argument
stringlengths 201
3.55k
| stance
stringclasses 2
values | id
stringlengths 36
39
|
|---|---|---|
Women should register for the selective service. In an age of feministic views I believe that if women wish to be treated with more respect and looked upon as purely equal then another responsibility they should take is to register with the Selective Service when they turn 18. I believe fully in feminism. It is wrong to pay women less in the work place because they do not have a penis, yet they should also have to carry the same responsibilities as men. This should go for men as well of course. | PRO | 43aebb37-2019-04-18T19:50:12Z-00004-000 |
Extremely strict parents are good for children. My apologies to Pro for a shortened round, but I have decided that, although Dictionary.com offers a general definition, the real meaning of "success" in life and the philosophy of happiness varies from person to person. Someone might say success is fame and fortune. Others might say luxuries, while others may say the pure effort put into every accomplishment. In my eyes, success is the ability to feel proud of one's achievements. For me, that would be conquering difficult tasks and goals. Many different types of parents support different types of success in their children. Some parents are relaxed and allow their children to be free and happy while they can. Others, such as Tiger Mom, try hard to achieve the best effort in life. My only point now is that Tiger Mom forced one single parenting style and philosophy into her children a little too much. Congratulations on my opponent for this debate. Though I don't say this often as a conclusion, I have to admit he has high chances of winning. | CON | b0f74294-2019-04-18T18:49:28Z-00001-000 |
There is no evidence that humans share a common ancestor with apes. This question often crops up among evolution disbelievers. And while it underscores the truth that most people truly don't believe man came from rats, fish, and single-celled organisms up through the primates, it ignores the fact that evolutionists have a ready answer to it. First, evolutionists strongly deny the idea that men came from the apes. They insist that both man and the apes came from a hypothetical ape-like ancestor, the evidence for which has not yet been discovered. Secondly, evolution does not propose that all members of a type evolved into another type, but that only a small group of individuals, genetically isolated from the others, evolved, leaving the others to remain the same. A perceptive person will recognize that both of these points are nothing more than story telling. The hypothetical ape-like ancestor does not exist, and there is no evidence that it ever did. The "peripheral isolates" claim may sound reasonable, and there are recent examples of isolated groups acquiring new traits through adaptation, but none of any group acquired new suites of functioning genes through random mutation, such as production of either an ape or a man from an ape-like ancestor would require. Instead of asking why we still have apes, we should be asking why don't we have the hypothetical ape-like ancestor, the real missing link? Or, why don't we have the required intermediate forms? How can such change happen? The claim that transitional individuals were few in number, and thus unlikely to be fossilized and discovered, rings hollow. The fact is, we don't have them! The evolution claims are only stories. In their story, man and apes diverged from the imaginary ancestor some seven million years ago. Surely some would be fossilized. We should also ask, how could such a transition happen? The only way we know to acquire new genes is to alter existing genes through random mutation. The best alteration science has observed has produced only novel recombinations -- most deteriorate the genetic information and thus harm the offspring. Many mutations are fatal. Evolution requires trillions of innovative mutations to produce man from lower forms, and at least millions to produce man or apes from an ape-like ancestor. None have been observed. Evolution tales are pseudo-scientific stories about an imaginary history. Evolution is best understood as an anti-God origins myth, attempting to explain man's existence without a Creator. We can do better. | CON | 7d33eef1-2019-04-18T12:30:40Z-00003-000 |
elementry school kids are learning to much!. Personally I think it is unfair other kids get a more intense schooling program than I did. Yes, it might be a little bit of pressure, but if they don't get any pressure in 3rd grade, then when they are in sixth grade and actually being challenged, how are they supposed to be ready? Babying them with easy schoolwork will not help them. I remember learning a little bit of division in first grade, and wishing the teacher would tech it to me so I could understand it more. Thank you for this debate | CON | cfa17464-2019-04-18T19:34:20Z-00000-000 |
ATHEISM over THEISM. Conduct: My opponent forfeited two out of five rounds; therefore, my conduct has been better, for following the rules of this debate. Used better sources: My opponent did not use any sources; my sources were books by physicists such as Leonard Mlodinow, Simon Singh, Joseph Silk, George Ellis, Stephen Hawking, Robert M. Wald, Fulvio Melia, Kip S. Thorne, Robert Penrose and Kitty Ferguson, in addition to the Oxford Dictionary of English and the Discovery Channel. Had better arguments: My opponent's presentation argument did not have any reasons for not believing in God, and merely showed his perspective. His second argument CLAIMED that theists see science as "nonsense", and said they presumed God was a substitution for science. I know many theists who believe God is an enforcer of science, and he had no sources to support the argument. The next argument was questioning the reason for God being seen as an explanation. I provided ample evidence for God existing, and for lack of a proper definition of God, I provided the definition of a creative force, as seen in pantheism and, sometimes, deism. All other rounds were forfeited. Spelling and Grammar: "Indeed, Atheists see God as a nonsense, and the same for how Theists see science as." This sentence is grammatically incorrect; "a nonsense" is not a way to describe nonsense. "The same for how" is incorrect; "the same way" would have been more appropriate. (this sentence was processed by Grammarly, and I use it as my source) Therefore, this guarantees my seven-point victory. Please vote for me. Thanks to JordanCJKM for setting up this amazing debate, and I sheerly respect him for his arguments. No offences intended. Source: http://www.grammarly.com... | CON | b4cf8beb-2019-04-18T15:17:47Z-00000-000 |
Biblical Contradictions, Part I. Definition:Contradiction: "the statement of a position opposite to one already made"Scholar: "a learned person" (either renowned w/o official academic training or an academic degree-holderSources:1. Holy Bible(s) of the Christianity religion2. Religious Texts (Denominational Dictionaries/Glossaries)3. Scholarly Texts (Lexicons, Concordances, Dissertations, Treatises) 4. Direct Quotes from Respectable ScholarsProposition:(R1) Pro may, if desired, define "contradiction" but ONLY based on a Dictionary definition. This round is acceptance for both opponents. (R2) Pro will present contradictions & argue why they are such. (R2) Con will rebut Pro's contradictions & argue why they are not. (R3) Pro will rebut Con's rebuttals of why they are not contradictions with Pro's Secondary Evidence. (R3) Con will refute Pro's Secondary Evidence with Con's Secondary Evidence. (R4) Pro will present a Closing Argument of why these are Contradictions (up to maximum 6,000 character limit). (R4) Con will present Closing Statements of why they are not Contradictions (limit of 1 Opening Sentence; 3 Five Sentence Paragraphs; 1 Closing Sentence). Rules for (Opponents):1. Follow all the guidelines above.2. Sources are permitted each round & are not prohibited by Con's R4 Closing.3. Intelligent Debating Only4. NO DIRECT INQUIRIES between Opponents (Indirect Questions to the world at large are permitted. Ex. "Is this type of logic really suppose to be true? "5. Present ALL arguments as concisely as possible (we should not bore the readers with heavy technical-laden language, drawn out explanations and examples, etc. )6. Be mindful of textual formatting.7. In the Voting Period, opponents should refrain from commenting on the Judges' rulings, unless a Judge specifically ask a question to a particular opponent. Suggested Rules for (Judges):1. NO TIES unless you absolutely cannot distinguish a victor for a specific category.2. Award points on S&G but NOT against obvious foreign language words3. Who did you agree with before the debate? This is a bias question PLEASE answer it. 4. Who did you agree with after the debate? Choose the opponent you awarded points for Most Convincing Argument. Clicking the later obviously means you agreed with that opponent (to a degree).5. Understand reliable isn't equivalent to credible--not in certain contexts. (SEE: . http://www.debate.org...). Choose an opponent. | CON | abfabadb-2019-04-18T16:02:12Z-00006-000 |
we don't know anything with absolution. This is just a slightly changed version of a debate I did already. The idea is that I can prove how any statement you can give me might be untrue. I don't need to disprove your statement, but simply show how it could be false. The challenger gives a statement in round 1, and I'll try to prove it possibly not true. you can come up with a new statement the later rounds, or refute my argument. the only rule is you can't chose the debate topic sentence topic, or any variation of it, for your sentence. | PRO | 9a0248c1-2019-04-18T17:59:54Z-00009-000 |
mobile phones are a curse for todays youth. Mobile-phone use while driving is common. It is generally agreed that using a hand-held mobile phone while driving is a distraction that brings risk of road traffic accidents.A little attention is received recently towards the potential impact of the kind of electromagnetic fields generated by cellular phones on the human brain. Accumulating evidence indicate that microwave radiation from mobile phones may cause serious diseases and disturbances in the physiology. This includes an increased cancer risk and genetic damage, disturbed brain function and other effects. Mobile phone radiation and health concerns have been raised, especially following the enormous increase in the use of wireless mobile telephony throughout the world. | PRO | e4f285c5-2019-04-18T19:36:52Z-00001-000 |
It is right to kill animals to save human life. god created lacs of living being,among them human being are superior.qura'an reffers human being as ashraful makhlukaat(best of living beings)now comming to your debate,yes we can kill a animal to save a life of human beings as human being is precious,superior to animal.for example if some one tries to kill the prime minister of your country but his bodyguard comes forward and kills himself to save the life of pm.now a question for you,what happend is right or wrong? | PRO | c03a3d5f-2019-04-18T14:21:02Z-00004-000 |
Resolved: Governments should give food and money to care the poor. I totally rebutted everything. I know I didn't rebut the third so I will right now. 3. Even though the government can't help every single one who is in poverty, they have to at least help. The government's job is to takes care of the citizens. They must at least do something. Also like what you said, charities can't do everything too. We need a lot of the governments help to do this. Why I won this debate1. I made good rebuts, and even though it took some time, I rebutted Con's points. | PRO | 673d5706-2019-04-18T14:20:11Z-00001-000 |
An eye for an eye will make the whole world go blind. "I am surprised that you do not see the way these systems are executed, their consequences are almost equal." I do see the way the system is executed; it is a PROPORTIONATE tit-for-tat system. As you have just stated, the consequences are ALMOST equal - but not exactly. This makes our judicial system NOT "insanity", because we do not have such punishments as raping the rapist or kidnapping the kidnapper. Since two wrongs do not make a right, we do it proportionally, so we do not constitute another wrong. However, the phrase "an eye for an eye" implies EXACT[ly equal] consequences, not proportionate/almost equal ones. As you said last round, this would be insanity, or "making the whole world go blind". "i agree that in the case of "an eye for an eye", the punishment is direct retribution. however, you are again taking this in the literal sense." No, I am relating it to real life, which is why it is a figure of speech. I am describing "an eye for an eye" as using direct retribution (which you have just agreed to) such as raping a rapist, and I am describing "makes the whole world blind" as making an unjust society, or "insanity", as you have put it. "An eye for an eye", or direct retribution, "makes the world blind", or is "insanity"/an unjust society. My opponent has agreed with this. | PRO | 369816ab-2019-04-18T19:39:18Z-00004-000 |
Abortion Is Morally Permissible in Most Cases for which It Occurs. "Other things I noticed: - You failed to acknowledge that I proved your law statement false. - You failed to address the conflict with relative mortality risk in your mother risk exemption. - You failed to address how I responded to your child having grief exemption. - You failed to address how your criterion (you never had a criterion to begin with) for how it is wrong to abort a non-rape-baby and yet okay to abort a rape-baby. If the excuse is grievance on the mother's part, then why doesn't the grievance of an unwanted baby should also act as justification? How does your reasoning reconcile with the rights of the baby?" First, the legal age may be 16, but in California (which is where I live), the legal age is 18. Second, it is wrong to abort a no-rape baby because the mother chose to have sex, while with a rape baby, the mother did not choose to have sex; she was forced to, so she should have the ability to have an abortion if she wishes. | CON | 6de19528-2019-04-18T20:02:56Z-00002-000 |
Conspiracy I: The Philadelphia Experiments. >>Some quotes from still-living members of the USS Eldridge on 26 March, 1999: Ed Wise: "I think it's somebody's pipe dream" Ted Davis: "It never happened" Bill Van Allen: "I have not the slightest idea how these stories got started" Ray Perrino: "When people would ask me about it, I would play along with them and tell them I disappeared. After a while they realized I was pulling their legs" Mike Perlstien: "I tell them I know nothing about it. I've seen the movie, and it's a good movie, but there's no truth to it" (Philadelphia Inquirer) As you can see, the crew of the Eldridge considers the whole notion of the Philadelphia experiment to be false and in some cases, even humorously so.<< This has already been negated. "The most recent reports from Lt. Col. Philip Corso, reprinted on Dr. Steven Greer's CSETI website, indicate that almost everything in the description of the Philadelphia Experiment was true, except that in order to protect the story, a different ship was used than the one normally described to the public. The actual ship was a minesweeper, not a destroyer. Therefore, it makes sense when aging crewmembers of the Destroyer Escort U.S.S. Eldridge were queried about this, they remembered nothing of the sort. Although the evidence now suggests that the Eldridge was not the ship, we are told that the experiment itself apparently did occur." - David Wilcock >>[according to himself] "...one of two sailors who fell through time from the 1940's to 1988... and alien technology was used by secret government agencies to erase [Ed Duncan] from his own time track and give him the body and background of Al Bielek." Right. Because people really fall through time and have alien technology used to transport them into another body. Law of parsimony states that Bielek is lying.<< When you are traveling through hyperspace, it is rather likely that you might end up in a different time period because you are outside of space-time. Sources say that aliens provided the technology for the experiment, so it's no surprise that the aliens were there to help him switch bodies. In conclusion, all my opponent had for evidence was crew members and captains who were not even aboard the actual ship that was used in the experiment. The Eldridge was not the ship used, it was a minesweeper, but the public is told it was the Eldridge to protect the story. | PRO | 2f604f60-2019-04-18T19:21:34Z-00000-000 |
