argument
stringlengths 201
3.55k
| stance
stringclasses 2
values | id
stringlengths 36
39
|
|---|---|---|
Re: The biblical God probably doesn't exist. This is a redux of the previous debate, "The biblical God probably doesn't exist." In my opinion a more appropriate thesis for that particular debate would have been "Physical evidence doesn't support an omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipoent interpretation of the God of the Bible." In short, I'm challenging Sketchy to the same debate against me. *This is my first debate on Debate.org, so please forgive if I'm not familiar with how everything works. Since Sketchy is the one that initiated this topic to begin with, I would like him to set the ground rules for what exactly it is that he's hypothesizing. His previous thesis was in my opinion deeply flawed and his argument was specious. Is he trying to prove god or some other concept of supreme being doesn't exist period? Is he trying to prove a particular interpretation of the Bible is false? So I'd like him to first state specifically what he intends to argue and then we can go from there. To help Sketchy put his thesis together though, let me start out by pointing out that the words, "omniscient," "omnibenevolent," and "omnipotent" do not appear anywhere in the Old Testament and the word "omnipotent" appears only once in the New Testament. And this word can mean a lot of different things. Also, for the sake of this debate only the King James Version of the Bible will be used. | CON | ee1b6691-2019-04-18T18:40:55Z-00006-000 |
There is one God. (Christianity). Pro concedes that he was trolling because he did not give any objection to that. . . . . . "I quoted a verse of the Bible I was referencing. "- Rebuttal1)No, you didn't. This is false. You just said "Deuteronomy 6:4". It means the sixth version of my story, Bible. Rebuttal 2)Pro had the chance to clarify this in the second round. He failed to do it. But, now he is claiming that. I think Pro himself is confused. . . . "Also, I did set guidelines. "- Rebuttal: a. Pro apologyzed in round 2 for not setting up the guidelines properly. He completely accepted my accusation of him. But, now he is trying to confuse the voters with his cheap tricks and tactics. Shame on you, Pro. Go to your room. .. b. That is some really bad conduct to change the guideline of a debate at the end of the debate. .. After saying all that in round 2, now Pro is saying that he was being sarcastic. a)This proves that he was trolling b)This also proves how bad he is at being sarcastic because nobody understood his sarcasm. "Also, anyone seeing KJV Bible worldwide, would not easily see that is a "kool John Version", but that in fact it is the King James Version. "- I TAKE OFFENSE TO THAT, kool John Version does exist. . . . Pro cited wikipedia to justify Christianity a religion and he didn't even presented what was said inside the link. Nobody has the time to read an entire article just to see whether Christianity is a religion or not. So just because its not there it means it doesnt exist? by that logic everything that IS NOT on the link DOES NOT exist! Writing story is a religion and it exists. Pro told me to prove it. But, I must present new arguments to prove it. Presenting new arguments in the last round is wrong. . . . I would also like to point out that Pro presented new arguments in the last round . Voters should penalize this. . . Summary: 1) Pro forfeits that there are more than one Glorious Demon ox 2) Pro forfetis that Glorious Demon Ox can be represented as God. 3) Pro believes that everything on the wikipedia is real 4) Pro forfeits that he did not define God in the first round 6) Pro forfeits that he did not specify that we had to wait to last round and wait for him to define everything 7) Pro forfeits there is both Christian God and Glorious Demon Ox are more than one 8) Pro forfeits that he did not lay the ground rules for the debate in round 1, leaving it open to interpretation, definitions, etc That is a total forfeit. Points for argument go to me. He was trolling. | CON | 86ea756f-2019-04-18T16:36:43Z-00000-000 |
the whole political system is flawed. When I said all politicians lie i didn't specify whether or not they were political lies or just general lies because general lying also implies the ability and possibility to lie even at a political level. Also as a point of reference and proof that nothing is done in favour of what the people want - in New Zealand (which is where i'm from by the way) there has been 10 citizens initiated referendum's held and all 10 have been overruled by the government and exactly the opposite of what the citizens wanted to be changed was done. This fact is proof that we do not live in a democracy. In America - you have lobbyists which change your laws. .Many a lobbyist has on numerous occasions been caught out on bribe acceptance. Although this has happened - the political system has not changed or become more transparent as to ensure it won't happen again which begs the question as to "why". .. .. America is supposed to be one of the wealthiest nations on earth yet your homeless and starving number in the millions (more than the population of new zealand) Every politicians stance on poverty and hunger regardless of right or left wing is to "eradicate or decrease it". .. All it's ever done is statistically risen and worsened. in conclusion my opponent has only really made very weak attempts at counter arguing my premises and not put forward any of his/her own premises/conclusions in favour of proving that it's not flawed. | PRO | 89785dfc-2019-04-18T17:48:41Z-00001-000 |
humans are not evolving significantly any more. To some it may seem as if we have ceased to evolve, to these people i would say look at the bigger picture. You may think that we have reached our peak because we've built an environment so comfortable for ourselves that we are no longer in any real danger other than that caused by ourselves, and this has left us with no need to adapt because we have the ability to change the world around us. Yes humans have indeed reached a peak; our physical bodies will not naturally adapt, but this is because they do not need to. You are looking at evolution the wrong way as you are looking for patterns that have already occurred, but the next step of human evolution has never seen before. The key is knowledge of the universe. knowledge has power beyond our current understanding and once a true understanding of the universe is acquired, we will be able to exist on a higher level. We are living in the information age where data is acquired and saved but never destroyed, not only that but it is accessible anywhere, to anyone at any time thanks to the internet. The growth of knowledge will speed up the growth of technology, and the growth of technology is exponential. The advancements will allow greater advancements infinitely. Who knows, perhaps we will create artificial intelligence that will be self aware, then make the decisions based on the collective knowledge of the human race, this is a power we currently could not even comprehend.Look at the world around you, electricity constantly surging through every device. machines becoming more and more powerful. Technology is slowly solving every single little flaw that humanity possesses until we are eternal and we can leave the earth to finally seek the truth. Machinery is becoming more compact and integrated into our everyday lives, soon it will physically be a part of us in cell sized robots. this is the truth and its coming up fast. This is the most important time to be alive. | CON | 85db39e2-2019-04-18T16:10:08Z-00002-000 |
Guns should be more regulated in the United States. Although my opponent has forfeited the round, I would like to use this opportunity to present a brief summary of my stance on this issue: 1) Certain types of guns should be banned outright, as they are not necessary to the safety of the general public. Some guns, specifically automatic and semi-automatic guns, pose a direct danger to the community. 2) Background checks should be mandated for all individuals prior to the acquisition of firearms. This common sense measure is supported by the vast majority of U.S. citizens. 3) A tax should be imposed on certain firearms. This would decrease the availability of the guns that are most often used to harm others. | PRO | bc8e03f8-2019-04-18T16:49:16Z-00000-000 |
Game x Game (2). Crap, I have 6 minutes to write this, so I better just be very brief in my rebuttals.REBUTTALSGraphicsGraphics do not make a good game. Take minecraft for example. Yes, a beautiful game can captivate, but it is not an objective measure of whether one game is better than another.UniqueWind Waker is not so unique. It fits the criteria of being a Zelda game. Progression through the story and dungeon play out exactly as all Zelda games do. GameplayThere is a reason that people continued to play Diablo 2 for a decade after it's release, despite other hack and slash games coming and going throughout that period while people moved onto newer Zelda games; Diablo 2 was replayability personified. That clearly says a lot for it's gameplay. CONCLUSIONI'm sorry I can't say more but I have literally a few minutes to submit something. I will draw a better conclusion in the final round. | CON | 507e0495-2019-04-18T17:47:24Z-00000-000 |
Resolved: Some type of creator outside of the universe exists. My opponent claims that I lose this debate today because I never directly prove that a God exists, merely that we can assume that a God. Lets remember that in a debate it is not the affirmatives resposiblity to prove without a reasonable doubt that a resolution is true, merely that the affirmative case is more proble than the negative case. I have proved this through my 3 three contention which my oppenents has yet address. I would like to address my oppoents contentions now. One my oppoent claims that Animalistic instinct is realible to morality but this is fallacy. The Theory of Evoultion shows us quite quickly that this is not the case because any survival of the fittest argument directly interferes with biological altruism. If anything instinct is egoism and egoism is largely rejected by the majority of philosophers. Lets move on the voters: You should vote for the affirmative today because the affirmative did a better job of proving the existance/nonexistance of God, Took the debate seriously, proposed a value to undermine the case, laid out simple contentions, and last had a point by point attack on the neg. case. | PRO | a619b90-2019-04-18T18:37:39Z-00001-000 |
We should have free college tuition. "Wall street and rich people" May have people who cannot afford high taxes living near them. Just because they are "rich" doesn't mean that they should pay for their rich neighbor's college tuition. The government will make the country contribute to the tax, not just "Wall street and rich people." College is normally extremely expensive and the government and "rich people" cannot pay for some strangers tuition. | CON | ada645ad-2019-04-18T14:18:46Z-00002-000 |
Islam Vs. Hinduism. In the name of Allah the most merciful and the most compassionate. I start this debate wanting to know the truth behind Hinduism with out any hate, and I'd like to know what are the things that many people don't know about this religion and reasons to convert to Hinduism as well. So we will start this round by defining our own religion breifly yet clearly. In Islam we mainly believe that there is only one God and many different prophets and messengers of God and we believe that Mohammed (PBUH) is the last prophet sent by God, as muslims we believe in the day of judgement and also believe in heaven and hell. | PRO | 98a0613e-2019-04-18T12:48:31Z-00004-000 |
Women should not feel offended when called 'babe' or 'baby'. Women should not feel offended when called 'babe' or 'baby', since it is not necessarily an insult. It is rather a compliment, to express admiration for the women, which in more often cases would be beautiful. It can boost her self-esteem. Also, many waitresses call men clients 'honey', since they have the right to do it, men should also have the right to call women 'babe'. | PRO | dabe78e2-2019-04-18T15:03:40Z-00009-000 |
US Hegemony is bad. Hegemony is counterproductive: Multipolarity now -- other powers are emerging such as Europe and China. This non uniques any claim as to why hegemony solves war because thats empirically denied -- we should be in a large scale war right now then 1. Hegemony causes counterbalancing -- other countries will try and balance out the US, killing any attempt at reform, especially in foreign policy. No US engagement will work, and our army becomes overstretched. 2. Causes proliferation -- other countries will proliferate WMDs to combat US heg since its the only way for them to feel safe. Proliferation increases the likeliness of nuclear war by making it easy for rogue states to launch nuclear missiles. 3. Spurs terrorism -- the reason there is terrorism is because they're hostile to the american value system, especially hegemony. Terrorism is obviously bad, and if someone wants to indict this impact, be my guest. 4. Kills our economy -- deficit is bad now, if we keep increasing hegemony, we will plunge our economy down the drain. Keeping our military up costs alot of money and we cant afford it anymore right now. 4 offensive reasons why heg is bad, just need to win one | PRO | ffe04106-2019-04-18T19:51:12Z-00005-000 |
Apple's OS X is superior to Microsoft's Windows. Hello, I welcome you to this debate. This debate will be open for anyone who wishes to enter, and debate about this topic. In this debate, we will be debating about Operating Systems. Apple's OS X and Microsoft's Windows. The debate will be organized in the following way: Rounds: Round 1: Acceptance Round. Round 2: Pro begins with constructive arguments. / Con begins with constructive arguments, optionally rebuttals. Round 3: Rebuttals. Round 4: Rebuttals. Round 5: Final arguments and conclusion. I hope that whoever wishes to debate about his topic, is more than welcome. I'll be waiting. | PRO | 3a2eab92-2019-04-18T13:42:38Z-00005-000 |
Capital Punishment should be abolished in the United States. When I looked up capital punishment, I am against it, but oh well. Reasons why we should have capital punishment: I. Safety 1. Criminals that get the death penalty are generally violent people. For the safety of the prison""s guards, other prisoners, and the general public (in case a death row inmate escapes prison), then it dictates that safety is a reason for capital punishment. (1) II. Appropriate punishment 1.It is commonly believed that the punishment of a crime should equal the crime, if possible. Using common knowledge, the appropriate punishment for murder is death. (1) III. Vengeance Some crimes are so horrific that some people think that revenge or retribution is the only option. This reasoning is not based on logic; but rather, it is based on emotions. Therefore, this reason should not be deemed a valid justification. (1) 1.http://www.philforhumanity.com... | CON | 1ea09240-2019-04-18T18:08:23Z-00003-000 |
