recursal/Fanatic-Fandom huggingface dataset:
Do you think the doctor should be able to take your life support away without your families consent?

**Do you think the doctor should be able to take your life support away without your families consent? - 11/15/2007 (https://www.debate.org/debates/Do-you-think-the-doctor-should-be-able-to-take-your-life-support-away-without-your-families-consent/1/)**

## Round 1

Lyndsee: "Rose is a 90 year old female who has a 50/50 chance of living. Rose has multiple illnesses such as multiple sclerosis, hodgkins disease, and multiple other deathly diseases. Rose is on life support and his been in the hospital for over a month. The doctors and nurses have all come to an agreement to take the life support, feeding tubes, etc. away from Rose. All of this might sound good, but there is one major problem, they have decided to do this without and of Roses' childrens consent or anyone else in the family. This could cause a big controversy."

iamsano: "Hi, first of off i am sorry to hear about her condition but we need to take hard stand in life sometimes.
I guess you are talking about euthanasia in this case which is an assisted suicide. It might sound horrible but necessary sometimes.
In this case, you are talking about someone who has a 50-50 chance of living but i guess it is not that way because doctors in the hospital believe her life should be taken away and for me that is because she has less chance of living. so if i am gonna challenge you, it will be on that ground and if that is alright with you,then we can have a debate. I believe euthanisa is right the person has less chances of making it even without parental consent.
Thank you"
Gay Marriage

## Round 1

gonovice: "I believe that Gay marriage is completely okay. It is a way of two people who really love each other to show there commitment for each other. It means something to them. There is no reason for it to not be legal in the whole country. All they want is to be treated as equals not be looked at as outcasts. They did nothing to be treated badly. You don't have to be completely comfortable to allow it. They aren't hurting anyone so why are they being treated like it. Just because its different doesn't mean its wrong. You can have whatever religion that you want and its not illegal."

bimmlababex02: "I am not exactly for gay marriage but for civil union. In our history, marriage has always been between 1 man and 1 woman. I do not think it is a "sin" to be gay and I do not think you will go to hell. My opinion is just for civil unions because if we all of a sudden allow this to happen, I believe it will cause a lot of controversy and that is the last thing we all need right now. With civil unions, it is a gay marriage basically. You get laws and rules and there are some minor differences but gay marriage is a big step not just for the U.S but for everywhere. Do not get me wrong I love the gays, they are people just like you and me. However, I think civil unions is what is best for "right now". The future could change that, and I hope it does, but right now we just have to be patient."
Should Euthanasia and assisted sicide be legal?

## Round 1

Lyndsee: "Steve is a highschool student who has a bestfriend named sherry. Steve feels as if his whole life is nothing but a big mistake. He's always depressed, always feeling sorry for himself, and very anti-social except when he is around sherry. Steves life is so bad that he' seven considered suicide, the only problem is, he doesn't have the guts to perform this act on himself. Well, thats where sherry comes in. He is such good friends with sherry that he feels that sherry should get it over with for him. So he asks, and of course she says no, steve is special to her and she doesnt want to lose him as a great friend, even if he thinks of himself as a mistake."

Ragnar\_Rahl: "That anecdote seems to have little bearing on the legality of such things, only on the fact that sherry did not want to help someone who was merely depressed commit suicide.

Life does not exist for the sake of any other person than the one who possesses it. As such suicide, assisted or not, is a victimless crime, because the only one who is directly harmed by it is a party to the commission. A victim cannot be a perpetrator in the same scene. Say a person has a terminal illness, such that their every breath is nothing but pain. If they wish to fight it out, I wouldn't tell them no- but if they do not, do you wish to demand that they be denied their only method of ending torture?

The right to life has a consequence- that the holder of that life is the sole party to its continuance or discontinuance.

To outlaw something, fundamentally, means this: That you are willing to kill someone for continued pursuance of a course of action. Sure, the nominal penalty may be a fine or prison- but what if they resist the fine or prison? Death is the only result. Thus to outlaw suicide itself, in essence means- If you act to end your life, consistently, you will be killed- an utter absurdity when the goal is to preserve life. It would be arbitrary to outlaw helping someone do something, when you don't outlaw the act itself- it's spitting in the eye of those who for whatever reason cannot help themselves."

## Round 2

Lyndsee: **Lyndsee forfeited this round.**

Ragnar\_Rahl: "erm.... I'm afraid I haven;t much of a response to that argument..... \*posts random characters to move it along..."

## Round 3

Lyndsee: **Lyndsee forfeited this round.**

Ragnar\_Rahl: "same all over again.
same all over again.
same all over again.
same all over again.
same all over again.
same all over again."

## Round 4

Lyndsee: **Lyndsee forfeited this round.**

Ragnar\_Rahl: "Well, it appears this argument is going nowhere........

and so I spam again
and so I spam again
indeed."

