Datasets:

notaphoenix

/

debateorg_w_effect_for_conservative

like 0

Before I begin my arguments, keep in mind that I myself do not do drugs, and am not arguing from the perspective of someone who wants drugs legal just so that he or she can be more irresponsible with them. And now for my arguments: 1. The act of taking drugs does not violate rights The responsibility of the government, first and foremost, is to protect the rights of its citizens. In the act of taking drugs, nobody's right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness has been violated. In fact, the user has taken advantage of his rights. He has the liberty to do anything as long as he does not infringe on the rights of others. So he does drugs. He also takes advantage of his right to the pursuit of happiness, since drugs make him happy. That's why people take them. And while I myself wouldn't make such a decision, it does not harm anyone, and should not be illegal. 2. The failure of prohibition In 1920, the government made alcohol illegal. The thinking was that people would be healthier, and alcohol-related crime would go down. It failed horribly. Alcohol was readily available anyway, but it was no longer controlled by respectable businessmen. It was run by the mafia. Organized crime rose in power, to brew alcoholic beverages and protect other brewers, since the government wouldn't. One man that rose out of prohibition was Al Capone, arguably the most infamous gangster of all time. In 1933, the government realized they had made a horrible mistake, and prohibition ended. While the drugs we are discussing in this debate are more dangerous that alcohol, on a philosophical level there is no difference. We are making the same mistakes, and pretending we are helping people. 3. More power to gangs/cartel As I mentioned in my last argument, prohibition gave rise to the mafia. The War on Drugs has given rise to something else: the Mexican drug cartel. In Mexico, the Mexican drug war has various cartels fighting each other and the Mexican government, in what is basically an all-out war. The cartels make an estimated 39 billion dollars annually. The cartel does not stick to Mexico, however. A drug known as black tar heroin has made its way into the U.S. black market due to the cartel. The cartels are known to recruit in American high schools. A 14 year old from San Diego was turned into an assassin by the cartel. If drugs are legalized, the cartel will be obsolete, as legitimate companies will be able produce and sell drugs. The competition will no longer be the violence we have today, but businesses responding to the needs of consumers in an attempt to make a greater profit than their competitors. This is evidenced in the alcohol industry by Miller and Budweiser, for example. 4. Users cannot be helped if they were scammed Let's say somebody wants to get some drugs. They find a dealer, make the deal, and discover that the drugs are much less potent that what they were told. Maybe it was a simple mistake on the part of the dealer, or maybe it was fraud. In the world of legal products, One could go and get a refund if it was a simple mistake. If it was fraud, however, the customer might have to sue whoever sold them a faulty product. But in the world of illegal drugs, one couldn't sue their dealer. If they did, they would announce to the government that they went and bought an illegal substance. And then they will likely go to jail. Is it fair that somebody would have to face legal punishment just because they wanted to report fraud? Of course not. And if drugs were legal, this problem would cease to exist. Sources: <URL>... <URL>...

JorgeLucas

Before I begin my arguments, keep in mind that I myself do not do drugs, and am not arguing from the perspective of someone who wants drugs legal just so that he or she can be more irresponsible with them. And now for my arguments: 1. The act of taking drugs does not violate rights The responsibility of the government, first and foremost, is to protect the rights of its citizens. In the act of taking drugs, nobody's right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness has been violated. In fact, the user has taken advantage of his rights. He has the liberty to do anything as long as he does not infringe on the rights of others. So he does drugs. He also takes advantage of his right to the pursuit of happiness, since drugs make him happy. That's why people take them. And while I myself wouldn't make such a decision, it does not harm anyone, and should not be illegal. 2. The failure of prohibition In 1920, the government made alcohol illegal. The thinking was that people would be healthier, and alcohol-related crime would go down. It failed horribly. Alcohol was readily available anyway, but it was no longer controlled by respectable businessmen. It was run by the mafia. Organized crime rose in power, to brew alcoholic beverages and protect other brewers, since the government wouldn't. One man that rose out of prohibition was Al Capone, arguably the most infamous gangster of all time. In 1933, the government realized they had made a horrible mistake, and prohibition ended. While the drugs we are discussing in this debate are more dangerous that alcohol, on a philosophical level there is no difference. We are making the same mistakes, and pretending we are helping people. 3. More power to gangs/cartel As I mentioned in my last argument, prohibition gave rise to the mafia. The War on Drugs has given rise to something else: the Mexican drug cartel. In Mexico, the Mexican drug war has various cartels fighting each other and the Mexican government, in what is basically an all-out war. The cartels make an estimated 39 billion dollars annually. The cartel does not stick to Mexico, however. A drug known as black tar heroin has made its way into the U.S. black market due to the cartel. The cartels are known to recruit in American high schools. A 14 year old from San Diego was turned into an assassin by the cartel. If drugs are legalized, the cartel will be obsolete, as legitimate companies will be able produce and sell drugs. The competition will no longer be the violence we have today, but businesses responding to the needs of consumers in an attempt to make a greater profit than their competitors. This is evidenced in the alcohol industry by Miller and Budweiser, for example. 4. Users cannot be helped if they were scammed Let's say somebody wants to get some drugs. They find a dealer, make the deal, and discover that the drugs are much less potent that what they were told. Maybe it was a simple mistake on the part of the dealer, or maybe it was fraud. In the world of legal products, One could go and get a refund if it was a simple mistake. If it was fraud, however, the customer might have to sue whoever sold them a faulty product. But in the world of illegal drugs, one couldn't sue their dealer. If they did, they would announce to the government that they went and bought an illegal substance. And then they will likely go to jail. Is it fair that somebody would have to face legal punishment just because they wanted to report fraud? Of course not. And if drugs were legal, this problem would cease to exist. Sources: http://www.cato.org... http://www.cnn.com...

Politics

All-drugs-should-be-legal/1/

Thank you for supplying me with intelligent rebuttals. Now for my re-rebuttals! 1. The act of taking drugs does not violate rights The reason civil servants take an oath to protect and defend the country from all enemies is to protect the rights of the citizens. If enemies did not threaten the rights of citizens, there would be nothing to defend or protect the citizens from. Drugs harm the user, but they do not inherently harm other individuals or society. People do that when they are not responsible with their drug use, and drugs are not responsible for what people do. Banning drugs because some people commit crimes while under their influence is like banning cars because some people die in collisions. You claim that as a member of society, it is one's duty to give up rights for the benefit of society. As a member of society, you do have to cooperate for the benefit of yourself and society, but to give up your rights, you get nothing in return, and frankly neither does anybody else. And while it might be good to risk your rights sometimes, forcing someone to just part with their rights is unethical, and not the basis for a moral society. You say that the emergence of a drug economy would destroy society, but what you fail to realize is that a drug economy already exists. It is comprised of gangs, shady dealers, cartels, secret transactions, etc... This is not the basis for a stable economy, which in turn is not the basis for a stable society. If this economy was legal, however, the drug economy would stabilize because it would be run by legitimate businesses, and thus society would stabilize. 2. The failure of prohibition While prohibition may have somewhat helped public health, as evidenced by your numbers, your most important statistic is not all that impressive. Meaning, if alcohol use declined 30-50%, that isn't even half of what prohibition tried to do. This is not a success. Organized crime did exist before prohibition. However, you act as though the prohibition of alcohol was just another little thing the mafia was in charge of. The simple fact is that it wasn't. Prohibition made organized crime much bigger. Al Capone, who I brought up earlier, would certainly not have because as powerful as he did had he not become involved in illegal alcohol. "Capone was earning $60 million a year from alcohol sales alone. Other rackets earned him an extra $45 million a year." Because of his dealings in alcohol, Capone made well over double the profits he would have made otherwise, and even that is generous, as he might not have made those $45 million from other 'services' if he was not known for alcohol. These profits prove that alcohol was much more that just another thing the mafia did. It was huge, accounting for well over half of the most infamous gangster's profit. 3. More power to gangs/cartel It is true that if users stopped buying drugs, the cartels would have no power. Unfortunately, however this is not realistic. You believe that if drugs are kept illegal, the profits of the cartels are at least limited. But their 39 billion dollar profit certain indicates otherwise. You go on to say that legalizing drugs would make more people buy drugs from the cartels. While more people would buy drugs, they would not buy from cartels. They would buy from their local drugstore, or whoever else sells drugs legitimately, and in turn destroy the profits of cartels. In your next section of statistics, you first bring up the exponential decline between 1979 and 1992. My hypothesis for why this is is fear. People were simply afraid to be arrested, faced with severe consequences. The drug war was priority 3 out of 29, after all. While you might say that the lower use of drugs was good, fear is no way to run a society. Societies are built on trust and cooperation. Fear only leads to distrust and betrayal. Your next statistic is the sharp increase in drug use when Clinton made the war on drugs a lower priority, and the slow decline that subsequently followed. My guess is that people initially all experimented with drugs because they would not be as likely to be caught or as severely punished. But after the initial surge, they realized that drugs weren't for them, and stopped. If this logic were applied to full legalization, chances are there would be an initial spike in drug use, which would then get progressively less. Perhaps the rate would even go down beyond the current rate, as the 'cool factor' of doing something illegal is now gone. Finally, I agree that a society of non-users would be better. I would hope that you realize, however, that this is an unrealistic, utopian ideal, and it would never be possible. 4. Users cannot be helped if they are scammed It is clear that my example wasn't good enough, which I suppose I can't deny. Maybe a better example would be safety. A dealer could market his drug as completely safe, but in reality the drug is incredibly dangerous. This would be considered fraud, and any victims of this fraud would not be able to receive legal help, even though they were victims, not offenders. I hope this is better than my last example. What I'm really getting at is that if one is a victim, they cannot testify against their offender as long as drugs are illegal. At the end of your paragraph, though, your argument is actually detrimental to your own case. The core of your argument is that drugs should be banned because they cause health problems, which contribute to societal problems like lack of productivity. By this logic, why not ban McDonalds. McDonalds causes health problems, and on the societal level leads to the obesity epidemic, which in turn leads to lower productivity and higher death rates. Why should one unhealthy product be banned but the other left alone? Source: <URL>...

JorgeLucas

Thank you for supplying me with intelligent rebuttals. Now for my re-rebuttals! 1. The act of taking drugs does not violate rights The reason civil servants take an oath to protect and defend the country from all enemies is to protect the rights of the citizens. If enemies did not threaten the rights of citizens, there would be nothing to defend or protect the citizens from. Drugs harm the user, but they do not inherently harm other individuals or society. People do that when they are not responsible with their drug use, and drugs are not responsible for what people do. Banning drugs because some people commit crimes while under their influence is like banning cars because some people die in collisions. You claim that as a member of society, it is one's duty to give up rights for the benefit of society. As a member of society, you do have to cooperate for the benefit of yourself and society, but to give up your rights, you get nothing in return, and frankly neither does anybody else. And while it might be good to risk your rights sometimes, forcing someone to just part with their rights is unethical, and not the basis for a moral society. You say that the emergence of a drug economy would destroy society, but what you fail to realize is that a drug economy already exists. It is comprised of gangs, shady dealers, cartels, secret transactions, etc... This is not the basis for a stable economy, which in turn is not the basis for a stable society. If this economy was legal, however, the drug economy would stabilize because it would be run by legitimate businesses, and thus society would stabilize. 2. The failure of prohibition While prohibition may have somewhat helped public health, as evidenced by your numbers, your most important statistic is not all that impressive. Meaning, if alcohol use declined 30-50%, that isn't even half of what prohibition tried to do. This is not a success. Organized crime did exist before prohibition. However, you act as though the prohibition of alcohol was just another little thing the mafia was in charge of. The simple fact is that it wasn't. Prohibition made organized crime much bigger. Al Capone, who I brought up earlier, would certainly not have because as powerful as he did had he not become involved in illegal alcohol. "Capone was earning $60 million a year from alcohol sales alone. Other rackets earned him an extra $45 million a year." Because of his dealings in alcohol, Capone made well over double the profits he would have made otherwise, and even that is generous, as he might not have made those $45 million from other 'services' if he was not known for alcohol. These profits prove that alcohol was much more that just another thing the mafia did. It was huge, accounting for well over half of the most infamous gangster's profit. 3. More power to gangs/cartel It is true that if users stopped buying drugs, the cartels would have no power. Unfortunately, however this is not realistic. You believe that if drugs are kept illegal, the profits of the cartels are at least limited. But their 39 billion dollar profit certain indicates otherwise. You go on to say that legalizing drugs would make more people buy drugs from the cartels. While more people would buy drugs, they would not buy from cartels. They would buy from their local drugstore, or whoever else sells drugs legitimately, and in turn destroy the profits of cartels. In your next section of statistics, you first bring up the exponential decline between 1979 and 1992. My hypothesis for why this is is fear. People were simply afraid to be arrested, faced with severe consequences. The drug war was priority 3 out of 29, after all. While you might say that the lower use of drugs was good, fear is no way to run a society. Societies are built on trust and cooperation. Fear only leads to distrust and betrayal. Your next statistic is the sharp increase in drug use when Clinton made the war on drugs a lower priority, and the slow decline that subsequently followed. My guess is that people initially all experimented with drugs because they would not be as likely to be caught or as severely punished. But after the initial surge, they realized that drugs weren't for them, and stopped. If this logic were applied to full legalization, chances are there would be an initial spike in drug use, which would then get progressively less. Perhaps the rate would even go down beyond the current rate, as the 'cool factor' of doing something illegal is now gone. Finally, I agree that a society of non-users would be better. I would hope that you realize, however, that this is an unrealistic, utopian ideal, and it would never be possible. 4. Users cannot be helped if they are scammed It is clear that my example wasn't good enough, which I suppose I can't deny. Maybe a better example would be safety. A dealer could market his drug as completely safe, but in reality the drug is incredibly dangerous. This would be considered fraud, and any victims of this fraud would not be able to receive legal help, even though they were victims, not offenders. I hope this is better than my last example. What I'm really getting at is that if one is a victim, they cannot testify against their offender as long as drugs are illegal. At the end of your paragraph, though, your argument is actually detrimental to your own case. The core of your argument is that drugs should be banned because they cause health problems, which contribute to societal problems like lack of productivity. By this logic, why not ban McDonalds. McDonalds causes health problems, and on the societal level leads to the obesity epidemic, which in turn leads to lower productivity and higher death rates. Why should one unhealthy product be banned but the other left alone? Source: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...

Politics

All-drugs-should-be-legal/1/

Since this is my closing statement, my rebuttals will be shorter than usual. I will just touch on a few points that my opponent makes. 1. The act of taking drugs does not violate rights My opponent discusses collective rights and individual rights, but what are collective rights without individual rights? They are nothing. A collective merely a sum of individuals. Collective rights are merely the sum of everyone's individual rights. If anyone's individual rights are violated for the collective, collective rights are violated just as much as individual rights. The Federal government should never have handed out drugs to addicts. My whole point is that the government needs to step away from the drug issue, and using taxpayer money to hand out free drugs is just the opposite. The property crimes were done by people. Not drugs. Why should innocent drug users be punished for the actions of true criminals? They shouldn't and it is ridiculous that they would. Later on, you go to say that poverty and crime go hand in hand. By the logic you use here, we should therefore ban poverty, whatever that means. And that would of course be ridiculous and stupid. 2. The Failure of Prohibition Al Capone may have been one man, but he ran a giant operation. Thus, the people he 'employed' also were made wealthier through prohibition. And since Capone's organization was made so powerful by alcohol trading, logically the other mobs would have seen this and followed suit. 3. More power to gangs/cartel If the drugs were legalized, the gangs would no longer have to work in the black market, and would become legitimate very quickly. A legitimate business will always do better than a black market business because it can put its name into the public without risking any trouble with the law. Basically, business doesn't have to appear overnight, because it is already there. And if drugs were legal, much of the illegal trade would simply shift into legitimacy. These deterrents only work on small-time recreational users. They don't work on people who commit crimes for the crimes for the challenge, they encourage. They don't deter addicts, because all that matters to an addict is drugs. Nothing else matters. Since crime is a huge problem, especially in major cities, perhaps the basis for the criminal justice system is broken. Deterrents have shown to be ineffective against the real targets. While a society of non-users would be better than a society of users, a society of rights"individual and collective"is better than an unrealistic utopia. 4. Users cannot be helped if they are scammed You don't see advertisements for cocaine because cocaine is illegal, and anyone marketing it publicly would be arrested. The drug dealer would take the path for the same reason as anyone else who commits fraud: stealing money from the people who couldn't know any better. What contradiction? I'm not saying drug users are victims. I'm saying people who are scammed are victims. The argument does make sense because the government shouldn't prioritize what unhealthy products are illegal. It opens up a ton of philosophical questions. Where should the line be drawn between healthy and not healthy enough for legality? When can exceptions be made? And if you want to talk about lost productivity, the police could be a lot more productive if they didn't waste their time on drugs. 5. Nobody cares about New Jersey My U.S. history teacher likes to talk about how nobody cares about New Jersey. Considering this, why would you make so many references in your argument to Trenton and Newark? NOBODY CARES ABOUT NEW JERSEY!!! In conclusion, I thought this was an excellent debate. My opponent was able to provide me with real, intellectual, valid arguments, as opposed the over-emotional, illogical garbage that a part of me was expecting. However, he did say some stuff didn't make a whole lot of sense, such as the cocaine advertisement argument. So don't forget to Vote Pro 2012, because if you do, I will legalize drugs.

JorgeLucas

Since this is my closing statement, my rebuttals will be shorter than usual. I will just touch on a few points that my opponent makes. 1. The act of taking drugs does not violate rights My opponent discusses collective rights and individual rights, but what are collective rights without individual rights? They are nothing. A collective merely a sum of individuals. Collective rights are merely the sum of everyone's individual rights. If anyone's individual rights are violated for the collective, collective rights are violated just as much as individual rights. The Federal government should never have handed out drugs to addicts. My whole point is that the government needs to step away from the drug issue, and using taxpayer money to hand out free drugs is just the opposite. The property crimes were done by people. Not drugs. Why should innocent drug users be punished for the actions of true criminals? They shouldn't and it is ridiculous that they would. Later on, you go to say that poverty and crime go hand in hand. By the logic you use here, we should therefore ban poverty, whatever that means. And that would of course be ridiculous and stupid. 2. The Failure of Prohibition Al Capone may have been one man, but he ran a giant operation. Thus, the people he 'employed' also were made wealthier through prohibition. And since Capone's organization was made so powerful by alcohol trading, logically the other mobs would have seen this and followed suit. 3. More power to gangs/cartel If the drugs were legalized, the gangs would no longer have to work in the black market, and would become legitimate very quickly. A legitimate business will always do better than a black market business because it can put its name into the public without risking any trouble with the law. Basically, business doesn't have to appear overnight, because it is already there. And if drugs were legal, much of the illegal trade would simply shift into legitimacy. These deterrents only work on small-time recreational users. They don't work on people who commit crimes for the crimes for the challenge, they encourage. They don't deter addicts, because all that matters to an addict is drugs. Nothing else matters. Since crime is a huge problem, especially in major cities, perhaps the basis for the criminal justice system is broken. Deterrents have shown to be ineffective against the real targets. While a society of non-users would be better than a society of users, a society of rights"individual and collective"is better than an unrealistic utopia. 4. Users cannot be helped if they are scammed You don't see advertisements for cocaine because cocaine is illegal, and anyone marketing it publicly would be arrested. The drug dealer would take the path for the same reason as anyone else who commits fraud: stealing money from the people who couldn't know any better. What contradiction? I'm not saying drug users are victims. I'm saying people who are scammed are victims. The argument does make sense because the government shouldn't prioritize what unhealthy products are illegal. It opens up a ton of philosophical questions. Where should the line be drawn between healthy and not healthy enough for legality? When can exceptions be made? And if you want to talk about lost productivity, the police could be a lot more productive if they didn't waste their time on drugs. 5. Nobody cares about New Jersey My U.S. history teacher likes to talk about how nobody cares about New Jersey. Considering this, why would you make so many references in your argument to Trenton and Newark? NOBODY CARES ABOUT NEW JERSEY!!! In conclusion, I thought this was an excellent debate. My opponent was able to provide me with real, intellectual, valid arguments, as opposed the over-emotional, illogical garbage that a part of me was expecting. However, he did say some stuff didn't make a whole lot of sense, such as the cocaine advertisement argument. So don't forget to Vote Pro 2012, because if you do, I will legalize drugs.

Politics

All-drugs-should-be-legal/1/

No one actually likes anyone else. They only like what the person provides. All love is conditional, all relationships are exchanges. The lines between partner, victim, family, friend, lover, customer, are only drawn by the nature of those provisions, and the effort required to provide them, and how badly each service is needed. The social contract can be seen as a series of individual contracts with each and every person you will ever encounter.

bsergent

No one actually likes anyone else. They only like what the person provides. All love is conditional, all relationships are exchanges. The lines between partner, victim, family, friend, lover, customer, are only drawn by the nature of those provisions, and the effort required to provide them, and how badly each service is needed. The social contract can be seen as a series of individual contracts with each and every person you will ever encounter.

Society

All-love-is-conditional-all-relationships-are-exchanges./1/

I suppose I could consider myself one except for that fact that no time frame is specified. Granted my ethics do indeed extend from the idea that the point of life is happiness, but to define it this way leaves a dangerous hole. I deeply respect individual freedoms, but killing a billion people would make those left pretty happy due to increased resources, this does not mean I justify the execution of a billion people. So as defined by wiki and the like, no I am not a utilitarian. "That child doesn't need to earn his mother's love(.)" Right but some mothers do not love their children, which means there is some condition that is being met to induce love be it genetic or behavioral. You bring up a need for clarification. For the record: I mean any and all conditions. Besides there are millions of cases where by all accounts true love was present and then actions were taken that changed the situation resulting in the annihilation of love. This is a fact related to all emotion, they are conditional, that is how we know to feel them. Under these conditions I will feel love under these I will feel hate. Genetic relationship or the illusion of it is just as much a condition as anything else. The idea of unconditional love is just a tool to extract servitude despite counter desire from a target. "If you really loved me you'd do this." I think the first use of this was religion. But I could be wrong about that. The idea of unconditional love is a fundamental contradiction because love (and all other emotion) is by nature selective. Love has value because it is not given to everyone by everyone, if it were you would not recognize it as a discrete entity it would be seen as merely a species bond. For example we don't think of ants being capable of love, but what if they are, to a degree greater than any human? "you have created a false dichotomy between utility and identity" Hmmm. I don't think I have, am I really merely what I can give? That reasoning seems circular. I am what I give because what I am is what I give. (Replace 'give' with 'want' or 'utility' or whatever.) Let's say Bob by nature spits out donuts, and loves watching people eat them and he meets Homer. Naturally they would enjoy each other's company. But Homer only likes the donuts and Bob only likes the eating. They mutually benefit, and were that condition to dissolve so would the association unless a new medium of exchange was found, this is not some mystical bond called 'love' or 'friendship'. The fluffy, valentines, hallmark, Kay diamonds, American nuclear family dream idea of one true love forever and ever no matter what, lets pay our 10 percent, is just totally bogus. It is an unreasonable demand and causes hoards of undue stress. We should not feel guilty for something we cannot change. And accepting this absurdity from the beginning opens the door psychologically to all other sorts of non-sense that makes you easier to control, like the idea that God unconditionally loves you but he'll send you to hell if X. If we would just own up to the facts of our nature we would be a lot better off. If we are ashamed of our nature, fine then let's change it as per Transhumanism. Saying there is unconditional love, when logically there cannot me and the glossing it over with platitudes like "the heart knows no logic" is both insulting and dangerously close to burying our heads in the sand. (not that this is what you've claimed) If people were more honest about what they want and more tolerant of others being honest, there would be a lot more happy people. My ethical world is based on one idea. "Honesty is the best policy." Because over time it is. Delusion is maladaptive. Lies = Pain. And thank you Connor for providing rational counterpoint. I'm glad you enjoy the topic. :)

bsergent

I suppose I could consider myself one except for that fact that no time frame is specified. Granted my ethics do indeed extend from the idea that the point of life is happiness, but to define it this way leaves a dangerous hole. I deeply respect individual freedoms, but killing a billion people would make those left pretty happy due to increased resources, this does not mean I justify the execution of a billion people. So as defined by wiki and the like, no I am not a utilitarian. "That child doesn't need to earn his mother's love(.)" Right but some mothers do not love their children, which means there is some condition that is being met to induce love be it genetic or behavioral. You bring up a need for clarification. For the record: I mean any and all conditions. Besides there are millions of cases where by all accounts true love was present and then actions were taken that changed the situation resulting in the annihilation of love. This is a fact related to all emotion, they are conditional, that is how we know to feel them. Under these conditions I will feel love under these I will feel hate. Genetic relationship or the illusion of it is just as much a condition as anything else. The idea of unconditional love is just a tool to extract servitude despite counter desire from a target. "If you really loved me you'd do this." I think the first use of this was religion. But I could be wrong about that. The idea of unconditional love is a fundamental contradiction because love (and all other emotion) is by nature selective. Love has value because it is not given to everyone by everyone, if it were you would not recognize it as a discrete entity it would be seen as merely a species bond. For example we don't think of ants being capable of love, but what if they are, to a degree greater than any human? "you have created a false dichotomy between utility and identity" Hmmm. I don't think I have, am I really merely what I can give? That reasoning seems circular. I am what I give because what I am is what I give. (Replace ‘give' with ‘want' or ‘utility' or whatever.) Let's say Bob by nature spits out donuts, and loves watching people eat them and he meets Homer. Naturally they would enjoy each other's company. But Homer only likes the donuts and Bob only likes the eating. They mutually benefit, and were that condition to dissolve so would the association unless a new medium of exchange was found, this is not some mystical bond called ‘love' or ‘friendship'. The fluffy, valentines, hallmark, Kay diamonds, American nuclear family dream idea of one true love forever and ever no matter what, lets pay our 10 percent, is just totally bogus. It is an unreasonable demand and causes hoards of undue stress. We should not feel guilty for something we cannot change. And accepting this absurdity from the beginning opens the door psychologically to all other sorts of non-sense that makes you easier to control, like the idea that God unconditionally loves you but he'll send you to hell if X. If we would just own up to the facts of our nature we would be a lot better off. If we are ashamed of our nature, fine then let's change it as per Transhumanism. Saying there is unconditional love, when logically there cannot me and the glossing it over with platitudes like "the heart knows no logic" is both insulting and dangerously close to burying our heads in the sand. (not that this is what you've claimed) If people were more honest about what they want and more tolerant of others being honest, there would be a lot more happy people. My ethical world is based on one idea. "Honesty is the best policy." Because over time it is. Delusion is maladaptive. Lies = Pain. And thank you Connor for providing rational counterpoint. I'm glad you enjoy the topic. :)