There is evidence for God. I've proposed as evidence of God's existence, the unrealized effects that non-intelligent agents are directed towards. Such unrealized effects can only exist in a mind, and when considered as a whole, only in a mind outside of the universe with frightening power. In so far as these unrealized effects show there is a supreme intelligence, they are evidence that God exists. You could object to my argument either by contesting the existence of these unrealized effects, or by contesting that they're indicative of God's existence. You don't seem to have taken either route. Instead, you insist in your final remarks that our sensations, images and ideas are stored in our brains, not in some "mind world." And maybe this is the case with embodied minds. But, the aforementioned unrealized effects are not encoded in anyone's brain, at least in their totality. So, given that they exist in some sense - lest non-intelligent agents *fail* to be geared towards producing any particular effects - they must be in someone's mind, as ideas, thoughts, images or some sort of mental item. Therefore, even conceding your highly controversial remark about the nature of mental states, my argument seems unaffected. Thanks again for this exchange WaterTipper, it's a shame it was so short. | PRO | 8fbd807f-2019-04-18T16:28:05Z-00000-000 |
Which is a better basis for determining sentencing?\As a guide to the sentencing decisions of judg... Which is a better basis for determining sentencing? Retributivism advocates that more serious crimes should be punished more seriously, because the more severe the violation of our rules, the greater the censure that is needed. It means that if X, a pickpocket, would get punishment A, then Y, a robber who uses force and then rapes his victim should get a proportionately more severe punishment, punishment B. The idea is ‘proportionality’, not ‘equivalence’ – nobody is suggesting we should rob Y and then rape him to “pay him back”. It is thus very different from the idea of an “an eye for an eye”. What matters is merely that more serious crimes are treated proportionately more seriously. Punishment A may one month’s probation while B may be 10 years imprisonment. By contrast, under a rehabilitative model where the goal was the reformation of the offender, the pickpocket may well get 10 years imprisonment if he looks like he is not going to reform, while the robber-rapist may get one month’s probation if he is repentant – a result that is surely ridiculous. When it comes to deciding the quantum of punishment, proportionality (retributivism) is the only consistent and fair approach. | CON | f832e1ca-2019-04-19T12:44:41Z-00009-000 |
The Death Penalty Should be Abolished. The first point of yours I would like to address is what crimes should get the death penalty. I believe everyone has the right to live, But I also believe you can be stripped of that right if you take another person's life. Some crimes are so heinous and inherently wrong that they demand strict penalties The punishment should fit the crime. Second, If you take a very dangerous criminal's life, Then there is no possible way for them to commit more crimes. If they have a life sentence, There is still a chance that they could escape, Kill/rape another inmate, Or harm guards/anyone who works at the prison. Third, Regarding innocent men being executed, They should know that a unanimous jury of 12 citizens must render the death verdict after an exhaustive trial where the accused murderer is represented by two highly competent attorneys and overseen by an independent judge who ensures a fair trial. I do realize innocent people are going to get killed sometimes, But the changes of that happening are very slim, And the very small chance of executing the wrong person is balanced by the benefits to society of putting off other murderers. Even if you take away the death penalty, Innocent people will still get life sentences, Which you said is a worse punishment. In regard to "giving them a second chance", I think the likelihood of them being found innocent after the first rigorous trial is very slim to none. | CON | e03e810a-2019-04-18T11:15:46Z-00003-000 |
Parallel Universe. He had arrived unexpectedly, nearly two years ago. Where he came from was as unknown to the majority of the population, as was his purpose for coming, but the fact of the matter was that he was here now and he had a firm grip on the region. The police were at his command and the politicians that were still alive and out of prison were in his pocket. Upon his arrival, there was an aura of mystery about him. His skin was an odd color. He seemed to be of caucasian decent, but there was a very subtle, unnatural green hue that could only be seen under the proper lighting. He spoke English, but there was a slight hint of an accent that no local could link to any familiar origin. When he arrived with no luggage, no money, no vehicle and no possessions - aside from the clothes on his back (which seemed more like something from the 1970's than today's style) - all that the people had were questions about him. Now, nearly two years later, very few answers have been found and the only real difference is that the amount of questions had increased. How had he climbed the political ladder so rapidly? What were his ultimate goals, now that he had achieved so much power? All that the people really knew at this time is that he sought power, he obtained power and they likely had not seen the worst yet. | CON | d53c6d1-2019-04-18T15:49:56Z-00008-000 |
Use blank in a story. Challenge. There was once a small kingdom named Carthyass and there was the king and queen. They were scared of xenephobe because all the other kingdoms had good defense, but there prince just died so there was a lot of commotion of who will be the next prince. The king and queen knew that they could get attacked any time so waited. The day came. There was war. With no prince there was a lot of confusion. They had a high sense of xenophobe because all the other kingdoms loved to fight. The sat in a corner and waited an waited. Finally they heard the news. There kingdom Carthyass was getting stronger. Now the king and queen thought they had a small possibility to win. They tried all there best. They tried to stop the fear of Xenophobe.Three months later the war ended. They had huge victory. Now the kingdom were now all at peace. No other countries could stop them. The kingdom called Carthyass happily lived for ever and did not get in attack. Pro's word is kakorrhaphiophobia. | CON | e8998a14-2019-04-18T14:22:58Z-00003-000 |
Capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income. You do make a compelling point, which I think goes only to highlight that not all capital gains deserve to be treated equally. It also highlights how efficient our capital markets have become in allowing wealth to sustain wealth by simply investing it in the markets and putting your money to work passively. However, I'd much agree that direct investments (by small/medium business owners who are making decisions about hiring & firing workers, etc.) are arguably more important to society than passive investment decisions. As such, I would very much favor a reduced capital gains tax on small-business owners engaged in hiring new employees to grow their business. Perhaps for every new employee hired, busiesses are able to claim a deduction on their capital gains tax.However, I don't believe it is government's role to dtermine how much individuals "want to work". There wil always be some who value their time more than money, and others who are always hungrier for more. In absolute terms, individuals generally decide to either work or not, and if they are working, they're going to maximize their self-interest. If in the high-tax environment, the CEO decides that his time isn't worth the effort to open the new location, then there's probably another entrepreneur out there who is willing to put their time into it. In fact, the original CEO's passive investment may find its way toward funding the hungrier entrepreneur, who wants to translate their effort and time into increased outcomes. Finally, we should also keep in mind that there are obvious benefits to the higher tax environment, that come in the form of government spending. In the high tax environment, the government ends up with 20% more funds with which to educate & train the next round of entrepreneurs who are hungry & willing to go out and build businesses. As such, I rest my case that taxing capital gains as ordinary income would be best for the greater economic good. | PRO | e0e36c38-2019-04-18T13:31:30Z-00001-000 |
Animals Can be Consumed by Humans. Let me start by saying that I eat meat, So I'm not exactly the perfect person for this debate. That being said, I do believe that being a vegetarian is a good moral decision and that many of the things we do to animals are indeed "slaughter, Cruelty, And savagery. " When you say that eating meat is natural, I assume that you're thinking about killing a chicken or a dear in the wild. That is absolutely not what is really going on in developed countries. These animals are being born, Raised, And killed just to be eaten. Chickens are being raised in cages that aren't large enough for them to turn around. The first and only time they ever come out of that cage they are killed, Cooked, And eaten. Not to mention the hormones and drugs that the animals are injected with throughout their lives. So from my point of view, Eating animals isn't the issue, The way that they're treated while they're alive is. | CON | 36f32e8e-2019-04-18T11:15:38Z-00002-000 |
Ron Swanson is better than Leslie Knope. Leslie Knope is better than Ron Swanson because she is the actual backbone of the department. She does the work Ron Swanson doesn't do because he hates the government. Also Leslie has prevented Ron from making mistakes he would regret. , like getting back together with Tammy 1 and 2 multiple times. "He has closed many unnecessary recreational spaces during his tenure, including the Portola Skate Park, the Grice Dog Run, the Morris-Easton Observatory, the Mohanga Native American Heritage Center, and most public drinking fountains. " Leslie has made Pawnee more enjoyable and would have kept the Grice Dog Run open if it wasn't for Ron. Do you hate dogs? Is that why you support Ron in being able to take down Dog runs? Ron may be able to fight bears but Leslie Knope could befriend bears with her color coded binders. Source: . http://parksandrecreation.wikia.com... | CON | 2f716190-2019-04-18T13:44:34Z-00004-000 |
Society creates an image for teens to follow. It's no question that society creates an image for teenagers to follow everyday. When teens see an image of someone who look so "perfect" in a form of media, they want to be just like them. This causes tons of problems like anorexia, drug use, underage drinking, and even suicide. If society thinks it's okay to photo shop photos then they are way off because it makes teens overuse makeup and even have eating disorders due to the fact that they are not the definition of perfect. Then you see famous people getting drunk or even smoking weed and teens think it's automatically okay because the people that did these things are what seems to be not affected by their actions. Also, ecstasy has become very popular since singers sang songs about how cool it is but in reality it can kill you! These are many reasons that celebrities and media have impacted our lives and there are tons more, but I think you get my point. | CON | 64cb0ca-2019-04-18T16:59:58Z-00003-000 |
Wrong doings are created by good intentions. Alright, i'm sorry if i'm going to make this short, for i don't have enough time . Anyway, since it is clearly obvious that you're going to win this debate , so for that, I say thank you for participating in my debate, and you sir/mam is awesome. anyway, to end this debate, all I want to state is this : Every decision we make is often the result of our instinct. And since that the judgement of what is good and right is subjective and differs from other peoples view. In my point of view, most of our decisions are in good intentions, whether to provide for ourselves, our families or friends. there, to conclude my losing argument. Hope that we can do this again! Take Care my opponent! | PRO | 31e93dac-2019-04-18T16:29:40Z-00000-000 |
There are official french alternatives. The French often call the use of Franglais “Anglo snobberie” and those who use it as opposed to the standard version of their mother tongue “Anglo snobs”. This is why the organisation Defense de la langue française (DLF)[1] exists – to invent terminology that prevents the French language from embracing yet more Franglais. The movement supports the use of such words as un balladeur as opposed to un walkman. Défense de la langue française also regulates the quota of Francophone songs that must be played at peak listening hours on French radio stations. Public opinion must be taken into account; the French DO express opposition to the anglicising of their language and so the Défense de la langue française must be brought into effect, for this is the purpose it seeks to serve and it exists to solve these very problems. [1] Défense de la langue française, Home page | PRO | 6bc357db-2019-04-15T20:22:37Z-00017-000 |
Tradesmen and Laborers Are Subhuman. Tradesmen and Laborers are clearly normal humans. They eat the same food as everyone else. They enjoy the same television as everyone else. Many of the best things made in the world are handmade - by tradesmen. If there weren't people like the tradesmen and laborers, those who live at the "top of the food chain" wouldn't have all their wealth and power. They are all recognised by the United Nations, as well as all the western Nations of the world to be Homo Sapiens. Human Beings, fully fledged, and not at all a sub-race to the rest of us. They are the building blocks, the wide base, that allows the small population at the top to be there. Everyone has their worth. | CON | ba27e6fb-2019-04-18T14:23:13Z-00005-000 |
America should split into multiple countries. 1. New England-new England to Illinois 2. Dixie-GA and Tennessee over to Texas and OK 3. California- California, Hawaii, Alaska, NV, WA, OR, 4. Republic of the Midwest- Nebraska up to Minnesota, Over to NM and stops before Illinois BOP is on me My opponent starts the debate however they wish to Note: The split would be peaceful and it would be assumed that about 15% of people would move into a place that they fit better politically and socially. Political issues will be mentioned in detail but I would prefer this to be more of a debate about the societies of the new countries. Again, both will be mentioned. (Keep in mind I have limited the number of characters available to keep this debate shorter for the readers.) | PRO | 3f0ffb84-2019-04-18T17:34:41Z-00006-000 |