## Round 5

Lyndsee: **Lyndsee has forfeited this round.**

Ragnar\_Rahl: "Well, it appears this argument is going nowhere........

and so I spam again
and so I spam again
indeed."
Abortions are wrong... No matter the circumstance....

## Round 1

Kandace\_Sisney: "I strongly believe that abortion is wrong... If it involves a death of one party aka(mother) it should not matter.. the kid that is to be born; is not at fault.. the mother is at fault for getting preganet.. If the mother was rapped it is a little different but still the same case.. it is never the childs fault in this perdicament... The child has the right and should recieve the right to full life.. no matter the cost.. a real mother would never give up in anyway her one blood... (child to be born.) and anyone who disagrees is not a very bright person..."

Ivisman96: Hello Kandace.

I am willing to take de-bate (sorry)even though your last statement that anyone who thinks otherwise than what you think is not "too bright". You state that you "strongly believe"...well hooray for you ! Just because you believe it is not an argument as to why others should believe in the same thing. You offer no evidence, no facts, no NOTHING besides "I strongly believe" - other than a child deserves to be born. I would declare that an unborn child does not have rights under the law. The Supreme Court of the United States in essence said the same thing with Roe vs. Wade.

A debate is to convince others that your point of view is the correct one. Not spout your belief and then insult anyone who refutes it. Do you want a "DEBATE" or not ?"
Gun control

## Round 1

tsmart1770: "I personally believe that every person within the US has enough responsibility to own a gun and to not abuse this privilege. Without these weapons, many people would feel insecure within their homes. Additionally, if we were to take guns away from our citizens, the use of illegal, and unregistered guns would drastically increase. Therefore allowing our citizens to own guns is immensely important."

volleynolley: "Not every person in the United States is responsible enough to own a gun. The two students involved in the Columbine High shooting had easy access to this weapon, and they ended up killing 13 other students. Columbine High is the site of the -fourth- deadliest school massacre in history. From this information, it is evident that people have indeed abused the privelege of owning a gun time and time again. If gun control was to be strictly implemented, over time access to illegal and unregistered guns would become increasingly difficult. Many US citizens have used guns for protection in their own homes; this is a positive aspect of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. However, does the latter outweigh the innocent deaths that occur from the abuse of gun priveleges, as mentioned in the former?"

## Round 2

tsmart1770: "If we remove the rights for citizens to own guns it would directly contradict our constitution, and the ideals behind it. The theme of the constitution is to keep a balance of power; favoring the governed over the government. If we allow only the government to have access to guns then we will ruin this balance, and possibly send our country into an uproar."

volleynolley: "This debate is not about whether or not the government should have the only access to firearms.

A balance of power has indeed been established in The Constitution; it is obvious that the country would be sent into an uproar if this were to be challenged.

On the topic of The Constitution, Amendment 2 in The Bill of Rights states that, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Some familiar synonyms for "well-regulated" are orderly, proper, appropriate, consistent and, most importantly, controlled.

Gun control contradicts The Constitution? Really?"
Carnivorous Megaworm

Basic Info:
Species: Carnivorous Mega Worm
Scientific Name: Terrum Cel
Diet: Omnivorous, everything it can swallow
Native Territory: Very rare, dark forest
Diurnal

Appearance:
Description: Green, numerous vestigial limbs, huge mouth full of needle like teeth
Height (when not standing up): 6-7 feet
Weight: 2 tons
Length: 40-55 feet
Blood Temp: Warm blooded

Other Info:
Hunting Strategy: Carnivorous Mega Worms burrow underground and burst out every couple of minutes to check for nearby prey. They can't sense prey underground so they can't just burst out under them.
Defensive Strategy: Fleeing underground.
Interesting Biology: Very soft and juicy on the inside, rendering them resistant to bludgeoning attacks but vulnerable to slashing and piercing. Additionally, they store extra fat and nutrients in special organs, most having 10-15 per body, which are edible to other creatures, being very rich in nutrients and fat.
America is a slave to fashion.

## Round 1

Semper-Fi: "My argument isn't really that eloquent, but here goes. I've been around for a while, and everywhere I go, somebody is criticized about the clothes they wear or how they wear their clothes. But then there are people who are trying to act "cool" or "gangsta". But who really invented these styles anyway? Well, what I', trying to say, is that people will always be criticized about their clothes."

wryan: "1. I am going to assume that your statement is that people will always be critisized about their clothes.

This statement is untrue. There are many situations in which people will not be critisized about their clothes.

First of all, they will not be critisized if their clothes are judged to be "cool", and they generally fit in. There just would not be any reason for it.

Second of all, they will not be critised if there are more important things going on, or in less affluent societies. for example, communities of homeless do not generally judge the clothes eachother wear because they have more pressig things to worry about, such as finding food.