legal age should be 16. Another good point however sources indicate that the fully development and maturity starts in the early 20's another point that my opponent made was that it would effect them in the future if at a young age they be treated like adults with the responsibility that can make them an responsible as adults do longer you treat them like children the more immature they will be If you say there not older enough to do this or that there going to do it anyway what makes teens what to do grown up enough is the fact that someone tells them they can't if these teens knew about the responsibilities of being adult earlier on they would be careful in the decisions they make. | PRO | 28417b27-2019-04-18T14:36:40Z-00001-000 |
Christianity rejects the Words of Christ: "A house divided...". Con's opening should lift all believers to the very heights of heaven. But- I live on the Earth. I need something more practical. Something that can be used to defend the faith. All practical Christians must strive to bring those Christians with their heads in the clouds back down to reality. How are the practical Christians to do this? By begging and pleading? Christians don't beg. No, there is a much better way. It is called- Compressibility We practical Christians will bring those impractical Christians into a dive. And as they are coming down from the clouds they gain more and more speed until their craft is brought under the Law of Compressibility. The impractical Christians as they are coming down will lose control. In this way the impractical cloud dwellers must face the enemy here on the ground. Argument number 1: Adam and Eve: "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." Galatians 5:9 Observation 1: When Eve fell there were only two humans on Earth. Therefore When Eve fell she took exactly half of the entire human race with her. Observation 2: It took some time for the serpent to talk Eve into committing sin. Therefore Her act was not instantaneous Observation 3: When Adam came into contact with Eve, (after Eve's fall) he immediately followed her into sin. Therefore a) Adam's sin, (unlike Eve's) was instantaneous b) Eve's fall ended in taking the entire human race with her Conclusion: "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." Galatians 5:9 Cross reference Galatians 5:9 with 1 Corinthians 5:6 and Matthew 13:33 | PRO | ad8b8d15-2019-04-18T15:37:56Z-00005-000 |
Nuclear weapons give states valuable agenda-setting power on the international stage. Possessing nuclear weapons will do little to help small and poor nations set the agendas on the international stage. In the present age, economic power is far more significant in international and diplomatic discourse than is military power, particularly nuclear weapon power. States will not be able to have their grievances more rapidly addressed in the United Nations or elsewhere, since they will be unable to use nuclear weapons in an aggressive context as that would seriously threaten their own survival. Possessing nuclear weapons may at best provide some security against neighbouring states, but it creates the greater threat of accidental or unintended use or of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists and rogue states. improve this | CON | 70b2b740-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00012-000 |
Universal Health Care. I will acknowledge my opponets deffinition for a Human right, but I will respectfully disagree. In my opinion, everyone should have access to medicine, and to a further degree, good health. I believe that everyone has the right to go to the doctors/hospital without fearing a bill. And the U.S. does remain the only Westeren Industialized nation that does not have universal health care for all of its' citizens. A couple of things that make this debate: *Cost Concerns *Socialism/Communism *Stripping Freedom of Choice *Wait Times for Medical Attention Cost Concern: My opponet breifly brought up the term free market solution. Remeber, this isn't a discussion about Price Chopper vs. Hanaford in the free market. This is not a free market issue. When someone in the middle to low ecconomic class gets hurt or ill, they are hesitant to go to the hospital because the "Free" market put a price on medical help. Now, how do we pay for Universal Health care, before I get carried away with the evils of HMOs. The fact is Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits. The costs of health care in Canada as a % of GNP, which were identical to the United States when Canada changed to a single payer, universal health care system in 1971, have increased at a rate much lower than the United States, despite the US economy being much stronger than Canada's. Universal Health Coverage is achievable, espically with the war ending, we could ensure the entire country, and have cash left over. HMOs are the current way of Health care in this country. These are corporations out to make and save money by dening people of medical care. This is the Free Market solution. Yeah but isn't this the first step to Socialism? Well, I don't hear any complaining about our Police Departments, Fire Departments, Public Schools, and Libraies. All socialized fractions of our great and free society. So if public schools and police departments are ok, than I guess medicine should be too. Stripping the freedom to choose what kind of plan you want. The...Free Market system, or a government run system. I think Obamas plan makes the most sense here. People can choose (under his health care plan) either to stick to their HMO or buy into the Governmentas universal coverage. Wait Times for Medical Attention. Americans alrewady wait for emergancy service in America. The ERs are full!! Sorry but I left this up for a little bit to go eat, and now I must get off the computer so I know this was short a sweet but...yeah. Thanks. | PRO | d19dfbb8-2019-04-18T19:42:56Z-00002-000 |
Resolved: Gay marriage ought be legalized in the United States. Only until recently has there been talk of seperation of church and state-- as we find on our coins-in God we trust- our songs-One nation under God-- It was never the early fathers choice for the seperation-- and as i stated God gives everyone free will to choose their path- either for God or against God. There is no other reality. Yes there are many religions ( confusion ) God only has one religion- not many. He only needs one religion because he is not a God of confusion, men are confused, mislead into accepting things against God. | CON | 999d9ae6-2019-04-18T18:41:00Z-00000-000 |
Joe Arpaio is awesome and totally doesn't hate on latinos unjustly. My opponent has cited credible evidence for his side of the argument, yet has not voiced his personal opinion. I would ask that instead of merely giving citations, that con justifies them.Arpaio is merely enforcing (as he is required to do by law), SB1070. He has not created a "discriminatory" or "racist culture" and to imply so would be plain wrong. He has lawfully and intelligently gained the support of a posse that helps, among MANY other duties, to prevent illegal immigration. Even if one can accuse him of hating on latinos, he does so because the new law encourages him to do so along with all of the supporters of said law."The Arizona Act additionally makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying the required documents,[8] requires that state law enforcement officers attempt to determine an individual's immigration status during a "lawful stop, detention or arrest" when there is reasonable suspicionthat the individual is an illegal immigrant,[9] bars state or local officials or agencies from restricting enforcement of federal immigration laws,[1" -http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.sheriffjoe.org...By the by, awesome picture. | PRO | 97e90ed3-2019-04-18T18:24:21Z-00005-000 |
The death penalty should be abolished. We live in a world where there are certain moral absolutes that have to be enforced. One of these absolutes is the sacredness of human life. Anyone that takes human lives or gravely threatens its existence, therefore, should be dealt the harshest punishment we can conceive of death. Moral values do not exist on their own, they have to be promoted and supported by society at large. In modern and civilized societies the supporters of capital death have decreased in number. Critics view the death penalty as barbaric. However, this unrealistic and romantic view ignores the basic human nature. The most common argument my opponents may pose may be that the death penalty is apparently inhumane but aren"t the crimes of torture, rape, treason, kidnapping, murder inhumane? | CON | 8e5eec1-2019-04-18T11:55:22Z-00001-000 |
The Mosquito is not a weapon at all. It is simply something that encourages young people to move aw... The Mosquito is not a weapon at all. It is simply something that encourages young people to move away. Like an alarm clock ringing away continuously upstairs, the Mosquito can be ignored for quite a while but will eventually become irritating enough to make the hearer do something about it. This hardly makes it an assault. Indeed, many teenagers have downloaded the same sound as a cellphone ringtone, so that adults can’t hear their phone ringing. They wouldn’t do this if it the Mosquito sound caused extreme discomfort. And there is no evidence that it does lasting damage to anyone. | PRO | a25678a9-2019-04-19T12:44:09Z-00018-000 |
Should anything in local government be "in camera" hidden from the public. With everything of importance on video.. If someone hides from the camera, people will know they are bad. The camcorder person should hound them like any good watchdog. Yup if the town manager slammed their door he/she should be terminated. I say. All video should be uploaded to YouTube or other service unedited and as soon as possible. People like watching fresh video. | CON | dd1a61f0-2019-04-18T16:59:19Z-00004-000 |
Gulf war II was just. Gulf War II: Current war in Iraq Just: being what is merited (Merriam-Webster) So the statement for PRO says that the current war in Iraq was merited, or necessary. I vehemently disagree! In Iraq, more people die each month on average than Americans in 9/11. The death of 40000+ per year is not merited. We came in and took out the stabilizing force in Iraq, whether that was our objective or not, we screwed Iraq over, and that is not just, good, or merited. Opponent's case: "Gulf war II was a continuation of our policy to maintain strategic assets. In this case it was oil in SA." You know oil costs a whole lot more now than it did before. Anyways, oil being a SA does not justify the Iraq war, as it assumes that that policy was just in the first place. Finally, the policy itself may be just, but the means of doing so weren't, as the ends did not justify them. | CON | 7cbcf8ab-2019-04-18T19:41:57Z-00008-000 |
JLA vs Avengers. Martian Manhunter has the same abilities as vision and more. He can also just phase a put his arm through the hulk or sentry's head or organs. Zatanna would be able to alter anyone's thoughts and calm them down. Captain Atom could absorb any energy manipulator powers. Any characters that can't survive in space could be thrown in space by the Green Lanterns. Batman would use most of his plans to maim the JLA on Avengers similar to JLA(quicksilver=flash etc). Superman would be very powerful. Flash could rewind time before the JLA lose and continue doing so until they win. Black lightning could short circuit any electronic equipment(Ant mans helmet, Iron mans suit etc). Cyborg could use his laser cannon. Steel with his suit and hammer would be very helpful to the JLA. Firestorm would be useful too. I thank you again for debating. I enjoyed debating with you. I can't wait for your last statement. | PRO | 13e3957d-2019-04-18T17:19:32Z-00001-000 |
Most important FAKE Battles in history!. Battle: The Battle Where the Black Man DiesMovie: X-Men First ClassInvolved Parties: The White Antagonist and the ONLY male Black DudeTime: I didn't watch the movie, but probably towards the beginning like where every other black man diesThe PreludeA bunch of white people and a black dude were showing off their powers. All of the white people had bad-@ss powers, the black dude was able to become a fish. Real BA mo-fucka ya'll. Then the white antagonist talks about an oncoming war where the mutants will either be ENSLAVED or will rise against humanity. Obviously the enslaved part was a reference to the black dude.The BattleThe white antagonists puts a fireball in the black dude's mouth and the black dude dies. That's it. That's the whole thing. The black dude doesn't even put up a fight. He just dies. Nothing else. The end. The brotha died.The SignificanceWe're talking about the most important movie battles here, so what is more important than building a much more utopian mindset in society itself? The significance of this battle goes beyond the limitations of the movie. X-Men First class has helped cement a racist mindset in Hollywood. I mean, think about it. The black dude's name was Darwin. This is an obvious reference to Charles Darwin and the theory of natural selection. The white antagonist (who is designed to be a boss) even said "adapt to this" when killing Darwin, again referencing that theory. This goes to show that the movie makers see the black dude as unfit to live. Racist hollywood, stop reinforcing the idea that the black dude must die first. http://tvtropes.org... I mean, come on, it's a movie trope for crying out loud.A vote for me is a vote against racism. Stop the black dude from dying first. Do the right thing DDO! | CON | 2aa1d75d-2019-04-18T18:11:10Z-00000-000 |
cause and effect is plus and minus, plus is minus, and mins is plus. lies are complicated by separation and true is simple now as one any cause and effect example is sufficient, so complication is unnecessary there are many causes and effects in the man who climbs a ladder example, and plus can not happen without minus, there are no causes without effects the man adds his weight to the latter where as moving forward and subtracting from where he was in going forward up the latter and so on.. a simple example, I hold my finger up in front of me, and move it slightly, there, plus and minus is equal, you moved the finger and remember where you moved it to as you look at your finger | PRO | ee2e12e3-2019-04-18T15:27:39Z-00003-000 |