The Mandela effect is fake. The burden of proof is shared.The Mandela Effect is defined as "The Mandela effect is the observed phenomenon of people having clear memories of events that did not occur or misremembering significant events and facts.", gotten from this site: http://whatis.techtarget.com...I'll be talking about a few popular examples of the Mandela Effect in Round 2, as well as why I think it happens. | CON | 93442223-2019-04-18T12:01:20Z-00008-000 |
The historical reasons for which the state of Lesotho exists are no longer relevant in a post-apartheid South Africa. The Basotho people existed as a separate state for decades before colonization. There was a separate Basotho identity long before the instauration of the apartheid in SA. Their history and roots gives Lesotho an identity that is different from that of their only neighbors. That Lesotho never suffered under apartheid is in itself a big difference from South Africa where the legacy still looms large. Lesotho has taken measures to highlight their differences from South Africa; In 2013 Lesotho introduced national identification documents.[1] [1] Tefo, Tefo, ‘Lesotho finally introduces national ID’, Public Eye, 5 July 2013,http://publiceye.co.ls/?p=2932 | CON | bb4b4933-2019-04-15T20:24:42Z-00009-000 |
ROLE OF STATE. If a man wants to marry into a citizen of a MEDC he does find the spouse. However when there is one person willing to do this then there would be more "costumers" to this fraud. Rather than having many felons all over the country the criminal scope will be narrowed down to only a few, making it easier for the state to take action and lesser people forced into this. Thus, all the native problems will actually be decreased by the more suspicious felons. We believe that illegal polygamy will be of more damage to the children's and the mothers' mental development than legal one. With no legal registration under the law the women in polygamy are more vulnerable to abuse. Because there are no state law for these illegal wives and children, they are scared and ashamed of contacting lawful institutions when they are abused. Since polygamy is illegal they are under constant pressure of hiding their relationships with the men and therefore seize to make it public by contacting the police. For the children, when they are raised to hide their true identity and origins they build a psychological burden which is more capable of causing disturbed mental development rather than inequality of sexes. When the father sneaks to meet his second wife and the children born between them, the children are incapable of building a father figure, a male resemblance at all. These cause far more extreme problems than when divorce occurs. When a polygamous marriage takes place both parties have to go through the circumstances of any marriage. This marriage will have to approved by all the wives if a man wants have another wife (in the case of a polygyny). Thus, having been through broader and deeper consideration the marriage will be less likely to end up in a divorce. Also if the father dies the illegal wife and children are legally under no condition of receiving possessions. Therefore the state should make polygamy legal to improve the conditions of illegal wives and children. | CON | 68aebc6c-2019-04-19T12:45:09Z-00029-000 |
0,5=information=not real. 1=1=something= some+thing = real Information = perceived+reality = subjective = 0(zero) - objective So, I agree to Pro. Information = not real. Here is where I disagree. 0,5 is data, not information. http://www.diffen.com... Information is data with meaning, but this 0,5 has no unit or relevance to anything in the real world and thus is not actually information and it has no subjective reality beyond the data that is the number that it is. On top of that 0,5 is the European way of writing 0.5 and that's not even an integer so it's not even a relevant piece of data in the first place as data should be made to be an integer as much as possible. | CON | fecbb0d0-2019-04-18T14:16:29Z-00004-000 |
Life is useless without a religious purpose. The bop is on me? I didnt know that. But anyways, let's see what I have to proof. 1) life is useless. The conditions are that a person isn't religious. I think I did give an explanation of this theory. But I'll explain it a bit further. A person, doesn't believe in god. And we all know that religion tells a person to serve humanity and others and to believe in life after death. These all things make a person selfless and a person starts caring more about the society than his own self. Now considering this person doesn't have a religion. This person doesn't have any real motive to serve society. Or to believe in life after death. Thus, this person becomes selfish because according to him, he could die any moment. And he would be gone forever. Now, this makes him live this life to its extremes and many people might argue that he does so to serve society too and its not just for himself. That person lives for himself. If you ask him 'do you want to die today?' He is obviously going to say 'no'. Because he has to live more. He has more desires he has to fulfill. That's all for now. Thanks.. | PRO | 7cbb2720-2019-04-18T12:58:35Z-00001-000 |
Raising The Minimum Wage. Albeit a noble cause to champion the betterment of the lower class and fight for the right to higher income, I think there are some serious potential repercussions that could stem from arbitrarily raising the minimum wage or allowing it to adjust freely and based on the consumer price index or by some other impartial means of quantifying the current cost of living. For instance, If you raise the minimum wage in general or allow it to fluctuate based on expenses, Either way you would be creating some kind of interference with where the equilibrium lies in the job market. Why is that bad you may ask. . . Arbitrarily setting wages to high would create a surplus of labor as employers wouldn't be able to instantly adapt to the increased labor costs and stop hiring/layoff current workers deemed non-essential. Allowing the wage to fluctuate with the cost of living would most likely cause wages to shoot up in the long term leading to a similar effect only with a higher cost of living to go along with it. This is assuming that because wages would go up to match the new cost of living associated with various products and services, More money could now be spent on these items the next year creating a demand that would otherwise not be there. As a result the market would react and prices would go up causing wages to than react under this system and rise once more the following year, And so the cycle would continue either inflating the currency indefinitely, Or if wages became so high that employers were unwilling to pay them, You would then once more have a surplus in labor, As well as a surplus of overpriced goods that would now be in an economic free fall. People would be unemployed and unable to afford things, Then prices would fall out and businesses would shut their doors entirely. At least that"s my doomsday scenario. What do you think? Is my understanding of the economics at play here at all accurate? | CON | ffce53d3-2019-04-18T11:16:40Z-00004-000 |
Abortion should be illegal world wide. You say that abortion is killing a baby, but abortion is the termination of a fetus, not a baby. A fetus is simply a template which has yet to develop any form of emotion or sentience. I guarantee a chicken has more intelligence than a fetus, yet judging from your profile picture I bet you eat a lot of chicken. So how can you defend the existence of a template while eating the flesh of a butchered animal? I know chicken is tasty, but you can't speak about morals and "A right to live" when you're devouring flesh like a feral beast! If a woman can't look after this template properly then why should we wait until it develops sentience? It would be given the ability to feel, yet be bough into a world to feel only pain. That is truly barbaric and that is the evil you so wrongfully defend. To be pro-life you must be pro-suffering. People don't get abortions casually, they get them due to personal reasons that will alter their life. Maybe their dad raped them and couldn't pull out in time to jizz on their belly. To this I ask, who the f**k are you to tell any woman that she has to give birth? | PRO | 3e9ff172-2019-04-18T12:09:10Z-00004-000 |
When developing countries employ poor labour standards, other countries follow the example in order to be competitive. This is similar to the debate of imposing uniform carbon emission caps on all nations. This would be unfair as the developing world would be at a disadvantage as it takes away one of the ways in which poorer countries compete effectively in the global market; through having lower prices as a result of those lower standards. That is why keeping lower standards that are more easily met is better than having an unachievable and unfair standard. | CON | fae0ed1b-2019-04-15T20:24:11Z-00017-000 |
Tablets should replace textbooks. My opponent hasn't posted an argument, so I'll I'll throw down some quick additional points without too much formality. Hopefully my opponent will return for their next round. _____________ - Textbooks don't require batteries, a Wi-Fi connection, or special storage conditions other than 'not wet'. This makes them more durable in terms of use. People in remote areas without power or internet deserve the ability to learn and have access to information. - This characteristic also makes textbooks better for long-term storage. The rapidly escalating obsolescence of technology means that attempting to store data long-term requires regular upgrades and maintenance. In the case of servers, it is also expensive and requires cooling towers, full-time staff and infrastructure. Books don't have this problem. We have found books throughout history that haven't been cared for, and do not require firmware updates or attempts to backwards-build the technology used to make them in order to gain access. Although archives do typically use filtered air and have numbered shelves, this and the staff are pretty much the extent of the costs involved. - Provided they are secured in a bomb-proof shelter, books are invulnerable to attack; no technological/cyber warfare can shut them down. They can't be hacked. And if you give one to every person or airdrop them in, then they're untraceable. - Great for zombie apocalypses. - Smell delicious. | CON | 6bed47d3-2019-04-18T15:40:29Z-00001-000 |
Xenotransplantation. Chimpanzees and baboons non-human primates wern"t going to be of good use of transplanting their organs to human."..chimpanzees and baboons, were originally used as xenotransplant donors, but concerns about spread of infectious disease.." It would be of higher risk and pigs organs are similar to humans,less of a risk.""risk of infectious diseases is lower than in non-human primates.."Xenotransplantation is a good cause for humans and pigs.People already kill pigs for food what"s the the problem if we use them for saving someones life. | PRO | dfdecf17-2019-04-18T16:33:28Z-00003-000 |
Flame War Insults. So you're basically that if I want to, I can believe in anyone's intentions and people wont hate me for it. What if I said I like the KKK? You would probably bring that up, wouldn't you? You realize that Manga is made by everybody, not just Japanese people. That's pretty much stereotyping at it's finest. We shouldn't have brought in fandoms huh? That's a laugh, considering YOU"RE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT THEM IN IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! Implying that every person in a fandom is a 40 year old brony is also stereotyping Here's my picture of my opponent: He is a superiority complex-minded, virgin d*uchebag who likes nothing more than to antagonize on sight with everybody who doesn't share his hot passion for dead Russian leaders. As you silently make love to a Stalin cardboard cutout with a cat as a face, trying not to get caught(as he lives in his mother's basement), you ponder where life could have been if you haven't been so stereotypical about your old Japanese boss, who fired you after you asked what Manga he was thinking of making. GET DUNKED ON! | PRO | 22517d77-2019-04-18T13:42:18Z-00000-000 |
My Opponent Will Lose This Debate. -- In this debate, the cards will be stacked against Con. If Con accepts, it means that he also accepts the rules by default; no contesting a rule after accepting the debate --Rule 1: If a rule is broken (directly or indirectly), then an automatic 7 point forfeit results for whoever broke the rule, assuming that rule applies to them.Rule 2: Rules with a * directly beside them only apply to my opponent*Rule 3: First round is just for acceptance*Rule 4: In every round, every other letter must be a capital letter, with the remaining letters being lower case letters, starting with a lower case letter (For example, "aBcDeF..." but obviously they don't have to be in alphabetical order). This rule must be applied to each line individually, and my opponent can chose as many lines as he choses.Rule 5: No contesting a rule after the debate has been acceptedHave fun, it should be entertaining ha | PRO | 3d3a3144-2019-04-18T16:29:55Z-00007-000 |
"Pinning the homosexuals" is a terrible idea. Full Resolution: Penning the homosexuals as suggested by my opponent is a terrible idea. First, let us clear this up. My opponent has made an outrageous post in the forums suggesting that we should "Pin the gays" from society so that they eventually die out. Here is the forum post he made so you can see what he is suggesting: http://www.debate.org... My opponent has suggested to: "Build a great, big, large fence — 150 or 100 mile long — put all the lesbians in there. Do the same thing for the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified so they can't get out…and you know what, in a few years, they'll die out…do you know why? They can't reproduce!" In order for me to win this debate, I have to show that: 1. True Christians as defined by the Bible would not support this. 2. This entire idea would not work. | PRO | 7e83d36f-2019-04-18T18:11:45Z-00008-000 |
Barbie is a Feminist Icon Take 2. Yeah, I collect dolls. I love them. I don't know why. I just do. Okay, I'm going to rebut. I doubt that's a word but I oh well. 1. Okay, I see what saying. Yes, looking at Barbie a little girl might get the idea that she's suppose to look like Barbie. But if you say that, what about the toys made for boys? Most action figures are made to be muscular and handsome. How come that doesn't harm boys? Honestly, I think Barbie doesn't effect a girl's perception of beauty as much as we think. If anything, the media is worse. The media is constantly telling us what to buy and what to wear. Barbie only says be yourself. 2. I see what you're saying but it seems to be that you think being a housewife or an air hostess isn't empowering. Yeah, they're not the most exciting jobs but if a person loves to do it, then it empowers them. The good thing about Barbie is shows girls that they can be adventurous or not and still enjoy their job. 3. Kids are a lot smarter than we think Jimmy. They realize things. They learn by watching people as well as playing. I've been around kids (I'm studying to be a pre-school teacher) and kids pick up on emotions. An example: I once burned my hand and one of the boys I was watching came over to kiss my boo-boo. He wanted me to feel better, he felt empathy. Kids learn a lot in the first few years and they continue to learn as they go on. The concept of love shouldn't be to hard for them to grasp. As for the movies....I kinda agree with you on that. They kinda are one-sided. However, Barbie now stars in a web series called Life in the Dreamhouse. Not only does she show how kind she is but she also builds herself a car, rides a plane and even built a car for Ken. It's done a great job showing girls how you can be girly and strong too! Your turn Jimmy! | PRO | 477e9307-2019-04-18T17:00:28Z-00004-000 |
