving a triangle with square attributes, or something in between a square and a triangle. But I've already rebutted this. We can easily examine the properties of the mind, and examine the properties of physical matter. So the possibility that we're mistakenly conceiving of solipsism is very slim, since we understand very very thoroughly what the mind is, and its properties. We're not saying that "solipsism is metaphysically possible" because we just don't know enough about the mind. We're saying, that because we know the mind, and we know matter, it's easy to see that solipsism is conceivable. But, as I've defended, there's nothing explicitly or implicitly contradictory about solipsism. This reaffirms its metaphysical possibility. Conclusion So we've been given several good reasons to think that mind is not material. 1. It's not comparing apples to oranges, or bunnies to chew, it's saying that they just are the same thing. 2. Solipsism is metaphysically possible, as demonstrated by its conceivability and plausibility. The premises of my argument remain defended. Mind is fundamental. Reality is mental, and whatever is mental has a mind behind it. Therefore, it follows with necessity that there exist a mind which grounds reality. [1] Mind and Cosmos, Thomas Nagel, p.40-41 <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Mormons are Christians because My opponent is attempting to re-define Christianity using an online dictionary. Not that I disrespect using dictionaries to define a topic as that is there purpose. However, when the word Christianity is so pertinent to the topic of the debate, I believe that one should logically back up the definition. Furthermore, I made a logical argument for my definition. That argument must be rebutted. It cannot be wholly ignored as my opponent has ignored it. I derived my definition of Christianity from pure logic. I have shown how the addition or subtraction of a book makes a completely different religion. In this instance an online dictionary reference is insufficient enough to prove your claim. Logic must also be applied and in this instance rebutted if you are to succeed in proving your resolution." I am not attempting to redefine Christianity, and your specific statement that I'm "attempting to re-define Christianity using an online dictionary." is absurd. The dictionary defines what something is, and one of the ways that the dictionary defines Christians is "7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity." In fact this is such an inherently important definition that it says at the end that it is the adherent of Christianity. On top of this I see nowhere that a Christian has to believe in the bible. To be Christian one has t believe in Jesus Christ. Now let me offer up some of the logic that you are asking for. First off before the Bible as we know it today was put together after having been written for hundreds of years. People were calling themselves Christian because they believed in Christ. Now lets look at the actually word. C-H-R-I-S-T-I-A-N. Here are the 2 parts of the word. "Christ" and "ian." The Christ part refers to Jesus Christ. The second part "ian". Below is what "ian." means. (below that is the link) -ian suff. 1. Of, relating to, or resembling: Bostonian. 2. One relating to, belonging to, or resembling: academician. So putting "Christ" and "Ian" together means Of, relating to, or resembling (or) One relating to, belonging to, or resembling to Christ. http://dictionary.reference.com... My point with this is that nowhere does it talk about the bible in the definition or in the broken-down meaning of the word. CONCLUSION To be Christian one must try to be like to him as shown in my breakdown of the word. Taking that literally one who does not believe he was Jehovah could still be Christian if he or she tried to be like Christ. However Christ has a religious sect called Christianity and today being Christian refers to believing in Christ. With both of these in mind Mormons are Christian because we believe in Christ as Jehovah and our religious group is focused around tying to become like him. So with all this in mind Mormons are Christian. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with My Life Sucks More Than My Opponent's because Reminder: While this debate is funny, this debate is not one judged by who is the most entertaining. This one rides on serious debate criteria. 1. I'm A Ginger My opponent forfeits this contention. 2. Prince of Jordan A. Pain is staged My opponent forfeits this contention. A very important one at that. He proves now that being the prince of Jordan is a good thing. B. Bathrooms He says he spoke with Mick Jagger himself. However, I grew up alongside Mick Jagger for ten years, and he frequently spoke of his adventures to Jordan. You should value my quote over his because I have a better understanding of Mick Jagger's thoughts having known him for so long. The mall only sells dildos this the part that my opponent chooses to shop in, but in other parts, the mall contains quite a variety of useful items. C. Climates My opponent claims that steam poop is worse than excessive diarrhea. However, if that was true, and he had it, he should have been dead before many members of my family, so this contention is false. Perhaps he's disabled, but he's not dead. People who poop it all out end up dead. D. AIDS Apologies, but my opponent recaps AIDS but I believe never mentions anything about it in the body of his argument. This contention, therefore, gives no weight to con. Conclusion My opponent still fails to prove that anyone's life can scientifically be worse than a ginger's, and his silly charades about the hardships of being a prince just aren't true at all. I win all contentions. Vote Pro <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Socialism because So what happened during this debate? In round 1, my opponent made the three following arguments: 1. Socialism endangers the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. 2. Under Socialism, there will be no rewards for hard work. 3. Socialism kills innovation. In round 1, I made the following rebuttals: 1. Socialism is achieved through worker cooperatives, not big government, therefore the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not in danger. 2. a. Not all worker cooperatives have equal wages. b. Worker cooperatives with equal wages will still pay by the hour. Therefore those who work longer will get better paid. 3. a. Workers, including inventors, will own the profits and democratically determine their wages. b. Discovery and innovation are both part of human nature. Scientists enjoy their work. After I made these rebuttals, I only barely had enough space to begin making my argument, so I posted a stat about the pay - productivity gap. Round 2 (My opponent): 1. Redefines socialism a. "public or COLLECTIVE ownership of the means of production". b. Complete dependence on government. c. Models include U.S.S.R., East Germany, etc. 2. Concedes that socialism has its benefits. 3. Rambles about Common Core Standards 4. Drops point about Innovation. My response: 1. a. My definition is better, but even if we accept your definition, "collective" ownership allows for a Socialist Market economy of worker cooperatives. b. Opposition's definition contradicts itself because if there is collective (worker cooperative) ownership rather than public ownership than people won't depend on the government for everything. c. U.S.S.R, East Germany, China etc. are/were not socialist. 2. Capitalism is exploitative, Socialism is fair. a. In order to make a profit, you need to spend less money than you make. b. Statistic. 3. Capitalism undermines democracy, Socialism (the type I've described) strengthens democracy. Round 3: My opponent forfeited. By not speaking, my opponent didn't defend his two remaining points against my (if I may say) strong rebuttals. All of his arguments were dropped. No attempt was made to rebut my contentions, and therefore, regardless of who you agree with, you'll have to admit that this is the final score: Pro: 2 contentions Con: 0 contentions. In other words, you must vote pro. I didn't have enough space to post my sources in my previous rounds, but now I do have enough space, and so I will. 1. Pay went up 113%; productivity went up 254%. http://www.epi.org... 2. Princeton study shows that when 4/5ths of our elite wants a policy, they get that policy 45% of the time. When only 1/5th of our elite wants a policy, the policy is only enacted 18% of the time. http://www.bbc.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Mario Mendoza was a good baseball player. because That's not the resolution. The debate is whether or not Mario Mendoza was a good baseball player, plain and simple. When judging whether or not someone is good at something, we look at how he does compared to any other person doing that thing. As I showed in Round 1, using low estimates, Mendoza is still far superior to the vast majority of baseball players. If we only judged a baseball player by how he does in his own league, and we suddenly put Mendoza against a bunch of Little Leaguers and he crushed home runs in every AB, would we call him the best baseball player ever? No. We need to look at the talent he's facing. The better the talent one faces, the better he looks if he does well, and the less bad he looks if he doesn't do well. Again, as I showed, Mendoza is superior to an incredibly large number of baseball players just by virtue of his playing in the Major Leagues. Thus, he is a good baseball player. The resolution is affirmed. Vote PRO, bro. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Debaters shouldnt have to define the words they are using in their debate because by absurd, i assume you mean WordNet-Onlines second definition "completely devoid of wisdom or good sense" < http://www.wordnet-online.com... ; given this definition it is your burden to prove that there is no wisdom what so ever in posting the definitions of words <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Should violent video games be banned? because Hello, my name is Keenan Harris, I will be arguing the Proposition that, "Violent Video Games should be banned". Before I start on my own points I would like to go over a few of my opponent's highly absurd points. First of all, It does not matter whether the opposition may be "tired" of hearing about instances of crime, or instances where children commit suicide after playing a video game. These things happen, the fact that parents these days allow young children to play games as damaging as Grand Theft Auto or Gears of War actually helps our side. Since parents these days are too lazy to censor what their kids our playing, it makes sense for the government to intervene and stop video game related deaths from happening. The mere fact that we should make the parents of America be more diligent about giving their kids games would not work, like it is not working today. In this day and age there is a rating system, put our by the ESRB that does not allow people under the age of 17 to buy M rated games and does not allow children under the age of 13 buy Teen or "T" rated games. Even though this system is enforced by law, the Youth of America still manages to obtain copies of these game either through irresponsible parents, or through black market suppliers. Since this rating system obviously doesn't work, and there are still suicides occurring because of Violent video games, we need to take steps to make sure that no more children will die from violent video games, and if this means banning them for good then I am sure that we can all sacrifice Halo 3 so that we can be sure that the youth of america can be safe. I'm sure after all that talk about suicides you want some hard evidence that people actually do die from violent video games. Well here it is. According to tech.blourge < http://tech.blorge.com... ; a ten year old child in moscow jumped off a 19 story building after loosing video game privileges. Not only did said child suffer a terrible death, the same study showed that as he got more and more interested in video games, his grades in school began to plummet. This study concluded that not only do gamers quickly turn to suicide, but video games also impair school performance. And that was only one case, recently, a 14 year old boy HUNG himself after his Runescape account was canceled, another 12 year old boy jumped out of his apartment building to his death after World of Warcraft was taken away from him for a week. All these cases are undeniable proof that we cannot allow video games to exist any longer. So please, spare us of one more video game related death and ban video games, for good. My opponent's second point was. Our society has learned to embrace the atrocity of video games. How dare you! Just because society has learned to embrace something that does not, in any way, mean that it is good! At one time, our society embraced heroine as a legal substance, and Cock fighting as a chivalrous sport. Violent Video Games are vile! They depict prostitution, gang violence, mass murder, and law breading in a good light, and in consequence our youth of america follows the lead of the game. No matter how profitable the industry may be, it will always be one of the leading causes of teenage suicide. And how can any company be good for the world with that on its shoulders? How can it be? Before the video game industry, the capital produced by all the combined book publishers, and book manufacturing companies equaled that of our current video game industry. The source for that is the science group Nova. Thats all I have to say for the matter now. But look into your heart, save future deaths from occurring, and vote PRO! <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Official Debate Tournament: Badger is a Retard/Troll because 1) Debate History I don't think i confessed to that. That i said i don't put in much effort doesn't imply i put in no effort at all or negative effort, just not much effort. And when i get distracted and forfeit, well, that's hardly being incoherant and moronic; I've not said something to not be understanable or understood as moronic! And for the fifa debate I blamed my incoherancy and moronics (though i wasn't too bad for someone out of his nut i thought :)) on mind altering drugs. I've a sober side too :) I've taken speed. I smoke weed. And i only conceded incoherance in the fifa debate. That i conceded incoherance once doesn't really do much for you bud. You still had the regularly bit to prove. What with not having proved it, one has no reason to believe i'm absolutely a retard, or even a retard as per your definition/burden. Why not just someone who enjoys an odd intoxicant? :) Nor without numerous examples have they any reason to believe i'm trolling and thus a troll. "All in all, we can't know for sure if Badger's goal is to waste people's time, but he does it anyway. This is why the resolution is over whether badger is incoherent/moronic/trolling (see round 1). Take your pick." Well it's not actually a matter of choice between those three. It was actually that you had to prove that i regularly engage in both incoherant and moronic behaviour to make up a retard/troll. Incoherant and moronic being your definition for both a troll and a retard in this debate it seems going by the burden you set yourself. The intentionally having been needed to be proved extra to prove i'm a troll (i'll take it i suppose? ;)) which you've just conceded that you can't. 2) Badger's Profile "Badger is clearly lying because the probability of being an uber rich black muslim teacher in Kansas is really low. His continued defense of this claim is clearly trolling, as he elsewhere in the debate claims to be Irish." Well first of all, why are we to believe the chances of there being an uber rich black muslim teacher in Kansas are really low? And secondly, if they're only still really low, rather than negligible or nonexistent, then there is still a chance that i am a black muslim teacher in Kansas and thus there was a lot more to be argued. I'm not just clearly lying. Thirdly, i've been consistent in saying i'm Irish throughout the entirety of the debate :P I will however admit that claim to be false. I was trolling :P ..though that'd still only be one mark against with regards to the trolling side of the resolution, and wouldn't do much to prove that i do so regularly. So as per your definition, i still wouldn't necessarily be a troll. Coherancy and moronics aside. But given as you also presented no brightline or standards for this debate and instead asked the audience to use their own judgement, i'll go so far as to ask that they not hold that act of trollery against me at all, given that it could be taken as me making light of what i quite possibly find a rather insulting situation, and thus wouldn't necessarily point to me truly being a troll :) "The Llama is also trolling." How is the llama trolling!? 