Society

All-love-is-conditional-all-relationships-are-exchanges./1/

"...you have put the burden upon yourself to prove that there are no examples of a mother loving her child regardless of what the child did or didn't do." Not true. My statement of a negative is a response to an implied positive on your part. By your logic atheists would be obliged to prove god does not exist, which they are not, as has been exhaustively covered elsewhere. It is not possible to prove a negative without complete knowledge, and the inability to prove a negative is not a proof of a positive. ...But nice try though. :P :) "Well duh, this debate would be meaningless if that were the case there are always going to be physical conditional requirements for love to exist in the first place." So we agree. Heh, thank you for playing. Should I continue? I assume you want me to. :P "The real point of this debate and the task incumbent upon you is to prove that there are no relationships in the world between two people where their love and adoration for a child (parent, brother, sister, loved one) was unconditional in the sense that it was uninterrupted and existed regardless of any action that the recipient did or could have done." If I were to assume your burden which I am not, you had me until "...could have done". If nothing else it is possible to inflict brain damage on a person in such a way that they hate you. Many examples exist of brain trauma resulting in severe emotional disturbance. It's an unbreakable chain of reasoning. And well within "could have". "Love is more of a state of mind then just the emotions that result its presence." Now it's my turn to announce burden of proof issues. If you can prove that love is not an emotional state of mind, you will have secured for yourself a place in human history, as you will have shown the soul to exist, or at least room for it. I.E. Emotional sourcing outside the meat of the mind. "Indeed there are. But this isn't really the point of the debate, is it? I came here to argue that there are cases that have existed and indeed do exist today where true love / care has been unconditional and present regardless of any actions that were taken." Actions that were taken, not actions that could have been taken. My response is that anyone can be made to hate anyone else under the proper conditions. Just because those conditions are not met for a set of people, does not mean that those conditions and their results cannot exist. "You're too quick to equate love as a basic human emotion but really it's more complex then that." This is known as the Appeal to Ignorance (I think). Sure love is complex but just because we don't know about some of it doesn't mean its super natural. "I clumsily described it as a state of mind, but I think we can both agree (assuming you have been in love) that it's far more guided and persistent then being merely happy or sad." I've experienced love, but it was conditional. You're being underhanded. You're saying that if I don't believe that love is unconditional I've never 'really' experienced love. I hope you do not presume to demean the validity of my emotions just because we disagree on their nature. Love is a state of mind. As above, if not, and you can prove it, you have fame waiting for you. "...specifically used to describe God's love for us. Which is ironic because that's assuming you fulfill the condition of believing and indeed following him in the first place or else it's off to hell for you." That irks me to no end. "This isn't to somehow suggest that their identity is somehow limited to their utility relative to you." Ahhh, I totally misunderstood. So I straw manned you via ignorance, my bad hehe. "I've seen that humans are capable of selflessness, compassion, and indeed love without conditions." Oh boy! Altruism FTW. Please provide me a single example of a selfless human act. :) I'll save you time, you cannot. All human action is either willful, and therefore in service of will and therefore desire, or is involuntary and outside the realm of judgment. This may be a whole other debate lol. "Another great round. Seems like you've had this argument before :)" Oh my, have I. I've got a whole book of this madness. Go put Sergent in lulu.com. :P I fancy myself a Sophist in the Greek sense, and I'm sure many feel I am in the modern sense. :) You're a treat to debate with. This site rocks.

bsergent

"…you have put the burden upon yourself to prove that there are no examples of a mother loving her child regardless of what the child did or didn't do." Not true. My statement of a negative is a response to an implied positive on your part. By your logic atheists would be obliged to prove god does not exist, which they are not, as has been exhaustively covered elsewhere. It is not possible to prove a negative without complete knowledge, and the inability to prove a negative is not a proof of a positive. …But nice try though. :P :) "Well duh, this debate would be meaningless if that were the case there are always going to be physical conditional requirements for love to exist in the first place." So we agree. Heh, thank you for playing. Should I continue? I assume you want me to. :P "The real point of this debate and the task incumbent upon you is to prove that there are no relationships in the world between two people where their love and adoration for a child (parent, brother, sister, loved one) was unconditional in the sense that it was uninterrupted and existed regardless of any action that the recipient did or could have done." If I were to assume your burden which I am not, you had me until "…could have done". If nothing else it is possible to inflict brain damage on a person in such a way that they hate you. Many examples exist of brain trauma resulting in severe emotional disturbance. It's an unbreakable chain of reasoning. And well within "could have". "Love is more of a state of mind then just the emotions that result its presence." Now it's my turn to announce burden of proof issues. If you can prove that love is not an emotional state of mind, you will have secured for yourself a place in human history, as you will have shown the soul to exist, or at least room for it. I.E. Emotional sourcing outside the meat of the mind. "Indeed there are. But this isn't really the point of the debate, is it? I came here to argue that there are cases that have existed and indeed do exist today where true love / care has been unconditional and present regardless of any actions that were taken." Actions that were taken, not actions that could have been taken. My response is that anyone can be made to hate anyone else under the proper conditions. Just because those conditions are not met for a set of people, does not mean that those conditions and their results cannot exist. "You're too quick to equate love as a basic human emotion but really it's more complex then that." This is known as the Appeal to Ignorance (I think). Sure love is complex but just because we don't know about some of it doesn't mean its super natural. "I clumsily described it as a state of mind, but I think we can both agree (assuming you have been in love) that it's far more guided and persistent then being merely happy or sad." I've experienced love, but it was conditional. You're being underhanded. You're saying that if I don't believe that love is unconditional I've never ‘really' experienced love. I hope you do not presume to demean the validity of my emotions just because we disagree on their nature. Love is a state of mind. As above, if not, and you can prove it, you have fame waiting for you. "…specifically used to describe God's love for us. Which is ironic because that's assuming you fulfill the condition of believing and indeed following him in the first place or else it's off to hell for you." That irks me to no end. "This isn't to somehow suggest that their identity is somehow limited to their utility relative to you." Ahhh, I totally misunderstood. So I straw manned you via ignorance, my bad hehe. "I've seen that humans are capable of selflessness, compassion, and indeed love without conditions." Oh boy! Altruism FTW. Please provide me a single example of a selfless human act. :) I'll save you time, you cannot. All human action is either willful, and therefore in service of will and therefore desire, or is involuntary and outside the realm of judgment. This may be a whole other debate lol. "Another great round. Seems like you've had this argument before :)" Oh my, have I. I've got a whole book of this madness. Go put Sergent in lulu.com. :P I fancy myself a Sophist in the Greek sense, and I'm sure many feel I am in the modern sense. :) You're a treat to debate with. This site rocks.

Society

All-love-is-conditional-all-relationships-are-exchanges./1/

For clarification, would you consider yourself a utilitarian? Where the moral worth of an individual is a measure of their utility relative to you. Utility being generally defined as good or happiness. Ok, lets begin with "All love is conditional". My refutation of this point depends on my ability to generate examples of individuals or relationships where love is given without the recipient having to "earn" or without conditions that need to be fulfilled. One such relationship is the bond between a mother and her new born child. That child doesn't need to earn his mother's love, nor does he need to work in any way, conscious or subconscious, in order to receive it. This link is quite powerful, even to the point where the mothers of serial killers will often go to great lengths to protect and defend their child. This, im sure, serves an important evolutionary purpose for man because this "maternal selflessness" is really more than a social construct, instead it is behavior that stems from humanity's primary priority, survival. "All relationships are exchanges". The ambiguity of this phrasing has me a little confused, define and describe these exchanges. I can only assume you mean that relationships, in the simplest sense, depend on the presence of some "give and take" system that is mutually beneficial. I suppose I could agree with this but I disagree with your subsequent conclusions: "No one actually likes anyone else. They only like what the person provides." Of course your forgetting that what someone else has to provide or offer is fundamental to their identity. So by saying that you don't like the person you only like what they do for you is inherently contradicting. It's because you have created a false dichotomy between utility and identity. You assume they are separate but they are integral to each other. thanks sergent, very interesting topic

killa_connor

For clarification, would you consider yourself a utilitarian? Where the moral worth of an individual is a measure of their utility relative to you. Utility being generally defined as good or happiness. Ok, lets begin with "All love is conditional". My refutation of this point depends on my ability to generate examples of individuals or relationships where love is given without the recipient having to "earn" or without conditions that need to be fulfilled. One such relationship is the bond between a mother and her new born child. That child doesn't need to earn his mother's love, nor does he need to work in any way, conscious or subconscious, in order to receive it. This link is quite powerful, even to the point where the mothers of serial killers will often go to great lengths to protect and defend their child. This, im sure, serves an important evolutionary purpose for man because this "maternal selflessness" is really more than a social construct, instead it is behavior that stems from humanity's primary priority, survival. "All relationships are exchanges". The ambiguity of this phrasing has me a little confused, define and describe these exchanges. I can only assume you mean that relationships, in the simplest sense, depend on the presence of some "give and take" system that is mutually beneficial. I suppose I could agree with this but I disagree with your subsequent conclusions: "No one actually likes anyone else. They only like what the person provides." Of course your forgetting that what someone else has to provide or offer is fundamental to their identity. So by saying that you don't like the person you only like what they do for you is inherently contradicting. It's because you have created a false dichotomy between utility and identity. You assume they are separate but they are integral to each other. thanks sergent, very interesting topic

Society

All-love-is-conditional-all-relationships-are-exchanges./1/

Nice response! Now I'm starting to understand how this debate topic can work in your favor. Conditional in a literal sense can be applied to any uncontrollable condition being met in order to achieve love. The way you're debating against the notion of unconditional love is by pointing out conditions that must be met even though those conditions are outside of the recipients ability to change or alter. What is working in my favor for this argument is that it doesn't matter if there are mothers who do not love their children. By claiming that ALL love (past, present, and future) is/was/will be conditional you have put the burden upon yourself to prove that there are no examples of a mother loving her child regardless of what the child did or didn't do. This is what I mean by a controllable condition because you can generate any sort of arbitrary conditions that were met for love to be present. For example, the condition that the child be physically born and indeed have existed in order for love to be present. Well duh, this debate would be meaningless if that were the case there are always going to be physical conditional requirements for love to exist in the first place. The real point of this debate and the task incumbent upon you is to prove that there are no relationships in the world between two people where their love and adoration for a child (parent, brother, sister, loved one) was unconditional in the sense that it was uninterrupted and existed regardless of any action that the recipient did or could have done. Certainly emotions are inherently conditional but what we're really arguing here is whether or not love and the ability to care is conditional and while love has an emotional expression its important to remember that love is not defined by its emotions and the biological chemical processes that produces them. Love is more of a state of mind then just the emotions that result its presence. What I mean by this is that you can care for a person indefinitely but you can't stay permanently happy (or any other emotion) these emotions will naturally be interrupted. "Besides there are millions of cases where by all accounts true love was present and then actions were taken that changed the situation resulting in the annihilation of love. " Indeed there are. But this isn't really the point of the debate, is it? I came here to argue that there are cases that have existed and indeed do exist today where true love / care has been unconditional and present regardless of any actions that were taken. I think this is the problem with your logic. You're too quick to equate love as a basic human emotion but really it's more complex then that. You can be incredibly mad or sad with someone but still have love present which is why it is such an enduring force. I clumsily described it as a state of mind, but I think we can both agree (assuming you have been in love) that it's far more guided and persistent then being merely happy or sad. These emotions are certainly bi-products but not a defining element of love. I do agree with your points on religion. You do hear the term "unconditional love" thrown around by the clergy, it's certainly present within Catholic tradition and specifically used to describe God's love for us. Which is ironic because that's assuming you fulfill the condition of believing and indeed following him in the first place or else it's off to hell for you. The example you gave with Bob and Homer is funny but it misinterprets and oversimplifies my point about utility and identity being related. You cleverly exaggerate my point to claim that they are somehow the same thing, but in reality I'm merely pointing our that by liking what that person provides or what their presence does for you is appreciating part of their identity. This isn't to somehow suggest that their identity is somehow limited to their utility relative to you. This would be to suggest that all we are is the our ability to be used and what we "provide". I agree with your points about religion and I think that unconditional love operates on a human level. Perhaps a Christian would like to argue and describe the existence of some divine unconditional love, but thats not why I'm here. I've seen that humans are capable of selflessness, compassion, and indeed love without conditions. I concede that unconditional love is not present in most relationships because it doesn't define and is incompatible with friendships and most relationships we are presented with. That's why I began with a mother and her child. Our human nature to love and care stems from a evolutionary priority which began with the selflessness that was required for early man to survive. That's not to say that love doesn't serve any contemporary purpose in our society but thats another debate all together :). I'm very appreciative and tolerant of your honesty. And please expect the same honesty from my arguments. Because I'm predominantly drawing from personal observation of human nature and am in no way trying to ignore or gloss over the upsetting reality of our nature. Nor am I trying to imply that unconditional love is somehow a controlling force over behavior, in reality I expect that it would have the opposite effect. Another great round. Seems like you've had this argument before :) -connor

killa_connor

Nice response! Now I'm starting to understand how this debate topic can work in your favor. Conditional in a literal sense can be applied to any uncontrollable condition being met in order to achieve love. The way you're debating against the notion of unconditional love is by pointing out conditions that must be met even though those conditions are outside of the recipients ability to change or alter. What is working in my favor for this argument is that it doesn't matter if there are mothers who do not love their children. By claiming that ALL love (past, present, and future) is/was/will be conditional you have put the burden upon yourself to prove that there are no examples of a mother loving her child regardless of what the child did or didn't do. This is what I mean by a controllable condition because you can generate any sort of arbitrary conditions that were met for love to be present. For example, the condition that the child be physically born and indeed have existed in order for love to be present. Well duh, this debate would be meaningless if that were the case there are always going to be physical conditional requirements for love to exist in the first place. The real point of this debate and the task incumbent upon you is to prove that there are no relationships in the world between two people where their love and adoration for a child (parent, brother, sister, loved one) was unconditional in the sense that it was uninterrupted and existed regardless of any action that the recipient did or could have done. Certainly emotions are inherently conditional but what we're really arguing here is whether or not love and the ability to care is conditional and while love has an emotional expression its important to remember that love is not defined by its emotions and the biological chemical processes that produces them. Love is more of a state of mind then just the emotions that result its presence. What I mean by this is that you can care for a person indefinitely but you can't stay permanently happy (or any other emotion) these emotions will naturally be interrupted. "Besides there are millions of cases where by all accounts true love was present and then actions were taken that changed the situation resulting in the annihilation of love. " Indeed there are. But this isn't really the point of the debate, is it? I came here to argue that there are cases that have existed and indeed do exist today where true love / care has been unconditional and present regardless of any actions that were taken. I think this is the problem with your logic. You're too quick to equate love as a basic human emotion but really it's more complex then that. You can be incredibly mad or sad with someone but still have love present which is why it is such an enduring force. I clumsily described it as a state of mind, but I think we can both agree (assuming you have been in love) that it's far more guided and persistent then being merely happy or sad. These emotions are certainly bi-products but not a defining element of love. I do agree with your points on religion. You do hear the term "unconditional love" thrown around by the clergy, it's certainly present within Catholic tradition and specifically used to describe God's love for us. Which is ironic because that's assuming you fulfill the condition of believing and indeed following him in the first place or else it's off to hell for you. The example you gave with Bob and Homer is funny but it misinterprets and oversimplifies my point about utility and identity being related. You cleverly exaggerate my point to claim that they are somehow the same thing, but in reality I'm merely pointing our that by liking what that person provides or what their presence does for you is appreciating part of their identity. This isn't to somehow suggest that their identity is somehow limited to their utility relative to you. This would be to suggest that all we are is the our ability to be used and what we "provide". I agree with your points about religion and I think that unconditional love operates on a human level. Perhaps a Christian would like to argue and describe the existence of some divine unconditional love, but thats not why I'm here. I've seen that humans are capable of selflessness, compassion, and indeed love without conditions. I concede that unconditional love is not present in most relationships because it doesn't define and is incompatible with friendships and most relationships we are presented with. That's why I began with a mother and her child. Our human nature to love and care stems from a evolutionary priority which began with the selflessness that was required for early man to survive. That's not to say that love doesn't serve any contemporary purpose in our society but thats another debate all together :). I'm very appreciative and tolerant of your honesty. And please expect the same honesty from my arguments. Because I'm predominantly drawing from personal observation of human nature and am in no way trying to ignore or gloss over the upsetting reality of our nature. Nor am I trying to imply that unconditional love is somehow a controlling force over behavior, in reality I expect that it would have the opposite effect. Another great round. Seems like you've had this argument before :) -connor

Society

All-love-is-conditional-all-relationships-are-exchanges./1/

Whoa! You started this third round swinging. Many claims to address, lets start with your digression into a discussion on semantics which is drawing away from the real question here, Is love a basic human emotion and therefore inherently conditional? Or is it a state that has emotional biproducts but is not limited by the same conditions of emotions? Unfortunately, before I can return to the real contention of this debate, let me take a little time to dismiss this bizarre notion that I've somehow forfeited my point or that I have inadvertently introduced a new burden of proof: "... the inability to prove a negative is not a proof of a positive. ...But nice try though. :P :)" Nicely put, therefore my ability to produce a negative (lets not forget I am the Con here!) would be proof of my implied positive. The negation being in this case, that there are instances of unconditional love. This has gotten wordy and convoluted but my original point was that you have taken the challenge of explaining why no mother can have unconditional love for her child. It was merely a reiteration of your opening remarks. Next we have these gems, "So we agree. Heh, thank you for playing. Should I continue? I assume you want me to. :P" -Round 3 We agree on what exactly? That there are physical conditions to every action in the universe? Um, yes... I guess so. "If nothing else it is possible to inflict brain damage on a person in such a way that they hate you. Many examples exist of brain trauma resulting in severe emotional disturbance. It's an unbreakable chain of reasoning. And well within "could have"." -Round 3 Why just brain damage? In order to have unconditional love they need to fulfill the condition that aliens don't abduct them and turn them into crazy zombie mutants that murder and pillage. Or even they must meet the condition that she doesn't turn into a dragon and eat her once unconditionally loved and adored child. This is my point and this was my whole point during round 2 about controllable conditions and how your literal conditional approach isn't applicable to this debate because its far too abstract and arbitrary. We're speaking in hypothetical terms and using characteristics of human nature and the nature of human emotions to decide whether or not love can be unconditional. And just as all is seemingly lost, you return to our original points of contention with the same articulate and well supported points that have defined your first two rounds of arguments!: "This is known as the Appeal to Ignorance (I think). Sure love is complex but just because we don't know about some of it doesn't mean its super natural." -Round 3 Agreed, and I'm not trying to suggest that it is somehow "super-natural" in the sense that it can't be explain by natural processes (mainly the evolutionary processes that explain the notion of human altruism) but, rather, that it is a state of mind that has come to be defined by its emotional tangibility. "I've experienced love, but it was conditional. You're being underhanded. You're saying that if I don't believe that love is unconditional I've never 'really' experienced love. I hope you do not presume to demean the validity of my emotions just because we disagree on their nature." -Round 3 It wasn't my intention to be underhanded nor was it my intention to demean the validity of your emotions. I wasn't even asking if your experiences with love have been conditional (Obviously, they have been or I wouldn't expect you to subscribe to the general philosophy that love can't be unconditional), all I was pointing out is that love is far more persistent then other human emotions that you are attempting to equate it with. I remember the first time I fell in love, I was in the fifth grade and I literally had a crush on this girl on through high-school. It was only until we left for college that I was able to move on but even that was tough. Certainly, that example of love was conditional but my point in saying all of this is that Love can be an enduring force, and when this endurance is introduced to the context of a strong maternal link it has the potential to be unconditional. Let's not forget that Adolf Hitler's mother still loved her son even after his suicide and the extent of his evil was revealed. Its a powerful psychological process that compels us to care regardless of whether or not the recipient is deserving or even fulfills the criteria required to deserve such compassion. "Now it's my turn to announce burden of proof issues. If you can prove that love is not an emotional state of mind, you will have secured for yourself a place in human history, as you will have shown the soul to exist, or at least room for it. I.E. Emotional sourcing outside the meat of the mind." -Round 3 Hahaha it looks like I have quite the burden to tote. And it is partially true because what I'm describing isn't entirely tangible but I would predict that there are biological processes that can indicate or signal the onset of love or adoration (Interesting side note: In 2005, Italian scientists at Pavia University found that a protein molecule known as the nerve growth factor (NGF) has high levels when people first fall in love, but these levels return to as they were after one year. Specifically, four neurotrophin levels, i.e. NGF, BDNF, NT-3, and NT-4, of 58 subjects who had recently fallen in love were compared with levels in a control group who were either single or already engaged in a long-term relationship. The results showed that NGF levels were significantly higher in the subjects in love. Perhaps the notion of love isn't as abstract as you originally assumed). I also never meant to claim that it is not an emotional state of mind but rather a state of mind that has been equated to an emotion but in reality is far more persistent and incorporates a multitude of emotions. This could backfire on me but I would even compare it to the sensation of jealousy in regard to is ability to persevere and often times incorporate more then one emotion (in the case of jealousy: anger, sadness, shame). "Oh boy! Altruism FTW." "Please provide me a single example of a selfless human act. :) I'll save you time, you cannot. All human action is either willful, and therefore in service of will and therefore desire, or is involuntary and outside the realm of judgment." -Round 3 Interesting, you recognize altruism as part of the human condition but yet you argue that regardless of the appearance of selflessness the acts are inherently selfish because they are in service of will. This is an interesting point and taps into a discussion on how we would define altruism. I would argue that it is expressing less concern for yourself than for the success of the joint activity / welfare of others. I know we don't have the time to debate this but this is something that deserves some follow up. I hope to be receiving another challenge soon =). Except maybe this time take me on in my arena. Political processes either domestic or international, but judging by your profile and libertarian tendencies I think a debate about the role of the rich in an affluent society would be an interesting debate topic for us to duke it out over. It's been a pleasure. -connor

killa_connor

Whoa! You started this third round swinging. Many claims to address, lets start with your digression into a discussion on semantics which is drawing away from the real question here, Is love a basic human emotion and therefore inherently conditional? Or is it a state that has emotional biproducts but is not limited by the same conditions of emotions? Unfortunately, before I can return to the real contention of this debate, let me take a little time to dismiss this bizarre notion that I've somehow forfeited my point or that I have inadvertently introduced a new burden of proof: "... the inability to prove a negative is not a proof of a positive. …But nice try though. :P :)" Nicely put, therefore my ability to produce a negative (lets not forget I am the Con here!) would be proof of my implied positive. The negation being in this case, that there are instances of unconditional love. This has gotten wordy and convoluted but my original point was that you have taken the challenge of explaining why no mother can have unconditional love for her child. It was merely a reiteration of your opening remarks. Next we have these gems, "So we agree. Heh, thank you for playing. Should I continue? I assume you want me to. :P" -Round 3 We agree on what exactly? That there are physical conditions to every action in the universe? Um, yes... I guess so. "If nothing else it is possible to inflict brain damage on a person in such a way that they hate you. Many examples exist of brain trauma resulting in severe emotional disturbance. It's an unbreakable chain of reasoning. And well within "could have"." -Round 3 Why just brain damage? In order to have unconditional love they need to fulfill the condition that aliens don't abduct them and turn them into crazy zombie mutants that murder and pillage. Or even they must meet the condition that she doesn't turn into a dragon and eat her once unconditionally loved and adored child. This is my point and this was my whole point during round 2 about controllable conditions and how your literal conditional approach isn't applicable to this debate because its far too abstract and arbitrary. We're speaking in hypothetical terms and using characteristics of human nature and the nature of human emotions to decide whether or not love can be unconditional. And just as all is seemingly lost, you return to our original points of contention with the same articulate and well supported points that have defined your first two rounds of arguments!: "This is known as the Appeal to Ignorance (I think). Sure love is complex but just because we don't know about some of it doesn't mean its super natural." -Round 3 Agreed, and I'm not trying to suggest that it is somehow "super-natural" in the sense that it can't be explain by natural processes (mainly the evolutionary processes that explain the notion of human altruism) but, rather, that it is a state of mind that has come to be defined by its emotional tangibility. "I've experienced love, but it was conditional. You're being underhanded. You're saying that if I don't believe that love is unconditional I've never ‘really' experienced love. I hope you do not presume to demean the validity of my emotions just because we disagree on their nature." -Round 3 It wasn't my intention to be underhanded nor was it my intention to demean the validity of your emotions. I wasn't even asking if your experiences with love have been conditional (Obviously, they have been or I wouldn't expect you to subscribe to the general philosophy that love can't be unconditional), all I was pointing out is that love is far more persistent then other human emotions that you are attempting to equate it with. I remember the first time I fell in love, I was in the fifth grade and I literally had a crush on this girl on through high-school. It was only until we left for college that I was able to move on but even that was tough. Certainly, that example of love was conditional but my point in saying all of this is that Love can be an enduring force, and when this endurance is introduced to the context of a strong maternal link it has the potential to be unconditional. Let's not forget that Adolf Hitler's mother still loved her son even after his suicide and the extent of his evil was revealed. Its a powerful psychological process that compels us to care regardless of whether or not the recipient is deserving or even fulfills the criteria required to deserve such compassion. "Now it's my turn to announce burden of proof issues. If you can prove that love is not an emotional state of mind, you will have secured for yourself a place in human history, as you will have shown the soul to exist, or at least room for it. I.E. Emotional sourcing outside the meat of the mind." -Round 3 Hahaha it looks like I have quite the burden to tote. And it is partially true because what I'm describing isn't entirely tangible but I would predict that there are biological processes that can indicate or signal the onset of love or adoration (Interesting side note: In 2005, Italian scientists at Pavia University found that a protein molecule known as the nerve growth factor (NGF) has high levels when people first fall in love, but these levels return to as they were after one year. Specifically, four neurotrophin levels, i.e. NGF, BDNF, NT-3, and NT-4, of 58 subjects who had recently fallen in love were compared with levels in a control group who were either single or already engaged in a long-term relationship. The results showed that NGF levels were significantly higher in the subjects in love. Perhaps the notion of love isn't as abstract as you originally assumed). I also never meant to claim that it is not an emotional state of mind but rather a state of mind that has been equated to an emotion but in reality is far more persistent and incorporates a multitude of emotions. This could backfire on me but I would even compare it to the sensation of jealousy in regard to is ability to persevere and often times incorporate more then one emotion (in the case of jealousy: anger, sadness, shame). "Oh boy! Altruism FTW." "Please provide me a single example of a selfless human act. :) I'll save you time, you cannot. All human action is either willful, and therefore in service of will and therefore desire, or is involuntary and outside the realm of judgment." -Round 3 Interesting, you recognize altruism as part of the human condition but yet you argue that regardless of the appearance of selflessness the acts are inherently selfish because they are in service of will. This is an interesting point and taps into a discussion on how we would define altruism. I would argue that it is expressing less concern for yourself than for the success of the joint activity / welfare of others. I know we don't have the time to debate this but this is something that deserves some follow up. I hope to be receiving another challenge soon =). Except maybe this time take me on in my arena. Political processes either domestic or international, but judging by your profile and libertarian tendencies I think a debate about the role of the rich in an affluent society would be an interesting debate topic for us to duke it out over. It's been a pleasure. -connor

Society

All-love-is-conditional-all-relationships-are-exchanges./1/

First off, let me ask Con one thing, How in the world is equality wrong? Con argues that not all minorities contribute to the community they live in, examples? Everybody (except criminals and people who do not work) contributes to the community. We cannot generalize one race/religion/etc to be all full of criminals and people who do not work and contribute. Con also argues that not all communites follow a 'healthy' and 'acceptable' lifestyle. Who determines what this 'acceptable' is? As long as the minorities are not harming anyone, their different lifestyles should not be reason enough to take away their rights. It is more wrong to take away the rights of fellow human beings just because they do not conform or melt into the culture of the majority than it is to have a different cultural background.