Gay Marrige Should Stay Legal in America. Gay marriage should not be stay legalized in America. Marriage is to make a family, not for pleasure, and homosexuality is unnatural and immoral. The most obvious reason is that marriage is for procreation, and gay couples obviously cannot reproduce. Children also need both a father and mother. With girls who are raised without a father, according to "Not Yet Equal: The Health of Lesbian, Gay, & Bisexual Youth", teen pregnancy rates are nearly quadrupled, and children raised without a mother do not have the emotional support and security mothers provide. An 1859 Supreme Court ruling stated, "the first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation." Court papers in 2014 also stated, "the State regulates marriage for the primary purpose of channeling potentially procreative sexual relationships into enduring unions for the sake of joining children to both their mother and their father... Same-sex couples can never provide a child with both her biological mother and her biological father." Children with heterosexual parents are proven to do better in life and the argument for children is all for banning gay marriage. Similar to marriage being for procreation, homosexuality is completely unnatural and immoral. The only reason someone would be gay is for their own pleasure. Like the previous paragraph, that is not what marriage is for. Being gay is unnatural because gay is a choice, and we are all naturally born straight. | CON | f0895122-2019-04-18T13:24:11Z-00004-000 |
Conservatism and Libertarianism. Resolved: Conservatism and Libertarianism are ideological allies. I am Affirming. The burden of proof is shared, my opponent needs to show that on balance, the goals of Libertarianism and Conservatism are too far apart to be treated as actual allies. What exactly defines a Libertarian and Conservative will be a point of contention between my opponent and myself, but my opponent acknowledges upon accepting that the definitions need to be within reason. For clarification I will be defending Hoppes thesis that statist conservatism is essentially self defeating. Citing one's sources outside of the debate is permissible. | PRO | 21398290-2019-04-18T18:04:01Z-00004-000 |
The Sikhist God is the christian god. No, it Cleary says "you are the light", as in God, God is the light of the world, but even if it was referring internal light, th is would not be wrong, because the bible refers to us as smaller lights. I also found a good Sikhism scripture: "It is a woman who keeps the race going; we should not consider women cursed and condemned, from women are born leaders and rulers." - Guru Nanak, Founder of Sikhism Maybe the chauvinistic pig Christians should go learn a thing or two from the Sikhists, | PRO | 4696a1d2-2019-04-18T13:56:09Z-00007-000 |
Persuasion is more effective than coercion. Forcing people into voting when they are disengaged from the politic process will exacerbate this problem; no one likes doing something simply because they have to. Election results may be skewed, particularly in marginal seats, by voters who vote at random because they still don't bother to find out about the candidates, parties and policies involved. Rather than forcing people to vote, more should be done to engage the public in political life. Westminster is a distant body, detached from real life, and should be made more relevant and more deserving of the public's trust, for example by releasing full details of MPs' expenses. Citizenship classes should teach the importance of the electoral process, and the history of the suffragette movement, the reform bills of the 19th century and the responsibilities of living in a democracy. | PRO | 13fc3acf-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00027-000 |
god exists. I accept.It seems that I did indeed win the last debate, but mostly because my opponent was a troll. For what it's worth to the readers, I would be very eager to try that debate again with someone else on another occasion.In this debate, however, I do not believe that I will be arguing with metaphysics or epistemology so much as I will be arguing from the standpoint of rhetoric. My primary claim is that anecdotal evidence is insufficient for effectively arguing any kind of point. I will also argue for the distinct difference between beliefs that fulfill the pragmatic concerns and those that fulfill doxastic concerns, and explain why doxastic concerns are the only ones worth debating over.In this game of chess, I declare myself the black player, and pro can make the first move.Cheers! And may the best debater win. | CON | 1eb875bf-2019-04-18T17:56:18Z-00004-000 |
Neo-Nazis and Fascists Are In Control of Ukraine's Government. Right then. You might or might not be aware of the far-right political party "Svoboda" which has several members in high-ranking positions in Ukraine's parliament presently. Oleh Tyahnebok, its leader, co-signed a letter to President Yuschenko in early 2005. He wanted the president to investigate "criminal activities of organized Jewry in Ukraine." He also has made comments such as the one in his speech at the Carpathian Mountains in 2004: "You are the ones that the Moscow- Jewish mafia ruling Ukraine fears the most" (referring to the Ukrainian people watching on television) It is noteworthy that this man was giving the speech in recognition of members of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, or UPA, which committed crimes such as the murder of over a million Jews in western Ukraine. "They were not afraid and we should not be afraid. They took their automatic guns on their necks and went into the woods, and fought against the Muscovites, Germans, Jews and other scum who wanted to take away our Ukrainian state." So said Svoboda's leader about Hitler's Ukrainian agents. Of course, he neglected to tell them about the UPA's collaboration with Hitler. Or who knows, could have slipped his mind... No. He knew very well he was leaving that part out of his speech. It is Noteworthy that Svoboda was also once known as the "Social-National Party of Ukraine", with a modified Wolfsangel rune as its symbol. Members in Parliament: Deputy Prime Minister (resigned recently) Environment Minister Minister of Agriculture Sure, that may not seem like much, but these people spearheaded the protests with pictures of Stepan Bandera, head of the organization that controlled the UPA, firebombs, and T-shirts that said things like "Beat the Kikes" and "Svoboda". Also, on May 9, Russian Victory Day (over Nazi Germany), Arseniy Yatsenyuk, acting Prime Minister, made the comment "Let us honor the brave soldiers of the UPA who died this day". Arseniy Yatsenyuk is not a member of Svoboda but is Ukrainian nationalist and did support the protests. Andriy Parubiy, head of the Ukrainian National Security Council, gave the title "Hero of Ukraine" to Stepan Bandera. This man is also conducting the "antiterrorist" operations in East Ukraine presently. Many of the protesters were inducted into the Ukrainian National Guard by this man following the revolution. Oleh Tyahnebok supports Yatsenyuk. The "Right Sector", an organization similar to Svoboda, also had a major part in the protests. So, explain to me, are they not Neo-Nazis? | PRO | aa5f3a01-2019-04-18T16:10:48Z-00002-000 |
Sub-state dissident groups in repressive regimes are able to use the internet in their attempts to d... The internet frequently works against democracy in the hands of sub-state groups. The internet is the primary medium of coordination for Jihadist groups looking to undermine the few Middle-Eastern states which are in the process of transition to democracy. In April 2007, groups of hackers (allegedly backed by the Russian government) attacked the websites of key politicians, ministries and utilities in Estonia in retaliation for the removal of a Soviet war memorial. The internet has even been used in an attempt to directly influence the outcome of an election through disruptive tactics when in the 2006 Belarusian elections, the websites of the main opposition candidates went offline in the run-up to the election as the result of persistent DDOS attacks. Often what democracy needs to develop is a stable base for elections and the internet is routinely used to disrupt the development of such a base. | CON | cdb43589-2019-04-19T12:47:41Z-00004-000 |
Education is about teaching culture, the arts, and creativity. We must be realistic in education; we need to prepare our students for the difficulties of the real world. It is those subjects that are vocational in nature and/ or life skills, home language (not literature), mathematics, science, modern languages, business studies and law that must take priority in schools. We must equip and train the new generation to successfully gain employment. Therefore, artistic subjects like poetry do not take priority. | CON | 7285d901-2019-04-15T20:24:28Z-00017-000 |
Discussion with A Religious Man. Con has no question. wasted this round wwithout evidence, throwing once again opinions as Facts. Sigh!Con himself is guilty of ALL the listed actions of the FLesh as are all of the readers ... yet insists there IS MORALITY?I am not here to listen to lies, imaginings and whinin! I offer you truth only! Not like Con opinion!Example can I prove that YOU ... ALL of you SIN? What have you hit your head? You already know you have taken something not yours, had sex out of wedlock, lied to get out of trouble, cheated on your taxes. My truthfulness is "NOT" in question!There IS NO MORALITY within the Human Race, never has been. A simple LOOK at your Government tells you that. If your Blind , that isn't MY FAULT.Like the fool Con resorts to MAN's truth which are imaginings guesses and lies. I present Gods Word ... Con presents Man's , Like I said at the beginning, ONLY Gods TRUTH IS truth.Believe, don't believe ... not MY Concern. Your decision your consequence!As there ARE no questions just whinings on this round. I leave the whiner to himself and his tantrum. | PRO | 87360e22-2019-04-18T11:40:51Z-00005-000 |
InVitro Fertilization. The main point of their argument is to adopt rather than to go through InVitro Fertilization. However, people who go through InVitro don't only undergo the procedure for a child, but for the experience of pregnancy itself. Having a child of your own versus adoption both are options for people who want children in general, however, InVitro accommodates those who are seeking the connection of pregnancy as well. Also, you say "People who adopt not only are having children without a costly procedure…" however adoption is more expensive than InVitro fertilization. InVitro costs anywhere between $12,000-$17,000 whereas adoption "can range from $5,000 to $40,000 or more depending on a variety of factors including services provided, travel expenses, birthmother expenses, requirements in the state, and other factors" according to Adoption.com. There are many more costly factors resulting in a procedure most likely to be more expensive. You also claim that InVitro takes "excessive amounts of money and time on a procedure" and "that with adoption, the woman would receive the immediate satisfaction". However, adoption costs more and can take up to an average of 9 months for the adoption process to be complete according to actionadoption.org. Therefore there is no "immediate satisfaction". | PRO | 2679d250-2019-04-18T18:57:03Z-00001-000 |
Anthropogenic Climate Change Exists. This discussion is about Climate Change Anomalies from the years 1900 to 2200 (see comments section), and whether they are anthropogenic. Anomalies are deviations from "schedule" weather cycles, and can include both hot and cold extremes, making "global warming" only half of this discussion. So, right off the bat, temperature anomalies began rising just after the year 1900 [1]. . http://climate.nasa.gov...; />As shown in the following chart [2], this corresponds closely with a recent rise in CO2 emissions. This chart shows that CO2 levels have always travelled in cycles, but broke their most recent scheduled downward cycle to reach their highest level in over 400,000 years. In a sense, one might say nature did half the work on CO2 and the human race took it from there. . http://climate.nasa.gov...; />Correllation is obviously not causation, but the mechanics that link CO2 to temperature have been well documented. Atmospheric Greenhouse Effects: A Review [3]CO2 does not deflect visible light, which is what originally makes it to the earth's surface. Upon reaching the earth's surface, visible light is partially absorbed by the earth or water, and partially reflected. The reflection process lowers its energy level, turning it into infrared light. CO2 deflects infrared light. So CO2's reflective properties for the earth are one-directional. Visible light pass downward unperturbed, but upward infrared is deflected downwards / sideways. This effectually increases the amount of light striking the surface of the planet, which at current greenhouse levels protects life from the freezing cold of space, and at future levels threatens to roast life - not to death, but to ecological disequilibrium. . http://climate.nasa.gov...; />Oceanic Greenhouse Effects: A ReviewThe oceans currently absorb atmospheric CO2 and are undergoing a resulting drop in pH. They are also currently absorbing most of the extra heat from the sun, and therefore are experiencing a rise in temperature. Once they heat to a certain point, the oceans are expected to start releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere, which may include massive reserves that have been down there for millions of years. However, before the oceans can truly begin warming, the ice caps have to melt. . http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu...; />And as we can see here [4], though the ice caps have shown about a half-century lag behind the thinner, more responsive atmosphere, they are roughly 1 million square kilometers smaller than they ought to be, as of 2014. It appears that climate anomalies are closely associated with CO2 levels, that CO2 levels are primarily anthropogenic and will continue to be so until the next 'natural' CO2 spike roughly one hundred thousand years from now (chart 1), and that the greenhouse mechanisms behind all this are straightforward and established. 1. . http://climate.nasa.gov...2. . http://climate.nasa.gov... 3. . http://climate.nasa.gov...4. . http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu... | PRO | de92ac8b-2019-04-18T15:55:20Z-00007-000 |
Gun Rights. I will start by countering what all pro-gun rights people say: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people. " I understand that it takes a person to pull the trigger, But where are we if there is no trigger to be pulled? Yes, There are ways to kill besides guns, But without them the task would be a lot harder. Of course, Many will say that criminals will get there hands on guns, Just as they do other illegal things. However, I'm not suggesting that taking away guns will fix the problem, I'm just saying that it will help. It seems like a tough case to say that more people would be murdered without guns than with. Keep in mind that firearms are made for one purpose: to kill and injure. | CON | dfe5255c-2019-04-18T11:19:45Z-00004-000 |