3) Quotes "Badger claims to have been talking about Ancap as a barter system. No one uses this definition. This is even after I told him that Ancap would have private currency, and the he should go read the wikipedia article on Anarcho capitalism." I was. And i don't think all too moronically so either. I would personally use capitalism as a word to describe a system of survival by which individuals survive by means of making use of their abilities to exploit others, as opposed to how i'd use socialism to describe a collective effort at survival. In other words, capitalism, to me, means a dog eat dog system of survival, while, socialism, to me, means a dog help dog system of survival. I would not prior to the discussions our pm has generated have used capitalism as a name for complex economics, or at least for a name for complex economics alone. So when you got stuck in a loop of just saying things like "non-agression" and "non-aggression principle" over and over again, i got confused thinking non-aggression to me held no inherent place in capitalism, so what place did it hold for you. I initially jumped to kumbaya stuff and went to lump ye all in with Rob, but i suppose i've seen better of ye now. Some bit anyway. It's just that ye think there'd be no aggressive institution like what ye'd consider majority government? Coherant? I think so. Did i moronically jump to the wrong conclusion? I don't really think so myself :) And either way, I'd still have to be both moronic and incoherant as per the burden my opponent set himself (the definition of retard/troll?). I suppose the audience might think i've been both incoherant and moronic? I probably should've read the wikipedia article in its entirety before saying anything at all on the matter though. I've got like a reading problem? A short attention span or something like that? Not a retardation as per my opponent's definition though! "Furthermore, to think that Rob, a self described communist who uses capitalism as a swear word, is an anarcho capitalist is incredibly stupid." Rob was an anarchist last i remember? One who preached kumbya stuff like i was thinking AnCaps were. "Badger goes on to say that he doesn't think currency requires a government. This is inconsistent with his earlier position I quoted in Round 2: "for there to be currency there'd have to be kingdoms/governments pretty much.." Again, Badger is (intentionally) incoherent." First of all, when i said that i didn't think currency required government, i only meant to say that i'm not absolutely sure that an economic system (or at least a fair one) wouldn't be feasible working in anarchy. You forgot to note what i said immeadiately afterwards, that being, "I just wonder at its compatability with anarchism", which would've made that a whole lot clearer and makes what i'm saying a whole lot less inconsistent with that earlier statement. It is, however, still somewhat inconsistent, but inconsistent on purpose, by reason of me having changed my stance in what i'd consider a coherant and reasonable manner. And still only somewhat consistent in that i still think it a rather large probability that government would just reform from the anarchy by means of there being problems in anarchic economic regulation, regulation to prevent corruption that is, and in that i also couldn't see currency arising short of with some form of government as a precursor. "Badger says he flip-flopped on Rob because the definition of anarcho capitalism changed. No it didn't. Anarcho capitalism means non-aggression. I told him that several times myself, and he has been told endlessly by others. Badger simply had the WRONG definition of anarcho capitalism because he's trolling and/or moronic." I've explained my "flip-flop" as best i can already. See what i mean with the non-aggression stuff? "Lastly, Badger tries to twist his faux pas on minarchism/anarchism. He now says blah blah blah" What faux pas? I was just wondering were you a minarchist as it'd be the only real hope i'd see for the ideology at having any chance of practical success, at least for us common folk. I asked you numerous times were you a minarchist to which you just replied "non-agression!". If you wanted to debate anarcho capitalism you should've just not been a prat and helped me form a resolution. Conclusion: I'm glad i won't have anymore rounds by Sieben to reply to and am not considering myself a troll or a retard. But that's just me. I promise i'll not take any votes personally given fair rfd's :) Anyway, i'm out of characters, so i'll leave Sieben's conclusions as Sieben's conclusions. Cheers for the debate bud :) <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Dance because Pro Popping. I believe that popping is one of the best solo dance styles that one could learn because it teaches the student about body control. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Should illegal immigrants be given pathway to citizenship? because I accept. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with It's time to bring back public duels because Firstly, I should like to extend my thanks to opponent for accepting this challenge, who began his rebuttal by writing: "My opponent has the burdon of proof and his only point was that it would bring entertainment to shopping malls." Actually, I was hoping to reinvigorate town centres (central business districts) by attracting shoppers away from suburban malls by putting on some live entertainment, but anyway, here's my proof that my scheme will work: Tabloid talk shows like Jerry Springer are hugely popular, right? Sports such as boxing and wrestling are hugely popular as well, aren't they? And films and video games that feature extreme violence are also hugely popular. In short, people really, really like heated conflicts - and if they feature blood and guts, so much the better. This is the case today just as it was in the days of the gladiator pits in ancient Rome. It's human nature. True, some Christians might prefer to avert their eyes to marketplace brawls, but not many. After all, the Bible is packed full of acts of extreme violence which, presumably, is one of the reasons it is the world's best-selling book! Now, as far as the fights causing injury to the audience, this, I suppose is possible but life is full of risks. After all, when you see a fight outside a pub, do you cross the street just in case you might get hit by a shard of glass or a splinter from a broken pool cue? Of course not! You go over and join the crowd who are baying for blood. I mean, how many people would watch a cricket match or a baseball game on TV rather than go and see it live - just in case they get hit by a loose ball? I have never heard of the game show "Family Feud" that my opponent referred to, so I Googled it. What a rip-off! There's no action in it all! No wonder I'd never heard of it. I mean, what's that "face-off" nonsense at the beginning all about? "I'll rip your ugly face off, you fat slag" would be better. And If I were the show's producer I'd replace the "Lollipop Tree" with a gun-rack to spice it up a bit more as well. Finally, as I am a sensitive sort of person with a deep appreciation for the delicacy of other people's feelings, I won't comment on my opponent's closing points as they are clearly personal matters. Thank you. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against This is a Poetry Battle because Again, I can't say this is a spontaneous effort. I wrote it on the shores of Kawishiwi Lake at the end of July. Water The vast, glistening expanse Locked in eternal, rhythmic dance. Sky's beautiful, fickle daughter Not gas, not solid, but water. The life-giving liquid of sorrow and joy; Its changing mood and caprices play with us like a toy. An unfirm foundation to our insignificant lives, From St. Ives all the way to Maldives. Titanic, Fitzgerald, how many thousands more Driven and riven by sea on the shoals of death's door? Yet how many battles, heights of human endeavor Have been lost and won on the sea, in the past and forever? Great Atlantic cries. Sweet Gitchi-Gumi sighs. Trackless Pacific shakes and moans. Mediterranean makes kings, Baikal moans. Water. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against IVF Debate because However, transferring 2-3 embryos can cause problems because in several cases multiple births due to conceiving of all 3 embryos at the same time. About 1 in 6 pregnancies result in a multiple birth which is abnormally high because on average in a natural pregnancy there is a 1 in 80 chance of conceiving twins. If two separate embryos are planted in the womb and both embryos conceive, then the fetuses will be non-identical twins. In woman under 35 in 2013, almost 15% that used IVF resulted in multiple births(One at a Time.2016.). In Europe, doctors are prohibited from implanting more than 1 embryo at a time, and in the United States the FDA allows woman over 40 can implant up to 5 at a single time, under 35 no more than 1, and then under 28 no more than two at the most. Although, in the U.S. has been recommended to follow guideline in Europe since the single implant has an equally high conception as planting multiple eggs at one time, proving multiple transfers does no more than just one and is not necessary (WebMD. 2016.). Even though it is not impossible, it is more likely due to number of eggs to conceive twins or triplets from separate embryos making them non-identical and causing a high risk factor for twin to twin transfusion syndrome which can cause serious health risks and deaths(One at a Time.2016.). <EOA>

<BOA> I am against This is not a debate. because Why this is a debate (i) My Opponent concedes to all my points in an attempt to show that this is not a debate because no dispute is happening. The problem with this is that my arguments proved that this was a debate. (ii) Secondly, my opponent states: "I would first like to point out that my opponent is right about everything, except his definition of a debate. Not only did my opponent not provide any sources for this so-called definition, but it is not correct." I think my definition is perfect, and better than all of hers. You have to vote con, my definition is 10 times better. (iii) "My opponent then says that buttons such as "Report this Debate", "Do you like this debate", and "No comments have been posted on this debate" prove that it is a debate. I suppose he's right. He will get no argument from me." Vote Con. (iv) "Notice how, because I have not challenged any of my opponent's points, and I agreed that it IS a debate, and my opponent also thinks it's a debate, it therefore really isn't a debate, because there is no clash." Problem- The resolution is "This is not a debate" you are taking Pro. You can't argue that it is a debate or else your position is self contradicting. (v) " Another thing I would like to point out is that my opponent does not have the following things in his opening argument: a value, contentions, and a criteria. Since these are all crucial parts of a debate, this can't be a debate." Did so. Look closer! (vi) "Everything he says is right." I'm female. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Quote Battle because I think the worst time to have a heart attack is during a game of charades...or a game of fake heart attack. -- Demetri Martin <EOA>

