Datasets:

notaphoenix

/

iesta_liberal_effective

like 0

<BOA> I am against Homeopathy Does Not Work because Agreed. Well said. I too do not like any medical or business professionals who take advantage. But for the sake of the debate and keeping it lively, the title of the challenge and debate is, "Homeopathy Does Not Work," and the supporting idea is that all of its attributes also do not work. So if we have patients reporting that they feel better (I can cite sources of these case studies if you wish), and that their overall wellbeing has improved, then perhaps this kind of alternative therapy has done what medicine is intended to do. In other words, it does in fact "work" ... Contrary to the challenge as the table was set for this debate. Placebo pills work too in medicine in probably the exact same way. The reason or the way in which they work is interesting because we shouldn't expect them to. It is facinating when you stop and think about it. Really brings to light the possibility of the Mind, psychological attitude and thoughts creating and controling physiological effects, even reversing the ill effects of diseases. Now had you worded the challenge of the debate slightly differently like, "Homeopathic Medicine is Merely a Placebo," or, "Homeopathic Medicine has No Direct Chemical Influence on Physiology," then you would get little debate from me. You can think of the procedure as an expensive, intense psychological sessions with use of alternative medicine to produce improved wellbeing, in which case, it does "work". <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Germany and Japan could have won WWII if it weren't for Hitler and Yamato because Well first out yet again you are mostly correct but if you read everything I put down you would have known that I said Hitler should have kept the British at bay by continuously bombing them, and as a side note you would know the bulk of the German attack force used during the battle of Brittan were bombers which as we know with the US bombing runs bombers were easy to take down and the bombers Germany used the Stuka, Junkers 88, Heinkel 111, Dornier 17, and Dornier 215 those were the bombers used with only the BF-109 and Messerschmitt 110 were the only fighters used; and as we know the b-17 was a very protected bomber and more protected and armed than any of the German bombers and as we see the B-17 was easily taken down now look at the German bombers easy to kill so all those losses were due to the massive amount of bombers used and the frail nature of them. That all said with regards to Africa look at this photo showing Africa and how it was controlled in 1940 http://en.wikipedia.org... as you can see Egypt and Sudan main areas Brittan still had control over was surrounded by the axis and as I said before if Germany just kept Brittan busy with bombings and concentrated the bulk of their forces into the Afrika Corps (yes its actually spelled Afrika) lead by Rommel Africa would have fallen easily you have to reamer Hitler barley supplied Rommel and his Afrika Corps which is why Montgomery seemed so powerful he was fighting an under supplied force with limited resources now it Hitler sent supplies to the Afrika Corps would have easily taken over Africa then the middle east. After gathering enough supplies all Germany would have to do is toughen the blockade against Brittan then run and air raid and land invasion at the same time Brittan would only fall in a matter of time as the only reason Brittan was still standing was because they were still being supplied by America. And I hope you know with all the resources that Germany would get by taking the Middle East there economy would be the best in the world. While with Japan yes they were fighting a formidable foe but the thing that ended the Japanese takeover of China was the US launching the Pacific front while Japan had to supply troops to the Pacific and China at the same time stretching their military thinly and due to the Burma road at that point it became inevitable that Japan lost the war but like I said if Japan never launched the attack on Pearl Harbor as I said all Japan would have to do is focus on China and if need be call Germany for help attacking on the west and Japan on the east as the USSR wouldn"t be an issue as Germany would have never attacked and with China taken Japan would have all the resources needed and could get oil from German held middle east and Japan would ship over needed metals to Germany to keep the war machine rolling. And you also bring up Lend lease in which America and Brittan supply the USSR with weapons well that all started in March 11, 1941 after the Soviets declared war on Germany due to German invasion, but as I"m proposing Germany would have never invaded which would lead to lend lease never happening. And as for Australia there would be nothing Brittan could do Blockades would stop aid going to Australia and Brittan would be occupied with its issues with the Germans than helping one of its colonies half way around the world. And while yes you are true Americans don"t take to kindly to being subjugated but if you look in our history you will see the Nazi party had already had placed some roots in the US and with a standing army of only 300,000 the US would be overwhelmed and would lose ground fast as the onslaught form both coasts would cripple the nation. And yes while we know now that Germany, Italy, and Japan could never win due to economic restraints when you look at the scenario I bring up both economies would boom and grow huge with the Nazis controlling the oil fields and the Japanese controlling the Philippian oil fields and Chinese vast mineral reserves. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... http://www.history.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am with This Amazing Photo Is A Hoax because I prefer fair game. I'm too mentally advanced to see the world as win/loss. This is a black and white vision. It destroys the color of our humanity. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Should we be involved in the war in Irag! because First off, you must have completely misread what I said. I never said that Afghanistan was responsible for the war. In fact, I actually specified the complete opposite. Take a look: "In fact, Afghanistan (nor Muslims in general) was not responsible for what had happened. It was the result of one extreme religious group in particular - not every Muslim nation." So with all due resopect, what the Hell are you talking about? Second, it is wrong to compare the frequent terrorist attacks on Israel with the infrequent attacks on the United States. This is because your stance is that Israel gets attacked because it is typically on the military defense. My argument is that Israel gets attacked not because of its military, but because of it's location and religion. If it was a country not so easily accessible to its enemies then it would be less frequently attacked. Likewise if Israel was a country specifically affiliated with Islam then it would also not be attacked the way it is today. Thus your argument comparing the U.S. to Israel in terms of military offense vs. defense is completely null and void. Again, I don't accuse Afghanistan with having anything to do with 9/11, and would not suggest that the U.S. military go to war with ANY middle eastern nation because again it was the TALIBAN - not individual countries - that was responsible for the attacks. And finally it is completely pointless to say, "People also dont realize that we train Iraq's police force and are doing a load of good that we wouldn't have been able to do had we not gone into iraq" because it WAS/IS in fact possible to do good and help people in need in terms of food and supplies in Iraq without being at war with them. How can we bomb their villages and kill their civilians, and then try to make it better with a few loaves of bread? Also, we are only training Iraqi police because we're training them to be the type of government officials that WE want them to be according to OUR agenda... we're not doing it for the good of Iraq. Would we have trained their cops under the old regime? No. This is about the United States and how a select few can benefit while causing nothing but harm/death to millions of others. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Homosexual Acts are Immoral because In my final round, I'll provide my responses to Con's rebuttals. I would like to thank him for debating with me. The Open Question Argument Still Fails Following R. M. Hare, Con argues that not all instances of the term "good" are attributive. Since it is a moral term that is action-guiding, "good" is not always a descriptive term. This response is mistaken. As Ralph McInerny notes, Hare confuses "the elocutionary force of sentences in which 'good' occurs with the meaning of the term and even perhaps the meaning of those sentences. Thus, ' The Winds of War is a good book' may in given circumstances be used to commend the novel, but that is not what the sentence means." [1] Moreover, whenever "good" has an action-guiding aspect, it is precisely because of thing it is attributed to, not the term itself. This is why some instances of "good" carry action-guiding content and why others do not. Con's second argument has already been dealt with. I am grounding moral normativity in biological normativity, so I am not circularly defining moral oughts in terms of moral oughts. Con may think that this grounding is inadequate, but as a definition of morality it is obviously non-circular and hence defeats Con's second objection. Some Confusions About Teleology I gave two arguments for teleology based on the normativity of medicine and rationality. Con's response to (1) was to attempt to use it against my application of teleology (Which will be dealt with later). This does not, however, show that teleology itself is non-existent. Con needs an actual argument for that. To his credit, he offers an etiological reduction of teleology, viz. it can be explained in purely descriptive terms. This is inadequate, for it fails to account for the regularities of bodily processes. If they are not inherently disposed to act in a certain way, then it becomes inexplicable why they consistently do so. [2] It is more plausible to be a realist about teleology than to be a constructivist of sorts. Con's response to the EAAN is lacking. He argues that there is no reason to think that such a scenario is likely, or even possible. But why? He simply asserts it without argument. It is perfectly coherent to suppose a creature with false, but pragmatic beliefs would tend to survive. All that is required for a belief to be selected for is that it contribute to an organism's survival. It doesn't matter whether it is true or false, only that it's pragmatic. He then notes that my argument has no sway on someone who adopts a pragmatic philosophy of mind. That in itself is uninteresting, for he needs to demonstrate why we should countenance such a perspective, especially when it is quite a minority view. Con charges me with being confused about the very teleology I am appealing to. This is just false. I was very explicit in the previous round that I was appealing to Aristotelian as opposed to Platonic teleology -- hence my use of terms like " inherently teleological", " inherent to nature," " built in to the fabric of nature," and " inherent purpose." [3] This should make it very clear that I see teleology as originating from within a substance rather than being externally imposed. I even stated as such when I wrote that "If we think of teleology as inherent to nature rather than legislated by God, then this does not requires us to commit to theism." Nowhere did I even hint toward endorsing external teleology. The phrase Con quotes gives no indication of that. Aside from this charge, he does not respond to the notion that we can have teleology without God. I do believe that God is required for external teleology; but not for the type of inherent teleology I am appealing to in this debate. [4] Specifically, I am appealing to an inherent and emergent teleology, as I indicated in last round's footnote [6]. Finally, he charges me with assuming that teleology exists without argument. This is just false. I gave two arguments for teleology. Con may think they fail, but he can't dispute the fact that I offered arguments. This charge is baseless. Teleology Without God Given what was said in the last section, it should be clear why my argument does not in any way presuppose the truth of theism. Since my argument operates on inherent rather than external teleology, God is not required to ground natural law. [5] I noted Larry Arnhart's version of a non-theistic Aristotelean natural law in support of this. [6] Con simply responds to this by saying that it has been "thoroughly debunked" by "one of my own sources" (As if my citing a book means that I agree with everything in it -- and if he's going to pull this move, then I should note that of Con's own sources rejects the open question argument [7]). This is false if we take into account that I am appealing to inherent teleology. Unlike external teleology, which much be imposed by above, inherent teleology is a metaphysically basic fact that does not require God as an explanation. While there are theistic versions of natural law theory, it does not have to be theistic. Other than charging me with inconsistency (Which is a tu quoque fallacy), Con never really replied to the arguments in my last round. Most of his charges assume that I take an external view of teleology, which is false (This is also why the Moreland miscite is in fact a miscite). [8] Natural law does not require God, and hence does not require DCT. Multiple Functions and Pleasure? There are no concessions here, for Con misunderstands my argument. I argued that while organs can have multiple functions, pleasure is not one of them. One may act for the pure motivation of pleasure-seeking, but the act must still conform to the function of a given organ. It is an instrumental rather an intrinsic good. Con charges this with question begging, but this charge is off-base as that was not my argument against pleasure as a function. My argument for that thesis was in my eating analogy, to which I will later turn. As for his other point, sex acts between heterosexual senior citizens are still procreative-type because they are still oriented toward it as an end, even if the effect cannot be acheived. Function is based on a thing's directedness (internal or external) toward a certain end and is independent of whether or not that end is brought about. [9] A clock will eventually stop running, but it is still oriented toward telling-time as its function. In responding to 6A/B , I drew the analogy between pleasure in sex and pleasure in eating. To briefly reiterate: There are things which we eat that are pleasurable but which obviously are bad for us. If pleasure were a purpose of eating, then a glutton who consumes nothing but candy could be said to be eating well. But this is absurd, so pleasure must always subordinated to the good of a faculty -- pleasure itself cannot be a function. Hence sexual pleasure must conform to the function of procreation. [10] In his responses to all three points, Con did not even attempt to deal with this analogy , yet he charges me with failing to explain why pleasure is not a function of sex? He simply says that since organs may have multiple functions and that pleasure can be one. But this is exactly what I was arguing against , hence he begs the question. Additionally, Con does not respond to my criticism of 6B -- that it confuses parts with wholes. The bulk of my argument is unresponded to. 6C is a non-sequitur. I can affirm that procreation is the function of sex while simultaneously affirming FGM as a grave offense. It is worse than a toenail removal because it impairs one's ability to experience pleasure. But it doesn't follow that pleasure is a function of sex. A tastebud removal procedure which removes one's ability to receive pleasure from eating is also worse than a toenail removal, but it isn't because pleasure is a function of eating. In both cases, the deprivation of pleasure is bad because the pleasure ought to be there as a means to a further end that it is subordinated to. [11] The resolution remains affirmed. Sources: http://tinyurl.com... ; <EOA>

<BOA> I am with This debate will not result as a tie. because My opponent opens with: "First, I'd like to point out that because it is impossible to predict the future to a certainty, you should vote Con. To vote Pro is to say that he can undeniably prove beyond a doubt (which he still hasn't done) that this won't end in a tie." I can reword this as follows: "First, I'd like to point out that because it is impossible to predict the future to a certainty, you should vote Pro. To vote Con is to say that he can undeniably prove beyond a doubt (which he still hasn't done) that this won't end in a tie." And it will nullify this argument, because he is also unable to predict the future to a certainty (his certainty being, this debate will end in a tie). Also, because neither one of us can fully prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this debate will (or will not) end in a tie. The true outcome will not be decided until voting ends. If the debate is not a tie, I have proved that the debate will not end in a tie. Vice-versa for my opponent. Therefore, until the voting has ended, nobody can prove beyond a doubt that this debate will (or will not) end in a tie. We will have to wait and see. I also uphold my contention on this statement... "My opponent seeks to refute my claim by talking about voting procedure. What he fails to understand is that voting procedure and the actual debate are two wholly different things. This "debate" ends when I post my final argument. The second it ends, the vote count is 0-0. This is a tie." ...that a procedure that has not started cannot end, and therefore, [not] yield results. Now to address your points. 1) If an admin shuts down the debate right after we vote, that would be unfair to me as my point would be proven, but I will have lost (see below). Also, you cannot tell if I have voted or not, and vice-versa. "If both of us vote, and no one else (1-1), the debate is a tie." This is untrue. Who's to say I will vote for myself? I can vote to you, technically losing the debate. But since my point has been proven, people may see that and vote for me. So I'm taking a gamble here - I may win the debate, or lose, depending on the speed of voting. If we both vote for you, and someone votes for me, the result will be 1-2. One of two things can happen now: A) Switch my vote, making me win 2-1, and proving my point that the debate will not end in a tie, thus making even more people vote for me to ensure my victory. B) I can hope that a couple people will realize I have proved my point, and vote for me, making me win 3-2. 2) While I do agree that if the result is, say, 10-10, I will have failed to prove my point, I did not state that not tieing was impossible. Such a statement would resemble: "This debate CAN not result in a tie" or "It is impossible for this debate to result in a tie." However, my contention was: "This debate WILL not result as a tie." Therefore, I imply that though it may be possible to end the debate in a tie, [I am certain that] it will not happen. This also proves that I have not conceded to any of your arguments that pertain to the exact statement at hand. So for my final note: Voters, as soon as you see that this debate is not tied, you are inclined/obligated to vote PRO. It doesn't matter who is winning, as long as it is not tied, I have proven my point, "This debate will not result in a tie". And therefore, you should vote PRO. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against The Bible is an Inconsistent Document (II) because At the absolute best my opponent has worded his proposition in so vague a manner as to allow this kind of debacle to develope. I 100% refute the accusation that I have intentionally misunderstood the nature of the debate. Those who know me on debate.org know me as a somewhat over earnest Christian. They may judge me as delusional or mis-guided but I would hope they know I am nothing if I am not sincere. On that note, I am happy to allow my reputation to speak on this matter. As must JCMT. ********************************************* Mat 28:19 - Act 2:38 >There are no historical facts. Only competing histories. ********************************************** Joh 3:22 - Joh 4:2 " the Gospel of John is a very spiritual text that would have hit this point very hard, as it would emphasize Jesus' divinity." >Another omission argument. ********************************************* Mar 16:16 - Mat 12:37 - Jam 2:17 >Which of these actions do you need to drive a car? (1)turning the steering wheel (2)applying the brake pedal (3)applying the gas pedal (4)shifting the gear shift All of them right? Do this list contradict itself? ********************************************** Act 26:23 - 1 Kin 17:22 "The concept of eternal life was unheard of until Jesus began preaching it." (from R3) "The promise of eternal life in the OT is all well and good" (from R4) >A good example of my opponent's complete inability to stick to any semblance of an actual debate. ********************************************** Jam 1:13 - Gen 22:1 >Tempt in WHICH sense? As satan (to sin) or as God tempts? (to resist) *********************************************** Deu 24:16 - Deu 5:9 >Simply restating the original argument only reveals my opponents contempt for me in general and for this debate in particular. *********************************************** 2 Sam 24:9 - 1 Chr 21:5 >No concession. It's a simply a different census of the same army with a slightly different criteria. ************************************************** ACT 1:18 - MAT 27:5-7 >A general reading would be the one that generations of readers and scholars (as well as film and television producers) have ALL agreed upon. Judas HANGED himself. *************************************************** MAT 27:46,50 - LUK 23:46 - JOH 19:30 >The Gospels being inconsistent is NOT the same as the The Bible itself being inconsistent. Again, you claim concession at the expense of the argument at hand: If the Bible presented the Gospels as being totally inconsistent then why have 4 and not (any) 1? That you have ignored this logic is telling. *********************************************** Lev 25:1, 17 - Gen 25:27 - Lev 25:44 "Sounds like sexual slavery to me. That sounds pretty oppressive" >When refuted with scripture my opponent falls back to comparing the Bible with his personal opinions. I cannot argue that the Bible is inconsistent with your subjective morality. Sorry. ******************************************** 2 Pet 2:7-8 - Gen 19:8 " tell me - are the actions of Lot just in your eyes? " >Now he wants me to begin comparing the Bible with MY subjective opinion! Emotive: (HAR!!) ************************************************** Psa 19:7 - Heb 8:7-8 >My opponents asks for the scripture. He receives it. Twice. He switches to a comparison with his own subjective morality. **************************************************** Psa 103:8 - Exo 34:6 - Jer 13:14 - Lam 3:43b - 1 Sam 15:2 - 1 Sam 6:19 >For disobedience. The nature of the disobedience is immaterial. *************************************************** Heb 13:20a - 2 The 3:16 - Rom 15:33 - Exo 15:3 - Psa 18:34 - Psa 144:1 "PEACE BY ALL MEANS ALWAYS." >This obviously refers to eternity when all things have been completed. ************************************************** GE 6:4 - FACT >Outside debate parameters. ************************************************** Gen 7:19 - FACT >Outside debate parameters. ************************************************** GEN 7:2 - GEN 7:8 - GEN 7:9 - FACT >Outside debate parameters. ************************************************** LEV 11:6 - FACT >I believe I have convincingly shown that the difference (between chewing the cud and Cecotrophy) does not amount to an inconsistency. ***************************************************** Gen 3:14 - FACT >The criteria for discernment of the Bible would be to BEGIN by not having a mono-maniacal obsession with proving every last detail to be false. ************************************************* Gen 1:29 - FACT " nightshade, milk thistle... they have ALWAYS been poisonous." >Again, when refuted with scripture my opponent simply SHOUTS his personal opinion. ***************************************************** Gen 7:6 - FACT >Outside debate parameters. ***************************************************** 1 Kin 8:46 - 1 Joh 3:6 "Original sin aside, there is absolutely no reason a non-Christian could remain sinless." >A completely unbiblical personal opinion. *" For ALL have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God." Romans 3:23 I would like to thank my opponent for this debate challenge and for all the time and hard work he has put into it. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Natural Selection Disproves Theism because Omnipotence As stated in the first round, my main contention against pro's proof will be that the defined God is necessarily impossible to disprove, at the very least via natural selection. That's because pro has attributed him with the property of being able to actualize any logical fact. In other words, he would have the ability to make square circles exist. This is in contrast to the more common theistic conceptions of omnipotence where God only has the ability to do everything within logic but not the illogical as well (such as making square circles). I however won't contend with the definition as I think natural selection fails to disprove God whichever one we take. Though I have not yet offered my argument, pro has chosen to predict my reasoning and try to refute it himself last round. I think it's important to note, we are taking this particular conception of God as a hypothetical. Pro says that my argument would presuppose God in my proving you can't disprove him, thus resulting in my making a fallacious argument. That however is not the case as my argument forms as a hypothetical. As an atheist, I do not even believe in God. I can talk about what certain conceptions of God could do. It's not the same as saying what a god does or will do . Now, I think pro is taking on a completely futile task. He's trying to refute an irrefutable concept. The way he's defined God, makes that God irrefutable. He's thus defeated himself in his definition. It doesn't matter whether this God exists or not as this is just hypothetical. I could define something as a magical fairy that changes logic every time someone tries to disprove it, resulting in nothing being able to refute it. Even though that being likely does not exist, you cannot prove that it doesn't exist because it, by definition, is irrefutable. In fact I could make up any concept and add in the definition that it is irrefutable, and there is no way to refute it. It's by definition impossible for me to refute irrefutable things. That's not to say there's anything to support the existence of these things. While you cannot disprove God, theists still have the burden of proving his existence, which I personally believe they have always failed to do. I am not defending the existence of God here. The particular attribute that makes the God we are discussing irrefutable is, as stated, that it can actualize any logical fact. Pro's whole argument rests on the joint attribute that God is all good. An all good God would not use the non-good process of natural selection since he's omnipotent and thus doesn't have to. That is the crux of pro's case. However since this God could actualize any facts, you can't disprove him with natural selection or anything. He's necessarily exempt from logical paradoxes or contradictions with his character. Pro finds natural selection contradictory with an all-good infinite intelligence. But as the defined God would be able to make square circles, he could also dispel this contradiction. An absolute omnipotence could change both logic and morality. He by definition is above them. Therefore, whatever makes natural selection bad, God could make good since God is above morality according to pro. So God could remain all good by making the act which he is committing good. If pro were to say that God could not make natural selection good, then he's limiting the God he's already defined as unlimited. He can't have it both ways. Furthermore, this God could dispel the logical contradiction of an all good being doing bad things. In other words, even if God is all good and natural selection is immoral, the only thing preventing the two from not clashing is the logical principle of contradiction. God, by pros definition, is above logic and thus could change the laws of contradiction so that he could be both good while doing bad. Summer y Pro has taken on the very futile task of trying to prove the non-existence of a being that is by definition irrefutable. You cannot disprove the God that pro has defined because this God is able to actualize any moral facts as well as logical facts. Whatever moral or logical arguments pro uses to disprove this God thus fail because logic and morality don't bind this God. So pro has defined God as irrefutable then tried to refute him; obviously not something anyone can complete. So just to summarize all pros contentions as I went somewhat out of order, (1) I do believe in natural selection and evolution, so pro has no need to make an argument for it. (2) The nature of natural selection as we perceive it is irrelevant because it's not binding to the God that pro's defined. (3) This type of theism is not contradictory because contradictions cannot apply to the God pro has defined, whether they be moral or logical. I'll hand it back to pro now. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Catholic Clergy Under Vows of Chastity Should Be Required By the Church to Become Eunuchs because Priests Not Allowed to Masturbate The priests of the Catholic Church are not allowed to masturbate. Knowing male nature if they have genitals to masturbate they will, and if they don't they will still have wet dreams which is lust and is still a sin. The only way to keep them from sin is to have them castrated. "Less priests in seminary = bigger congregation" I meant they could have bigger congregations in bigger sized churches, so that you wouldn't have to worry about running out of priests to run churches. I didn't necessarily mean more people would become Catholics. I'm talking about consolidating congregations to deal with the shortage of priests. Getting the Surgery Is Hard And Risky For Many Men Many men online who want this complain about how hard it is to get. Many look for the services of untrained, unprofessional, illegal cutters. If it was a religious requirement it would be easier to get qualified doctors to perform the surgery. In addition to attracting people to join the Catholic Church for the surgery it would also help make it easier and safer for men who want their genitals removed to have them removed. We Can Use Anastesia With anastesia we can prevent them from feeling physical pain. As for "humiliation" why would a man be humiliated to be committing his life to serving God? Common Sense That castration will repair the Church's image is common sense. Everyone knows the biggest problem with the church's image is the pedophile priests scandal. If priests have no genitals they can't molest kids, so castration would solve the image problem. Whether the number of priests who are pedophiles is statistically significant is irrelevant, because the public perceives it as being significant and so will respond positively to them being castrated as that will help reassure them that there will be no molestation. Why not castrate all men? Because the Catholic Church does not have that authority and this debate is about what the Catholic Church ought to do, not what the state ought to do. It has the authority to impose this as a requirement for men who become priests, but clearly the church can't just go running around chopping off guys genitals if they're not Catholic. Calling From God, Yes But Some Choose Not to Hear It Some people ignore the calling especially if there is social pressure to ignore it such as parents suspicious about whether the church has a big pedophile problem. And it's still a concern in high school. What if the parents suspect their child is growing up to be a pedophile and that's why he wants to join. That's absurd of course, but people believe absurd things. Having castration be part of the deal will ensure the parents of the kid that their kid isn't trying to become a pedophile so they can be proud of his choice to join the priesthood without suspicion. Priests Should Not Be Talking About Medical Procedures They Got Themselves? The priests would have been castrated as well. There's nothing wrong with sharing personal experience of how a medical procedure felt. As for medical information, as long as it is derived from an objective source like the American Medical Association there is no problem. Information is information and truth is truth no matter whose mouth it comes out of. As long as he's not just making things up and is telling about the actual facts, including "for more information check out the American Medical Association's webpage..." in case they need more information. Eunuch Calm Is Worth It So there's some potential health problems. The "eunuch calm" state is akin to what some men call enlightenment, so it will be good for the priests. If a priest does not have a penis, how exactly would he be unchaste? He could receive anal intercourse, give a blowjob, finger someone's orifice, or jack someone off, all of which would of course be prohibited as part of celibacy and being castrated would reduce hormones and so reduce urges. However, God clearly is not against us doing things that reduce our temptation. The Bible doesn't have passages encouraging you to go hang out for hours with your neighbor's attractive wife just so you can have a temptation to reject and prove your worth to God. Priests, having to intercede between the faithful and God will have extra stress and pressure. They do not need to have the problem of dealing with lust. Lust can complicate human relationships. That's why God deems it a sin. How objective will a priest's advice be if he is talking to a man who is dating a woman he is lusting after? Castration does not completey prevent but will greatly reduce the chance of such lust. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Reality is an Absolute because For rebuttals I will quote in bold as Pro did. "The argument at hand is whether or not reality is objective, independent and an absolute. Our perceptions are based off of reality, to perceive something would require that it exists to perceive it." Our perceptions are subjective. We assume that they are based off of some absolute reality, but we have no method to determine whether or not they are. Can you design a test that will prove that you aren't just a dream of a sleeping butterfly? It's impossible to prove. Since our perceptions are subjective, all of our knowledge about everything is based off of subjectivity. It follows that any knowledge derived from subjectivity can't be used as evidence of objective truth. Therefore, any arguments about reality being absolute are inherently flawed, being arguments based off of subjective perceptions. There is no test that can be designed to show that I see the same thing as Pro if we look at the same object. "I was not stating that our perceptions are objective, but reality is." I would ask Pro to provide evidence that reality is objective. Stating so is not evidence in and of itself. I propose that all knowledge about 'reality' is based off of subjective perception, and cannot be used to define an objective truth. "You cannot prove reality because to prove reality would require the use of reality and logic, (which is also based on reality)" Pro's assertion is based on circular logic, being that proving reality requires reality, which is based on reality. This is a perfect argument as to why reality isn't absolute. We can only define what we call reality with words that we base off of what we perceive to be reality. " It is not reality that is defined, it is their perception that is defined." There is no other concept for reality than the concept we have, which is based off of our perceptions. This is why I assert that reality isn't absolute, but is unique for each individual and based off of perceptions. "This is stating that because man does not perceive an objective reality, there must not be one." Pro misstates my position. My position is that because we cannot prove an objective reality, then there is no evidence for reality being absolute. However, we do have evidence for reality being subjective, and I have presented several arguments to that effect. "Man perceives an objective reality..." Pro continues to state that we perceive an objective reality, without actually providing arguments as to why reality is objective. "Man's goal should be to view reality as objectively as he physically can by using reason to form ideas." Pro wants us to view reality as objectively as possible, based on reason. Reason is based on subjective information, so an objective observation of the universe can't be based on a subjective foundation. Pro continues to state that we perceive an objective reality, without showing what makes reality objective. I simply showed that all words are subjective as well. The word 'cat' is based off what we perceive to be a cat, but that perception is unique, individual, and subjective in and of itself. Nothing that any human thinks is ever objective. By definition, it is processed through personal processes and as such is subjective. 'Existence exists' is something Pro would state as an axiom, but since the argument is about reality and existence, the existence of an objective reality can't be taken for granted. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with marijuana because i beleive that the marijuana drug is completely acceptable when it is used for personal use. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Let's Choose A Debate! because I blocked you... By accident. I like food too. And guys. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Hillary Clinton should be in prison. because My opponent stated "It doesn't matter if her actions was immoral or not; this is not the topic of this Debate." Well, that is the topic. Her immoral actions were illegal. They were the same immoral actions committed by other Americans who got convicted. Which is why she should be convicted, ergo she should go to prison. In this case the lack of conviction and lack of a prison sentence go hand in hand. My opponents also stated "People aren't imprisoned for behaving immorally or unethically, unless they have committed a criminal offence." Once again, Hillary Clinton's immoral actions are what led to her committing a criminal offence. She mishandled classified materials by storing them improperly and handing them over to people who did not have the appropriate security clearance. And once again, saying the system is corrupt, does not excuse the fact of what should happen or not whether it is true or not. Actually, stating the system is corrupt would only help prove my point. The definition of corrupt is [1] "to cause (someone or something) to become dishonest, immoral, etc.". So back to that moral compass we all have. If the system is corrupt, that further proves my point that she should be in prison. Why would we want to trust in a corrupt system to bring justice when it is very much overdue? Nobody SHOULD be above the law. Everybody SHOULD be held accountable for their actions. Hillary Clinton SHOULD be in prison. In conclusion, this whole debate is based off of the fact that Hillary Clinton did not properly handle classified information. Whether she was convicted of it or not, we all know it to be true.[2] It has been proven that Hillary Clinton sent classified emails from an unclassified server and physically handed classified materials to people who did not have the appropriate clearance. She often stated that she did not know the information was classified, but that should not excuse her actions. That is similar to someone committing murder, and claiming they didn't know murder was illegal. Should that give them a legal pass? No. This debate is not about why Hillary Clinton did not go to prison. It is about should she have gone to prison. The answer is yes. Mishandling classified information is a Federal offense. Vote Pro! [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.wsj.com... *side note to augcaesarustus. Thanks for the debate! This has been a lot of fun and you had some pretty decent points :) <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Better to rape a baby than be raped by one. because Closing Argument: We can conclude from everyone of my arguments that, adult on baby rape has a more detrimental effect on both parties than baby on adult rape. Vote Con............... <EOA>