Third, there are many people who won't critisize people's clothing, be it because they are too nice, too shy, too afraid, or if they have worse clothing themselves. Therefore, when people are around people like that their clothing choices willnot be critized.

Finally, people's clothing will not be critisized when there are things such as uniforms in affect. For example, in a school where everyone must wear the same uniform, clothing will not be critisized because it will all be the same.

As to the slave of fashion thing, there are many people who just don't care about what they ear very much, or have their own preferred style. While it may appear from the news and the media that fashion is alll important to Americans, it really is only important to one segment of the population, and by no means is it important to everyone. Just because this does not hold true for your peer group does not mean it s wrong.

There you go. (in general it is not a good idea to accept an absolute burden of proof in a debate)"
Media today is sensationalizing news.

## Round 1

avanti: "The media today is sensationalizing news so that everyone watches news. There is coverage on every topic from politics to entertainment. There is hardly any subject not covered by the media today."

kingy: "The topic is sensationalism of the media. Not only do you fail to miss the point of what sensationalism is entirely, the postulate of your argument is wrong at its core, and there is absolutely no proof or examples you cited that correlate to your argument.

First of all, I'll provide the definition of sensationalism from a variety of sources:

Merriam-Webster: empiricism that limits experience as a source of knowledge to sensation or sense perceptions

Dictionary.com: subject matter, language, or style producing or designed to produce startling or thrilling impressions or to excite and please vulgar taste.

Cambridge: when newspapers, TV, etc. intentionally present information in a way that is intended to excite or shock people

Any one of these definitions work. Coverage is not the same as sensationalism; in fact they are unrelated concepts entirely, so your second two sentences are absolutely worthless, they provide nothing to the context of this debate, and whether or not they're true have no bearing whatsoever on what we're here to discuss: sensationalism. Anyone watching, be aware that the affirmative case is
irrelevant to the stated topic, and that coverage has nothing to do with the topic, and is not the topic of discussion.

Onto the topic of sensationalism: The news does not "sensationalize". They simply report what they're paid to report, and report it well. While it may be true negative news is presented more frequently than positive news, this is hardly because "shocking" or "thrilling" people is the point - how can murder actually "thrill" anyone whatsoever?

Sensationalism is not what's going on, the are reporting news that is interesting, relevant, and indeed vital for everyone in the reporting area to know. They report what people need to know, what's going on in the community, what's happening with the government they elected, and although they're might be a slight skew for more negative than positive news, the great majority of news is neutral: only good or bad relative to your stance on various issues (e.g. who got elected, when an event of interest is going to happen).

In closing, the news is not sensationalist: they are at the core neutral, and there to report the relevent and important news of their community.

Thank you."
Sports cars, lambergihni is better than the ferrarri

## Round 1

firegxx66: "in my own oppinion, that is soooooo true!!!!!!!! because the lamberghini has more horse power than the ferrairri. there for the lamberghini is better!"

righty10294: "Hello, firegxx66

I'm in love with cars. I read magizines watch shows and wtach races. ALso, my family owns a car dealership. I think your arguement is biasest and totaly wrong. I would like to see some facts to support your reasoning.

So, you don't explain what models you are talking about. The Ferrari FXX gets more horsepower than the lambo Murcielago. The numbers are 800 to 633 according to wikipidia. What models are you talking about? That is like saying Chevy is faster than Ford. In what?

Also, horsepower doesn't make a car good or not. It's like a marathon runner. It isn't aboout who can have the top speed, but it's about who can matain that speed for 26.2 miles. If you read car magizines (ex: Motor Trend or Automobile) they compare cars in every catagory. That ranges from preformence to the inteior. Horsepower is just 1 catagory."

## Round 2

firegxx66: **firegxx66 forfeited this round.**

righty10294: "firegxx66,

please deabate me, because you cant just come on to this website and think it's a blog (there could be one on here when they updated it) people are taking your statement as an argument.

Here are some more facts-

1) Ferrari is owned by Fiat. That is a Eurpean car company. It isn't a great car but it still makes money. Lamborghini is owned by Volkswagen, which is solded world wide. Do the math, Lambo's have more resources than Ferrari, and more money to spend so they moght be a few ticks slower. But if you are in the US why do you need to go 100 mph+?

2) In MAy of this year, Ferrari sold 168 units. Last year they sold 130ish. I couldn't find Lambo's. I will have the numbers for November later with both cars"

## Round 3

firegxx66: **firegxx66 forfeited this round.**

righty10294: "Firegxx

This isn't a blog. You need to debate someone when you start a debate. You are misleading people into a debate that win't happen.

I have no argument since you didn't respond."

## Round 4

firegxx66: **firegxx66 forfeited this round.**

righty10294: "Firegxx

This isn't a blog. You need to debate someone when you start a debate. You are misleading people into a debate that win't happen.