<BOA> I am against This is not a debate. because This is indeed a debate. Pro hasn't defined debate, so I'm going to. Definition of debate: A form of interaction on debate.org that can appear on the first page, not the forums or a privaste message. Heres some evidence: I am shown these things when looking at this page: " Report this Debate" " Do you like this debate?" " This debate has 8 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate , click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page." "No comments have been posted on this debate." " Debating Period" <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Dance because You've made some valid points about the smoothness of the glides and the changes in position being powerful. However, I must say, looking at the video provided you will see that popping also requires a smooth and flowing glide system. This gliding system is the basics (after actual popping of course). You must know how to glide due to the fact that while popping you can't just simply walk around, your movements must be smooth. Since most of the Melbourne Shuffle is centered on gliding I would have to say that your argument is invalid (regarding gliding). You've also said "...it's captivating visual effect on the audience.". Can you honestly watch the video I have provided and say that it does not capture the visual effect of any audience? You've also said "...each glide matching the timing of the bass." When popping you must be able to dance not only to the bass but also to the main synth pattern. You've mentioned that it is a fast paced dance style, Melbourne shuffle. So is popping, if you refer to the video, at the time 1:25 you will see that popping is also faced pace. You've also said "Also, it matches the style of accompanying music (usually hard trance or hardstyle) perfectly..." Are you implying that genre of music is made specifically for Melbourne Shuffle? If you are I ask of you to post a song that I will personally pop to, to show you that it is possible to pop to any genre of music. tl;dr - You can pop to anything, any pace/bpm, requires gliding smoothly, captures attention, speed adjustable, challenge accepted - I will pop to any song. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against The Moral Argument is Sound because Introduction As responses go, I admit to being rather dismayed with Pro’s last round. Much of my case was completely ignored, and the points Pro did address were often contemptuously dismissed without any real engagement. Far from refuting all my points, as he must, I’ll show that Pro has yet to defeat a single criticism of his argument. Justification for P1 As readers will remember, Pro offered 3 justificatory points to justify P1. First, that “Objective moral values are most plausibly based in a maximally great being” I responded: Begging the question - Pro says that I have misunderstood his point, saying that his claim is conditional: “if God . . . exists, then we have a necessary condition for distinguishing moral truths.” Of course, but one cannot then use God to justify P1. But this is exactly what Pro does, saying God is “the standard from which all other moral events, states, etc are judged against;” This is pure assertion, without even a hint at an argument. Pro realises that his earlier justification begged the question, and replaced it with an equally fallacious statement. Pro simply cannot use God to establish P1, as this begs the question, and if he doesn’t beg the question, how else can he say P1 is justified by “a maximally great being”? Second, Pro insists he made an argument regarding a maximally great being , as it is more intuitive for God to “be the standard of moral perfection“ . Not only does this fall foul of my 2 criticisms below, but this again is pure assertion. No argument is given. If Pro means that he can prove God via an ontological-type argument, this is irrelevant to the debate, and he certainly hasn’t provided the argument in any case. Subjective moral values - Pro offers 2 new responses: First, he says that morality is based in God’s essence, not His attitude. The problem here is this does nothing to address my point. If God’s essence (rather than His attitudes) is the foundation for moral values, why would these moral values be any less subjective? Emanating from God’s essence, such values would still be dependent on a person, so the objection stands. Also, Pro himself attacked moral Platonism as leaving “morals floating in an unintelligible way, lacking any adequate foundation” , so his appeal to essences is clearly contrived. Pro’s second remark about God existing subjectively attacks a straw-man. Even granting God’s objective existence would not make morality from His essence any less subjective. Subjective morality usually begins with an objectively existing person, so Pro’s point here is folly. Again, P1 seems necessarily false. Irrelevance - Here, Pro attempts to avoid both the problems I set out here, saying: “it's more plausible that God is necessary for morality.” The problem that the only way to say God is necessary for morality is to present some sort of argument for it (which he hasn't done, or to discount AF morality (which is his second justification). Pro’s first justification (above) is thus insufficient to affirm P1 and therefore irrelevant to the debate. It seems then that Pro’s justification is fallacious, necessarily false and even unable to establish P1. Pro’s second justification was that there were problems with AF morality. Readers will remember I offered 2 responses to this: Atheist moral duties: - account of atheist moral duties - convergence of rational and moral oughts - finitude of life - response to Pro’s EAN - reason to doubt cognitive faculties on theism These 5 points were totally ignored by Pro. Extend argument. As for atheists being dedicated to denying objective morality: What’s the Problem? - I offered 3 points in response to Pro’s claim way back in R2: A) Factually absurd B) Historically inaccurate C) Logically unwarranted Pro still hasn’t responded to C), nor has he responded to my refutation of his claims about A) in R3, and also dropped the point about Nietzsche - his only defence of this justification. Extend argument. All he says about B) is that it deals with “moral epistemology, not ontology.” Is Pro really saying that moral ontology has been neglected by thousands of years by AF morality? This is absurd. Utilitarianism, for example, attempts to ontologically ground morality in things like maximising happiness. There are many such systems, and atheists have defended and developed such accounts for 2 millennia. To say that atheists are dedicated to moral non-realism, one simply has to ignore thousands of years of philosophy. Indeed, Pro even says, “I don't deny Atheists affirm moral truths” This contradicts his claim that atheists must deny moral realism. As such, we can say that Pro’s second justification is unwarranted, false and even denied by Pro himself. Pro’s last justification was that “it's just not obvious that atheism provides as sound a foundation for objective morals”. Arguing from Ignorance - I stress again that it is THIS above justification that argues from ignorance, not P1 as a whole. Pro merely repeats that P1 is amply justified, yet it this justification alone I‘m referring to. Pro is yet to respond to this. Extend argument. Climbing Mt Impossible - Here I argued that as P1 requires that Pro discount all forms of AF morality (i.e. show that it is impossible), his failure to do so means Pro simply can’t affirm P1. Pro gives 2 responses. First he says that I’m appealing to authority. This is utter nonsense. I didn’t say P1 is false because Stephen Law said so (which ironically is Pro’s approach when it comes to Nietzsche), which would be fallacious. I simply cited Law’s criticism. If using a scholar’s insight is fallacious (how could it be), then Pro’s own case would crumble, as he quotes extensively from Taylor for example, without commentary of his own. Therefore, his complaint here is wholly contrived and totally wrong. Lastly, Law’s modest point is basically to state what P1 already explicitly states. I’m just showing how P1 creates a challenge Pro can’t ever overcome. Pro then says he has defeated AF morality. This again is pure fantasy. Pro hasn’t even mentioned most AF systems (e.g. deontology), and hasn’t refuted any, with even AMP (which he promised to refute in this round) not only ignored, but actually semi-adopted by Pro himself. Pro says that his EAN refutes most AF morality. There are 2 problems with this. First, Pro can’t use the EAN as a silver bullet when I have criticised it on 2 counts and he is yet to respond. Second, EAN is irrelevant. Even if naturalistic evolution meant that all beliefs on atheism (including moral ones) were irrational, it does not follow that objective morals don’t exist. Such a statement commits the genetic fallacy (14). As such, P1 is completely without justification and almost certainly false. Justification for P2 Moral mirror - The whole point about the this objection was to show that the atheist can mirror Pro’s justification for objective moral values (P2). If Pro wants to smash the mirror, as it were, he inevitably shatters his own case for P2, as my case is simply a reflection of his. Pro initially said: “there's no more reason to deny moral objectivity than there is to deny the physical world” (R2) Obviously, if Pro can substantiate his belief in morality like this, why can’t I? This is why I mirrored his case to account for morality. He now criticises this approach, saying my approach assumes “the realm of objective morals require no further explanation” , and that it “simply asserts they’re objective“ . Obviously, Pro doesn’t realise here these are his problems. All I did was to mirror his approach. If he now says that my justification for objective morality is flawed, he has unwittingly destroyed P2 of his own argument! So inept is Pro's argument that he must actually provide an account of AF morality to establish P2 (to avoid question-begging), which actually falsifies P1! Sources 14. http://www.logicalfallacies.info... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against atheism is disbelief, disbelief, is belief to the contrary of the positive theistic assertion because Sure, I will accept your challenge. You do realize this will be a battle regarding a definition and semantics, right? Let's begin with the word "Disbelief", as this is the root of the misunderstanding. I'll just start with some dictionary references... Disbelief : Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real. [1] Disbelief : A feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real. [2] Disbelief : The inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true. [3] [1] Oxford Dictionary - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] Merriam-Webster - http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] Dictionary.com - http://dictionary.reference.com... Since we have five rounds to get through this, let's start small. Do you accept these definitions from official sources that all convey the same basic meaning? If not, please state any specific problems. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Saitama is stronger than Goku. because advancing <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Does God Exist? because Yes, and God the sculpture was a religous sculpture. I have proved that God does exist. Vote Pro. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Drugs should be legalized in the United States because 1. Drug Use A. Deterrence Con acknowledges that the criminalization of drugs isn't a deterrence for most people. Why implement a counter-productive policy that's ineffective by my opponent's own admission? Next Con notes that his statistic isn't referring only to HS seniors but those aged 12 - 17. My point still stands considering it's limiting the statistic to those no older than 17, when many people don't smoke pot until after HS. Nevertheless I concede my mistake; I also provided the statistic for HS seniors (Con's mistake confused me). However, my point still stands with the right general figure. My argument was that harsher penalties do not necessarily lead to a decrease in drug abuse. Con mentioned that harsher punishments for marijuana crimes were enacted in 1992. A NESARC study of over 43,000 people found "Overall, marijuana abuse or dependence rose by 22 percent from 1992 to 2002" [33]. Con then advocates "dropping my source" since it's "heavily predicated on teens voluntarily reporting marijuana use." By that logic, you should also drop Con's entire argument and all of his statistics pertaining to teenage marijuana use. Since that's the only demographic he's talked about thus far, that would be ALL of his statistics (reminder: he cannot make any new arguments in the last round considering I cannot respond). B. Availability Con's argument was that higher availability of drugs would result in a plethora of problems. On the contrary I provided evidence that legalizing drugs in other places led to less crime, violence, disease and death as a result of these policies. Con did not respond to this, and instead mentioned that only those over 25 received free heroin from the government, etc. That might be true, but has nothing to do with my point: that just because legal drugs are available doesn't mean society will come crashing down. In fact many see positive results. I never said that we shouldn't implement policies in a similar fashion to the other successful models I mentioned, so Con's rebuttal is negated. 2. Impacts A. Financial Burden First, I pointed out that we live in a country which socializes costs. Welfare recipients are also a financial burden yet are still entitled to their personal liberties just as drug users are despite their burden. Second, get rid of socialized medicine and this problem becomes obsolete. Third, you can heavily tax drugs to compensate for the cost, just as the government does with cigarettes for the same reason [34]. Moreover, Con tries to downplay my point insisting that more people get sick from drugs than anything else. However, the number one leading cause of death in the U.S. is heart disease [35]. Over 34% of Americans are overweight and more than 33% are obese [36]. This means that people's personal choices very much pertain to their medical needs, and the system does not discriminate. You can either rectify the system to where this burden isn't an issue, or you can acknowledge that it's not problematic to our current system. Finally and most important on this point, Con completely ignored the argument from economist Jeffrey Miron that legalizing drugs would inject 78.6 billion dollars into the U.S. economy. B. Hurting Families Extend my arguments; this has nothing to do with the government. C. Work Productivity Con never details what specific illegal drugs the statistic is referring to so extend that point. Also extend my point that an employer can fire a bad employee or one in violation of their contract. D. Harm I mentioned that the government cannot restrict personal liberties on the basis that people MIGHT abuse them. Con says the government should take protective measures to ensure they don't cause harm to begin with. By that logic, we should criminalize knives because people MIGHT use one to commit a crime. It's obvious we cannot run a functional legal system that way. Con never argued against my point and instead just stated his counter-point - not why his point is preferable. There's nothing for me to respond to. 3. Role of Government Con says the govt. should interfere because of the financial and harmful burden drug users place on society. Extend my 2A - 2C points. 