<BOA> I am with I will not contradict myself. because Contradiction: http://en.wikipedia.org... Rules: 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions. 2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes or No, or with an explanation as to why neither Yes nor No would be completely correct or appropriate. 3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers. 4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over. 5. If CON ever fails to ask PRO exactly ten Yes/No questions when necessary, CON automatically loses. 6. If PRO ever fails to answer every question asked in the previous round by the rules, PRO automatically loses. 7. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself, PRO wins. 8. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself, PRO loses. 9. Because sources are irrelevant, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. Good luck. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Abortion is Murder (providing for exceptions in extreme medical emergencies) because ( Re: B/C/D ) Pro maintains that human life is defined as being alive and being human, and that "a child" from conception is alive at any point of development. In that case, OF COURSE a fetus is alive; the very sperm and egg cells that create the fetus are indeed ALIVE. In that case, the "killing" of every living that that has the potential to create life (i.e. a sperm cell) would be murder. So, the next time you lube up and spend a few minutes wanking off in a tube sock to the point of ejaculation, just know that you are committing murder, Pro, according to your definition of the term. If you (or anyone) disagrees, then these points must not be considered in affirmation for the Pro. Remember that just because a zygote is alive, doesn't mean that it is subject to full human rights. Consider the fact that an ameba is alive, has DNA, and has all of the same characteristics as a human zygote except for the fact that it is not a potential person. However, that "potential" person is not equivalent to an ACTUAL person, therefore we have no moral obligation to defend the rights of a zygote any more than we have an obligation to defend the human rights of an ameba. Similarly, the cells that compose of the zygote are in fact human, as Pro pointed out, the same way that the cells on hair follicles are alive and human. In other words, a hair follicle from your head is just as human as a zygote (it contains the same unique DNA that Pro-Lifers claim make a zygote a person), and yet nobody would argue that you cannot cut or "kill" your hair. In other words, a zygote is not a person. The definition of a person reads - being an individual, or existing as an indivisible whole; existing as a distinct entity. Clearly a zygote nor a fetus would fit this description. Furthermore, many would argue that a "person" doesn't even exist until the point of Consciousness, but I digress. ( Re: A ) I have several qualms with Pro's Point A: First, Pro claims that there is a social condemnation of murder, and that the individual reasoning of the people are not important to this argument. Of course, this point is dripping in fallacies. I'll start with the main one: Argumentum ad populum - appeal to the general public; trying to prove something by showing that the public agrees with you. In that case, you'll have to consider the Argumentum ad numerum - appeal to numbers; the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. However, regardless of how many people believe something, it doesn't necessarily make it true or right. For instance, even if 70% of people think that 1 + 1 = 3, it doesn't make that popular opinion correct. Additionally, it is the 'individual opinions' of the people that constitute a majority opinion in the first place, so I think the opinions of those people are actually completely relevant. . Second, ethical reasoning is in fact pretty important. Pro calls for the LEGAL protection of all human life, but it is the moral and ethical codes that we wish to live by which determine what our laws should be. Even if you don't agree - even if you point out that, say, a Dictator is capable of making laws, then that only asserts the fact that what is legal isn't always what is morally sound (and vice versa), or what the majority people believe (even if you believe in a majority rule). Furthermore, morality or beliefs and opinions have a way of transferring from one generation to the next, regardless of what is "right." For instance, a woman is best suited to give birth at around age 15; however, many people in society look down upon such young women having children, that this biologically "right" characteristic is ignored based on the constraints of society (where it was accepted in the past). That said, I question Pro's reasoning as to why the intentional ending of human life by another individual (when not done during war, in self defense, as assisted suicide, or capital punishment) is necessarily wrong. Consider the Objectivist view of abortion: An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn). Abortion is a moral right, which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body? [ "Of Living Death" -- The Objectivist -- October, 1968 ] Pro has the burden of proving why this view is wrong. Additionally, Pro brought up the issue of sanity at the start of the debate. Personally, I'm skeptical to accept such a loosely defined (or non defined) description of what "sanity" is. However, if you do accept his presumption that nobody who is sane wants to be murdered, then it also seems reasonable to accept that nobody who is sane wants to murder. In that case, what about the soldiers who take pleasure in the killing of their enemies? Why does the act of being involved in a war make it morally permissible to kill? Pro is insisting that people follow (even immoral) orders blindly, without making an individual judgment on whether it is right or wrong to take another human life in a given situation. Clearly not everybody agrees; this is because sometimes individuals are held to a standard which maintains that they have to make their own decisions and not just do what they are old (see: Nuremberg Trials). Outside of the boundaries of an accident, killing at ANY time should be wrong and considered murder according to Pro. The resolution states that it is murder providing for exceptions in extreme medical emergencies, but who is to determine what these "emergencies" are? What if a mother is subject to postpartum or depression, and having a child can send her in a downward mental spiral? Would that be considered a medical "emergency?" Moreover, what if a soldier kills a man during a time of war, even though he has no hostility towards that man and the war was considered unjust by a majority of people (i.e. the war in Iraq) - did that soldier commit murder? My point here is that if murder (killing) can be justified at any point, then I don't see why it wouldn't be justified in terms of abortion, especially according to the facts: (1) Most abortions occur during the first trimester of pregnancy, when a fetus cannot live independently of its mother and cannot exist without her (2) Personhood =/= human life (3) An occurance where rape or incest results in a pregnancy, having a baby can have irreparable medical (mental) impacts on the mother, thus severely threatening the value of her life, even if it is not an "emergency" in that she can still survive without having an abortion (4) Civil rights (the right of women to govern their own bodies, independent of any social or legal obligation) . Finally, I'll avoid the blatantly obvious fact that Pro spoke of murder only in regard to HUMAN rights, and didn't include anything about the intentional killing of animals for sport or (unnecessary) food, but again, I digress. I think I have successfully negated the resolution and all of Pro's claims up until this point without having to make such an obvious argument. Back to you, Pro. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Pro-life: Ignorance or Inhuman because PREFACE: In this debate it is to be understood that the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are not simply statements of personal preference. They are statements of political (and therefore ethical) ideology. A person who is pro-life does not simply say that they would not get an abortion but they say that abortion should be illegal. A position in which a person would not get or approve of an abortion but would NOT persecute or prosecute a person who would get one is pro-choice. Consider these two scenarios: 1) You're in a burning building and have a choice to save one of two things; a 9-year-old girl or a cooler with 1000 viable human embryos: Which one do you save? 2) You are in charge of making decisions for a 9-year-old girl and she becomes pregnant from a rape with twins. Every prenatal doctor you take her to tells you that the pregnancy is life-threatening and that an abortion would save her life. Would you authorize the procedure or would you not? As I understand it, if one wanted to be consistent while holding a pro-life position they would/should choose the cooler in #1 and to NOT authorize the procedure in #2 or at the very least deride the person in a situation like #2 if they were to authorize the abortion. This assessment of the pro-life position is obviously predicated on the stated pro-life position that suggests that humanity begins or human rights are bestowed at the moment of conception. My basic contention is that a person holding a pro-life position (as defined in the preface) is either inhuman - given the logical, philosophical, and real life consequences of holding and/or implementing said position - OR they are simply ignorant of the consequences of holding and/or implementing their position. Now I'd like to take the time to make my position as clearly as I can at the moment. I leave it to my opponent then to show the flaws in my arguments. 1) I do not believe a fetus could be considered a fully fledged person until around the 28th week when the thalamus (the brain structure known to be responsible for routing sense information to the brain and regulating consciousness) is formed and functional. Without this structure there is no sense information, no emotional capacity, no pain perception, and no capacity for conscious thought therefore; therefore an abortion, before the 28th week of development is not murder nor does it cause suffering. I am open to pushing the time limit back from the 28th week however I think that topic is for a different discussion. http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk... http://discovermagazine.com... 2) Pro-life hypocrisy: A) I consider it a hypocrisy on the part of the pro-life movement to desire to outlaw abortion because of the opinion they hold that the UNborn have rights over the rights of the mother's right of self determination. They tend to say things like, "Who are you to decide for the unborn?" I ask, "Who are you to decide for all women?" B) Should someone site religious grounds against abortion, I wonder if they feel any sense of reverence for religions that revere animals as reincarnations of humans and therefore consider it murder to kill them? 3) I do not support abortion being used as a form of birth control however illegalization is not the way to reduce and/or prevent the occurrence of this phenomena effectively. Before 1973 (Roe v Wade and Doe v Balton) legal abortions at that time ranged around 250,000/year and there were an estimated 400,000 - 1.2 million illegal abortions/year and because of the illegal abortions there were over 5000 deaths due to complications from botched abortion procedures on top of many more disfigurations and health complications. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton http://thomas.loc.gov... : 4) Abortion is not used as a form of contraception. Pregnancy can occur even with responsible contraceptive use. Only 8% of women having abortions have never used birth control, and 90% of the women most likely to have an abortion are on birth control. http://www.alanguttmacher.org... 5) I think Bill Clinton said it best when he said, "Keep abortion safe, legal, and rare." Based on the number of then legal and illegal abortions and the fact that abortion levels today are arguably not significantly higher now then they were before abortion was legalized, the idea that illegalizing abortions will stop abortions from taking place, reduce their number or solve a problem without creating several bigger ones in it's place is laughably unfounded. 6) Illegalizing abortion would demonstrably cause more problems than it solves given the number of unwanted children heaping more pressure on the state (through adoptions, juvenile crime, and impoverished families/mothers who can't afford a child), the extra stress on the healthcare system due to unsafe illegal abortions causing medical problems, and the civil liberties of rape victims who become pregnant and a woman's right to control their own reproductive health being violated. (If your objection is along the lines of, "What about the civil liberties of the unborn." see #1) Conclusion: The only way to responsibly, ethically and effectively reduce the number of abortions is to increase access to birth control and abandon abstinence only sex education programs (given their complete and utter failure) and replace them with proper sex education programs that inform young and even older people about birth control, the truth about it, and how and where to access it. I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion: I believe that legalized abortion is a necessary evil if we wish to maintain the healthiest society possible and promote the highest level of well-being in that society. http://scholar.google.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Better to rape a baby than be raped by one. because I accept, state your case. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with End the Federal Reserve of America. because I strongly believe that the Federal Reserve is a great danger to the American People for these reasons. 1) They create money out of thin air, thus creating a Boom-Bust economy in which economic depressions and recessions are inevitable. If they keep this vicious cycle up, we will soon reach hyperinflation, where the currency is so inflated that it is worth nothing. This happened in Germany during the early 1920's. 2) The Federal Reserve isn't even a Federal organization! It is owned by private bankers that profit from all the recessions in American History. 3) The Federal Reserve is outside our government. They don't have to tell us anything about what they're doing. While congress is debating over whether or not to pass an eight-hundred billion dollar economic stimulus bill, the Fed is printing up Nine Trillion dollars and nobody seems to care! The number one way to gain control of a government and it's people is to gain control of it's money supply. This is what Kings have done in the Middle Ages to gain control of their people and it is what the Fed has done in the USA. I gleefully await my opponent's rebuttal. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against I will not win this debate. because My opponent will indeed win this debate. After I submit my argument for Round 3 of this debate, I shall give the three Convincing Argument points to my opponent. Therefore, his profile would call this debate a victory for him. I shall then change my vote to fit the proper categories based on how this debate actually went. However, my opponent will have briefly won this debate, and therefore, the resolution would be affirmed, allowing me to win the debate. In conclusion, my opponent will win this debate, so the resolution is negated. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Should we put constraint on media for national security because Extend everything. Thank you. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1G because I submitted my second round right before bed, and when I woke up this morning I got an email saying it's my turn to debate. TheSkeptic is either quite the night owl or quite the early bird. Either way, his quick reply is much appreciated. ==================== TAG - Existence of Logical Absolutes ==================== My opponent mistakes transcendental argumentation (this is why we call it TAG) for the fallacy of division. The fallacy of division starts from an object O identifying a property P, then erroneously concludes that all the parts of O have P. TAG starts with (for example) logical absolutes, O, identifying their properties, P, and determine the necessary preconditions for O to have P. TAG argues in the opposite direction. To clarify this, I'll expound my case: Logical absolutes must not change, or they are not absolute. Therefore, it is logically necessary that they exist outside human brains, physical energy, matter, and so forth, because these things are changing. Indeed, the universe is in constant flux. So, in order for immutability to be preserved, it is logically necessary for logical absolutes to be metaphysical. Logical absolutes are abstract. Therefore, it is logically necessary that they are products of thought. Human thought cannot be the source else logic is no longer immutable (see above). The only thought that can preserve both the abstract and immutable nature of logic is a mind that is transcendent and immutable. Finally, logical absolutes are necessarily true. Thus, any transcendent, immutable mind must also be rational. The conclusion, based on necessary preconditions, is that a transcendent, immutable, rational mind exists. To confirm the conclusion, remove any one of these prerequisites, and logical absolutes will reduce to absurdity, as I argued in round one. Thus, TAG accounts for logical absolutes, the very thing my opponent simply takes for granted. There is no double standard here. My opponent asserts that he can invalidate any argument for God's existence, but if he wants all humans including myself to adhere to strict logical standards, then he should be able to account for those standards. Calling logic an axiom only begs the question. If he wants to use logic to deny God's existence, then logical absolutes must be explainable apart from God's existence. Otherwise, he is relying on the very thing he attempts to refute. ==================== TAG - Existence of Logical Absolutes - Theism's Inability to Account for God's Existence/Attributes ==================== My opponent puts a lot of energy into this straw man. He proposes, since I cannot allegedly account for God, I cannot win the debate. He contends that I cannot account for WHY God exists. TAG does explain WHY. God exists BECAUSE he is the necessary precondition for logical absolutes, uniformity in nature, and moral absolutes. This is a veiled attempt to refute TAG by assuming it's already false. This is major question begging. The same problem applies to my opponent's contention that I cannot account for why God has some attributes and not others. I hate to be redundant, but again, TAG argues for a particular kind of God. The many traits of God are logically necessary. He must be merciful, just, righteous, and holy to account for moral absolutes. He must be self-sufficient, perfect, unchanging, and omniscient to account for logical absolutes. And so on and so forth. ==================== TAG - Uniformity of Nature ==================== Uniformity in nature must be true in order for science to yield objective knowledge. My opponent simply defers his rebuttal in this area to the same rebuttal he uses for logical absolutes. So be it, but if my defense of TAG holds for logical absolutes, then it holds for the uniformity of nature as well. Suffice to say, merely assuming nature is uniform and logic is absolute while also asserting that "logic is descriptive of reality" has the markings of circular reasoning all over it. (Quote is from TheSkeptic's second round) ==================== TAG - Existence of Objective Morality ==================== Combining moral nihilism with fictionalism is like the man that claims he doesn't have a car but uses it when pretending to drive to work. If the car really doesn't exist, then pretending it exists has no effect. If his car does exist, then his claims are self-refuting. My opponent claims that morality does not exist but pretends to be moral in order to "avoid the harmful effects of a lawless land." My opponent will refute this position as soon as he expects anyone else to pretend alongside him. If I shoot him in the leg and take his wallet, to be consistent, he'll just have to accept that I pretended differently. If he seeks justice, then he no longer pretends. Moral nihilism simply can't be rationally lived out in real life. My opponent's moral theories only serve to strengthen my case. Moral objectivity is the only rational choice, as anything else reduces to absurdity. Since moral absolutes exist, they must be transcendent and abstract, for the same reasons as logical absolutes. Therefore, there must be a transcendent, immutable, perfectly good mind behind them. God, as defined in this debate, fulfills these prerequisites. ==================== Failure of TAG - Non-Unique Proof ==================== My opponent cleverly led me into a myopic discussion here, focusing squarely on the prerequisites of logic. The reason TAG does indeed argue for one kind of God is that TAG also argues from uniformity in nature and moral objectivity. A god that accounts for logic cannot also be evil since such a god cannot also account for moral absolutes. A god that is not omnipotent would be subject to logical absolutes and therefore could not account for them. A god that is not omniscient cannot be perfectly just and fails to account for moral absolutes. Alter the definition of God in this debate and He can no longer meet the necessary preconditions identified in TAG. Thus, TAG does indeed argue for a very unique God. ==================== Conclusion ==================== My opponent's rebuttals are wanting. His attempt to use the fallacy of division against the argument for logical absolutes turned out to be fallacious itself. He assumes logical absolutes and uniformity of nature, and uses those assumptions to disprove God, even though he cannot account for these things without God. His argument for moral nihilism only exaggerates the philosophical problems with atheism, thus strengthening theism. Finally, I've shown TAG to argue for a unique God, thereby refuting his non-unique proof. Thus far, TAG remains firmly valid, and the resolution remains solidly affirmed. Boy, I'm glad I didn't pick more than one argument. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with The "Flick" attack should be continued as a valid touch because I thank Con for instigating this debate. I can tell this is going to be fun. Sourcing In my research for my round, I found it surprisingly difficult to find sources on anything I am going to claim. Thus much of my rounds are constructed from personal experience – much like Con’s is. I don’t expect Con to disagree with many of the claimed facts (such as the 2005 timings lead to significantly lower levels of flicking), even though it is virtually impossible to find a good source which verifies that claim. So I will let Pro contest from his own experience any factual claims which may be false, and I largely intend to do the same to his. Preface The resolution appears to be a shared BoP, for while I am on the positive end of the case, Con is arguing against the status-quo. I don’t foresee this being an issue since we have our own positive contentions either way, but just to make a note. Also, it is clear from the resolution that the negation of the resolution would be to invalidate flicking, or prohibit it on some level, such a notion can only be achieved pragmatically by changing the fencing rulings, to which I don’t believe Pro will disagree. Thus, this debate is about whether or not we should change the rules on what points are valid or not. Such a change is presently only executable by the Federal Instutute of Escrime (F.I.E) – this the resolution narrows down further on whether or not F.I.E. should change the rulings regarding flicking. Also, given that the fencing community is relatively small, and the literature is relatively thin regarding fencing (e.g. the ranked list of sabruers in the UK contains less than 500 people), I anticipate that a lot of my evidences will be from forums, anecdotes, and personal know-how. Which given Con’s opening argument, seems to be a fair setting for this debate regardless. Background T3h Fl1ck The flick in fencing, which can be done in any weapon is where the weapon is launched in a “whipping” motion, with the natural “bendiness” of the weapon causing the weapon to hit with a “significant” curve – often effective in avoiding parries, or hitting target areas not otherwise accessible (such as the back of the torso, or the extreme sides). See below image of such a flick performed on the rear torso: See below for diagram of the valid target area for hitting in foil, any hits outside the orange area do not score a point: Note that the flick can accomplished from many different circumstances, while the flick can be performed as a direct attack (used instead of the traditional “lunge with point-in-line”), it can also be used in a parry reposté (one of the most standard & common defensive manoeuvres in foil fencing), with feint/compound attacks, and also in “beat”-attacks (another form of compound attack). C1. D efining a “flick” is subjective The problem with ruling out flicking as a valid touche, is that it is impossible to fairly and consistently rule. The reason for such is that foils whip and bend all over the place all the time , even during normal lunching motions (please see video #1 for a slow-motion replay, watch the motion of the foilist’s blades in even traditional motions).[ https://www.youtube.com... ] Such actions are difficult to see, but unmistably there, and a “flick” is simply an exaggerated and purposeful version of this. Thus with any attack, there is a level of “flicking” involved, this is especially relevant where is comes to compound attacks (where a feint, of a “dummy” attack is thrown, and the blade is moved and launched from a different angle/manner) and parry-ripostes (where the natural parrying motion, especially parry six, or a “beat” naturally stores some elastic energy within the blade). Thus, because even basic actions entail a level of “flicking”, and there being no way to both objectively AND pragmatically (more on this in a later section) distinguish between a “legal” flick and an “illegal” flick, that introducing regulations for such is unwise. Furthermore, because of blades flicking around anyway, especially when there is blade contact, then there are a large number of “accidental flicks” in any bout as well, especially in electrical foil. When a blade is parried, the very force of the parry causes the attacker’s blade to bend, and can often “whip around” the parry to land a flicking hit. This frequently happens in sabre, but also happens occasionally in foil. These are: 1. Virtually impossible to confidently rule as a flick/standard hit 2. Will cause serious disruption if they were ruled to be invalid on the grounds of an unsound flick call C2. Increases refereeing difficulty Refereeing in fencing is ****ing hard and stressful as it is.[ http://www.fencingforum.com... ]In foil fencing, referees have a role of comparable importance to judges of a dancing competition, where points are rewarded or lost because entirely on referee’s decision at times (referees calls are required to separate out “simultaneous” hits), and given an already low contingency for mistakes (only one referee per match, and only two video replays challenges, if any) on the referee’s part – the last thing we need is to introduce yet more difficulty into a stressful, difficult and unrewarding job that is the fencing referee. Referees are primarily charged with determining which fencer had “right of way”, which requires simultaneous attention to movement, footwork, and timing of arm extensions and judgement of blade contact – just to name a few. To outrule flicking would require the referee to also pay attention to the precise manner in which the blade landed. C3. Flicks have a high skill barrier to be effective Especially since the introduction of the new fencing timings, flicks require a high level of skill to connect. Merely whipping the blade and hitting is insufficient to score a hit, since the tip needs to be depressed on its target for a minimum of 13-15 milliseconds (as opposed to the old 1-5 milliseconds pre-2005) to register on the electronic equipment. To execute an effective flick, one needs to factor in the built-up tension within the blade, where your opponent is going to be on the flick, and matching up the timing of where the tip will be when approaching the opponent. Unlike the traditional point-in-line attack, where one could lunge with their eyes closed and be guaranteed to be aiming at target area, far more factors come into play with successfully landing a flick attack in foil. Thus, novice fencers, those are most liable to cause the most safety issues, seldom use it as a hitting technique (since it is completely ineffective and hence a losing manoeuvre). This is akin to a novice tennis player attempting to perform a backhand slice/dropshot, or an overarm power-serve – they will lose unless they attain a high level of skill with either technique – a far higher level of skill than is required for more traditional maneuvers (underarm serve, backhand return). Furthermore, because it is a high level fencing technique, then prohibiting it would deprive high skilled fencers of a valuable tool of their repertoire that they have rightfully earned with sufficient practice. C4. Flicks are a solved problem In foil fencing, the vast majority of hits are still not flicks, which even with its ability to evade parries, or to hit previously inaccessible target area, is a testament to the difficulty of the technique and also the efficacy of more traditional fencing techniques. Since the 2005 change in fencing timings the effectiveness of flicking dropped to such a level that previously world champion fencers were struggling to stay within the top 100. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against High heels should be illegal and destroyed as well as halting production of high heels. because My opponent has, unfortunately, appeared to have forfeited, and thus I extend all arguments. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Students should be allowed to eat lunches during classes. because Con states that 'First things first, the school day lasts for less than 7 hours so my opponent is simply factually wrong here'. Not at all. Research by Nation Household Education proves that half of middle schools start at 8:00. Resulting in 7:30 hours. In which cases older students dont have enough time to eat breakfast. Nor sleep with all of their priorities in school. As i mentioned before, especially older kids need to digest more food as they grow. Another thing con stated was that 'Thirdly, she states that lunch is only available after 5 hours (1:00pm). This is also wrong. Most schools have lunch time start between 11 and 12 o'clock, which is a 2.5-3.5 hour stretch assuming an 8:30 start time' Another opinion suggesting that 'most' schools. Not all. But i just have a question. Did those schools have low obesity rates? Children now are affected by obesity in schools. Con is very wrong with his mathematics. The lunch begins 4 - 4:30 depending on grades. My nephew is already in 7th grade and he starts lunch at 12:30. But next year when he goes to 8th grade, he'll have ONLY 15 minutes to eat and lunch will start at 1:00. Average middle or high schools starts lunch AFTER 12:00. Most grades start roughly at 11:30. But were not really talking about little kids right? Not every school lets kids have breaks in classes. Oh and one thing Con didnt check was that his first source ONLY shows the average hours in school from 2000- 2004. Its almost 2013. Dont you think it changed just a tiny bit? ;) Now, im gonna go leave for school :3 Sources - http://www0.gsb.columbia.edu... My nephew's school ^^ <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Mutilating dogs for aesthetic reasons because Again, my opponent does not seem to understand the importance of rights, especially in a debate involving ethics. Because she has yet to leave this pool of misunderstanding, this debate won't seem to be able to lift off it's feet, once again. =================== Relevance of rights =================== {quote}To begin with, the fact that animals do not have rights is not crucial. This is because 'Rights' are Man made, just like laws and regulations.{endquote} If rights are purely man made, then are they not subject to change - perhaps by the majority? Are you saying that it's feasible that the right to life can be revoked? OF COURSE rights are crucial to this debate - in fact, most debates. If it's been established that animals don't have any rights (which my opponent has conceded to), then by definition they are amoral. {quote}My argument is, what is actually 'right' about cropping and docking? The answer is nothing.{endquote} There can be many reasons. For many animals, it serves for more so of a preventive method from potential harms, such as docking the tails of horses to prevent it being tangled with agricultural instruments. In relevance to dogs, cropping and docking is usually done to either protect the dog from infections due to bug bites (usually the ear), to prevent hunting dogs to get their tail caught, and usually for "aesthetic purposes". EVEN IF it's as trivial as making the dog look nicer, it still is NOT immoral. It's, in fact, amoral because my opponent has conceded that dogs have no rights. {quote}Just because animals do not have rights, it does not mean it is right to mutilate perfectly healthy body parts.{endquote} QUITE to the contrary. ==================== Conclusion ==================== If my opponent cannot even come to understand the relevance of rights, then this debate will go nowhere. Anyone with a modicum of philosophical knowledge knows that any debate with the word "wrong" or "immoral" in it HAS TO de <EOA>