The Theory of Global Warming is True the greenhouse effect is to blame. Hello stashu First off I do believe that the Earth is warmer than before, but this doesn't mean global warming. Green house gases DO NOT effect our tempature. IF you saw "An Inconvenient Truth" (my biaist sexist teacher made our class watch it last year, and we ended up fighting about politics) there was a big chart with Co2 emissions and tempatures. The Co2 emissions wouldn't move up or down till 800 years after tempature went up and down. So, tempature causes Co2 emissions to go up. Infact, without green house gases, the Earth's tempature would be -18 degrees Celsius on average. Another interesting fact is that 95% of green house gases are from water vapor (hmmm what's hydrogen?). The gases will only effect night time temps. too. LAstly, wet lands give out more green house gases than all human resources combined. So, green house gases are out of the question. The "Little Ice Age" was period of time between the 13th century to around 1850 (scientist aren't really sure when it began). But before that, was the mid-evil warm period. During that tempatrers were dramatically higher than average. That brought us to the Little Ice Age. The tempatures would get really cold in intervals. In between these intervals, the tempatuer would rise a little. In the final years of the ice age, Connecticut got 3 feet of snow in the SUMMER. This shows that just because it's getting warmer, doesn't means it will stay warm. Other good facts- - The Earth has risen in tempature around .33 degrees in 100 years -Co2 levels aren't the highest ever. The highest level ever was in the Cambrian Era. They were 18 times higher than now -The clouds from coal fired power plants are just clouds, nothing else. -Weather satellites can record global warming more accurate than weather ballons and ground thermometers. -The satellites have recorded a decrease in global temps. since they began 18 years ago -In the "inconvenient Truth" Al Gore says that sea level will rise 20 feet, will predictions at our current rate, the sea level will rise 23 inches in 300 years -He says that Polar Bears will go extinct, well in research done, it shows that Polar Bears have increased in numbers | CON | eed2ce52-2019-04-18T19:57:30Z-00004-000 |
Your words will not stop me from molesting children. Your words will not stop me from molesting children They tell me how I am a failure They tell me how I am a loser They tell me how I am useless They tell me how I am selfish They tell me how I will never have friends They tell me how I will be forever alone They tell me that what I do is wrong They tell me to be more productive They tell me to get a job They tell me how I am nothing And will never be something They seem to know a lot about me But there is one thing they don't know Their words will not stop me from molesting children I will never stop molesting children I don't know why I molest children I don't need to know why I just know that it is something that I do It is something that I have done It is something that I will do At first, Their words used to hurt me But I didn't change, I didn't stop Now, Their words no longer hurt They no longer have the desired effect And I am still a pedophile And I am still molesting children | PRO | 7703ab14-2019-04-18T11:21:36Z-00001-000 |
The Church condemns all sex outside of marriage, hetero or homosexual in nature. There can be no doubt that the Bible and Jesus strongly condemn sex outside of Christian marriage (or ‘fornication’). Indeed for much of Christian history sex even within marriage has been seen as a necessary evil that should only be for creating children, as a result priests, monks and nuns had to be celibate.[1] Although Jesus spent time in the company of adulterers, He loved "the sinner, not the sin" - and ordered them to cease their behaviour. His response to homosexuals would have been just as unequivocal. [1] Bacchiocchi, Samuele, ‘Marriage and Sex’, The Marriage Covenant: A Biblical Study on Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage, http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/marriage/3.html | PRO | df991015-2019-04-15T20:22:47Z-00018-000 |
Global migration is a problem; solution: reduce migration. Victor Davis Hanson. "The Global Immigration Problem." Real Clear Politics. May 31, 2007: "In Germany, Turkish workers - both legal and illegal - are desperate to find either permanent residence or citizenship. 'Londonstan' is slang for a new London of thousands of unassimilated Pakistani nationals. In France, there were riots in 2005 because many children of North African immigrants are unemployed - and unhappy. Albanians flock to Greece to do farm work, and then are regularly deported for doing so illegally. The list could go on. [...] The lasting solution is not the status quo - or even walls, fines, deportation, amnesty or guest-worker programs. Instead, failed societies in Latin America, Africa and much of the Middle East must encourage family planning and get smarter about using their plentiful natural wealth to keep more of their own people home." | PRO | 40f44a1b-2019-04-17T11:47:22Z-00054-000 |
Evolution is well supported by scientific evidence. In this debate, I will attempt to prove that the theory of evolution is supported by scientific evidence. In order to do so, I need to first prove that macroevolution is possible and is happening; then, I need to prove that evolution is indeed responsible, at least partially, for the life we see today. I will do so by presenting evidence such as transitional fossils and speciation.Point 1: Fossil EvidenceEvolution states that the genetic composition of a population changes over time. As organisms change, they leave transitional fossils behind.Premise 1: Transitional fossils can be found only if evolution is true.Premise 2: A lot of transitional fossils have been discovered.Conclusion: Evolution is supported by scientific evidence.Justifying premise 2: There are many transitional fossils which have already been found. There are many transitional fossils between reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals, and primates and humans; this confirms that evolution is true. [1]The conclusion follows logically from premises 1 and 2.Point 2: Observed Speciation (marcoevolution)Definition of a species: "Related organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring."P1: Speciation should only happen if evolution were to be true.P2: Speciation has been observed.C: Evolution is (likely) true.Justification for P2: I will list two examples of new species. Please note that this is not a 1. GoatsbeardsGoatsbeards, which are wild flowers that have been introduced to America from Europe, have speciated. Initially, three species were introduced from Europe; these three species could not produce fertile offspring when interbreeding, only infertile hybrids, showing that they are separate species. Two new species of goatsbeards later appeared from speciation; they were fertile and produced offspring, even though they appeared like the hybrids.[2]2.Drosophila paulistorum Drosophila paulistorum, which is a type of fruit fly, speciated sometime during the late 50's and the early 60's. Its hybrids with other strains were sterile, showing that it was a new species.Conclusion:Observed macroevolution, as well as transitional fossils, show that the evidence for evolution is strong.SOURCES[1]http://www.talkorigins.org...[2]http://www.talkorigins.org... | PRO | ed1341cc-2019-04-18T15:10:47Z-00005-000 |
Resovled: Liberlism should not be allowed in the U.S. His defenses are weak. My opponent says that it needs to be fixed in order to better America, yet he fails to show us how or why it would even remotely benefit America. There is more than one founding father and so the assumption of it is against the founding father is wrong. However, if it was not allowed it would violate the 1st amendment rights. (. http://www.usconstitution.net...) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Being a Liberal or preaching or believing in liberalism is freedom of expression. Our founding fathers were very much against not allowing us to express ourselves after coming out of the tyranny of British Rule. Thus, the negatives point is negated. Acorn is not a liberal Group Acorn, is however a group that has been criticized as much by Democrats as anyone. It has been slandered as a "liberal " group without anything to support it. The only thing that could possibly link the two are that they have been more supportive of government subsidies for housing for the poor than Republicans. The fact that Acorn was caught not applying the kind of standards Republicans routinely dont apply to things like going to war or spying on American citizens doesn't mean Acorn somehow reflects liberal philosophy. So, to say such thing without evidence is a invalid claim. My only points are still unrefuted. I will now review them. Public Education is a liberal ideal. Public schools as the iberals teach us, are part of the foundation of democracy. Without the socialization in which every child partakes of the democratic culture of the public schools we would divide into warring classes and subcultures. Woman's Suffrage has created a significantly higher voter turnout rate and has allowed democracy to thrive. 68 percent of white women voted in the last election. 69 percent of Black women voted in the election. Where as only 61 percent of black men and 64 percent of white men voted. (. http://www.baystatebanner.com...) Without the liberal idea of equal liberties women would not have been able to contribute to voting at all and it would have hurt the politcal process as it would not reflect a true majority of the people. I want to point out that he conceded the idea that liberalism in and of itself is not dangerous because it is merely a belief or idea. and that is when ideas or beliefs are acted on that they may become dangerous. | CON | 1c5cad7e-2019-04-18T19:16:30Z-00002-000 |
Racist's are ignorant and are purely stupid. He may be very intelligent however he obviously didn't have any common sense due to the fact he did not realise that every one is the same. For example I know this sounds stupid however it makes sense, a phone comes in many different colours however at the end of the day they are all phones and all basically the same, just because one is black and another is white it does not make the phone work any better. Ignorance does not mean you are stupid it means you do not think about what you are thinking with any actual common sense. You could be the most intelligent person on the planet however if you are racist, then you are not thinking with your head you are thinking with your heart, it is what that person believes however they are not using their intelligence. | PRO | 1e79e18e-2019-04-18T19:09:07Z-00003-000 |
Rejecting The Existence Of God Is Reasonable. Thanks Con for that...argument?Collection of statements?Series of words barely strung together?Thanks Con for whatever that just was.*Responding to Con*I hope it's obvious that my case was dropped like a bowling ball covered in Con's anal lube, so I need not rehash creation or precedence being temporal or that morality needs not an ultimate source.On to what Con said...Con blathers:"You know back in the olden days, when your mom was still using couldrons yeah..."My response:Is this how British people refer to the past?Oh the cauldron days were splendid, jammy, and proper!Con informs:"sheeples believed that fairies lived in trees."My response:Con is referring to the lesser-known animal that is half-sheep half-human (Homo Ovis Aries Sapien).While analyzing Con's preferred sexual partners could explain a lot about Con, the fact that sheeple believe there are fairies in trees is irrelevant to whether or not it's reasonable to reject a creator of the universe/source of morality.Con reckons:"humanity has a natural phobia of the unknown, whether it be darkness, death, or your face!"My response:I get that Con is trying to say that humanity has a natural phobia of my face, but the idea that they have a fear of my face because it's unknown makes no sense.Right?Like if it's the case that my face is that bad that it's something to be feared, it would have to be known to be so hideous...Con's insult sucks.*Conclusion*I extend all arguments, and I await an actual response from Con. | PRO | 699adbb3-2019-04-18T11:44:19Z-00002-000 |
Disincentives to spend spell economic disaster. "In boom or recession, one of the worst things a government can do is encourage its citizens NOT to spend." It is difficult to know how to interpret this. a) Perhaps the writer simply means that it would be terrible for an economy if everyone stopped trading altogether. This is, of course, true. But basic income tax *doesn't* stop people trading altogether. All other things being equal, it simply makes consumers spend *less*. So, if this is what the writer means, then he is correct, but his point is irrelevant. b) But perhaps the writer is (correctly) pointing out that, all other things being equal, the greater the income tax, the less consumers spend. He then suggests (incorrectly I suggest) that one should encourage consumers to spend as much as possible. And therefore, he concludes, income tax is bad because it reduces consumer spending. I suggest that he is mistaken in his claim that governments ought to encourage consumers to spend as much as possible. Economists may disagree on many things, but they all agree that if consumers spend too much the economy is threatened by "inflation": prices start rising very quickly, salaries rise to keep up, prices rise even faster. Money becomes worthless. Periods of hyperinflation, e.g. Germany in the early 1930s, are disastrous. It is also worth noting another error in the adjacent argument: The money that consumers can't spend, because the state has taken as tax, is actually spent by the state. In fact, since (firstly) states tend to overspend, and (secondly) some consumers would save some of their money rather than spend it, taxation normally ensures that more money is spent than otherwise would be. In fact, this point is the basis of Keynsian economic theory. "I suggest that he is mistaken in his claim that governments ought to encourage consumers to spend as much as possible. Economists may disagree on many things, but they all agree that if consumers spend too much the economy is threatened by "inflation": prices start rising very quickly, salaries rise to keep up, prices rise even faster. Money becomes worthless. Periods of hyperinflation, e.g. Germany in the early 1930s, are disastrous." This remember is based on society paying income tax. Prices only rise counteract tax increases so as to make a profit. If you keep everything you earn you have no need to raise prices. as your profits are higher due to Joe Public having more money to spend. If you don't pay income tax (a good thing), then we need to ensure that items that we are not paying tax on are manufactured in the UK thus boosting the whole commerce behind it, that way the country can benefit from the additional spending incurred from the tax saving. Thus ensuring that we export and not import again increasing the revenue churn. This is an all or nothing solution, remove tax, increase home grown products and spend money in the UK and increase exports. | CON | 2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00044-000 |
Parental Responsibility. The “unjust” argument is a good counter. One could cite some neurobiology evidence that lack of discipline is due to complex cognitive deficits that manifest through delayed brain development even in otherwise normal seeming children, which belies the “parental responsibility/failure” view. To start with, cognitive deficits can be caused by genetic factors or other things which started before birth, and can stop children being able to function normally.[1] [1] Tynan, W. Douglas, ‘Cognitive Deficits’, Medscape Reference, 3 June 2013, http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/917629-overview | CON | f8e99b0c-2019-04-15T20:22:30Z-00014-000 |