Theunkown

First off, let me ask Con one thing, How in the world is equality wrong? Con argues that not all minorities contribute to the community they live in, examples? Everybody (except criminals and people who do not work) contributes to the community. We cannot generalize one race/religion/etc to be all full of criminals and people who do not work and contribute. Con also argues that not all communites follow a 'healthy' and 'acceptable' lifestyle. Who determines what this 'acceptable' is? As long as the minorities are not harming anyone, their different lifestyles should not be reason enough to take away their rights. It is more wrong to take away the rights of fellow human beings just because they do not conform or melt into the culture of the majority than it is to have a different cultural background.

Politics

All-minorities-should-have-rights/1/

My opponent has raised a fair point about indigenous south american tribes. He says that their 'culture' dictates them to: a) Tax people to use public roads. b) Bury disabled children c) Use illegal drugs. a) Roads were never a part of indigenous south american culture, (exception of the Incas which are now an extinct civilization). There is no concept of taxes in indigenous south american culture (again, excluding Incas). So, How can it be said that road tax is part of their culture? It's probably some sort of illegal activity, where action should be taken by the government. But is certainly not an age old cultural tradition. b)I wrote in round 1 that any sort of lifestyle is acceptable as long as they do not harm anyone, this is harming someone and it should be dealt in the same way murder should be dealt. But at the same time, we cannot deny them any human rights, after all every race has murderers. If one ultra-tradional crazy shaman does this horrendous act, we should not be taking away the rights from the entire tribe, we should just be putting the shaman in jail (or a psychiatry wing). c) My opponent speaks of Indigenous south americans using the plant coca, coca is where cocain comes from. Indigenous south Americans use coca for curing diseases and nutrition, some of the benefits of coca include: curing of toothache, a prevention for bone disease, cure for altitude sickness, improving digestion, even for treating malaria and asthma.[1][2] This plant is obviously making the lives of indigenous americans better, why should we deny them this medicine? My opponent also says that these tribes contribute little to the community, of course they do. They have seen the sudden change from stone age civilization to information age civilization, we cannot expect them to learn the modern world and contribute to it in a heartbeat. But in a the next few decades, I believe that as the tribes have more and more contact with the modern world, and hence greater influence from them, they will start to contribute more to the modern world. We must also not forget that the Amazaonian rainforest is being deforested. In the modern world, this is the equivalent to the government/contractors destroying people's houses for their own benefit. Homeless people cannot exactly 'contribute' so to speak. Sources: [1] <URL>... ; [2] <URL>... ;

Theunkown

My opponent has raised a fair point about indigenous south american tribes. He says that their 'culture' dictates them to: a) Tax people to use public roads. b) Bury disabled children c) Use illegal drugs. a) Roads were never a part of indigenous south american culture, (exception of the Incas which are now an extinct civilization). There is no concept of taxes in indigenous south american culture (again, excluding Incas). So, How can it be said that road tax is part of their culture? It's probably some sort of illegal activity, where action should be taken by the government. But is certainly not an age old cultural tradition. b)I wrote in round 1 that any sort of lifestyle is acceptable as long as they do not harm anyone, this is harming someone and it should be dealt in the same way murder should be dealt. But at the same time, we cannot deny them any human rights, after all every race has murderers. If one ultra-tradional crazy shaman does this horrendous act, we should not be taking away the rights from the entire tribe, we should just be putting the shaman in jail (or a psychiatry wing). c) My opponent speaks of Indigenous south americans using the plant coca, coca is where cocain comes from. Indigenous south Americans use coca for curing diseases and nutrition, some of the benefits of coca include: curing of toothache, a prevention for bone disease, cure for altitude sickness, improving digestion, even for treating malaria and asthma.[1][2] This plant is obviously making the lives of indigenous americans better, why should we deny them this medicine? My opponent also says that these tribes contribute little to the community, of course they do. They have seen the sudden change from stone age civilization to information age civilization, we cannot expect them to learn the modern world and contribute to it in a heartbeat. But in a the next few decades, I believe that as the tribes have more and more contact with the modern world, and hence greater influence from them, they will start to contribute more to the modern world. We must also not forget that the Amazaonian rainforest is being deforested. In the modern world, this is the equivalent to the government/contractors destroying people's houses for their own benefit. Homeless people cannot exactly 'contribute' so to speak. Sources: [1] http://www.accessexcellence.org... ; [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... ;

Politics

All-minorities-should-have-rights/1/

Due to forfeit, All points to pro

Theunkown

Due to forfeit, All points to pro

Politics

All-minorities-should-have-rights/1/

I argue that not all minorities contribute beneficially to communities or follow a lifestyle which is healthy or acceptable and therefor some of the modern day activities to give equality to everyone are wrong.

mildnl

I argue that not all minorities contribute beneficially to communities or follow a lifestyle which is healthy or acceptable and therefor some of the modern day activities to give equality to everyone are wrong.

Politics

All-minorities-should-have-rights/1/

Excuse my spelling, we can have this argument in German if you prefer. I see your point that all but criminals seemingly contribute to the community but I argue that with following example: certain indigenous tribes in south america have rights given to them to accommodate their individual culture and set of believes - which is fine so far. But this culture now includes taxing passage for others on public roads, burial of living disabled children right after birth and the use of drugs which you would go to jail for in the city. In the sense of contribution these tribes contribute very little to others apart from themselves. Now I dont think anyone would condone these acts but to end them you would need to remove required freedoms for this lifestyle from this minority. So either continue to accept these issues or face the wrath of liberalists.

mildnl

Excuse my spelling, we can have this argument in German if you prefer. I see your point that all but criminals seemingly contribute to the community but I argue that with following example: certain indigenous tribes in south america have rights given to them to accommodate their individual culture and set of believes - which is fine so far. But this culture now includes taxing passage for others on public roads, burial of living disabled children right after birth and the use of drugs which you would go to jail for in the city. In the sense of contribution these tribes contribute very little to others apart from themselves. Now I dont think anyone would condone these acts but to end them you would need to remove required freedoms for this lifestyle from this minority. So either continue to accept these issues or face the wrath of liberalists.

Politics

All-minorities-should-have-rights/1/

I will be arguing that Allah does not exist, and his place doesn't exist either. Nobody has ever recorded an observation of Allah's abode/home/mansion/cardboard box. I had a friend named Allah once. Actually, his name was Adam. I saw Adam. I have proof of Adam. The Qua-ran isn't proof of Allah. Or his place.

ADHDavid

I will be arguing that Allah does not exist, and his place doesn't exist either. Nobody has ever recorded an observation of Allah's abode/home/mansion/cardboard box. I had a friend named Allah once. Actually, his name was Adam. I saw Adam. I have proof of Adam. The Qua-ran isn't proof of Allah. Or his place.

Religion

Allah-exists-without-a-place-according-to-correct-Islamic-belief/1/

"Allah exists without a place according to correct Islamic belief" Actually, I am arguing that Allah does not exist without a place, which means I can argue that Allah does not exist. The reason I can do this is becuase "Con" means against, so I do not have to be a Muslim to argue against this topic.Pro has failed to provide any sources or arguments for his case in the second round, instead choosing to a use improper capitalisations to highlight his beliefs, so I will touch base on what umar99 wrote last round and the round before for a moment. "I ask for the opponent to be Sunni Muslim, well if they hold this belief then they would be Wahhabi/Salafi and not Sunni in reality. The reason I ask for this is so that the sources used are accepted and time is not wasted on the validity of sources as has happened in a previous debate." Umar asked his opponent to be a Sunni Muslim, which I certainly am not. The problem he does not see is, is that he asked, or requested this, he did not require it. Which means that I can argue in this debate, specifically against the existence of Allah without a place, without being a Sunni Muslim. This means that, although I am against Pro, I do not have to believe that Allah exists with a place, but simply that he does not. He provides a reason, I applaud him, but his reason is flawed. Using only Islamic sources...? Since that is a request as well, I will deny it and argue with scientific sources. "As a member of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamah I believe Allah exists without a place and that Islamic sources agree with my belief. I have several problems here. For one, he is using solely Islamic to express his belief. If I believed in the bible, and I said: "Noah built a boat and sailed in it with 10000 animals, the bible agrees with my belief!"... That would be illogical and immediately dismissed. Which means I am going to dismiss this, as there is no evidence that Islamic sources are scientifically accurate. " I strongly abhor the wahhabi, pseudo-Salafi and anthropomorphist beliefs about Allah of which is one of their most important beliefs and they say that Allah has a place LITERALLY above the throne. These people are victims of Literalism and need to understand the existence of metaphors in Islamic texts." Wait, can't we say that this is a metaphor? You can't say this, as anything can be a metaphor, including the whole entire source! If the book specifically does not mention it is a metaphor, then it is not a metaphor. This strengthens my point, as now everything in the Quran can be a metaphor, including Allah, and his place, as there is no clear consensus as to what is and what isn't a metaphor in the Quran. "I shall be bringing evidence from the Quran and Sunnah and from the classical Islamic scholars." I will quickly refute said evidence. "As you can see my opponent has not grasped the nature of this debate and has mistakenly understood this to be a debate about the existence of Allah/God which it clearly is NOT. What the debate IS about is WHAT THE CORRECT ISLAMIC BELIEF is about Allah. I thought I had made this clear for all yet there had to be someone who failed to comprehend such a basic request." Correct: free from error; in accordance with fact or truth. The Quran is not based off of facts or truths, it is based off of beliefs. I can believe in anything, and it does not have to be factual or truthful. Now....the title of the debate, and the reason I am against it. "Allah exists without a place according to correct Islamic belief" There is no correct islamic belief, as the Quran is not based off of scientific fact, as it believes in an Omnipotent being that created the universe, which, although I am not proving that it wasn't, there is exactly no proof that it was. Because of this, I will be arguing that I am against Allah existing without a place, but not for Allah existing. Because of this, I will use evidence to prove that the Quran is not factual. " By the sun and his brightness, And the moon when she followeth him " This is a quote taken from an Islamic text. Since I cannot prove that it is not a metaphor, as anything in Islamic belief could be a metaphor, according to Umar 99 " These people are victims of Literalism and need to understand the existence of metaphors in Islamic texts." Then anything I can gleam from the Quran ( Or any Islamic text, for that matter) could be a metaphor, correct, as there is no fine line between a metaphor and a fact. If Umar99 can scientifically provide evidence as to the Quran being factual, then we can accept it as fact. This is a truly impossible feat, and I wish Umar99 good luck in the next round. " The Islamic view of the Christian Bible is based on the belief that parts of Bible are a revelation from God , however some of that has become distorted or corrupted ( tahrif )" <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>...

ADHDavid

"Allah exists without a place according to correct Islamic belief" Actually, I am arguing that Allah does not exist without a place, which means I can argue that Allah does not exist. The reason I can do this is becuase "Con" means against, so I do not have to be a Muslim to argue against this topic.Pro has failed to provide any sources or arguments for his case in the second round, instead choosing to a use improper capitalisations to highlight his beliefs, so I will touch base on what umar99 wrote last round and the round before for a moment. "I ask for the opponent to be Sunni Muslim, well if they hold this belief then they would be Wahhabi/Salafi and not Sunni in reality. The reason I ask for this is so that the sources used are accepted and time is not wasted on the validity of sources as has happened in a previous debate." Umar asked his opponent to be a Sunni Muslim, which I certainly am not. The problem he does not see is, is that he asked, or requested this, he did not require it. Which means that I can argue in this debate, specifically against the existence of Allah without a place, without being a Sunni Muslim. This means that, although I am against Pro, I do not have to believe that Allah exists with a place, but simply that he does not. He provides a reason, I applaud him, but his reason is flawed. Using only Islamic sources...? Since that is a request as well, I will deny it and argue with scientific sources. "As a member of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamah I believe Allah exists without a place and that Islamic sources agree with my belief. I have several problems here. For one, he is using solely Islamic to express his belief. If I believed in the bible, and I said: "Noah built a boat and sailed in it with 10000 animals, the bible agrees with my belief!"... That would be illogical and immediately dismissed. Which means I am going to dismiss this, as there is no evidence that Islamic sources are scientifically accurate. " I strongly abhor the wahhabi, pseudo-Salafi and anthropomorphist beliefs about Allah of which is one of their most important beliefs and they say that Allah has a place LITERALLY above the throne. These people are victims of Literalism and need to understand the existence of metaphors in Islamic texts." Wait, can't we say that this is a metaphor? You can't say this, as anything can be a metaphor, including the whole entire source! If the book specifically does not mention it is a metaphor, then it is not a metaphor. This strengthens my point, as now everything in the Quran can be a metaphor, including Allah, and his place, as there is no clear consensus as to what is and what isn't a metaphor in the Quran. "I shall be bringing evidence from the Quran and Sunnah and from the classical Islamic scholars." I will quickly refute said evidence. "As you can see my opponent has not grasped the nature of this debate and has mistakenly understood this to be a debate about the existence of Allah/God which it clearly is NOT. What the debate IS about is WHAT THE CORRECT ISLAMIC BELIEF is about Allah. I thought I had made this clear for all yet there had to be someone who failed to comprehend such a basic request." Correct: free from error; in accordance with fact or truth. The Quran is not based off of facts or truths, it is based off of beliefs. I can believe in anything, and it does not have to be factual or truthful. Now....the title of the debate, and the reason I am against it. "Allah exists without a place according to correct Islamic belief" There is no correct islamic belief, as the Quran is not based off of scientific fact, as it believes in an Omnipotent being that created the universe, which, although I am not proving that it wasn't, there is exactly no proof that it was. Because of this, I will be arguing that I am against Allah existing without a place, but not for Allah existing. Because of this, I will use evidence to prove that the Quran is not factual. " By the sun and his brightness, And the moon when she followeth him " This is a quote taken from an Islamic text. Since I cannot prove that it is not a metaphor, as anything in Islamic belief could be a metaphor, according to Umar 99 " These people are victims of Literalism and need to understand the existence of metaphors in Islamic texts." Then anything I can gleam from the Quran ( Or any Islamic text, for that matter) could be a metaphor, correct, as there is no fine line between a metaphor and a fact. If Umar99 can scientifically provide evidence as to the Quran being factual, then we can accept it as fact. This is a truly impossible feat, and I wish Umar99 good luck in the next round. “ The Islamic view of the Christian Bible is based on the belief that parts of Bible are a revelation from God , however some of that has become distorted or corrupted ( tahrif )” https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.livescience.com... http://www.1000mistakes.com... http://www.deism.com... https://danielmiessler.com...

Religion

Allah-exists-without-a-place-according-to-correct-Islamic-belief/1/

I extend my arguments from last round, accepting that I have made some grammatical errors.

ADHDavid

I extend my arguments from last round, accepting that I have made some grammatical errors.

Religion

Allah-exists-without-a-place-according-to-correct-Islamic-belief/1/

I extend my arguments here as well, as it seems that Umar has forfieted.

ADHDavid

I extend my arguments here as well, as it seems that Umar has forfieted.

Religion

Allah-exists-without-a-place-according-to-correct-Islamic-belief/1/

I win..forfieture. Winning.

ADHDavid

I win..forfieture. Winning.

Religion

Allah-exists-without-a-place-according-to-correct-Islamic-belief/1/

I ask for the opponent to be Sunni Muslim, well if they hold this belief then they would be Wahhabi/Salafi and not Sunni in reality. The reason I ask for this is so that the sources used are accepted and time is not wasted on the validity of sources as has happened in a previous debate. As a member of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamah I believe Allah exists without a place and that Islamic sources agree with my belief. I strongly abhor the wahhabi, psudeo-Salafi and anthropomorphist beliefs about Allah of which is one of their most important beliefs and they say that Allah has a place LITERALLY above the throne. These people are victims of Literalism and need to understand the existence of metaphors in Islamic texts. I shall be bringing evidence from the Quran and Sunnah and from the classical Islamic scholars.

Umar99

I ask for the opponent to be Sunni Muslim, well if they hold this belief then they would be Wahhabi/Salafi and not Sunni in reality. The reason I ask for this is so that the sources used are accepted and time is not wasted on the validity of sources as has happened in a previous debate. As a member of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamah I believe Allah exists without a place and that Islamic sources agree with my belief. I strongly abhor the wahhabi, psudeo-Salafi and anthropomorphist beliefs about Allah of which is one of their most important beliefs and they say that Allah has a place LITERALLY above the throne. These people are victims of Literalism and need to understand the existence of metaphors in Islamic texts. I shall be bringing evidence from the Quran and Sunnah and from the classical Islamic scholars.

Religion

Allah-exists-without-a-place-according-to-correct-Islamic-belief/1/

As you can see my opponent has not grasped the nature of this debate and has mistakenly understood this to be a debate about the existence of Allah/God which it clearly is NOT. What the debate IS about is WHAT THE CORRECT ISLAMIC BELIEF is about Allah. I thought I had made this clear for all yet there had to be someone who failed to comprehend such a basic request. I am not and nor will I throughout this debate, debate the existence of Allah since this is not what I am arguing right now and so as you decided to accept the debate then I request you to stick to the topic of debate and not stray from the topic, something many people love to do on this website.

Umar99

As you can see my opponent has not grasped the nature of this debate and has mistakenly understood this to be a debate about the existence of Allah/God which it clearly is NOT. What the debate IS about is WHAT THE CORRECT ISLAMIC BELIEF is about Allah. I thought I had made this clear for all yet there had to be someone who failed to comprehend such a basic request. I am not and nor will I throughout this debate, debate the existence of Allah since this is not what I am arguing right now and so as you decided to accept the debate then I request you to stick to the topic of debate and not stray from the topic, something many people love to do on this website.

Religion

Allah-exists-without-a-place-according-to-correct-Islamic-belief/1/

Allah is a red guy with horns and a pitchfork

harrytruman

Allah is a red guy with horns and a pitchfork

Religion

Allah-is-a-red-guy-with-horns-and-a-pitchfork/1/

OK, here is proof; John 10:10: "The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." In this case "the thief" is Satan and/or his demons. Mathew 7:16: "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" So if the Muslims fruit is stealing, killing, and destroying, and you can tell a tree by its fruit, then Islam is satanic, hence, their god, Allah, is Satan, A.K.A. red guy with horns and a pitchfork.

harrytruman

OK, here is proof; John 10:10: "The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." In this case "the thief" is Satan and/or his demons. Mathew 7:16: "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" So if the Muslims fruit is stealing, killing, and destroying, and you can tell a tree by its fruit, then Islam is satanic, hence, their god, Allah, is Satan, A.K.A. red guy with horns and a pitchfork.

Religion

Allah-is-a-red-guy-with-horns-and-a-pitchfork/1/

Ok, I am going to need to clarify my argument, the god that the Muslim terrorists, the Muslim nations, and the original group of Muslims, I.e. the people who FOUNDED Islam, worship is Satan, I do not believe that the Christian god at the very least would in any circumstances order such acts as these people claim he does, who do you know of that chops off heads? Well there is the Mayans (pagans and Satan worshipers), then there is the anti-Christ (Satan), it just so happens to be that these people call him "Allah", do all Muslims do this, no, But as we all know, being an accomplice of a crime is just as bad as doing it, and not protesting a crime or detesting it is being accomplice to it, the Christians, Jews, and Buddhists openly protest it, why not the Muslims?

harrytruman

Ok, I am going to need to clarify my argument, the god that the Muslim terrorists, the Muslim nations, and the original group of Muslims, I.e. the people who FOUNDED Islam, worship is Satan, I do not believe that the Christian god at the very least would in any circumstances order such acts as these people claim he does, who do you know of that chops off heads? Well there is the Mayans (pagans and Satan worshipers), then there is the anti-Christ (Satan), it just so happens to be that these people call him "Allah", do all Muslims do this, no, But as we all know, being an accomplice of a crime is just as bad as doing it, and not protesting a crime or detesting it is being accomplice to it, the Christians, Jews, and Buddhists openly protest it, why not the Muslims?

Religion

Allah-is-a-red-guy-with-horns-and-a-pitchfork/1/

So, there are pedophiles who say Satan is evil,

harrytruman

So, there are pedophiles who say Satan is evil,

Religion

Allah-is-a-red-guy-with-horns-and-a-pitchfork/1/

Seriously, ok, the Islamic religion= bad, how, because, one thing you will notice is that in any country where the population is predominately Muslim there is no freedom of religion with the exception of turkey, which is responsible for the Armenian genocide, it doesn"t matter which one, every one of them is pure evil, they are oppressive to women, they are intolerant of other beliefs, and it is perfectly lawful to burn all your children alive, this is SATANISM. And low and behold all of these nations worship a being they call Allah, this being justifies hose acts, so it is a perfectly logical conclusion, that Allah is Satan, and pulling up the fact that the Qur"an mentions a being which it calls evil, which is hence translated to Satan, does not mean in any way that Allah is good because it calls some being evil, which was translated to Satan. The truth is that it is really very simple, you can tell a tree by its fruits, in this case Islam is the tree, what does it produce? I know that people can justify things by saying it was their religion even though it is forbidden by it, but in that case there would still be some good people pertaining to that religion, in Christianity we have TRUE humanitarians arising and doing good things in the name of Christianity, like Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Teresa of Avila, Mother Teresa, etc., why aren"t there any Muslims doing this? Because Islam is a bad tree and bad trees are incapable of bearing good fruit, instead they bear fruits of Satanism, hence its root, Allah, is Satan confirmed.

harrytruman

Seriously, ok, the Islamic religion= bad, how, because, one thing you will notice is that in any country where the population is predominately Muslim there is no freedom of religion with the exception of turkey, which is responsible for the Armenian genocide, it doesn"t matter which one, every one of them is pure evil, they are oppressive to women, they are intolerant of other beliefs, and it is perfectly lawful to burn all your children alive, this is SATANISM. And low and behold all of these nations worship a being they call Allah, this being justifies hose acts, so it is a perfectly logical conclusion, that Allah is Satan, and pulling up the fact that the Qur"an mentions a being which it calls evil, which is hence translated to Satan, does not mean in any way that Allah is good because it calls some being evil, which was translated to Satan. The truth is that it is really very simple, you can tell a tree by its fruits, in this case Islam is the tree, what does it produce? I know that people can justify things by saying it was their religion even though it is forbidden by it, but in that case there would still be some good people pertaining to that religion, in Christianity we have TRUE humanitarians arising and doing good things in the name of Christianity, like Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Teresa of Avila, Mother Teresa, etc., why aren"t there any Muslims doing this? Because Islam is a bad tree and bad trees are incapable of bearing good fruit, instead they bear fruits of Satanism, hence its root, Allah, is Satan confirmed.