I have no argument since you didn't respond

I'm saying the same thing to speed up this process."

## Round 5

firegxx66: **firegxx66 forfeited this round.**

righty10294: "This isn't a blog. You need to debate someone when you start a debate. You are misleading people into a debate that win't happen.

I have no argument since you didn't respond

I'm saying the same thing to speed up this process."
EUTHANASIA BE LEGALIZED IN THE PHILIPPINES

## Round 1

raissaguldam\_cassiopeia: "euthanasia or mercy- killing is an act of taking one's life. Legalization of euthanasia can affect the Filipino culture and tradition in a way that it affects the close family ties. Also, legalizing mercy-killing can be againstthe doctor's ethics. Lastly, euthanasia is against the constitution Article 3, Section 1."

vohne: "Firstly, I disagree with your definition of euthanasia. Euthanasia is the putting to death, by painless method, of a terminally-ill or severely debilitated person through the omission (intentionally withholding a life-saving medical procedure, also known as passive euthanasia) or commission of an act (active euthanasia), as defined by the leanlegal dictionary online. I also find your first point confusing; in what way does the legalisation of euthanasia affect the close family ties in Filipinos? I, being a Filipino, can relate, and I fail to see your point. Secondly, define what you mean by "the doctor's ethics"? In a case to case basis, a doctor will not be performing euthanasia if he/she is against it, therefore it is a fallacy to generalise to all doctors. Lastly, euthanasia is against the constitution, that is why the topic is should it be legalised. Saying it is currently not legal is restating the topic, no relevance.

Now for my arguments. Firstly, the financial costs of keeping a person on a life support machine are enormous, not to mention hospital bills and 24-hour medical care. 80% of the Filipinos live in poverty, how many people can afford this? What happens then if the family cannot afford keeping the relative on life support? Do they get arrested?

Secondly, the emotional distress that is caused by seeing your loved one in a vegetative state for an extended period of time while doctors continually tell you that there is no hope for recovery is potentially traumatizing. Some people who consider this as suffering for the vegetable loved one will want euthanasia, but they haven't the option. Legalising this will not force everyone to take this course, but rather only provide an option.

Lastly, the medical facilities and time that is devoted towards the vegetative patient with low chances of recovery could be spent helping someone else in greater need. Already in the Philippines we have a shortage of medical personnel and equipment, this additional burden will only cause more damage."

## Round 2

raissaguldam\_cassiopeia: "First of all, thank you for accepting my proposition.

I'm very amazed by your arguments!I humbly surrender..hehe..I'm not capable of answering or arguing or debating with you..:)

congratulations!.."

vohne: "haha, well I do believe in my arguments. Hope to see you in future debates. There is a mininum of 100 characters befor eyou can post, so im just filling the spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee... See ya"

## Round 3

raissaguldam\_cassiopeia: **raissaguldam\_cassiopeia forfeited this round.**

vohne: "I have made my arguments. May the best debater win."
Smoking should be banned.

## Round 1

Ivisman96: "Smoking is a public health nuisance and should be banned outright. Not just in public places but everywhere. When used as directed, it kills."

Nimrod: Smoking is a public health nuisance just like drinking, fast food, a lack of sports in exchange for extended tv-watching, etc. Although it does not "kill" instantly it undoubtedly causes a higher risk for impaired health and premature death amongst others.

I admit: There is one main difference. Smoking does also affect other peoples well-being or even their health. For this reason it is banned in many public places, especially in the United States. Since I am a non-smoker, I enjoy this ban and agree with it.

However, if somebody alone at his home decides to smoke, it is his personal matter. A ban would certainly be inadequate and disproportionate."

## Round 2

Ivisman96: Hi Nimrod. Thank you for taking the time to debate this important topic. Just so we're clear, you are agreeing with banning smoking in public places ? But you believe that banning smoking in the home is a bit excessive ? If so, I will just address the private property issues. Look forward to a good debate.

Nimrod: **Nimrod forfeited this round.**
Should schools be able to add an extra 2 hours a day and five extra days a year?

**Should schools be able to add an extra 2 hours a day and five extra days a year? - 11/10/2007 (https://www.debate.org/debates/Should-schools-be-able-to-add-an-extra-2-hours-a-day-and-five-extra-days-a-year/1/)**

## Round 1

smileymia24: "In certain places of the world, schools are adding 2 extra hours to a regular six hour school day and 5 extra school days to a school year. I am completely against it. It is just another way to take from young children's lives. I of course believe in going to school and learning and yes I highly believe that going to school while you can is what will shape your future for later in life, yes I believe it, so don't confuse the debate. But that's not the only important thing for kids to witness at this age of their life.