Lets Rap Battle Again(:. (What, scared of me?) I came back to kick your a** another time 'Cause this rap battle is about to be mine I beat you last time without even trying You claimed it wasn't your best, but quit lying I'm a woman here to fight, a hardcore winner Your a child who'll be eating leftovers for dinner" So excuse my while I put my sun glasses on,"walk away to my theme son' | CON | ace0f50-2019-04-18T16:14:41Z-00003-000 |
"Moderates" That Sympathize With Extremists Are Not Moderates. Because my opponent has forfeited the round, I'll briefly reiterate or list some main points: - Someone can be sympathetic to one political issue, either to the hard right or the hard left. It doesn't negate their other political beliefs, which may be on the completely opposite end of the spectrum (making their views all together moderate). - One does not have to see moderately on every issue in order to be considered a political moderate. Being a Moderate is a political ideolgy; not a poltical party. | CON | 83730b5f-2019-04-18T19:33:04Z-00002-000 |
It should not be socially acceptable for women to hit men. It was a pleasure debating you and thanks for all your responses. The video that you have posted makes both genders a bad individual in different perspectives. However, most likely, men are more likely to hit women according to studies. And thanks for clarifying the Mayweather story. You said it was basically an eye for an eye thing but society cannot go around when everything is an eye for an eye. In order for society to work out, all individuals have to respect one another's rights and properties that one has. | CON | 887006fd-2019-04-18T12:47:02Z-00000-000 |
Marajuana is good. Again I go back to the definition of intoxication. As you can see, the definition used by my opponent is from Wikipedia, a website of information that can easily be changed by anyone that pleases. For all we know, he could have simply hit edit and changed the definition. Secondly my point brought up by the Lord giving us this herb is a valid point. Most of the world goes by the religion of either Christianity, Judaism, or Islamic. Yes, you can argue that muslims and jews do not go by this but they actually do. They just give it a different name. Those three religions are all connected. Finally, a new point, marajuana can boost the economy. The government could just tax it and lower the debt. Marajuana also can make the mind more creative which can then boost productivity of workers and the methods they use to their work. Also I would like to thank my opponent for accepting my debate. He is a valid opponent. | PRO | e461a1e9-2019-04-18T17:58:42Z-00002-000 |
Video Games is Ruining Society. Thanks you for accepting. First, I would like to define "ruin" using the Merriam-Webster dictionary (not that your definition was fine): Ruin- /verb/ "to reduce to ruins" http://www.merriam-webster.com... I would like to start off my argument with the subject of: TEEN VIOLENCE IN RELATION TO VIDEO GAMES In 2004, 3 teens under the age of 18 murdered a homeless man in a disturbing fashion. The teens told police that killing the man reminded him of playing a video game. http://articles.cnn.com... In 2007, 17 year old Daniel Petric shot both of his parents due to them taking away his video game. He fled the scene with nothing but a copy of "Halo 3." Petric's attorney stated that Daniel was dangerously addicted to Halo 3. There are many more stories like these of under age teens going off killing people under the influence of video games. My next subject: VIDEO GAME ADDICTION Reading the article that you referenced to, I saw that 1 out of 8 gamers develop patterns similar to addiction. Now just think that 97% of teens play video games. http://www.csmonitor.com... I will now define "addict" /noun/ to devote or surrender (oneself) to something habitually or obsessively By just reading the definition you will know that this is something that is not healthy. Video game addiction can cause extreme anger and verbal abuse, nausea, physical illness, restless taunting dreams, anxiety, depression, mood swings, fear, irritability or restlessness, sadness, and loneliness. Remember, today's children are tomorrow's future. If we have a society addicted to video games and going off killing people nothing will be accomplished and therefore society will be ruined. | PRO | 65056c6e-2019-04-18T18:42:22Z-00004-000 |
Recruitment officers often make highly misleading pitches about life in the military. Recruiters should not minimise the risks of a military career, but the armed forces do have a good story to tell and they should not be prevented from doing so. There really are great opportunities for keen, talented young people in the military, and almost all soldiers, etc. find it a very satisfying life. And compared with the past, soldiers today are much better looked after in terms of physical, medical and psychological wellbeing. | CON | 2347f748-2019-04-19T12:47:40Z-00017-000 |
Speech is our most important freedom. "I think a basic difference between my opponent's paradigm and my own is that my opponent is describing the effect of freedom on the individual, whereas I am more conceerned with its effect on society. But both views have to be balanced against one another. That is what courts are for. Consequently my values are superior to those of my opponent who only sees one or the other aspect of a very complicated issue." ============================================================================= My Response On the contrary, I am describing both the effect on society and the effect on individuals. 1st, on society. If life is not a right, then it can be taken away at will. This negates the entire point of society and is essentially anarchy, far worse than the impacts my opponent describes. 2nd, If life is not a right, for an individual, it can be taken away at will, and when an individuals life is taken away, so is his freedom of speech. As such, my impact encompasses and outweighs his impacts. In conclusion. He has yet to refute my points about how right to life is necessary to freedom of speech to exist, meaning that right to life is more important than freedom of speech. I have addressed both societal and individual impacts of removing the right to life, and in both instances, they outweigh the removal of freedom of speech. There is only one way to vote. Vote Con. Thank you. | CON | e92ac008-2019-04-18T19:25:07Z-00000-000 |
The United States should return to the Gold Standard:. Actually we are more than capable of returning to the gold standard, and any increment of gold and silver would do. We have 260 million ounces of gold in the treasury, and 804 ounces of silver, which at the market price of 1,250$ an ounce of gold and 20$ an ounce of silver, we have 325 billion dollars in gold and 16 billion dollars in silver, which may not be enough, but keep in mind, if gold and silver become America's currency, people will spend their private gold and silver reserve's as well because they know they will get played in gold and silver later. We will see old 1964 coins reappear in circulation as well as old gold coins. You never replied to my previous arguments though so please do that or you lose. | PRO | bd71687e-2019-04-18T13:21:22Z-00005-000 |
China(Pro) vs UK(con). As defender you could have made the first move and stated how the war started. China Total population: 1,355.692,576 Available manpower: 749,610,775 Fit for service: 618,588,627 Reaching age annually: 19,538.534 Frontline Personnel: 2,333,000 Reserve Personnel: 2,300,000 Tanks: 9,150 AFVs: 4,788 SPGs: 1,710 Towed Artillery: 6,246 MLRS: 1,770 Total aircraft: 2,860 Fighters/interceptors: 1,066 Fixed wing aircraft:1,311 Transport aircraft: 876 Trainer aircraft: 352 Helicopters: 908 attack helicopters: 196 Navy: 673 aircraft carriers: 1 frigates: 47 destroyers: 25 corvettes: 23 submarines: 67 mine warfare crafts: 6 coastal defense: 11 oil production: 4,372,000 bbl/day oil consumption: 9,500,000 bbl/day proven oil reserves: 17,300,000,000 labor force: 797,600,000,000 merchant marine strength: 2,030 Major ports and terminals: 15 roadway: 3,860,800 railway: 86,000 airports: 507 Defense budget: $145,000,000,000 debt: $863,200,000,000 reserves or foreign exchange and gold: $3,821,000,000,000 purchasing power parity: $13,390,000,000,000 Square land Area: 9,596,961 km coastline: 14,500 km shared border: 22,457 km waterways: 110,000 Since this will be your first war debate that will give you a true challenge I will let you make the first move of showing how the war started along with initial preparations. | PRO | f3e1c297-2019-04-18T14:49:38Z-00005-000 |
Valentino Shoes Outlet your sexy pumps. It only took a second and Brittney looked very becoming, she'd won the lottery and grinned. Pick the tournament and play the organ, play the organ at the tournament, dunk your biscuits and Duncan Bagels as they say. It was a blame culture for sure and I was late phoning. Swinging and curious and body movements says it all, but keep it under control, in proportion as it were. Arm movement should be kept to a minimum whilst jogging, far to much energy transfer, it was revolutionary though, but keep pumping those sexy hips without a doubt. Friction undoubtedly, G.G.G. application (apply by hand). The shoes are the key, key shoes mid sole performance and technical lacing systems, on the trail or in the woods, jog or cycle carbon interface for sure, keep it high end and reduce friction to a minimum, G.G.G. in all situations though, improves performance, relieves all that nagging doubt. High end top drawer in the bedroom relaxation, in position and those nice warm moist places, Bob's your uncle and Fanny's your aunty, Aunty Fanny and Uncle Bob and Stephanie Loccocus the Greek girl in a subtle backless spider minidress, glands soon got moist and sweaty, they really like to go for it and found an amigo called Sid who was friends with Luke and Eric, Eric had big feet and you know what they say, hence Eric was always Brittney's favourite and Aunt fanny's, Uncle Bob was keen too. G.G.G. (applicator supplied). It was funny in the morning, Eric's large right boot was damp and Stephanie had caught a cold, Sid was in the kitchen bare and Fanny had sausages for breakfast or was it just a dream? It was warm and dry in the kitchen but cold in the pantry, aunt in your pantry as it were eating every ones sausages, booty, shooty, pantry backdoor really! and the size of the cheese, choose the cheese threeway chiz cheeze choo. A weak flash of inspiration with the 400 to 800 range is so re the member, it's a tight fit G.G.G. (applicator supplied), and always compare the shoes to the box. The neighbours complained and said the noise was troublesome, Brittney, Stephanie, Fanny, Bob, Sid, Luke and Eric rising and bouncing, tight fit, shoes on, shoes off, girls only, high end stiletto for sure matched with exquisite top drawer accessories, the neighbours were only jealous. Toe action, anything goes. | PRO | 74a61a1-2019-04-18T11:25:27Z-00000-000 |
Modern Art. Yes, I think that humans should express themselves in many ways, to get off them, some feelings that needed to "get out". I know that there are all over the world "real" artists, that can make something outstanding, they deserve attention. But what you are telling, and correct me if I"m wrong, is that for example, the paintings that I was talking about, they can have a hidden meaning, and this makes them a great painting? It was given to me a painting, worth something like 200.000, and its all lines, like a "poligraph", with green and yellow, and one day, I said to my self - Today you are going to see past the paint - And after that, it didn"t made me feel emotions. Like songs, there are good songs, and bad songs.. A good song have few chances to be liked and apreciated by people. This should happen with paintings. What makes a good paint, if not its aspect? The message? A song is not good by is message only.. | CON | 68a6a329-2019-04-18T16:57:24Z-00003-000 |
Children are impressionable. Allowing teachers to carry arms in school could mean that very young children could easily become acclimatised to the idea that carrying a gun and ultimately gun usage is ok. Surely the way to prevent incidents like Columbine from happening is to teach children about the potentially destructive and fatal consequences of gun usage? For elementary/primary school-age children, it would be difficult to separate the idea that it’s ok for teachers to always carry guns but not for anyone else. | PRO | f7c81d18-2019-04-15T20:22:46Z-00017-000 |
ROUND 2 FOR THE FACEBOOK TOURNAMENT IS OUT. MY OPPONENT DID NOT REFUTE ANY OF WHAT I SAID IN THE LAST ROUND. AND HE PRESENTS NO PROOF THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE FACEBOOK TOURNAMENT THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS SITE. THIS IS A COMPLETE ASSUMPTION. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE SCHEDULE BEING OUT, BUT AS I'VE EXPLAINED, "THE" WOULD MEAN THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE TOURNAMENT. I'VE PROVEN THAT THERE IS MORE THAN ONE FACEBOOK TOURNAMENT; I'VE WON ACCORDING TO THE RESOLUTION. BY SAYING THAT OUR TOURNAMENT IS "A" TOURNAMENT, JOHNICLE CONCEDES TO MY CASE AS HE CONCEDES THAT OUR TOURNAMENT ISN'T "THE" TOURNAMENT. SO YEAH, I WIN . .. .. PLAIN AND SIMPLE . .. . | CON | cea7db90-2019-04-18T19:46:19Z-00000-000 |
the bible does not contridict its self. A lot of the Bible does contradict itself, to claim that it is "100% Straight Forward" is absurd. First off, to begin generally, there is the contradiction between the Old and New Testaments. Someone following the Old Testament will follow a much stricter set of laws then someone following the New Testament; for example Jews do not eat pork because the Old Testament forbids it, but the New Testament says that that's okay, so Christians do. Also God in the Old tends to stress the "eye for an eye" philosophy, delivering plagues on Egypt, prompting the Israelites to wipe out everyone in the promised land who wasn't a Jew and so on. Jesus on the other hand says "turn the other cheek" and stressed the opposite; while many of the Israelites wanted him to topple Rome he didn't and never intended to. Also, most of the Bible isn't straight forward at all. A lot of the stories, especially Jesus's teachings are parables and open to interpretation. Take a story like Daniel in the lion's den. Some people will say that all of that God literally controlled the lions and saved him. Others will say that the story is metaphorical and that it teaches the same message but the events didn't really happen. Many books of the Bible that set down laws, especially ones like Leviticus, are the most controversial. Some of these laws are outdated and unnecessary in our time (like passages that tell you how to treat your slaves). Are these meant to be taken literally or not? Finally, a common argument regards translations. The Bible has been translated and transferred so many times that it's highly likely that portions of it's original form have been lost. The Bible isn't necessarily wrong, but it is far from rock solid. | CON | f56d2478-2019-04-18T19:55:24Z-00004-000 |