Religion

Allah-is-a-red-guy-with-horns-and-a-pitchfork/1/

Here's how this works, each side will take a famous quote said by someone, and edit it to a funnier version of itself. For example, instead of "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, and you will feed him for a lifetime" You would instead say: "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, teach a fish to hunt man, OMG WHY DID YOU DO THAT WE'RE DOOMED EVERYONE RUN THEY ARE TAKING OVER!" Voters will vote for whoever has the funnier versions First round acceptance only Post 1 quote per round

imabench

Here's how this works, each side will take a famous quote said by someone, and edit it to a funnier version of itself. For example, instead of "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, and you will feed him for a lifetime" You would instead say: "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, teach a fish to hunt man, OMG WHY DID YOU DO THAT WE'RE DOOMED EVERYONE RUN THEY ARE TAKING OVER!" Voters will vote for whoever has the funnier versions First round acceptance only Post 1 quote per round

Miscellaneous

Altered-Quotes-Contest/1/

"Four scores and 7 minutes ago" - Abraham Lincoln, after being asked when the Jets started losing to the Patriots in the first quarter.

imabench

"Four scores and 7 minutes ago" - Abraham Lincoln, after being asked when the Jets started losing to the Patriots in the first quarter.

Miscellaneous

Altered-Quotes-Contest/1/

"I am not a cook" - Richard Nixon, after he botched an attempted break-in, oops, I mean BACON-sandwich

imabench

"I am not a cook" - Richard Nixon, after he botched an attempted break-in, oops, I mean BACON-sandwich

Miscellaneous

Altered-Quotes-Contest/1/

"We have nothing to fear, but running out of beer" - Franklin Delano Roosevelt at his bachelor party

imabench

"We have nothing to fear, but running out of beer" - Franklin Delano Roosevelt at his bachelor party

Miscellaneous

Altered-Quotes-Contest/1/

MEGA ROUND. Post THREE altered quotes instead of just one. (Im feeling spontaneous) . . . "To bee, or not to bee" - Shakespeare, while holding his man-sized bumble-bee costume in his hands, trying to decide what to be for Halloween. . . . "My Kingdom for a whore" - King Richard, after his wife declined yet another attempt at having sex . . . "Frankly my deer, I don't give a damn" - Gone with the Wind character Rhett Butler, when his pet deer told him that it had eaten a whole wheel of cheese. He wasnt even mad, he found it amazing.

imabench

MEGA ROUND. Post THREE altered quotes instead of just one. (Im feeling spontaneous) . . . "To bee, or not to bee" - Shakespeare, while holding his man-sized bumble-bee costume in his hands, trying to decide what to be for Halloween. . . . "My Kingdom for a whore" - King Richard, after his wife declined yet another attempt at having sex . . . "Frankly my deer, I don't give a damn" - Gone with the Wind character Rhett Butler, when his pet deer told him that it had eaten a whole wheel of cheese. He wasnt even mad, he found it amazing.

Miscellaneous

Altered-Quotes-Contest/1/

I don't troll people

LlamaMan

I don't troll people

Miscellaneous

Am-I-a-troll/1/

I did not troll you I simply accepted your debate and invited you to make the first argument. My intent was to start a debate not incite anger so therefore I am not a troll.

LlamaMan

I did not troll you I simply accepted your debate and invited you to make the first argument. My intent was to start a debate not incite anger so therefore I am not a troll.

Miscellaneous

Am-I-a-troll/1/

Before we begin, allow me to define a few terms. I: "LlamaMan", Con Troll: One who makes online posts (usually for the purpose of self enjoyment) that incite, anger, irritation, arguments, and disruptions. People: "MikeyMike" Pro My opponent trolled me on one of my previous debates, which can be found here: <URL>...

MikeyMike

Before we begin, allow me to define a few terms. I: "LlamaMan", Con Troll: One who makes online posts (usually for the purpose of self enjoyment) that incite, anger, irritation, arguments, and disruptions. People: "MikeyMike" Pro My opponent trolled me on one of my previous debates, which can be found here: http://www.debate.org...

Miscellaneous

Am-I-a-troll/1/

My opponent did not dispute my definitions I posted in the previous round, meaning he accepts them Nowhere in my definition does it state a troll has to have to intent to incite anger, arguments, disruptions, etc. He incited anger in me, irritated me, and disrupted my debate, whether or not he did this intentionally is irrelevant. Vote Pro

MikeyMike

My opponent did not dispute my definitions I posted in the previous round, meaning he accepts them Nowhere in my definition does it state a troll has to have to intent to incite anger, arguments, disruptions, etc. He incited anger in me, irritated me, and disrupted my debate, whether or not he did this intentionally is irrelevant. Vote Pro

Miscellaneous

Am-I-a-troll/1/

You absolutely should have to prove your claims on a debate site.

YeshuaBought

You absolutely should have to prove your claims on a debate site.

Politics

America-Is-Superior-Change-My-Mind/1/

You are definately trolling.

YeshuaBought

You are definately trolling.

Politics

America-Is-Superior-Change-My-Mind/1/

Please prov your claims or leave me alone.

YeshuaBought

Please prov your claims or leave me alone.

Politics

America-Is-Superior-Change-My-Mind/1/

What evidence can you provide for your opion?

YeshuaBought

What evidence can you provide for your opion?

Politics

America-Is-Superior-Change-My-Mind/1/

Enjoy your hatefest. I am leaving for greener pastures.

YeshuaBought

Enjoy your hatefest. I am leaving for greener pastures.

Politics

America-Is-Superior-Change-My-Mind/1/

I accept! I will be argueing the United States does not have the right to interfere millitarirly with the Iranians threat of closing off the straight. To you Pro.

RyouofFunce

I accept! I will be argueing the United States does not have the right to interfere millitarirly with the Iranians threat of closing off the straight. To you Pro.

News

America-and-the-Straights-of-Hormuz-Interference/1/

Good argument pro! I agree 100 percently with my opponent's definition of the straight. It is a very important trade route and Iran has no rights to close off the parts of the straight that it does not have ownership rights to. We agree, I believe, that they have full rights to close off their part of the straight, and it is their threat to close off the entire straight, that the United State is most angered and fearful about, as it can be seen as a lifeline to the US economy. Point A) and point B) are valid definitions and basic knowledge about the conflict in debate, and I will not spend time on them. However when looking at every issue we must take a look at both sides of the argument. Quote Atticus Finch "You must walk a mile in someone else's shoes before you can pass judgment about them." A brief history of why Iran had bad relations with the US. In 1979 the US had extremely good relations with Iran, which had been ruled by a gruesome dictator/monarch known as Shah Mohammad. His people and his country hated him. After a civil war the Shah was defeated and exiled from Iran. Because when he was king the US had friendly relations with him, Shah Mohammad fled to the United States, where he received treatment for his developing cancer, US support, and protection from the rebels, who demanded he be sent back to Iran and brought to justice. As a result of this the new Iranian government, (the one that replaced the Shah) started off in the very beginning with a bad note against the US. Then, the 1980s, the dreadful and gruesome Iraq Iranian war begun. A surprise attack from Iraq in the early 1980s pushed deep into Iran in a case similar to the 1990s Iraq invasion of Kuwait, only in a grander scale. Back then, believe it or not, the US had extremely strong ties with Iraq under Sadame Hussein. They also, (as I mentioned before) had a bad note against the new Iran government. As a result the US strongly support Iraq during the war, and the small bad note between Iran and the US from the 1979 ousting of Shah Mohammad now changed into a grievous hate as the US supported Iraq with massively effective weapons that cut down wave after waves of Iranian soldiers. Furthermore, the US, under the pretense of "escorting neutral Oil tankers" sent its nay directly into the Strait of Hormuz, even violating Iranian rights by sending its navy into waters agreed to be owned by Iran. Thus the tables, as you can see, have turned. The US have violated the rights of the Iranians by directly transpassing Iranian border. Things didn't just cool down here. In 1978, when the Iraqis were finally pushed back out of Iran and peace talks were held, a Iranian passenger airline, carrying 290 innocent civilian passengers was grievously shot down by the United State Navy, who claimed their radar detected it as an Iranian fighter. After investigations were held and the United Nation confirmed it was an innocent passenger airplane instead of a jet fighter, the US "showed regret at the loss of life, but did not apologize nor payed compensation to those family that lost loved ones." As a result of all this, relation between the Iranian state and the US have, ever since the nation was formed, been strained. Now, what is Iran's purpose at closing off the straight? On the surface, (as the title presents) Iran is a lunatic state that threatens the US for no reason what so ever just for pure terrorist purposes, as the media and the government has lead us to believe. Closer examinations of the conflict reveals more sympathy for Iran, however. The United States had called for a sanction against Iran's oil in 1980s, which grew tighter and tighter as US's allies agreed to support the sanction under diplomatic pressure from the US. In addition they also called for a worldwide ban against selling Iran airplane parts, (claiming Iran was using those parts to build jet fighters) which caused Iran's passenger airline to rely on an increasing unsafe air fleet, and an investigation shown the aircraft part sanction against Iran caused at least 17 airplane crashes since the sanction began, and caused an estimated 1500 innocent people to die. (what do you expect they are forced to rely, even today, on airplanes made in the 1950s.) As a result, this oil sanction and aircraft sanction caused both civilian death and other consequences. Now remember, oil is one of the Iranian Government's only way of profit. Because of that Sanction Iran's government's revenue is now down by a huge amount. Now, let us not forget Iran is a third world country. Its people were surviving off Government support in the forms of food and money. When the US called for all its allies to sanction Iranian Oil, those poverty stricken people in Iran could no longer get government aid. People were starving to death, which only gave more grounds for the US to call for an international attack against Iran, allegedly to "free the people" from their sufferings. If the US would leave Iran alone, they would not have any of those troubles. Now, how does this relate to the Strait of Hormuz? As the Iranian passenger air fleet grew more and more obsolete and unsafe, and the government was pushed deeper and deeper into debt trying to support the many poor families in Iran, the government grew more and more desperate. Its people were starving to death! For all the 25 years since the Sanction began Iran had been diplomatically trying to resolve the Issue. They've offered money, discounted oil, support in the UN, anything to stop the destructive US sanction, all to no avail. The US was firm in its demands that the Iranian Government, (appointed by revolutionaries who overthrew the Corrupt Shah Mohammad) to step down and allow the Shah's relatives, or at least a puppet government (obedient to the US) to form the New Iranian Government. In recent years the Sanction problem had gotten even more pressing. Finally the Iran Government realized they must either fight back against this sanction, or fall away into collapse and see anarchy take over in Iran. An effective way, and perhaps the only way the Iranians would have at least some ground in diplomacy with the US would be to shut down the strait of Hormuz. What's better than fighting back, and letting the United State Government taste a bit of their own medicine? To ruin the US economy when more than ten percent of the US population relies on government food stamps would surely let the Americans see just how gruesome and unfair their sanction had become! And that is exactly what the Iranians did. Now that you look at things from the Iranian point of view, look at WHY the Iranians did what they did, don't you feel at least some sympathy for the Iranians? Now, of course I am not defending the Iranian's rights to close of the straight. They have no right to close off international waters, but now perhaps after the United States have seen what it had done to Iran affected on its own country; they will be more sympathetic at the tables of diplomacy? Now, back to the topic. The key words here is "should the US be allowed to militarily intervene with Iran's threat to close off the straight." Had it changed to "should the US be allowed to diplomatically resolve Iran's threat" or "should the UN be allowed to militarily intervene with the Iranian Threat" there would be no conflict here. I agree with any good American that they should. However unfortunately the wordings are "should the US be allowed to MILLITARILY intervene" and thus I have to debate this issue. I hope I have changed your views on the issue by presenting a story from the Iranian perspective. For round three I will deliver the main points of my argument, why the US should not militarily intervene. (I am out of characters) A happy new year to you all. <URL>... <URL>... <URL>...

RyouofFunce

Good argument pro! I agree 100 percently with my opponent's definition of the straight. It is a very important trade route and Iran has no rights to close off the parts of the straight that it does not have ownership rights to. We agree, I believe, that they have full rights to close off their part of the straight, and it is their threat to close off the entire straight, that the United State is most angered and fearful about, as it can be seen as a lifeline to the US economy. Point A) and point B) are valid definitions and basic knowledge about the conflict in debate, and I will not spend time on them. However when looking at every issue we must take a look at both sides of the argument. Quote Atticus Finch "You must walk a mile in someone else's shoes before you can pass judgment about them." A brief history of why Iran had bad relations with the US. In 1979 the US had extremely good relations with Iran, which had been ruled by a gruesome dictator/monarch known as Shah Mohammad. His people and his country hated him. After a civil war the Shah was defeated and exiled from Iran. Because when he was king the US had friendly relations with him, Shah Mohammad fled to the United States, where he received treatment for his developing cancer, US support, and protection from the rebels, who demanded he be sent back to Iran and brought to justice. As a result of this the new Iranian government, (the one that replaced the Shah) started off in the very beginning with a bad note against the US. Then, the 1980s, the dreadful and gruesome Iraq Iranian war begun. A surprise attack from Iraq in the early 1980s pushed deep into Iran in a case similar to the 1990s Iraq invasion of Kuwait, only in a grander scale. Back then, believe it or not, the US had extremely strong ties with Iraq under Sadame Hussein. They also, (as I mentioned before) had a bad note against the new Iran government. As a result the US strongly support Iraq during the war, and the small bad note between Iran and the US from the 1979 ousting of Shah Mohammad now changed into a grievous hate as the US supported Iraq with massively effective weapons that cut down wave after waves of Iranian soldiers. Furthermore, the US, under the pretense of "escorting neutral Oil tankers" sent its nay directly into the Strait of Hormuz, even violating Iranian rights by sending its navy into waters agreed to be owned by Iran. Thus the tables, as you can see, have turned. The US have violated the rights of the Iranians by directly transpassing Iranian border. Things didn't just cool down here. In 1978, when the Iraqis were finally pushed back out of Iran and peace talks were held, a Iranian passenger airline, carrying 290 innocent civilian passengers was grievously shot down by the United State Navy, who claimed their radar detected it as an Iranian fighter. After investigations were held and the United Nation confirmed it was an innocent passenger airplane instead of a jet fighter, the US "showed regret at the loss of life, but did not apologize nor payed compensation to those family that lost loved ones." As a result of all this, relation between the Iranian state and the US have, ever since the nation was formed, been strained. Now, what is Iran's purpose at closing off the straight? On the surface, (as the title presents) Iran is a lunatic state that threatens the US for no reason what so ever just for pure terrorist purposes, as the media and the government has lead us to believe. Closer examinations of the conflict reveals more sympathy for Iran, however. The United States had called for a sanction against Iran's oil in 1980s, which grew tighter and tighter as US's allies agreed to support the sanction under diplomatic pressure from the US. In addition they also called for a worldwide ban against selling Iran airplane parts, (claiming Iran was using those parts to build jet fighters) which caused Iran's passenger airline to rely on an increasing unsafe air fleet, and an investigation shown the aircraft part sanction against Iran caused at least 17 airplane crashes since the sanction began, and caused an estimated 1500 innocent people to die. (what do you expect they are forced to rely, even today, on airplanes made in the 1950s.) As a result, this oil sanction and aircraft sanction caused both civilian death and other consequences. Now remember, oil is one of the Iranian Government's only way of profit. Because of that Sanction Iran's government's revenue is now down by a huge amount. Now, let us not forget Iran is a third world country. Its people were surviving off Government support in the forms of food and money. When the US called for all its allies to sanction Iranian Oil, those poverty stricken people in Iran could no longer get government aid. People were starving to death, which only gave more grounds for the US to call for an international attack against Iran, allegedly to "free the people" from their sufferings. If the US would leave Iran alone, they would not have any of those troubles. Now, how does this relate to the Strait of Hormuz? As the Iranian passenger air fleet grew more and more obsolete and unsafe, and the government was pushed deeper and deeper into debt trying to support the many poor families in Iran, the government grew more and more desperate. Its people were starving to death! For all the 25 years since the Sanction began Iran had been diplomatically trying to resolve the Issue. They've offered money, discounted oil, support in the UN, anything to stop the destructive US sanction, all to no avail. The US was firm in its demands that the Iranian Government, (appointed by revolutionaries who overthrew the Corrupt Shah Mohammad) to step down and allow the Shah's relatives, or at least a puppet government (obedient to the US) to form the New Iranian Government. In recent years the Sanction problem had gotten even more pressing. Finally the Iran Government realized they must either fight back against this sanction, or fall away into collapse and see anarchy take over in Iran. An effective way, and perhaps the only way the Iranians would have at least some ground in diplomacy with the US would be to shut down the strait of Hormuz. What's better than fighting back, and letting the United State Government taste a bit of their own medicine? To ruin the US economy when more than ten percent of the US population relies on government food stamps would surely let the Americans see just how gruesome and unfair their sanction had become! And that is exactly what the Iranians did. Now that you look at things from the Iranian point of view, look at WHY the Iranians did what they did, don't you feel at least some sympathy for the Iranians? Now, of course I am not defending the Iranian's rights to close of the straight. They have no right to close off international waters, but now perhaps after the United States have seen what it had done to Iran affected on its own country; they will be more sympathetic at the tables of diplomacy? Now, back to the topic. The key words here is "should the US be allowed to militarily intervene with Iran's threat to close off the straight." Had it changed to "should the US be allowed to diplomatically resolve Iran's threat" or "should the UN be allowed to militarily intervene with the Iranian Threat" there would be no conflict here. I agree with any good American that they should. However unfortunately the wordings are "should the US be allowed to MILLITARILY intervene" and thus I have to debate this issue. I hope I have changed your views on the issue by presenting a story from the Iranian perspective. For round three I will deliver the main points of my argument, why the US should not militarily intervene. (I am out of characters) A happy new year to you all. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...

News

America-and-the-Straights-of-Hormuz-Interference/1/

I urge my opponent to have patience, as I have said already it was New Year thus I'm busy and I was out of characters to illustrate my main points. I Hope the voters (and my opponent) have read and appreciated the crisis from Iran's point of view and now see some justifications for Iranian actions. With the battlefield a little more level, I will proceed. My opponent's points are not actually arguments, but instead restating of facts previously established. I agree, (as I have agreed before) with most of his arguments, and plead him not the state them again, as they are merely definitions and UN laws. There is one argument of his I wish to refute, and that leads me to my next point. C)1 Diplomacy first My opponent mentioned "when international law is threatened the United States has justification to intervene militarily" I am compelled to ask him, where in any United Nation doctrine has he found that if an international law is threatened, a country, any country, can react militarily to the conflict? Let me take this and put this on the US. There is an international law, signed by all members of the UN, that there will be no espionage in the United Nations. That means when one country wants privacy to discuss its policies, the rest of the UN allows him to do so. In 2003, the day before the start of the Iraq war, however, a US spyware was found in the private rooms of the secretary general of the United Nation, the respected Kofi Annan. The US had put that device there to spy on Kofi's reactions to the US invasion of Iraq. Now, the US violated an international law did they not? (I take care to remind my opponent that the Iranians have not even violated any international law, merely threatened to do it out of desperation.) If, as my opponent has stated, "when international law is threatened, (countries) has justification to intervene militarily" then the world would have taken up arms against the US and invaded it. Well, why didn't they? First of all, there is no rule that "when international law is threatened, (a country) has justifications to intervene militarily. Second of all there is a phrase called "does the punishment fit the crime." Even if one country threatens something (not even a faction, simply commerce) doesn't mean another country have right react militarily. Military intervention only leads to build up of conflict. Diplomacy is the laws of modern society. I find my opponent to be suggesting the United State to simply attack and invade the Iranians just because of this threat very similar to the tactics of the ancient Spartans, who would bash down all who opposes them at the slightest of insults or threat. A good peaceful talk/debate held in the UN is much superior to seeing the fruit of one's country cut down. Wars ruin the economy, they take up time, they are a step backwards from world unity, they cause lives and they only lead to more conflict. The most logical course to follow for this conflict, is for a team of all the country's who's interest is threatened by the Hormuz Crisis to meet the Iranians in a peaceful talk. We must remember that the Iranians are a country with their own government. They are not some drunken madman/terrorist who strikes at random with no goal or reason in mind. (as the media have often lead us to believe.) The Iranians have their distinct reasons, which I mentioned in round 2. They are not threatening to close the strait simply see the world fall down in ruins, but to relieve the US's destructive sanction against their own country. Thus, I believe diplomacy would not only lead to mutual benefit and resolving of the conflict, but is also a good first step toward the healing of the accidental wound inflicted between the US and the Iranians in1979, a step to world unity and world peace. Where, with war, even if the Tehran Government is brought down, the Iranians will not only have the United State more. The 1979 tragedy will only spiral more and more out of control. I believe I have illustrated my point quite well. In any circumstance, diplomacy is superior to the horrors of war. Now, however, diplomacy comes with its problems. War is direct and ends in a desired result. Diplomacy is less predictable and can often fail and fall apart. What then? C2) a better alternative to the US Let's say that either the US refused to loosen their sanction against Iran (they actually did, in real life. The US, after diplomacy with the Iranians, agreed to gradually withdraw their sanction and as a result the Iranians backed off in their threat. Even in real life my argument is justified.) Or the Iranians just wanted to destroy world commerce. What then? I agree that, when diplomacy fails, a military intervention might be the only alternative left. However by no means should it be executed by the US, for a variety of reasons. Sub C2 The US is incapable of the said intervention. With its economy in shreds, much of its forces tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, and almost NO support from the home front, the US is not in a very good position to wage war on Iran at the moment. DO anyone here think the US is capable of another 8 years war in Iran, when support for the war is already extremely low before it even started? Furthermore, sources have shown that the US military is not very effective. For example, during the 1990 US invasion of Panama, the ratio of civilians killed to ratio of panama soldiers killed is a startling 4 to 1. That means for every panama soldier the United States killed they killed 4 innocent panama people with him. That is outrageous! (I do not have numbers for the Iraq war or Afghanistan war, but they are likely even higher) Now, if we take the 4 to 1 ratio and put it onto Iran, we can estimate just how much civilians will be killed if the US invade Iran. The Iranians have a military with a grand total of 815,000 personals. If we apply the same 4:1 ratios of civilians to soldiers killed, we can see just how destructive a war on Iran would be to civilian life. SO why not the UN? Indeed, why not the UN? The UN is there to resolve international conflicts like there. Why should the US have the right to intervene in Iran? It is but a country, and only commercially threatened by Iran. Meanwhile the recent invasion of Iraq had given the US a bad reputation. Many foreign conflicts believe the US invasion of Iraq was purely for the United States' own gains, (as the UN has specifically condemned any military action against Iraq.) Should the US do the same to Iran, those claims would only be further supported. Should the US desire to participate in a military intervention for world commerce they will have to switch to the banners of the UN and fight for the rest of the world, instead of the US alone. Conclusion. As I have mentioned before, the Iranians have their justifications to threaten to close the strait. (Especially since the US has violated Iranian Waters in the Iraq Iran War) On the other hand, a diplomatic intervention by the US is justifiable, a military intervention by the UN is justifiable, but my opponent's "a military intervention by the US" is neither justifiable nor acceptable (as the progress of the Hormuz conflict has shown.) Thus unless he is able to refute my arguments successfully I urge a vote for con. On a side note I found my opponent comical in his disregard other UN in the forums (quote of him) "And the UN is a joke, they can't get anyone to listen to them because they have no military power. Arms speak which is why we use them." I remind him that the UN does not have military because it is an advocater of world peace. I also find it Ironic my opponent stress the importance of UN laws but not the UN itself. To you with the last round pro. <URL>... <URL>... <URL>...