Gandhigiri is relevant in today's world. Gandhigiri is relevant today. I would like to oppose the motion. Let us start by stating the example of India and Pakistan. As you can well observe, there are terrorist attacks, bombarding, bloodsheds, and none of the countries living in harmony. Is this what Gandhi wanted? He has given us such ideologies to work upon, shouldn"t we respect his thoughts and views. No one can deny the fact that we have failed to follow the footsteps of Mahatma Gandhi. I would like to ask you, are we putting Gandhiji"s philosophies to good use? Mahatma Gandhi was a selfless leader for whom the problems of his country were at the forefront. His uniqueness did not lie in the fact that he was extraordinary, but in his being extraordinarily ordinary and this simplicity of his was reflected by his ideas. In today"s developing world, the individuality and personality is disappearing. With such a state of affairs, no one can become an influential leader like Gandhiji. The only solution to today"s emerging problems like corruption, violence, terrorism and black money is Satyagrah, which should be imbibed in the country. We need to learn that Gandhiji"s methods of resolution can solve major world issues without the need of revenge and war. I would therefore like to conclude by saying that I do not find enough proof of Gandhigiri in the world to say that "Gandhigiri is relevant today". Passing on to PRO" ATB! | CON | b793a50f-2019-04-18T15:44:24Z-00001-000 |
Have Brazil, Russia, India, and China had a positive effect on the United States. Look, you're little tidbit about the 'lead poisoning'. Seriously, there have only been three or four reported cases where that lead actually hurt anyone, and the problem has been dealt with the best way the American public knows how. A big media scandal, investors taking out their shares, the company losing money, and fixing the problem. Also, you can't help the people of a country without helping the government, unless you're proposing the U.N. start setting up food aid. Clearly, you don't understand world economics. In world economics, the easiest, fastest way to get money from one country to another is business to business, government to government. The people can't be directly helped. Besides, you need businesses to make jobs. When businesses get money, they don't cut jobs. They cut jobs when they lose money. If a business in America doesn't get money, it doesn't have any to pay to its workers, so it cuts jobs. If it gets more money, it expands, and creates more jobs. And it's not like China is the primary one to blame for our unemployment. Our unemployment is due to a bad economy and poor government handling of that bad economy. All China did was take some of the jobs people here didn't want to do. In order for American businesses to even compete in a global economy, they have to outsource jobs so they can expand. If businesses go down, even more jobs are lost. Therefore, we should at least keep most of the jobs and have a few people out of a job for a couple of months, rather than blaming China and losing even more. And about the militaries. When Russia invaded Georgia, the entire world yelled at us to do something. Not the U.N., us. Every time something goes sour, we are always expected to deal with the problem. Somalia, Panama, Kosovo, the list goes on. If more and more countries started taking a more active role, like the BRIC countries are starting to, the burden would be less on our Army, so we would have more money in our own pockets. In the end, BRIC is not the enemy, or the friend. Relationships between countries are much more complicated than that. Maybe in the future they might turn on us. But the topic of the debate is if they HAVE HAD a positive impact, and so far, they have. | PRO | 778d4a2c-2019-04-18T19:31:36Z-00003-000 |
We should devote all of earths resources to space exploration. While it does require food for the Astronauts, there is no way you can claim that regular people would be fed by the space program. I would like to remind you of your own resolution, not mine, "We should devote all of earths resources to space exploration". How do you plan to have it "aid in the future exploitation of resources found" if all of our resources have already been spent on exploration? I am going to remind both you and the voters that you have the BoP and also, according to your resolution, ALL of earth's resources should be devoted to space exploration. Even supposing that we should focus some of our resources on space exploration, it is absurd to say that we should devote all of them or there will be no resources left, and earth will be nothing but an empty shell of starving people and collapsing governments. You say "The resources of people,food and water are included in the resources needed for the space program". Yeah, I know. According to your resolution, EVERY resource is going to be devoted to space exploration, apparently even ones that are not needed for space exploration. This is unreasonable. | CON | b85c4c09-2019-04-18T15:29:45Z-00002-000 |
Devolution has demonstrated the ability of Scots to govern themselves not only as well as Westminster but with more civility. It may well be the case that the model of politics at Westminster needs to be reviewed but that does not speak to the issue of independence. Furthermore, it is interesting how many of the parties’ ‘big beasts’ (influential) chose to stay at Westminster – including Alex Salmond for a term. Equally, in the light of the credit crunch, it is questionable as to whether constantly giving away populist freebies such as free eye-tests[i] when the parliament is not responsible for raising the taxes to pay for it hardly represents good politics. Furthermore, in its brief life, there has been no shortage of political scandal at Holyrood, including the resignation of one First Minister in disgrace over an expenses scandal. [i] BBC News, ‘Scotland brings in free eye tests’, 31 March 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4865828.stm | CON | 33b03517-2019-04-15T20:22:32Z-00008-000 |
Higher taxes discourage hard work. "America’s producers can compete successfully in the international arena – as long as they have a level playing field. Today’s tax code is tilted against them, with one of the highest corporate tax rates of all developed countries. That not only hurts American investors, managers, and the U.S. balance of trade; it also sends American jobs overseas. We support a major reduction in the corporate tax rate so that American companies stay competitive with their foreign counterparts and American jobs can remain in this country." | PRO | 70ffe88-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00119-000 |
The M1 Garand was superior to any other rifle in service during WWII. General George S. Patton, Jr. was quoted as saying "In my opinion, the M-1 Rifle is the greatest battle implement ever devised."[1] Whether or not the United States Rifle, Caliber .30, M1, hereafter referred to as the "M1 Garand" or "Garand", was the best battle implement ever devised is a bit of a stretch. However, the M1 Garand can easily be considered the best rifle to have been in service during World War II. --- Some ground-rules: - For rebuttal, my opponent may compare the M1 Garand to one or multiple rifles in service during World War 2. The rifle(s) may be from any country and in any caliber. - "Superior" in this case should be defined by two characteristics: 1. Most effective as a battle implement. 2. Able to be used in the widest variety of combat situations. - Neither myself nor my opponent may vote for ourselves in this debate. --- To initially cover off on the basic specifications of the rifle [2]: Weight: appx. 9.5-10.5 lb Length: 43 in Muzzle Velocity: 2,750-2,800 fps Maximum Effective Range: 500 yd Max. Effective Rate of Fire: 16-24 aimed rounds per minute Cartridges per Clip: 8 Type of Round: .30 caliber Sights: Aperture Sight (M1), Scope/Telescope(M1C, M1D) The benefit of the M1 Garand over its predecessor, the bolt-action Model 1903 Springfield, is that the Garand is a semi-automatic rifle. This semi-automatic operation gave the American infantry a significant advantage in firepower and shot-for-shot recovery time over enemy infantry (German, Italian and Japanese) who were typically still using bolt-action rifles. [3] The rifle's 30.06 round provided the operator with a significant advantage in firepower. In closer combat, the penetration of the powerful round often allowed a soldier to kill up to three enemy combatants with one shot. [4] Not only useful for lining up a shot, the Garand's front sight can also be used as a very accurate range finder, particularly when firing at a man-sized target. Additionally, if the operator knows their "come-ups", the rifle can be quickly adjusted for firing accurately at anywhere from 25-500 yd.[5] I look forward to my opponent's initial rebuttal. ------------------- References: [1] Duff, Scott, The M1 Garand, World War II, p. 107. Facsimile of a letter from LTG G.S. Patton, Jr; Cdr, 3rd Army; to MG Levin Campbell, Jr.; Chief of Ordnance, War Department. Written 26 Jan 1945. [2] "U.S. Department of the Army Technical Manual No. 9-1005-222-12" [3] Rottman, Gordon L. (2006). U.S. Marine Rifleman 1939-45: Pacific Theater. Osprey Publishing. pp. 27–28. ISBN 1-84176-972-X. [4] George, John (Lt. Col.). (1948). Shots Fired In Anger. The Samworth Press. ISBN 0-935998-42-X. [5] http://becomingriflemen.wordpress.com... | PRO | d92f8858-2019-04-18T18:13:17Z-00005-000 |
Resolved: The united States government allowing mentally ill defentants to have a lesser sentance. I. Inherency Insane Asylums were closed, causing an uncountable number of mentally ill persons to be released onto the streets. These persons were not given proper care needed for there illness and many became jobless. The joblessness of said Ill persons caused homelessness and insufficant funds for treatment. States set up programs for the ill persons to receive funds, yet the funds were insufficant to handle the growing problem and resources became stretched. Those not already diagnosed as Ill had to deal with not only the illness that they already had, but a growing stigma. Some, but not al. Of these ill persons were violent and the levels of violence were varied. Some ill persons were seriously violent, while others weren't violent at all. Plan: Plan plank 1: the united states government will santion a federal policy allowing mentally ill individuals to serve a reduced prison sentence in return for the ill individual serving the remainar of their sentence, as recommended by the pre-sentencing investigation report, in a psychiatric hospital, choose by the judicalial court that the case falls under. Attending phsycian of the committed ill person may not, under any release the ill person until date specified Plan plank 2: this plan will take full effect by the year 2015 Plan Plank 3: this plan will be funded by a luxiory tax Plan Plank 4: physicians violating said law is subject to a suspension of license. If the released ill person commits a crime while illegally released, the attending physician will face charges of negligence, and, if the victim dies, manslaughter. II. Solvence: Ill persons who commit crimes are subjected to the same sentences as healthy individuals. Ill individuals can go into psychotic episodes where they are trapped Inbetween two worlds, theirs and ours. Their perceptions are severely altered. These perceptions can be anything including what is right vs. What is wrong. In the instance of The State of Iowa V. Mark Daryl Becker. Becker suffered from paranoud schizophrenia. He truly believe that his former football coach was raping him and turning children into 'fish and animals and dead people.' Becker knew that killing people was wrong, but he felt he had to kill Ed Thomas in order to save the children. He Perceived that killing Ed Thomas was OK, but he was still found guilty to life without parole. III. Significance Ill persons cause a threat to jail personal. Putting these persons in a residential treatment facility will allow them the opportunity to become better and enter socioty ready to be productive. To date the percentage if I'll prisoners nationthey will, eventually be released. wide is 16% . A number of the individuals are locked up for nonviolent crimes or violent crimes that have small sentences. These persons will be released in time, releasing them has potential to be more costly than enacting the proposed plan. | PRO | 2e8a5e99-2019-04-18T18:15:27Z-00004-000 |
Wikipedia enables the presentation of arguments in a neutral context. Responding to concerns that "Wikipedia will end up like Usenet (newsgroups) — just a bunch of flame wars." This problem is a bit larger, but it is dealt with fairly handily by the Wikipedia's social mores, known as Wikiquette. Arguments on article pages are moved either to a corresponding talk page (e.g., Talk:Theory of relativity) or to a new article page presenting the arguments within a neutral context (e.g., operating system advocacy). | PRO | f8b36ff0-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00079-000 |
Ron Paul running as a third party candidate will hurt Republicans like Ross Perot did in 92. You didnt address the point about having to work WITHIN the system that we have now in order to effect actual changes rather than having your opinion, and laong with a few thousand others , throwing away a protest vote, and then going back to being ineffective from your narrow minded and self-righteous perspective, the parties are the same This could not be further from the truth But now I change tact It could be argued that there will be more liberals and democrats that would vote for Paul if he runs 3rd party and as far as your points go is everybody EXCEPT Ron Paul corrupt ? Is HE ALONE , like JESUS H CHRIST, the ONLY one who is pure as the wind driven snow? I dont supppose I really understand your fervor for this average man which good but not that unusual ideas? and do you really think Paul will get millions of votes as a 3rd party? This should be a fun year to watch cheers | PRO | 88b16c1b-2019-04-18T19:59:55Z-00001-000 |
Anarcho-Capitalism does not equal Anarchism. Just to clarify, this debate deals more than with simply the loose definition of Anarchism, but what it means as a philosophy and how I believe that the Capitalist system contradicts with the philosophy of AnarchismI will explain in the second round why I don't think Anarcho-Capitalism qualifies as Anarchism based on my definitions and the definitions of the first Anarchists Con will argue that Anarcho-Capitalism is in fact Anarchism and how it does not contradict with the philosophy of Anarchism | PRO | 5a03c472-2019-04-18T17:25:26Z-00007-000 |
Batman is better than Mojo. Yes they will. They will put him down to our level. But look at his powers, i.e., aging humans, and destroying plants. Maybe destroying's not the right word. How about wither? Mantis and Wasp are out of the battle between the Avengers, due to that ability. But now look at the famous ones he can literally crush, Iron Man, Hulk, Black Widow (already gone), Captain America, and Spiderman. Iron Man is gone due to his weapons and leg-guns. Hulk is gone due to his power of natural disasters, etc. Say | CON | 2c56710d-2019-04-18T16:49:03Z-00000-000 |
"Global Warming" is a lie spread by eco-terrorists. So called "global warming" is a lie spread by eco-terrorists. The periodic cooling and heating of the planet is a well-known phenomenon that has existed since the beginning of the our planet. The current crisis has been spread by eco-terrorists like the ELF for the purposes of trying to scare people into giving up as much technology as possible and returning to a more primitive life-style. Carbon does indeed build up in the atmosphere, but as mentioned before this is a natural cycle of the Earth. We are simply living in a period of increased warmth and eco-terrorists are using this to build hysteria. | PRO | ed4d7d2f-2019-04-18T19:22:03Z-00006-000 |