Samsung is better than Apple. I think that Apple is better because the phones that they have don't over heat. You also have a longer lasting battery than you do with samsung. Apple were the first to have the original idea of a touch screen phone, and called it the iPhone. After copyrighting it, they were soon to be copied by Samsung. If I was head of Apple, I'd sue Samsung. Also, Apple's technology is sleeker and more efficient than that of Samsung. The Macbook Air is trendy and smart, and Samsung can't compete with that! Apple is better as Samsung has been copying it all the time. You can clearly see how Samsung has completely based it's products on Apple's iPhone, iPad, and even iPod. Apple products don't glitch and they work much faster than Samsung's Products. Has anyone noticed how Samsung even copied Siri after the iPhone 4S was announced? Apple has a much better screen and build and a better looking phone. Samsung is just too wide. They should just stop trying. Go back to making fridges and T.V.S! Apple has way more apps and on samsung tablets, they just make the phone apple bigger! Besides, apple has an easier-to-use interface. Samsung is just confusing. This is why i think that apple is better. | CON | fb675800-2019-04-18T12:36:33Z-00000-000 |
Africa does not have the resources to protect itself from climate change. A report by the United Nations Environmental Project estimates that adaptation costs to Africa per year could already be $15billion, reach $50billion by 2050 and anything up to $350billion by 2070. Funding for adaptation to Africa in 2011 was only $454milliion.[1] This is not a gap that Africa can make up itself; in 2010 all spending on education was less than $50billion.[2] Africa can’t afford to adapt itself while responding to an expanding population as well as its existing problems of poverty and disease. It is clear that developed countries that do have the resources have to step it and take responsibility. [1] Schaeffer, Michiel et al., ‘Summary’, Africa Adaptation Gap Technical Report, United Nations Environmental Project, 2013 http://www.unep.org/roa/Amcen/docs/publications/Africa_Adapatation_Gap.pdf , p.xi [2] ‘Public spending on education; total (% of GDP) in sub saharan Africa’, Trading Economics, http://www.tradingeconomics.com/sub-saharan-africa/public-spending-on-education-total-percent-of-gdp-wb-data.html, ‘Gross domestic product 2010’, World Bank, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf | PRO | 2ec11424-2019-04-15T20:24:47Z-00012-000 |
Resolved: The U.S. should ban all Guns. Contention 1: 2nd AmendmentThe U. S. Constitution states as follows: "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. "[1]The founding fathers obviously supported gun rights. The 2nd Amendment says it all. They clearly new that if people were going to be able to defend themselves against tyrrany of a future government they were going to have to be armed. After all we did when our war for independance by force of arms. That we had patriots who fought in the army and fought in organized groups called militias. But to go even further what is this Bill of Rights that this Amendment is located in? Is it merley just a few rights that the governmnet is issueing the people? No! It is a "no fly zone" government. It's the basic restrictions for what the government can do. Contention 2: Guns Decrease Crime. Let's take a minute to think like a criminal. Lets we are criminals and we go out trying to find someone to rob, and we come across two different people. One is a gun owner while the other is not. Which would you prefer? The man who is able to defend himself or the man who is defenseless? I am sure the majority of the criminals would agree with me that the best choice would be the one who would put up the least resistance. The statistics prove this point right. The Daily Caller states that even though gun sells increased in 2010; the gun crimes decreased[2]. Also, the Institute for Legislative Action reported the floowing:"The statistics indicate that between 2008 and 2009, as gun sales soared, the number of murders in our country decreased 7.2 percent. " [3]ConclusionThe facts show that guns are good for decreasing crime, and that the government has no right to take gun rights away. I will now await my opponent's response. Sources[1]. http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://dailycaller.com...[3]http://www.nraila.org... | CON | 73fe709f-2019-04-18T18:15:49Z-00005-000 |
Trolls in sheeps clothing. Please further define your argument, as I really have no understanding of your BOP/PC code for vote beggerliness. I am exttremely confused by your statement and who you claim to be which I mostly bet is an anonymous. Fine thee Anonymisto, why is your word the truth? Get a LIFE, BE a human please, no just another cog on the wheel of JUSTICE! Your profile reveals your willingness to lie. And you pretend to tell the truth of my statements? What sayeth you? | PRO | 6dd3e390-2019-04-18T15:56:36Z-00006-000 |
Should schools have classes based on the interest of students instead of the usual required classes. Yes, it is true that it might be better to choose subjects for your career, but most students would probably just choose the easiest subjects and the ones that have no homework so that they have more time for games and other fun activities. This would be bad for their education, and the only way to prevent that is to have specific subjects that you MUST do. | CON | 2a70e688-2019-04-18T11:33:57Z-00000-000 |
People should adopt children instead of pets. Thanks for forfeiting, I don't wish to continue right now until I have your argument. However, I do want to say that Think about the poor kids, How they need someone to live with. Someone to love them and provide comfort. And I know, I was an adopted child so no argument against is true because you don't have the experience to say so. | PRO | 1c6311d8-2019-04-18T11:16:12Z-00001-000 |
Atheist can't have objective morals. But I just have to say this:You say morals come from God and therefore have always been the same. Then how was it in medieval times a good moral to murder gays/jehova's/foreigners/people in general who are off from the average society? It was because it was the law then that it was acceptable. The law makes the morals. Morals can change. They will change over time. Of course not all morals, for example punching a baby will always be wrong, but morals like euthanasia and abortion will change over time. Just like abortion was acceptable and morally good back then. Anarchy is not the change of morals, it's the abandonment of those. It's always wrong to mug a person, but when you're in desperation, it's hard to stay at the borders of morals and let your family die of poverty. Whether an atheist or a christian holds you at gunpoint, it doesn't matter what your religion is. Both ways it's a bad thing and both ways it's a desperate act. You challenge me to answer the question: Why is it morally wrong to oppress a minority to benefit the society, in an atheist view? Because every person deserves to have a decent life. Not because God says so, but because you would want a decent life too. So you allow another person too. And slavery would not be an option because many people would have a bad life. That's also the reason slavery is prohibited nowadays. It might also be interesting to know that in slavery times the majority of the people who decided it was acceptable was christian. Counter arguments:1. Have you ever heard of the so called "Golden Rule"? It is basically the rule that you should treat another the way you'd like to be treated yourself. This is a rule all bases of religion and society agree it's the best (even religions with other gods). If we wouldn't apply this rule and would assume the god argument, we would only be moral because otherwise we'd burn in hell. So we would live in fear. This happened in medieval times, and that fear was exactly what the pope used to control masses of people.2. As I said, it that were the case, God would be a horrible person since many people have killed in God's name. | CON | 889d2289-2019-04-18T18:23:55Z-00004-000 |
I Will Not Say Anything Typically/Universally Offensive, Snarky, Or Rude In This Debate. DDO decided to delete my entire argument so I'll put up a summarized version. FrameworkLet's look at some definitions:Yes: An affirmative response (1)No: A negative response (2)A "Yes" or "No" response cannot possibly mean anything other than a affirmative or negative response. Response1. This question states that my opponent is currently discriminating against black people and has stopped or not. She has answered no, therefore meaning that she has not stopped discriminating. I urge the readers to go back and look at the question. It clearly implies that somebody is discriminating against black people in the present tense.2. Affirmative or negative responses cannot possibly mean a neutral response.3. A myth implies that something is not true. Again, there is no middle ground possible with a yes or no answer.4. Again, affirmative or negative responses cannot possibly mean a neutral response.5. Dropped.6. Affirmative or negative responses cannot possibly mean a neutral response.7. My opponent is trying to beat around the bush. She has clearly stated that she supports science, hence being offensive to some people. No ifs, and, or buts.8. Again, affirmative or negative responses cannot possibly mean a neutral response.9. Dropped.10. For some societies such as communistic societies, money is not essential to function. If a communist society occurs in the future and nobody cares about money, this comment will be offensive to them. Also, even today there are people who prefer not to live in mainstream society and not care about money.11. Dropped.12. The wording of the question implies that my opponent currently has pictures of Hitler in her bedroom and has taken them down. I urge the readers to go back to the question. She answered no, therefore there are still pictures of Hitler in her bedroom. This is clearly offensive.13. Whether it is justified or not is completely irrelevant. It is offensive to somebody, whether it be the person getting killed or their relatives.14. Dropped.15. My opponent is operating under the false pre tense that honesty means that something cannot be offensive. This is completely false. The fact that you considered taking your life would immediately make it offensive to those close to you. I urge the readers to look over the questions closely and decide for themselves whether PRO said anything offensive, rude, or snarky. (1). http://www.google.ca...(2)http://www.google.ca... | CON | d01d931f-2019-04-18T18:31:46Z-00000-000 |
the christian trinity is an illogical idea. con says it can be understood with teh water anaology but hten has to resort to extra dimensions and such to explain it. we can't describe extra dimensions anyway because it is beyond us to graph. in any rate, con's arguments have been tried and found heretical. modalism aka https://en.wikipedia.org...con just says with his beginning remarks, hte split personality remarks, and the water remarks, that the 'person' is always the same, they just change form or modes. this runs afoul of the fact that each person has to be a distinct idenity. a betteranalogy would be that there is one constant of liquid but each substance is different, water, mercury etc. but this even fails cause they are not suppose to be constant of liquid, it's just changing modes.if we looked at it like math.... five plus one is six, four plus two is six. the truth is they both equal six and thus equal each other, but the trinity is like saying five plus one does NOT equal four plus two. con is saying that because they are all six, but look different cause of different number combinations, that this makes it okay, an apt comparison. but it doesn't cause fou plus two is just a different mode than five plus one.... but they are both six and equal each other. | PRO | d1bcc7ef-2019-04-18T14:27:02Z-00003-000 |
Atheists are wrong and ignorant. Eden - I don't know. But, as I said, "It ultimately doesn't matter why."Bad things happening - I already addressed this.If there is no God, there's no Universal moral standard, because there is no one at the very top telling us, "Thou shalt not..." and "Thou shalt...". This means we cannot determine what is ultimately good or bad. Since we wouldn't be able to do that if God doesn't exist, it cannot be used as an argument against God, because there is no waying of knowing if a problem of evil even exists.If one wants to suggest that a problem of evil does exist, they need to be able to determine what is right or wrong: Which requires God. Since you need God to even make the argument, the point refutes itself: If God exists, he knows what he is doing. Thus, there is no problem of evil, because we aren't anyone to question the actions of a perfect being, while we are imperfect. | PRO | 27a93e45-2019-04-18T15:18:41Z-00000-000 |
Jesus of Nazareth certainly existed. Hello all. I would like to debate the topic of the historical existence of Jesus Christ. I understand in the academic world the historicity of Christ is not called into question, except maybe by a few obscure scholars on the fringe. However, the existence of Christ is something that is frequently called into question in the web. Since this is an online forum for debate, I figured I shall dive right into the topic. There are a few rules though. 1. No videos I simply don't have the desire to watch videos pertaining to my opponents argument. Simply state the case in the box. 2. You must sincerely doubt the existence of Christ. Although I do believe there is a time and place for "playing" the other side, I would, for this particular debate be more interested in debating someone who is of the genuine position that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist. Also, keep in mind, this particular debate is just in regards to Christ's existence. His Deity and Messiahship I will save for future debates. Round one will be my opponent's opportunity to state why they believe Jesus of Nazareth did not exist, my response will be a rebuttal and a positive case for His existence. My opponent will then have a chance to rebut, so on and so forth. As always, have fun and be polite. -Doulous Christou Iesous | PRO | c50faf11-2019-04-18T11:30:53Z-00003-000 |
Anybody who wants the REAL news watches BBC, or foreign World News channels. You cannot prove that the networks are unbiased. I can prove they are. To destroy your upcoming 3rd round argument, I'll prove they are biased in the 4th round. I want to see what you'll say in this round, seeing as how you now have no argument except to tell me, "How are they biased?" which I've already said I'll explain in round 3. | PRO | d0f27f93-2019-04-18T19:59:37Z-00003-000 |
DNA Databases/Profiling. In different states, it is actually illegal to have any type of DNA profiling. But in other states, there are certain materials that are needed/required in order to be databased. For more information about this, click on the link below that will take you to the website for DNA Laws Database. After the person is databased, the company must provide certain information for proof.http://www.ncsl.org... | CON | 3e5b5820-2019-04-18T16:23:35Z-00003-000 |