Having a social life, being involved with extra-curricular activities, and having family time is just as important as going to school to learn. Taking two more hours per day from a child's "home" time, and "friend" time etc. is taking away apart of their life. Homework and tests and projects and schoolwork are way out of control. Ask ANY older person about back in the day when they were in school. Nowadays we are expected to know and learn so much then before, and we are expected to be perfect, and to meet every teacher's expectations. Before (and yes i realize things are different today than before) kids didn't have as much homework nor did they have to have as much dedication to school. So why is fair to take away even more from these kids social lives? It's not."

james94: "I think that adding 2extra hours per school day would benefit students greatly. The students would be able to study and learn better from their teachers . If they would have given students the 2 extra hours that they needed the children would not have the social problems that they have today.

That is not to say that it would take away from their home and social lives.
I also believe that children would be better educated."
The fight for justice,equality,peaceand love is futile

## Round 1

Joel\_Asher: "There can never be peace for everyone or will crimes ever cease to be comitted. The government cant do anything to stop anyone because the world itself will always have the aura of chaos about it. meaning people debating or arguing about racism or prejudices or violence is not going to do anything to save us from any of those evils."

PreacherFred: "To state that any attempts to pursue justice, equality, peace and love are futile is similar to watching the bath water in a tub going down the drain. Why bother plugging the drain? The water will eventually seep through the plug and evaporate into the air leaving an empty tub anyway. Why slow down the inevitable?

In a larger sense there probably isn't going to be a moment in time when every human being will experience peace and tranquility at the exact same time. Personal serenity is attainable by every individual, if we work for it. You can be in heaven right where you sit, or you can be in hell, the choice is yours!
Crime has existed ever since Eve broke the law and ate the forbidden apple. Failure of governments to regulate certain socially condemned behaviors is to invite chaos and discord in proportions that we could never even imagine.
Human beings are not born with the concepts of racism and prejudice. These are learned behaviors that are taught to us by society. When we come to realize that these behaviors are wrong then we can begin to learn new, better behaviors. We do not have to be weighed down by the dead weight of injustice, inequality, chaos and hate. Once we learn how to do that then we can soar and feel the peace and serenity that we crave for. The social ills of this world will decrease in direct proportion to the number of human beings that take to heart the concepts expressed by Saint Francis of Assisi.
What value is there in debating on whether or not the cup of life is half full because of justice, equality, peace and love; or is half empty because of injustice, inequality, chaos and hate? What matters is what I am personally doing to ensure that I am filling the cup! Remember, every mighty river of this world starts with just a drop of water!"
STUDENT AT ALL KANSAS CITY MISSOURI SCHOOL DISTRICT SHOULD BE ABLE TO BRING CELLS PHONES INTO SCHOOL

**STUDENT AT ALL KANSAS CITY MISSOURI SCHOOL DISTRICT SHOULD BE ABLE TO BRING CELLS PHONES INTO SCHOOL - 11/21/2007 (https://www.debate.org/debates/STUDENT-AT-ALL-KANSAS-CITY-MISSOURI-SCHOOL-DISTRICT-SHOULD-BE-ABLE-TO-BRING-CELLS-PHONES-INTO-SCHOOL/1/)**

## Round1

mudder-pooh: "THEY SHOULD BE able to bring there phones in school because after school they might b staying an they parents might need to get in touch with them an the teacher phone might be down so how they gone get in touch with them an hat if the child wanna go over a friend house how would they get in touch with the parent or what if they just wanted to walk home or what if they missed there bus and the teachers wont let the child back in the school then what"

RepublicanView333: "Hello Mudder

i would like to begin by asking you, "Why should only the Kansas City and Missouri district be allowed cellular phones?" Why can't we make this a national thing.

Any way beyond that cell phones do more harm than good. like you I live in a school district that doesnn't allow cell phones. I must admit it has done the whole school district good. Before the ban kids would be texting in class instead of paying attention. When the student forgot to turn his ringer off and his/her phone went off it would resrupt the class and the class would loss study time or just plain class time to have the phone taken awayu for the rest of class. The thing is though before the ban the student would get the phone back and the same thing would happen next class. Neverless by the third class the student would get a detention for distupting the class, but neverless he/she disrupted and it was a a waste of class time to give the student detention and have him/her turn the phone in.

So, evidently the school officials decided to ban cell phones. But in our school we are allowed to heve phones in our locker so after school if a situation like yours arises then they could call home. Please inform me if your school is different but i don't think it is."
Resolved that fraternities be banned in schools.

## Round 1

scamp: "(1) initiation includes HAZING, which, as we all know many people died.

(2) i do not find any benefits of having fraternities in school.

it only shows that we do not have to establish organizations, such as fraternities in schools. it's just a big mess!!"

Nate: "Fraternities have been part of education system since Phi Beta Kappa was founded in 1776. While in recent years some fraternities have gone "off track" the majority have been productive institutions established for the betterment of the community and student population as a whole.