RyouofFunce

I urge my opponent to have patience, as I have said already it was New Year thus I'm busy and I was out of characters to illustrate my main points. I Hope the voters (and my opponent) have read and appreciated the crisis from Iran's point of view and now see some justifications for Iranian actions. With the battlefield a little more level, I will proceed. My opponent's points are not actually arguments, but instead restating of facts previously established. I agree, (as I have agreed before) with most of his arguments, and plead him not the state them again, as they are merely definitions and UN laws. There is one argument of his I wish to refute, and that leads me to my next point. C)1 Diplomacy first My opponent mentioned "when international law is threatened the United States has justification to intervene militarily" I am compelled to ask him, where in any United Nation doctrine has he found that if an international law is threatened, a country, any country, can react militarily to the conflict? Let me take this and put this on the US. There is an international law, signed by all members of the UN, that there will be no espionage in the United Nations. That means when one country wants privacy to discuss its policies, the rest of the UN allows him to do so. In 2003, the day before the start of the Iraq war, however, a US spyware was found in the private rooms of the secretary general of the United Nation, the respected Kofi Annan. The US had put that device there to spy on Kofi's reactions to the US invasion of Iraq. Now, the US violated an international law did they not? (I take care to remind my opponent that the Iranians have not even violated any international law, merely threatened to do it out of desperation.) If, as my opponent has stated, "when international law is threatened, (countries) has justification to intervene militarily" then the world would have taken up arms against the US and invaded it. Well, why didn't they? First of all, there is no rule that "when international law is threatened, (a country) has justifications to intervene militarily. Second of all there is a phrase called "does the punishment fit the crime." Even if one country threatens something (not even a faction, simply commerce) doesn't mean another country have right react militarily. Military intervention only leads to build up of conflict. Diplomacy is the laws of modern society. I find my opponent to be suggesting the United State to simply attack and invade the Iranians just because of this threat very similar to the tactics of the ancient Spartans, who would bash down all who opposes them at the slightest of insults or threat. A good peaceful talk/debate held in the UN is much superior to seeing the fruit of one's country cut down. Wars ruin the economy, they take up time, they are a step backwards from world unity, they cause lives and they only lead to more conflict. The most logical course to follow for this conflict, is for a team of all the country's who's interest is threatened by the Hormuz Crisis to meet the Iranians in a peaceful talk. We must remember that the Iranians are a country with their own government. They are not some drunken madman/terrorist who strikes at random with no goal or reason in mind. (as the media have often lead us to believe.) The Iranians have their distinct reasons, which I mentioned in round 2. They are not threatening to close the strait simply see the world fall down in ruins, but to relieve the US's destructive sanction against their own country. Thus, I believe diplomacy would not only lead to mutual benefit and resolving of the conflict, but is also a good first step toward the healing of the accidental wound inflicted between the US and the Iranians in1979, a step to world unity and world peace. Where, with war, even if the Tehran Government is brought down, the Iranians will not only have the United State more. The 1979 tragedy will only spiral more and more out of control. I believe I have illustrated my point quite well. In any circumstance, diplomacy is superior to the horrors of war. Now, however, diplomacy comes with its problems. War is direct and ends in a desired result. Diplomacy is less predictable and can often fail and fall apart. What then? C2) a better alternative to the US Let's say that either the US refused to loosen their sanction against Iran (they actually did, in real life. The US, after diplomacy with the Iranians, agreed to gradually withdraw their sanction and as a result the Iranians backed off in their threat. Even in real life my argument is justified.) Or the Iranians just wanted to destroy world commerce. What then? I agree that, when diplomacy fails, a military intervention might be the only alternative left. However by no means should it be executed by the US, for a variety of reasons. Sub C2 The US is incapable of the said intervention. With its economy in shreds, much of its forces tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, and almost NO support from the home front, the US is not in a very good position to wage war on Iran at the moment. DO anyone here think the US is capable of another 8 years war in Iran, when support for the war is already extremely low before it even started? Furthermore, sources have shown that the US military is not very effective. For example, during the 1990 US invasion of Panama, the ratio of civilians killed to ratio of panama soldiers killed is a startling 4 to 1. That means for every panama soldier the United States killed they killed 4 innocent panama people with him. That is outrageous! (I do not have numbers for the Iraq war or Afghanistan war, but they are likely even higher) Now, if we take the 4 to 1 ratio and put it onto Iran, we can estimate just how much civilians will be killed if the US invade Iran. The Iranians have a military with a grand total of 815,000 personals. If we apply the same 4:1 ratios of civilians to soldiers killed, we can see just how destructive a war on Iran would be to civilian life. SO why not the UN? Indeed, why not the UN? The UN is there to resolve international conflicts like there. Why should the US have the right to intervene in Iran? It is but a country, and only commercially threatened by Iran. Meanwhile the recent invasion of Iraq had given the US a bad reputation. Many foreign conflicts believe the US invasion of Iraq was purely for the United States' own gains, (as the UN has specifically condemned any military action against Iraq.) Should the US do the same to Iran, those claims would only be further supported. Should the US desire to participate in a military intervention for world commerce they will have to switch to the banners of the UN and fight for the rest of the world, instead of the US alone. Conclusion. As I have mentioned before, the Iranians have their justifications to threaten to close the strait. (Especially since the US has violated Iranian Waters in the Iraq Iran War) On the other hand, a diplomatic intervention by the US is justifiable, a military intervention by the UN is justifiable, but my opponent's "a military intervention by the US" is neither justifiable nor acceptable (as the progress of the Hormuz conflict has shown.) Thus unless he is able to refute my arguments successfully I urge a vote for con. On a side note I found my opponent comical in his disregard other UN in the forums (quote of him) "And the UN is a joke, they can't get anyone to listen to them because they have no military power. Arms speak which is why we use them." I remind him that the UN does not have military because it is an advocater of world peace. I also find it Ironic my opponent stress the importance of UN laws but not the UN itself. To you with the last round pro. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...

News

America-and-the-Straights-of-Hormuz-Interference/1/

I start off the last round of this debate on the sad note that my opponent had accused me of going off topic and of "rambling" as a last argument in an attempt to win. However, as I have reminded him, there is no difference between "justification of the United States to intervene militarily" and "whether intervening militarily is the best course of action" I remind voters that in serious subjects like warfare and international politics not following the best course of action is not justifiable. And since my opponent had agreed with my point that diplomacy is justifiable as opposed to military intervention (by not rebutting it) he failed to justify a military intervention is acceptable. I remind voters that when chances of peacefully resolving a conflict stand, war is not justifiable. Now, to refute my opponent's argument. My opponent argued different form of breaking UN laws deserves different punishment. I agree with this, as I have mentioned the punishment must fit the crime. However this only illustrates my point more in that the crisis should not be resolved militarily but by diplomacy. A simple threat to shut off commercial export should at least be given a chance of being peacefully resolved before another war, and thousand more innocent lives, are lost. The Iran breach of UN law is simply not serious enough to demand immediate military retribution. Even direct wars and invasions have been given a chance of diplomacy before military intervention. An Iranian threat to close a trade route should deserve much much more. Thus again I have proven a military intervention is not justifiable. My opponent has simplified my argument that US is incapable of war too much. First he assumes a full scale war is not necessary, but that instead the Hormuz Strait should be cleared of Iranian forces. I ask him how will Iranian forces be cleared out of the area without declaring war. And once war has been declared they always spiral out of control. Look at the Russians in modern Warfare three. They were pushed out of the US but instead of peace talks they attacked Europe! :D! Anyways back on topic, my opponent assumed (incorrectly) that I meant the US does not have the necessary military forces. Wrong. I have illustrated repeatedly in round 3 that US have the brute force but not the logistics. They do not have the money nor the support on the home front nor the international community to wage a war. Instead should diplomacy fail and a military intervention be necessary, the UN should be allowed to handle the situation. Conclusion My main points still stand without being rebutted. The Iranians have lost many innocent lives to US sanctions off an accident. Driven by a crisis on their own hands they grew desperate and made the threat of blocking the strait to save Iranian lives. (see round 2.) The US has justifications for a diplomatic intervention, the UN have justifications for a military intervention, but the US does not have justifications for a military intervention. My opponent, meanwhile, have agreed with my argument that diplomacy is more justifiable to a military intervention. In matters as serious as a world crisis following the less superior course of action is not justifiable, my opponent's primary mission of justifying a military intervention fails. Thus I urge a vote for con. Happy new year all and to the Iranians, who's conflict was indeed resolved diplomatically on December 30, proving my point that military intervention is not justifiable when chances of diplomacy still stands. <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>...

RyouofFunce

I start off the last round of this debate on the sad note that my opponent had accused me of going off topic and of "rambling" as a last argument in an attempt to win. However, as I have reminded him, there is no difference between "justification of the United States to intervene militarily" and "whether intervening militarily is the best course of action" I remind voters that in serious subjects like warfare and international politics not following the best course of action is not justifiable. And since my opponent had agreed with my point that diplomacy is justifiable as opposed to military intervention (by not rebutting it) he failed to justify a military intervention is acceptable. I remind voters that when chances of peacefully resolving a conflict stand, war is not justifiable. Now, to refute my opponent's argument. My opponent argued different form of breaking UN laws deserves different punishment. I agree with this, as I have mentioned the punishment must fit the crime. However this only illustrates my point more in that the crisis should not be resolved militarily but by diplomacy. A simple threat to shut off commercial export should at least be given a chance of being peacefully resolved before another war, and thousand more innocent lives, are lost. The Iran breach of UN law is simply not serious enough to demand immediate military retribution. Even direct wars and invasions have been given a chance of diplomacy before military intervention. An Iranian threat to close a trade route should deserve much much more. Thus again I have proven a military intervention is not justifiable. My opponent has simplified my argument that US is incapable of war too much. First he assumes a full scale war is not necessary, but that instead the Hormuz Strait should be cleared of Iranian forces. I ask him how will Iranian forces be cleared out of the area without declaring war. And once war has been declared they always spiral out of control. Look at the Russians in modern Warfare three. They were pushed out of the US but instead of peace talks they attacked Europe! :D! Anyways back on topic, my opponent assumed (incorrectly) that I meant the US does not have the necessary military forces. Wrong. I have illustrated repeatedly in round 3 that US have the brute force but not the logistics. They do not have the money nor the support on the home front nor the international community to wage a war. Instead should diplomacy fail and a military intervention be necessary, the UN should be allowed to handle the situation. Conclusion My main points still stand without being rebutted. The Iranians have lost many innocent lives to US sanctions off an accident. Driven by a crisis on their own hands they grew desperate and made the threat of blocking the strait to save Iranian lives. (see round 2.) The US has justifications for a diplomatic intervention, the UN have justifications for a military intervention, but the US does not have justifications for a military intervention. My opponent, meanwhile, have agreed with my argument that diplomacy is more justifiable to a military intervention. In matters as serious as a world crisis following the less superior course of action is not justifiable, my opponent's primary mission of justifying a military intervention fails. Thus I urge a vote for con. Happy new year all and to the Iranians, who's conflict was indeed resolved diplomatically on December 30, proving my point that military intervention is not justifiable when chances of diplomacy still stands. http://www.worldatlas.com... http://www.taiwannews.com.tw... http://www.turkishweekly.net... http://expertscolumn.com... http://www.zerohedge.com... http://www.blogrunner.com... http://af.reuters.com...

News

America-and-the-Straights-of-Hormuz-Interference/1/

When it comes down to the security of not simply the American people, but also countries elsewhere that have had to deal with Terrorist attacks, such as England or Spain, we have seen an issue that could have been solved had we been more persistent in our goal of the prevention of terrorism. Be it either by an increase of funding, or by means like you have stated-Means in either physical or psychological traumatic situations incline the target to reveal information that would otherwise be unobtainable. In this-That we can cause the suffering of one to prevent the deaths and/or suffering of many. In that, the action is justified. As a sectarian society where religion is not accepted, we must look to the ideas of Nietzsche in Thus Spoke Zarathustra- in that based on how humanity killed God, the moral order imposed by Christianity could no longer be utilized. Because of that, mankind must recreate their values, and thus, the new moral order that is to be used is clear and quite so indeed-The utilitarian order. We place the greatest good for the greatest number as our priority. There is no moral objections because there is nothing to predicate a moral objection upon. Think of the outcry of the population-How many people would find torture wrong if we could have, utilizing Torture, prevented 9/11? Is it still questionable then? We have prevented hundreds if not thousands of terrorist attacks since 9/11. Look to the statistics of plotting terrorists being caught. Staggering, our methods of preventing terrorism have allowed a grand total of 0 attacks to be made on the US since 9/11, even there are those who think they are wrong-Their efficacy is undeniable. Moreover, look to the thoughts of other major philosophers, those like John Locke, or others on the rights to man. Most if not all conclude that once an individual violates the law of man, they forfeit their claim to it. Therefore, when Terrorists conspire in the effort to bring death and destruction to humanity, they lose their claim to law, and we may extract information as we see fit. If they torture If what we do to others is reflected on our own people, there are a still a couple of reasons why this argument should be rejected. First, clearly, the only ones of ours that have been negatively affected are our soldiers, and in reality, that simply comes down to US soldiers and Insurgents killing each other, not the background conditions which facilitated said killing of each other. And second, if anything, recognize that we are retaliating to what the terrorists did on 9/11. This more readily applies to those who designed and carried out the 9/11 attacks. And finally, the ends most certainly justify the means. First, The media's opposition and portrayal of torture is going to be based upon a dislike of the political right, opposing Conservatives just to oppose Conservatives. Second, you have no foundations in logic to state that a single terrorist is more important than many civilians. The terrorist-Of whom would gladly kill you, your family and your friends, or civilians (Excluding Soldiers, criminals, etc.) would do nothing of the sort. Bottom line. If we stop even two unnecessary, innocent deaths because of the means we used to extract information from one who would otherwise do us harm, we have justified the act.

Gear

When it comes down to the security of not simply the American people, but also countries elsewhere that have had to deal with Terrorist attacks, such as England or Spain, we have seen an issue that could have been solved had we been more persistent in our goal of the prevention of terrorism. Be it either by an increase of funding, or by means like you have stated-Means in either physical or psychological traumatic situations incline the target to reveal information that would otherwise be unobtainable. In this-That we can cause the suffering of one to prevent the deaths and/or suffering of many. In that, the action is justified. As a sectarian society where religion is not accepted, we must look to the ideas of Nietzsche in Thus Spoke Zarathustra- in that based on how humanity killed God, the moral order imposed by Christianity could no longer be utilized. Because of that, mankind must recreate their values, and thus, the new moral order that is to be used is clear and quite so indeed-The utilitarian order. We place the greatest good for the greatest number as our priority. There is no moral objections because there is nothing to predicate a moral objection upon. Think of the outcry of the population-How many people would find torture wrong if we could have, utilizing Torture, prevented 9/11? Is it still questionable then? We have prevented hundreds if not thousands of terrorist attacks since 9/11. Look to the statistics of plotting terrorists being caught. Staggering, our methods of preventing terrorism have allowed a grand total of 0 attacks to be made on the US since 9/11, even there are those who think they are wrong-Their efficacy is undeniable. Moreover, look to the thoughts of other major philosophers, those like John Locke, or others on the rights to man. Most if not all conclude that once an individual violates the law of man, they forfeit their claim to it. Therefore, when Terrorists conspire in the effort to bring death and destruction to humanity, they lose their claim to law, and we may extract information as we see fit. If they torture If what we do to others is reflected on our own people, there are a still a couple of reasons why this argument should be rejected. First, clearly, the only ones of ours that have been negatively affected are our soldiers, and in reality, that simply comes down to US soldiers and Insurgents killing each other, not the background conditions which facilitated said killing of each other. And second, if anything, recognize that we are retaliating to what the terrorists did on 9/11. This more readily applies to those who designed and carried out the 9/11 attacks. And finally, the ends most certainly justify the means. First, The media's opposition and portrayal of torture is going to be based upon a dislike of the political right, opposing Conservatives just to oppose Conservatives. Second, you have no foundations in logic to state that a single terrorist is more important than many civilians. The terrorist-Of whom would gladly kill you, your family and your friends, or civilians (Excluding Soldiers, criminals, etc.) would do nothing of the sort. Bottom line. If we stop even two unnecessary, innocent deaths because of the means we used to extract information from one who would otherwise do us harm, we have justified the act.

Politics

America-had-no-business-using-torture-as-a-way-of-getting-information./1/

Prior to my responding to your newer arguments, it's necessary to point out that you simply ignored reasons in advocating of Torture, or at least why Torture is not wrong. These are huge in this debate. Primarily look to Nietzsche's views on the end of a divinely-imposed moral order, which will be brought up later on. This is huge, for it guts the predication for moral objections. Second, you ignore another huge point in that once an individual violates the laws of man, they lose their claim to said laws. So, let's now look to your new reasons against torture. [Point 1: A governmental official at Camp X-ray speaking in regards to human rights violations among detainees stated, "if you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you're probably aren't doing your job...." Unfortunately this is the current mentally of our government; whatever the means as long as it has the desired outcome. Apparently this is also the view point of the American public. About.com did an internet poll regarding the use of torture and the results were surprising. There was a 65% approval rate for the use of torture. 49% of those responding said that torture was acceptable under any condition, 7% said torture was acceptable to prevent acts of terror and 9% were in favor it help prevent an upcoming act of terror. It is the role of government to protect those who cannot reasonably protect themselves or for whatever reason, aren't given a sufficient voice even if the majority believes otherwise. Segregation and slavery are prime examples of the government having to make decisions for the sake of a minority that are against the expressed desires of the majority.] This comparing is flawed for several reasons, first, look back to the Nietzschean philosophical standpoint, in that for the absence of the moral order, we must create new morals, with utilitarianism being the most readily apparent system. The greatest good for the greatest number, furthermore, the thoughts of those like John Locke, in that one who violates a major law of man loses their claim to this law. This affects terrorists or Slaves opposed a corrupt law, and Blacks in the 1960s, save for the initial speeches of Malcolm X, were peaceful in their obtaining of rights. Any notion that these are peaceful individuals is ludicrous. The only individuals that will say that are those who are in opposition to the current administration. Actual examination reveals detained terrorists, those with connections to terrorists, etc. Not Joe Shmoe. (Or Mohammad Shmohammed, you get my drift). The media has an extraordinarily high propensity for opposing the political right in most endeavors. Of course they're going to make our operations at Gitmo sound as awful as possible. It's what they do. You're only going to get, at this juncture is that the statistics of the background information on detainees is at best, inconclusive. [Point 2: There isn't enough oversight to prevent abuses. In addressing the Ninth Circuit Court, the government stated that "the detainees have absolutely no legal right to question US actions on Guantanamo." They further argued that Federal Court should have no jurisdiction. This would mean that the government would be able to seize and torture at will without sufficient evidence this action would provide beneficial or that the individual has the knowledge the government seeks. There would be no courts for any prisoner to appeal to. This reduces the US to the same level as Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein and other bloody dictatorships. How can this elevate the US in the eyes of international politics and within its own borders? I am all for patriotism, but being patriotic does not mean we forgo reason and compassion.] This clearly ties back to a prejudice media. Next, though, that the detained individuals don't have the right to question the actions of the US at Gitmo. And...? As those imprisoned are not civilians, and insurgents or terrorists, their claim to law doesn't exist. Keep in mind, this has been addressed. Furthermore, you compare the US to Stalin and Hitler. This is ridiculous. Hitler, of course, was responsible for World war II in Europe, better known as the deadliest conflict in history, at around seventy-two million deaths, and that isn't including the Holocaust, the US is not, and will never be like Nazi Germany. Unless we start bombing our own cities. And as for Stalin, certainly not. He ordered officer purges with body counts of higher than the holocaust, again, a terrible individual that can not at the present, and will never be comparable to the US actions for preventing terrorism. [Point 3: Inflicting random pain will not get you the results you desire. An effective torturer must be recruited, trained and properly equipped in order to get the desired effect. There would also need to be basic scientific research on the most effective means of torture. There also would need to be guidelines established to say when this form of interrogation is appropriate and when it is not. Also needed would be some form of checks and balances to ensure that it is only used within established guidelines. It needs to be shown that the financial cost of using torture more cost effective than other established means of gathering information. I could not find one cited instance where torture has used to obtain valuable and useful information in the War on Terror that could have been obtained through other means. All of this would be a great expenditure with questionable results. With the war costing billions per day and individuals in this country going hungry, medical care and without shelter, can we morally justify the expense?] ...So those that torture are trained. I don't see where you're going with this. As for the cost-effectiveness of torture, of course you won't be able to locate information on its success, though you can see that our information gathering techniques are working, as we have averted all on-our-soil terrorist attacks since 9/11. You neglect a couple of pieces of information at this point. First, of course, is our media obfuscating all facts of the successes of the endeavors of this ministry. You'll only see the good works of the administration in foreign news. Second, is that it is republicans that are carrying out this task of torture. Also known as fiscal conservatives. They will not use torture if it is not a cost-effective method at gaining knowledge. Plain and simple. [Point 4: One also must consider the psychological, emotional and spiritual cost to the person conducting the torture. We all know the damage the stress of combat can do to an individual in combat as well as the psychological impact of accidental collateral damage to the innocent...(Running out of room)] We are not seeing those that carry out the torture with any sort of detriment. For an obvious reason: No terrorist attacks. For all of their actions, be they volatile to those making said acts, they find justification in that they are gaining necessary information to stop the innocent from death and destruction. The societal utilization has been answered, Nietzsche's TSZ, morals don't exist as we seem them now. [Point 5: The use of torture is a slippery slope. Wire taping and other devices used in the War on Terror are slowly being used against the American people....] Tell me, please, when wire tapping and other devices used for information gathering have negatively affected YOU. Can't provide any? Not surprising. The state has an obligation of securitization of national stability. Without means that contribute to said stability, everything is permissible. Our liberties only exist so long as we have an institution which ensures the existence of these liberties. Terrorism would most assuredly destroy this country, so using whatever means possible to stop the collapse is justifiable in every instance.

Gear

Prior to my responding to your newer arguments, it's necessary to point out that you simply ignored reasons in advocating of Torture, or at least why Torture is not wrong. These are huge in this debate. Primarily look to Nietzsche's views on the end of a divinely-imposed moral order, which will be brought up later on. This is huge, for it guts the predication for moral objections. Second, you ignore another huge point in that once an individual violates the laws of man, they lose their claim to said laws. So, let's now look to your new reasons against torture. [Point 1: A governmental official at Camp X-ray speaking in regards to human rights violations among detainees stated, "if you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you're probably aren't doing your job…." Unfortunately this is the current mentally of our government; whatever the means as long as it has the desired outcome. Apparently this is also the view point of the American public. About.com did an internet poll regarding the use of torture and the results were surprising. There was a 65% approval rate for the use of torture. 49% of those responding said that torture was acceptable under any condition, 7% said torture was acceptable to prevent acts of terror and 9% were in favor it help prevent an upcoming act of terror. It is the role of government to protect those who cannot reasonably protect themselves or for whatever reason, aren't given a sufficient voice even if the majority believes otherwise. Segregation and slavery are prime examples of the government having to make decisions for the sake of a minority that are against the expressed desires of the majority.] This comparing is flawed for several reasons, first, look back to the Nietzschean philosophical standpoint, in that for the absence of the moral order, we must create new morals, with utilitarianism being the most readily apparent system. The greatest good for the greatest number, furthermore, the thoughts of those like John Locke, in that one who violates a major law of man loses their claim to this law. This affects terrorists or Slaves opposed a corrupt law, and Blacks in the 1960s, save for the initial speeches of Malcolm X, were peaceful in their obtaining of rights. Any notion that these are peaceful individuals is ludicrous. The only individuals that will say that are those who are in opposition to the current administration. Actual examination reveals detained terrorists, those with connections to terrorists, etc. Not Joe Shmoe. (Or Mohammad Shmohammed, you get my drift). The media has an extraordinarily high propensity for opposing the political right in most endeavors. Of course they're going to make our operations at Gitmo sound as awful as possible. It's what they do. You're only going to get, at this juncture is that the statistics of the background information on detainees is at best, inconclusive. [Point 2: There isn't enough oversight to prevent abuses. In addressing the Ninth Circuit Court, the government stated that "the detainees have absolutely no legal right to question US actions on Guantanamo." They further argued that Federal Court should have no jurisdiction. This would mean that the government would be able to seize and torture at will without sufficient evidence this action would provide beneficial or that the individual has the knowledge the government seeks. There would be no courts for any prisoner to appeal to. This reduces the US to the same level as Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein and other bloody dictatorships. How can this elevate the US in the eyes of international politics and within its own borders? I am all for patriotism, but being patriotic does not mean we forgo reason and compassion.] This clearly ties back to a prejudice media. Next, though, that the detained individuals don't have the right to question the actions of the US at Gitmo. And...? As those imprisoned are not civilians, and insurgents or terrorists, their claim to law doesn't exist. Keep in mind, this has been addressed. Furthermore, you compare the US to Stalin and Hitler. This is ridiculous. Hitler, of course, was responsible for World war II in Europe, better known as the deadliest conflict in history, at around seventy-two million deaths, and that isn't including the Holocaust, the US is not, and will never be like Nazi Germany. Unless we start bombing our own cities. And as for Stalin, certainly not. He ordered officer purges with body counts of higher than the holocaust, again, a terrible individual that can not at the present, and will never be comparable to the US actions for preventing terrorism. [Point 3: Inflicting random pain will not get you the results you desire. An effective torturer must be recruited, trained and properly equipped in order to get the desired effect. There would also need to be basic scientific research on the most effective means of torture. There also would need to be guidelines established to say when this form of interrogation is appropriate and when it is not. Also needed would be some form of checks and balances to ensure that it is only used within established guidelines. It needs to be shown that the financial cost of using torture more cost effective than other established means of gathering information. I could not find one cited instance where torture has used to obtain valuable and useful information in the War on Terror that could have been obtained through other means. All of this would be a great expenditure with questionable results. With the war costing billions per day and individuals in this country going hungry, medical care and without shelter, can we morally justify the expense?] ...So those that torture are trained. I don't see where you're going with this. As for the cost-effectiveness of torture, of course you won't be able to locate information on its success, though you can see that our information gathering techniques are working, as we have averted all on-our-soil terrorist attacks since 9/11. You neglect a couple of pieces of information at this point. First, of course, is our media obfuscating all facts of the successes of the endeavors of this ministry. You'll only see the good works of the administration in foreign news. Second, is that it is republicans that are carrying out this task of torture. Also known as fiscal conservatives. They will not use torture if it is not a cost-effective method at gaining knowledge. Plain and simple. [Point 4: One also must consider the psychological, emotional and spiritual cost to the person conducting the torture. We all know the damage the stress of combat can do to an individual in combat as well as the psychological impact of accidental collateral damage to the innocent...(Running out of room)] We are not seeing those that carry out the torture with any sort of detriment. For an obvious reason: No terrorist attacks. For all of their actions, be they volatile to those making said acts, they find justification in that they are gaining necessary information to stop the innocent from death and destruction. The societal utilization has been answered, Nietzsche's TSZ, morals don't exist as we seem them now. [Point 5: The use of torture is a slippery slope. Wire taping and other devices used in the War on Terror are slowly being used against the American people....] Tell me, please, when wire tapping and other devices used for information gathering have negatively affected YOU. Can't provide any? Not surprising. The state has an obligation of securitization of national stability. Without means that contribute to said stability, everything is permissible. Our liberties only exist so long as we have an institution which ensures the existence of these liberties. Terrorism would most assuredly destroy this country, so using whatever means possible to stop the collapse is justifiable in every instance.