<BOA> I am against rap battle because Dearly Departed, This is one battle you shouldn’t have started. Hearing you rap is like keeping my mouth open after somebody farted. Your better half ran down yo mommas back, that’s why you’re retarded. I’m not making fun of your gay issues or your poverty, for real. I’m a little disgusted that you’d swallow a load, just for the hot meal. I won’t address all the crap you said. It’s all just a gimmick. Go crawl back in the dumpster behind the abortion clinic. Now, you said some serious stuff about my wife. That’s a really dirty move and you deserve a rusty knife. I’ll let this one slide, bro. After all,.. What ‘chu know about having a vagina in your life? You said I still play pokemon, but that’s what you do fun. I play poke-a-female, while you treat dick like Pringles. Bet you can’t have just one. You talk a big game but I’m the weatherman. I predict a storm, cause you just messed with a veteran, I dropped Bombs before the conflict in Lebanon. There’s no regimen that can mess with me, son. I’m simply better than, This little female who’s all out of adrenaline. Doping like Armstrong but you used estrogen. Someone help this fool up, the Ref already counted to ten. I gotta go. I'll catch you later man. (Drops mic in a dramatic gangsta fashion) ** Thanks for the battle. This was quite entertaining. ** <EOA>

<BOA> I am with The probability argument falls flat when it comes to explaining the past because Since this is the last round,i would like to thank Con for participating in this debate. It was fun and interesting. It's also interesting to see Con has made false assumptions and mistakes AGAIN. Just to correct you,where you said "So Con's analogy does accomplish nothing" You probably meant Pro,just to clarify that. Con did nothing to disprove my arguments,let's take a look. First of all,Con used Newton's quote in attempt to bolster his claim. This was argument from authority fallacy. While Newton did a great job at explaining laws of motion and "discovering gravity" (for what he is famous,needless to say),he also believed in alchemy. Newton's quote doesn't prove/disprove anything. If Newton knew about evolution/abiogenesis theories and the evidence for them at that time (which did not exist at the time), i doubt that he would make the same quote. Next i recap that we have experimented with amino-accids,proteins,RNA and DNA. A research has been done that i think Con and our audience should check out [1] The Christian view requires fewer assumptions? Yes,but not in the world of science,not in the world of rationalism. It is extremely easy to believe that God created everything. Hmm that seems possible,since science can't explain many things. Well science has refuted many creationist claims that God is necessary. People believed that the world is flat,people believed that bird blood can cure leprosy,people believed that the Earth is the center of the universe,people believed that Earth was made 6000 years ago,...just to name a few. We have proven that Earth is older than 6000 years old using radiometric dating. And every type of RMD indicates,when a sample is examined, that the Earth is older than 6000 years. All the creationist beliefs are based on a single book. "But evolutionists prefer abiogenesis simply because it avoids God." Wrong! A typical straw man. Evolutionists/scientists prefer abiogenesis because there are thousands of evidence supporting it (most of those are about evolution as well),in contrary to creationism,which has,if not 0,then minuscule amount of evidence for reality,and those are just a few simple things we know today,and people knew then when using their brains. And many "abiogenesis believers" do believe in a God. These are known as deists. Although they don't believe in a God resembling anything like a Christian God. We went away from the topic way more than i expected. Although i had to answer these arguments,if you can call them that. I never said probability is meaningless about determining the chances about the past. I said that it's meaningless when explaining the impossibility of something in the past. And this is only for things that we have evidence for happened. "We can conclude, based on probability, that some things definitely never happened (like abiogenesis). And, as I pointed out, if our view of history requires something impossible to happen, it is probably wrong." Did you ignore my proofs in the last two rounds? Abiogenesis is NOT IMPOSSIBLE,i have proven this. I have also linked my source [1] for you to check out. "The reason evolutionists believe in the abiogenesis hypothesis is because excluding God, it's their only hope of explaining our life-filled world. Unfortunately, abiogenesis is, practically, impossible, which means that abiogenesis should remain a hypothesis and a failed one at that." *facepalm* Again, a straw man. And i am not going to repeat myself again for the second sentence. I said,and i repeat,that a chance of a raindrop hitting your nose is definite. Let's take your version of the analogy. I want to pick a grain of sand. What is the chance that i will pick a grain of sand? The answer is: definite. But now as i am walking away,i ask myself: "What was the chance that i would have picked this particular grain of sand"? And the answer is 1:30.000.000 (taking your chance). The question "What is the chance that i WILL pick a particular grain of sand" is another story. You can't choose a particular grain of sand for the future,you can just describe it. Like: What is the chance that i will pick a cube-shaped grain of sand at random? Then 1:30.000.000 becomes applicable. If asking about the past: "What was the chance that i would have picked this particular grain of sand"? the answer is 1:30.000.000 again,but it already happened,we have proof that it happened,we are holding that grain of sand in our hands. [Caps lock] THIS IS WHY THE PROBABILITY ARGUMENT FAILS WHEN TRYING TO EXPLAIN THE PAST. IT IS MEANINGLESS WHEN TRYING TO PROVE THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF SOMETHING HAPPENING IN THE PAST,OF WHICH WE HAVE THE EVIDENCE FOR. Now Con's only counter-argument would be that the proofs for abiogenesis don't exist. But i would beg to differ. That is a discussion for another time. "Information does not come from chaos." This is a really vague claim open to equivocation. If you meant "Order does not come from chaos" or "Order does not come from disorder" I will disagree with you. First answer: It depends on what we perceive as "order" and "chaos". We might be living in a chaotic state,but we perceive it as order.. This is a more philosophical question. Second answer is about 2nd law of thermodynamics [2] (which you might have been referring to). This article contains some extra information about creationism too. So to recap what we have concluded: 1. We have concluded that nothing in our physical world is impossible as long as it doesn't break any laws of physics. 2. We don't need probabilities to help us determine the chances of something happening in the past (impossibility), since it does nothing to disprove that something. 3. Once we've established the 2nd premise, we can conclude that abiogenesis is both mathematically and practically possible,since it doesn't break any laws of nature. (plus we have done multiple experiments to prove it) Conclusion: Probability argument falls flat when used to disprove the possibility of abiogenesis. I once again thank Con for participating in this debate. It was truly a pleasure. Vote Pro! Sources: http://www.gtresearchnews.gatech.edu... [1] http://www.talkorigins.org... [2] <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Creation vs. Evolution because I do not believe it is fair to have at 3 rounds to debate while my opponent will only have 2, so I will not say much for this round except, if when voting to vote fairly, and please no hater comments. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with I can post funnier "yo mama" jokes than my opponent. because Your second joke was basically my second joke... :( Sorry, I went out of order. Old was fourth, but... whatever. Now on to "cheap" jokes. 1. Yo mama so cheap that when I stepped on her cigar, she said "get your foot off ma heater." 2. Yo mama so cheap that she got angry at the gumball machine for not accepting coupons. 3. Yo mama so cheap that when she I pissed on her lawn, she thanked me for watering the garden. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Homos that rape underage girls should not face prosecution because It is indeed a pleasure to debate Brian on one of fun topics. Hope this debate was as enjoyable to him and the voters as it was to me. Here are my responses: 1) Who is liable? My opponent does not want to be held liable for the actions of his pet Homo Floro which I will name "Kanye". Since he had two rounds to name his Homo Floro and hasn't named it yet, it falls on me to name it. Now, my opponent does not want to be held liable for Kanye's actions as evidenced by his statement: "Now, if this horny Homo was brought before the courts and successfully prosecuted for rape, the family could then sue me for supplying them with a pædophile pet." My opponent also does not want Kanye to be held responsible for his own actions as my opponent feels that Kanye can't defend himself and cannot be held liable for his own actions. My opponent also agrees that there ought to responsibility for a Homo Floro's actions with this statement: " There ought to be accountability for Homos' actions, I agree, but the Homos themselves should not be held legally liable ." My question then is: Who will be held liable for Kanye's actions? Not my oppoent, not Kanye and certainly not the victims. If Kanye is not prosecuted, we will have rampant rape of human girls and a new hybrid species will emerge. Note that rape will occur not due to mistaken identity but due to Homo Floros like Kanye intentionally raping human girls. To stop this, all Homo Floros must be prosecuted before a human judge. 2) Homo Floros can defend themselves very well My opponent tells an interesting story about a French monkey which was accused of being a French spy and hanged. This analogy is inadequate for two reasons: (a) Homo Floros are far more intelligent than monkeys. My opponent's source says that Homo Floros are extremely intelligent. "Given that Homo floresiensis is the smallest human species ever discovered, they out-punch every known human intellectually, pound for pound"[3]. How dare my opponent compare it to a monkey?? (b) The English would most certainly have hanged a human French spy. The hanging took place not because the spy was a monkey, but because he was French. So this is not an analogous situation to Kanye being prosecuted. The monkey in my opponent's example was treated like a human, so too will Kanye. 3) Mistaken Identity " You see! Even my opponent couldn't tell the difference between an adult Homo female and an adolescent human female, so what chance would a male Homo have? " I have no idea where in the world my opponent gets that from, since I never commented on his pictures. However, open these two pictures, [1] http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com... ;[2] http://www.ayushveda.com... if you can tell that [1] was a Homo Floro and [2] was a human girl, I will have won this point. Even if an exceptionally stupid Homo Floro mistakes a human girl for one of its own, it must still be prosecuted as it committed a crime against a human being and violated human laws. It doesn't matter whether or not it knew that it was breaking the law. Conclusion When a Homo Floro rapes an underage girl, he knows that it is a human girl. He must be held accountable for his actions in a human court. Even if he doesn't know that it is a human girl, so what? Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it. Humans must still prosecute him. [3] http://news.nationalgeographic.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Devout Christian absent fathers should not pay child maintenance because Jesus' father, God, impregnated Jesus' mother, Mrs Mary Christ, and then did a runner leaving her and her husband, Mr Joseph Christ, to bring up the parental duty-dodging deity's son on a lowly carpenter's wage. You may think God was a cad and a bounder for putting a married woman up the duff and then legging it back to Heaven, and that such behaviour would be more befitting a chav on the Jeremy Kyle Show rather than that of a respectable god, but never mind that, pious Christians are supposed to have blind faith in their religion, and not to ask any awkward questions, so devout absent fathers should follow God's example and not pay any money to help bring their kids up. This may mean they go to prison here on earth but that is better than going to hell in the afterlife for defying God's will. Thank you. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against The death penalty, is it A- Morally Right and B- Logically Right because If people aren't going to change, then they should be given life, or until someone deems them rehabilitation. And your "Logic" argument is stupid! I think you'll find that US taxpayers pay less than 1 cent per year per prisoner, so your argument is invalid, and may I also remind you of the fact that there is no more crime in countries with the death penalty per pop. per area per year than there is in countries without. And criminals tend to assume that they're not going to get caught! <EOA>