Fraternities are philanthropic organizations created for the betterment of the community in which they are established.

Furthermore, Fraternities provide opportunities for like minded people to create close bonds and develop professional relationships that last for years."
Are human beings destroying EARTH???

## Round 1

fmrock: "I firmly believe that human beings are destroying our Earth. I have evidence of such degradation in the everyday life.

Take into account deforestation, caused by the high request of land for agriculture and urban development, the extensive action of the logging industry, and also wildfires and acid rains.
As another proof of this ruin, let's think about air pollution, caused by industries, heating systems and traffic of motor vehicles, that cause serious problems to respiratory and cardiovascular apparatus, but also contribute to the global heating, a problem nowadays much discussed.
Moreover, the industrial system has spread through advertising a consumer psychosis that obliges people to chase happiness buying unnecessary items and throwing away others, such as clothes, food, furniture and objects, considered as garbage even if they're still usable. All this rubbish takes a long time to degrade, and remains in natural environments ruining it.
Today, also agriculture contributes to pollution: farmers are forced, in order to survive to the free market and globalization, to use pesticides, fungicides and fertilizers, that poison aquifers with their slag and that could make land unproductive.
Human beings are no more the ones that appeared on Earth millions of years ago, when they adapted themselves to the world without modifying natural environments, only realizing useful structures to adapt the nature, as dams or channels for irrigation, they are behaving without considering the effects of their actions on the Earth."

simonote: "From what you listed, i think you don't understand what it feels like to not have cars and other transportation's. Why not you start living like a caveman, using fire as your only light source? And you shouldn't be on computer either, cos computer runs on electricity and electricity are generated by patrol, which we get from Earth! Although, i agree that we are consuming alot of Earth's natural resources, but if we don't use these natural resources, how are we going to live?"
Pregent women are allowed to be naked for porn

## Round 1

deltadebate11: "i think thier free to express them selves in ANY WAY POSSIBLE AND ARE FREE FOR ALL AND ARTE TO BE TREATED FAIRLY"

manishagni2004: "first of all why r u want to show such kind of rubbishness that pregnent women allowed it is the feeling of someone own .no one compels anyone for the nudity.and one main thing is that this kind of neusence will affect the future of that kid who is in womb."

## Round 2

deltadebate11: "i think they are people and will be alway even naked and are nuice to express themselves.and are to be loved even though they are naked"

manishagni2004: "Its ok that she loved by lots of ones.But when she'll get old n,definitely realised that i had done something wrong.one more thing that most of the time preg women not looks beautiful,like always."
Do video games rot your brain or not?

## Round 1

Chelsey: "Video games can be educational for all ages, take leap frog for example is an educational "video game" and can help a child in school. They can also excel socially and make more friends by knowing how to pronounce words and say things smartly. Another thing is that you might be rotting your brain just as much reading book or magazines, or playing outside; watching movies or TV could also melt your brain. Movies, TV, books, and magazines can hurt by advertising or talking about drugs, drinking, having sex, or any other things that might be considered as juvenile. Are you just not going to do anything because it might rot your brain?"

RepublicanView333: "Hello Chelsey, Nice to Debate you.

with your opening statement I see many openings in it that don't say why video games "don't" rot your brain.

First I would like to address the statement "leap frog can help in school" (shortened) I would like to ask you what age is "leap frog" intended for? i looked it up and strictly the leap frog video games are intended for pre-K and possibly 1st grade kids. I ask you do you intend teenagers and young adults to play games intended for pre-K and first graders? The type of games that these people play are indend the type that "rot you brain" to use your term.(Grand Theft Auto, that dramatizes and puts the idea of drugs and killing in a teens hands, Mortal Combat which is a stictly fighting game, etc.) These are the type of games teens play. Trust me I'm a 13 year old teen. I see how kids react to these games and it isn't productive.

For your next response that TV, Movies Magazines also can, "melt your brain" also to use your term, is illogical. Number 1 you say TV etc. advertise drugs. It is illegal to advertise drugs on TV. Yes, some of the programjs on TV are inappropriate but that is the parents job to control the TV. I know. On prime time there are many shows that involve sex, and drinking. But, it is to be watched with the responsibility to know its for humor and not to be taken seriously. The parents if they don't like that should then let there kids watch discovery or science channel. Something all kids should watch. So they could learn something.

You also say that books could "melt your brain". This is obserd and you must of been in serious need of something to type because that has no logic behind it. Books build a stronger mind for kids and a stronger future the exact opposite of what you are debating about video games and what you said about books.