Politics

America-had-no-business-using-torture-as-a-way-of-getting-information./1/

Bush has just vetoed a law that would make certain forms of torture illegal citing that those methods are needed in order to obtain needed information on the war on terror. I disagree with this viewpoint for the following reasons: 1) No information obtained through torture is reliable. 2) What we do to others will be done to our own people. 3) The end doesn't justify the means. And lastly, as with all of the actions regarding the war on terror, it is slippery slope that, as American citizens, will come back to bite us on the butt. This is my first debate. Hopefully I will not embarrass myself too badly.

jinzy

Bush has just vetoed a law that would make certain forms of torture illegal citing that those methods are needed in order to obtain needed information on the war on terror. I disagree with this viewpoint for the following reasons: 1) No information obtained through torture is reliable. 2) What we do to others will be done to our own people. 3) The end doesn't justify the means. And lastly, as with all of the actions regarding the war on terror, it is slippery slope that, as American citizens, will come back to bite us on the butt. This is my first debate. Hopefully I will not embarrass myself too badly.

Politics

America-had-no-business-using-torture-as-a-way-of-getting-information./1/

Point 1: A governmental official at Camp X-ray speaking in regards to human rights violations among detainees stated, "if you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you're probably aren't doing your job...." Unfortunately this is the current mentally of our government; whatever the means as long as it has the desired outcome. Apparently this is also the view point of the American public. About.com did an internet poll regarding the use of torture and the results were surprising. There was a 65% approval rate for the use of torture. 49% of those responding said that torture was acceptable under any condition, 7% said torture was acceptable to prevent acts of terror and 9% were in favor it help prevent an upcoming act of terror. It is the role of government to protect those who cannot reasonably protect themselves or for whatever reason, aren't given a sufficient voice even if the majority believes otherwise. Segregation and slavery are prime examples of the government having to make decisions for the sake of a minority that are against the expressed desires of the majority. Point 2: There isn't enough oversight to prevent abuses. In addressing the Ninth Circuit Court, the government stated that "the detainees have absolutely no legal right to question US actions on Guantanamo." They further argued that Federal Court should have no jurisdiction. This would mean that the government would be able to seize and torture at will without sufficient evidence this action would provide beneficial or that the individual has the knowledge the government seeks. There would be no courts for any prisoner to appeal to. This reduces the US to the same level as Stalin, Hitler, Sadam Hussein and other bloody dictatorships. How can this elevate the US in the eyes of international politics and within its own borders? I am all for patriotism, but being patriotic does not mean we forgo reason and compassion. Point 3: Inflicting random pain will not get you the results you desire. An effective torturer must be recruited, trained and properly equipped in order to get the desired effect. There would also need to be basic scientific research on the most effective means of torture. There also would need to be guidelines established to say when this form of interrogation is appropriate and when it is not. Also needed would be some form of checks and balances to ensure that it is only used within established guidelines. It needs to be shown that the financial cost of using torture more cost effective than other established means of gathering information. I could not find one cited instance where torture has used to obtain valuable and useful information in the War on Terror that could have been obtained through other means. All of this would be a great expenditure with questionable results. With the war costing billions per day and individuals in this country going hungry, medical care and without shelter, can we morally justify the expense? Point 4: One also must consider the psychological, emotional and spiritual cost to the person conducting the torture. We all know the damage the stress of combat can do to an individual in combat as well as the psychological impact of accidental collateral damage to the innocent. What kind of damage will be done to the individual who assumes the role of torturer? How will this individual be able to reconcile his profession with his religious/moral compass? When a person accidently takes the life of another person, the psychological trauma is great. Great mental and emotional trauma is inflicted on an individual who must inflict pain and suffering on others for days and weeks at a time. To strip a person of all human dignity which leaves permanent wounds that are both physical and emotional would be difficult enough when the person is thought to be guilty or withholding valuable information. What would be the damage to the individual who does this only to find out that the person was innocent or was not in possession of the needed information? Do we use amoral individuals who can shut off any feelings or compassion for another individual who is suffering? What does that say about society as a whole who would employ an individual for such as purpose? Point 5: The use of torture is a slippery slope. Wire taping and other devices used in the War on Terror are slowly being used against the American people. Abuses are rampant with the court being able to do little to contain the problem. It wouldn't be long until one of us could be one of those innocents who are sacrificed for the good of the many. References: ttp://www.usafa.edu... <URL>...

jinzy

Point 1: A governmental official at Camp X-ray speaking in regards to human rights violations among detainees stated, "if you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you're probably aren't doing your job…." Unfortunately this is the current mentally of our government; whatever the means as long as it has the desired outcome. Apparently this is also the view point of the American public. About.com did an internet poll regarding the use of torture and the results were surprising. There was a 65% approval rate for the use of torture. 49% of those responding said that torture was acceptable under any condition, 7% said torture was acceptable to prevent acts of terror and 9% were in favor it help prevent an upcoming act of terror. It is the role of government to protect those who cannot reasonably protect themselves or for whatever reason, aren't given a sufficient voice even if the majority believes otherwise. Segregation and slavery are prime examples of the government having to make decisions for the sake of a minority that are against the expressed desires of the majority. Point 2: There isn't enough oversight to prevent abuses. In addressing the Ninth Circuit Court, the government stated that "the detainees have absolutely no legal right to question US actions on Guantanamo." They further argued that Federal Court should have no jurisdiction. This would mean that the government would be able to seize and torture at will without sufficient evidence this action would provide beneficial or that the individual has the knowledge the government seeks. There would be no courts for any prisoner to appeal to. This reduces the US to the same level as Stalin, Hitler, Sadam Hussein and other bloody dictatorships. How can this elevate the US in the eyes of international politics and within its own borders? I am all for patriotism, but being patriotic does not mean we forgo reason and compassion. Point 3: Inflicting random pain will not get you the results you desire. An effective torturer must be recruited, trained and properly equipped in order to get the desired effect. There would also need to be basic scientific research on the most effective means of torture. There also would need to be guidelines established to say when this form of interrogation is appropriate and when it is not. Also needed would be some form of checks and balances to ensure that it is only used within established guidelines. It needs to be shown that the financial cost of using torture more cost effective than other established means of gathering information. I could not find one cited instance where torture has used to obtain valuable and useful information in the War on Terror that could have been obtained through other means. All of this would be a great expenditure with questionable results. With the war costing billions per day and individuals in this country going hungry, medical care and without shelter, can we morally justify the expense? Point 4: One also must consider the psychological, emotional and spiritual cost to the person conducting the torture. We all know the damage the stress of combat can do to an individual in combat as well as the psychological impact of accidental collateral damage to the innocent. What kind of damage will be done to the individual who assumes the role of torturer? How will this individual be able to reconcile his profession with his religious/moral compass? When a person accidently takes the life of another person, the psychological trauma is great. Great mental and emotional trauma is inflicted on an individual who must inflict pain and suffering on others for days and weeks at a time. To strip a person of all human dignity which leaves permanent wounds that are both physical and emotional would be difficult enough when the person is thought to be guilty or withholding valuable information. What would be the damage to the individual who does this only to find out that the person was innocent or was not in possession of the needed information? Do we use amoral individuals who can shut off any feelings or compassion for another individual who is suffering? What does that say about society as a whole who would employ an individual for such as purpose? Point 5: The use of torture is a slippery slope. Wire taping and other devices used in the War on Terror are slowly being used against the American people. Abuses are rampant with the court being able to do little to contain the problem. It wouldn't be long until one of us could be one of those innocents who are sacrificed for the good of the many. References: ttp://www.usafa.edu... http://writ.news.findlaw.com...

Politics

America-had-no-business-using-torture-as-a-way-of-getting-information./1/

First of all I have given you facts in my support of the statement that America has not business using torture to get information. I have proved facts in support of my stance, you have not. You quote John Locke and Nietzsche as if they were a voice on Mt Sinai is ludicrous. At this point I could quote Immanuel Kant who said who states that when a combatant willfully engages in warfare he has given his permission to be killed. Once that individual has given up his status as a combatant, he has withdrew his permission to be killed. It is Kant's stance that human dignity is beyond price. Kant goes on to say humanity is not a means to an end, but the end itself. We can go back and forth about what this philosopher said or that one but the truth is they are all dead and cannot fathom the times we live in and therefore their opinions are questionable at best. As I told my philosophy professor, their opinions are no better than mine just because they died before me. As for the comparison to Hitler, it is a justified one. How many people were taken as political prisoners, imprisoned and tortured without warrant, trial or legal recourse? Their family left unaware of their fates. Isn't that what this country is currently engaging in? As for the wire tapping against American citizens, this has been well documented. Constitutional rights have been violated left and right. Do I wait until the government is ready to drag me off in the middle of the night before I cry foul? Do I not have a responsibility to my fellow Americans? If one American's rights are violated are not all of our rights violated? Your reference to 9/11 and subsequent terrorist activities on American soil is extremely flawed. In order for torture or any form of questioning to be effective one has to have some information that an event is to take place. One interrogates for specific information. To say that torture could have prevented 9/11 is to say the government had specific information concerning the attack. The government has denied this. Therefore this point is moot, unless you have specific and factual information to the contrary. You have failed to back up any statement with fact. Instead you have used philosophical debate, the argument of one with no real position. The reason? You are unable to provide any factual proof that any valuable information has been obtained through torture.

jinzy

First of all I have given you facts in my support of the statement that America has not business using torture to get information. I have proved facts in support of my stance, you have not. You quote John Locke and Nietzsche as if they were a voice on Mt Sinai is ludicrous. At this point I could quote Immanuel Kant who said who states that when a combatant willfully engages in warfare he has given his permission to be killed. Once that individual has given up his status as a combatant, he has withdrew his permission to be killed. It is Kant's stance that human dignity is beyond price. Kant goes on to say humanity is not a means to an end, but the end itself. We can go back and forth about what this philosopher said or that one but the truth is they are all dead and cannot fathom the times we live in and therefore their opinions are questionable at best. As I told my philosophy professor, their opinions are no better than mine just because they died before me. As for the comparison to Hitler, it is a justified one. How many people were taken as political prisoners, imprisoned and tortured without warrant, trial or legal recourse? Their family left unaware of their fates. Isn't that what this country is currently engaging in? As for the wire tapping against American citizens, this has been well documented. Constitutional rights have been violated left and right. Do I wait until the government is ready to drag me off in the middle of the night before I cry foul? Do I not have a responsibility to my fellow Americans? If one American's rights are violated are not all of our rights violated? Your reference to 9/11 and subsequent terrorist activities on American soil is extremely flawed. In order for torture or any form of questioning to be effective one has to have some information that an event is to take place. One interrogates for specific information. To say that torture could have prevented 9/11 is to say the government had specific information concerning the attack. The government has denied this. Therefore this point is moot, unless you have specific and factual information to the contrary. You have failed to back up any statement with fact. Instead you have used philosophical debate, the argument of one with no real position. The reason? You are unable to provide any factual proof that any valuable information has been obtained through torture.

Politics

America-had-no-business-using-torture-as-a-way-of-getting-information./1/

Hello! I am so excited for this debate, and want to give "Props" to Pro for starting what I hope to be, a great debate. Some quick background info: I, as an atheist stand with the instigator's view on this matter,but the challenge this debate will bring is well worth the time and my acceptance. I will prove that, though not an official theocracy, The United States political system is innately intertwined with the faith of the population majority(in this case Christianity). Furthermore I will show how a democratic style of government can,and will, be subject to religious influence in the legislation proposed,passed, and repealed. I look forward to an honest and open conversation. -Ivan

ASocraticAlpaca

Hello! I am so excited for this debate, and want to give "Props" to Pro for starting what I hope to be, a great debate. Some quick background info: I, as an atheist stand with the instigator's view on this matter,but the challenge this debate will bring is well worth the time and my acceptance. I will prove that, though not an official theocracy, The United States political system is innately intertwined with the faith of the population majority(in this case Christianity). Furthermore I will show how a democratic style of government can,and will, be subject to religious influence in the legislation proposed,passed, and repealed. I look forward to an honest and open conversation. -Ivan

Religion

America-is-a-Christian-Nation/6/

In this debate I will argue against the claims that America is or was founded as a Christian nation. Pro will thereby argue for those same claims. I am looking forward to a constructive discussion and good luck to pro. Christian: believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ Debate format Round 1: Acceptance Rounds 2-4: Arguments and rebuttals. Round 5: Rebuttals only no new arguments and closing statements.

Toxifrost

In this debate I will argue against the claims that America is or was founded as a Christian nation. Pro will thereby argue for those same claims. I am looking forward to a constructive discussion and good luck to pro. Christian: believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ Debate format Round 1: Acceptance Rounds 2-4: Arguments and rebuttals. Round 5: Rebuttals only no new arguments and closing statements.

Religion

America-is-a-Christian-Nation/6/

Faulty Start Before I get into any actual arguments I'd like to point out that a lot of what pro states he is going to argue is uneccesary. It is already common knowledge that democratic systems can be swayed by personal biases such as religion, it is also common knowledge that many politicians have strong ties to religion and religious organizations however both of these points are irrelevant to the question of does the US belong to the religion of Christianity. But I digress. Founding Fathers Many claim that our founding fathers build this nation on Christian values. The founding fathers must have been pretty stark Christians then right? No, the majority of the founding fathers actually did not follow Christianity and were deists some, such as Thomas Jefferson, going so far on his opinions of religion that he is widely thought of to be the first pseudo-atheist, this is not true however as he was in fact a deist. The founding fathers also never included any sort of reference to Christianity in any of our founding documents such as the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. John Adams goes so far to say in the Treaty of Tripoli (Tripoli being a muslim state at the time) that " the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen." Does this not clearly state that the founding fathers did not set up this country on Christian values and did not want the country affiliated with Christianity? In God We Trust Now some might argue that our government has religious ties all over the place specifically in our money and in our pledge of allegiance. Surely this proves that the US was founded as a Christian nation; right? Wrong again. The pledge of allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy in 1892. The original pledge went as follows: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." However throughout the years we can see that the pledge has been changes quite a bit. In 1923 a new phrase was added to the pledge to make it more suit America: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." The pledge was changed again in 1954 as urged by President Eisenhower to separate us from those "godless commies". The pledge included the words" under god" and the pledge has remained unchanged to this very day. Through this we can see that the pledge was not meant to solidify the US as a Christian nation but as a propoganda tactic in the midst of a nation wide panic. "In God We Trust" follows a similair song and dance. The motto "In God We Trust" was first minted in 1864 on the two cent coins after being requested by a Minister. Essentially the explaination for this is as simple as the fact that organized religon was making a huge comeback at the time and many people believed that the government should take part. Teddy Roosevelt however opposed this being printed on money as he believed it violated the separation of church and state. He kind of had a point didn't he? <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... ;

Toxifrost

Faulty Start Before I get into any actual arguments I'd like to point out that a lot of what pro states he is going to argue is uneccesary. It is already common knowledge that democratic systems can be swayed by personal biases such as religion, it is also common knowledge that many politicians have strong ties to religion and religious organizations however both of these points are irrelevant to the question of does the US belong to the religion of Christianity. But I digress. Founding Fathers Many claim that our founding fathers build this nation on Christian values. The founding fathers must have been pretty stark Christians then right? No, the majority of the founding fathers actually did not follow Christianity and were deists some, such as Thomas Jefferson, going so far on his opinions of religion that he is widely thought of to be the first pseudo-atheist, this is not true however as he was in fact a deist. The founding fathers also never included any sort of reference to Christianity in any of our founding documents such as the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. John Adams goes so far to say in the Treaty of Tripoli (Tripoli being a muslim state at the time) that " the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen." Does this not clearly state that the founding fathers did not set up this country on Christian values and did not want the country affiliated with Christianity? In God We Trust Now some might argue that our government has religious ties all over the place specifically in our money and in our pledge of allegiance. Surely this proves that the US was founded as a Christian nation; right? Wrong again. The pledge of allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy in 1892. The original pledge went as follows: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." However throughout the years we can see that the pledge has been changes quite a bit. In 1923 a new phrase was added to the pledge to make it more suit America: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." The pledge was changed again in 1954 as urged by President Eisenhower to separate us from those "godless commies". The pledge included the words" under god" and the pledge has remained unchanged to this very day. Through this we can see that the pledge was not meant to solidify the US as a Christian nation but as a propoganda tactic in the midst of a nation wide panic. "In God We Trust" follows a similair song and dance. The motto "In God We Trust" was first minted in 1864 on the two cent coins after being requested by a Minister. Essentially the explaination for this is as simple as the fact that organized religon was making a huge comeback at the time and many people believed that the government should take part. Teddy Roosevelt however opposed this being printed on money as he believed it violated the separation of church and state. He kind of had a point didn't he? http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.alternet.org... http://rationalwiki.org... http://infidels.org... http://www.ushistory.org... http://thelibertarianrepublic.com... ;

Religion

America-is-a-Christian-Nation/6/

Pro forfeited vote con.

Toxifrost

Pro forfeited vote con.

Religion

America-is-a-Christian-Nation/6/

I accept. In this instance, 'better' shall be defined as: "more desirable, satisfactory, or effective:." In the context of determining whether America is better than Britain, a number of factors should be taken into consideration, including healthcare, education, economy, technology, and crime.

etherealvoyager

I accept. In this instance, 'better' shall be defined as: "more desirable, satisfactory, or effective:." In the context of determining whether America is better than Britain, a number of factors should be taken into consideration, including healthcare, education, economy, technology, and crime.

Politics

America-is-better-than-Britain/1/

My opponent has not fulfilled his burden of proof. The resolution has not been affirmed.

etherealvoyager

My opponent has not fulfilled his burden of proof. The resolution has not been affirmed.

Politics

America-is-better-than-Britain/1/

A Brief Critique of My Opponent's Arguments My opponent claims America has the most advanced technology. This is not true. First, according to the Global Innovation index, Switzerland is the most innovative, followed by Sweden. The United Kingdom is a full two places ahead of the U.S, coming third. When we look at download speeds by country, we find that the United States is ranked 32nd, with an average speed of 21.41 mbps. The United Kingdom on the other hand, is 28th, with an average speed of 23.42 mbps. My opponent then claims that America is the most free country in the world. Both socially and economically, this is not true. In social liberty, New Zealand comes first, whilst America is 20th. The United Kingdom is 16th. In terms of economic freedom, the United States comes 12th. Granted, the United Kingdom comes 14th, but this completely refutes my opponent's assertion that America is the most free country in the world. [4] My opponent also claims that education in America proves that America is better. Whilst this may be true for tertiary education, for secondary education this is completely untrue. The PISA rankings demonstrate this. For reading, the United States came 36th in the world, as compared to the United Kingdom, which came 26th. For Maths, the United States came 28th, in contrast to the United Kingdom (20th). Finally, for science, the United States came 24th, and was slightly pipped by the United Kingdom, which came 23rd. [5] My opponent claims that America developed English to be better in many ways. He never specifies how this is so. This is a bare-assertion fallacy. Whether American English is better than British English is completely subjective. In conclusion, my opponent has not even demonstrated that America is better than the United Kingdom. He claims that America is the best country in the world, but his reasoning for this is poor. He has not affirmed the resolution. Vote Con. [1] <URL>... (Cornell_University,_INSEAD_and_WIPO)#Rankings [2] <URL>... ; [3] <URL>... ; [4] <URL>... ; [5] <URL>... ;

etherealvoyager

A Brief Critique of My Opponent's Arguments My opponent claims America has the most advanced technology. This is not true. First, according to the Global Innovation index, Switzerland is the most innovative, followed by Sweden. The United Kingdom is a full two places ahead of the U.S, coming third. When we look at download speeds by country, we find that the United States is ranked 32nd, with an average speed of 21.41 mbps. The United Kingdom on the other hand, is 28th, with an average speed of 23.42 mbps. My opponent then claims that America is the most free country in the world. Both socially and economically, this is not true. In social liberty, New Zealand comes first, whilst America is 20th. The United Kingdom is 16th. In terms of economic freedom, the United States comes 12th. Granted, the United Kingdom comes 14th, but this completely refutes my opponent's assertion that America is the most free country in the world. [4] My opponent also claims that education in America proves that America is better. Whilst this may be true for tertiary education, for secondary education this is completely untrue. The PISA rankings demonstrate this. For reading, the United States came 36th in the world, as compared to the United Kingdom, which came 26th. For Maths, the United States came 28th, in contrast to the United Kingdom (20th). Finally, for science, the United States came 24th, and was slightly pipped by the United Kingdom, which came 23rd. [5] My opponent claims that America developed English to be better in many ways. He never specifies how this is so. This is a bare-assertion fallacy. Whether American English is better than British English is completely subjective. In conclusion, my opponent has not even demonstrated that America is better than the United Kingdom. He claims that America is the best country in the world, but his reasoning for this is poor. He has not affirmed the resolution. Vote Con. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... (Cornell_University,_INSEAD_and_WIPO)#Rankings [2] http://www.netindex.com... ; [3] http://patrickrhamey.com... ; [4] http://www.heritage.org... ; [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... ;

Politics

America-is-better-than-Britain/1/

Thank you Pro for your initial statements, and for starting this debate. I'll explain my arguments in greater depth in the following rounds, but here are some of my main points: (1) America's economy is the most powerful and innovative in the world (2) America's civil society is embedded with the right values and principles (3) We are doing better than our counterparts (economically, environmentally, socially, politically) (4) We have reason to be optimistic for our future I somewhat agree with your point Pro, America has been facing problems in our recent history. I disagree though that we are on a "death spiral ". We have plenty of potential to heal the problems we face and to usher in a new age of hope and progress. I'll let you delineate further in the following rounds. Let us go!

Contra

Thank you Pro for your initial statements, and for starting this debate. I'll explain my arguments in greater depth in the following rounds, but here are some of my main points: (1) America's economy is the most powerful and innovative in the world (2) America's civil society is embedded with the right values and principles (3) We are doing better than our counterparts (economically, environmentally, socially, politically) (4) We have reason to be optimistic for our future I somewhat agree with your point Pro, America has been facing problems in our recent history. I disagree though that we are on a "death spiral ". We have plenty of potential to heal the problems we face and to usher in a new age of hope and progress. I'll let you delineate further in the following rounds. Let us go!