4. Impact of the WOD A. The WOD Term Con says he would not advocate a WOD. In other words he would do nothing to prevent the growing, transport, use, confiscation or penalty for drugs? That's what the WOD refers to. Now I can use Con's own arguments against him. In point 1A he talked about the importance of deterrence. How can he push deterrence as an important facet of criminalizing drugs, but suggest he'd make no effort to wage a war on drugs to deter use? At best this is a hypocritical contention depicting flawed reasoning on my opponent's part; at worst it's a completely useless objection that doesn't pertain to my arguments. B. Black Market Con completely drops this huge contention of mine despite me repeating it several times in a cohesive manner. It's unfair to have to waste character space explaining it again. Please extend all of my arguments, particularly the quote by source 24 from the last round. The gist of it is that a black market exists for drugs due to prohibition that creates devastating repercussions. Such a market would not exist to anywhere near this extent if drugs were decriminalized. Con's response has been that a market would exist for underage users (which I explained is pretty insignificant), and that "the cartels have access to over half of the market even if you affirm." I have no idea what this is referring to or why there would be cartels in the first place; Con hasn't explained as such. Con also dropped my point about the CIA/govt. corruption. C. Drug Rates N/A D. Kids and Prison Extend my argument about drug use not violating other people's rights directly. Not only is Con's "taxation without representation" argument not pertinent, but we DO have government representation (even if it's crappy). Also, Con's counter-example ones again mentions stealing which I've explained repeatedly is a violation of another's right to their property. E. Racism Con repeats that racism exists all over the justice system. I concur, but explained that drug policy in particular goes out of its way to disenfranchise a particular race by focusing on particular suspects and communities in a significantly disproportionate way. This is particularly pertinent due to the fact that once again drug use is a victimless "crime" unlike other offenses. F. Medical Benefits First, you'll notice that Con never denied any of the medical uses I've cited and sourced as being proven to work. Instead, he presents possible side effects or negatives of using certain drugs. This is no different then how every single legal drug advertised on television comes with an extensive list of possible negative side-effects. Still they're proven to have possible positive uses just as illegal drugs can, which means Con's rebuttal negates nothing. I can also provide more proof of positive medical uses [37, 38, 39, 40]. Further, scientists have ranked the most dangerous drugs based on harm to self and harm on others. Alcohol which is legal scored as the most dangerous drug - even above heroin and crack [41]. Professor David Nutt, Britain's former chief drug policy adviser reports that riding a horse is more dangerous than taking ecstasy [42]. Con says my links proving exaggerated dangers of drugs are broken; every single one of them works for me. Con also attributes a false contradiction to me regarding heroin's addictiveness. Finally, he says people can go to rehab for heroin even with drugs criminalized. My point was that rehabilitation is more important and useful than prison; people should be treated like addicts and not criminals when addressing their drug problem. Thanks for this debate, Con. Sources: http://www.debate.org... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Charities should be forced to prove where their money is actually going. because Pro has failed to respond so i'll wait and see if he comes back. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Chrisitians should not celebrate halloween because we should kill the man who wronged us with kindness??? I'm sorry but you miss interpreted that metaphor, to which I bring up another, when one is killed, who kills the man who killed him, but than who kills the man who kills the man who killed the man and so on? The bible does say to dink but not be drunk, but alcohol can cause birth defects in pregnant women. But dude, times have changed, yea Halloween has a bad past, but so do people! should we not celebrate ourselves? And you give all those verses, yea evil is bad and should be avoided at all costs, but Halloween is not evil! may point out the argument that I brought up before with the preschool kids, that you ignored, If you go to a preschool, or elementary school and ask "why did you do Halloween?" and truth be told, I bet not one of those kids would say "because by mommy worships the devil, and she was practising witch craft" no, they all would say something like "I like to dress up and get candy." those little people aren't practising with or worshiping demons or practising witch craft! no one throws party's for Halloween because of its past but it is for wee little people to dress up an get candy and have fun! Not every thing has the perfect past, Halloween, and nascar are just two, but I am sure many more are there, you just pointed out Halloween, we still like them, event though they are wrong, and to think you want to get rid of the one that brings joy to the little people who are sad that they just started the 16 year journey through school? Halloween is not evil anymore, just like a radioactive mound that was closed to the public for twenty years, its better now, the radiation is gone and the evil is gone in Halloween. Halloween should be celebrated by Christians, but not as what you think it is because it isn't that. How dare you literally take candy form Babies, they are Christian babes, innocent Christian babies that just dress up as pumpkins and butterflies, who have fun and get candy, that they most likely won't eat, but it is also exercise. Gees lay off. It isn't that bad, have I not made myself clear? I wish I could debate more on this but it is only a two round debate. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against I will not contradict myself. because Thanks again to my opponent for an enjoyable and fun game/debate. ------------------ I contend that my opponent has contradicted himself numerous times in this debate. Some of my allegations of contradiction he has rebutted on a semantic level, others he chooses to ignore completely. I would like to point out that in several cases Pro felt the need to clarify what the question meant before answering. Eg: Round 1, Q. 4: "Under certain conditions...." R. 1, Q. 6: "Only if you can't...." R. 1, Q. 7: "If by affirmative action you mean..." I contend that in other cases where Pro just answered "yes" or "no" this was because there was no room for misinterpretation, or for unintentional misinterpretation anyway and when, in subsequent rounds, my opponent realised he had contradicted himself he then went back and found alternative interpretations of these questions. In most cases these semantic arguments hold little water or still represent a contradiction and I will examine each instance in this final round. ----------------------------- Firstly however, I will address the allegations of contradiction which my opponent has simply ignored. As this is the final round and my opponent posted much less than the character limit in much less than the available time, I can only assume that he concedes on every one of these points. 1. I stated in the last round that answering "yes" to the questions: "Do you agree with Karl Marx on anything" and particularly the question: "Are you sure you don't agree with Karl Marx on anything at all?" should cover anyone with the name of Karl Marx, be they philosopher, composer or anyone else. My opponent chose not to dispute this. 2. When I suggested that his claim that he originally thought I was talking about the composer was untrue, he did not dispute this either. 3. I said: "to say you disagree completely with ANY individual on all issues is a certain contradiction." My opponent gave no response. 4. I made inferences that because of KM-C's political affiliations he would have agreed with my opponent on several specific issues, presumably because this is one of the few facts about KM-C that could easily be sourced, my opponent did not include it in his request for sources (which according to my opponent's rules are irrelevant in this debate anyway), as he doesn't dispute this, I can only assume he admits the contradiction. 5. I said that: "A true Christian who believes the Bible is a good basis for morality would of course be interested in the most accurate translation possible of the original Hebrew text inspired by God." My opponent responded: "I've always used the translation "Thou shalt not murder," As he does not dispute what I said this seems to be accepting that he is not a "true Christian who believes the Bible is a good basis for morality", therefore an additional contradiction. It is a shame that my opponent did not take the opportunity to rebut any of these points made in previous rounds as I would have enjoyed providing a counter-rebuttal. I can only assume that the reason he ignored these was because he figured he had lost already and therefore conceded them, this does seem somewhat out of character though. --------------------- Okay, so on to the points that my opponent did decide to respond to: 1. Karl Marx the composer. Bear in mind that I have proved this particular issue is actually irrelevant to whether my opponent's answers to the Karl Marx questions represented a contradiction. I am pursuing this point to humour my opponent and because it is challenging and fun. As Pro states: "KM-C, it is extremely difficult to find info about him". This is true and no, I can't find direct evidence of his religious or scientific opinions, however they are strongly inferred by his body of compositions that set music to sacred texts and the fact that he studied natural science in Munich in the early twentieth century. Besides, sources are irrelevant according to the rules put in place by my opponent. Furthermore, my opponent is after all Pro and the instigator so should have at least an equal burden of proof to Con and has failed to prove whatsoever that he disagrees with K-SM on anything, let alone everything. Similarly, while it is indeed possible that KM-C did not have a strong opinion on abortion, my opponent has made no effort to prove this. I think it is highly unlikely that he would not agree with ONE of the positions my opponent has affirmed. (Pro-life and/or abort if the mother will die). 2. Kill/Murder. My opponent writes: "it seems as if the work can be used with only the intention of meaning "murder," based on your source." Assuming he meant to type 'word' rather than 'work' (although K is a long way from D on my keyboard) this still makes little sense and I can only assume that Pro did not read the source properly. This is the word that appears in the ten commandments: Transliterated Word Ratsach Phonetic Spelling raw-tsakh' Verb Definition 1. to murder, slay, kill [ as in execution ] 1. (Qal) to murder, slay 1. premeditated [ as in execution ] 2. accidental 3. as avenger [ as in execution ] 4. slayer (intentional) (participle) [ as in executioner ] 2. (Niphal) to be slain [ as in executed ] 3. (Piel) 1. to murder, assassinate 2. murderer, assassin (participle)(subst) 4. (Pual) to be killed http://www.biblestudytools.com... ------ Below is the word that actually means just murder and does NOT appear in the ten commandments: Transliterated Word Harag Phonetic Spelling haw-rag' Verb Definition 1. to kill, slay, murder, destroy, murderer, slayer, out of hand 1. (Qal) 1. to kill, slay 2. to destroy, ruin http://www.biblestudytools.com... 3. "there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood" ? This makes no sense to me, there is forgiveness without bloodshed. 4. If my opponent wished to apply his position of Pro-life to abortion alone then he really should have specified it in his answers as he did with various limitations and conditions in so many other cases. Surely the living are less innocent and more guilty than the unborn. 5. Humanity. My opponent's rebuttal merely reaffirms his previous argument, he ignores the fact that Jesus was susceptible to sin so still human even under his uncommon definition and does not contend the many 'true Christians' who believe Jesus took full human form. ---------------------------- So, a veritable web of contradictions has been spun by my opponent. According to what my opponent has written in this debate: He agrees with all people called Karl Marx on many things although he claims not to agree with any of them on anything. He promotes life and death. He believes the guilty have more right to life than the innocent but that we should execute them anyway. He believes the Bible is a good source of morality but disagrees with one of it's principle codes. Etc, etc further contradictions listed at length above. Thanks very much to readers, voters and my opponent. ------------ English Noun: thankyou (plural thankyous) 1. Alternative spelling of thank you. http://en.wiktionary.org... ------------ (Mozilla spellcheck has no problem with it either.) Thankyou. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against IVF Debate because Currently for the treatment of IVF, it is typically not very successful as there is a a twenty-five percent chance of a live birth. Moreover, patients utilizing the IVF treatments have to undergo more than one cycle of treatment as the first round may not be effective due to poor implantation and unsuccessful egg fertilization. Because ovaries are stimulated to produce more than one egg, the hormones and drugs used can lead to the syndrome of ovarian hyper-stimulation hormone due to an imbalance of the normal hormone FSH (follicle stimulating hormone). This results in dark urine rapid weight gain, persistent nausea and vomiting, shortness of breath, and decreased urination. Thus, the insertion of multiple eggs can have a negative impact on the patient. "The Advantages and Disadvantages of IVF." The UK's Pioneering Fertility Clinics. Createfertility. Web. 27 Apr. 2016. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Is the foundation for Morality: Natural or Supernatural? because I accept, I will await the Pro's opening arguments. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against The ACLU is Damaging the our Nation. because The ACLU's purpose is to defend the American people's Constituational rights. In the cases that you presented ACLU is simply trying to ensure that your and my Bill of Rights is kept secure. Of course there are people that have different views from each other and will condemn the side ACLU has taken for the sake of our rights. Of course they are biased to the Liberal side, but that does not mean they are "defending the wrong people." Nobody has the right to say who is right or wrong in many of the touchy subjects the ACLU takes on despite the criticism it knows it will be hit with. Furthermore it doesn't make sense to say that the ACLU "defends the rights of some,but attacks the rights of others." HOW can they not offend some people?? no matter what you do in life there will always be someone that disagrees with you. You may want to buy a blue car but your girlfriend wants a red one, so clearly one of you will feel like your "rights were violated" in the end. Also, what do you expect? a Conservative organization would never defend the rights of gays and lesbians. That is something a Liberal would do, so it isn't an argument to say they are dangerous because they have a "strong liberal agenda." Now,on your arguments dealing with NAMBLA, I agree with you. How grown men can form a romantic relationship with some teenager is a sickening thought to me. Despite this, you and I have no right to bar these people from having a relationship if they truly like each other. The ACLU came to NAMBLA's defense because they wanted to stand-up for the Constituational rights of the members of NAMBLA. I dont know about this rape case you are talking about, but it was definitely NOT encouraged by NAMBLA. On their website it states: "We condemn sexual abuse and all forms of coercion. Freely-chosen relationships differ from unwanted sex. Present laws, which focus only on the age of the participants, ignore the quality of their relationships. We know that differences in age do not preclude mutual, loving interaction between persons." They simply want to not be discriminated for their choice of relationships. It is not our call to say who they ahve to love, it is the U.S. Constitution's call. This is where the ACLU comes in to defend the underdogs for the sake of honoring our Constitution. The Boy scouts case is similar, the ACLU is only trying to defend the rights of homosexuals. If the Boy Scouts forces gays to hide their sexuality, then the ACLU should definitely step in. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with The O Administration. Broken promises? Lies? Neglect? Or the best ever? because He personally gives candy to children. You have no proof welfare is for the lazy. What about those who canntot find work? Him being black does scientifically increase coolness. He is young and black just look at him <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Social Security money going to the government? because In essence, I, like most people would agree with my opponent's argument. After all, it's my money, I earned it, it should be up to me how I spend it, right? That, as my opponent suggested is "common sense". The trouble is, being naturally self-interested, I would spend that money on myself rather than teachers, doctors , civil engineers, soldiers or police officers or whatever. Of course all of these public servants are vital, even though I might not realise until I really need them, which is why we must invest in them in advance through our taxes. Thanks to my opponent for an interesting debate. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Genetically "enhancing" babies (Designer Babies) because I agree with the statement by our 31 st US president Herbert Hoover that says “Children are our most valuable resource” Which is why I will be upholding the thesis today that “The human body is not perfect. Some are born with inherent defects and others break down before their time is due. Science has the potential to make correct these complications by modifying how humans are made. If we can alter their health for the betterment of society we have the moral obligation to do so.” Contention 1: Human Rights Abused Now let’s say as of normal means a woman conceived a child with her husband. Now this woman has some genetic malfunction and will be passing her ailment down to her child as of their birth, we have a remedy to help this child so that it will not receive the genetic malfunction by altering their genes, but we cannot because there is a law in place not allowing the genetic makeup of this child to be redesigned. As we see in Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights it says “Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.” ( http://www.un.org... ) We see in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that even this unborn child has the rights to medical treatment and since this medical treatment is possible, it would be a abuse on the child’s basic human rights to withhold this treatment. For the reason of human rights abused vote Affirmative. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed t because Since this is the current NFL LD topic, I would like to go by NFL LD rules for this round. You can find the rules at http://www.nflonline.org... Civil Rights Activist Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity." I happen to agree with this quote, therefore I stand in affirmation of the resolution; Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. Definitions Ought- Used to indicate moral obligation or duty. (American Heritage Dictionary) Submit- To yield or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority of another. (American Heritage Dictionary) Jurisdiction- The extent of authority or control. (American Heritage Dictionary) International Court- A court extending across or transcending national boundaries. (American Heritage Dictionary) Crimes against Humanity- Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated. (Nuremberg Charter) Value and Value Criterion My value for this round will be justice. Justice is the principle of moral rightness, and equality. This is the definition of Justice because a variety of sources including the United Nations use this definition. This means that equality and fairness must be what we are trying to achieve over anything else. This must be the case, since we are dealing with a court, where the principles of justice apply. Second, since the resolution is defined in terms of the word ought, which implies moral obligation or duty. This falls again under the principles of justice. Justice according to John Rawls is "the first and most important virtue of social institutions." This applies to both the United States, and the International Court. My value criterion for this round will be the Protection of Freedoms and Liberties. This means protecting Freedoms and Liberties for those who deserve it, and from those who do not. This should be the value criterion for this round because the resolution asks us what we ought to do, and we ought to protect freedoms and liberties morally. This measures justice because in order to have moral rightness and fairness we must protect freedoms and liberties we are due. It again relates to moral rightness as Thomas R. Dye, Director of Policy Studies said in 1990, "Human beings cannot choose between right and wrong if they cannot choose at all. Thus freedom is essential to a moral life." This shows again how my value criterion measures my value, and how Freedoms and Liberties are necessary for Justice. Contention One: The international court not the United States better protects freedoms and liberties The international court not the United States better protects freedoms and liberties in cases of crimes against humanity. First of all, the United States does a poor job in these cases, and second of all, the international court will better protect freedoms and liberties. Contention One A: The United States has done a bad job in protecting freedoms and liberties in cases of crimes against humanity In cases of crimes against humanity the United States will not do a better job than an international court. The United States has shown on numerous occasions, in cases of crimes against humanity, that they will not do an adequate job protecting freedoms and liberties. First of all, in the case of Japanese internment after Pearl Harbor, the United States violated the freedoms of many legal Japanese immigrants. The Pearl Harbor attack falls under the case of crimes against humanity, and the United States punishment violated freedoms and liberties. The United States denied these citizens their freedom by imprisoning them in camps without being allowed to leave. They did it in the hopes of protecting society, and in supposedly punishing those who were responsible for the Pearl Harbor attacks. They felt that these Japanese immigrants were all spies, and responsible for the attacks. The United States did this again recently in the giving of approval to CIA operatives to water board prisoners. They felt these prisoners were responsible for crimes against humanity in Iraq, and were threats to the United States citizens. However, they imprisoned them without setting a trial and violated their basic liberties by torturing them. Their responses to crimes against humanity show that the United States cannot protect freedoms and liberties. In turn, the United States cannot achieve Justice by themselves in these cases. Contention One B: An international court does a better job of protecting liberties and freedoms in the cases of crimes against humanity In cases of crimes against humanity, an international court will do a better job of protecting liberties and freedoms. This will lead to the achievement of Justice. Over the years, international law has become more effective. Michael P. Scharf (J.D.) in Law and Contemporary Problems in 2001 stated, "Customary international law on the definition and scope of war crimes and crimes against humanity has been clarified and crystallized." He further states the fact that international law will be effective, and will help the court punish effectively. As well, Madeline Morris (J.D.) in Law and Contemporary Problems in 2001 stated, "Where that international court is controlled by a large number of states, the various states parties may provide checks and balances against abuses being perpetrated in the interests of one state or a small group of states." This shows that the court will in fact have appropriate measures to prevent abuses. This leads to a better protection of freedoms and liberties. Therefore, by joining the international court, the United States and its' citizens will have its' freedoms and liberties protected. This will lead to Justice. Contention Two: The international court has sufficient legal safeguards The international court has sufficient legal safeguards, which will increase the protection of freedoms and liberties. First of all, the current international court in the ICC has provided the sixth amendment right of confronting witnesses of the prosecution, by allowing the right to "examine such witnesses". As well, according to the Rome Statute the defendants are allowed "to be tried without undue delay." This means they still have the right to a speedy trial as well. Finally, according to Adrian T. Delmont (Author) of the Journal of Legislation in 2001 said, "Before the prosecutor could begin an investigation she must present her intentions, and supporting evidence, to the Pre-Trial Chamber of the ICC." This means that the prosecutor cannot start any investigation without evidence. All these safeguards and the non-bias which has been shown previously, allow the ICC and future international courts to protect freedoms and liberties effectively. Even though it may not contain all rights of the constitution, the constitution will still not apply to those U.S citizens who commit crimes against humanity abroad, or foreigners committing crimes against humanity on U.S. soil. As well, we can only assume that international courts will improve as time goes on, then it will always have these sufficient legal safeguards. This shows how an international court protects freedoms and liberties. Therefore, it will achieve Justice as well. I wish good luck to whoever takes this debate. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, it makes a sound. because This debate is merely on the fact that if a tree falls in a forest, excluding all vacuums, it will made a sound, even if no one is there to hear it. I won't begin this debate with a huge argument about the physics behind it, but just because the sound of the fall was not detected, does not mean that no sound was created. Thank you and good luck! :) <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Jesus Existed as a Historical Person who Started the Christian Movement because Response to Con's rebuttal from round 1 con't: "believers of all faiths have died rather than "confess their lies." Not for an event they made up. If the apostles had invented Jesus they wouldn't be willing to die and be persecuted for this lie. Early Christians most assuredly would have been in a position to know whether Jesus actually existed or not. Just as much as we living in modern times, ancient people kept records, wrote things down, and tracked information faithfully. In Nero's time eyewitness of Christ would still be alive. Not even their enemies claimed Jesus was a myth. "Josephus... makes no mention of them [Jerusalem Council in Acts and explosion of Christianity], nor do any other contemporary accounts." McDowell observes how some scholars assumed that Luke's use of the word 'politarchs' (17:6), as a title for civil authorities in Thessalonica was thought to be an inaccurate description since the word was not known to exist in classical literature. However, more recent discoveries have shown Luke to be perfectly accurate in his use of this word, since some nineteen inscriptions were discovered that make use of the title, five of which are used in specific reference to Thessalonica. (J. McDowell, Christianity: A Ready Defence (San Bernardino: Here's Life Publishers Inc., 1991), 111; Ibid) It may just be a matter of time before other things like the Jerusalem council find more historical verification. Wikipedia says: "Passages corroborated by historical evidence in Acts is considered consistently accurate with regard to specific details of its 1st century environment, specifically with regard to titles of officials, administrative divisions, town assemblies, administrative affairs associated with the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, and synchronization of historical details,[24] including:... Felix and Festus are correctly called procurators of Judea. Acts correctly refers to Cornelius as centurion and to Claudius Lysias as a tribune (Acts 21:31, 23:36) The title proconsul (anthypathos) is correctly used for the governors of the two senatorial provinces named in Acts (Acts 13:7-8, Acts 18:12) Inscriptions speak about the prohibition against the Gentiles in the inner areas of the Temple, as Acts 21:27-36 presupposes;...The function of town assemblies in the operation of a city's business is described accurately in Acts 19: 29-41; Roman soldiers were permanently stationed in the tower of Antionia with the responsibility of watching for and suppressing any disturbances at the festivals of the Jew; to reach the affected area they would have to come down a flight of steps into temple precincts, as noted by Acts 21:31-37" So Acts is quite reliable historically. Con seems to be saying that if Josephus' doesn't mention an event, it therefore didn't happen. Says who that the man didn't have his reasons for not including it? No historical work can be exhaustive anyway. "If this event were so known, including 500 witnesses supposedly witnessing Jesus resurrected in Jesus, it seems far more accounts would be available." Virtually everything we know about the Peloponnesian war comes from his Thucydides' history. We have more accounts of Jesus existence in the Gospels, church fathers, and non-Christian historians than we do for the Peloponnesian War. Take away Thucydides and we have very little information on the war, take away Matthew and we still have the whole Gospel from other sources. "Using the New Testament to prove itself is not a good argument, especially when it disagrees with itself, as shown above in my examples." Con provided no examples. No NT quotes showing contradiction. I look forward to seeing them. Also, contradictions occur in all works of antiquity, this isn't unusual. There are many contradictions between survivors' accounts of the titanic sinking, and President Kennedy's assasinaiton, doesn't mean kennedy and the Titanic didn't exist or that the events didn't happen. The "anonymity" of the Gospels authors is something that many skeptics claim but they never explain to us how their arguments would work if applied equally to secular ancient documents whose authenticity and authorship is never (or is no longer) questioned, but are every bit as "anonymous" in the same sense that the Gospels are. The Gospel authors nowhere name themselves in their texts, but this applies equally to numerous other ancient documents, such as Tacitus' Annals. Authorial attributions are found not in the text proper, but in titles, just like the Gospels. Critics may claim that these were added later to the Gospels, but they need to provide textual evidence of this (i.e., an obvious copy of Matthew with no title attribution to Matthew, and dated earlier or early enough to suggest that it was not simply a late, or an accidental ommission), and at any rate, why is it not supposed that the titles were added later to the secular works as well? "they have been dated to generations after Jesus" Not true; 1 Tim 5:17-18 quotes Luke 10:7. Since Paul wrote to Timothy around 61-64 CE, Luke must be written before. Paul calls it Scripture and assumes the congregation is familiar with it. Luke must have been written early enough to gain wide acceptance. 