abortion should be illegal in the first trimester, but not investigated nor punished*. i already made an exception for your rape example. condom breaking. she assumed the risk the condom would break. sexual intercourse naturally leads to the possibility of pregnancy. we can take the issue into consideration, and not punish her for it. but it's still a culpable act, in principle. "If you want to have a baby by all means proceed! If you don't, the safest way to do it is don't." you seem to be pretty much admitting that if you don't want to risk pregnancy, you can't do it. (or at the least take the most surest fire approach. bill control pill, a condom, and pull out. almost no one goes to this degree, but they could, which shows some degree of culpability. but even that has risks in theory, so my other arguments stand. ) | PRO | f5c272b-2019-04-18T16:03:20Z-00003-000 |
Concerns above and beyond the physical body. Because when you do decide to miss out on a few nights sleep, you're being irrational, because you knowingly are hurting your self physically, but you're still staying up. Having said so, when you can't be rational about a specific subject, someone has to step in (i.e: the government) and stop you, because as a citizen you're their responsibility. The utilitarian decision you made seems only "legitimate" to you, but you wouldn't know because you're causing self-inflected harm in real time, thus you're irrational, thus you're opinion is disregarded, so for example if you decide that you want to hit yourself with a hammer because you think it will send you to heaven, you should be stopped by a police officer, why? because you'd simply be too irrational thus being a danger to yourself and possibly to others. This is also one of the reasons we're not too accepting of suicide bombing, think about it, suicide bombing is a form of utilitarianism as well- should we universally deem it acceptable because outcome (paradise for the suicide bomber) justifies the means (blowing his self up) | CON | 1733d793-2019-04-19T12:44:53Z-00002-000 |
KFC Abuses their chickens. "Abuse refers to the use or treatment of something (a person, item, substance, concept, or vocabulary) that is seen as harmful. a�buse (ə-byūz') pronunciation tr.v., a�bused, a�bus�ing, a�bus�es. 1. To use wrongly or improperly; misuse: abuse alcohol; abuse a privilege. 2. To hurt or injure by maltreatment; ill-use. 3. To force sexual activity on; rape or molest. 4. To assail with contemptuous, coarse, or insulting words; revile. 5. Obsolete. To deceive or trick. 1. It is not wrong or improper to kill a chicken inhumanely. They are not human, i.e. not rational animals. The term "Humane," is derived from the middle english "Humain," human, i.e. behavior that is "humane" is behavior that is proper toward a human. This does not mean it is proper toward a chicken. 2. It is not possible to perform "maltreatment" upon a chicken. Chickens, you see, as nonrational creatures, have no notions of good or bad. They are not evaluative creatures, they have no values. Since "maltreatment" means bad treatment, and the chickens are not capable of evaluating whether treatment toward them is good or bad (no one else is qualified to judge it as "bad" if the chicken does not), it is not bad treatment. It may be bad toward a human, but that is immaterial toward a chicken. 3. KFC does not rape their chickens as far as I know, and if you wish to claim it, the burden of proof for the claim (and the debate for that matter) is on you. 4. KFC does not assail chickens with words, they cannot understand words, and thus are immune to any such assailment. 5. Since KFC cannot communicate with chickens, it obviously has a hard time deceiving or tricking them. | CON | 6fbedffc-2019-04-18T19:39:10Z-00003-000 |
The Adam of the bible was God Himself. I refute my opponents entire argument totally, because the creation of mankind in Genesis 1:26 is not the same as when God formed the man to til the ground in Genesis2:7. And yes I have refuted you in past rounds and you ignored the facts. Now my opponent claims the bible is false. Then please explain in your closing why do you debate the bible? Because only a fool would debate the reality of Mother Goose. I refute my opponent's claim that nothing in the bible is true. Because of the Nation of Israel and the Jewish people. If the bible is false how did it fortell Israel getting their nation back? Christian god? Christians do not follow the bible or the God written of in the scriptures. And the word omipotent means all powerful so God did exactly what He said. Your arguement is full of errors, and I see no meaning or secrets. | PRO | 8ded6fea-2019-04-18T15:52:25Z-00001-000 |
God isnt real. Hello, First of all thank you for posting this debate topic, As a devout Scientologist I thoroughly enjoy spreading the wonderful word of Lord into the hearts of all who are willing to accept it. First of all Black People? Easily explained, The only purpose of black people in life is that the Gods from Uranus created them to be our inferior slaves in heaven. As quoted in the bible Genesis 3:16- "And God said, Let all black people be a tolerable evil". What our lord Tom Cruise means by this is that we must tolerate these stinky black people, Who else will serve us in the afterlife? Secondly your explanation for your "devious desires" as I'll put are also completely explainable in the words of our Lord. God is in fact a chronic masturbator (which also explains the meaning of rain but that is for another topic. ) I mean why else would it feel so God. You say "Thus, God made me to be bad". He didn't. A common misconception is that masturbation is bad, Its great, In fact so good for your health that the World Health Organisation recommend "jerkin the gherkin" approximately 69 times a day. Finally we were created from the big bang, The Big Bang rather than being a purely scientific event was actually God getting a bad case of diarrhea and sh*t all of us out. As the lord describes in the Pokemon Go Trainer Guide Book : "Cr*p that was a big one, Better get some more meth to deal with it. " Once again thank you for this opportunity and God bless, Let the Lord penetrate you, With his thrusting words and wisdom. God Bless. | CON | a9a00ef-2019-04-18T11:20:25Z-00004-000 |
The KLINGTONGS show their stripes by trying to DISENFRANCHISE Obama Voters 6 days before NV Caucus !. Clearly Solarman1969 has no response or cannot come up with a credited response in this debate. WRONG Clearly the Clintons are smearing Obama left and right,and trying everything to get their power back All you have to do is watch the day to day news and you democrat types will become DISGUSTED with the way the Clinton machine treats Obama GO OBAMA! Slay the Evil KLINGTONGS! | PRO | b76e5f99-2019-04-18T19:54:11Z-00000-000 |
Resolved: It is both better and more rational to worship the stars than the Judeo-Christian God. Before I even begin with definitions, do not take this debate if you are Calvin_Cambridge, Kohai, ScarletGhost, Samian96, or Darknes. Definitions: Stars: Massive, luminous ball of plasma held together by gravity. Better: Morally superior, preferable. Rational: In accordance with reason. Burden of Proof: The BoP will be shared. Con cannot win just by poking holes in my vase, he must build his own that worshipped God is both better and more rational. Think of it as a tug of war: Con must build his own case and argue effectively for the win rather than the entire burden being on me. | PRO | 829d1e5b-2019-04-18T18:40:16Z-00004-000 |
we should eat cows without feeling the guilt and sympathy. No I did not mean by that. By the way this is not what we talking about. Lets imagine if human does not exist, I would blieve that cows will still exist. but human is not the only spcie that consume beef. So do the tigrs and lions. Your idea infact reinforce my statmnt that there is no moral issue involved in this circumstance. if human dont eat them, other animals will. this issue is simple. that what i am trying to say is cows are meant to be eaten by us. If it is meant to b, then we should not feel guilty. However in dog senario human dont usually at dog meat, then it becomes questionale. | PRO | 96583248-2019-04-18T18:18:54Z-00000-000 |
security > liberty. I accept my opponent's challenge. I intend to show that not only is liberty greater than security, but also that liberty and security from the governing body go hand in hand; conversely, the more rights and freedoms you surrender, the less secure you become. 1.) The Freedom of Speech The freedom of speech is highly important to maintaining a secure and free system of government. What would happen if we made just a slight compromise such as throwing people in jail for treason over "traitorous" speech. That sounds reasonable doesn't it? We can't have people saying things that might stir up a rebellion. Such a compromise is detrimental to the freedom and security of citizens. Suddenly, it becomes illegal to suggest impeaching the President. Any support shown to militias ( militias are constitutional ) would be classified as "aiding an enemy". The government would have the foothold they needed to begin eroding other rights. 2.) The Right to Bear Arms The Second Amendment guarantees citizens of the United States of America the right to own and carry firearms. Although firearms are highly regulated, let's make a new provision that each and every firearm should be registered by the owner anytime the weapon changes hands. Doesn't sound to harmful does it? Once the federal government knows where all the guns are that means they could confiscate all the guns. The Second Amendment is there for the protection of citizens, wether they need to protect themselves from criminals or their own government. Such a small infringement as listed above would endanger that right. I hope I have made it clear how easily rights can be jeopardized by the slightest "compromise". I apologize for the delayed argument. I have had a very busy few days. | CON | 9a07f294-2019-04-18T16:07:58Z-00004-000 |
The term "Rape Culture" is not beneficial to society. I strongly believe that sexual objectification of women/men and victim blaming is highly unethical and should not be practised in society. Rape is something that is so very sensitive and highly impactful both physically and psychologically on the victim. Blaming the victim by saying that "He/She was asking for it" or "Boys will be boys" is not only irrevocably detrimental to that individual but it is also severe gender policing. RAPE is NOT something that should be NORMALIZED. It needs to be eradicated because it is an unthinkable crime against humanity. It is monstrous and tolerating or even condoning a heinous act such as this is preposterous. | PRO | 3f7a50a3-2019-04-18T15:48:24Z-00004-000 |
In the criminal justice system, more emphasis should be put on retribution than rehabilitation. I welcome Con as my opponent. Without further ado, I shalt begin building my case. Definitions: Crime: an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government.Felony: a crime for which the punishment in federal law may be death or imprisonment for more than one year.Capital Punishment: the death penalty for crime. Recidivism: a tendency to relapse into a previous condition or mode of behavior;especially : relapse into criminal behaviorCite: Merraim Webster Before I begin on my case, I will state a fact. I am arguing for the punishment of criminals who have commited Felonies such as:-Murder-Rape-Armed Robbery-Arson-Illegal Drug Sales-Kidnapping-Treason-Income Tax EvasionCase: - Incarciration and rehabilitation often fail, execution does not. According to a study carried out by the National Institute of Justice themselves, the current rates of Recidivism are currently very high in America.To quote: "Bureau of Justice Statistics studies have found high rates of recidivism among released prisoners. One study tracked 404,638 prisoners in 30 states after their release from prison in 2005.[1] The researchers found that: Within three years of release, about two-thirds (67.8 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested. Within five years of release, about three-quarters (76.6 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested. Of those prisoners who were rearrested, more than half (56.7 percent) were arrested by the end of the first year. Property offenders were the most likely to be rearrested, with 82.1 percent of released property offenders arrested for a new crime compared with 76.9 percent of drug offenders, 73.6 percent of public order offenders and 71.3 percent of violent offenders." Cite: http://www.nij.gov...- Time in prison just makes criminals worse.While in prison, a harmless criminal can become indroctrinated and trained by more violent ones. Hereby rendering the thought of using prisons as rehabilitation facilities mute. - What gives someone the right to kill and live? No human has the right to unjustly take a life or victimize another without suffering consequences equal to or greater than their actions inflicted. That is a fact. If they were somehow given that right, what forbids the Victim or the Victim's Family from pursueing vengance? Or even a Purge like scenrio becoming common place? - Executions should be cheaper.As it stands now, it costs approximately $90,000 to house an inmate on death row and the state of Califronia alone spends $250 Million on every execution. According to a study conducted by the Los Angeles Times in 2005, this is around $114 Million dollars more than the cost of keeping a criminal imprisioned for life. Cite: http://www.deathpenalty.org...For the price of twenty American dollars, I can buy a length of rope and execute a criminal. This alone would save taxpayers millions. | PRO | 54fd5c4a-2019-04-18T15:12:17Z-00008-000 |
Biologically Immortal Humans. There are immortalized cell lines. Most of them are cancerous cells, such as the HeLa cells which has an active version of telomerase. This prevents the shortening of the telomere, which protects the ends of the chromosome. If such results can be reproduced on a normal cell without the tumorous side-effects, we then would be able to create biologically immortal humans. There is nothing immoral with being immortal. In the case where it is considered immoral, depending on the reason given, can always be shown to be immaterial. Perhaps the reason for doing so would be overpopulation. Would not this provide a very great motivation to colonize other planets? Yes, certainly, there would be fighting, but there is already fighting, and there will be as long as there are humans. If there is nothing immoral with this, we should not intervene. In a disruptive way, at least. | PRO | e78ddd3d-2019-04-18T18:07:37Z-00003-000 |
God Probably Exists. I was planning on taking a break from DDO, but since the semester is just about done, I’d be happy to have a go at this debate. Just to clarify, I will be arguing that “God probably does not exist,” and the burden of proof is shared. I’m fine with this. I have one point for clarification; are we talking about a specific God (as is suggested by your use of a capital “G” in “God”), or are we discussing the concept about gods in general? | CON | c20c9721-2019-04-18T16:11:30Z-00006-000 |