Not censoring its search results is a victory for human rights. Not censoring doesn’t advance human rights in China at all Human rights in China are violated on a daily basis. For example, the incidence of people ‘disappearing’ for no apparent reason has been on the rise.[1] These human rights violations won’t suddenly end if Google were to stop censoring its results. What’s more likely to happen, when Google stops censoring results at google.cn, is that Google.cn will get shut down within days – thus, leaving Chinese citizens with no good way at all to access information, since google.com is on the other side of The Great Firewall and Baidu is a Chinese company fully compliant with the government’s wishes. By staying, Google can at least broaden the access to information the Chinese citizens have, something Google itself had acknowledged in 2006 when entering the Chinese mainland.[2] [1] Human Rights Watch, ‘China: Enforced Disappearances a Growing Threat’, November 9, 2011. URL: http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/11/09/china-enforced-disappearances-growing-threat [2] Karen Wickre, ‘Testimony: The Internet in China’, February 15, 2006. URL: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/testimony-internet-in-china.html | CON | 848fb48-2019-04-15T20:24:19Z-00006-000 |
Children should be allowed to watch TV during a school week. Like always, Devil's Advocacy should be fun. :) Good luck to both of us! By school week we'll be assuming monday to friday for the sake of this debate. First off, my opponent makes a point about censorship. While many parents may be cautious about what their children watch on T. V this isn't always the case. Often times you'll see 10 year old watching shows such as "South Park" and "Family Guy" that are meant for an older audience. These shows address mature themes such as sex and drugs. People are often influenced by what they see in the media. Children are especially vulnerable. If they see something on T. V that seems "cool" such as smoking they'll be more inclined to try it. Another concern is body image. This can often be a problem among youth, teenage girls in particular. If they see a super skinny girl on T. V they may be inclined to eat less and eventually turn to anorexia. Children often come to believe T. V is an accurate representation of how society should be. . http://education.stateuniversity.com... Secondly, my opponent argues that time can be set aside for watching T. V. However, a few important factors are left out. One is scheduled show times. What if the shows the child wants to watch are not playing during the times set aside for T. V? Also, what if those shows are longer than the time slot set aside? Wouldn't it be better to not introduce these shows to children at all? They'll become accustomed to watching them and will want to continue as each new episode often ends in cliffhangers. This can be distracting from other things, just wanting to know how the show ends. While my opponent mentions that certain shows can be educational so can books. Some companies, for example, publish educational books that can be fun and interactive for a child(. http://www.kindbook.com...). These books can be often more entertaining than sitting in front of a screen, plus the children won't get getting influenced by corporate advertising and sucked into buying various things they probably don't need that'll help them save money as they get older. . http://www.newdream.org... Lastly, my opponent argues that T. V itself isn't harmful. However, watching too much of it can be. As mentioned earlier, due to cliffhangers and such to suck the audience into a show people can often get addicted to watching certain shows on T. V. This can lead to lack of exercise which in the long term can lead to obesity which 12% of Canadian children aged 2 to 17 suffer from(. http://www.statcan.gc.ca...). It can also lead to further difficulties such as lack of socialization with other children. I look forward to my opponents refutations. Now onto him. .. | CON | dba226e9-2019-04-18T19:07:18Z-00002-000 |
The Earth is expanding. I just read the Ether and the Theory of Relativity, And I have to give ground here. I accept that the aether is not completely fictitious. But what Einstein describes is not a single particle that makes up the entire universe because of how it spins one way or the other. I can't accept your color argument. You said "This is because the universe only has 3 options to chose from which are left spin, Right spin and no spin states. Thus, The human brain uses these and codes them as red, Blue and green which are the primary colors. " If every particle in the universe has one color, Determined by their spin, Then why can two things made of different materials be the exact same color? I think we are reaching a point where we disagree on such a fundamental level where we cannot convince the other of our standpoint. You say "The science world has ignored the existence of the aether. " and this is where I cannot continue the debate. The "science world" as you say, Is right. Why would they ignore something that is so important to the functioning of our universe? There's no motive. It wouldn't make sense for them to ignore something apparently so easy to test for you can use a relatively simple device like the one in the article you cited "http://etheric. Com/grusenick-experiment-proves-existence-ether/". If aether was all the things you said it was, The "science world" wouldn't ignore it like you claim. I will not resign, Because you haven't even started convinced me, But I don't think I'm going to be able to convince you. | CON | 601acc39-2019-04-18T11:14:50Z-00001-000 |
Article 98 agreements help protect US citizens from ICC. John R. Bolton. "The United States and the International Criminal Court". Remarks to the Federalist Society. 14 Nov. 2002 - "As the ICC comes into being, we will address our concerns about the ICC’s jurisdictional claims using the remedy laid out for us by the Rome Statute itself and the UN Security Council in the case of the peacekeeping force in the former Yugoslavia. Using Article 98 of the Rome Statute as a basis, we are negotiating bilateral, legally-binding agreements with individual States Parties to protect our citizens from being handed over to the Court. Since the European Union’s decision in September to permit its member states to conclude Article 98 agreements with the United States, our negotiators have been engaged in bilateral discussions with several EU countries. In the near future we will also be holding discussions on the issue with several countries in the Middle East and South Asia. Our ultimate goal is to conclude Article 98 agreements with every country in the world, regardless of whether they have signed or ratified the ICC, regardless of whether they intend to in the future. These agreements will allow us the necessary protections in a manner that is legally permissible and consistent with the letter and spirit of the Rome Statute." | PRO | 25333623-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00112-000 |
Dubstep is Music. As my opponent clearly states, music is "vocal or instrumental sounds combined in a such a way as to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion". My opponent referenced the Skrillex single "Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites". Although through the track, a melodic pattern can be heard, it is composed of electronic tone, and can hardly be considered instrumental. The word "instrumental", as defined by Webster's Dictionary, means: "serving as an instrument or means in pursuing an aim or policy". These electronic tones are produced on a computer, much like the one I am using to type this entry, and you are using to read this. To be very clear, the definition of a musical instrument is simply "an object or device for producing musical sounds." Now, while looking on a scientific level, anything object you are using to complete an action, or ease the process of an action is defined as an "instrument". However, on a musical standpoint, an "instrument" is an object who's specific purpose is music making. The computer, according to SEED (Schlumberger Excellence in Education Development), was created to "compute" complex mathematical equations accurately. So, by the intended purposes of the computer, it is a mathematical instrument. Now, the computer has expanded its purpose past simply mathematical calculations, but its intended purpose did, and does not include the creation of musical sounds, or preforming the function of a musical instrument. Therefore, by definition, the Computer is not, in fact, an instrument, and therefore any sounds produced from a computer in any arrangement or tonality cannot be described as music, by definition. The tones produced by a computer may, however, be defined as a beat. Since the electronic tones of a computer have not been produced by a melodic instrument, it cannot be described as "music", such as if you were to listen to a percussionist preform a lengthy drum solo. This is not music, it is a beat. In summary, if the Computer is not a musical instrument, then Dubstep is not music. It is a beat. I await my opponent's response. | CON | d413d8cb-2019-04-18T17:08:41Z-00002-000 |
Old testament truth, New testament made up for love of money and power. To: W0LV3NBANE thanks for your comment I would like to say that I think you understand of what I am trying to say, I am merely trying to show that the Old Testament is proof of the truth, As what is written is happened and is happening. You see I do believe that Jesus is really although his name should be Immanuel, Not sure of how they came to the name of Jesus. With great persistence, I got to understanding of my wisdom, I am not trying at all to argue all I am trying to see is why is it not that we should all believe the same. I am aware that we will all see things in a difference point of view. I would like to ask questions and would like your honest opinion, You see someone has commented on properly how I was raised as a catholic, And didn't know any better, We lived to a system. This is not about the Catholics or any other religion, So if you are prepared to debate, Yes would like to start off with Daniel firstly, As when I understood Daniel, I re-read the Bible and it's now starts making sense. | PRO | 5ac858c8-2019-04-18T11:13:05Z-00003-000 |
Jerusalem should become an independant city state. While your solution sounds viable in theory, it is just impractical. First of all, it wouldn't change the fact that Jerusalem is split in two. Who would lead this new nation? If a Jew was elected, the Palestinians living there would be angry. If a Palestinian was elected, the Jews would be angry. The split in the city is so major that making the city independent wouldn't solve much. Not to mention the fact that Israel is already at a disadvantage n the Middle East (Source: https://i2.wp.com... https://i1.wp.com...) Taking away Jerusalem would only make the weak nation even weaker and increase the chance of another invasion. You've also forgotten that city states just aren't viable long term. Studies have shown that after 200 years, city states tend to suffer economic stagnation due to the development of oligarchies (Source: https://press.princeton.edu... https://ideas.repec.org... ) This is of course ignoring the fact that ethnic conflict tends to have an impact on the economy, a very negative impact. There's a reason why places like Somalia and South Sudan aren't economic superpowers. This also wouldn't change the fact that both sides still claim the entire land, and releasing Jerusalem wouldn't really solve the entire problem. If anything it would only hurt negotiations because there'd ow be a THIRD sovereign nation in the area. And finally, the Jews were there first. I'd go on, but I want to give you a chance to have a say. | CON | 1b240667-2019-04-18T11:47:23Z-00004-000 |
Democrats are intentionally hurting people during the shutdown to blame Republicans. Yes Pro, they are going to fight against a piece of legislation that they are most definitely against. Though this has nothing to do with the resolution in which you claim that they are intentionally hurting people during the shutdown to blame republicans. To me it would seem that because of their resistance to the bill and refusal to pass it they should be the ones at fault. To close I will leave you with this: This shutdown is just the result of complete disagreement on both sides. Although people are being hurt because of the shutdown it is the fault of both parties and by no means intentional. I hope the voters will see the that pro is one side of the spectrum attempting to pin a negative view on the other side. | CON | 7d6651f0-2019-04-18T17:08:42Z-00000-000 |
Ending the conflict with the Kurds – inclusive government. Democracies are only truly democratic when they accept that their minorities have rights and deserve a place in the political system even if those minorities themselves want a separate state. Only then does the country truly represent and work for everyone within the state. It has only been during Erdoğan’s time as Prime Minister that this has happened in Turkey. Turkey has spent its history since its founding ninety years ago discriminating against the Kurds by denying they are a separate ethnicity. Now however there is a cease fire in place and serious consideration for major constitutional changes that would recognize the Kurds.[1] Already there have been significant changes like allowing the use of Kurdish in public life and the launch of a Kurdish language TV station and courses in universities.[2] [1] Hannah, John, ‘Erdogan's Great Gamble’, Foreign Policy, 14 May 2013, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/14/erdogan_turkey_kurds_peace_process_pkk [2] Zalewski, Pitr, ‘The Kurds’ Last Battle in Turkey: Teaching Kids Kurdish’, The Atlantic, 9 May 2013, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/05/the-kurds-last-battle-in-turkey-teaching-kids-kurdish/275719/ | PRO | d0142038-2019-04-15T20:24:15Z-00024-000 |
Definitions. Before moving on to our reasons for negation, we would like to emphasize that we are not against the concept of global multiculturalism- a practice that embraces the different cultures that exist on a world scale. However, what we are against is multiculturalism on a national level. What we see with national multiculturalism is people moving out of the haven in which their cultures are safely preserved- the plan that the proposition is promoting in this round. We would like to also emphasize the fact that current multiculturalism is failing in some countries such as UK, Australia, France, and Germany. We will prove to you that the most ideal way of viewing multiculturalism- having a multitude of different preserved cultures living peacefully together- is impossible to achieve in real life further on in our first contention. In our second contention, we will talk about how we should focus on integration rather than multiculturalism that which leads to assmiliation, and we will explain why assimilation is bad. Lastly, we will explain why multiculturalism will eventually result in a loss of diversity as it represses cultures than expressing cultures. | CON | 1ebe6a89-2019-04-19T12:45:14Z-00009-000 |
Truths exists irrespective of the observer.. As the post was started I understand Truth as an absolute concept. 1. God Exists or Do not 2. The universe was created or it came into being by itself 3. There is life after death or do not. To debate, there will be a large number of statements like this. According to the law of contradiction two contrary statements pertaining to a concept can't be both true at the same time. Either one is true or both false. Taking one of the above statements; God Exists or Do not exist. Bot can't be true. An attempt to prove the existence and non existence simultaneously will be a definitely a tautology. A Physicist believe in the existence of God referring to the order of universe and the other believe in the non-existence referring to chaos in universe have a relative understanding of the something absolute. Regardless of the relative perception here, only one of the beliefs can be true as their perception and conclusions contradicts. Taking an example from daily life - "Mr. X was present in the office Yesterday" and "Mr. X was absent in the office Yesterday"; can't be true at the same time. | PRO | 4206f6dc-2019-04-18T19:37:07Z-00003-000 |