Politics

America-is-on-a-social-and-economic-death-spiral/1/

In this round I will argue that America is NOT on a "social and economic death spiral". I will also like to a draw a contrast with America compared with previous Great Nations, such as Imperial Rome, the British Empire, and the Ottoman Empire. C1: America has a Powerful Economy The United States has the world's largest economy at over $17 trillion. The breadth of our national wealth also has the broadest width - we deliver the highest prosperity and the highest standard of living to the most people on earth. At a GDP per capita of more than $48,000, we significantly outsize China ($8,400) and Russia ($21,000) [3]. Furthermore, the United States has/ is: The world's largest middle class The world's largest industrial base The world's largest exporter About 80% of global trade is conducted with U.S. dollars [5]. This isn't nearly as close as the Euro or the Chinese yuan. The United States has also grown much faster than the Eurozone, which indicates our economic vitality [6]. C2: America is Powerful Militarily The United States is the most generous nation in the world when it comes to foreign aid. We are investing in our soft power, and our remarkable commitment to economic growth abroad is a testament to our economic vitality at home. [1] Foreign Aid (Overseas development assistance): We also have the most advanced military hardware. Whether it comes to our infantry, main battle tanks, or our superior airforce, we trump any potential adversaries [2]. The Russian military is antiquated, as was evident in its 2008 invasion of Georgia. The Chinese military primarily relies on relics of the Cold War itself. We are the leader of the free world and this hasn't changed in recent years. C3: America has a sound Government The United States is a liberal democracy. People have broad political rights and civil liberties. People are free to run for political office, to vote, to live their lives freely. Contrast this to nations which have suffered decline, where the rights of the people have fallen. We also have a vibrant and dynamic civil society. We have a flurry of institutions that are the makeup of American life, whether it is religious groups, civic organizations, sports activities, or charities. C4: The United States is Growing Not only our economy is developing, but our population is as well. Unlike many European nations and Japan, our population is continually rising. More people are entering the United States than leaving [4]. If we were facing systematic decline, we would most likely not see this phenomenon. C5: America has the right values The people of America have the values and principles that will stave off decline. By and large, the vast majority of Americans believe in the ideas of hard work, savings, thrift, individualism, freedom, and opportunity. We have been able to confront massive challenges before, whether it is the American Civil War, slavery, Nazi Germany, the War on Terrorism, Jim Crow, or the Great Depression. Conclusion The United States is continuing to grow as a nation. Our economy is becoming more dynamic and innovative, and our firms lead the world in cutting-edge technology. Our population is continuing to increase - paving an exception to the rest of the developing world. We have a powerful military, and we have tremendous influence abroad. The fabric of American life is also robust, as the people of our country have the values and principles that make America strong and vibrant. We also have a huge civil society that accompanies the largest middle class in the world. We are stronger today than we were several years ago, and the problems the United States faces are smaller than challenges we have faced before. Thank you. [1] ( <URL>... ) [2] ( <URL>... ) [3] ( <URL>... ) [4] ( <URL>... ) [5] ( <URL>... ) [6] ( <URL>... )

Contra

In this round I will argue that America is NOT on a “social and economic death spiral”. I will also like to a draw a contrast with America compared with previous Great Nations, such as Imperial Rome, the British Empire, and the Ottoman Empire. C1: America has a Powerful Economy The United States has the world’s largest economy at over $17 trillion. The breadth of our national wealth also has the broadest width – we deliver the highest prosperity and the highest standard of living to the most people on earth. At a GDP per capita of more than $48,000, we significantly outsize China ($8,400) and Russia ($21,000) [3]. Furthermore, the United States has/ is: The world’s largest middle class The world’s largest industrial base The world’s largest exporter About 80% of global trade is conducted with U.S. dollars [5]. This isn’t nearly as close as the Euro or the Chinese yuan. The United States has also grown much faster than the Eurozone, which indicates our economic vitality [6]. C2: America is Powerful Militarily The United States is the most generous nation in the world when it comes to foreign aid. We are investing in our soft power, and our remarkable commitment to economic growth abroad is a testament to our economic vitality at home. [1] Foreign Aid (Overseas development assistance): We also have the most advanced military hardware. Whether it comes to our infantry, main battle tanks, or our superior airforce, we trump any potential adversaries [2]. The Russian military is antiquated, as was evident in its 2008 invasion of Georgia. The Chinese military primarily relies on relics of the Cold War itself. We are the leader of the free world and this hasn’t changed in recent years. C3: America has a sound Government The United States is a liberal democracy. People have broad political rights and civil liberties. People are free to run for political office, to vote, to live their lives freely. Contrast this to nations which have suffered decline, where the rights of the people have fallen. We also have a vibrant and dynamic civil society. We have a flurry of institutions that are the makeup of American life, whether it is religious groups, civic organizations, sports activities, or charities. C4: The United States is Growing Not only our economy is developing, but our population is as well. Unlike many European nations and Japan, our population is continually rising. More people are entering the United States than leaving [4]. If we were facing systematic decline, we would most likely not see this phenomenon. C5: America has the right values The people of America have the values and principles that will stave off decline. By and large, the vast majority of Americans believe in the ideas of hard work, savings, thrift, individualism, freedom, and opportunity. We have been able to confront massive challenges before, whether it is the American Civil War, slavery, Nazi Germany, the War on Terrorism, Jim Crow, or the Great Depression. Conclusion The United States is continuing to grow as a nation. Our economy is becoming more dynamic and innovative, and our firms lead the world in cutting-edge technology. Our population is continuing to increase – paving an exception to the rest of the developing world. We have a powerful military, and we have tremendous influence abroad. The fabric of American life is also robust, as the people of our country have the values and principles that make America strong and vibrant. We also have a huge civil society that accompanies the largest middle class in the world. We are stronger today than we were several years ago, and the problems the United States faces are smaller than challenges we have faced before. Thank you. [1] ( http://www.oecd.org... ) [2] ( http://www.businessinsider.com.au... ) [3] ( http://www.economicshelp.org... ) [4] ( http://www.indexmundi.com... ) [5] ( http://www.premiercares.net... ) [6] ( https://agenda.weforum.org... )

Politics

America-is-on-a-social-and-economic-death-spiral/1/

Carry on.

Contra

Carry on.

Politics

America-is-on-a-social-and-economic-death-spiral/1/

Thanks for reading guys.

Contra

Thanks for reading guys.

Politics

America-is-on-a-social-and-economic-death-spiral/1/

Social Democracy - a country that democratically achieves socialist goals within a Capitalist framework through a strong welfare state and the regulation of private industry. Should - ought to become - I define this contextually America - The United States of America Let me clarify a few points. Firstly, socialism has been given a bad name by the USSR. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics wasn't just socialist, it was a communist country. While all communists are also socialists, not all socialists are communists. Social Democracy is a moderate ideology, between Capitalism on the right, and Communism on the left. It's ends and means are democratic, gradual, and economically feasible. If people want it they can give birth to it at the ballot box, and if it eventually no longer suits them, they can kill it at the ballot box. A Social Democracy guarantees access to certain basic necessities of modern life. For instance, a Social Democracy guarantees universal health care, dental care, education, social insurance, welfare, old age pension, and equal rights to all of it's citizens. Naturally, there is higher taxation in order to pay for this. People in Social Democracies are free - they still have all their civil liberties, and the right to vote. They additionally are given freedom by their greater financial security. This brings me to my first contention. Contention 1: Americans will be more free in a Social Democracy While the Declaration of Independence was an eloquent document, it did not win over as many common people as Thomas Paine's pamphlet, published in the same year - Common Sense. Thomas Paine was influenced by Enlightenment thinking. He believed in liberty. Once the American Revolutionary War had ended, Paine believed we weren't doing enough for freedom. Many, including Jefferson, still had slaves. Paine wanted to abolish slavery. He later went even further than this, in 1795, when he wrote Agrarian Justice. He wrote that the unequal distribution of property was essentially theft. He wrote that every 21 year old should be given a sum of money (15 British pounds, which would have been more than enough for subsistence) and that all people over 50 should be given 10 British pounds a year, "not as charity, but as social justice." That sounds fairly socialist by today's standards. Here was a man who wanted society to be more democratic, more fair, and more free at the same time. This in a nutshell, is the society a social democracy would create. Contention 2: Social Democracy works. Sweden recovered from the recession faster than we did. Canada (which is relatively more socially democratic than the U.S) had already finished recovering in 2009. Norway has the greatest GDP per Capita, in the World. According to an OECD study, Finland has the best education system, in the world. Denmark has the most social mobiltiy in the world. America is supposed to be the land of opportunity, but we are 10th in social mobility. This is because societies which are more rigidly laissez faire tend to create socioeconomic conditions which make social mobility more difficult. This is a list of the top 10 socially mobile countries:1. Denmark, 2. Australia, 3. Norway, 4. Finland, 5. Canada, 6. Sweden, 7. Germany, 8. Spain, 9. France, and 10. USA All the countries ahead of us are at least slightly more socialist than we are. And by slightly I mean that they all have universal health care coverage. Obamacare is a solution which works within the private sector, (and the plan was based on a similar plan from the Heritage Foundation, a plan more conservative than Nixon's) and even once it is completely implemented, there will not be universal healthcare. While we are on the subject of healthcare, I should note that many people claim that the U.S. healthcare system is the best in the world. However, the World Health Organization ranked the U.S. 38th in health care, in the world. 38! America shouldn't settle for 38. Especially when America is number 1 in health care expenditures. When profits are put over people, healthcare becomes more expensive, less effective, and less readily available. Contention 3: Happiness One of the most important questions in this debate is whether living in a Social Democracy, or living in a Capitalist system would make people happier. In my view, the best metric to use when judging a system is whether or not it is conducive to, or detrimental to the happiness of people living within that system. I understand that happiness is subjective. It should be noted however, that OECD did an international survey which measured happiness around the world. These were the 10 top happiest countries on earth: 1. Norway, 2. Denmark, 3. Australia, 4. New Zealand, 5. Sweden, 6. Canada, 7. Finland, 8. Switzerland, 9. The Netherlands, and 10. USA Note that this list is nearly identical to the one on social mobility. Once again, all of the countries happier than the US are also more socialist than the U.S. The amount of socialism varies country to country, but again, all of these countries have universal healthcare. <URL>... Contention 4: Greater socioeconomic equality isn't only better for society, it is also better for economic stability Let's say that there are 600 cars for sale. Let's say that there is a large middle class - 590 people can afford one car per person, and one very rich guy can afford 10. 590 cars will probably get sold. The rich guy will buy anything between 1 and 10 cars, and that's fine. Let's say, on the other hand, that your selling cars in a very stratified society. 200 middle class folks can afford 1 car each. The other 390 people can't afford a car. The rich guy can afford 400 cars. 200 cars will definitely get sold. While the rich guy can afford 400 cars, he'll still only buy 1-10. Okay, McCain has 13. But still, the rich guy will not be buying a fleet of 400 cars. Socioeconomic inequality is the root cause of our buisness cycle. Over the last 30 years, as the gap between rich and poor has grown, the following has happened: Nearly all economic growth went to the top. Middle and lower income wages have stagnated, even as productivity skyrocketed. When we produce more than we can sell, that hurts our economy. This is the root cause of boom and bust. (In addition to weak regulations which allowed Wall Street to go crazy). Furthermore, governments which do more to directly employ people in times of recession are better at countering the business cycle. Democratic Socialism, or Social Democracy, enabled countries like Sweden and Canada and Germany to recover far more quickly than the U.S. Conclusion Should we settle for a society which is increasingly stratified and unequal? A society wherein 46 million people are living below the poverty line? Should we accept the fact that our educational and health systems are lagging behind other industrialized countries? Or should we forge a better society, and a better country. Let's alleviate poverty. Let's strengthen the middle and working classes. Let's make sure that nobody has to hit rock bottom - that certain basic necessities are available to anyone down on their luck. It's the right thing to do morally speaking. It makes economic sense. And it fullfills the American Dream. Some say that freedom from want isn't really an American freedom. The truth is that you don't have to look any further than the Statue of Libery: Give me your tired, your poor. Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

SPF

Social Democracy - a country that democratically achieves socialist goals within a Capitalist framework through a strong welfare state and the regulation of private industry. Should - ought to become - I define this contextually America - The United States of America Let me clarify a few points. Firstly, socialism has been given a bad name by the USSR. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics wasn't just socialist, it was a communist country. While all communists are also socialists, not all socialists are communists. Social Democracy is a moderate ideology, between Capitalism on the right, and Communism on the left. It's ends and means are democratic, gradual, and economically feasible. If people want it they can give birth to it at the ballot box, and if it eventually no longer suits them, they can kill it at the ballot box. A Social Democracy guarantees access to certain basic necessities of modern life. For instance, a Social Democracy guarantees universal health care, dental care, education, social insurance, welfare, old age pension, and equal rights to all of it's citizens. Naturally, there is higher taxation in order to pay for this. People in Social Democracies are free - they still have all their civil liberties, and the right to vote. They additionally are given freedom by their greater financial security. This brings me to my first contention. Contention 1: Americans will be more free in a Social Democracy While the Declaration of Independence was an eloquent document, it did not win over as many common people as Thomas Paine's pamphlet, published in the same year - Common Sense. Thomas Paine was influenced by Enlightenment thinking. He believed in liberty. Once the American Revolutionary War had ended, Paine believed we weren't doing enough for freedom. Many, including Jefferson, still had slaves. Paine wanted to abolish slavery. He later went even further than this, in 1795, when he wrote Agrarian Justice. He wrote that the unequal distribution of property was essentially theft. He wrote that every 21 year old should be given a sum of money (15 British pounds, which would have been more than enough for subsistence) and that all people over 50 should be given 10 British pounds a year, "not as charity, but as social justice." That sounds fairly socialist by today's standards. Here was a man who wanted society to be more democratic, more fair, and more free at the same time. This in a nutshell, is the society a social democracy would create. Contention 2: Social Democracy works. Sweden recovered from the recession faster than we did. Canada (which is relatively more socially democratic than the U.S) had already finished recovering in 2009. Norway has the greatest GDP per Capita, in the World. According to an OECD study, Finland has the best education system, in the world. Denmark has the most social mobiltiy in the world. America is supposed to be the land of opportunity, but we are 10th in social mobility. This is because societies which are more rigidly laissez faire tend to create socioeconomic conditions which make social mobility more difficult. This is a list of the top 10 socially mobile countries:1. Denmark, 2. Australia, 3. Norway, 4. Finland, 5. Canada, 6. Sweden, 7. Germany, 8. Spain, 9. France, and 10. USA All the countries ahead of us are at least slightly more socialist than we are. And by slightly I mean that they all have universal health care coverage. Obamacare is a solution which works within the private sector, (and the plan was based on a similar plan from the Heritage Foundation, a plan more conservative than Nixon's) and even once it is completely implemented, there will not be universal healthcare. While we are on the subject of healthcare, I should note that many people claim that the U.S. healthcare system is the best in the world. However, the World Health Organization ranked the U.S. 38th in health care, in the world. 38! America shouldn't settle for 38. Especially when America is number 1 in health care expenditures. When profits are put over people, healthcare becomes more expensive, less effective, and less readily available. Contention 3: Happiness One of the most important questions in this debate is whether living in a Social Democracy, or living in a Capitalist system would make people happier. In my view, the best metric to use when judging a system is whether or not it is conducive to, or detrimental to the happiness of people living within that system. I understand that happiness is subjective. It should be noted however, that OECD did an international survey which measured happiness around the world. These were the 10 top happiest countries on earth: 1. Norway, 2. Denmark, 3. Australia, 4. New Zealand, 5. Sweden, 6. Canada, 7. Finland, 8. Switzerland, 9. The Netherlands, and 10. USA Note that this list is nearly identical to the one on social mobility. Once again, all of the countries happier than the US are also more socialist than the U.S. The amount of socialism varies country to country, but again, all of these countries have universal healthcare. http://www.forbes.com... Contention 4: Greater socioeconomic equality isn't only better for society, it is also better for economic stability Let's say that there are 600 cars for sale. Let's say that there is a large middle class - 590 people can afford one car per person, and one very rich guy can afford 10. 590 cars will probably get sold. The rich guy will buy anything between 1 and 10 cars, and that's fine. Let's say, on the other hand, that your selling cars in a very stratified society. 200 middle class folks can afford 1 car each. The other 390 people can't afford a car. The rich guy can afford 400 cars. 200 cars will definitely get sold. While the rich guy can afford 400 cars, he'll still only buy 1-10. Okay, McCain has 13. But still, the rich guy will not be buying a fleet of 400 cars. Socioeconomic inequality is the root cause of our buisness cycle. Over the last 30 years, as the gap between rich and poor has grown, the following has happened: Nearly all economic growth went to the top. Middle and lower income wages have stagnated, even as productivity skyrocketed. When we produce more than we can sell, that hurts our economy. This is the root cause of boom and bust. (In addition to weak regulations which allowed Wall Street to go crazy). Furthermore, governments which do more to directly employ people in times of recession are better at countering the business cycle. Democratic Socialism, or Social Democracy, enabled countries like Sweden and Canada and Germany to recover far more quickly than the U.S. Conclusion Should we settle for a society which is increasingly stratified and unequal? A society wherein 46 million people are living below the poverty line? Should we accept the fact that our educational and health systems are lagging behind other industrialized countries? Or should we forge a better society, and a better country. Let's alleviate poverty. Let's strengthen the middle and working classes. Let's make sure that nobody has to hit rock bottom - that certain basic necessities are available to anyone down on their luck. It's the right thing to do morally speaking. It makes economic sense. And it fullfills the American Dream. Some say that freedom from want isn't really an American freedom. The truth is that you don't have to look any further than the Statue of Libery: Give me your tired, your poor. Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

Politics

America-should-become-a-Social-Democracy/1/

First, I'll address my opponents arguments. 1. Freedom My opponent was missing the point. I wasn't saying that social democracies would have ended slavery any faster. All I was pointing out was that Thomas Paine, a man who arguably was one of our founding fathers, was ahead of his time. Not only did he believe in civil liberties, not only did he believe in more liberty (he wanted to abolish slavery) but he also believed that financial security was conducive, rather than detrimental to liberty. I was also pointing out that Paine's dream for America had many elements of a social democracy. 2. Happiness and money My opponent makes some interesting concessions and claims. First, he essentially concedes that Denmark and Canada could be societal and economic models. Then he claims that they aren't socially democratic. Both countries are more socially democratic than we are because they both have universal healthcare. But that's not all. Denmark's Prime Minister is Helle Thorning-Schmidt, and she's a Social Democrat. Moreover, the Social Democrats have held power for most of the previous century. <URL>... (Denmark) Secondly, the official website of Denmark has this to say about its welfare state: The basic principle of the Danish welfare system, often referred to as the Scandinavian welfare model, is that all citizens have equal rights to social security. Within the Danish welfare system, a number of services are available to citizens, free of charge. This means that for instance the Danish health and educational systems are free. The Danish welfare model is subsidised by the state, and as a result Denmark has one of the highest taxation levels in the world. <URL>... My opponent points out that the Danes have deregulated their economy, in recent years. One example of this deregulation is flexicurity. Denmark had regulations which made it harder for businesses to hire and fire people. Denmark got rid of those regulations, that's the flexi part in flexisecurity. But what was the security? While they made it easier to fire people, they also strengthened unemployment benefits. Denmark is 1st in social mobility. Norway Norway has been politically dominated by it's Labour Party for years. Labour is a socially democratic party. Norway has universal healthcare, and we don't. Norway is 1st in GDP per capita. New Zealand: Not only does New Zealand have universal healthcare, social security, family benefits and benefits for single parents, but they also have state owned housing which helps many people who might otherwise be homeless. We should be taking notes. "Citing Europe and calling them social democracies is faulty, the only true social democracy in Europe would be Sweden. Most of Europe is embracing free market reforms, not socialistic/democratic ones. They are cutting safety nets, cutting taxes, and decreasing regulation while increasing free trade [5]. " Again, these countries have many features of social democracy which we simply don't have. They might be cutting taxes, and benefits, but their taxes are stil higher, and their benefits are still more generous. Furthermore, I don't mind defending Sweden, which is far from a failure. The country collapsing in the Eurozone is Greece, and that's because they tried socialism with low taxes. That wasn't going to work. Sweden has free health care, free dental care, benefits for families with children, an educational allowance which allows every kid to either get a higher education, or go to vocational school, without getting into debt. They also have Social Security, and Elderly care. <URL>... The list goes on and on. Their top marginal tax rate is 60%, and people are still happy. Stefan Perrson lives in Sweden, pays that rate, and he's still the 17th richest man in the world. <URL>... (magnate) Social Mobility is hgher in Sweden than it is in America. Their wealth is also more evenly distributed. While the top 20% of Americans have 8 times more money than the bottom 20% of Americans, the top 20% of Swedes have 4 times more than the bottom 20% of Swedes. The smaller gap between rich and poor, and the security of the Swedish welfare state, creates socioeconomic conditons which allow for more social mobility. Sweden is 6th in social mobility, America is 10th. The already rich may not be able to get as rich, but poor and middle class Swedes have a better chance of getting wealthy. Sweden is also the 5th happiest country in the world, and we're 10th. Note that the Swedes are happier than we are, even though they have very little sunlight for half the year. Many opponents of social democracy claim that social democratic reforms reduce innovation and hurt the economy. My opponent used several Cato and Heritage foundation studies to make this point. Yet Stockholm, Sweden, is a major hub for European startups. If anything, financial security helps foster innovation because poor people have more time and money to come up with the next big idea. Another false assumption is that social democracy can't be payed for. When the recession began, Sweden was in a strong fiscal position, with a budget surplus. Their surplus allowed them to spend more money, and this helped Sweden counter the recession. Sweden and Canada and Germany (Germany and Canada also have some features of social democracy including universal health care) were able to recover far faster than the U.S. My opponent argues that regulations started the recession. The truth is that 30 years of deregulatory policies allowed Wall Street to run wild. My opponent mentions the housing bubble. This happened because there wasn't proper oversight over predatory lending. Greedy overspeculation caused the recession. Paul Krugman is a noble laureate in economics, and he explained this in an interview. Here is the link: <URL>... My opponent also argues that tax policies hurt entrepreneurial growth. The Reagan and Bush tax cuts had very little, if any trickle down effect. While most economic growth went to the top, lower and middle income wages have stagnated even as inflation decreased their buying power. These tax cuts have caused greater socioeconomic inequity, which in turn, helped foster economic instability. As I pointed out in round 1, economic inequality reduces consumption and it hurts the economy, and economic instability. This is one of the main causes of boom and bust. My opponent has not refuted this contention. Furthermore, my opponent did mention the postwar boom. He didn't mention the fact that unions were very strong, and he didn't mention the fact that in the 1950s, our top marginal tax rate was 91%! Stronger unions and higher income taxes, and yes, stronger regulations than we have today, (Glass Steagle, for instance, was still in place) all contributed to 3 things: 1. Less disparity between rich and poor 2. A stronger middle class 3. economic stability. In fact, from <PHONE>, tax rates never went below 70%. Furthermore, <PHONE> was a time when our middle class was strongest, and it was also our longest period of economic stability in history. Compare that to the Reagan, and Bush presidencies. A recession in 1983, a recession in 1987, an economy which was bad enough in 1992 for Clinton to win by saying, "It's the economy stupid." One can also recall that Bush jr., who also cut taxes and regulations, was President when our current recession began. Conclusion: Social Democracy will make our society more fair, more free, more happy, and more prosperous.

SPF

First, I'll address my opponents arguments. 1. Freedom My opponent was missing the point. I wasn't saying that social democracies would have ended slavery any faster. All I was pointing out was that Thomas Paine, a man who arguably was one of our founding fathers, was ahead of his time. Not only did he believe in civil liberties, not only did he believe in more liberty (he wanted to abolish slavery) but he also believed that financial security was conducive, rather than detrimental to liberty. I was also pointing out that Paine's dream for America had many elements of a social democracy. 2. Happiness and money My opponent makes some interesting concessions and claims. First, he essentially concedes that Denmark and Canada could be societal and economic models. Then he claims that they aren't socially democratic. Both countries are more socially democratic than we are because they both have universal healthcare. But that's not all. Denmark's Prime Minister is Helle Thorning-Schmidt, and she's a Social Democrat. Moreover, the Social Democrats have held power for most of the previous century. http://en.wikipedia.org... (Denmark) Secondly, the official website of Denmark has this to say about its welfare state: The basic principle of the Danish welfare system, often referred to as the Scandinavian welfare model, is that all citizens have equal rights to social security. Within the Danish welfare system, a number of services are available to citizens, free of charge. This means that for instance the Danish health and educational systems are free. The Danish welfare model is subsidised by the state, and as a result Denmark has one of the highest taxation levels in the world. http://denmark.dk... My opponent points out that the Danes have deregulated their economy, in recent years. One example of this deregulation is flexicurity. Denmark had regulations which made it harder for businesses to hire and fire people. Denmark got rid of those regulations, that's the flexi part in flexisecurity. But what was the security? While they made it easier to fire people, they also strengthened unemployment benefits. Denmark is 1st in social mobility. Norway Norway has been politically dominated by it's Labour Party for years. Labour is a socially democratic party. Norway has universal healthcare, and we don't. Norway is 1st in GDP per capita. New Zealand: Not only does New Zealand have universal healthcare, social security, family benefits and benefits for single parents, but they also have state owned housing which helps many people who might otherwise be homeless. We should be taking notes. "Citing Europe and calling them social democracies is faulty, the only true social democracy in Europe would be Sweden. Most of Europe is embracing free market reforms, not socialistic/democratic ones. They are cutting safety nets, cutting taxes, and decreasing regulation while increasing free trade [5]. " Again, these countries have many features of social democracy which we simply don't have. They might be cutting taxes, and benefits, but their taxes are stil higher, and their benefits are still more generous. Furthermore, I don't mind defending Sweden, which is far from a failure. The country collapsing in the Eurozone is Greece, and that's because they tried socialism with low taxes. That wasn't going to work. Sweden has free health care, free dental care, benefits for families with children, an educational allowance which allows every kid to either get a higher education, or go to vocational school, without getting into debt. They also have Social Security, and Elderly care. http://www.sweden.se... The list goes on and on. Their top marginal tax rate is 60%, and people are still happy. Stefan Perrson lives in Sweden, pays that rate, and he's still the 17th richest man in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org... (magnate) Social Mobility is hgher in Sweden than it is in America. Their wealth is also more evenly distributed. While the top 20% of Americans have 8 times more money than the bottom 20% of Americans, the top 20% of Swedes have 4 times more than the bottom 20% of Swedes. The smaller gap between rich and poor, and the security of the Swedish welfare state, creates socioeconomic conditons which allow for more social mobility. Sweden is 6th in social mobility, America is 10th. The already rich may not be able to get as rich, but poor and middle class Swedes have a better chance of getting wealthy. Sweden is also the 5th happiest country in the world, and we're 10th. Note that the Swedes are happier than we are, even though they have very little sunlight for half the year. Many opponents of social democracy claim that social democratic reforms reduce innovation and hurt the economy. My opponent used several Cato and Heritage foundation studies to make this point. Yet Stockholm, Sweden, is a major hub for European startups. If anything, financial security helps foster innovation because poor people have more time and money to come up with the next big idea. Another false assumption is that social democracy can't be payed for. When the recession began, Sweden was in a strong fiscal position, with a budget surplus. Their surplus allowed them to spend more money, and this helped Sweden counter the recession. Sweden and Canada and Germany (Germany and Canada also have some features of social democracy including universal health care) were able to recover far faster than the U.S. My opponent argues that regulations started the recession. The truth is that 30 years of deregulatory policies allowed Wall Street to run wild. My opponent mentions the housing bubble. This happened because there wasn't proper oversight over predatory lending. Greedy overspeculation caused the recession. Paul Krugman is a noble laureate in economics, and he explained this in an interview. Here is the link: http://www.thedailybeast.com... My opponent also argues that tax policies hurt entrepreneurial growth. The Reagan and Bush tax cuts had very little, if any trickle down effect. While most economic growth went to the top, lower and middle income wages have stagnated even as inflation decreased their buying power. These tax cuts have caused greater socioeconomic inequity, which in turn, helped foster economic instability. As I pointed out in round 1, economic inequality reduces consumption and it hurts the economy, and economic instability. This is one of the main causes of boom and bust. My opponent has not refuted this contention. Furthermore, my opponent did mention the postwar boom. He didn't mention the fact that unions were very strong, and he didn't mention the fact that in the 1950s, our top marginal tax rate was 91%! Stronger unions and higher income taxes, and yes, stronger regulations than we have today, (Glass Steagle, for instance, was still in place) all contributed to 3 things: 1. Less disparity between rich and poor 2. A stronger middle class 3. economic stability. In fact, from 1945-1981, tax rates never went below 70%. Furthermore, 1945-1971 was a time when our middle class was strongest, and it was also our longest period of economic stability in history. Compare that to the Reagan, and Bush presidencies. A recession in 1983, a recession in 1987, an economy which was bad enough in 1992 for Clinton to win by saying, "It's the economy stupid." One can also recall that Bush jr., who also cut taxes and regulations, was President when our current recession began. Conclusion: Social Democracy will make our society more fair, more free, more happy, and more prosperous.