<BOA> I am with The Neo-Lorentzian Interpretation is better than the Minkowski interpretation because Ave I thank RT for his gracious concession. As a formality, I extend all arguments that I made in the last round. I encourage the audience to vote arguments to me, and perhaps conduct to RT. Vale <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Resolved: In a fight without prior preparation, Batman would defeat Spider-Man. because If Batman and Spider-Man were to fight, Spider-Man would beat the living daylights out of Batman. First, Spider-Man has superhuman abilities. Batman is an Olympic level human in terms of physical attributes. Clearly, Spider-Man is superior in this regard. Second, Spider-Man is a worthy adversary in terms of intellect. Whereas Batman abuses his billions of dollars to buy fancy gadgets, Spider-Man actually creates his sophisticated devices (while using an extremely limited amount of resources) whenever he needs them. He is also well known for coming up with advanced battle strategies on the spot. In fact, due to his intelligence, Spider-Man was able to defeat the villain known as Fire Lord (a villain almost as powerful as Silver Surfer) in Amazing Spider-Man issues 269-270 without needing a rematch. Third, although Batman knows plenty of martial arts, Spider-Man has managed to develop his own unique fighting style that even Captain America (who is regarded as the best martial artist in the Marvel Universe)(someone who Batman thought of as being superior during both comic book crossovers) cannot help but praise. Fourth, Spider-Man has his spider sense, so Batman won't be able to count on surprising Spider-Man. Taking these four points into account, our favorite web head would mop the floor with the Dark Knight any day of the week. I now stand ready for my opponent's case (and am willing to cite any of the claims made above). Some of the above points may need clarification and I reserve the right to challenge any interpretation of the resolution which I feel does not meet this debate's intentions. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with immunizations for babies because Because my opponent forfeited the round, I'll just repeat the bottom line and main point: Although some vaccinations may cause minor problems, such as a small rash or mild fever, the risks of immunizations are tiny - not to mention extremely rare - in comparison to the risks of the diseases / viruses / bacteria / infections that the immunizations are supposed to protect you from. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with People should not been posting unnecessary topics . Such as Pokemon , superheros , my lil ponys. because FINAL REMINDER: IF YOU THINK THE RESOLUTION IS FALSE, VOTE ME BECAUSE THE SIDES WERE LABELED IMPROPERLY. 1. Arguing Skills > Homework Help My opponent stated that she knows plenty of schools who use debate.org for homework help, I assume because she's attended plenty of schools. But whether many people use this for homework help or not, that's not the point of this site. The point of this site is to give users better arguing and debating skills, and then exhibit them against others. So maybe my opponent's plenty of schools just aren't using the site correctly, and that's why they're having so many problems. 2. Business My opponent forfeits this contention. 3. You Can't Stop Us My opponent forfeits this contention. 4. "Some People Mean Business On This Site" False. -------------------------------------------------------------- I win all contentions. Vote MassiveDump. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Teaching Java in Introductory programming courses because 1) Java is more useful and easier to master Con compares the Java Runtime Environment My opponent mentions the cross platform benefits of Javascript. However, Java was designed by Sun to work on multiple platforms making it possible to develop Java applications over the internet [4]. Oracle has also released to security updates to fix flaws [5]. The flaw my opponent is referring to has long since been fixed. It is like saying that Windows 7 should not be learned by children because Windows Vista was flawed. The only difference in my analogy was that Oracle didn't rename the fixed version of Java. Oracle also changed the default security setting for Java from "medium to "high" alleviating concerns over security issues [5]. Con says that if Oracle collapses tomorrow, Java will go with it. This is an unsupported assumption. There is no reason to believe that Con's scenario will hold true as opposed to Oracle selling the JRE to another business or making the JRE open source before going under. In any case, Oracle's value has been increasing over the last 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years consistently [6] so this is a far fetched scenario. Java is also about 200 times faster than Javascript [7]. My opponent also metions some Javascript features which are very advanced. This is non-topical to the resolution as we are talking about an introductory course. While he claims that Javascript is easier to learn and harder to master, he provides no reason why this is supposedly a good thing. While Java may have a steeper learning curve in the first couple of weeks, by the end of a course, Java students feel a sense of fulfillment from having mastered the language as opposed to Javascript students who have done the easy stuff but there is much more complex stuff that they don't understand. 2) Downfalls of Javascript My opponent says that Javascript is not a scripting language. I never called it a scripting language although wikipedia does. Let's examine this definition of Javascript from wikipedia. " Javascript is a prototype based scripting language that is dynamic, weakly typed and has first class functions. "[10] Every adjective to Javascript provided shows why it is a terrible choice to teach in introductory classes. It is dynamically typed, meaning it executes at runtime what many other programming language would perform at compile time. These behaviors include extension of the program by adding new code, by extending objects and definitions, and by modifying the type system among other things [9]. Doing this at runtime makes it more difficult to find errors. Statically typed languages allow the programmer to catch the majority of their errors at complile-time by reading the compiler messages and correct their code before runtime. Correct faulty code at runtime makes little sense because the programmer doesn't know whether there is an error before running the program which gives programmers a false sense of security. Runtime errors in dynamically typed languages are more difficult to locate because many test cases need to be tested before the program is guaranteed to be running fine whereas with compile time errors, the compiler does the job for the programmer. Javascript is weakly typed. This has many disadvantages. Weakly typed languages catch fewer errors at compile time and some might even remain after testing has been completed [12]. While it is possible for a weakly typed language to be type-safe, it is much more rarer than in strongly typed static languages because there is no implicit conversion between types. While this may sometimes be onerous for programmers in Java, doing so discourages lazy habits and ensures that what you declared as an int in the beginning of the program doesn't suddenly end up as a string at runtime while you are completely oblivious to the fact. Javascript has first class functions. This means that Javascript supports passing functions as arguments to other functions. This creates many implementation difficulties whjch are collectively known as funarg problems [11]. Java works around this by requiring that the context used by context used by nested functions in anonymous inner classes be declared final. 3) Unique features of Java Standard library: Con claims that Javascript has a large number of libraries. Most of these are non-standard and require additional time and effort to learn. A course on Javascript can hardly spend hours teaching jQuery and other libraries that add a layer of complexity onto Javascript. Java's standard library has hundreds of classes and multiple methods within each class as shown in this page from Oracle [13]. Every method also lists the parameters it takes so it is a simple matter of plugging in the required parameters to get the required result. Dynamic Binding and Polymorphism: Polymorphism in Javascript doesn't work the same way as it does in Java. In Javascript, if you have two functions with the same name, the most recently defined function will always get called and there is no choice offered unless the programmer makes specialized functions just to support multiple possibilities [8]. In Java, the method that gets called depends on the number of parameters being passed so the programmer can choose to invoke a specific method by passing in the right parameters. Furthermore, suppose you want a subclass to have a method with the same name as a method in its superclass, but behave differently from the method in the superclass, you can override the method in the superclass with the method in the subclass. So, when an instance of the superclass calls the method, the superclass's method is called and when an instance of the subclass calls the method, the subclass's method is called. The meaning of the method depends on the type of object that invokes it. Note to readers: A "function" in Javascript and a "method" in Java are the same thing. Classes and Objects: Con says that classes are needed to contain sets of data and asks why you need a class for a single insturction. The answer lies in the fundamentals of Object Oriented Programming. True OOP uses procedural abstraction. Creating a class and keeping its implementation mostly private creates a requirement for code outside the class to be able to function without knowing the inner details of the class and how the class provides the results that it does. The code outside the class must only know what to provide to the class and what the class gives back. If code outside the class requires any knowledge of the inner workings of the class to work, then the class is no longer a separate module and its implementation cannot be edited or changed without also affecting programs that rely on that class. Hence, Java is organized in a way where everything is contained within classes. Non-OOP programming languages lack this feature making them inferior to Java. While Javascript is an object oriented language as well, I have shown in my previous round how you can write Javascript code outside of a class in what would in Java be a violation of an Abstract Data type wall. Sources [4] http://www.computerweekly.com... [5] http://allthingsd.com... [6] https://www.google.com... [7] http://cycling74.com... [8] http://javascript.about.com... [9] http://en.wikipedia.org... [10] http://en.wikipedia.org... [11] http://en.wikipedia.org... [12] http://en.wikipedia.org... [13] http://docs.oracle.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Are video games bad for childrens health? because Yes they are because it means that more and more children are staying cooped up inside when they should be outdoors having fun. Instead of going camping or playing in the woods, children are staying indoors to pretend to shoot people and playing all sorts of video games. It is not beneficial to their health as they aren't 'receiving the essential vitamins and nutrients that they need. They are also missing out on crucial social interactions that require face to face contact instead of talking through headsets. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Are eggs fruits? because I'd like to thank my opponent for starting this peculiar debate. Given that this debate is only 3 rounds and that my opponent has posted his opening arguments in round one (at least I think that's what that is o.O), I will go ahead of post my arguments. Arguments 1. Eggs =/= Fruit Fruit is defined as, " a part of a flowering plant that derives from specific tissues of the flower , mainly one or more ovaries ." [1] Given that eggs have nothing to do with plants, Pro's resolution that eggs are fruits has already been defeated. 2. Eggs =/= Chicken Fruit Pro also calls eggs "chicken fruit". Whether this is meant to be part of his resolution or not, I'm not sure, but either way it is incorrect. To refute this claim, all one must do is compare the qualities of eggs with fruits and see if they match up. First thing, Pro refers to the yolk of an egg as the seed. This is incorrect. Yolks don't grow into anything, they simply feed the chicken embryo. If anything, the chicken embryo would be the seed as it grows into a chicken just as a seed grows into a tree. Even still, this is an unequal comparison. For starters, seeds don't out-grow the fruit as a chicken embryo does to an egg. In fact, in some cases the fruit's purpose is the exact opposite to that of the egg shell. The egg is meant to protect the chicken embryo from outside forces until such time that the chicken has grown enough to break out of the egg and start its life. The fruit, in the case of apples, cherries, blackberries, etc. is meant to incise animals so that they eat the fruit and therefore the seed along with it. This way, the seed passes through the animal's digestive system where it is eventually dispersed along with some much needed fertilizer. [2] In other words, the egg is meant to protect the chicken embryo from potential predators while the fruit is meant to get the seed eaten. 3. Dreams are Irrelevant Pro talks about a dream he had in which he planted an egg yolk and a tree grew. This is literally nonsense. Dreams are not bound by natural laws and therefore cannot be used as evidence of anything. Conclusion Factually speaking, eggs are not fruits. This is incontestable. However, even on a structural level fruits are not comparable to eggs a they differ so greatly in both process and purpose, sometimes to the point of having virtually opposite functions as I have shown. I look forward to your response. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.zephyrus.co.uk... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Human social patterns point to the idea that there is no God because ================== Introduction ================== I extend my highest approbation to abard for his kindness in this debate. He makes a great case with his "filling in the blanks" hypothesis. However, and unfortunately, his case is sorely wanting in the area most fundamental for the fulfillment of his burden – I will expound on this below. ================== As science explains, people believe less? ================== My opponent's entire premise erodes beneath him because its very foundation is unsound! He says that, due to science, people are now less likely to believe in god(s). This could never more untrue! Atheism is in decline worldwide (1). Munich theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg has said, "Atheism as a theoretical position is in decline worldwide." Alister McGrath, an Oxford Historian, in his book, "The Twilight of Atheism," meticulously explicates this phenomenon – pointing out that if atheism is the nexus of reason and science, why has it become so rare by the turn of the 21st century? In a recent article, McGrath comments on atheism's future saying it, "seems increasingly to lie in the private beliefs of individuals rather than in the great public domain it once regarded as its habitat." Belief in God is actually increasingly globally – steady and persistent. ================== Point of a Personal God ================== This is the crucial and fundamental point that my opponent misunderstood (I'm sorry if it was not entirely clear). There is no reason for people to make up a personal god – one who is deeply interactive and participatory. My opponent's argument would rightly apply to a deistic understanding, but certainly not a theistic one. The god of deism serves only to fill in the so-called scientific blanks. But the god(s) of theism could not have sprung from a similar desire to fill in the blanks, as its interactive and participatory initiative with mankind fills no blanks – there was never any need to posit a PERSONAL god(s) in the first place! ================== Moral Propositions and Logical Absolutes ================== My point was not that someone cannot be moral or logical absent god, but the very fact that all cultures, near and far, adhere to the principles of logic and all make moral proposition is societal evidence that favors the existence of God. ================== Does the article support this claim? ================== My opponent suggests that the article listed in round 1 actually supports his claim. This is thoroughly untrue. First, you need not know all the complex mechanisms of evolution in order to believe that it is true – most all of its adherents have only a superficial understanding. But what the article shows is that, from birth, human-beings are predisposed to believe in god. This means that it is not something that springs from society, but something that is innate. ================== Grand Assumption ================== When I stated that my opponent's grand assumption was that he actually thinks the human tendency to believe in God is evidence that God does NOT exist!, he responded saying, "Yes and no. I'm saying that that is a major part, and the more science that is readily available to society, the fewer people believe in God." As already pointed it, this analysis is completely wrong. As Phil Zuckerman points out in a recent presentation on his findings from surveying non-belief – atheism is on a worldwide decline (2). ================== Conclusion ================== My opponent's thesis relies on a flawed assumption and therefore falls short of fulfilling his burden. Atheism is not on the increase, but on a worldwide decrease. Moreover, if we are innately predisposed to believe in God, then there is no reason to believe that God sprung from a societal pattern, but an innate one. Thank you again for this debate abard124 – you are a great and formidable opponent! Sources: 1. http://www.washingtontimes.com... and http://creationwiki.org... and The Twilight of Atheism by Alister McGrath 2. http://www.investigatingatheism.info... Thanks, InquireTruth <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Selling violent video games to minors is okay. because Wow, I've never had that happen before. I wish pro hadn't forfeited, even if he did change his mind on the issue. Anyway, please extend all arguments in case he changes his mind. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Direct popular vote should replace the electoral college in U.S. presidential elections. because Thomas Jefferson once said, "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention have ever been found incompatible with personal security or rights of property and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Because I agree with this quote I negate the resolution: Direct popular vote should replace the electoral college in United States presidential elections for the following reasons. Direct popular vote goes against the intent of the Constituiton and it protects the rights of small states. For the purposes of today's debate I would like to provide the following definitions: Democracy: rule by the majority (merriam webster dictionary) Republic: A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them. (the free dictionary.com) Contention 1: Direct popular vote goes against the original intent of the Constituion and the Founding Fathers. Direct popular vote should not replace the electoral college because it is a step of democratization for the United States. Supporters of direct popular vote argue that democratization is desirable. However, it is the opposite. Joe Wolverton author of The New American says, "any democratization of the presidential election process is an affront to the express intent of our Founders. The men who constructed our federal government zealously guarded against permitting the harmful influence of democracy to infect the inner workings of our nation." The United States should not taking steps towards democracy because America is not a democracy for good reason. Alexander Hamilton once said, "We are a Republican government, real liberty is never found in despotism of the extremes of democracy." Any form of democracy within the U.S is not disirable. The John Birch Society's documentary, Overview of America, affirms this by saying, "Democracy itself is not a stable form of government, instead it is the gradual transition from a limited government to the unlimited rule of an oligarchy." Any form of democracy is not desirable because it assists in the Gradual destruction of a republican government like that of the United States and turns it into a governmental rule of the few that denies individual liberties. Contention 2: The electoral college protects small states influence within the presidential elections. According to Kristina Dell, "with a direct popular vote...the selection of the president would often be the biggest, most populous states with little attention paid to smaller ones." Without the electoral college the voices of small states would be drowned out by the larger ones. Bob Nutting of the Maine House Republicans says, "In the election of 2008, because all votes in the electoral college are important, Maine saw candidates and their surrogates. If the criteria for winning were the popular vote, they would have camped out in California, Texas, New York, Florida and other populous states." The electoral college is a necessity in order to give small states the right to have a voice in presidential elections which is why i urge a negative ballot for today's debate. And now to attack my opponents case: In response to his first contention sub-point A, he says that "the electoral college produces an unfair scenario in favor of small states." However, without the electoral college, the small states would get no say in presidential elections at all, they would be drowned out by the larger states (see second contention). He also says that "free and fair election is an imperative condition that a democracy must have as a foundation. However, as i proved in my first contention America isnt even a democracy, so obviously this point doesnt stand. In response to his first contention sub-point B, he basically says that the distortion of the electoral college must be solved, but this isnt true since the distortion was specifically put in place to create "free and fair elections" with regards to equality of states. In his second contention he says the electors that are voted for by the people can go against the popular vote of their state. However, according to U.S. Electoral College FAQ's "Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of electors have voted as pledged(1)." Which means that electors voting against their states is the exception to the rule. Also, according to Joe Wolverton, "In the ease of the Electoral College, the Founders inteded the electors to be a deliberative convention of wise men brought together for the sole purpose of soberly choosing a President form among the available candidates." This shows that the intent of the Founders was to trust electors more than the people to choose the President. In his second contention sub-point A, he says that direct popular vote fixes the problem of faithless electors Dramatically change the outcome of Presidential elections. However, how can faithless electors "dramatically" change elections if they only occur 1 percent of the time? He also states that "the election needs to be put back in the hands of the people for which it was intended." However, the original intention was for the electors to elect the president not the people. The people only influence who the electors will vote for. In his third contention he says that because of the electoral college, candidates focus all their attention on a few batleground states; however, as I stated in my second contention if direct popular vote decided presidential elections, then candidates wouldnt need to pay attention to small states, only large ones with high populations which means that although the electoral college doesnt solve the problem of candidates ignoring certain states, neither does direct popular vote which means that this contention doesnt prove why direct popular vote should replace the electoral college. Therefore, it is void. (1) http://www.archives.gov... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Obsecnity Laws are against the US Consitution because Since my opponent has forfeited, I'd simply end by saying that though freedom of expression is supported by the constitution, restriction of ludeness or obscenity does not make Obscenity laws unconstitutional. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Naruto seriously owns Bleach. because Full resolution: On balance, the manga Naruto [1] is superior to the manga Bleach [2]. Superior: Higher in quality [3]. This will be determined by reference to the plot, character development, art style, battles or any other points relevant to the quality of either manga. Round one will be for acceptance, the rest of the rounds will be for arguing. The burden of proof will be shared. [1] http://www.mangafox.com... [2] http://www.mangafox.com... [3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am with I will not contradict myself. because Thank you Teucer, for accepting. I am not the creator of this concept, WJMelements is. However, I too find these debates quite interesting. 1. Actually, yes. 2. I do not. 3. No, not really. 4. Yes, I do. At sunset especially. 5. Some of what Karl Marx has written, yes. 6. I agree with him on certain topics. 7. To an extent, yes. 8. Yes. 9. No. 10. No. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Paramedics disposal of deceased patients because Kind Regards for this Debate. I will be representing the Con side, meaning that I will argue against 'Paramedics 'disposal' of deceased patients' Opening statement: Current Paramedic procedure will normally not see the transportation of deceased in the ambulance, if they were found deceased. If a patient becomes deceased while in the vehicle, they will be transported to the hospital. Paramedics do not have the legal capability to pronounce a patient dead. Only Doctors and Coroners have that power. First of all I would like to question Pro as to the meaning of 'disposal'. By what it seems like, especially through Pros 'argument' as well as Pros statement "The paramedics would be halfway to the hospital to drop off a dead man", disposal here is to be taken in a sense of 'throwing' away. Otherwise, where would they put the deceased? Who says the morgue is not further than the hospital? Does this not imply that 'disposal' of the deceased would imply the 'throwing away' of deceased patients? Imagine if Paramedics would do this! Please, don't dispose of your deceased via the waste collection system. Second, as stated above, Paramedics legally cannot announce a person as dead. When a person dies while under the care of the paramedics they should proceed to the hospital, as a deceased would be declared dead there. A major issue for me is that sometimes Paramedics or even Doctors themselves declare a patient as 'dead' while they are not. Proof for this should be this list of recent cases. http://www.independent.co.uk... This lady was misdiagnosed several times by the look of it. Which is exactly why Paramedics should not call anyone as deceased, unless they are damn sure about it. Also why they should not 'dispose' of patients. http://www.independent.co.uk... EMT in this case assumed a man as dead, while he was not. He was actually declared deceased by a medical examiner who then realised that he was still very much alive. Once again, they should not simply assume one is deceased. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... Another case were paramedics assumed a patient as dead when in fact the patient was alive. http://www.abc.net.au... Paramedics assume the patient is dead, although they record breathing and leave the scene. Paramedics do not have the training and possibly not the capabilities to declare a patient as dead. Sure, when this patient has been deceased for days or is missing their head it is quite safe to assume that the patient is deceased. However, a paramedic, while dealing with a patient should not 'dispose' of them on the way to the hospital. First of all, this is unpractical and second of all, while caring for a patient in their vehicle, the paramedic certainly is under some tension and therefore could assume a person is dead while they are not. As to protocol, often it is requirement that when CPR has been administered, it needs to be continued by the paramedics until they reach the hospital and it is not the job of the paramedic to decide if the patient is dead or not. That is not their job. Conclusion: In conclusion I am of the firm belief that Paramedics should not 'dispose' deceased patients, as this is neither their job, nor are they capable of doing so in many cases. Furthermore, as already established, paramedics are also legally not able to declare one as dead, and in my opinion also should not be allowed to do so. Kind Regards, I am looking forward to your arguments. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with End the Federal Reserve of America. because No, not quite a conspiracy theory. You should do some research on it and how it operates. I'm not telling you that it is part of an evil organization that wants to control the world and kill all of us, I'm just saying that we would be way better off without it. (For the reasons stated above.) About the hyperinflation of Germany in the 1920's, I'm not saying that a central banking system caused it, I'm saying that printing money or creating it out of thin air does cause hyperinflation. Also, I am not exaggerating about how dangerous it is if a small group of people gain control of a nation's money supply. And yes, the Fed does have the power to print money. You can check these sites for more information on the subject. http://www.ronpaul.com... www.endthefed.us <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Funny Joke Contest because These aren't exactly jokes, but funny quotes. Jagnatz may want to consider coming back to this website. New Orleans Saint RB George Rogers when asked about the upcoming season: "I want to rush for 1,000 or 1,500 yards, whichever comes first." Chicago Cubs outfielder Andre Dawson on being a role model: "I want all the kids to do what I do, to look up to me. I want all the kids to copulate me." And, upon hearing Joe Jacobi of the Skins say: "I'd run over my own mother to win the Super Bowl," Matt Millen of the Raiders said, "To win, I'd run over Joe's Mom, too." Football commentator and former player Joe Theismann: "Nobody in football should be called a genius. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein." (1996) Senior basketball player at the University of Pittsburgh: "I'm going to graduate on time, no matter how long it takes." <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Euthanasia Should Be Legal In America because My opponent makes no argument for why we should favor his interpretation of the right to life over my interpretation. My argument was dropped, so we must assume that the right to life only includes the right to keep your life, and not the right to do with it whatever you wish. However, despite my thoughts on the right to life, I believe that assisted suicide should be legal. Not because it would fulfill a right, but because it would reduce unnecessary suffering to those who will inevitably die without any reasonable chance of recovery or at least any remaining time without pain. Doctors should not kill their patients, and my arguments supporting that were dropped. Pro gives no reason as to why Euthanasia should be legalized that is unique to his plan over my counter plan (assisted suicide), and I have shown that his plan presents disadvantages that mine does not have. Therefore, you must negate. Vote Con. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against We would all be safer if everyone of sound mind was armed because Due to a family emergency, I don't have time to make a fully fleshed out argument but I will later. Let's look at some numbers first. After 1996, less than 10% of nonfatal violent crimes involved firearms. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov... . So criminals with guns are hardly an issue, as most just don't have guns, which in your society, they will. According to this http://karisable.com... , people with severe mental illness are responsible for less than one in 20 violent crimes. So those other nineteen people with a "sound" mind, you'll be arming them. And here's my favorite http://arstechnica.com... Just a couple points from that last article: When it comes to violence, nearly every figure suggests that increased presence of guns correlates with higher levels of injury and death. Homicide rates among the US population between 15 and 24 years of age are 14 times higher than those in most other industrialized nations. Children from 5 to 14 years old are 11 times more likely to be killed in an accidental shooting. Within the US, areas with high gun ownership have higher rates of these problems. And, for every accidental death, Hemenway cites research that indicates 10 more incidents are sufficient to send someone to the emergency room. Suicides are more likely to be successful when guns areinvolved , even though most people who survive such an attempt don't generally try a second time. people regularly get involved in violence, and the presence of a gun is likely to elevate that to fatal levels. This is especially true for women. In a study of three metropolitan counties that is cited by the review, "Most of the women were murdered by a spouse, a lover, or a close relative, and the increased risk for homicide from having a gun in the home was attributable to these homicides." In the case of battered women, lethal assaults were 2.7 times more likely to occur if a gun was present in the house;no protective effect of the gun was found." Summing matters up, Hemenway notes that a number of surveys have found that a gun kept at home is far more likely to be used in violence, an accident, or a suicide attempt than self defense. (He also goes off on a long diversion about how a poorly trained gun owner is unlikely to use one well even when self defense is involved.) As a result, from a public health perspective, there's little doubt that a gun at home is generally a negative risk factor. I look forward to my opponents arguments. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Evolution Is Not Proven because " Evolution " is defined, for the purposes of this debate, as " the idea that all extant life descended from a common organism via mutations and Natural Selection. " First round is acceptance only. Neither I nor my opponent may not use the comment section while the debate is in progress, which is from the time my opponent accepts the debate until the voting period begins. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Let's Choose A Debate! because Which one? <EOA>