The world would be better off if Germany had won WW1. For your first and last argument, I don't think they would have been respective of their own neighbors, as nationalism + imperialism + the military-industrial complex would've probably driven them to invade their neighboring countries. You're not really giving a reason why Hitler wouldn't have shown in Germany's political arena anyways. Although it is true that it gave him his big chance, it does not mean that the window of oppurtunity was THE reason he got elected. The Cold War probably WOULD have happened, and it would've been a lot worse, because the Allied Powers of WW1 and the Central Powers of WW2 would've been in the Cold War also. It would've been basically half the world powers against the other half, with plenty more people, instead of just US vs Russia. "Age of Terror". Let me tell you about terror. Terror is an emotion. It isn't an enemy. Terrorism has been around since the beginning of mankind, it isn't a "recent problem" that arose today. Today it's suicide bombers, back then it was assassins and ninjas. Just because the Central Powers wins WW1 doesn't mean we wouldn't have the "Age of Terror" today. All in all, you aren't getting very many impacts. | CON | f599f370-2019-04-18T20:03:11Z-00006-000 |
Zionist-Jewish Networks Should Be Considered as Some of the Most Probable Perpetrators of 9/11. Investigations into the collapse of the World Trade Center, the beneficiaries of 9/11, and other issues surrounding this event have demonstrated, clearly, the overwhelming flaws contained within the "official narrative". A much more plausible theory is that Zionist and Zionist-Jewish networks, who were directly involved in the companies and institutions surrounding nearly every major aspect of 9/11, were probably involved in the attacks in order to bring US troops into war against Israel's enemies in the Middle East. Some very significant elements of this theory are addressed in the following list: http://instablogg.com... My opponent must demonstrate that it is, at least, highly unlikely for Israel and subordinate Zionist networks to have had any major role in the attacks. Rules: - Standard debate conventions apply. | PRO | e8aae6e3-2019-04-18T17:34:12Z-00005-000 |
It should be legal for NON-religious homosexuals to marry another person of the same gender. Before I start this debate, I would like to ask everyone who will eventually vote in this debate to please vote based upon the debate itself, and not upon the debaters or your own opinions. Thank you. I have put out this debate to challenge anyone who wants to debate me. However, I would not like to debate anyone who shares my same views. I would like to find out why there are people who want to discriminate based upon sexual orientation. Now to my actual argument: According to the Human Rights Commision, there are approximatley 10 million homosexual people living in the United States today. They have all the freedoms that hetrosexuals have, except for one: the right to marry whom they wish. Gay people in many areas of the USA do not have the right to marry another gay person. They do, however, have the right to have a civil union. Most would say, 'Civil Unions are the same thing as marriage!' You are wrong. Civil unions often only give the gay couple some of the rights of male and female marriages. They often limit the things that the couple can do. Civil Unions are not the same as marriages. The crux of my argument is simple and can be composed in a few questions: Why is it that just because a gay person is gay, they cannot marry who they want? Since when did the government have to right to limit our liberties and freedoms that do not matter in homeland security? Why do we discriminate based upon sexual orientation, even though we don't discriminate based upon race or gender. Thank you | PRO | 9bfb0e33-2019-04-18T19:55:46Z-00005-000 |
Bilingual Signs. My arguments in support of the subject (The government should be required to publish all material in both English and Spanish) are as follows == REASON #1 - A LARGE NUMBER OF SPANISHSPEAKING AMERICAN CITIZENS == Due to a combination of the United States' proximity to Mexico, and much of the United States' current territory (from Texas west to California, north to Oregon) was originally part of the New Spain colonies, colonized, developed and inhabited by native Spanish speakers before being taken over through conquest (or in the case of Gadsen, purchased). A large number -- in the millions nationwide -- of the United States' population speaks Spanish as a first tongue, and a significant portion of those are not fluent in English as a second language. One of the most vital and important amendments in the Bill of Rights is the freedom of speech, guaranteed in the very first amendment to the Constitution. While even this has limitations (shouting Fire in a crowded theater was an example), there is no reason to consider language among those restrictions, and a person's preference for a recognized and legitimate language (such as Spanish) should be respected, especially for a nation "of immigrants. " I argue that English-supremacist monolingualists are fighting with at least a twinge of racism, believing that Spanish speaking citizens (native born or legal immigrants) are not as intelligent or deserving of access to government as the current (dwindling) English-speaking majority. In some entire states, notably the mega-populated California, the "white majority" is expected to, based on statistical trends, end in just a few decades; hispanic people will then have a racial majority over whites after that. If in the future, Spanish speakers outnumber English speakers, should people like pcmbrown be required to learn Spanish to access government or suffer as an unequal? | PRO | d6170f0-2019-04-18T19:26:43Z-00004-000 |
Gay marriage should be legal. I want to get a few things across before I begin. 1. The church is a private organization and the U.S government is not at all affiliated with their views or their actions. 2. Because they are private, the government has no right to encroach on their decisions. C1: The church has the right to discriminate if it so chooses, even if you disagree You can talk about the rights that our founding fathers wanted for us, but if the church refuses to marry people, which is 100% within their rights to deny people by the way, nobody can stop them. You talked about how this is not an argument over if the government should recognize marriage or not, and you would be right, except if the don't want people to discriminate, then they should run it themselves. The church is separate from the government as dictated by the founding fathers and thus can make the decisions on who they allow to get married. The state can create new churches that work differently, but the key fact is that you can not force the church to do something it does not want to. C2: The bible directly says in the Leviticus section, that being gay is in fact a sin, just as combing your hair and eating shellfish is. You can call the church hypocrites if you would like, but their book directly says that gay people are sinners. Why gay people even go to a place that calls them evil and says they will be tossed in a volcano for all eternity is beyond me, but the fact is, the book they base their operations on says that gay people are not welcome. As a private affiliation they have the right to say whatever they want and be hypocrites. They are not forced to be morally comprehensive, even if they should be. It does not matter if you disagree with them or not, you can not force them to do something that they are against. If it bothers you so much, write to your politician and try to overturn marriage as a whole because that is the only real way to get that across. | CON | ea2e1abf-2019-04-18T18:45:35Z-00004-000 |
Absolutism. Whether absolute Monarchy was limited Monarchy in theory is already answered. The answer to that is, of course, no. Absolute Monarchy implies that there were no restrictions, laws etc., apart from those that the Monarch made up, but the Monarch themselves never had to abide by them. That is absolute Monarchy. Limited Monarchy suggests that the Monarchy has restrictions and rules upon it either created by itself its government. These are two very different things. However, what this question is actually asking is "Is there a difference in practice? (or was there a difference?)" The answer to this is yes. An absolute Monarchy would never attempt what was impossible to do/get away with. It would only act within its realistic predictions/options. However, this does not mean to say that Monarchs have never done terrible things. Monarchs could get away with pretty much whatever they wanted, on a small scale. They couldn't necessarily invade whoever they wished and, yes, they certainly had councillors, assistants, experts et al. helping them. But again, this in no way implies that Monarchs acted in a mostly limited fashion. The important point, anyway, is the question of whether there is a difference in theory and, as we have seen, yes - there is. | PRO | 1e129e8b-2019-04-19T12:47:47Z-00016-000 |
True debaters never lie, or qoute liars, as a source of truth. True debaters are those who debate. False debater would be a person who claims he debates but doesn't. I already talked about this, in my debate http://www.debate.org... This debate is a source of truth because I pushed the boundaries of traditional debating by talking about debates themselves and by examining the criteria to evaluate debates, exposing them to amusing (yet meaningful) comments. Pushing the boundaries (in that case) meant in some sense, escaping debates, thus being able to acquire truth. "True debaters" do lie, or quote liars, maybe not consciously, but they do, i also explain that in my other debate http://www.debate.org... | CON | ea7f00a5-2019-04-18T15:47:46Z-00004-000 |
Werewolves vs. Vampires. The full resolution is, "Werewolves would beat vampires in a world war. ” Burden of Proof: It is my duty to affirm the full resolution and prove that werewolves would beat vampires in a war concerning the whole world. My opponent must prove that vampires would beat werewolves in a world war. Definitions: Vampire: a preternatural being, commonly believed to be a reanimated corpse, that is said to suck the blood of sleeping persons at night [1]. Werewolf: (in folklore and superstition) a human being who has changed into a wolf, or is capable of assuming the form of a wolf, while retaining human intelligence [2]. Rules: 1. There will be no abuse of word play, loopholes, or any other form of semantics. 2. I realize that there are a plethora of sites and sources that state vampires and werewolves have different powers. Therefore (for the sake of the debate), I will state the powers vampires and werewolves can have. Vampires- Super speed: the ability to travel at extremely fast speeds. Telepathy: the ability to move objects with the mind. Bat transformation: the ability to transform into a bat while retaining rational thought. Mist transformation: the ability to transform into mist. Vampire fangs: the ability to bite and suck the blood out of any living thing. Immortality: the ability to overcome age and live forever. Create other vampires: the ability to bite humans and turn them into vampires. Super healing: the ability to heal oneself extremely fast (i. e. a cut can be healed within seconds). Super senses: the ability to hear, see, feel, taste, and smell on extreme scales. Scale walls: the ability to climb walls like Spiderman. Werewolves- Wolf transformation: the ability to transform into a wolf while retaining rational thought. Super strength: wolf strength + human strength= werewolf strength. Create other werewolves: the ability to bite humans and turn them into werewolves. Virtual immortality: the ability to overcome age and live for an extremely long amount of time (i. e. several millenia). Super senses: the ability to hear, see, feel, taste, and smell on extreme scales. With that said, I hand over the next round to my opponent. [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com... | PRO | aca55d3f-2019-04-18T18:36:30Z-00006-000 |
Fast Food Franchises Makes Teens Fit a Larger Size, Or The Diet Industry Makes Peaople Skinny. I am not sure why my opponent bailed on me. Obesity is a problem in this country but again I feel it is up to the individual to choose what they eat. As far as children under 10 go, parents are the ones that need to be responsible to ensure their kids are eating the right foods in life. This is one of the many responsibilities of the parent or guardian of a child. | CON | 1a43837e-2019-04-18T19:50:05Z-00000-000 |
Animals Should Be Used For Scientific Research. While I admit the analogy of the girl was far fetched, it was an example. DEFENSE 1- According to the website [http://www.vivisectioninformation.com...] you got the "the whole world uses up to three every second" example, I don't think you got the concept. Just because they use a certain amount per year, 100 million. That doesn't mean they kill one every 3 seconds just for the hell of it, it could mean that in a test they use five or six at a time...just to clear that up. DEFENSE 2- Then we shall try and test on them in the least painful way possible. However, since thats often impossible, it might be necessary to sacrifice some non-sential life for the good of sentient ones. Furthermore, I feel you are trying to evoke emotions in me, but I am just as passionate about this as you are about that. DEFENSE 3- Humans are not JUST animals. I am not saying we AREN'T animals but we are also more than that, we have the most complex brains in the animal kingdom and more importantly- WE are human, and we should do everything in our power to advance our kind. Argument 1- Around 95% of all animals that are being tested are specially bred rats and mice, .25% our Non-Human Primates. The rest our made up of other small primates. The reason rodents are so popular is because of there short life spans which allow for speedier disease development in the rodents. Shortening a life that is only 2-3 years in it of it self is completely minuscule compared to the amount of years of human lives they can be saving. The following disease have had medicines made from animal research. Breast Cancer Childhood Leukemia Lung Cancer (Prolonged life of people with) AIDs and HIV Heart Disease Diabete And many more! The rodents save lives. 1[http://www.mofed.org...] 2[http://www.amprogress.org...] | PRO | baa6bc4d-2019-04-18T17:00:24Z-00003-000 |
Free Education. Actually let me clarify the misinterpretation. I am talking about a non capitalistic economy. More specifically I am talking about Parecon; which stands for Participatory Economics which is a vision for an alternative way to operate an economy. Please look up Micheal Albert and Robin Hahnel in the 1980's to early 1990's if you are curious to Parecon. As far as which grades would be effected. I am talking about all education. From Pre-k to PhD. Now to get to your point of biased education. Yes, all education has been biased. Yes, we have the technology and will to change this biased system of education to a non biased view of education. Does this mean every ounce of education will be unbiased. One day I would hypothesize it would be. Now to get to your main point. The reason of current capitalism. To me, it was set up because the barter system was and did need to be changed. However, humanity needs to think over capitalism. It sparks too much ill content. And even biased working atmosphere. It is severally outdated and not even popular among scientist, teachers, military and others. *(After all the teacher who taught you how to write **should** be worth more than the person who plays football just to "entertain" you for a few hours.)* With this type of Economics in mind. Do you think you can breach that type of education? | PRO | c1b11ad5-2019-04-18T17:30:59Z-00003-000 |