1 Cor 15:3-7 say that the Scriptures discuss Jesus' third day resurrection and appearance. This is nowhere in the OT, so Paul must have meant some of the Gospels. 1 Cor is dated 55 CE, pushing Luke and other Gospels back to at least the 40s CE. Jesus died in the 30s, this puts the Gospels in the same generation of witnesses to Jesus' life. Response to Con's counter rebuttal in round 2: The term "Christian" may or may not have been well known in Nero's reign, but to show that he means not all the Jews, but specifically the disciples of Jesus, Tacitus calls them Christians. Tacitus doesn't claim that this is what they were called back in Nero's time. When a book on black history says that "the first Africans migrated from the Nile Vally in X BC," it isn't saying they were known as Africans during their first migration to populate the world. It is simply using a modern word to identify an ancient people. Further, even if the term were unknown to most people, it doesn't prove Nero couldn't have knowledge of it. Con is assuming that what is unknown to the maority is unknown to all! When most thought the earth was the centre of the cosmos Galileo knew it revolved around the sun. Acts 11:26 shows the term was indeed used in Nero's time. "In any case, the Gospel of Peter has been dated to the mid-2nd century." The letter of Polycarp written about A.D.110 shows complete familiarity with 1 Peter. (Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, chap 1-2; Ecclesiastical History 3:39.17; 4.14.19) His contemporary Papias quotes from and alludes to it in his Letter to the Philippians (see, for example: 1.3 = 1 Pet 1:8, 12; and 2.1 = 1 Pet 1:13, 21) The Epistle of Barnabas, probably as old as A.D.98 or older, quotes 1 Pet. 2:5. Again, it seems certain that the Epistle is quoted, though not by name, in the Epistle of Clement (1 Clement vol.1, p.13; 1 Pet 5:5) of Rome, A.D.95. So it had to exist before the mid-2nd century. The letter's authority in the early church implies that it was written by an authoritative figure, such as Peter. The persecution in 1 Peter fits Nero's time. "Pliny the Younger made his first alleged reference to Christians in 112 AD, long after the date in contention." I used Pliny, not as proof Jesus existed, but to back up that the word "Christian" was used in Tacitus' time, which you admitted and corrected your argument. Ancient people kept records, wrote things down, and tracked information faithfully . They had libraries, government records and records from religious authorities. Pliny could have known from such such sources. If modern historians can find out what happened 1000 years ago, Pliny can know what occured just 58 yeaars before him. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Objective Beauty Exists because Alright, well here we go. I will let you post your argument now, and I will refute next round. Good luck! It's no easy task arguing a concept no philosopher, psychologist, nor physicist has ever been able to convincingly prove! But good luck nonetheless. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against 'facts' are not objective because To begin, I would like to thank my opponent for this opportunity and look forward to the debate. As con it will be my job to prove that facts are objective, which means (in a nutshell) that they are unaffected by an individual's personal opinions. First off, I will present my definition of a fact. As for objective, I will use the same as my opponent, mainly the third definition. fact- verified information about past or present circumstances or events which are presented as objective reality. In science, meaning a verifiable observation. Now on to my arguments: 1. Lets say that I want to touch the ceiling and I think that I am too short. Just because I think I'm too short doesn't mean that I can't touch the ceiling, I could perhaps use a ladder to do so. The FACT is that I CAN touch the ceiling. This is objective because I CAN touch the ceiling, aside from my personal opinions that I am too short. 2. My definition of a fact talks about information in the PAST or PRESENT, nowhere does it say anything about the future. Also, facts are created. My opponent recalls the time when the Earth was thought to be the center of the universe. This was a fact because it was based on what they knew at that time, and this was not affected by anyone's opinions because it was all they knew. Once a new FACT was known (the sun is the center), it made the other fact false, or not a fact anymore. This wasn't due to someone's opinions, but an advancement in technology, therefore it is still objective. 3. Carrying over from point two a bit is the fact that most of my opponents points, if not all of them, are talking about changes due to new knowledge, which I refuted and explained in my second point. These changes are NOT due to any individual's personal opinions, and are not affected by them, so they are all objective. I think what I have said in the past three points covers just about everything stated by opponent and for this reason I'll stop here. Also, I hope what I have said is clear and understandable by the readers so that it will be an enjoyable and close debate for them to vote on. Lastly, I thank my opponent for this debate opportunity and wish him the best of luck. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Star gate better then star wars because First of all nothing can destroy a light saber. The blaster rifle can blast through anything and it just bounces off. So your first argument is invalid. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Should Gay Marriage be legal because Marriage is an institution of the Church, and should remain such. The government ought assign the status of civil union to any married couple, or any couple wishing to become married. Further, since any sort of marriage is legal, my opponent is arguing the status quo. As my case has gone unrefuted, please extend. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against only organ donors should be allowed organ transplants, for the most part because it goes both ways it unfair for only people who are organ donors to get the organ when the person die's than so body on the streets no home and no money to not get the organ that is inequality <EOA>

<BOA> I am against x-x/=0 because "I didn't reply because you used the wrong logic, therefore making it impossible to make my point. Vote for whoever you choose, I don't really care, nether of us won, my opponent made totally irrelevant arguments." I made no irrelevant or illogical arguments. My opponent laid out a set of equations which apparently proved that (x - x) doesn't always have to equal zero. My opponent's equations used infinity as though it were a real number, which is a basic mathematics fail. I provided links to show that my opponent's equations broke the laws of mathematics and were therefore invalid, and he failed to rebut. Vote CON. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Undertaker could defeat spongebob because "let me clear some things up. The fight is on land at Wreastlemania. Spongebob can breath on land just like in the movie." As shown in several movies, Spongebob cannot stay outside of water for a long time, or he will dry up. The fact that my opponent did not set this rule on his first argument, simply means that it will be completely unfair to the debate and to my self to change up every rule. My setting should be seen over that of my opponent's as unlike my opponent, my setting was defined on my first constructive speech. I merely filled up a gap my opponent forgot to fill. "1. I can't use youtube due to internete blocking at school and limet of internet at home so I can't use youtube." Understood, as from this point on, I will not use YouTube. " spongebob would be like an ant still easy to kill when there is several" Like I explained earlier, Spongebob can change the size and ability of his body in mere hours. He could also do this through the simply absorption of water. Since the fight will be held underwater, The size in which Spongebob takes up is unpredictable. "spongebob was only able to absorb the hits: nothing on choke slams and tomb stones" Choke: exactly what will this achieve? Since Spongebob is able to split even scatter himself into multiple bodies, he can easily split his bottom self to create a new Spongebob completely independent from its original. Did i mention instant regeneration? Its is another skill Spongebob posses. Slam: kinda the same with punches, he can easily absorb the force from the slam. If he is pinned down, he can liquefy himself like he has done multiple times to escape his grasp. Tomb stones: Spongebob has been hit by a car, he has fell off multiple cliff, stung by jelly fish, and yes even we shan't forget the episode where the people of bikini bottom harassed his internal organs by punching his lungs, jumping of his brain e.t.c. I am pretty sure a tomb stone is noting new to his inventory of pains. ". Undertaker is 19-0 at Wrestlemania and he won't loose to Spongebob." Exactly how does this finalize his win against Spongebob? ". Undertaker has been in Hell in a Cell, Elimination Chamber, Royal Rumble, Coffin Match, Burried Alive, and even hardcore matches. Spongebob has been in a Royal Rumble and Single." This might be true, but Undertaker has never fought a cartoon character before. especially one with multiple abilities like Spongebob. "In the Kung Fu episode if you remember correctly the only reason he defeated the other wrestlers is that hes was being tricked into buying re-estate." Yes, but i posted that clip not to show his wins but to demonstrate Sandy's power. If Spongebob can math a character like Sandy in a one on one fight, I am pretty sure his skills as a martial artist is off the scale. Thank you and I hope to receive your next argument soon. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Viruses are Living organisms because I accept the challenge. Good luck instigator :) <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Students should be allowed to eat lunches during classes. because No problem. Con states that as i mentioned school almost equaling to 8 hours is not the same as 7.5. Like i said i mentioned ALMOST. It was always less than 8. I never said it was FULLY 8 hours. ' She says that this early start and long day take away from the older students' ability to sleep and eat, but this is incredibly off the mark as high-school classes typically start 1.5 hours later than elementary school classes' Con has failed back up the average sleep time for teens. But what he doesnt realize is, according to NFS Studies, the average teen neds 8 - 9 hours of sleep on school nights. But only 15% of students admitted they had this much sleep on weekdays. Doesnt matter if in most schools, highschool classes start 1.5 hours later. Con has ALSO failed to realize that in his source, it states - ' School days start early in the morning. According to the National Household Education Survey (NCES 2001), roughly half of middle schools start at or before 8:00 a.m., and fewer than 25 percent start at 8:30 a.m. or later. High schools start even earlier. Wolfson and Carskadon (2005), surveying a random sample of public high schools, found that more than half of the schools reported start times earlier than 8:00 a.m. In 2005, two thirds of high schools in Kansas started at 8:00 a.m. or earlier, and more than 99 percent started at 8:30 a.m. or earlier. In the school year 2010–2011, roughly 10 percent of high schools in New York City started at 7:30 a.m. or earlier and more than 80 percent started at 8:30 a.m. or earlier. ' And as he states, ' but this is incredibly off the mark as high-school classes typically start 1.5 hours later than elementary school classes;' Notice how later is boldy underlined ;) 'Finally, the argument pro is putting forth here seems to suggest that we need to push back the start time for school. That's fine and all, but that has nothing to do with letting kids eat during class. This argument is moot.' I do realize that this debate is about allowing kids to eat during class. But have you realized that i am sourcing that kids dont have enough time to eat breakfast, and you actually got really into the schedule's not me ;x. And so i later started to disprove your false information and sources. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lunch Time. 'Pro also asks the question of if those schools have low obesity rates. I don't see the relevance of this question and Pro moves on from this question without developing whatever point this was supposed to make further, but since you've brought it up -- roughly 33% of youths ages 2-19 are considered overweight [3]. This clearly proves that "not eating enough" is not a problem by any means for our students. In fact, just the opposite is true. Students are eating too much .' As youv'e said, 33% of youths ages 2-19 are obese, right? And wanna know something? 20 - 30 percent of children skip breakfast, which goes back to obese kids. Obese children cannot stop eating food. Especially going through, like i said 4 hours of eating nothing. 'Pro then goes on to assert that there is a 4-4.5 hour stretch between the beginning of school and lunch time, not 2.5-3.5 as I've shown. Note that she has reduced her original argument of 5 hours down to 4/4.5. Pro can assert her position all she wants. I've sourced my claim and she hasn't. That's all there is to it.' Again i was talking about average. It is much different from my nephew's school. If you need more information on it and think im not telling the truth go ahead and ask. Patricia A. DiChiaro School. Located in ny :) 'Pro criticizes my first source by pointing out that its data is 8-12 years old. My response to that is that a decade old source is better than the no-source offered by pro in that same round. Besides, I've posted an updated source in this round.' Having very little source does not compare to 8 years of left source. Atleast i had the correct and con had very false information. My arguement has not been defeated on all levels. I have pointed out on your mistakes and have corrected them. Very interesting debate. I look forward on debating more with Con Vote Pro . Sources - http://health.usnews.com... http://dichiaro.ypschools.org... http://pewresearch.org... http://www.healthychildren.org... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Should hunting remain legal? because Accepted. Good luck. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against resolved:The U.S. ought to submit to jurisdiction of an int. court designed to prosec. crimes agnst. because >I regret that my opponent has forfeited the round. Sadly, given that he has not responded to any of my arguments, I must conclude that he drops not only all of my arguments, but all of his own. My opponent was online 7 hours ago (as I write this) and had a 24 hour time period to respond. I thus conclude that he had the ability to rebut, but chose not to. <<<***MY OPPONENT, BASKETBALLER, HAS DROPPED ALL ARGUMENTS THUS FAR IN THIS DEBATE.***>>> <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Should the United States join the Commonwealth of Nations and have the Queen as head of state? because I would like to thank Con for responding back, even though he has little knowledge on this subject. My opponent thinks that the United States would be paying for the other contires which is not true, nor would the United States reveive the worst end of this deal. My opponent also thinks that the United States was never part of the British Empire, even though it was. My opponent thinks the article I listed is not true, even though it is. He also thinks that the US government didn't allow 9/11 to happen, I point for him to read: http://whatreallyhappened.com... My opponent thinks that a government shutdown is good because it would prevent radical changes in the system, even though any government shutdown is unacceptable. Also my opponent still refuses to understand, A constitutional monarchy acts as a guardian of a nation's heritage, a living reminder of the events and personalities that have shaped it. As such it is a powerful focus for loyalty and a source of strength in times of crisis, for example World War II, and a reminder of enduring values and traditions. Separating the positions of Head of State and Head of Government also makes great practical sense; the monarchy undertakes much of the ceremonial work at home and abroad, leaving the Prime Minister free to focus more effectively upon governing. My opponent thinks that Great Britain is the aggressor and provoked both wars. The American Revolution began in 1775 as open conflict between the united thirteen colonies and Great Britain. By the Treaty of Paris that ended the war in 1783, the colonies had won their independence. While no one event can be pointed to as the actual cause of the revolution, the war began as a disagreement over the way in which Great Britain treated the colonies versus the way the colonies felt they should be treated. Americans felt they deserved all the rights of Englishmen. The British, on the other hand, felt that the colonies were created to be used in the way that best suited the crown and parliament. This conflict is embodied in one of the rallying cries of the American Revolution: No Taxation Without Representation. http://americanhistory.about.com... as for the other war, The War of 1812 was a 32-month military conflict between the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, its North American colonies and its Indian allies. The outcome resolved many issues which remained from the American War of Independence, but involved no boundary changes. The United States declared war in 1812 for several reasons, including trade restrictions brought about by Britain's continuing war with France, the impressment of American merchant sailors into the Royal Navy, British support of American Indian tribes against American expansion, outrage over insults to national honour after humiliations on the high seas, and possible American interest in annexing British North American territory (part of modern day Canada) which had been denied to them in the settlement ending the American Revolutionary War. http://en.wikipedia.org... 01. President (Leader of the country). 02. Congress (Legislative, or lawmaking, branch of America's national government). 03. Her Majesty (Head of State). 04. Parliaments (Every state controls its own state). III. The Monarch's powers and duties include: a) the right to represent the People of the United States oversees regardless of the political party/parties in power; b) the right to revoke any law passed by Congress; c) consenting or withholding consent to a law within one year of it being passed by Congress; d) the ability to dismiss a President, Cabinet Member, and/or Supreme Court Justice at the Monarch's discretion. The Sovereign has, under a constitutional monarchy such as ours, three rights--the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn. And a king or queen of great sense and sagacity would want no others. A constitutional monarchy is a very effective political system. A hereditary Head of State acts as an important element of continuity within a democratic system. The real powers (as opposed to purely theoretical ones - no British ruler has actually vetoed an Act of Parliament since c1720) of European monarchs are negligible. But as unelected figures above the political conflicts of the day, they retain an important symbolic role as a focus for national unity (very important in Belgium, for example). In Britain our right "to advise, encourage and warn" the Prime Minister of the day has acted as a check against overly radical policies, in Spain King Juan Carlos actually faced down a military coup in the 1980s. Royalism, Loyalism, and Toryism won't sit well with most Americans today. But if we believe the Royalist Party of America stands for what is true and good for this nation, we have no choice but to stretch out our necks and say what is right. We may not win over every American heart and mind right away, but we'll fight for a good cause, and perhaps earn our countrymen's respect. Once we can be respected, we can be admired; once we can be admired, we will find the support we need to bring the United States back to her roots. The Queen can be said to have three main roles: Constitutional, Ceremonial and Ambassadorial. Constitutionally the Queen is suppose to be kept informed, advise and warn the government of the day. Her actual Constitutional Powers (reserve powers) are: -Call and dismiss parliament/elections -Appoint the Prime Minister -Sack the Government -Refuse Royal Assent to Acts of Parliament so they can not become law and Orders-in-Council and Royal Proclamations which are drawn up by the government of the day so they can exercise the Royal Prerogatives which covers: In domestic matters, * the issuing and withdrawal of passports * the appointment and dismissal of ministers * the appointment of Queen's Counsel * the granting of honours * the appointment and regulation of the civil service * the commissioning of officers in the armed forces In foreign affairs, it covers * the declaration of war * the making of treaties * the recognition of foreign states * the accreditation of diplomats "Prerogative powers were formerly exercised by the monarch acting alone. Since the 19th century, the advice of the prime minister or the cabinet"who are then accountable to Parliament for the decision"has been required in order for the prerogative to be exercised. The monarch is constitutionally empowered to exercise the Royal Prerogative against the advice of the prime minister or the cabinet, but does so only in emergencies or where existing precedent does not adequately apply to the circumstances in question." The Queen also fulfils ceremonial duties and ambassadorial ones as Head of State. The rest of the Royal family fill in for the Queen when she can not be in two places at once. This can be useful especially when you have 16 realms you reign over. This allows for the other Royals to start to learn how to perform many of the Queen's duties for if/when they inherit the throne. This is my first debate, so I apologize if I said or done anything wrong, as for Con; he as failed to properly argue why the United States should stay with its current government system. Other links to read: http://www.politico.com... http://www.womensgroup.org... Please vote Pro. Together we can restore the United States of America! The basis of any civilized economy is agriculture. The United States has decided to invest in other means of income-corporate management, banking, vote jockeying, and others-but let's not be caught off-guard when the economy shifts and we need our own resources to feed our families. To say we don't need agrarianism because 'economics is more evolved' is like saying we don't need to cultivate our minds because we have computers. We'll always need our farmers, and the Royalist Party of America is committed to treating them fairly and giving them the central role in our economy they deserve-and that we, the American people, need. I thank Con for his time! <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Breathing is good for you because I thank my opponent for creating this debate, and look forward to a fine exchange. My opponent is arguing that breathing is good for you on the grounds that it sustains life. I argue that there are a variety of instances in which breathing is very bad. 1. Breathing while underwater, without any sort of scuba gear. If anyone has had this experience, you will know it is not a pleasant one. It feels like your brain is on fire and like your lungs have collapsed. It's called "drowning". http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. Breathing in a room filled with poisonous gas. Not a good idea. There are many terrible chemical weapons out there and if you are ever stuck in a room with terrible noxious fumes, or even near pesticides, it is a good idea to hold your breath. http://encyclopedia.farlex.com... 3. Breathing too much (hyperventilation) also causes some nasty side effects such as light-headedness, dizziness, chest pain, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org... Thus, breathing might not necessarily be good for you in certain circumstances. Thank you audience, I await my opponent's rebuttal. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Preschool Is A Waste Of Time because I believe the intention of preschool is misunderstood and that the right school can be an excellent resource for a mother. A child needs to have a place to meet other children, learn to share both attention and their toys and have a place where they can be introduced to the idea of school and what it will be like including getting used to a schedule and being in an environment where an adult other than the parent is in charge. A positive experience at preschool can really help make a comfortable transition for a child by lessening the fears of the unknown. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against I am not a troll! because #1 That post was made by you. It has your lack of capitalization, misspelling, and overall sentence structure. Hint Hint..I stated it wasn't a "credible" source cause anyone can post. I only used it as a quick reference. I used google search to find any credible resources and came up empty handed cause mexi isn't a slur and was not used to be a slur. Mexi-Cocina Restaurant This is a restaurant in San Diego that uses Mexi in the title. If it was a slur why would they 12355 Poway Rd title it in the restaurant. Poway, CA 92064 (858) 748-6452 #2 You can flip flop on what you meant but I know for a fact that you used it classifying ethnicity and not for region based use. Why don't you get some culture and experience so that you can be a more educated troll. #3 You can right click every word that has a red wiggly line under it to make you seem more intelligent by spell checking. "You dink bear?" Does this bear bite? <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Mandatory Sterilization of Profoundly Mentally Handicapped Persons because I accept you feel strongly about this , but to an extent the human race has gone to far with having to be "nice" to everybody , its not a human right to reproduce , in nature the strongest survive , its triadic when somebody is born mentally handicapped but if they have children , imagine it , its a crime against nature ( now I say this in not a bad way ) imagine being the child , you might be born mantially retarded , or if you are not your mum or dad is. It would bring a tear to my eye if I saw a mentally handicapped person , with two mentally handicapped parents . They are most likely unable to look after this child , who's life would be already over from being born mentally handicapped. Please come to your senses , disabled people deserve to be treated the same as us , but this is stupid . Sure its not the person fault for being mentally handicapped , but why make a child suffer so much ? from either being born mentally handicapped or having maybe both parents born handicapped. * I would like to point out I have no problem with people who are mentally retarded , infact I have done some volunteer work looking after them , I have seen it all with my eyes how they suffer , but also how they are just human as well * <EOA>

<BOA> I am against brawn is better than brain because Well, my opponent is right about one thing. Brawn (more often than not) does indeed end up being very useful when it comes to scoring with a man/woman, however, this by no means proves that brawn is better than "brain." My opponent is right about one thing. Brawn (more often than not) does indeed end up being very useful when it comes to scoring with a man/woman, however, this by no means proves that brawn is better than "brain" as there are other things in life that don't concern "getting a hookup." I'd like to point out that some of our greatest achievements in society have come from people focused on their brain rather than their brawn. Hell, Albert Einstein, ALexander Grandbell, Charles Darwin, and Thomas Edison sure didn't "whore" themselves to the public with their looks (an image I certainly DON'T want to imagine). It was due to their efforts that helped our society in achieving new heights in the realm of science as well as new heights in the area that concerns "quality" in life (in other words, inventions). From this, we can conclude that contrary to brawn, it is brain which helps us move further on the path of knowledge as well as make life less difficult to live. Next, on balance, it is the "brain" which helps bring in the most income. As lets face it, it's a well known fact that high incomes directly correlate with success in college. And how do you succeed in college? Through making great use of your brain of course! A high GPA can't be won simply through pumping iron and having a pretty face. That will be the basis of my case for the time being. Now, to respond to PRO's case, I shall do so line by line. "~ brawn gets u lots of women if your a guy and lots of males when your a women depending on your sex brawn" Not necessarily. Believe or not, "getting the most and best action" is very much a mental game. You can be a bulk body builder or have big "boobs", but unless you have some people skills (brain department), fashion knowledge (again, brain department), you (as a male or female) won't get nearly as much action as my opponent would like you to believe. Brawn may help, but it's nothing on it's own. Even as a bulky body builder, if you're the type of guy/girl who is very anti-social (so much to the degree that you generally remain in your room or post on debate.org . . . nah, just kidding about that last part . . . or am I) Due to busyiness of college, this is all I shall posts for now, but I'll have more for round 2. Later <EOA>