<BOA> I am against A united world consting of a democratic goverment that rules all because "All nations could share a equal amount of things with eachother" This does not answer what I previously postulated: If all nations producing water are required to share that water in such a way that everyone has the same amount, then most nations will end up with less water than they have now. I won't repost my entire previous argument, however. "ethnic and religion would be a major role in this play. The separate religions could teach eachother new ways of things, or make one mega religion that combines parts of every religion together. They could come up with ways of food to mix with eachother, like majority rules." A natural "mix-and-flow" of cultures through trade does this already, and is quite another thing from forcing everyone to live under the same flag and in the same land. "Every country could have the same amount of land, also creating new countries." This would go over very badly as it would mean many nations would have to give up land, something I doubt is going to happen easily. Also, some nations need more land than others, and thus it's perfectly right that their country should be bigger. A nation of 3 million obviously doesn't need and shouldn't have as much land as a land of 300 million, and that land of 300 million, already packed, shouldn't be forced to give up its territory, thus packing its population even tighter, just to give extra land to people who do not even need it. "Revolution wouldnt be necessary because people can have their say in what should happen." What about when people become unhappy with the decisions the world government is making for their country? All governments ultimately fall; nothing is permanent. "And every country will have their own seperate democratic leader. If one goes against it, they will get punished, taken out, and prosecuted." In other words, like all governments, a world government would keep its position of power by force. If a leader chose to go against the world government, they would remove him from power, meaning if he and his people resisted, there *would* be war. That is international totalitarianism. I contend that a world government would make the world even more war-prone than it already is, since, if everyone was involved in the governing of everyone else, it would be next to impossible for nations to mind their own business and leave others be. I await my opponent's closing remarks. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Grammar, spelling and punctuation should be taken into consideration when voting upon a debate. because I am going to keep the argument groupings I used in R1. 1) You still have provided no reason why grammar, etc. should influence a judge's decision. The topic of debate is "Grammar, etc. should be taken into consideration when voting up," so it is your job as Pro to demonstrate that a judge should consider grammar etc. when voting. If you fail to do this, you lose. Your response to how "being taken seriously" should affect voting: "As the individual judge sees fit." If the judge should decide whether or not the issue should affect voting, you have failed you job as pro. You must demonstrate that the judge should take the issue into account. Demonstrating that the judge should do whatever he thinks is right is entirely different. Later you come close to answering the issue: "The point is, if someone isn't going to give you respect, then do the same. If a debate seems to be a draw and one of the debaters couldn't be bothered to use capital letters, then vote against that argument. It's just that simple." Once again, what does owing debaters/judges respect have to do with voting? Whether or not you respect someone is a personal issue. Voting based on respect for a person is voting based on a personal issue. Voting should be based on the quality of the arguments, not the judge's opinion of the character of the debater. You object to my boxing example. My point was simply to show that what matters are the events that relate to the competition, i.e., punches and arguments. The opinions of the quality of the competitor are irrelevant. You can think a debater is a sleazy crook, but if he makes better arguments, he has won the competition. Respect has nothing to do with winning. I'm sorry for being so slow and not seeing what you claim is as obvious as "2+2=4" Perhaps if you had explained the connection at some point in the round, I would understand how you think the two connect. 2) I will concede that poor grammar, etc. shows that someone is an idiot or isn't respectable, but only because I don't need to win this point to win the debate. My opponent still has not provided a connection between being unrespectable and deserving to lose. 3) The point of some people having English as a second language is still irrelevant. I appreciate that you want to bring attention to the importance of grammar in teaching languages, but that does not explain why grammar should affect voting. 4) To prove my point that the purpose of grammar is clarity and that grammar has no independent value, lets look at my opponent's statements: "Linguistic structural constants are observed and they are what allow these individuals to effectively communicate. . . Good grammar is essential to arguing in online debates because it is too easy to misunderstand someone even when it is used. To abandon it only promotes confusion." Grammar is needed "to effectively communicate." This means that grammar is valuable BECAUSE it enables communication. If clear communication occurs without the use of proper grammar, then no harm has been done. Why can't we abandon grammar? Because it "promotes confusion." However, if someone is not using grammar and confusion does not ensue (i.e., they aren't using grammar but their meaning is still quite clear), then the lack of grammar is unimportant. Look at it like this: Grammar is good because it lets us communicate clearly. Grammar is the means to the end of clear communication. If the "end" can be achieved through a different means, that is fine. My opponent wants to know why books are published with proper grammar if what I say is true. The answer: publishers follow norms that were contingent products of history. It just happens that books are published the way they are and the fact has no impact on this debate. 5) I stand by my point that quality and skill of argument are the ONLY relevant points of consideration for a judge to have. I clearly state my reason: these are the only two issues relevant to the purpose of debate. My opponent did not contest that the purpose of debate is to beat the opponent in argument. My opponent provided no reason why the judge should look beyond the two factors relevant to the goal of a debate when voting. I win this debate for the following reasons: 1)My opponent may have won that poor grammar makes you look dumb and unrespectable, but he failed to show why a judge should consider grammar in deciding the winner of a debate round. 2)I have demonstrated that the judge should only look at factors relevant to the goal of debate: beating an opponent in argument. Grammar is not a factor relevant to this goal, so it should not be evaluated. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan. because Both my opponent and I agree that to win this debate, one must show who will bring about the most possible suffering .Furthermore, all of the benefits of keeping aid (havingPakistan crumble) that I will state now will not be possible if we were to suspend assistance. My opponent hasn't provided any argumentation yet to as how exactly removing aid will harm Pakistan. H. Mahood, a PhD scholar and lecturer writes: "Foreign aid is bad for political process as natural resources become bad for natural resource-rich countries...Foreign aid and natural resources have the common features of exploitation by corrupt politicians." [1]. He also writes: "Reinnika and Svensson studied the survey of primary schools in Uganda and found that only 13% foreign aid for education reached to the schools and rest was exploited. Knack documented the pattern of corruption with foreign aid, as aid dependence increased, accountability would decrease, domestic corruption to disburse the aid fund would increase and there would be weak institutions. Knack and Rahman found that the greater the foreign aid with respect to GDP the greater would be corruption levels and weak democratic and bureaucratic performance." [1] As more foreign aid flows in, corruption in the government will increase. Overall, foreign aid has little to no impacts on the countries. Lack of good coordination, high transaction costs, and failing government alignment has led to the undermining of the sustainability of national development plans, the distorting of priorities, and the diversion of scarce resources and/or establishing uncoordinated service delivery systems [2]. Peter Heller, a Deputy Director of the IMF"s Fiscal Affairs Department, says: "Maureen Lewis on HIV/AIDS programs notes obvious dependency issues, including a reduced incentive for aid recipients to mobilize domestic resources; the potential for economic agents"whether in the government or the NGO sector"to tailor their priorities to the perceived interests of donors; a reduced pressure for governments to address inefficiencies in how public services are delivered; resistance by governments to a greater private sector role in delivering services; and the potential for increased corruption and rent seeking. Finally, countries relying heavily on aid inflows give up significant autonomy in decision making on budget priorities." Basically, foreign aid takes away from the responsibility of the government, inviting laziness, corruption, and bad decision making. Also, aid allows bad governments to stay in power. "In some circumstances external aid can fill so great a proportion of civilian needs for food, shelter, safety, and health services that significant local resources are thereby freed up for the pursuit of warr. This economic substitution effect of aid has a further political impact. When external aid agencies assume responsibility for civilian survival, warlords tend to define their responsibility and accountability only in terms of military control. Even if they started with a commitment to peacetime political leadership, as the international aid community takes over the tasks of feeding and providing health services and shelter for civilians these military-oriented leaders increasingly relinquish responsibility for civilian welfare. They focus on military ends and, over time, define their roles solely in terms of physical control (and the violent attainment and maintenance of that control). As this occurs, warriors struggling for victory over space and people lose all interest and competence in civilian affairs and become increasingly ill prepared to assume broad, responsible leadership in a post war period" [3]. Self-explainable - aid shifts the responsibility of leaders and allow them to wage war. "...development aid can exacerbate social tensions, encourage bad policy making, make governments less accountable to voters, intensify competition for resources, and feed processes of structural violence in a country, ultimately empowering the very elites who benefit from exploiting marginalized segments of the country..." [4/5]. In Rwanda's situation, the aid that was sent directly resulted in a corrupt and genocidal government slaughtering an ethnicity. A study found that reliance on local resources is actually more beneficial then foreign aid [ Aid delivered bythe US Government will only increase rent-seeking and cripple economic development. In fact, aid leads to dependency and hinders the development of the economy. It is likely that Pakistan's condition will improve after we withdraw aid. Pakistan is also not an ally. There are many cases where Pakistan's actions have proved that they are not allies. An example would be the IPI pipeline. The general plan to build the IPI pipeline would strengthen Iran's importance in gas/energy markets in Asia [5]. Pakistan has tried to perhaps even accelerate the building of the IPI pipeline, while the US have demonstrated their obvious opposition to the pipelines [5]. Pakistan is also becoming increasingly inhospitable to the US due to drone attacks. The general public has grown hostile towards US attacks, because of the many innocent lives lost [6]. Pew Surveys found that 69% of the citizens of Pakistan view the USA as an enemy, and 73% see America as unfavorable. The US public image in Pakistan is obviously bad. Public support for the use of an army to combat extremists have also been steadily declining [7]. However, it is not only Pakistan that has been 'unfaithful'. Pakistani leaders have grown angry at America's support of the quickly growing India [5]. Other accounts include the "sale of U.S. military hardware and provision of civilian nuclear technology assistance to India" [5] and Obama's endorsement of a permanent seat in the UN for New Delhi. India is seen as the greatest threat to Pakistan - a majority of 57% [7]. In the eyes of Pakistanis, the USA is teaming up with their greatest enemy. In the end, Pakistan is destined to be our enemy. By continuing to give them aid, we slowly destroy them without ever having to launch an attack. ==Conclusion== 1) Keeping aid will prolong human suffering (and taking away aid will reduce suffering) 2) Pakistan is an enemy, meaning that we wouldn't be hurting an ally. Because of all these reasons, vote Con! :) <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Hate Crime Legislation because I thank PRO for this great debat 1. Arbitrary PRO cites the Swedish-Spanish model. Although the Swedish model uses “other circumstances” as bases for what constitutes a hate, it should be noted that the Spanish model only protects special classes. Also note that the Swedish model lists many other “protected classes” before it lists “other circumstances”. Therefore, it is much more likely that those listed “victim's race, color, nationality, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion” will receive special treatment under this model. Next PRO tries to demonstrate an example of an assault that is not hate-crime motivated. According to his model it “takes every group into account”. He cites an example of a crime that he believes isn’t class motivated, a man beating up a wife that cheated on him, but can still be considered a class under his mode. For all we know, there could be a whole group of women that have cheated on him. This qualifies as a group. PRO states that the man does not hate all women who cheat, just this particular woman that cheated. However this is just breaking a group into a subgroup. If one hit a person another “not because he is black, but because he is black AND gay” the Swedish-Spanish model would still committing that a hate crime. But let’s say there she was the only person that cheated on the man. Does this female still qualify as a group? Technically a group is more than one person, but is that fair? If there is only one person in the world with green skin, should a person receive a greater punishment for hitting a black person but not a green person? PRO says that “past actions” do not qualify as a hate crime, yet his own model describes attacks on “sexual orientation, religion, and beliefs” as hate-crimes which are ALL actions. Not only is the legislation for hate crimes arbitrary, but PRO’s own model is contradictory. 2) Litigation Costs I am not debating how to make the system more affordable. My contention is that litigation costs are expensive, so these costs need to be factored into analysis of whether to implement a law or not. If a law has little to no benefit, it is best not to pass it since the cost of litigation will occur at the expensive of alternative ways to spend money. 3) False Convection This again relates to my second point, that if a law has very little or no benefit, it should be implemented due to the harm done through false convections. Rape and murder are serious crimes, so the benefit of enforcement outweighs the cost of possible false convections. Physical assault is already a crime, and the act of assault should be punished. Hate speech is a form of freedom of expression. Crimes like rape, assault, and murder are also objective and can be proven through evidence, hate crimes are very subjective and are more likely to yield a false convection. For example, If I punch a black person and state “You stupid n***ger”, I might just be really upset at the man, and not really a racist. I explained this in Round 2. 4) No proof that it works PRO’s own source shows that “, the share of islamophobic hate crimes increased with 40 percent”. That does not seem to show effectiveness. Also, a single data point stating that hate crimes have decreased in 2010 is not even close to proof. In order for PRO to demonstrate that hate crime are effective, he would have had to find a peer review journal showing a decreased rate of assault occurring on “protected classes” after hate crime legislation was passed. He has not done this, so he has failed his burden of proof. Rebuttals: 1) Multicultrualism PRO asserts that he demonstrated the positive effects of multiculturalism. I was unable to find where PRO proved that multiculturalism is indeed virtuous, just some non-sequitur statements. If my audience believes he logically demonstrated the benefits of multiculturalism and I did not refute them in previous rounds, then I will give him the benefit of the doubt. However, I especially did not find where forced multiculturalism is a good idea. Finally, as my last argument stated, I definitely did not find where it is proven that hate crime legislation leads to multiculturalism. PRO states that people eventually learn to compromise and live together, but this is just false. Sure, sometimes it works, but not always. Israeli and Palestinians have hated each other for over 50 years now. There are people that I know who I will never like. PRO states that I asserted that I just asserted that "his justification for hate-crime legislation is to control people’s speech to create multiculturalism.". However, by definition hate-crime legislation, especially If we consider hate speech, controls people’s speech and PRO even states in his analysis “ be more likely to think twice about how they phrase messages that they graffiti ”, I do not see how my statement above can be considered just a “bare assertion”. 2) Social benefits I have responded in the first round about “hate crime prevents the crime before it happens.”. Assault is already a criminal offense, so the government is already doing stuff to prevent it. The idea that complex political and social conflicts such as the Rwanda Genocide would not have occurred “If only hate crime legislation was passed” is absurd. The entire argument is a slippery slope fallacy. PRO states that Rwanda is an example of the failure of “natural order”. However, natural order is by definition “It encompasses the natural relations of beings to one another, in the absence of law, which natural law attempts to reinforce.” [1] It is government that creates propaganda to demonize other races and does the killing. My analysis of “in-group” and “out-group” theory was to demonstrate that even If you create “hate-crime legislation” people will always find other groups to dislike. It's natural psychology that cannot be avoided. Even if hate-crime legislation is effective at protecting certain groups, it merely shifts the focus to other groups. That’s why one should specifically punish assault , not creating hate crime legislation that picks which groups it’s alright to hit and which ones aren’t. 3) Damages to freedom of speech PRO states that through stating that defamation should be banned, I am going against the judgment of the US Supreme Court. First off, he links to a Supreme Court case whether hate crime legislation is constitution, but not hate speech. Hate speech is allowed in the United States and is protected under the Constitution [2]. PROs own source on defamation shows that is very difficult to be prosecuted for it and that public figures are mainly except from these laws. Protected groups are basically public figures since they are well known. Second, the US Supreme Court only decides whether a law is constitutional, not whether the act itself is good. There’s a difference. Third, PRO is committing a massive appeal to authority fallacy. The US government is not the authorizer of what is and is not moral. Extend my analysis on defamation laws. PRO agrees that people have the right to state false statements. Yet, they do not have the right to state possibly true statements about others. In other words, this makes it very difficult to reveal corruption of public figures, and it is harmful to democracy if politicians cannot be exposed. I already gave my analysis that defamation is not wrong in round 2. Conclusion: Hate-crime legislation is an ineffective tool. Throughout this debate, PRO has not proven its effectiveness. PRO’s own model of hate-crime legislation is contradictory. The damage of litigation costs and false convictions damages any benefit PRO made. Hate-crime legislation is damaging to liberty and to democracy. It is a form of behavior and speech control that states that it is alright to harm some groups but not others. Assault is already an illegal offense. If violence is a problem, crack down on assault, not hate crime. http://tinyurl.com... [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Communism(Con) v Capitalism(Pro) because So as Pro I will be arguing for Capitalism vs. Communism, First Round is Acceptance only, Second and Third Round are arguments and rebuttles, and Fourth Round is Stating why you did better than your opponent. No Racial Slurs, Swearing, the whole thing. I wish good luck to my opponent! <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Anyone but Obama in 2012 because My opponent has not refuted any of the arguements. He has not shown how Hitler, nor Stalin wound be better options than Obama in 2012. This could have been very easy for him, since both Hitler and Stalin are dead, electing them would put the VP in charge, which was left open. My opponent could have slipped Ron Paul as the VP, and so get to argue that Ron Paul would be better than Obama. Or, he could have argued that a corpse, that would technically pocket veto everything, would shrink the size of the federal government and argue that that is good according to libertarian or conservative beliefs for government. However, he did not. Since all my points went un-refuted, despite being fairly simple to get around, they all hold. Thank you, <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Undertaker could defeat spongebob because Since my opponent did not fully define the parameters for this debate: The fight will be held Under water where we will assume Undertaker can still breathe. Unto the debate itself The biggest argument here, is the fact that spongebob is a sponge. With this been said, we find that he is capable of things that humans simply can't do. One of this been the fact that spongebob is able to absurd punches and kicks easily. I would like to direct my opponents direction to the first movie clip(spngebob vs. flats): Spongebob is unpredictable and this with a combination of several kunfu skills, makes him a deadly and unpredictable force. He has been been to direct this force to defeat enemies far larger than he is and sue to the way his body is built, spongebob is able to change the state of his body within minutes. Finally, spongebob is also able to absorb liquid and direct this liquid to a single point. This enables the ability to create a jet powerful enough to not only defeat Under taker, but since this fight is been held underwater, he now has the ability to seriously injure the Undertaker if not kill him. If the Undertaker does split spongebob in two, then he is only speeding up the process of multiplying. Spongebob is ale to split himself in half to create a temporary help if necessarily. Ultimately, due to Spongebob's different abilities and the fact that the Undertaker won't be able to land the necessarily punches and kicks he need to win the round, The Undertaker looses the round. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with LM Classic: mongeese vs iamadragon because My opponent makes the argument that his rock is usable. However, we have to look into the context of L-M's rule. Any character's unconscious body can be "used" for many things. However, the rock is essentially a dead body from the start. In fact, it was never alive. It was automatically eliminated. You see, if something alive were turned into stone, it would be considered defeated. Therefore, something that started out stone would start out defeated. "Now, applying this to my philosophy: the rock, being a non-living thing, is being used by me simply by existing. As long as the rock exists, I am using it. Therefore, it is not being rendered unusable, and therefore, it has not been defeated." Even a living thing can be used in that context while unconscious. Therefore, this philosophy does not hold water. As for your tier theory, technically, the rock already starts at the tier of "defeated." Therefore, it is already "defeated." "Alright. Now you'll have to explain why the atom has been defeated if it's been swallowed." You can no longer use it. Things that Kirby has swallowed are trapped in his body forever. You can't use it anymore. "Is there any limit to Kirby's stamina?" Yes. He gets tired after a long period of vacuuming. However, given that my opponent is trying to stall out for a period of years, Kirby will have plenty of recovery time, so it's not really a concern. Logical-Master: "How does 200 feet above the tallest object in the city sound?" This eliminates Ayers Rock. There's no way there's an expanse in New York City big enough to hold Ayers Rock that wouldn't already slant Ayers Rock out-of-bounds. "1. Link does not have an unlimited number of Bomb Arrows. I believe the most he can carry in Twilight Princess is 30 bombs per bag 3 bags = 90 bombs. Are 90 bombs enough to reduce all of Uluru into an eatable size?" Kirby could simply eat one of Link's bombs and become Bomb Kirby. Bomb Kirby is capable of making bombs out of nothing. Therefore, Link can just use Kirby's bombs for his bomb arrow. "3. Law of Conservation of Mass. Breaking the rock into smaller pieces does mean that Kirby would have an easier time swallowing them all, but the total mass remains unchanged. Can Kirby really swallow so much? Where's the limit?" There isn't really a limit for how much Kirby can eat. There is also not a limit for how much a human can eat. The only difference is that Kirby can inhale things faster than a human, and can digest things much faster than a human. So, although there isn't a real limit, there's no real limit to anybody's consumption. Also, it is limited by how fast Kirby can inhale. "I don't believe Logical-Master ever clarified on this rule. Someone, later in the thread, suggested that the rule implies that a team member cannot be defeated simply be being forcibly removed from NYC. I'll apply the rule the same way." There was a question about whether or not sumo-kills were allowed. The question was never answered. Therefore, sumo-kills are allowed. This is a sumo-kill. Note that it is not teleportation, but levitation. "But he is trapped in the Puzzle without Yugi, 'unusable' in the sense that a living character would be unusable." He's able to project himself somewhat within some range of the Millennium Puzzle, as he did when he rescued Solomon Muto when he went to retrieve the Millennium Puzzle in the first place. Therefore, he would still be "usable." See Video 1 (1:55). Also, Link, being a video game protagonist, does not need to eat, and does not age over time. Therefore, he would be able to outlast Ayers Rock in a standstill. "This is somewhat of a semantical argument, and, I believe, a direct twisting of the rule's intent. The rule clearly means that a team member cannot physically assist his team in battle." Wrong. The rule basically separates the team leaders from the battle. The idea of "commands" isn't true. By "loyal to the team leader," it is basically saying that team members stay on their side unless required. My role is to explain how Team PRO can beat Team CON. Finally, Yugi can always use the Millennium Rod to take over the hypothetical mongeese's mind. Therefore, I am on my own team, and am unusable by Team CON, so I no longer have to kill myself. Remove me from the list of people that Kirby swallows. "Finally, without the team leader, how can mongeese's team win? It isn't even mongeese's team. I think that in this kind of a battle, it's a clear implication that the team leader guides his team to victory and thus, obviously, must be alive at the end to claim victory." Wrong. The team leader explains how his team would win. He doesn't have to be alive at the end. Plus, Yugi's got me back on Team PRO using the Millennium Rod now, so I don't have to worry about this paradox anymore. To clarify things, I can always be knocked unconscious to be "defeated" without dying at the end. Or, there's another solution. In Super Mario Galaxy, Luigi was inexplicably cloned to explain his being both the protagonist and an assistant [1]. That may be the situation we're in. I am my own team leader, while you have a clone of me. Therefore, that clone is not the real team leader. I am the team leader. Now, one thing that my opponent has not done is protest Kirby's leaving New York City, so I will consider this point conceded, assuming that I can get everything else done. The revised strategy: 1. Yugi uses the Millennium Rod to take control of mongeese, Logical-Master, and MTGandP. 2. Yugi uses the Millennium Ring to ascertain the position of the atom. 3. Kirby eats the atom. 4. Link puts a bomb on the ground. 5. Kirby eats the bomb, transforming into Bomb Kirby. 6. Kirby puts a bomb on the ground. 7. Link uses the Gale Boomerang to transport one of the bombs to some point on Ayers Rock, where the bomb explodes, turning part of Ayers Rock into fragments. 8. Steps 6 and 7 are repeated until Ayers Rock has been reduced to pieces no bigger than an ordinary watermelon. 9. Kirby eats the many pieces that used to make up Ayers Rock. 10. Kirby leaves New York City. 11. mongeese, Logical-Master, and MTGandP all leave New York City. Team PRO wins! Now, for alternate strategies: 1. The rock and the atom are already defeated, as explained above. 2. Midna uses psychokinesis to levitate all of Team CON and move them out of New York City, defeating them. 3. Everybody waits. Because Link and Atem do not age, as time goes by, Ayers Rock is eventually eroded by wind and rain, and all parts of Ayers Rock are blown out of New York City by a breeze. 4. mongeese, Logical-Master, and MTGandP can all be eliminated in a variety of ways, including consuming by Kirby, slaying by Link, and banished to the Shadow Realm by Yugi. 1. http://www.mariowiki.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Kony a good person who is doing the right thing because I'm not going to add any arguments to this final round and will only point out some things regarding what my opponent said last round. 1) My opponent has not denied the moral code that I put forward in R1, so that code stands for this debate and that is what we should measure "good" by. 2) My opponent's argument fails on two levels. First, it is just C/P'd from wiki. Second, it doesn't not even say anything about what "Kony" did, only what his followers have done. My opponent did not reject, nor even address, my comments that a leader cannot be held to the actions of his followers. 3) Merely a suggestion based on what your stated desires were. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Michael Jackson is the best pop singer ever. because I can rip your entire basis of "proof" that MJ is the 'best' to shreds in just one paragraph (I'll get to that later), but first: 1. Pop Music: music of general appeal to teenagers; a bland watered-down version of rock'n'roll with more rhythm and harmony and an emphasis on romantic love (Source: Dictionary.com) 2. Pop Music: the term indicates specific stylistic traits such as a danceable beat, simple melodies, and repetitive structure so that people can catch on and join in easily (Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop music) 3. "In contrast to genres with clear origins and a traceable evolution, pop developed, and continues to expand, as a haphazard merging of styles. Pop is an amalgam of successive fashions, of elements of many differing styles that have been successful over the years and have ended up incorporated into the genre." (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... ) Based on these definitions - including the 'official' definition, a large array of artists and groups all fall into the pop genre whether we recognize it as such or not. Thus an artist like Elvis IS considered a pop artist. Yes it is true that he paved the way for Rock-N-Roll as did Lennon and McCartney with the Beatles. But paving the way for a new genre doesn't negate a type of music from being part of another. My point is that even if Elvis' album was listed under the Rock-N-Roll heading at a CD store, according to the DEFINITION of pop music, Elvis was and is pop. Not to mention the fact that 'pop' is short for the term POPular, and obviously Elvis, The Beatles, etc. were all very popular artists! HERE'S THE PARAGRAPH THAT MAKES YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT INVALID: Your #1 'source' of proof that MJ is the best is based on the fact that the Thriller album is (allegedly) the best selling album of all time. However, MJ is not the best selling artist of all time. In fact, some lists don't even put him in the top 15! So even though a particular album may have been extremely succesful, your bold comment of MJ being the 'best pop singer' assumes that you are talking about his entire music career and not just the explosion of one particular album. AND, even if people don't agree that people like Elvis are in fact pop music, I'm sure no one would refute an artist like Madonna being considered pop... and she's sold more albums world-wide (Source: http://www.riaa.com... ). Plus, there are sources that do in fact recognize Elvis as being a pop star, such as POPDIRT.COM ( http://popdirt.com... ). Anyway, you mentioned that I didn't provide any reasons why Michael Jackson ISN'T the best pop singer of all time. If an actual list is what you're looking for (even though you yourself did not provide one), here goes: 1. Michael Jackson is not the best-selling pop artist of all time, even if his album Thriller may (or may not) have been the most popular. 2. Michael Jackson does not have the most number one hits, even amongst pop stars. For instance, Mariah Carey has 17. Madonna also tops MJ in this area, amongst many others. 3. In terms of consecutive number one hits, even a much lesser known group like Westlife tops MJ. 4. You cannot prove that Elvis (I'm singling him out, but I could list a number of people) is not a pop star, whereas I CAN prove that he WAS a pop star based on the definition of pop music, and other verifiable sources. 5. Your basis of MJ being the best SINGER is the number of album sales for Thriller; however, you couldn't really make an argument verifying MJ's superirority in terms of vocal ability. 6. Elvis, Madonna, Elton John, The Beach Boys... I could go on and on. And though Michael Jackson DEFINITELY belongs amongst the top pop artists of all time, he may not be the BEST pop *singer* of all time. And! Even if he IS the best pop singer of all time, my opponent's arguments were clearly lacking and did not do a good job of proving that he was, therefore giving me the win of this debate. So remember to vote based on articulation and the presentation of facts vs. opinion. Thanks! <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Christianity Is Stupid because Christianity is stupid because it is based on the Bible, which is nothing more than a fairy-tale. 1. Prophecies The Bible is like your neighborhood tarot card reader; it makes a bunch of predictions that fail, then brags about the one that didn't. For example, in 2 Peter 3 , Peter claims “scoffers” will come and deny Noah's Flood and the Creation story. Obviously, nobody is “scoffing” at Noah's Flood, so this is bunk. Then in Ezekiel 11:17 & 28:25 , and Jeremiah 30:3 , “God” makes the absurd prediction that the Jews will one day return to Israel and reclaim it as their own: another bust. 2. Acts of God Remember all those amazing things the Old Testament describes God doing? Like parting a sea so people could cross, sending plagues to the Egyptians, and wiping out the perverted cities of Soddam & Gomorrah with fire? Why don't we see any of that kind of stuff today? Oh yeah, because those types of things never happened in real life . I might change my mind if God, like, sent a plague to wipe out gays or something. 3. Science This one is simple: the Bible is easily disproved by science. For example, scientists have used the Scientific Method to prove people evolved from apes and all life shares a common ancestor. I'd like to see some “Young Earth” quack make a valid scientific prediction and have it actually come true. Also, Science has conclusively proven that a human embryo is not a person, yet most of Christianity (the Catholics) call this clump of tissue a person and even say it's murder to kill it! 4. Cannibalism Ok this beef is mostly with Catholics (but I feel it's a valid point since most of Christianity is Catholic anyways). They say Jesus was talking in analogy when he said to eat his body and drink his blood, but if Catholics would actually read the Bible verses , they'd see that Jesus clarified it was just a parable and he wasn't really promoting vampirism. Good luck to my opponent. He'll need it! <EOA>