I'd rather my kids read every day instead of video games."
The Canadian government should legalize the use of marijuana

## Round 1

chadalawada: "A lot of people are dying because people start taking marijuana. Marijuana is the most commonly abused illicit drug in the United States. A dry, shredded green/brown mix of flowers, stems, seeds, and leaves of the hemp plant Cannabis sativa, it usually is smoked as a cigarette (joint, nail), or in a pipe (bong). It also is smoked in blunts, which are cigars that have been emptied of tobacco and refilled with marijuana, often in combination with another drug. It might also be mixed in food or brewed as a tea. As a more concentrated, resinous form it is called hashish and, as a sticky black liquid, hash oil. Marijuana smoke has a pungent and distinctive, usually sweet-and-sour odor. There are countless street terms for marijuana including pot, herb, weed, grass, widow, ganja, and hash, as well as terms derived from trademarked varieties of cannabis, such as Bubble Gum, Northern Lights, Fruity Juice, Afghani #1, and a number of Skunk varieties. The main active chemical in marijuana is THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol). The membranes of certain nerve cells in the brain contain protein receptors that bind to THC. Once securely in place, THC kicks off a series of cellular reactions that ultimately lead to the high that users experience when they smoke marijuana."

tiamtheelf: "There has not been a single report on any death regarding the usage of marijuana. As far as long cancer goes, there are devices called "the vaporizer" which converts that herb into mist (not smoke) which does not have a single effect on the lungs. Despite the people who use marijuana for fun, there are people who have eating disorders, migraine, and of course, cancer. The government must allow these patients to use marijuana for the sake of their medical problems. People with eating disorders (especially people with cancer who cannot eat from too much depression) use marijuana so their appetite can stay moderate. People with Migraine use marijuana so they can remain calm and suffer less from the symptom.

Also, you have no proof when you say "A lot of people are dying because people start taking marijuana". But I have proof when I say "There has not been a single report on any death regarding the usage of marijuana".

http://www.medicalmarijuanaprocon.org..."
Making room to put a nutrition class in grade school through high school.

## Round 1

italia4356: "people should know how to take care of their body so they can prevent the majority of diseases and cancers and get off of the dependency of pharmoseutical companies or cold hearted pill pushers which ever name you prefer. Maybe not all but my overall view of pharmosuetical companies is pretty negative because they choose not to spend any money on commercials or info on prevention. they have the knowledge and power yet choose to take advantage of people and thier money."

gonovice: "Italia, its called a gym class! and health class! almost every school has one. In my high school we spend a large amount of time learning about how to prevent diseases. We also learn how to be wise about what medicines we decide to take. I have a lot of common sense and most americans do. so if some company decides not to give information about the topic or things along that line i'm going to do my research before i put something into my body that may not help. And all those companies who dont spend any time on the information on the disease or those sorts of things shouldnt your doctor be the one to give you the information. For you to say that they dont give enough information that may be true but people also should get the important information from their doctors. you know the ones who diagnose them in the first place.

also lets please keep this debate knowledgeable and factual for the sake of the debate."

## Round 2

italia4356: "Gym class and health class, gonovice when was your first gym class and when was your first health class? what grade?. Second how much about nutrition did you learn from your gym or health class. How much do you currently know about nutrtion? How would you rate your nutrition knowledge from 1 to 10, what number. And to see if the gym class and health are realy enough to teach about nutrition how has the knowledge that was taught to you in those classes effected your daily life. For instance if you would could you give a sample of your current diet for a one day. Just try to pick the things you eat most often on most days, through out the day. Maybe I am wrong, maybe school are already teaching enough about health and nutrition, though the more the 60% of the countries obesity rate do not say much, nore does the epidemic of heart disease,diabetes, and cancer deaths. It is said the in a few years from now corornary heart disease will surpass cigarette smoking as the most preventable cause of death."

gonovice: "i had my first gym class in kindergarten. And I had my first health class in seventh grade. Giving kids a class in nutrition does not mean that they're going to listen or apply it to real life. Disease can be spread through a number of ways. Lets be real if you were given a nutrition class would you use it? i might listen but it doesnt mean I would actually go out and do what I was tought."
Sega Edition

***Benocks: Sega Edition*** was an edition of *Benocks* released on 30 April 2013. It was based upon *Phone Edition Alpha 0.6.0*and was announced to receive major updates with the Phone Edition. However, since its release it has not been updated at all and was removed from sales on 25 December 2018.
Resolved, that castration be implemented to serial rapists

## Round 1

raissaguldam\_cassiopeia: "Castration to human is an inhumane activity. Besides, this type of penalty violates the human rights."

Ivisman96: "Public-safety argument: We chemically treat people with mental conditions with drugs that inhibit certain neurological stimuli and reactions to hormones for the protection of themselves and society. Serial rapists should be no different.

Logic argument: Testosterone is produced in the testes. Testosterone is the main sexual-drive hormone of the human male. It produces aggressiveness and is directly related to arousing the male's genitalia which is used to procreate the rape. Removing the testes, removes testosterone production, thereby reducing the chemical impetus to aggressiveness and removes the chemical stimulation needed for an erection. Serial rapists have shown by their actions to be unable to control their actions. Removing a chemical trigger will greatly aid in helping them control their actions.