Vaccines are beneficial. Con shall be arguing vaccines harm more than help. (Amount of people sick/injured/killed) Rules: No linking to whale.to, naturalnews, blogs, un-scientific studies, anecdotal evidence, or online polls. If you do link to these, there is a 6-million point deduction. Also, if Con says "Big pharma" or anything like that (All your evidence is fake because Big Pharma Changed the results!) he shall lose the debate. Graphs and charts are welcome Oh and Vaccines do not cause autism. You may argue this, but you will lose. Just becuase vaccines and autism rises does not mean there is a link. Con may state his argument in round one And con? Good luck | PRO | 3785d7a6-2019-04-18T16:17:11Z-00009-000 |
The God Of the Christian Bible is perfect. I'm always down to wrestle with God =)=======Resolution=======Resolved: The God Of the Christian Bible is perfect. As con, I will be negating this resolution. =======Burden of Proof=======Although Pro should technically have the BOP here, I will accept it for this debate as it's far less time-consuming for me to point out one contradiction than it is for Pro to go over and reconcile the entirety of the bible. Therefore, for this debate, God is assumed to be perfect unless I show otherwise. =======Definitions=======God: The Abrahamic God in the Christian bible. Perfect: Flawless and completely consistentGod's Law: The ten commandments [1]=======Arguments============Wence Cometh Evil? =====Given the incredibly short character count of this debate, I will keep my arguments short for this round. In fact, I will only be making one argument right now; the riddle of Epicurus. “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? ” Epicurus – Greek philosopher, BC 341-270The implications here are obvious. Pro must show where evil comes from and why God allows it to existI look forward to your response.1. . http://www.copiosa.org... | CON | 9426e20c-2019-04-18T18:07:09Z-00008-000 |
Herd Effect is Pointless. The herd effect argues that if enough members of a population are vaccinated from a certain disease, than all non-vaccinated will be protected from the disease as they will have such a low possibility of coming with the disease that it can be classified as nearly impossible. The big problem with this argument is that if vaccination is made compulsory and everyone is made to receive it, who is left un-vaccinated to benefit from the Herd Effect? If government force vaccinations on everyone, then everyone is thus vaccinated. Who then would be un-vaccinated and benefit from the herd effect? I am aware that is the US there are certain religious or philosophical reasons why a person can be considered exempt from compulsory immunization; these people would benefit from the herd effect, however this is not truly compulsory immunization. A distinction should be made, otherwise the argument of the ehrd effect is counter-intuitive. | PRO | f9f87c6a-2019-04-19T12:44:53Z-00057-000 |
I Will lose this Debate. Since my opponent has conceded the debate it is true that he will most likely lose the debate however this debate isn't about likelihood. This debate is about absoloute facts. Since my opponent is making the claim the 'I' in the resolution almost certainly refers to him. He states that he will lose the debate. The resolution offers no explanation regarding if we are basing it off probability or not. Since this reolution creates a paradox the winner of the debate is never guaranteed. I do not have to argue that I will lose the debate, my burden merely requirs me to prove that there isn't a 100% chance that my opponent will lose the debate. The resolution creates a paradox and as a result it is quite possible that votes will remain neutral and this debate will end a tie. Assuming that voters do not vote on this debate and voters are not obliged to vote on every debate it is not guaranteed that my opponent will lose. If my opponent does lose that does not mean that they have met their burden. Their burden requires them to prove that they will lose for a 100% fact at this point in time. Voters cannot vote for him because his prediction was correct. They should only vote for him if he can justify why there is a 100% chance that he will lose the debate. | CON | 1bb341f1-2019-04-18T14:15:16Z-00002-000 |
It is very unlikely that any extraterrestrial organisms would be humanoid as depicted in pop culture. Pro mentioned that intelligent creatures "need to develop a spoken and written vocabulary like humans." He mentions a few semi-intelligent organisms, particularly the octopus. I would say that if an octopus-like creature ever did evolve to be space faring, it would first develope land-dwelling capability, and thus legs and hands. It wouldn't need it's extra limbs, and would eventually lose them in the evolutionary chain (due to them being a hinderance). | CON | 15125ca9-2019-04-18T17:59:19Z-00000-000 |
The Big-bang is a good theory. First, I am not going to argue all of Pro's points because I'm going to stop using this debate site. I just don't have the time. But I would like to say a few thing about Pro's argument. About the sun, He says that because the study of the sun shrinking was first done in 1869 that it does not apply. Clapeyron -- discovered entropy - 1834 Fizeau -- measured the speed of light - 1849 Herschel -- discovered the existence of infrared and of radiant heat - 1800 Joule -- discovered the First Law of Thermodynamics - 1843 Ritter -- discovered ultraviolet rays - 1801 Thomas Young -- proposed the theory of light and colours - 1801 --------> http://wiki.answers.com... So I guess we cannot accept any of these either? Oh and best of all.....Darwin -- published "Origin of Species" and gave us the Theory of Evolution - 1859. Looks like you can't trust the theory of evolution because it was originally composed in the 1800's. Also Pro says "Taking a measurement of the sun at any two given points and ASSUMING A CONSTANT RATE of change is like looking at the ocean as the tide goes out and concluding that 10,000 years ago, the sea level must have been somewhere in the stratosphere." I agree that assuming a constant rate is not scientific, but Pro does the exact same thing! Later he says "An isotope's half life is the amount of time it takes for half of the original material to decay into another isotope. With this knowledge, by measuring the ratio of parent isotope to daughter isotope found in a sample, we can determine the sample's age" Right there Pro is ASSUMING A CONSTANT RATE of decay. He is ASSUMING that the half life has been the same throughout history. Radiometric dating is completely based on assumptions, yet Pro claims that "it can prove that the earth is several billion years old". And without radiometric dating there is no evidence for millions of years. Therefore, saying that the big bang happened 13.75 billion years ago is a faith statement. As as all evolutionist know very well, faith cannot be a part of science. | CON | 3aa56dca-2019-04-18T19:02:44Z-00001-000 |
Protecting endangered species protects the interests of humans. Protecting endangered species helps protect humans: Humans actually benefit in a large number of ways from the protection of endangered species and thus continuing biodiversity. Firstly, the diversity of life and living systems is considered by many scientists to be a necessary condition for human development. We live in a world built on a carefully balanced ecosystem in which all species play a role, and the removal of species from this can cause negative consequences for the whole ecosystem, including humans.[1] There is also the potential for almost any species to hold currently-unknown future benefits to humans through products they could provide. One example of this is the scrub mint, an endangered plant species which has been found to contain an anti-fungal agent and a natural insecticide, and thus holds great potential for use that benefits humans.[2] Endangered species have also been known to hold the key to medical breakthroughs which save human lives. One example of this is the Pacific yew (a tree species) which became the source of taxol, one of the most potent anticancer compounds ever discovered.[3] Biodiversity also helps protect humans in that different species' differing reactions to ecological problems may in fact act as a kind of 'early warning' system of developing problems which may one day negatively affect people. This was the case with the (now banned) dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) pesticide, as the deterioration of the bald eagle and the peregrine falcon through their exposure to DDT in fact alerted humans to the potential health hazards of this pesticide, not just to animals but also to humans.[4] Thus the preservation of endangered species helps to protect humans, as this means plants and animals continue to play their specific role in the world's ecosystem which humans rely on, can act as an 'early warning' for problems which may affect humans, and may hold the key to scientific and medical breakthroughs which can greatly benefit humanity. Al this could be lost through the careless extinction of plant and animal species. [1] Ishwaran, N., & Erdelen, W. “Biodiversity Futures”, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[4]. May 2005 http://www.jstor.org/pss/3868449 [2] Wilcove, D. S., & Master L. L. “How Many Endangered Species are there in the United States?”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[8]. October 2008. http://www.jstor.org/pss/3868674 [3] Wilcove, D. S., & Master L. L. “How Many Endangered Species are there in the United States?”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[8]. October 2008. http://www.jstor.org/pss/3868674 [4] Wilcove, D. S., & Master L. L. “How Many Endangered Species are there in the United States?”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[8]. October 2008. http://www.jstor.org/pss/3868674 | PRO | 7a7d096f-2019-04-15T20:22:36Z-00009-000 |
MasterChief from the Halo series, could beat Boba Fett, from Starwars. In this debate I argue that the Halo series Masterchief(Also known as John-117) could beat Boba Fett from Starwars, in a fight to the death. I will be defending Masterchief The area: A desert, about 3 miles around. They cannot exit the playing field. The weapons: For Masterchief I will say his Assault Rifle, a Sniper Rifle, a Magnum, and for the purposes of this debate, we will say they both have infinite ammo for guns, since specifying ammo for both characters would be to complicated. As for support, Masterchief will have one Bubble shield, and four frag grenades, four plasma grenades, four spike grenades, and four fire grenades. If we allow armor abilities, I will choose armor lock. He will also be equipped with a combat knife. This round is for acceptance, and for my opponent to decide what weapons Boba will have. He may also say what he thinks Masterchief should/shouldn't be allowed to use, and ask questions he/she may have about this debate. There is no ships allowed, and no allies. Here are some links for information on both characters: Masterchief: http://halo.wikia.com... Boba Fett: http://starwars.wikia.com... For info in general about Masterchief's weapons, search them here: http://halo.wikia.com... | PRO | 88362432-2019-04-18T18:35:05Z-00007-000 |
Spanking is child abuse. The only argument you have made is "no one has the right to touch someone else with out consent" and how can I debate with out an opponent who can't tell me reasons why they are right. So, far you have only stayed on one reason. So, in order for me to state my reasons I must bring in other information and never once did I get off topic. Spanking is a punishment not child abuse and is disappointing that people older than me do not know this. | CON | 1b8f296d-2019-04-18T13:04:19Z-00002-000 |
The Exodus as Described in the Torah Did Not Historically Occur. It is an acceptance round as I have now begun to specifically discuss the exodus. Also it's religious COSMOLOGY that INCLUDES the occurring of the exodus that's why it simplifies into then specifically talking about the exodus. As you said whether it's the fundamentalist Christian version or the Islamic version. I am eager to refute that it did not happen that's why I did not want to be shunned away through "comments". Remember I'm coming from the angle of Islamic cosmology being real not mainstream science and their band of wacky archeologists. Allah exists. How successful has Islam been throughout history. Prayers are answered all the time time not to mention the bounty of oil the Arabs were blessed with after being a struggling peoples saved from bedouin lifestyles. It's a blessing that inclines toward seeking from Allah being what helps and has a point to it. The Qur'an is all to do with invoking for blessings. It works. So Islam has a respectable look upon it. It's valued. Whether it's claims are to do with being cursed or being gifted...it works. The world is not as mainstream scientists say. Sidelined scientists argue for physics such as idealism. The respectable claims of Islam say the world is flat. It also says that the exodus happened. What are you going to support, mainstream sciences archeologists or respectable Islam's teachings. | CON | 29acc0ef-2019-04-18T13:20:54Z-00004-000 |
vegetarian school lunches. I feel that High school and JH's should feature something other than meats drenched in sauce, ketchup, oils, and salt. Many schools, still are based on the fact that a child will at meat if there is nothing else, or they suppose that you will pack your own lunch if you don't eat meat. I sit with 2 vegetarians at my lunch table and for a week and a half they had nothing but meats in our lunch lines. Now I don't think that they should be able to provide a lunch for kids who cant eat peanut butter, but not for vegetarians. I leave the rest up to my opponent to make an argument, Thank you. | PRO | 69d892e-2019-04-18T19:17:51Z-00003-000 |
Nationalism empowers political movements that lead to excess, corruption and violence. Leadership r... Nationalism empowers political movements that lead to excess, corruption and violence. Leadership regimes that are politically and economically corrupt, such as the National Salvation Front of Romania, Communist China, Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe, and North Korea, exploit existing senses of nationalism to disguise the fact that they mismanage and oppress their countries. They use nationalism as an irrational base of support for irrational policies. The people would do more to change their regimes if their minds were not clouded by emotionally-charged feelings of nationalism. | PRO | 7f9686e7-2019-04-19T12:44:02Z-00006-000 |
"ADHD" is no more than misunderstood children, parenthood problems and a bad society. The argument is ADHD isn't real, but a social construct to explain energetic children. This does not account for the fact that those diagnosed with ADHD usually have a relative who was also diagnosed. It is also statistically accurate to say that families who don't have a history of ADHD have a lower chance of having offspring with it. This means that not only is it real, but it is also genetic. My second point is the chemical differences in the ADHD brain VS the non-ADHD brain. It has been proven that there are chemical differences, and I will provide a link as proof. http://www.researchgate.net... Thank you | CON | 1e64cec4-2019-04-18T14:55:01Z-00005-000 |