<BOA> I am against My Life Sucks More Than My Opponent's because 1. You Being a Ginger I am adopted, and my real father was a ginger. I am not, however because of this, half of my soul is missing. There for this piece of my argument alone makes me have at least a 50% more sucky life than you. 2. Jordan A. The pain is staged Everything that happens to me is real. None of it is faked. I could just as easily say parts of Massive's life were faked as well. Also, my opponent gave no real evidence that supported his theory that I was faking the pain. B. Bathrooms It seems as though my opponent is taking the words of a very discredited man, Mack Jagger, over someone who lives in the palace himself. If I were you, I wouldn't listen to a word Mack Jagger says. "Some people believe President Obama is a Muslim, and some say he is just a good old American. Well, we should be focusing on his daughters. I have found research showing that they are aliens working for Mexico." -Mack Jagger (His words, not mine) Just because you've known someone a long time, doesn't mean they give correct detail. 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." This contention is far from false. You see, my fathers people have lived here so long, that our great grandfathers great grandfather had steam poop billowing from his nostrils. And yes, at first nearly the entire kingdom's population was wiped out. However, over the centuries, we have grown a natural resistance to the steam poopoo. Yes, it still tastes like azz, and people are killing themselves because they hate their life so much, however the steam poop is no longer life threatening. 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." AIDS was not an argument, but simply me informing you about myself. And yes, this does give weight to con. How can having AIDS not make you life suck? AIDS kills my immune system. When I get a common cold, I usually foam at the mouth, and have repeated seizures because my body cannot fight it. Conclusion: My opponent fails to prove that my pain is all fake, therefore I win the contention A. In contention B, I show how truly unreliable Mack Jagger truly is, and proved it. Therefore I also win contention B. I win contention C for proving my opponents arguments invalid. I win D because I proved that AIDS makes my life royally suck azz. CON WINS RECAP: <>My father was a ginger, therefore I have only half of a soul. 50% <>Mack Jagger is a fvuck trad. <>The steam poop is unlifethreatening. <>My friends and family are always trying to kill themselves. <>I have AIDS, which causes me to have insane physical reactions to even just a common cold. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Debaters shouldnt have to define the words they are using in their debate because As pro forfeited this round i have no points to counter. I would however like to draw your attention to a diologe between pro, feverish and myself in the comments tag. This diologe begins with the earliest comment in the list. Feverish suggests that pro misused redundant and suggested using abundant. pro responded with "Suppose for a moment that I did mean 'abundant'. Doesnt the fact that you understood my meaning suggest that context was sufficient enough to override any obvious misuse..." then when i commented saying i thought he actually meant redundant he said "that is indeed what I meant. I started that response with 'suppose for a moment', positing the hypothetical..." this leaves the obvious problem of how is the voter supposed to know if he meant redundant or abundant. Clearly we were both sure of our positions, and it is by complete luck that this got cleared up definitively. I admit that defining redundant is the over-use i was talking about, and an insignificant detail that has minimal effect on the debate, however had it been a more important word than it would have been critical, and since i doubt pro realized he would be mis-understood, it is clearly logical to define all critical words. And it is therefore wise to do so. Also a close reader would notice my last line in my previous paragraph is a direct reference to the definition i provided. Having a concrete definition in front of you can help make solid evidence that by the definition of the word something is correct or incorrect. This is very critical in theology debates, were you are working complete in the abstract. In conclusion, in this debate i have demonstrated that there is clearly a measure of wisdom in defining words, therefore pro's resuloition "I think its absurd that every debate starts with one arguer defining the words he is using." is negated because by definition absurd means "completely devoid of wisdom" (wasn't defining absurd so wise here) <EOA>

<BOA> I am against # of rounds in debate should be increased because My opponents point was that debates can go on forever( round1) and hence more time is needed.As i have already pointed out, if its going on forever then no amount of time will be sufficient. He argues that there should be a higher limit. I asked him to state his limit and justify it. He could not do so because if he did, it would go against him. This is point is important becuase he wants a higher limit and not no limit. I have made a strong case for limiting the rounds to maintain the quality of debates. My opponent has not been able to refute it. My opponent wants more choices. Continuing the topic on a new debate represents not only more choices but a better quality of choice. We can continue only if the debate is good. If the rounds are unnecesssarily long then we cannot stop because it may count as forfeiture.Limiting the number of rounds does not limit our choice to having an extended debate. Our current system maintains a certain quality of debate and this is relevant because it is the intention of Juggle to build and create websites heavily focused on engaging users with quality content. http://www.debate.org... Lastly i want to point out that even in this debate, 4 rounds have sufficed. As the reader may have noticed the same point was repeated by my opponent over and over again even though he was effectively rebutted right from round 2. Have mercy, vote con ! I thank the reader for taking the time to go through this debate, we love you! I thank my opponent for this topic and for consistently posting all his arguments. I hope we debate again. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Should Capital punishment be allowed? because I expect this debate to be quite the challenge, given both its controversial nature and its overwhelming handicap, the 500 character limit and the three rounds. Since you have made an initial argument in the first round, however, I shall follow in kind as best I can. Capital punishment does not allow the opportunity for an offender to learn from their mistakes. Most crimes are not committed by criminals, but by victims. http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Undertaker could defeat spongebob because I thank my opponent for this debate. Since my opponent didn't give his opening argument, I assume round one is for clarification and acceptance. So, without further adieu....... Lol, no offense directed towards my opponent. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against the Belgian UFO Wave is best Explained as Aliens because Hi daley, thanks for the opportunity to debate. I'd not heard about this alleged incident before seeing this debate, but after following the link provided by my opponent and the subsequent links that follow from ithere, I believe that there are far more rational and likely explanations for all the observed phenomena. The resolution states that "the Belgian UFO Wave is best Explained as Aliens" and since my opponent is Pro and instigator he clearly has the burden of proving this extraordinary claim. I am mildly perturbed to see him state that "Round 1 is for opening arguments and all other round are for rebuttals" since he hasn't provided any evidence or a clear argument in his opening round. I am hoping that he means round 1 is for brief outline and round 2 will be for opening arguments. Just in case, I will respond to some of the assertions and then present a brief outline of a contrary explanation _____________________ "If anyone has a more logical explanation I'd love to debate it." This appears to be a subtle attempt to shift the burden of proof. As Con, it is my responsibility to cast reasonable doubt on the alien hypothesis and that will be my main focus. I will however attempt to present more viable alternative interpretations to any evidence my opponent brings. "These things were traveling at speeds that would be deadly to any human" Witnesses on the ground are not likely to be able to give accurate assessments of the speed of flying objects. "These things ... were tracked on radar ... these things sped away whenever a radar locked on them" This is a clear contradiction; how were they "tracked" if a lock could not be kept on them? Bizarre radar readouts are most plausibly explained by equipment malfunction and do not represent confirmation of extraordinary speeds. "seen by thousands" Objects in the sky may have been reportedly seen by thousands but there appears to be far less consistency in the descriptions given than certain publications would care to admit. ________________________ I believe the most plausible explanation for these events is mass hysteria http://en.wikipedia.org... exacerbated by the over-enthusiastic speculation of unscientifically minded individuals in it's aftermath. 1) No pictorial evidence showing anything unusual was produced until 4 months after the event, when an anonymous image was released that was widely reproduced and lauded as evidence for 20 years (despite contradicting most descriptions). Pro's wiki source explains just why this image doesn't stand up under scrutiny and describes how someone has finally come forward in the last few days confessing to the hoax. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2) The fighter pilots who were dispatched never claimed to have seen any unusual objects in the sky and apparently believed the strange radar readings were the result of equipment failure. This is mentioned in this thorough debunking (by a reformed extra-terrestrial hypothesiser) of the work of self-deluding ufologists who hyped the sightings so much after the event. http://www.skepticreport.com... 3) The majority of the descriptions of objects seen that night are a pretty good match for helicopters, triangular lights and all. This document expounds at length: http://gmh.chez-alice.fr... Page 2 shows an artists interpretation of one of the craft that ufologists demonstrated incredible confirmation bias in re-producing as evidence for their theories. It's in the previous link too. Look at it and tell me it looks like anything other than a chopper. __________________________ That's all for now. I await some thorough argumentation and supporting evidence from my opponent. Thanks. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with RussianFish99 is probably a troll because Hey cutie. Troll- In Internet slang , a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, [2] extraneous , or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[1]. So my opponent is a troll. His first round proves so, as 16kadams graciously points out in the comments section. He made a move on me, which I find very offensive. Flirting is a holy sacrament between a man and a woman, and he's trying to devalue this. We should kill him. Plus, look at my opponents debates: here are some choice quotes: " vote for russianfish99 because i am wite(:" " coffee is not good for you(:" (after imabench propsed a coffee-counterplan to my opponents sleep DA) " the is no way gay marriage should be allowed at all the reason a man a women we made is to have sex and have babys and if there are gay people runing around the will be no babys" " WTF how the F would you clone a person WTF is wrong with you. You need to get your head looked at(:" Obviously these are meant soley to disrupt productive debate, which makes my opponent a troll. Vote pro guys. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... (Internet) <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Safe Haven Laws in the US should be for teens also because Unfortunately Pro has forfeited, so extend all my arguments. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against That the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will successfully mitigate economic slowdowns next year. because All of your figures are meaningless. The Govt is not going to cut spending to cover the rebates. It will just print more money to cover the short fall. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Cats vs Dogs because "Cats are not as jumpy as dogs! Cats like to chill out!" This is a lie founded upon subjective opinion. I already gave evidence, in a link in round 2, that cats are prone to phobias and get severe separation anxiety when the owner leaves them, just as much as dogs. " Cats are great animals, studies have shown that when you pet a cat, your body releases chemicals which can relieve stress and possibly make you live longer." Cats are great animals, studies have shown that when you pet a cat, your body releases chemicals which can relieve stress and possibly make you live longer. This is also true for humans that own dogs. Dog owners get more exercise just by taking their dog out for a walk. The American Heart Association says that 54 percent of dog owners are likely to get the recommended amount of exercise for good health. All this exercise lowers cardiovascular risks and cholesterol levels, making pet owners more healthy and more likely to live longer lives. Dogs can help you stay socially connected, which is vitally important for people who are at risk of social isolation. Walking with a dog often leads to more conversations and more connections with people. The National Institute of Health states that people who have more social contact and more friends live longer and are unlikely to decline as quickly as those who do not. ( http://dogcare.dailypuppy.com... ) ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk... ) " Cats are smarter than dogs, dogs get hit more often and they bite more than cats, so cats are better to have around small children." What on earth does getting hit more often have to do with dogs? That sounds like it's to do with abusive owners taking advantage of such an empathetic creature. Animal abuse is disgusting and not relevant to this debate. There is no evidence that dogs fight more frequently than cats do, only that when they do fight that they fight with more brutality if they were raised that way. That's actually an advantage as people can train guard dogs to attack intruders whilst they can't train their cats to do the same. ( http://www.cesarsway.com... ) "My cat has been trained to attack animals and get my newspaper." That's one cat and it most likely did the newspaper thing on its own accord rather than you having taught it. the toilet trick is an old-school trick of training the cat to use a litter box strategically placed on the seat of the toilet. It doesn't come anywhere near to the level of blind dog, or police dog, training. ( http://www.wikihow.com... ) ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) <EOA>

<BOA> I am against My Opponent was, or Currently is, on Crack because Firstly, I strongly deny your claims of ever using crack cocaine. To answer your second question, I do not fluently speak any Hispanic languages. In order to win this debate, you must prove that I actually use or once used crack cocaine. You have the burden of proof because you are the instigator. I just need to disprove your statements. I would like to present a few definitions: Was: past of be Is: present of be ( http://www.askoxford.com... ) It is then clear that the resolution is either true or false. This leads me to believe that my opponent clearly has burden of proof and that no such burden can be shared. I now await your case. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Should Britain bring back the death penalty? because In this debate I shall be taking the side of 'against'. I would enjoy both proof and personal opinion. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Kyleigh's Law: Mandatory Decals for Young Drivers because Good afternoon. I'd like to thank my opponent for proposing such a unique topic to debate. I, too, hope that the debate will be an interesting one. I'll begin by addressing the arguments made by the Con, and then follow up with a proposal of my own. ------------------------------- Con's advocacy basically centers around the dangers of profiling with regards to two particular populations: police and predators. I have 4 responses: 1. There are a number of different things on a given vehicle that make profiling just as easy. Permits, both hanging and bumper sticker, are perfect examples. Those are just as visible as any decal that the state could place on a vehicle, and indicate the exact same thing: that the driver is most likely a youth. Yet, we do not outlaw high school campus parking decals. 2. Sexual predators are probably not cruising along the freeway at 75 mph looking for teens to molest. Their profiles tend to suggest something much more quiet and calculated, hence sexual predators will flock toward campuses and other vulnerable locations. I'd like my opponent to warrant this assertion. 3. The decal serves as a fair and appropriate warning that a given driver may not be as experienced as some of the others on the road. Though it is stereotypical, to a certain extent, to claim that all youth drivers are inherently worse than adult drivers (as we've all seen our fair share of terrible adult drivers), the statistics on the matter prove that youth drivers are more likely to commit driving errors than those of older demographics [1] [2]. The same rationale is used when marking any hazardous vehicle. We mark student driver cars extensively for the same reason (note that we haven't seen any molestation sprees spurred by predators following around student driver vehicles). This is a tactic, in fact, that will encourage more defensive driving, since drivers around the youth will be able to compensate for a possible lack of experience. Overall, it is an increase in safety. 4. My opponent states that any tickets which result in profiling will "go through" without any ability for the defendant to check that issuance. This is simply untrue. Nowhere in the Con's description of the law does it state that due process for a not-guilty plea is compromised. If a defendant truly believes that the ticket is bogus, then he/she has every right to challenge the citation. As an employee of the largest circuit court traffic department in the state of Oregon, I can tell you that traffic citations do get dismissed, and that young drivers can be acquitted. ---------------------------- The Pro offers an alternative provision of the law to strike, one which does not seem to protect the public, but compromises the functionality of the justice system. The Pro proposes that the only part of this law that is a poor idea on-face is the restriction of plea bargaining rights to youth drivers involved in motor vehicle violations. Plea bargaining is essential to efficient government function. Plea bargaining, in the context of a traffic citation, takes on a specific form. Because traffic citations are not criminal proceedings, there is no prosecuting attorney. A "court date" consists of the defendant and the judge. The defendant may plead guilty, not guilty, or no contest. Guilty and no contest waive the defendant's right to a trial with the issuing officer, and allow a ticket's case to be decided by the judge that day. No contest is simply a way of not admitting guilt while waiving this right to trial. Hence, plea bargaining is essentially the ability of the judge, within this context, to lower or discharge the fine associated with the ticket. To eliminate this ability, especially only for a certain demographic based on their supposed propensity to be more "guilty" than other drivers, is a usurpation of the judge's authority and a violation of the principles of justice that govern the nation. We prize ourselves in the equitable application of the law—this requires that our judiciary be able to take into account the circumstances of a given violation and apply the law thusly. [1] http://www.car-accidents.com... [2] http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov... <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Morality is an Idea because >What "nothings" are assumed not to exist and what constitutes enough "proof" to accept their existence? I am saying that the burden of proof lies with those that make positive claims, nothing more. Please do not misunderstand me. >This is question begging. My opponent must prove his position, not merely say "it is so." I did not say this. What I said was that all I must do is prove "it is not so". A different proposition altogether. >Proof, however, will always fall short because his view on epistemology will always reject the evidence. What evidence have you given me aside from appeals to custom and popular opinion? You have shown me no physical evidence, nor have you put forth anything resembling a formal logical proof. >My point about the seriousness of evil was not meant as singular proof. No single sentence in my argument stands alone as proof. What I did to criticize your opening paragraph was dismiss it as irrelevant, not attack its validity. There is a difference. >We must ask which theory works in practice and makes sense of human experience. You mean human ACTION. Humans do not act solely on rational laws of reality. They act also on thoughts, emotions, and shared beliefs in ghosts. Subjective "experience" is based on very similar things. If you are basing your proof primarily on human experience and actions, then how does your belief in the existence of morality as more than an idea have any more validity than a belief in ghosts? >In order to accomplish this, I made two observations about morality which I called moral distinctions and moral obligation. This should answer my opponent's question, "How is your definition of moral obligation anything other than a physical act, one that is exercised in accordance with an idea?" In laying out my case, I am making a distinction between the act of determining the rightness or wrongness of an action (moral distinction) and the act of holding someone accountable to good conduct (moral obligation). I am merely giving names to two observable actions. Exactly. Your idea of moral obligation is simply an action based on an idea we haphazardly call morality. How does this make morality something other than simply an idea? >I argue that the act of moral obligation assumes--consciously or unconsciously--absolute morality whereas my opponent attributes the act to an attempt at persuasion. False. I call your concept of moral obligation an ACTION in accordance with an IDEA. It has two parts, and it is very loose and imprecise concept that is poorly named. >To clarify for my opponent, a subjective morality is one in which there are no moral absolutes. If morality is an idea, then it is subjective since all ideas generate from many subjective human minds. An objective morality is one in which there are moral absolutes. If even a categorically imperative, perfectly rational, non-relativistic idea of morality is subjective by virtue of it being conceived by a human mind, then what kind of morality isn't? A code of ethics generated by God wouldn't escape this trap, either. God is simply another entity. Even if he was omniscient, he wouldn't qualify as "objective", since he is simply another entity. >He says relativism (whimsical insistence) equals objectivity (objective and universal), and in the same sentence he says objectivity could be taken to mean the lack of relativism. My opponent cannot have it both ways. I was attacking the idea that all humanly conceived moralities must by nature be selectively applicable. What I implied was that humans can create moralities that are universally applicable. >My argument is that people who insist their ideas are correct DENY the premise that morality is relative. Since this theory of morality leads to irrationality in practice, it ought to be rejected. Morality isn't granted objectivity by virtue of people being willing to coercively invoke it just as the idea of Aryan supremacy isn't granted truth by virtue of the Nazis carrying out the Holocaust. Even if people deny the premise that morality is relative doesn't mean it's untrue. People deny many things that are true and assert many things that are patently false. >My very next statement says, "In other words, those in power make the rules." Physical might is not necessary. Might-makes-right can be understood that those able to enforce their ethics are the ones whose ethics are correct. If there isn't a metaphysically existent entity called "morality", then how can the mighty be ethically correct or incorrect in a cosmic sense? They can still be in violation of rules drawn up in private or held within the hearts of those they oppress. In fact, this is the case no matter what the historical epoch. >In a relativistic moral system, this must be the case. If morals are just ideas, then the only ideas that matter are the ones enforced. No. Like I said, if morals are ideas, then they exist as ideas whether they are implemented, trampled upon, or ignored. Outside of final solutions, might has little to do with this. >My opponent wraps up by saying that I've "succeeded merely in proving that to treat morality lightly is disastrous." I will reiterate my argument since my opponent does not wish to read it in full. I am arguing that morality cannot be just an idea because of the impossibility of it. It leads to relativistic morality. Relative morality fails since engaging in moral obligation contradicts the premise. To reiterate, engaging in acts motivated by ideas does not legitimize or validate those ideas in any way, shape, or form. >To say morality is subjective but insist that others follow it is irrational UNLESS one believes their idea to be based on something with greater authority. Believing that you act in accordance with a higher power does not make ANY idea more rational. If this was the case, then the Crusades and the Salem Witch Trials were perfectly rational. >To insist that others adhere to your ideas is to assume your ideas represent truth and not mere opinion or fantasy. Assume, but not prove. >In conclusion, my opponent struggles to rationalize his position. First, he argues that morality is an idea based on a vague assumption of what can't exist. Invoking the burden of proof is not a vague assumption of what can exist. It is simply stating the objectives that we must achieve in order to claim victory in this debate, and that said objectives are asymmetric. You have to prove something, and I merely have to refute you. >Second, he argues that relative morality equals objective morality without making a case as to why these two notions should be considered synonymous. I was attacking your assertion that since moralities can be universally applicable, they must be guaranteed by some metaphysical reality that is more than an idea. I did not equate objective morality and subjective morality. If you were not making such an assertion, then please tell me so. >Third, he attempts to refute my argument out of context--a straw man defense. I have shown that relative morality cannot be rationally used in practice. Relative moralists behave like objective moralists. They cannot walk the talk. Only objective morality is rational both logically and in practice. Morality, if it is just an idea, cannot be objective. This statement assumes that the actions of moralists must by necessity be rationalized by the canonization of morality. No one but you would argue that philosophical approval of one's actions is a human right. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Debate is a Broken form of Argumentation because == Note to Voters == As agreed by both the debaters in comments before R4, we reduced the debate to 4 rounds. Kindly consider this as the final round for the purpose of casting your valuable vote. == Rebuttals == I modified tags to aid clarity. However, I kept the structure of the debate largely intact. I also clubbed together highly recursive arguments posted by Pro. I am sure readers will be able to see that I addressed each point raised till now. Debating within limits is skill: Pro conceded that debating within limits is key part of 'debating skills'. Pro further admits that debate is a inherently fair as a contest. Apart from arguments there are several ingredients of debating skill. Organizing arguments into a compelling narration Elucidation and clarity in verbal debate Formatting to ease readability in a written debate Debating within debate limits This does not mean arguments are not important for debates. As long as the debaters are well matched in terms of debating skills, the result is decided by the arguments only. The debaters in our discussion are well matched as that was one of the starting assumptions. Debate is a fair contest, which is ultimately decided by arguments. Debate is definitely not broken on terms of argumentation. Abusive AID: Pro admits that my method of dealing with increases abusive AID, is correct in terms of competitiveness. However he fails to understand that it increases argument quality also, as it forces the sides to do proper judgement to the key points. Just because you cannot use every arguement in every case does not mean debate is broken in terms of argumentation. Undue advantage: Here also Pro talks about fairness. In the only example presented by Pro, we have seen that CiRrk who was under severe inflationary pressure while debating my opponent, managed to argue within words limit. The debate was finally judged on the basis of arguments quality, and he won comfortably. Pro accuses I am involving judges. But judges are always involved! It is rare that debaters reach conclusion on theie own. SID: Pro misunderstood my argument and dropped it by claiming a red herring. A hook shot is a technique which can be used by batsmen only when the opponent (bowler) uses a particular aggressive technique. Similarly certain combinations of argument cannot be used in a particular situation or in a particular way. Cricket is not broken in terms of shots - even though you cannot play any shot any time. Similarly debate is also not broken just because certain arguments become unfeasable. AID: Failure to anticipate: I said, AID can be intercepted in most cases. My opponent also dropped the example in which the instigator has successfully intercepted AID. I did not say that AID can be intercepted in all cases. I explained how debaters can address AID if they failed to intercept it. Limits argument: I have already explained why argument selection does not lead to debate being broken. AID within single argument: If you are up against a limit, and you have a single argument and you can always rephrase your arguments. It is question of skill, not arguments. Small AID pushing debate over limits: I had given example of CiRrk's argument, as to how he managed comfortably avoid inflation while winning the debate in the process. Pro dropped it completely. Difficulty Proving AID: There is no such thing as 'unclear AID'. If AID is not clear, it is the task of debater to limit the arguments. If he appeals in such cases, he will end up losing. Meta Arguments Series: Pro acknowledges his arguments were recursive. I combined meta arguments and meta-meta arguments together. Since unclear AID do not exist, my arguments stand extended. It was way to clear from begining that this debate is symmetrical in burden. If a debater inflates his own arguments, as my opponent demonstrated he could have done, he would lose. That proves nothing. My opponent dropped the paradoxical nature of his arguments. In unsymmetrical AID, the offender is tasked with reducing his arguments. He is still free to choose his arguments. It does not break the debate. The victim does not have to debate AID. He just has to point it out. Clear AID is by definition clear. == Conclusion == My opponent conceded that debate is a fair contest. He also admitted that limits are needed in the debate. I have shown that debates are still largly decided by arguments. That is a sufficient to negate the resolution. While future of humanity is important, his argument about nukes is still irrelevent to this debate. He also admits it consists of empty speculation. I don't have to address this. Discerning voters will note that he had introduced this argument as an example of linguistic inflation appended to debate. Unfortunately for him, his nuke arguments went bust, again demonstrating it is possible to manage inflation. I would like to thank Sieben for this engrossing debate. This debate itself is a small testimony to the fact that debate is not a broken form of argumentation. This is one of the many reasons why voters should... VOTE CON! <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Ross is the Main Character on Friends because In this round, I will conclude all open arguments and briefly review issues Con dropped throughout this debate. Affirmative Case The Everyman & The Damsel in Distress Friends follows a standard sitcom format for ensemble comedies: provide the audience with an assortment of eccentric characters surrounding a more normal, “Everyman” protagonist with whom they can identify. Chandler and Phoebe’s eccentricities regulate them to comic relief duty, while the writers explain that they intended Joey and Monica to be more sexualized characters [1, see: Writing]. That leaves Ross and Rachel as potential protagonists. Ross’ lack of unique or overwhelming personality traits, coupled with being surrounded by absurdity, fits the definition of the sitcom Everyman perfectly. I defeated Con’s first rebuttal about Ross’ intellect and emotion, so now he argues that Ross is a caricature because he likes taking free things from hotels and owns an air purifier. If these are Con’s best examples of absurdity, I’d say he’s greatly helping my case. These character traits are about as boring and Everyman as they come. Compare them to believing your mom is a reincarnated cat (Phoebe), saving your sandwich from a shootout (Joey), or crying when you’re asked to take out the trash (Rachel) and the show’s most normal character comes jumping out at you. Rachel, on the other hand, perfectly epitomizes the sitcom archetype of the Damsel in Distress: helpless, naive, beautiful, and love interest of the hero. Con never addresses my arguments here, aside from last round where he essentially said “No, she isn’t.” Instead, he insists that Rachel is the protagonist because she is the most “amazing” character on the show. How does he prove this? By pointing out that Rachel got to meet a soap opera star (Joey), attended a wedding, and became a parent. Con has just described half the cast, including Ross. These events are not incredible or amazing, they are just things that happened. Add in the fact that Con does not understand the concept of Mary Sue characters, or provide a single example that isn’t a superhero or action star, and Con has no coherent case. A Hero’s Journey I argued that Rachel’s struggles all end in Season 1, whereas Ross’ struggles see series-long growth and evolution. Con drops this point completely. This is a significant point in Ross’ favor and works to affirm the resolution. Pursuer vs the Pursued The fact that Ross is the active agent in his relationship with Rachel, is responsible for the majority of its progress and drama, and that the audience views this relationship from Ross’ perspective are all indicative of how a protagonist propels major storylines. Con ignores this argument completely, as well as my numerous examples, which he labeled the result of “Femi-Nazis taking over the media” and not representative of real-life dating. Rather than providing examples from Friends or a similar sitcom, however, Con looks to Disney movies, which are themselves bastions of gender stereotypes, for support. What he continues to ignore, however, is the fact that protagonists have a certain responsibility of story advancement that his explanation completely disregards. Gunther as the Antagonist I argued that Gunther serves as an antagonist to Ross and is the only such antagonist of the series, indicating that Ross is the protagonist. This is a very significant point in my favor and Con never once addresses it. Rebuttals The show begins & ends with Rachel Con believes that Rachel bookending the show implies she is the protagonist. In reality, many shows see attractive love interests enter at the beginning of the show to jump start the protagonist’s journey and relationship storyline. Her leaving at the end of the series allows the audience to once again live through Ross and the actions he takes to rekindle their romance and wrap up the series. Con dropped this point entirely, weakening his case and strengthening my own. Rachel’s career I explained that all main characters on Friends see significant career improvement and Rachel’s history is nothing special. At that point, Con dropped this argument. Rachel’s relationships Con believed that Rachel’s relationships show some significance, but I pointed out that each of those relationships were either with Ross or relate to Ross in some way. Con drops this argument. Rachel lives with the cast Con continues to drop my counter examples of non-protagonists living with entire casts as irrelevant. Only in this case, it seems, where Rachel is meant to represent an amazing, out of this world character, does where she lives matter. As I have already proven that Rachel is not a Mary Sue character, and that Con uses the Mary Sue concept completely incorrectly, this point can finally be dismissed. Changing settings does not a main character make. The label of protagonist is reserved for the story’s hero, whose actions and reactions shape the direction of the plot. At no point in this debate has my opponent shown this characterization to fit Rachel. Conclusion It may seem intuitive that Rachel is the most fitting protagonist of Friends; she comes in like a whirlwind and her odd behavior earns her a lot of laughs. Those same qualities, though, disconnect her from the audience and parallel the oddities of the rest of the cast. Only Ross, with his quiet, lackluster presentation, stands alone as the “normal” character in the bunch and the one that the audience can look to as a normal gauge by which to judge the actions of the others. Only Ross is faced with numerous and varied character struggles that he battles and grows from throughout the series. Lastly, as we would expect of a protagonist, Ross plays the pursuer in the show’s primary romance, and it is through Ross that we in the audience experience its highs, lows, and eventual resolution. Note: Con will pass Round 4. I suggest simply thanking the audience rather than forfeiting completely. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... <EOA>