Single-sex schools should be more common. Let me now present my opening argument. Schooling or schools deals with the concept of education. Education can be defined according to Merriam Webster as either (a) the action or process of teaching someone especially in a school, college, or university. (b) the knowledge, skill, and understanding that you get from attending a school, college, or university. (1)One of the most important skills a person can acquire is social interaction skills. (2) These skills result in behavior that is beneficial not only for the individual but the group/society as a whole. Learning/acquiring this skill requires interaction with both both males and females, as such single sex schools are not beneficial to the learning of social interaction skills as in effect you are isolating the students from another sex. The one benefit flouted by same sex school proponents is that it leads to improved grades for the students. However, this benefit does not hold up to scrutiny as has been seen in a report in Science magazine which showed the benefits of same-sex schooling are overblown and in fact do not lead to higher grades. (3) This argument above encompass all the major arguments made for same-sex schooling. (4) For these reasons, I believe that same-sex schooling is a detriment to students and should not be more common. I hand the debate over to my opponent for rebuttals. (1) . http://www.merriam-webster.com......(2) . http://psychology.wikia.com...... (3) . https://www.sciencemag.org...(4) . http://www.greatschools.org... | CON | 8763b6a7-2019-04-18T16:34:47Z-00004-000 |
sexting with teens. Sexting among teens has one stated problem by my opponent: potential loss of job opportunity in the future. I contend only if the recipient of such text violates social norms of privacy does that sext become visible to an employer. Meanwhile sexting is a form of expression among all people not just teenagers. You also make an assumption that the recipient of the sext will not care about that person in the long run. While a possibility that is not an argument against sexting since someone caring or not caring about the sexter in the long run has no impact on the value of sexting. As for the 'teenagers are not thinking before doing this' I contend they are. They are thinking about expressing themselves as human beings. How is sexting causing problems on a global scale? | PRO | 693ac8f3-2019-04-18T18:56:23Z-00002-000 |
This ban would lower healthcare costs. The health problems that smokers experience cost taxpayers (where healthcare is provided by the government) or the individual (for private healthcare) a lot of money. Decreasing the number of smokers – as a result of a reduction in both “social smokers” (those who smoke when out with friends) and “passive smokers” (those who do not smoke themselves but are exposed to the second-hand smoke of others) – will lead to a decrease in these healthcare costs. This has been reported – for example – in Arizona, where a study found that hospital admissions due to diagnoses for which there is evidence for a cause by smoking have decreased since the statewide smoking ban, and that costs have thus decreased[1]. [1] Herman, Patricia M., and Walsh, Michele E. “Hospital Admissions for Acute Myocardial Infarction, Angina, Stroke, and Asthma After Implementation of Arizona’s Comprehensive Statewide Smoking Ban. American Journal of Public Health. 101(3). March 2011. | PRO | ca5b5dd7-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00010-000 |
Naive realism (or externalism) is probably false. I have accepted this debate.I will be making the agrument that due to Constructive perception we due perceive objects as they really are, that they are are composed of matter, occupy space and have properties, such as size, shape, texture, smell, taste and colour, that are usually perceived correctly by anyone with Cs in high school. Objects obey the laws of physics and retain all their properties whether or not there is anyone to observe them, but that under the laws of physics that act of observing them does change there properties in a predictable way.Constructive perception- intelligent perception; is the theory of perception in which the perceiver uses sensory information and other sources of information to construct a cognitive understanding of a stimulus.http://en.wikipedia.org... | CON | cc379d11-2019-04-18T15:23:10Z-00004-000 |
TROLL DEBATE: Frozen is a Bad Movie. Let it Go is a reference to Let it Be....my opponent claims.Unfortunately Let it Be only strengthens my arguments. You can see the Beatles obviously don't care about the movie, only their money, so they just sing "Let it Be...." because the movie is so terrible even they can't fix it. Hans' name means "the weak"....exactly. The point I'm making here is that Hans is a terrible, weak villain who auto-loses to even "a scrub like Elsa".Mulan's name is very deceptive. In reality she has a secret underground society and she trains Spartans in her spare time. s://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com...; alt="" width="279" height="398" /> See? She looks like a goddess even compared to those spartans. We can see here she is obviously using her name as a ploy to distract Chinese people who know her name means "the weak".My opponent claims that singing in the ice-age can make you become a bad awesome dude. You may become bad awesome dude for like 3 seconds, but then you're ruined by....' s://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com...; alt="" width="637" height="398" />"Uh oh, we're dead."Everyone loves cliches in animes, my opponent claims. But think about it. The parents in Frozen died to WATER. Seriously, WATER. Who dies to water? Anyone BUT anime dies in water. As Frozen's parents don't die an anime death, it ain't a cliche and ain't good. My opponent contradicts himself by saying Hans was a strong burly, man. He admitted he was weak a few arguments ago. Decide which argument to dump, my good sir, decide decide. As for Anna being a pyromaner and lighting all those wolves, you are right. But just because she belongs in Mortal Combat does not mean the movie is good. It just mean the movie is very unoriginal and violated copyright by bringing in a character from Mortal Combat and putting her in Frozen. My opponent also says that with the addition of a "T", Elsa becomes Telsa--which, rearranged is Tesla, who was awesome. But a "T" brings about the crucial difference. Elsa is only ALMOST Tesla the lightning master. Tesla is the lightning master. As Mark Twain can differentiate them, let him speak for me: See? Tesla is the lightning, Elsa is the Lightning Bug. Lightning bugs are dumb and totally not awesome next to lightning. As Elsa is the small, irrelevant lightning bug, the movie is bad. Olaf is cool. No brah, Olaf's cold. Cold and boring and cruel. There's a big difference. s://thedcontinuum.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" width="832" height="318" /> See? He's totally not the cool character you mentioned. Frozen must be a bad movie with such a horrendous character. And finally, Anna surviving the snow monster.... The snow monster was meh. It really wasn't tough at all. See second youtube video for reference. :D I believed I have shown sufficient proof of Frozen's poor quality. Back to you, funny. | PRO | b7f8e658-2019-04-18T15:44:14Z-00003-000 |
federal tuition assistance should be restricted much more. engineering is a subject that can be taught in a regular degree, as could nursing and some other fields. we dont need people from the bottom of their class in these fields. some people might not do good in high school and are late bloomers, but we can have ACT or SAT to compensate. not everyone is good at tests, but this is just life, as a far out general rule, those tests test what is needed. the degree is dilluted because so many people attend. if we stopped people from attending, nothing would change much except whether they have a dilluted degree. again we are curtailing federal spending and doing right by kids if we have trade schools for most people. if college is as cracked up as you say it is, students again should be able to pay back their loans. this takes the responsiblity off other people to pay for your own needs and is thus fairer. the only ones who would be in poverty with loans are people at the bottom of their class if we did things as you argue for. | PRO | 5d68f3d4-2019-04-18T14:39:09Z-00000-000 |
Capitalism is more moral than socialism. Resolved: Capitalism is more moral than socialism Definitions: Capitalism: is a free market economic system based on private ownership and entrepreneurship. The investment of capital, and production, distribution, income, and prices are determined not by government (as in socialism) but through the operation of a competitive market where decisions are voluntary and private rather than regulated and mandated by government (see law of supply and demand). Socialism: advocates state ownership or direct control of the major means of production and distribution of goods and services. Format: Round 1: Acceptance Only Round 2: State proposition only (no rebuttal) Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Defense - Address the opponent's rebuttal Round 5: Closing statements If you haven't given this topic much thought, please do not waste time in accepting the challenge. I genuinely want a great debate here. | PRO | 8d909559-2019-04-18T15:43:53Z-00005-000 |
Adobe Photoshop Battle. 1.Photos uploaded to a photo album for all to see2. Round one is acceptance. You also issue a challenge. 3. I post the picture addressing your challenge at the start of round two. 4. You post your picture in round one.Your challenge, which you post in round one.Do a similar style picture as me, a first person view of falling to the ground from a high place. | PRO | 133c1842-2019-04-18T18:37:52Z-00009-000 |
Aliens are not saved and must be saved. Aliens will never get saved Aliens will not get saved My topic is based on the fact that when Adam sinned God cursed the whole universe and if Aliens do exist on the far reaches of the universe they are also suffering from this curse. But since Christ only came to Earth the Aliens are not redeemed yet. Poor people! I feel sorry for them but that is the truth. Since Christ is the only way to paradise so there is no way an Alien can get saved because he does not believe in Christ? So we need to build sophisticated aircrafts that can travel the far reaches of this universe and other universes to save the Aliens. Once they know about Christ then only they will be saved. Here we go. | PRO | b17d986d-2019-04-18T19:05:17Z-00003-000 |
The east is west and the west is east. What's a direction? The Pro's entire argument is dependant on what exactly East and West is. I used the 2nd round for clarification, now I need to refute the entire premise. Argument:The resolution states "The east is west and the west is east". What does this mean? Treating these like Left and Right (which it isn't), Left is Right, Right is left. What? If a store is to my right, that's not my left. To say Right = Left, therefore the store is left, so Right is indeed Left, that's circular reasoning. You're assuming Right = Left to be true while tryont to prove that to be true. Just because I can go ALL the way around Earth to get to a location, that doesn't mean I'm going West. I'm going East, and that's the direction I'm going. My opponent's argument makes no sense, and isn't convincing. It's common sense that one way is that way, not the other. | CON | e6ba1393-2019-04-18T12:45:58Z-00000-000 |
The marketplace of ideas. It is wrong that obnoxious and hateful views should be given an airing and individuals left to their own devices to decide if those views are right or wrong. Accepting that these views can be voiced on campus and opponents of these views can make their own case implies that these views have equal standing; which is not the case, while there may be freedom of speech there is not freedom to hurt one and other. It is wrong to suggest that hateful ideas will spread faster if banned as if they are not banned those who are preaching such ideas have greater access to others so have more opportunity to persuade | CON | 87e36ea8-2019-04-15T20:22:52Z-00016-000 |
Rap Battle. I'm sorry to say your about to go to hell for a has beens sins The stuff that I say is brutal it will leave you anorexic thin I'll dissect you mentally and physically then adorn your skin You remind me of truth, your just the less autistic twin This battle is complex so let me put it in the right context Im on a conquest to make this battle a no contest Battling you is nothing, I won't even gain progress So when I break you down it just teaches you the right process I'm going to take a lesson from truth and reconsider this and testify If Christ died for my sins, Ill make you copy his path so you can identify This battle is about to intensify so you can begin your path and then start to die Your more awkward than Jim when he got caught with his dik in that american pie Your body is distorted and needs a proper dose of proportion If you beat me you get to earn some rep and then get to make a fortune Just for trying to battle me, I will hold you hostage and use you for extortion I'll put your body inside a body when I kill you, that's an abortion | PRO | e7378f55-2019-04-18T15:04:43Z-00005-000 |
TROLL DEBATE: Ray Comfort's banana argument is invalid. 1. EVIL USES FOR BANANASBananas can be used for the following evil purposes....AS HANDGUNS AS CLIPS FOR YOUR AK-47 AS THROWING WEAPONS Under "Boomerang," it says "flip a coin. If heads the defending pokemon is now confused." AND THE CLASSIC ONE WE ALL KNOW... MAKING PEOPLE TRIP 3/4 of these uses can result in the loss of a human life, and is thus killing. But the 2nd commandment says not to kill. Why would God do that? 2. THEY SPOIL TOO SOONyou can make a banana last 2-3 months by putting it in the freezer, but you barely have any room in the freezer because everything else you need to put in the freezer. However, they only last 2-7 days on the counter and 2-9 in the fridge. [1] Back in Biblical times, they had no way to freeze their food, so knowing they would try to store it, God made them to rot so soon on purpose so he could laugh at them when they saw their reactions when they saw their food had spoiled.These are all very important facts that Comfort left out. So according to him, God "intelligently designed" a food that rots too fast, can be used for various evil purposes doesn't store much in the fridge, and was made to f*ck with his own people. Or was that Satan that did that? Was it not God, but the devil that made it just to mess with theists just to mess with them? Was he thinking that by doing that, Atheists could use that as an argument and it would make them go "WHAT THE.. NO. GOD WOULDN'T DO THAT" | PRO | c6f110bf-2019-04-18T15:11:09Z-00007-000 |
Promiscuity is ethical. First-timer here, I'm trying out of curiosity. I would like to debate against the idea that promiscuity is unethical. While the Oxford Dictionary's definition of "Promiscuity" includes "immorality," I would like to take the following, more neutral definition: "the act of engaging in consensual sexual activity with different people during a given period." Let us arbitrarily agree that the given period range up to one month. My opponent will have to present arguments supporting that promiscuity is intrinsically unethical. Hoping for a good debate! | PRO | f4102a68-2019-04-18T14:28:16Z-00005-000 |