Moral argument: Humanity and humane both contain the root word, human. Serial rapists (serial, as in prolific and chronic) have forsaken humanity by their inhumane acts. As such, they have forfeited their 'human' status and should be dealt with accordingly.

Mathematical Argument: It is better to harm one and save many others than to save one who will then go on to harm many others. Remember, this is someone who has been found guilty of being a SERIAL rapist. Someone who does (or cannot) stop himself.

Serial rapists fall in to two categories. Those that know it is wrong and want to stop but can't and those that don't want to stop. Therefore, in light of all above, removing the main chemical (or in this case, the organ that produces the chemical) that is a sex-drive and aggressive stimulator in criminals who have been shown to be repeat offenders is the right and moral thing to do. To do any less is a disservice to humanity and the rapist himself."
Bulding rest houses for tourist in national parks.

## Round 1

joshua\_13: "good evening!! according 2 me bulding houses in national parks is a severe loss 2 wildlife or the entire ecosystems. there will also be problems to we the human beings, we do not get enough oxygen, or there will be imbalance on atmosphere... i.e. imbalance in the ratio of o2 and co2. may cause less rainfall, as a result of this lack of water to the people....."

Ragnar\_Rahl: "I think the raccoon in my backyard is telling me wildlife can live whether a house comes around or not.

Frankly if you don't build rest houses and encourage tourists, you're going to lose your precious national park, because there is no way politically speaking people are going to leave such wide open areas with no economic use.

"An imbalance" in the ratio of CO2 to oxygen would be a patent impossibility for the human species unless we all worked toward it as a goal, and I am entirely unaware of how it would lead to less rainfall. Even the global warming theorists (who have failed to provide for the scientific criteria for causation) tend to concede that more heat means more clouds means water rains more often, and make so far as I can see no reference to that ratio.

But most importantly, exploit the earth or die. It's not a threat, it's a fact. Either one transforms the earth's raw materials into the requirements of one's life, or one dies. To live, man must produce goods. Even the man who produces nothing relies on this process, he is a parasite on the labor of other men. If for some reason some human process becomes unsustainable, the solution is not to institute regulations that are by nature unsustainable (the nationalization of parks, for example, is an act of theft from whoever previously owned the land, and increases the number of enemies of the government, leading if such practices continue to its overthrow and the use of the land again), but rather to stop producing so many new humans."
The war in Iraq

## Round 1

Stacey: "I strongly disagree with the decision of war, we should'nt of even went to war with Iraq, I believe it was all decided upon Bushes' greed for wealth."

debaterx: "The war in Iraq is a nessacary cause. a preliminary strike was needed due to the fact that Sadaam Hussain had weapons of mass destruction, which he would've used if the U.S. had not interveined.hoe do we know he had WMD's we gave them to him during the cold war to fight off communist influence and rise against a regieme the U.S. deemed hostile. How do we know he would've used them, he killed hundreds of thousands of his own people even his family. He made many threats to use them against the U.S.; whom he despises. Operation desert storm and the operation irqi freedom are the same war ther was no treaty ending the first iraq war and thus we were there not only for the cuases of weapons of mass destruction and the furthering of all human's rights."
Nature is a threat to humans

## Round 1

zubster\_rox: "i believe nature is a threat to humans think about global warming its killing us through skin cancer and other diseases. different types of weather has been changed due to global warming."

Wang: "Dear friends,

"Nature is a threat to humans", this phrase could stand for a broad terminology. Especially the word nature, in Cambridge dictionary, it refers to all the plants, animals and other things on earth not created by humans; events or processes not caused by humans. So if we take that definition, then one can't argue that nature is absolutely harmless to human existence, supported by the theory of evolution, where 98% of species have extinct in the past four billion years, due to revolutions in the natural world. so that would not be in the spirit of this debate.

On the other hand, if you're arguing whether the nature and it's potential to harm has been modified through human habitation or not, then this side of the house would argue that the existing nature has been heavily damaged through destruction and pollution. This is because of human-caused biodiversity loss and climate disruption gain ground. We need to keep our sights clear and understand that the measure of a threat is not a matter of whether it is made on purpose, but of how much loss it may cause. It's an ancient habit to go after those we perceive to be evil because they intended to do harm. It's harder, but more effective, to "go after," meaning to more effectively educate and socialize, those vastly larger numbers of our fellow humans who are not evil, but whose behavior may in fact be far more destructive in the long run.

The opposition's stand is clear, we believe that nature is modified by humans' habitation, and these changes in environment cause harm. However we need to better adapt ourselves to the everyday changes in the natural world to minimize our loss."