<BOA> I am with This is Gay Recruitment because My opponent tells us there are students who self-identify as "gay" and expects us to believe this on face value Your denial of truths is astounding. You seem to think that there aren't, so to give you some small statistics: In a survey in Seattle alone, created and carried out by Safe Schools Washington, 4.5% of students from years 9 - 12 identified themselves as Gay. A national survey found that around 80% of homosexual people discovered that they were Gay in primary school/junior school/ secondary school. So I just named but a few statistics which prove that there are gay teenagers who self-identify. http://www.thebody.com... Also, he expects us to accept this as evidence the child was "born that way." I looked back at every argument I made, and not once did I say this. Even though I believe that Gay people are born that way, I did not include it in my arguments as I didn't think it would be relevant to the point at hand. Stop lying to prove your ridiculous points. I would ask my opponent this question. "Suppose the child self-identifies as a Ninja Turtle, do we start feeding him pizza topped with flies?" This is silly. If a child identifies themselves as a ninja turtle (and is being wholly serious), then they need some psychological help. A child who identifies themselves as Gay is not the same thing, as they are sexually attracted to the same sex. Stop inflating my points to a degree that makes no logical sense to prove a point as well. My opponent works on the assumption that all schools have "gay children" who are being bullied and discriminated against. He provides no evidence to back up this claim. Well, firstly, if we are judging on assumptions, you take the biscuit. You assume that all homosexual relationships are loveless and revolve around sex. You assume that homosexuals are destroying our society through HIV. If you need some evidence to support a claim which is obviously quite factual, here are some more statistics: http://www.hrc.org... You place such an emphasis on facts, yet you are totally ignoring them! And incidentally, when did bullying become a strictly gay thing and why do gay students allow themselves to be bullied in the first place? It would appear that this so-called bullying epidemic is yet another way gay activists like my opponent gain access to our schools. Bullying was never strictly a "gay" thing. If you will look at the above statistics you will find that Gay people are 2x more likely to be bullied, as homosexuality is still not accepted by the wider community. What do you mean "Why do gay people allow themselves to be bullied in the first place?" You are placing the blame on the victim rather than the perpetrators. That statement could also be placed on heterosexual bullying. Kids go through changes. The kid who self-identifies as gay today may self-identify as straight tomorrow. They should have that freedom, This is true. But at 14/15 we trust a child when they say that they are straight, so why not if they say that they are Gay? They do have that freedom, and the so called "Gay activists" are not taking that away from them. You act like these people are heartless monsters who would brand a child Gay without the child's permission or knowledge, which just isn't true. The point is, is that whether these children believe they are homosexual or not, this type of Imagery needs to be shown in the media to remove hate and discrimination. CDC STATS Time for some honesty here. I do apologise to my opponent, but he didn't claim his sources, so it was extremely difficult to validate his claim. Apologies once again. Finally, it should come as no surprise my opponent invokes African HIV in a debate that has nothing to do with African HIV. As we see in his willingness to exploit "gay teenagers" he resorts to misdirection rather than direct answers. This is a stupid remark to make. You obviously haven't seen the basis of this, even though I stated it in the same paragraph. 97% of HIV rates were found in Africa or low-middle countries, where they can't afford to educate their children about safe sex. This means that the homosexuals in that country who have HIV and go on to have sex will spread that around. It is not misdirection, it is a logical procession from the information we have. Therefore the HIV rates found in homosexuals will also rise significantly. You need to do more research in this case sir. "My opponent tell us gays have "long and healthy relationships", but if that is so, how does he explain 72.% of all new HIV cases are gay males?" See above for the third answer to this question. SUMMATION: My opponent here uses lack luster points about the LGBT community, assuming that all of their relationships are loveless and are all sex based. He fails to see how the representation of Gay people in the media will help those who are ashamed of their sexuality to be confident in who they are, and how it will remove hate and discrimination in the future. He also does not see how it is the job of the news to show our diverse society, which is the basis for the pictures found in the Huffington post. Just as a last note, what my opponent did in his last paragraphs is frankly disgusting. The bigotry which he is showing is bordering on an obsession, and, once again , he assumes that if I win, it will only be due to the voters who, in his words, "must be Gay". VOTE FOR ME! <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Obama is murdering and terrorizing men women and children in Afghanistan because Though it hurts me to defend a Democrat, the article my opponent cites is dated January 24, 2009. Obama was sworn into office on the 20th. This gives very little time for Obama to have any serious impact on the war in Afghanistan. Furthermore, the top Cabinet official that would have had any impact on these orders is Defense Secretary Robert Gates- he was chosen by George W. Bush. Now, the resolution states "Obama is murdering and terrorizing men, women, and children in Afghanistan". It would be silly to affirm that Obama is in Afghanistan taking part in any raids, and it would be just as silly to imply that he commands every squad or platoon action- this is reserved for commanders on the ground, and carried out by troops. When there are murders and they are investigated, confirmed, and evidence is brought forth about American involvement, those who carried out the acts are normally prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. http://www.usatoday.com... http://news.bbc.co.uk... http://usmilitary.about.com... My opponent claims that these civilians were "minding their own business", and that "on the authority of Obamas leadership" 22 people "were ruthlessly slaughtered by the Obama administration and the US military". Indeed a number of people were killed, but reports vary even from the Afghans themselves. One man says 22 civilians, another says 21, another says 11 and 4 militants, and yet another says 10 civilians. Every incident that can be investigated should be, but this is not to say the administration itself is guilty of cold blooded murder. Obama inherited two wars- the one in Afghanistan was more poorly handled than the one in Iraq, and Afghanistan should have always been our main focus. To imply that Obama or his administration is guilty of murder for attempting to effectively carry out a war he did not instigate is inaccurate at best. http://www.wsws.org... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Should teens be allowed to take bodybuilding supplements (not steroids) because I accept. I await my opponent's opening arguments. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Should violent video games be banned? because Before starting my 3rd and final construct I would like to thank my opponent for taking time out of his day to deliver his construct. Also, another note to the judges, I would urge you not to vote for the person you necessarily agree with, but the person who gives the best and most cited arguments. I would like to point out that my opponent has not brought up any sources to back up his argument whatsoever, and the only links he put up either pertained to Chuck Norris or Smoking so I would advise you take into consideration that you would be taking a 17 year old's word over the American Psychological Association's by voting con. Now, without further interruption, I would like to start by refuting my opponent's points. My opponent said, during his very first point, that people who die of video games would have died anyways, because of car crashes, swine flu, or just plain old age. I'm sorry if I sound rude, but this is a terrible point! How would you like it if you died right now, without having the privilege that so many others have had of living life to it's fullest? To you mothers and fathers on debate.org , how would you like it, If your son or daughter got life altering psychological trauma from playing a video game and committed suicide like that poor boy in Moscow, or even worse, committed mass murder like the 7 year old boy I talked about earlier who just couldn't handle the violence in Red Dead Revolver any more? How would you like that? To have your child's life brutally taken away by a game... and then, to top it off, my opponent is saying that it was okay that they died, that it was okay that they died before the age of 10, or that these evil, abominable video games caused them to kill innocent people because of psychological trauma caused by the video game. Human life is precious, if it wasn't why would we feel joy at the sight of a newborn baby, or grief and sorrow at the sight of a deceased loved one? And to think that video games are causing the crime of murder is enough by itself to have them banned for good. The next piece of fallacious reasoning that came from my opponent's construct was this: "There are a lot of things that are responsible for deaths and suicides other than video games. A lot of people get depressed because of their boyfriend/girlfriend broke up with them and/or cheated on them and that depression leads to suicide. Video Games helps depression because it takes your mind off of them. Sports can also help you to relieve stress and depression however, sports are more dangerous than video games." Not only did my opponent fail to bring up any evidence that video games can relieve stress. He then went on to say that sports are too dangerous to play and that video games are a safer alternative. Have you failed to hear any of my evidence?!?! Video games are highly dangerous, not only to one's physical self, but to their mental and intellectual self as well. These violent video games overload the dopamine receptors in your brain, much like what cocaine or heroine does. The effect on one's body this has is more dangerous than even the most gruesome sports injury you can imagine. The child, or adult, in question starts to become extremely jumpy and jittery, much like someone with a severe mental injury, then the gamer will start to become used to the amount of dopamine flowing to his brain and he will begin to become addicted to the game in question. While this is happening, the study done by the APA showed that the gamer's grades would start to become poorer and poorer and that they would become more and more obese. In my earlier constructs I have talked about stress related deaths caused by video games, but obesity is another problem they they produce. Currently half a million people die from obesity related deaths per year and video games are largely inflating that number. Since the creation of the first violent, addictive, video game the obesity rate has almost tripled in number according to not only the APA, but Jayashree Pakhare, the center for disease control, and almost any medical professional on the web, trust me, google it. If we continue to let such a rampant killer exist in America then I and anyone who has ever lost someone to the horrors of violent video games truly pity your ignorance. My opponent's next point was that video games don't mean to kill people. There's a word for that, it's manslaughter, and if you commit half a million counts of it per year, then you would most likely be subject to the capital punishment. Video games kill an amount equal to the number of people living in Alaska currently, per year. This is insane! We currently have a case of flu (swine flu) going around America that has killed 86 people. We all know that even death is terrible but video games kill 6,000 times as many people than swine flu has but we still generally except video games as "okay". How can this be?!?! Put an end to the injustice of violent video games and vote PRO! Before I end my case, and beg you profusely to vote for me like my opponent has previously done. I would like to put an image in your mind of what violent video games teach children to do... A child, around the age of 5. Is standing in a room carrying an AK-47 along with several grenades. As he is exploring the room, he finds a dog. The dog in question, is in no way threatening, in fact, it's more like a puppy. Rather than say things like "awww" or "how cute" this 5 year old child laughs, aims his rifle, and shoots off one of the dog's legs. But he isn't over yet. He proceeds to walk up to the dog and kick it repeatedly in the side until it is barely able to even cry, or whimper anymore. He then takes out a grenade, shoves it down the dog's throat, and walks away. This, my friend, is the horror of violent video games. Thank you. I hope you now realize just how awful, and how much our country, how much our world, needs violent video games, to be done away with... Vote pro, and make sure that the image I have shown you never... becomes a reality. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against IVF Debate because In conclusion, IVF treatment may have beneficial progress toward our understanding of the human genome and may even influence our medical technology for the greater good, however this does not outweigh the current drawbacks to costs, side effects, errors, and whether or not it could be a successful treatment. Even if there was a placement of multiple embryos, there is still a very good chance the pregnancy could result in multiple pregnancies, given that 20-30 percent are multiple pregnancies. By using IVF there may be side effects which occur. These could vary but typically ovarian hyper-stimulation syndrome. Because ovaries are stimulated to produce more than one egg, the hormones and drugs used can lead to this syndrome due to an imbalance of normal FSH. Moreover, even after for paying for blood tests, screening, and materials, it can add up, even with the IVF treatment procedures and multiple cycles if the procedure fails. The process could be highly stressful on the patients who decide to partake in the treatment. Most of the time, it can be hard to see a loved one go through the cycles and screening that may occur as numerous results could lead to implications, no progress, and expenses that must be paid even if the couple or person"s treatment was not successful. High estrogen levels associated with high stimulation of IVF shows signs of increasing the chance for a baby to have a premature birth accompanied by low birth weight. There is a connection between this and long term health problems for the child in the future. The high estrogen levels has been shown to affect the intrauterine environment. The selection of embryos may prove it is unethical as parents are virtually selecting their child"s genes and preventing any genetic diseases that may take place. This essentially creates a perfect baby in which can seem immoral as a birth should be natural rather than selecting genes. The success of IVF is not guaranteed and typically people have to undergo more than one cycle of treatment before they are successful. As of right now, just over 25% of IVF treatments result in a live birth. With this we would also be progressing toward a society which is only seeking a child's genotype rather than their unique characteristics which they behold by the natural reproduction process. "(847) 662-1818." Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome After IVF. Advanced Fertility Center of Chicago, 4 Nov. 2012. Web. 27 Apr. 2016. Agrawal, Arpit. "What Advantages and Disadvantages Are There to in Vitro Fertilization?" - Quora. Quora, 6 May 2014. Web. 27 Apr. 2016. "The Advantages and Disadvantages of IVF." The UK's Pioneering Fertility Clinics. Createfertility. Web. 27 Apr. 2016. Abuzeid, Mostafa I. "Advantages and Disadvantages of IVF Treatments." IVF MICHIGAN ROCHESTER HILLS & FLINT, PCDr. Mostafa Abuzeid. Michigan Infertility Expert, 8 Dec. 2015. Web. 27 Apr. 2016. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against .9999 repeating = 1 because This sounds like it could be a fun debate and being con I negate that (.999 repeating =1 ) My case against this does require some complicated theory. The first thing that we have to understand that infinity is (despite its name) is a finite number as explained in this article http://en.wikipedia.org... . All infinity is the largest number and would end it would just be really big. Now then with this idea down a will attack the theory that my opponent will try to use to prove his point. Most people would use this equation to try to prove this to be true. Let x = .999... 10x = 9.999... (multiplying RHS and LHS by 10) 10x - x = 9.999... - x (subtracting x from both sides) 9x = 9 x = 1 .999... = 1 But the problem with this that if infinity did equal a finite number then the nines would have to stop a t some point. Now to use an example ( In this example I will say that infinity equals to 5 because I don't feel like writing a lot of 9's) Let x = .99999 (.9 to the infinite digit) 10x = 9.9999 10x – x = 9.9999 - .99999 9x = 8.00001 Thus .99999…. wouldn't't equal 1 <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Rap BAtttlllleee because Alright Fatboyfresh. I said that I'd accept the next challenge to become open just to get my three under my belt. I'd prefer no cursing simply because it's frowned upon on this site. Other than that. I guess you can start whenever you're ready. Good luck. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against When it comes to truth, Christianity is no different from any other belief system. because I agree to the resolution as stated and the terms employed by my opponent. I look forward to his arguments. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Goku vs Batman because Goku has died, batman has not. Therefor in their own series batman already has an advantage....mainly because Goku is already dead. I win. Then he gets brought back. Then he died. Then he gets brought back. Goku is good at dying. So I vote another Law....Goku can't just keep coming back to life that isn't fair. Batman on the other hand has never died. Except from old age but not in his story. All Batman would have to do it shoot him with a single projectile. He has all the technology and weapons at his disposal. He can run him over, blow him up, shoot him, stab him or even light him on fire. How would he kill Batman. He has no weapons that can pierce Batman's assortment of armors. We don' t technically know how powerful his blasts would be either. They could be no more than a large hammer like bullet or they could be nuclear. We just don't know. So if we assume they are pretty powerful...say RPG strong than he would have no chance. He would have to get lucky and hit batman when he wasn't paying attention. More or less they both would kill each other but Batman has more ways to kill Goku so batman will kill Goku more often then not. We have to do this like that show Deadliest Warrior and assume if they fight 1000 times Goku would win 423 times and Batman would win 577 times. Not because Batman is more powerful, he is a mere human. He has the technology to protect himself from Goku. The money if need be to get new technology if he can't be protected by Goku. That and he has already many means to kill Goku, like that Batmobile. Throw on top of all that if Batman gets hurt he can go to the doctor and we don't know If humans know how to fix Goku. Also Batman gets extra points just because he is plausible to our knowledge in this world and Goku as of right now to our knowledge isn't plausible (completely plausible just not here) <EOA>