Zidane vs Ronaldo. Zidane was a soccer player from 1988 to 2006 (a period of 18 years) and scored a total of 95 goals along with 31 goals for France in World Cup and Euro Cup Play Ronaldo on the other hand is a soccer player who still plays today but started only back in 2001 (2001 to today is a period of about 10 years) in that time he has scored a total of 170 goals along with 43 goals for Portugal in World Cup and Euro Cup play.... So Ronaldo, in a career that has lasted around half as long as Zidane, has scored almost twice as much as Zidane has in seasonal play and 1.5 times as much in tournament play. Keep in mind he has been in the pro soccer leagues 8 years SHORTER than Zidane yet he already has almost twice as many goals scored as him... Zidane = 506 seasonal appearances Ronaldo = 298 seasonal appearances So now keep in mind that even though Ronaldo has been in 200 LESS games than Zidane has, Ronaldo has still scored nearly twice as much as Zidane has. Goals / Appearances = average goals per game... Zidane: 95 / 506 = 0.1877, or 1 goal every 5.30 games, Ronaldo: 170 / 298 = 0.5705, or 1 goal every 1.75 games, 5.30 / 1.75 = (average number of games Zidane needs to score 1 goal / average number of games Ronaldo needs to score 1 goal) = 3.02 So not only has Ronaldo scored far more goals in half the time Zidane has ever scored in his career, or that Ronaldo has half the appearances in games and has still beaten Zidane in goals scored, but Ronaldo's average number of games needed to score a goal is 3x better than Zidane's was.... Even though that is enough to sink this argument right now, i will bring up one more point. Ronaldo = 0 headbutts of opposing players during world cup play that caused him to be kicked out and then was not available to kick penalty shots in the final game of the world cup costing his team the win. Zidane = 1 headbutts of opposing players during world cup play that caused him to be kicked out and then was not available to kick penalty shots in the final game of the world cup costing his team the win. I'll end for here now. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... | CON | 787818fb-2019-04-18T18:35:33Z-00004-000 |
The Sith have a better and more realistic philosophy then the Jedi. Okay, I agree that emotions do play a major role on peoples morals, however maybe the Jedi reject impulsive emotions that make justice unreachable otherwise. Jedi did indeed kill Sith in cold blood, but doesn't this coincide with the Sith philosophy: Through strength I gain power, through power victory" The Sith happened to be a rival power and didn't coincide with jedi philosophy, but they did do these horrible crimes. As for the Sith not accepting their flaws, this is both true and false on certain levels, on floor one of the Department of Sith Philosophy, by improving their skill and improving shows that they accept that they have flaws,but continue to improve on them. On floor two, however yes they don't accept that their flaws affect them, cause them to do things rashly and they tend to not think on the flaws at all. | CON | dccfe0f4-2019-04-18T12:51:07Z-00000-000 |
Abortion is murder. Here are my responses to two of my own statements, which have been questioned by my opponent and by spectators of this debate. "Abortion fits this description in the sense that abortion is deliberate on the part of the abortion clinic and of the woman." In Round 2, I quoted the OED definition of the word "murder." The OED states that murder is "the deliberate and unlawful killing of a human being, especially in a premeditated sense." My opponent has pointed out that abortion is legal in most countries, however, abortion is still unlawful under all circumstances in Chile, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, and Nicaragua, and Malta (Wikipedia). This contradicts con when he says, "[Is abortion] unlawful? Well, abortion is legal. Which is to say that abortion is permitted by law. So, no, abortion is not unlawful." When con said, "Abortion is legal," without distinguishing that abortion is illegal in certain areas, we can assume that he intended to say, "Abortion is universally legal," meaning that abortion is not illegal in any part of the world. However, as I have just stated, several countries have banned abortion under all circumstances. Since a large part of con's argument is based upon the fact that abortion is legal and can therefore cannot be classified as murder, and since it has been established that abortion is indeed illegal in several countries, we must move on to the next point. "Since the fetus, which is an organism, was created by humans, the fetus is technically human." Con has compared the status of a fetus as a human to that of an acorn as an oak tree. He has stated that an acorn is not an oak tree, but is an oak tree in development. I will respond to this analogy with an analogy of my own. Imagine that there is a cake baking in the oven. Now, we refer to the confection baking in the oven as a cake, even though the confection is still in the process of being developed in the oven by means of heat. Now imagine that the oven is a metaphor for the womb, and the cake is a metaphor for a fetus. Would that change the fact that a fetus is a human? I will also remind you of how Abraham Lincoln pointed out that if we were to regard a sheep's tail as a leg, the sheep would still have only four legs. This means that if we were to call an object something that it isn't, we do not change what it is. If we were to consider a fetus something other than a human, we do not change the fact that it is a human. Let us go back to the definition of murder, "the deliberate and unlawful killing of a human being, especially in a premeditated manner." I have established that abortion is deliberate, unlawful, results in the death of a human being, and is premeditated. Therefore, abortion is murder. | PRO | 54a472a0-2019-04-18T15:42:48Z-00001-000 |
There is Nothing Wrong With Pornography. Note: My adversary just offered his closing remarks without rebuttals, so I will assume mine remain uncontested and he himself accepts that porn can indirectly cause harm.Again let us look at the title."There is nothing wrong with pornography"My adversary is not claiming that there is nothing "morally wrong with watching pornography" or " There is no objective reason to believe porn is wrong". This is not his resolution and both of these claims do not apply to this debate. He must abide by his resolution. I have shown multiple ways in which pornography can have a negative effect on people. If anyone one of these claims is shown to be true, then there is "something wrong" with pornography. Perhaps if he chose a better resolution he would have been able to defend this. With this current resolution, it is sadly impossible to defend. There is no way to claim there is "nothing" wrong with (x). That is dependent on a persons perception and submits itself to a query of questions and facts. He could have verily easily argued the fact that it is morally permissible to watch, but again that is not the case.His resolution is impossible to uphold. | CON | 33a4aaa-2019-04-18T17:12:21Z-00000-000 |
This video shows some pretty weird stuff like it or not. It's pretty easy to contrive a coincidence. Kids in suburban white America look a lot alike, and I've often mistaken my little brother for one of his friends. About the numbers, some of them don't line up. One related video mentioned that Star Wars is satanic, and one satanic number mentioned is 322, awfully close to one important number in Star Wars, 327... but no cigar. There are also debating theories, one of which is that the children were sacrificed to Satan, in which case they wouldn't still be here. I don't trust people offering "secret truths" that can't be reconciled. Also, some people misspeak, but people often do that in traumatic times like those. A lot of the "leads" offered in the videos are awfully shaky and most are easily explainable away with mundane explanations. But above all, never explain with a great conspiracy what can be explained by human stupidity. Even more importantly, it's awfully hard to fake emotion and those parents looked pretty genuine. | CON | 18410494-2019-04-18T16:13:07Z-00004-000 |
We are nearing an apocalypse (mass global destruction). Throughout history, civilizations have risen and fallen. The Dark Ages were not considered to be an apocalypse, although the one you suggest is impending would not be so different. Even if war were to break out on a sufficient scale to destroy most of civilization, it would still survive along with technology in small pockets, and as long as nuclear weapons were not used in excess, these pockets would quickly expand to form new civilizations. The use of nuclear weapons would not benefit anyone, and since the US has superior nuclear capabilities, any other nuclear powers would have a severe disadvantage in a nuclear war, and would consequently be reluctant to use nuclear weapons. Russian aggression and suboptimal relations between the US and China are nothing new. The Cold War was ended without WWIII breaking out, and relations between the US, China, and Russia were far more strained during that period. China depends on the US consumer market for economic growth and stability, and this would be more than sufficient incentive not to engage in any direct military conflict with the United States. Russia's economy and population are shrinking, and their ability to do any damage is becoming increasingly limited. Conditions today are far less conducive to WWIII than they were during the Cold War, and since there was no global destruction then, it wouldn't be rational to assume we are approaching such an event now. | CON | babfa53e-2019-04-18T14:46:32Z-00003-000 |
Rap battle. My rap: Here you are, asking people to rap wondering whether or not they'll think you're crap But, in your heart, you know its true aint nobody give a f*ck about you .....and your silly little account losing debates, tryna get votes recount Thinking your rap god but you just a sucka sucking a fat rod you aint a rapper livin' it up in the ritz you just a sh**ty eminem, living on benefits Comeback at me, b**ch boy better be prepared coz last night your mommy was certainly scared she feared for your life bro, thinking i was gonna break you but you're not your mom, so i just didnt want to And Im sorry to to tell you, you're career aint sh*t tryna be a rapper on debate.org, just not the right fit I wish well for you tho, youve come a long way since you started unfortunately, none of your sad crappy rap songs have charted P.S (read in an american accent) | CON | 83ce5c31-2019-04-18T12:03:02Z-00001-000 |
Students are not referred to as Sir, Mister, or Ms., Miss, or Ma'am. Students should not be referred to by these terms. The terms are socially respected so as to be regarded to those with more life experience than us.It is a term of respect that says "hey you've lived longer than I so you probably know better than I and I respect that dawg; I think that's pretty hip." That's why we should not refer to students using these terms and that is why we should refer to adults with these terms. | PRO | 37da26a1-2019-04-18T16:41:41Z-00001-000 |
Gays should not get married. "However, because of this corrupt society, it is affecting them negatively also." This is paradoxical logic. The whole point of the LGBT movement is to convince people that being gay is just a variation, not a mental disorder. At child centers, children are raised in a mass situation. They never experience being in a small home, given the toys and tools that most kids take foor granted. It is a rough life, even if they do get the bare necessities. There is a difference between being gay and being a pedophile/incest/bestiality. A child may not fully understand the consequences of sex, while two consenting gays do. A horse doesn't even understand the human LANGUAGE, let alone human sex. When you fall in love with your sister, you have the potential to produce biological kids with defects. Since gays can't produce biological children at all, it is no more harmful to society than being forever alone. Besides, gays are a part of society. In the past, famines, wars, and diseases were much more common than they are today. When it came to reproduction, all hands were on deck, and producing 7 children per mother. Otherwise, society would crumble. Now, with more food, more cures, and less war, populations are increasing at a steep rate. Now only 2 children per mother are needed, and that number is as a whole. That means, if some mothers have more than 2 children, it is okay for other people to not have any at all. You should really set longer debate times. | CON | 57a1efba-2019-04-18T16:55:06Z-00000-000 |
Smoking should be banned. Because one debate did not get accepted by him, this debate will go to fire_wings. Because I use a phone, there will be no sources in this debate. StructureArgumentsRebuttalsDefenseConclusionFrameworkBecause I hear mostly BoP is on Pro, so BoP is on me. Today's topic is Smoking Ban, and I will be Pro. Arguments1. Seconhand SmokingBecause of the pollution in smoking, many people who do not smoke innocently die because of the bad smoke in their lungs. So, if we ban smoking, these innocent people will have no need to die. I really want to site a source, but I can't, so I will just say that Over 500,000 thousand children died from secondhand smoking in one year.2. Bad for your healthSmoking makes smoke pollution. Smokers and non-smokers die because of bad lungs, and heart attacks. With a ban, There will not be lots of lung diseases and heart attacks. | PRO | 21109a9a-2019-04-18T13:56:13Z-00007-000 |
D-Day had no effect on the outcome of WWII. I know D-Day was in France but it also took part in Italy as well. So Fascist strongholds in France would still exsist so thus meaning that German Conscripts would still be alive so reinforcements would be more abundant. Yes defeats in the Eastern Front helped greatly in the Fascist defeat but D-Day opens Europe to foreign forces to invade. With out UK & American soldiers the Rhine and the low countries would still be held by Fascists and give Soviet forces a harder time by pushing through the east when the Fascists have backed up & reinforced west to bring more supplies and strongholds so the soviets would still take Berlin but they would than have to fight in the west too. The soviet military had the largest causalites so the battle of Berlin was one of the bloodiest battles of the war the soviets would be exhausted and moral would than with low moral and soldiers would have to fight more in the west and the Fascist armies would be well rested have better defences for being in the home land and building on it for several years and the soviets would have to fight this. It wouldn't be a good strategic or tactical descion for a military attack. They would be outnumbered and have low moral and ammunition and defences. | CON | 10f1b30b-2019-04-18T16:53:38Z-00004-000 |