<BOA> I am against It is plausible that Santa Claus exists. because I will follow my opponents wishes and not add any new arguments, and will only refute the arguments made in the debate... With that said, let's delve into the arguments my opponent made... On the relevancy of the web-cam, it proves Santa's house doesn't exist! As for Santa living underground, polar ice is only 6-9 feet deep. [1] In a one story house, ceilings are 8 ft tall... not to mention the roof, a basement, an attic, or whatever else Santa may have on his house. My opponent is suggesting that santa lives in the sub-freezing ocean waters... As of right now, the temperature at the North Pole is 9 degrees F [2] The water is colder than that. Hypothermia, anyone? *Note this is not a new argument because I'm explaining why Santa has to live on land, and since we have (had) a webcam on the North Pole, and didn't see his house, I don't see how Santa can possibly exist. My above argument explains the ocean analogy. With Santa and the space-time continuum, I encourage the readers and voters to read the Reuters article... "'He understands that space stretches, he understands that you can stretch time, compress space and therefore he can, in a sense, actually have six Santa months to deliver the presents,' Silverberg told Reuters." No mention of the technology necessary, just that Santa understands that time stretches... My opponent seems to just blow off my next argument, saying I've made a logical fallacy and then not explaining. Here's the rational that went behind that. Hundreds, maybe thousands, of the smartest people this world has to offer have been working on bending the space-time continuum and nanotechnology for YEARS! And my opponent wants to say that ONE lonely man living in the ocean is the ONLY person on the planet who knows how to do it? Doesn't that seem unreasonable? And finally on the God Complex, nobody is perfect. As living creatures we all have our faults. As humans, many are emotional or mental... If you were the ONLY person on the ENTIRE PLANET who knew how to slow time and make anything you wanted to with amazing precision, how long could you hold on to that secret? Wouldn't you sell that secret for billions upon billions of dollars? Wouldn't you want to be recognized for that? Yeah, there are some virtuous people on this earth, but for CENTURIES? Nobody could put up with that secret for anywhere near as long as Santa would've had to... With that I'll conclude this speech and the debate. As a final note, I ask the judges to look purely at the facts, the merits of the debate, and not on personal opinion... If it's not too much trouble to leave constructive comments on your decision, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks to all, and good luck to my opponent... SOURCES [1] http://query.nytimes.com... . [2] http://www.weather.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Should Capital punishment be allowed? because The whole point of the criminal justice system is justice, not the extermination of criminals. If criminals were rehabilitated, if the problem that caused them to commit a crime in the first place were removed, then there would be no need to execute them. In most cases considered punishable by death, eg. homicide, there is still a principle reason the crime was committed. Yes, killing the person keeps them from committing the crime, but why not address the problem, so they can learn from it? <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Resolved: China is, or will have reached superpower status in the near future. because I accept sorry for last time. I will use the same beginning I will be arguing that China will NOT become a superpower and is not now. Definition of SUPERPOWER 1: excessive or superior power 2a : an extremely powerful nation; specifically : one of a very few dominant states in an era when the world is divided politically into these states and their satellites b : an international governing body able to enforce its will upon the most powerful states Define China as People's Republic of China NOT the Republic of China (Taiwan) <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Is American football better than English football? because Opponent's Contention: Soccer is better because it requires more stamina. My Rebuttal: I concede that a player probably needs more stamina to endure the constant back and forth running of a soccer game; however, I do not feel that this necessarily indicates superiority - it's just a factor of the sport. With football there are other physical factors/attributes that a player should have in order to succeed. For instance, a typical football player should be muscular and strong in order to have a better shot at playing/winning the game. While a soccer player CAN be these things, it does not play as much of a role in terms of the sport. Similarly, a football player can have A LOT of stamina, but with football, it's not as important of a quality. I would also like to note that in terms of traits, a football player must be sharp both physically AND mentally. He has to be prepared to do rough things, such as both make and take tough hits that can put a huge toll on their bodies. Also, because stamina is such an important aspect of soccer, it puts restrictions on who can play. With football, the more agile and speedy players can play in positions such as RB, WR or TE, while the more stocky/slow/big/strong individuals can have offensive of defensive line positions. Opponent's Contention: Football is about running after a ball and diving on each other. My Rebuttal: In essence, all sports revolve around frivolous activity. Basketball is about throwing a ball into a hoop; bowling is about rolling a ball just to knock down pins - then put them back up; golf is about hitting a tiny ball into a tiny hole hundreds of yards away and chasing it; and soccer is about kicking a ball into a net. Big deal. The point is that these are sports/games that people love and enjoy. I pointed out that during unstructured soccer games, or during games in which the teams are particularly bad, all you see are 22 guys running back and forth and chasing a ball. I wasn't trying to mock soccer for that -- as you can see all sports are kind of silly -- but rather I was demonstrating that because football is more complex, it will never be as simple/monotonous as that. There will be shifts from offense to defense, and variation regarding plays (running/passing) that will always make it a more interesting game. I mean, many people might like soccer better and become more excited by/from it, but football is definitely more INTERESTING. Opponent's Contention: Tactics are used just as much in soccer as they are in football. My Rebuttal: I don't recall saying anything about tactics. I do remember stating that strategy is more important in football, but my reasoning behind that is clearly displayed in Round 1 along with how it's used more often than in soccer. Because my opponent offered no argument to support this claim whereas I have (and it's all true), I have clearly won this point. Opponent's Contention - A tied soccer game could still be a thriller. My Rebuttal: Absolutely. In fact I'm sure a game with a tied score is particularly exciting because both teams were unable to score -- there must've been some good defense. However there is no point to arguing this; what I was trying to get at in the previous round was that many people don't like games ending in a tie. Where's the fun in that? Players dream of victory - not a tied score, and fans at home cheer for excitement and bragging rights. So my point is that while an exciting game can end in a tie... which also happens in football... it's cool that the close, exciting football game actually continues until there is a clear winner. Opponent's Contention: Soccer is a global phenomenon and not just limited to the United States and Canada. My Rebuttal: This is true, but not because soccer is a better game. It has to do with culture and what people grew up with. Soccer will always remain a favorite - especially in less wealthy nations where all you need is a ball of sorts to play. Again, it doesn't make it a BETTER sport, but rather just reflects what is being made available to the people in other places. For instance there is no NFL (American football) in Brazil, so clearly it will not gain as much popularity. And besides, I could easily turn this around and say "Well because the U.S. is the greatest super power in the world and people here MUCH prefer football to soccer, football is obviously the better game." However I won't do that because this debate is about the sports themselves - not their popularity. Opponent's Contention: It takes a lifetime to learn the rules of football. My Rebuttal: An obvious exaggeration indeed. Clearly millions of people understand the rules of the game - think about how many players and fans there are nation-wide. While I'll admit that soccer is easier to pick up, I contest that it plays a part in which is a better sport. For instance, like I said earlier, in a lot of ways football is better BECAUSE of its complexity. I mentioned that soccer is very monotonous because of the very nature of the game, whereas there are many options and possible outcomes with football which make the game so interesting. Final Point: I have refuted all of my opponent's arguments, and thus far he has still not addressed many of mine. I'd like to remind him and the readers that he should touch upon those points in the final round because I'll bring up the ones he has ignored. Thanks. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Intermediate's Debate Competition R1: US Gov should implement solar road highways within the US because A big thanks to my opponent for his responses. Let's get right to it. Rebuttal 1: Jellyfish As this (the farming of jellyfish) was a rather unconventional argument, and not one I was familiar with, I began my research from the sites Con sourced. After reading both articles several times, it is revealed that the increasing number of jellyfish has nothing to do with overfishing of jellyfish, but overfishing other species of fish. As predators of the jellyfish decrease in number (due to overfishing), the jellyfish population increases. Further reading proves that it is precisely the sheer number of jellyfish that would cause the issues Con mentions (loss of jobs, danger in the water, decline in fish prices, etc.). As such, using jellyfish protein would seem to have the opposite effect Con proposes, actually benefiting the fishing industry tremendously by removing unwanted and burdensome jellyfish from the areas. Rebuttal 2: Removal of Existing Roads As stated in round one, one of the many conveniences in building solar roadways is that the panels can be built on top of the asphalt roads. The removal of existing roads in unnecessary. Rebuttal 3: NF3 in the Atmosphere While it is true that NF3 warms the atmosphere about 17,000 more times than CO2, it's important to note in what context it is being used. Firstly, the solar panels themselves don't produce the gas; the use of a solar power wouldn't be emitting any nitrogen trifluoride. The NF3 is used during the production of solar panels and there are many options available to reduce emissions. http://www.clca.columbia.edu... In addition, the majority of solar panels don't actually even use NF3. It is only used in a particular kind of panel that is not common. http://matter2energy.wordpress.com... Rebuttal 4 and Rebuilding Contentions: Economy As a rebuttal, I'd like to turn our attention to the Golden Gate Bridge. This suspension bridge allows travelers to cross the three mile distance between San Francisco to Marin County. It has been declared one of the 'Wonders of the Modern World'. http://en.wikipedia.org... The reason I bring this up is because the construction of this bridge started in 1933 and was completed in 1937. This places the time frame right at the heart of the Great Depression. Even during the time of economic despair, great things were in the process of being made. Just because economic times are hard for us now should not prevent us from paving the way to a brighter future. And while there must obviously be limitations (self-preserving ice cream isn't our priority), the sheer number of benefits solar roadways offer make them a worthwhile pursuit. First of all, running the solar-energy route means that these panels will pay for their cost over time. Secondly, by implementing solar panels as roads, we'd be able to cut back/eliminate costs on asphalt roads, power plants, and power and data delivery systems. There would also be additional costs saved by solar roadways in health insurance. The many possibilities of the solar roadway include illuminating night roads, automatic removal of snow and ice, and pedestrian/ wildlife avoidance systems which will inevitably lead to safer driving conditions, further eliminating costs of production. http://www.solarroadways.com... Most importantly, the same tax money that is used to build, repair and resurface roads can instead be put into building solar road panels. http://www.solarroadways.com... All in all, the implementation of solar roadways can not only pay for itself overtime, but save countless costs along the way as well, while creating a cleaner environment, less pollution, safer driving conditions, eliminating oil dependency and providing a road that pays for itself. Also, in response to Brusaw stating that the road might fail, the website cited says no such thing. The ecofriend.com website also admits that though it might take several years, the return on investments will eventually cover the costs. For such large returns, it seems to be worth the effort. Rebuttal 5: Durable Solar Panels The solar website cited doesn't say that the panels aren't durable, but that the 'full extent of their durability is unknown'. The solar panels themselves are being tested now and retested in laboratories. They will only be implemented once they are proven to be strong enough to carry the necessary loads. The website mentioned also does not say that creating durable panels will skyrocket prices, nor does it say up keep will more or less eliminate profits. Rebuttal 6: Glare The design for the panel is to be shatterproof and glare proof. www.smartplanet.com/blog/business-brains/pave-this-replace-asphalt-on-roads-with-solar-panels-power-the-nation/ Rebuilding Contention: Environment and Energy Production My opponent mentioned that solar panels only collect 14% of what they receive. Scott Brusaw estimates that they will have 18.5% efficiency and with that assumption, plus an average of only four hours optimum sunlight a day, he calculates that the panels would produce 13,961 billion kilowatt-hours. That figure is after subtracting 31% from the total number due to lack of slant in the solar panels. http://www.solarroadways.com... Brusaw estimates that this is enough to produce three times the electricity we have ever used! And that solar roadways placed in driveways and parking lots could power not just the roads, but homes and businesses! I'd like to once again thank my opponent for his thoughtful answers. Looking forward to his response. <EOA>