<BOA> I am with The U.S. ought to submit to jurisdiction of an int. court designed to prosec. crimes agnst. humanity because Extend my entire case, and all my attacks. Thank you ladies and gentlemen. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with A windfall tax should be levied upon publicly-financed investment banks because First of all, I would like to say how pleased I am that Mr. Latham decided to accept this debate as I recently took the time to post a serious debate only to get an opponent who replied with a load of old nonsense in return. True, I won the debate, but I would rather lose to a worthy opponent than win by default. Nevertheless, I will still try and win this one by addressing Mr. Latham's rebuttals as follows: 1 – The term investment bank seems to still being used in the media to describe banks, or the divisions of banks, that deal with institutional investors and high net worth individuals rather than provide bank accounts, loans and mortgages for ordinary customers. In any case, when these banks were bailed out they certainly were known as investment banks. http://business.timesonline.co.uk... 2 – There is only one thing that bankers hate more than paying tax and that is what they would describe as "government interference in their affairs". That is why some banks were reluctant to take the public cash offered them – they suspected that the government would demand some control over how their business was run in the future. However, given their woeful record of catastrophic mismanagement over the preceding years, the government had no option but to persuade them to accept the money and ask them to use it to recapitalize themselves. The reason why some banks had to be coerced into this is that the banking industry which is a public utility as well as a commercial venture and a collapse would have caused a total economic meltdown. It is also true that Goldman and Morgan took relatively little compared to others such as Bank of America. On the other hand, banks such as Barclays Capital took absolutely nothing and even bought much of Lehman's business off the administrators. However, the point is that the banks that were loaned money took it on the understanding that they would use it to recapitalize in order to prevent any repetition of the financial chaos that had ensued - it was certainly never intended that profits earned on the loans would be distributed between the very bankers who were responsible for the collapse. 3 – Goldman wanted to repay their loans as quickly as possible so that they could release themselves from any government intervention and thus be free to pay themselves huge bonuses. This is why Goldman's 30,000 UK employees will get an average �500,000 ($820,000) each, although in reality, the bonuses will not go to the back office boys and girls or the folks that work in the post room or staff restaurant, but instead be will be divided between the top traders in multiples of tens of millions. That is exactly the type of bad management decision that caused the economic collapse in the first place – the banks should be using that money to recapitalize themselves in case the recession is ‘W'-shaped and they need cash to sustain themselves through more lean times. The fact is that these banks were financed by the public and have a duty to act responsibly in return. They have not discharged this duty and should, therefore, suffer the consequences in the form of a windfall tax. 4 - A windfall tax may be unconstitutional in the US – my opponent is American and I am not so I will not argue with him on that point. However, a windfall tax was applied to the banks in the UK in 1981 under similar economic circumstances. http://www.timesonline.co.uk... 5 – A condition of the bail out of the banking industry, the top executives did, indeed, agree to limit their pay – in other words "mend their ways". They have reneged on this agreement but the government must take some of the blame for this because they should never have trusted them in the first place – they should have made it a legally binding agreement – after all, a typical bankers' whole raison d'�tre is to let nothing stand in their way of making as much money for themselves as possible – they have no sense of social responsibility, indeed, it could be said that their consciences are their accomplices rather than their guides! 6 - The 50% would be taken on post-tax profits. So if a bank announces that it has made a $50 billion profit after tax, $25 billion will then be due to the government and $25 billion will be for the bank to either recapitalize themselves or, as is more likely, to pay themselves (still massive) bonuses. This is the reason why regulation to moderate remuneration will still be required. 7 – The difference between an overpaid rock star or sportsman and an investment banker is that if a celebrity chooses to spend his money on private planes and ocean-going yachts and lavish parties rather than invest it sensibly and they go to the wall as a result, it is only they that suffer. However, when banking executives do the same we all suffer. In conclusion, I accept that windfall taxes are inherently unfair – if they are applied retrospectively to squeeze money out of prudent companies who have made big profits as the result of their own endeavours. That is why I do not propose to apply such taxes to banks such as Barclays Capital who didn't have recourse to the public purse because they were able to sustain themselves through, and even profit from, the collapse of the banking industry. It is only the incompetent, greedy banks that were obliged to go cap in hand to their governments and who now, despite all that has happened, are awarding themselves massive payouts, that should be subject to a windfall tax. Thank you. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Debate is a Broken form of Argumentation because blank round <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Empty apartments/homes and unused land should be subjected to a tax. because 1 - In the example of ALFA corporation, Pro assumes that it would be beneficial for the corporation to utilize the other 75 acres of land. To use those acres, ALFA would have to incur expenses such as planting, watering, pesticides, consulting, harvesting, processing, and distribution of final product. These expenses are only offset, resulting in profit, if there is sufficient demand for the product. If there isn't enough demand, ALFA will incur a loss by using those extra acres. Why then is ALFA corporation only using 25 acres? I can only think of two reasons: There isn't enough demand to justify planting more crops, or ALFA corporation doesn't have the capital to carry the expenses through harvest. In the first case, taxing ALFA corporation won't do any good, in fact the tax would hurt a corporation that is already running below capacity due to poor economic conditions. In the second case, taxing ALFA corporation would only contribute to their capital problems, making future expansion more difficult. 2 - In the example of the two apartment complexes, there is obviously a reason for the second complex to have been built. Demand drives an economy, and the current demand trends in housing call for larger, open floor plans, modern appliances, modern fixtures, higher ceilings, and other such modern attributes to homes. Many people will choose to pay more to live in a newer, larger, modern apartment than a cheaper, older apartment. This demand is what causes new complexes to be built when others are still vacant. The only way to change the natural supply/demand process of the free market would be to take away the freedom and force people to move into existing complexes. Taxing the empty apartments would only hurt those who are trying to turn a profit in an area of housing where there is less demand. It would do nothing to incentivize people to consider housing that they don't desire. 3 - Pro states that increasing taxes on unused land and apartments would somehow stimulate the economy, without giving any reasons as to how such taxes would increase demand. Without demand, there can be no profit. I assert that unused apartments, homes, and land should not be taxed, because doing so only adds additional financial burden in an economy with low demand and struggling balance sheets. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Animal testing should be banned. because Because of animal testing, mostly ones done on mice the survival rates of cancer patients have increased. Nearly every Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine since the early 1900's has relied on animal data for their research. Modern anaesthetics, the tetanus vaccine, penicillin and insulin all relied on animal research in their development. Modern surgical techniques including hip replacement surgery, kidney transplants, heart transplants and blood transfusions were all perfected in animals. Animal testing has also benefited the animals as well. All veterinary research has relied on the use of animal research. Animals suffer from similar diseases to humans including cancers, TB, flu and asthma. The point is that because of animal testing, our medicine has advanced greatly, ant tho some my argue mice our nothing like humans so why should testing on them benefit us, the truth is we share 95% of our genes with a mouse, making them an effective model for the human body. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with Climate change because I thank Con for taking up this interesting debate and for his methodical answer. I will present my position, and then I will state the things upon me and Con agree, then I will react to the arguments brought up by Con. My position I have stated that humans "drive" global warming in a significant degree. Significant is the key word here. Nobody is so naive to consider that global climate is driven only or even mostly by humans. That would be an absurd position and a probatio diabolica for Pro taking into account things like solar activity, ocean currents or vulcanic activity. I have chosen the more sane position that human activity is an important or significant factor of global warming. By this I understand that what we do with regard to greenhouse gases has consequences on the climate and ultimately on us. Consensus I agree with Con that this is a broad topic. However even from the second round there are things upon we have already agreed effectively narrowing the topic. The first agreed fact is that the climate is warming. This is an smart choice from Con, as it would have been more difficult to argue that the climate is not warming. Also, Con admits that humans have a marginal effect. I say that this effect is important. We also agree that we are talking only about greenhouse gases even if this reduces the examples that Pro can bring up. In addition I want to point out the contradiction between the second paragraph and the last paragraph of Con. In the first paragraph he admits that there is global warming and in the last paragraph he talks about cO2 increase not explaining "stable" recent temperatures. I want a clarification on this position as I can not counterargument both these statements without contradicting myself. I now ask Con if we can agree upon a criterion or standard that can determine what important means for this debate? A good criterion could be the answer to the question: IS IT IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO DO SOMETHING (green energy, trade caps etc.) ABOUT IT? This standard/criterion can be refined but I think it is a good start. Disensus Con states that IPCC is biased, incompetent or has a secret agenda determined by bureaucrats. In the evidence presented [1] a scientist resigned from IPCC because he feared that IPCC MAY depart from scientific objectivity. He resigned because he considers that climate change science must remain politically neutral. Furthermore no one "imposed" any ideas on the scientist. I demand proof that there are imposed views on such a huge number of scientists. On the other hand it would be foolish for us to think that the discoveries of climate scientists have no political meaning. Besides the science there is an also a political battle. For the sake of our debate the two must be understood separately. Bearing this in mind I must point out that Con has pointed no secret agenda or motives for the IPCC to be biased. On the other hand I can point out a clear secret agenda (from the political perspective. There are people (like Con) that deny GW for the sake of finding the truth). One example is the editing of climate change reports by the White House [2]. The other two are the founding of The Marshal Institute by Exxon Mobile (the books quoted by Con are edited by the Marshal Institute) [3] and the relentless effort by the industry to promote climate change denial [4]. Their effort is nevertheless futile: first they argued that there is no GW, then that humans have no influence, than that the influence is insignificant etc. When comparing the "secret agenda" of IPCC and the quite obvious agenda of companies like Exxon it is clear who has more interest to mix politics and science and to misinform. Regarding the science arguments presented by Con, I will first point out that Con did not talk about anything about the super greenhouse effect on Venus that I have previously mentioned. This example shows that greenhouse gasses can produce quite dramatic effects. So from this perspective I consider that things are clear. With regards to many of the other arguments of Con, I must point out that his strategy is flawed. He will never win by pointing out a huge number of other causes that drive the climate even if they are more powerful than Co2. I clearly stated that I will prove that Co2 has a significant effect on GW. To make things more clear (bearing in mind the simplifications), let's consider t= f (sun, volcanoes, cosmic rays, clouds, particles, Co2 etc.) + e. Con can win if he shows that: the system is not sensible to Co2 variations; Co2 variations cause a smaller temperature increase than the noise (e); Co2 receives a negative feed-back that counters its effect. By analogy, if there is a heart stroke risk of x because of eating to much fat you can't prove that this risk is smaller by showing that drinking also has a y hart stroke risk. Furthermore, in the first round I pointed out a positive feedback of Co2. Con dismissed this feedback saying that temperatures increased in the past and there was "something" that stopped this vicious circle. This is wrong because, as I showed in my proof, these are the highest levels of Co2 reached in 650 000 years [5]. Also, when there was warmer weather in the past there also was more vegetation to absorb the Co2. Now we have more Co2, warmer weather and less vegetation so the Co2 is not absorbed by anything at the rate by which it is produced. There is proof of this happening in the Carboniferous Era 300 million years ago [6]. Unfortunately we do not have giant forests to gather the solar heat and the Co2. The proof that shows that nowadays the Co2 levels are at a record level also dismisses the "all this happened before and it will happen again" argument made by Con. Con alleges that Co2 variations must have a multiplier. This is not true. It is enough for Co2 to create a 0.5 C increase for every 40% to have significant effects. Furthermore Con states that if climate would be a car than the Co2 would be an acceleration pedal. To be more exact we should consider climate a car with multiple pedals (sun, volcanoes, etc.). Some pedals accelerate the car faster (sun), others accelerate the car slower (Co2). The fact that climate changed in less than 800 years simply shows that another more violent factor was involved not that Co2 theory is wrong. Further more the lag between temperature increase and Co2 has no significance. There will be a day of reckoning since Co2 is produced at a higher rate than it is absorbed in an ever increasing temperature that prevents Co2 absorption by oceans. Furthermore, the proof presented by Con itself acknowledges that there is some (although small) correlation between Co2 and temperature. From the fact that I reestablished the credibility of the IPCC reports, I have pointed out the clear bias of the two books presented by Con, I have pointed out the contradictions between the beginning and the end of his answer, I have showed that on Venus the greenhouse effect is really powerful, I have proven that Co2 rise is steady and has no negative feed-back, I conclude that my first position stands and that GW is man-made in a significant degree. Looking forward for another good round. [1] http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu... [2] http://www.nytimes.com... [3] http://www.ucsusa.org... - P. 32 [4] http://www.newsweek.com... [5] http://www.geocraft.com... <EOA>

<BOA> I am against The user s0m31john is a pedophile because The American Heritage Dictionary defines pedophilia as the following: "The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children." ( http://dictionary.reference.com... ) I am in no way attracted to real prepubescent females and would argue that animated/drawn lolicon is much different than child pornography. Many people are aroused by lolicon, but not by actual child porn. It is also impossible to determine the age of a character in lolicon porn because they have no real age, as they are characters. Unless Duconihilum can prove that the creators of the lolicon I view labeled the them as underage, I don't see how he can assume they are. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against Great Britain- The Anti-Christ's last stand because //1)The beast has a mortal wound// Point being? Just because one famous person has a mortal wound means they are the antichrist? //Revelation 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed and all the world marvelled after the Beast: It is said that King Arthur died of a mortal head wound at the Battle of Camlann between 516-550 AD.// Yes, and so have millions, possibly billions of others. What makes this person different? Besides, King Arthur has never been proven to actually exist. He is a fairytale. Look at this article. http://www.baltimoresun.com... So these people who have been shot to the head are different how? King Arthur never recovered. 5% Of people who have been shot to the head have been. They are more likely than King Arthur. //The prophecy from the Revelation is clear that the one of the head of the beasts which was wounded is indeed King Arthur// No, it isn't. You have cited passages from the bible, and then claimed that they show the antichrist arising from Britain, and you never show how. Again, you connect nonexistent and, to be honest, quite silly points, and then proceed to say this proves everything, when all it does it make you look like you are off your rocker. //whose spirit will return and possess a British (includes Wales, England & N. Ireland) the axis of Evil. // How will his spirit return? He's not even real?And why would he posses a British country?! How could he do so, when countries aren't living? And, worst of all, you say his spirit will return and posses a British...A British what? You trail off, again. I am getting a migraine from just trying to decipher what you are trying to say. //There is a chance that the Revelation is pointing towards a future king possessing the spirit of King Arthur.// Two things. 1) You have yet to prove how, why, who, what, or when. You have also failed to prove how these nonsensical statements you are making correlate to Great Britain at all. 2)There is a greater chance my mother is a pile of pudding. //2nd Evidence 2)The Coat of Arms of Great Britain and Wales Second concrete evidence is that Great Britain has 3 slim lions as its coat of arms. Mark- I said 3 slim not strong lions. It is possible that those 3 lions had a body of a leopard.// What does this have to do with anything. As I have stated, this is mere coincidence. You have not even rebutted my previous arguments against this. Fail. And where in the world do lions and leopards come in!? //Let's not forget that the Welsh flag is a red dragon. I am sure I have talked about the red dragon in the revelation.// Erm, I don't think you have. And, again, I have a poster of a dragon in my room. Am I going to spawn the antichrist? I think not. Your points are irrelevant and failtastic. //3rd Evidence 3)European Union – the Revived Roman Empire As I have mentioned earlier that Rome is too weak to rule the European Union so Europe wants a nations that is strong to rule the entire "continent." Who is the suitable country to lead such a huge confederation? France- No, Germany- No It should be a country that can sustain itself- yes look north towards Great Britain.// And, again, why can't Us, Japan, India, China, or Russia be the birth of the antichrist? You assume it will automatically be in Europe. Also, why is Rome too weak? Why are France and Germany too weak? You have given no evidence why. For your 4th argument, you prove that the antichrist is not from Isreal. This is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the main argument. You just eliminated one country out of the hundreds in the world. Not a big difference. My arguments still stand, as he has not even responded to them. As of now, I am incredibly sick, and I still make a better argument than my opponent. My arguments extended, my opponent's are nullified. Vote Con, or whatever. Bleck. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against People should be allowed to donate their bodies to cannibals and necrophiliacs after they die. because "My system provides a legal alternative which let's necrophiliacs and cannibals get their fill. Because cannibalism is legal. Because necrophilia is legal. But because homicide and theft are not." I suppose theres not much to argue then on the legality of physically performing the acts. "If we can make the program anonymous, 100/100. Same with cannibals. Why? Because, they have no other legal way to obtain a dead body." In your first arguement you stated that background checks would be done to ensure people arent profiting from this. In the above statement you are suggesting that registrants would be anonymous. Which will it be? "No, you're right. But if we can satisfy at least one fetish and at least one culinary taste, we have helped the world." If were going to satisfy one we may as well help them all. According to your theory to satisfy one or two helps the world, how much better would the world be if we satisfied everyones urges? How about we make it a grand system where suicidal persons can go and sign over their bodies to this program (satisfying suicide). Then homicidal people can kill them (satisfying homicide). After that Kleptomaniacs can come and rob the bodies of personal belongings (satisfying theft). And finally all the bodies can be turned over to the cannibals and necro's. Also of course you would have people who simply willed their bodies to be donated to this program. As you can see... you cant just satisfy one or two urges without all others demanding theirs be satisfied as well. As ideal as this program may sound to you, its drawbacks far outweigh its benefits. "Honestly, kind of disturbed. It would be very uncomfortable. But I would be able to suck it up and accept my child's needs because I can realized that they are not my property. It's not hurting anyone, so if they want to do it, who am I to judge? Besides, it's better than having their body be a useless waste of space." I think that if you were actually put in the position where your child were to be eaten or his/her body had sex with you would be outraged. Its easier to say you would keep your cool than to actually do it. Also, the body would eventually become what you call a waste of space because the bodies would have to be disposed. Once there was no more edible parts the body would need to be turned in and most likely buried. When the body began decomposing (which happens as soon as death occurs) it would no longer be safe for sexual intercourse and would need to be turned in and buried. "Yes, no, and yes. On the tax dollar thing, it would benefit the people by reducing crime." So youre proposing that our tax dollars would go toward funding sexual and cullinary disires? I dont think that the number of crimes commited solely to fullfill these two disires is high enough to pass this through congress. I think that 5 rounds was a bit high for this debate. There really isnt that much more that can be said on the topic. <EOA>

<BOA> I am with War memorials do more harm than good. because Good round, Con. Let's get right down to it... I have a serious issue with a memorial service being included in the definition of war memorial and I don't think it should be considered as such. The reason for such strong opposition on my part is due to the fact that memorial services serve as such an integral part of my argument. Thus before I go any further I will prove why a memorial service should NOT be considered a war memorial. 1) A memorial service can pay tribute to anything - not just war. 2) A war memorial suggests a physical entity such as a specific thing or place, whereas a service is also composed of places, things, and most importantly, PEOPLE. 3) A service cannot be built or destroyed, only assembled. 4) Because a service can be assembled, it can also be disassembled. This would be a collective effort of people choosing to leave or not partake, whereas just one person has the capacity to deface/demolish a physical war memorial entity. The people that make up and/or attend the service can or do leave, whereas the war memorial is typically intended to be permanent (or at least last for years or more). 5) I presented the only "official" definition of a war memorial that I found. The definition does not contain the specification of a memorial service. This is because obviously a memorial service is different from what is considered to be a war memorial. Here are the three definitions of memorial services that Wikipedia has provided: - The term memorial service is often used to describe a funeral. A funeral is a religious service that is held with or without the body of the deceased present. A memorial service is usually a secular service with or without the body present. - Alternatively, it is used to describe a less formal practice than a traditional funeral, and include such things as eulogies, music and fellowship. - In the Orthodox church, a memorial service is a liturgy performed in memory of the deceased, three, nine, thirty days, one year and three years since the day of the funeral. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... ) My opponent claims that memorial services be included in the definition of war memorials because "the end is the same in either event, regardless of the means." This may be true, however, unfortunately does not apply to the definition. For instance, if Tarzan and I each wanted to be transported via automobile and I took a car while he took a bus, that does not make a car and a bus the same thing regardless of whether or not both have the same function/result. That said, I feel I have provided sufficient reasoning as to why memorial services should not be included of the definition of war memorial. Moving on... My opponent opened his argument with an architect's quote stating the Vietnam Memorial was intended to be "a quiet place, meant for personal reflection and reckoning." That may be the case, however, just because that was the designer's intention does not mean that it would have that effect. Take Guillermo Vargas for instance who we all know as the scummy artist who starved a dog to death in a gallery to serve as "art." The designer of the piece himself states that his intention of the exhibit was "stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind" (Source: http://reiskeks-natividad.blogspot.com... ). Meanwhile, most people responded with extreme passionate hatred for the presentation. So yes, people's senses were stimulated; however, the response was significantly unfavorable. Similarly, a war memorial can serve as a device for rememberance but the reaction from the public may be extraordinarily unsatisfactory. Now I would agree that there is a much greater chance people would be upset and offended by Mr. Vargas' presentation than a war memorial. However that doesn't mean that adverse emotions can not and will not occur. For instance at my very own university last year, there was a "Walk Out" in which students who protested the war left class to assemble at our school's War Memorial for fallen Rutgers soldiers. At the same time, a counter-protest was being held on the same terf and inevitably the two groups clashed. The result was appalling; two masses of people arguing and fighting to the point of severe violence and necessary law enforcement on what is SUPPOSED to be considered sacred ground. So I ask -- did the war memorial's presence do more harm than good in this scenario? Absolutely. Of course my opponent can contest this with the fact that this type of outburst could happen anywhere, however, the likelihood of such an event taking place at such an obvious location verses somewhere more obscure is very much apparent. Additionally, assuming that it is only a minority of people who feel so strongly against war memorials, since when are minority rights not of importance? Entire congressional movements have taken place in order to ensure just that: minority rights. I would also like to negate the notion that ancient war memorials be excluded from this debate. The resolution makes no mention of memorials past, present or future, but rather discusses war memorials generally as a whole. I will contest my opponent's rebuttal regarding the purpose of memorials past vs. memorials present by introducing the concept of war memorials in the future. First, memorials in the past were constructed with nationalism in mind - nationalism that in turn led to war (as I've mentioned, there's both good and bad nationalism). On that note, there is no way to prove that future war memorials will not celebrate or glorify war, or promote violence amongst particular groups or nations. Just becase war memorials that currently exist may not blatantly encourage these ideas, does not mean that future memorials won't be more graphic, intense, disrespectful and in turn dangerous or harmful. Let us now discuss private memorials vs. public memorials. Again the resolution makes no specification regarding that of which we are discussing. Freedom of speech and expression could lead an individual to rectify an extremely uncouth war memorial; in turn it could cause immense controversy which can open up ten cans of worms. This is true about any art, however, the topic of war is particularly disputatious. Now I'm not arguing one's right to create such a piece -- I'm just noting the harm that could come from it... possibly more harm than good. Moving on, my opponent deems the WTC example irrelevant because it was not a destroyed war memorial. Very well. I will simply cite 2 other recent examples of war memorials that were vandalized or destroyed: Beeville, Texas (5/18/07); Jamestown, Kentucky (2/20/08). The point is the same - some individual(s) ruined these celebratory devices and in turn caused immense pain for veterans, the families of fallen soldiers and the community alike. If those memorials didn't exist, these people would not be so hurt/offended, and the perpetrator may not be a criminal right now. In conclusion, again I am not arguing (as my opponent wrongfully suggests) that we should not remember the lives of fallen soldiers who have sacrificed their lives in order to protect and/or maintain our freedom or the freedom of others. Their noble endeavors are owed a great deal of recognition and respect. My argument is that war memorials are not the best way to go about that commencement. Because so much of this round was spent arguing why memorial services should not be included in the definition of war memorial, unfortunately I do not have enough room to include alternatives to war memorials which would indeed include a memorial service (this details why I was in such opposition with the inclusion). I will definitely elaborate on that issue in my final around, along with citing all of the controversy that currently surround war memorials today. <EOA>

<BOA> I am against sportsmen and women are overpaid because [[ WHY SPORTSMEN & WOMEN ARE NOT OVER-PAID ]] Consider This: The MLB, for example, generates about 1.4 billion dollars in ticket sales alone [1]. Once inside the ballpark, fans spend money on food, souvenirs, memorabilia, etc. They're also exposed to the dozens upon dozens of advertisements plastered all over the walls, on the scoreboard, and on blimps overhead -- advertisements that companies pay big money the MLB for. So why do fans spend billions of dollars to get inside the ballpark? To watch superstar players compete in games, of course. Sports are a form of entertainment, and as we all know, entertainment is possibly the most lucrative industry in the world. People will spend money on things they enjoy, billions of dollars in fact. Now since athletes are the reason that people show up to the park, shouldn't they get a percentage of that money? No athletes = no money. Athletes = lots of money. Therefore athletes should make a lot of money. And remember what I said about performance - if a player sucks, he or she is certain to not be paid as well as an athlete who consistently performs. Fans enjoy teams and players who are playing well. If a team is unsuccessful, fans won't spend money on tickets or other memorabilia. Thus a great deal of money would be lost and an athlete will not make as much. However when a superstar is doing well and generates a lot of excitement/interest in the franchise, they are sure to rake in the big bucks. Michael Jordan, for example, used to make about $200,000 for every basket he scored. ** TV stations spend upwards of 1 billion dollars per year to televise sports games (and I'm still only talking about the MLB). Why do those fans tune in to watch? The players. And again, people advertise during sporting events because they know fans are watching. The more people that watch = the more money they can charge for commercials. Thus, these athletes are making a bunch of people a lot of money. Therefore they rightfully deserve a portion of the profit. Whether Pro likes it or not, this is simply about supply and demand. The resolution states that sportsmen and women are overpaid; however, this is simply untrue. Fans are what enable these athletes to earn such a high salary. Because we are so willing to attend games, watch them on TV and/or buy sporting merchandise, we are essentially saying "Hey! We enjoy this game/these players so much that we don't mind spending the money on it. If we did, we wouldn't spend." Simple as that. So essentally it is us, the people, who have determined that we would like to spend more money on entertainment - these athletes - than on the other heroes my opponent has mentioned in his argument such has military personnel or law enforcement. The bottom line is that this debate is about economics, not morality. Assuming it WERE about morality though, an athlete's earnings would still be justified because Pro cannot tell people how and where they should spend their money. We have the right to spend our money however we choose; to say we don't would be infrginging upon our rights and would be terribly immoral. Thus, I negate the resolution that sportsmen and women are overpaid. If they were truly overpaid, a change in the fan's behavior would indicate that notion and things would change. [[ REBUTTAL TO PRO'S 3 POINTS ]] "My first point: sportspeople are completely overpaid. They are given millions of pounds when there are children and adults starving in third world countries." 1) This could be said about a lot of people, not just athletes. Actors, musicians, politicians, investment bankers, agents, lawyers, and thousands of other occupations all employ individuals who earn millions of dollars, all while there are starving children in 3rd world countries. Athletes should not be singled out, and because you have not contested why they should (over other entertainers), this point is null and void. -- "My second point: these sportsmen and women are people's idols!!" 1) This entire point of yours was irrelevent. You talked about bad behavior on the part of athletes, but what does that have to do with their salary? If you're suggesting that because they make a lot of money they should always be on their best behavior, I'll have to disagree with your logic. What you're saying is that every person who earns a decent living should always act in a moral and proper way, but by that logic, it is okay for someone who DOESN'T earn a lot of money to act improperly. You're drawing a link between wealth and morality where none exists. 2) I agree that many athletes are children's idols. Because they make a lot of money, young people work hard to try and imitate their lavish lifestyle. Money is an incentive, whether it's for aspiring athletes or kids who just want to succeed in general. Consider a show like MTV Cribs in which the cameras take you inside of a celebrity's home to show off their nice things. Children watching at home will want to work hard either academically, or via their respective sports to try and be the best they can be and make a lot of money. 3) Athletes also do a lot of good for the community, which is also good in terms of being a role model. The website Athletes for Charity details dozens of philanthropic organizations either headed, founded or participated in by hundreds of professional athletes.* Talk about setting a good example. In regard to this point, I have proved that athletes can be excellent role models which cancels out your point that they are not. I have also established that wealth and good behavior do not go hand-in-hand, and assuming they should is based solely on my opponent's opinion - not factual evidence to back it up. -- "My third point: people claim that athletes get paid more due to the risk involved." During this point, you bring up soldiers and the fact that they are paid less than athletes despite their risky career. Here are my thoughts: 1) Not everybody agrees that soldiers should be paid more than athletes... clearly, since they're not. 2) The government determines the amount of money that a soldier earns. The government determines this based on tax payer wants and needs; the reason soldiers earn so little in comparison to athletes is because that is what citizens are willing to pay them. Whether or not you agree with that is completely irrelevant, because it is people like you and I as a whole who determine their wages. 3) Soldiers accept their job description including the salary. Just like the athletes in your example denied certain positions based on wages, a soldier (and a police officer) could just as easily turn down a job based on the pay. In that case, if there were no soldiers, people would have to look around and seriously consider increasing military wages. Because soldiers accept their job as-is (as we can tell from the current enlistment), there is no reason for people to pay higher taxes to up their salary. If they themselves are happy with their earnings, then why shouldn't we be? --------------------------------------------- [[ SOURCES ]] [1] http://findarticles.com... [2] http://findarticles.com... [3] http://www.athletesforcharity.com... <EOA>