Politics

America-should-become-a-Social-Democracy/1/

Contention 1: Freedom For starters, if America were to become a Social Democracy, our civil liberties will be preserved. We also, would hopefully have the additonal civil liberties of legalized gay marriage. Furthermore, on economic issues, my opponent and I are actually arguing for two different types of freedom. He argues for unfettered Capitalism, a more laissez faire economy. Now while this does guarantee more property rights for the wealthy and the most privileged, I would argue that this means more exploitation, and less freedom for the common people. Before America even did have a welfare or a regulatory state, we were more laissez faire. Sure, business had more freedom. More freedom to contaminate our water supply, exploit child laborers, suppress unions, etc. Social Democracy makes it harder to exploit. By making people free from want, Social Democracies allow people to reach for their aspirations, while free market Capitalism creates conditions which makes social mobility more difficult. Thomas Paine recognized this, which was why he wanted us to do many things which would now be components of a Social Democracy. Contention 2: Money and Happiness First, I'll address the Greek point. My opponent brought up the fact that Greece has higher tax rates but neglected to tell you that there fiscal mess was caused by corruption which allowed rich Greeks not to pay taxes. Next, The fact of the matter is, that Canada and Denmark, and all of the other countries we're debating about, are more socialist than the U.S. "The government took small steps in 2012 to cut back on welfare state benefits and costs." Small steps. Incremental tinkering does not change the fact that Denmark still has a far stronger welfare state than we do. My point on flexicurity is that even when the Danes were reducing their regulations, they also were beefing up their welfare state. Denmark still has a strong welfare state, and high taxes. It also has more social mobility. Again, Denmark and Canada both have Universal Healthcare. New Zealand does too. My opponent notes that New Zealand has a mixed system. This means that people have the option of private care, but the government picks up the slack giving healthcare coverage to everyone who cannot afford private care. "The burden for the core of the healthcare system rests with government expenditure (approx. 77%)." <URL>... Note that this was backed with a citation which links to the World Health Organization. So, not only is there universal healthcare in New Zealand, but the vast majority of New Zealanders get their healthcare from the government. New Zealand may not have an extremely progressive tax code, but it stil does have more universal benefits than the U.S. New Zealand has government housing and universal healthcare. The point still stands. Again, all the countries ahead of us in social mobility: 1. Denmark, 2. Australia, 3. Norway, 4. Finland, 5. Canada, 6. Sweden, 7. Germany, 8. Spain, 9. France, and 10. USA All of these countries are at least slightly more socialist than the U.S.. all of these countries have universal health care. The countries ahead of us in happiness are: 1. Norway, 2. Denmark, 3. Australia, 4. New Zealand, 5. Sweden, 6. Canada, 7. Finland, 8. Switzerland, 9. The Netherlands, and 10. USA My opponent said Norway, New Zealand, Canada, and Denmark aren't really Social Democracies. I pointed out that all of these countries are at leas more socialist than the U.S. Furthermore, that still leaves 6 countries which are ahead of us, 6 countries which, at the very least have universal healthcare. Clearly, countries that are more socially democratic have people who are more socially mobile, and people who are happier. Sweden My opponent notes economic growth in Sweden from the period <PHONE>. He omits the fact that this was the period when Sweden became a Social Democracy! By the 1930s, many people were praising Swedish Social Democracy for becoming the "middle way" between communist command economies and free market economies. When comparing average income between Sweden and the U.S., my opponent is comparing apples and oranges. We simply have the largest economy in the world. Even when wealth isn't distributed fairly, the average American does worse than the average Swede. Curiously, Swedish wealth is distributed so fairly, that even though they have a much smaller economy, lower income Swedes, all the way up to the 45 percentile, make more than their American counterparts. <URL>... We have more GDP per Capita than Sweden, which means that if our wealth is more evenly distributed, the standard of living of lower and middle income Americans (even those who currently are better off than Swedes) would go up. The fact of the matter is that when wealth is more evenly distributed, there is greater consumption to match productivity. My opponent never addressed the consumption point. He did try to paint a rosy picture of American income inequality with the whole Smith vs. Jones comparison. However, the middle class has been shrinking, and experiencing hardship. In fact, middle class Americans have just gone through their worst decade in a long time. The middle class has it's lowest share of the national income that it's had at any time since WWII. <URL>... Looking at how our income, rather than how our wealth, is distributed makes things seem more egalitarian than they trully are. The reality is that the bottom 80% of Americans have 6-7% of the nation's wealth. <URL>... Furthermore, while productivity has gone up by 46%. Median income per household has only gone up 15%. The other 31% of growth due to greater productivity went to the rich. This means that wealth that would have gone to the average American flowed upwards to the top 1%. Not only is this unfair to the people achieved greater productivity, but this is bad for the economy. When productivity goes up 46%, there are 46% more goods and services on the market. When 31% of the resulting wealth goes to the top, most of that money will go to bank accounts. Again, there's the car analogy. By the way, Henry Ford paid his workers well precisely because he realized that they would buy his cars. This, in a nutshell, is why redistributing wealth will help the economy. The pie should be sliced more evenly in order to insure that the pie can grow at a stable rate. On the recession point, I cited Paul Krugma, a Nobel Prize winning economist. My opponent asserted that Krugman was wrong about everything. In order to back this assertion, he cited Reisman, an economist who never won a nobel prize. The truth is that we were both playing a game of cherry picking an economist who backed our views, so I guess that point was a draw. (Although Krugman has the edge because again, he did win a nobel prize.) Contention 1: I've shown that Social Democracy preserves civil liberties, while also guaranteeing people freedom from want. I've also impacted the importance of this freedom. My opponent argued that Capitalism insures property rights for the rich. Granted, but it also causes more exploitation and thus takes away freedom from common folks. Contention 2: I've shown that by limiting inequality, social democracy is good for the economy. Again, the rich guy won't buy 400 cars. My opponent also demonstrated this by praising Denmark and Canada, while praising Sweden from <PHONE>, the years Sweden became a Social Democracy. Contention 3: I've shown that the 9 happiest countries in the world are all at least more socialist than we are. I've won all 3 of my contentions. Vote Pro Social Democracy and the resulting financial security makes society more democratic, free, happy, and prosperous.

SPF

Contention 1: Freedom For starters, if America were to become a Social Democracy, our civil liberties will be preserved. We also, would hopefully have the additonal civil liberties of legalized gay marriage. Furthermore, on economic issues, my opponent and I are actually arguing for two different types of freedom. He argues for unfettered Capitalism, a more laissez faire economy. Now while this does guarantee more property rights for the wealthy and the most privileged, I would argue that this means more exploitation, and less freedom for the common people. Before America even did have a welfare or a regulatory state, we were more laissez faire. Sure, business had more freedom. More freedom to contaminate our water supply, exploit child laborers, suppress unions, etc. Social Democracy makes it harder to exploit. By making people free from want, Social Democracies allow people to reach for their aspirations, while free market Capitalism creates conditions which makes social mobility more difficult. Thomas Paine recognized this, which was why he wanted us to do many things which would now be components of a Social Democracy. Contention 2: Money and Happiness First, I'll address the Greek point. My opponent brought up the fact that Greece has higher tax rates but neglected to tell you that there fiscal mess was caused by corruption which allowed rich Greeks not to pay taxes. Next, The fact of the matter is, that Canada and Denmark, and all of the other countries we're debating about, are more socialist than the U.S. "The government took small steps in 2012 to cut back on welfare state benefits and costs." Small steps. Incremental tinkering does not change the fact that Denmark still has a far stronger welfare state than we do. My point on flexicurity is that even when the Danes were reducing their regulations, they also were beefing up their welfare state. Denmark still has a strong welfare state, and high taxes. It also has more social mobility. Again, Denmark and Canada both have Universal Healthcare. New Zealand does too. My opponent notes that New Zealand has a mixed system. This means that people have the option of private care, but the government picks up the slack giving healthcare coverage to everyone who cannot afford private care. "The burden for the core of the healthcare system rests with government expenditure (approx. 77%)." http://en.wikipedia.org... Note that this was backed with a citation which links to the World Health Organization. So, not only is there universal healthcare in New Zealand, but the vast majority of New Zealanders get their healthcare from the government. New Zealand may not have an extremely progressive tax code, but it stil does have more universal benefits than the U.S. New Zealand has government housing and universal healthcare. The point still stands. Again, all the countries ahead of us in social mobility: 1. Denmark, 2. Australia, 3. Norway, 4. Finland, 5. Canada, 6. Sweden, 7. Germany, 8. Spain, 9. France, and 10. USA All of these countries are at least slightly more socialist than the U.S.. all of these countries have universal health care. The countries ahead of us in happiness are: 1. Norway, 2. Denmark, 3. Australia, 4. New Zealand, 5. Sweden, 6. Canada, 7. Finland, 8. Switzerland, 9. The Netherlands, and 10. USA My opponent said Norway, New Zealand, Canada, and Denmark aren't really Social Democracies. I pointed out that all of these countries are at leas more socialist than the U.S. Furthermore, that still leaves 6 countries which are ahead of us, 6 countries which, at the very least have universal healthcare. Clearly, countries that are more socially democratic have people who are more socially mobile, and people who are happier. Sweden My opponent notes economic growth in Sweden from the period 1870-1970. He omits the fact that this was the period when Sweden became a Social Democracy! By the 1930s, many people were praising Swedish Social Democracy for becoming the "middle way" between communist command economies and free market economies. When comparing average income between Sweden and the U.S., my opponent is comparing apples and oranges. We simply have the largest economy in the world. Even when wealth isn't distributed fairly, the average American does worse than the average Swede. Curiously, Swedish wealth is distributed so fairly, that even though they have a much smaller economy, lower income Swedes, all the way up to the 45 percentile, make more than their American counterparts. http://super-economy.blogspot.com... We have more GDP per Capita than Sweden, which means that if our wealth is more evenly distributed, the standard of living of lower and middle income Americans (even those who currently are better off than Swedes) would go up. The fact of the matter is that when wealth is more evenly distributed, there is greater consumption to match productivity. My opponent never addressed the consumption point. He did try to paint a rosy picture of American income inequality with the whole Smith vs. Jones comparison. However, the middle class has been shrinking, and experiencing hardship. In fact, middle class Americans have just gone through their worst decade in a long time. The middle class has it's lowest share of the national income that it's had at any time since WWII. http://www.bostonglobe.com... Looking at how our income, rather than how our wealth, is distributed makes things seem more egalitarian than they trully are. The reality is that the bottom 80% of Americans have 6-7% of the nation's wealth. http://www.currydemocrats.org... Furthermore, while productivity has gone up by 46%. Median income per household has only gone up 15%. The other 31% of growth due to greater productivity went to the rich. This means that wealth that would have gone to the average American flowed upwards to the top 1%. Not only is this unfair to the people achieved greater productivity, but this is bad for the economy. When productivity goes up 46%, there are 46% more goods and services on the market. When 31% of the resulting wealth goes to the top, most of that money will go to bank accounts. Again, there's the car analogy. By the way, Henry Ford paid his workers well precisely because he realized that they would buy his cars. This, in a nutshell, is why redistributing wealth will help the economy. The pie should be sliced more evenly in order to insure that the pie can grow at a stable rate. On the recession point, I cited Paul Krugma, a Nobel Prize winning economist. My opponent asserted that Krugman was wrong about everything. In order to back this assertion, he cited Reisman, an economist who never won a nobel prize. The truth is that we were both playing a game of cherry picking an economist who backed our views, so I guess that point was a draw. (Although Krugman has the edge because again, he did win a nobel prize.) Contention 1: I've shown that Social Democracy preserves civil liberties, while also guaranteeing people freedom from want. I've also impacted the importance of this freedom. My opponent argued that Capitalism insures property rights for the rich. Granted, but it also causes more exploitation and thus takes away freedom from common folks. Contention 2: I've shown that by limiting inequality, social democracy is good for the economy. Again, the rich guy won't buy 400 cars. My opponent also demonstrated this by praising Denmark and Canada, while praising Sweden from 1870-1970, the years Sweden became a Social Democracy. Contention 3: I've shown that the 9 happiest countries in the world are all at least more socialist than we are. I've won all 3 of my contentions. Vote Pro Social Democracy and the resulting financial security makes society more democratic, free, happy, and prosperous.

Politics

America-should-become-a-Social-Democracy/1/

After getting all the proves of terrorist camps and activities in Pakistan by C.I.A and Indian intelligence wing R.A.W America should waste no time in declaring Pakistan a Terrorist state. Pakistan has two faces one where it shakes hand with America and other where it back-stabs it by funding Taliban. It gave shelter to Osama and other Most wanted terrorist and actually misused American aid against Indian and planned 26/11 attack and series of bomb blasts killing thousands of innocent people. Now even after so many direct links and proves world still spares Pakistan then million Osama's will be born on its soil. Get ready for another 9 or 26/11

Desertice

After getting all the proves of terrorist camps and activities in Pakistan by C.I.A and Indian intelligence wing R.A.W America should waste no time in declaring Pakistan a Terrorist state. Pakistan has two faces one where it shakes hand with America and other where it back-stabs it by funding Taliban. It gave shelter to Osama and other Most wanted terrorist and actually misused American aid against Indian and planned 26/11 attack and series of bomb blasts killing thousands of innocent people. Now even after so many direct links and proves world still spares Pakistan then million Osama's will be born on its soil. Get ready for another 9 or 26/11

Politics

America-should-declare-Pakistan-a-terrorist-state/1/

Well that seems too naive to believe that Osama sneaked into Pakistan without authorities knowing anything about him.He was just few meters away from Military academy in Abbottabad. It was a big mansion without proper legal documents. No body was allowed to sneak inside. Everything was suspicious and the world is talking the same.R.A.W informed America in 2004 about Osama in Karachi . This means you are not interested in reading newspapers and watching television. When you asked about proves of C.I.A and RAW giving proves of terrorist camps in Pakistan then it has been shown times and times again on television. You can also check wikileaks cables for dossiers exchanged between C.I.A and R.A.W. I am from India and we are battling state sponsored terrorism from last 27 years. We have given ample dossiers to U.N , U.S.A and Pakistan also. When you mentioned Osama's role against U.S.S.R and Pakistan help in war against terror then it shows that you are not concerned about terrorism elsewhere in the world. If any nation gives your army route for supply to Nato services then it gets license to run terrorist camps on its soil. When you mentioned about Taliban role against U.S.S.R then you forgot 9/11. When I started this debate that America should declare Pakistan a terrorist state it was based on moral grounds too. If Pakistan is pretending to help you then it not for free , America is giving financial aid to Pakistan. War against terror means War against terror not War which suits American interests. Now you are not realizing Pakistan danger as America couldn't do in case of Taliban and what happened was 9/11. Now as you have mentioned India's alliance with Russia then I must tell you we wanted to be friends with America too but U.S.A was not interested in our friendship with both of them. We were part of Non-alignment movement and we couldn't choose any one block. so we wanted to maintain friendly and cordial relationship with both. Russia said yes while America didn't respond. Now also we want to be friends with every nation . When it comes to war against terrorism we are with America but it should be for world peace not according to America's whims and fancies. Now here I want to clear that I am not against common people of Pakistan but it's political structure and it's Army. Declaring it a terrorist state would help us and other nations to create much needed pressure on it's economy which is being used to fund terrorism. Now when you are so worried about supplies your own president and Army head has given statements after statements that they are not dependent on Pakistan for supplies. You mentioned Pakistan as a very helpful state but what about funds from west which is keeping it's destroyed economy alive. It is not Pakistan loyalty but it's need.Popular sentiment in Pakistan is against America. We are with America in war against terrorism but you can't decide everything according to your country rules in an international issue. Sooner or later Terrorism is going to affect every country of the world. Start looking from international prospective. Now when you mentioned a poor destroyed nation like Afganistan as a dangerous terrorist state which desperately needs help from international community surprised me. First west ( and I support this one) attacked Afganistan saying that it wants to help it buy freeing it from Taliban and after remaining there for 10 years now the same affected people who first were crushed by Taliban , then saw Nato forces bombarding their Houses are being equated with Taliban. Strange argument. Now We ( international community) should help them. All over the world Newspapers are flooded with reports and statements Questioning integrity of Pakistan. Salman Rushdie , American C.I.A heads and thousands of others have said the same. In 1999 Kargil war thousands of Taliban fighters were killed with Pakistani Army soldiers and I.S.I agents. I.S.I trains Talibani fighters. The recently concluded operation to kill Osama was also conducted by America without Pakistan knowledge and Drone attacks on Pakistani soil which are being criticized by Pakistan shows lack of coordination and trust between American forces and Pakistan. This further strengthens my point. The topic here is Pakistan dangerous potential against other countries of the world too. This is not purely based on America's Interests but for International safety. <URL> <URL> <URL> <URL>...

Desertice

Well that seems too naive to believe that Osama sneaked into Pakistan without authorities knowing anything about him.He was just few meters away from Military academy in Abbottabad. It was a big mansion without proper legal documents. No body was allowed to sneak inside. Everything was suspicious and the world is talking the same.R.A.W informed America in 2004 about Osama in Karachi . This means you are not interested in reading newspapers and watching television. When you asked about proves of C.I.A and RAW giving proves of terrorist camps in Pakistan then it has been shown times and times again on television. You can also check wikileaks cables for dossiers exchanged between C.I.A and R.A.W. I am from India and we are battling state sponsored terrorism from last 27 years. We have given ample dossiers to U.N , U.S.A and Pakistan also. When you mentioned Osama's role against U.S.S.R and Pakistan help in war against terror then it shows that you are not concerned about terrorism elsewhere in the world. If any nation gives your army route for supply to Nato services then it gets license to run terrorist camps on its soil. When you mentioned about Taliban role against U.S.S.R then you forgot 9/11. When I started this debate that America should declare Pakistan a terrorist state it was based on moral grounds too. If Pakistan is pretending to help you then it not for free , America is giving financial aid to Pakistan. War against terror means War against terror not War which suits American interests. Now you are not realizing Pakistan danger as America couldn't do in case of Taliban and what happened was 9/11. Now as you have mentioned India's alliance with Russia then I must tell you we wanted to be friends with America too but U.S.A was not interested in our friendship with both of them. We were part of Non-alignment movement and we couldn't choose any one block. so we wanted to maintain friendly and cordial relationship with both. Russia said yes while America didn't respond. Now also we want to be friends with every nation . When it comes to war against terrorism we are with America but it should be for world peace not according to America's whims and fancies. Now here I want to clear that I am not against common people of Pakistan but it's political structure and it's Army. Declaring it a terrorist state would help us and other nations to create much needed pressure on it's economy which is being used to fund terrorism. Now when you are so worried about supplies your own president and Army head has given statements after statements that they are not dependent on Pakistan for supplies. You mentioned Pakistan as a very helpful state but what about funds from west which is keeping it's destroyed economy alive. It is not Pakistan loyalty but it's need.Popular sentiment in Pakistan is against America. We are with America in war against terrorism but you can't decide everything according to your country rules in an international issue. Sooner or later Terrorism is going to affect every country of the world. Start looking from international prospective. Now when you mentioned a poor destroyed nation like Afganistan as a dangerous terrorist state which desperately needs help from international community surprised me. First west ( and I support this one) attacked Afganistan saying that it wants to help it buy freeing it from Taliban and after remaining there for 10 years now the same affected people who first were crushed by Taliban , then saw Nato forces bombarding their Houses are being equated with Taliban. Strange argument. Now We ( international community) should help them. All over the world Newspapers are flooded with reports and statements Questioning integrity of Pakistan. Salman Rushdie , American C.I.A heads and thousands of others have said the same. In 1999 Kargil war thousands of Taliban fighters were killed with Pakistani Army soldiers and I.S.I agents. I.S.I trains Talibani fighters. The recently concluded operation to kill Osama was also conducted by America without Pakistan knowledge and Drone attacks on Pakistani soil which are being criticized by Pakistan shows lack of coordination and trust between American forces and Pakistan. This further strengthens my point. The topic here is Pakistan dangerous potential against other countries of the world too. This is not purely based on America's Interests but for International safety. www.timesofIndia.com www.newsweek.com www.Newyorktimes.com http://www.indianexpress.com...

Politics

America-should-declare-Pakistan-a-terrorist-state/1/

First of all I want to apologize if I have been disrespectful in any means to you or anyone. But you can't understand the problems we are suffering because of Pakistan. Now when you said Osama infiltrated the border without any knowledge of Pakistani authorities , then the world thinks different. when you asked for links then I gave you three indirect but one direct link which i guess you didn't see. First I shall give you link for this one. Now nearly every news channel and newspaper is asking the same . It is difficult to give all of them but few are here.Now when you said that it was difficult to find Osama in a big country because he was in a big mansion without legal documents then my friend( I hope we can be friends leaving this debate aside) he was near a millitary academy, which I have already mentioned is a high security area kept under strict vigilance. <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... Now when you said that Iam a government official if I know about dossier sent to pakistan and U.S.A then here are the links articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-05-04/india/29508331_1_terror-camps-terror-infrastructure-terror-outfits <URL>... <URL>... you are so obsessed with links that you need a link to a simple fact that if any state is declared terrorist state it's economy comes under pressure. I understand links for important points and facts but for every line you need a link . Even for simple dictionary definitions you have given links to dictionary.com. Then I need to give you link to adam smith theories and every theory of economics that when a country which is heavily dependent on foreign aid and trade is isolated from the world it sinks. Now How can I provide links for every T.V. report watched in 1999 kargil war and after and sent you newspapers.Now when you said I shouldn't assume that you watch T.V or news then should I have assumed that everything you come to know via links or net. Should I provide you link for kargil war, India geographical location and every word I type. There is something known as memory. You read several articles on net, watch news from all over the world, read several reports daily. Now when you mentioned that if Pakistan is a terrorist state then how come terrorist attacks happen on its soil. Then I want to again say that Jihadi group and Pakistani army controls Pakistan which is interested in maintaining its grip no matter what they have to pay for it. Gaddafi too is killing his own men and other dictator and millitary regimes have done the same like Junta in myanmmar. <URL> "The ISI facilitated militants to cross the border to carry out strikes on Indian targets chosen by the Pakistan Army, several detainees at the Guantanamo Bay facility told US interrogators, according to a fresh set of American diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks. The interrogation reports quoted a detainee as saying that ISI "allowed" militants to travel to India where they conducted bombings, kidnappings and killing of Kashmiri people and the targets were picked up by the Pakistani Army." <URL>... Even Barack Obama has raised questions over Pakistan intentions and he expressed it in fox news interview <URL>... there are questions all over world over Pakistan my friend <URL>... <URL>... dailywww.mail.co.uk/news/article-<PHONE>/Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-Pakistanis-burn-US-flags-backlash-grows.html Now when you said we couldn't prove 26/11 attacks then when was trial held where we lost and pakistan was declared innocent by International community. were you there give me links for that now. We gave dossiers after dossiers. Terrorist ajmal kasab was caught which was accepted to be pakistan citizen by Nawaz sharif (former Pakistan prime minister) . Now don't tell me that you need a link for Prove that Nawaz sharif was pakistan's former P.M. But I will still give you that. <URL>... Even C.I.A doesn't trust pakistan army and that is reason behind repeated drone strikes and other activities which pakistan is against and there have been conflicts between both on these strikes. <URL>... <URL>... Now when America attacked Afghanistan and till date west calls Afghanistan an affected state not a terrorist state. The whole war if you remember was to free poor Afghanistan from Taliban. Afghani people are nice.

Desertice

First of all I want to apologize if I have been disrespectful in any means to you or anyone. But you can't understand the problems we are suffering because of Pakistan. Now when you said Osama infiltrated the border without any knowledge of Pakistani authorities , then the world thinks different. when you asked for links then I gave you three indirect but one direct link which i guess you didn't see. First I shall give you link for this one. Now nearly every news channel and newspaper is asking the same . It is difficult to give all of them but few are here.Now when you said that it was difficult to find Osama in a big country because he was in a big mansion without legal documents then my friend( I hope we can be friends leaving this debate aside) he was near a millitary academy, which I have already mentioned is a high security area kept under strict vigilance. http://marculyseas.wordpress.com... http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com... http://www.newsweek.com... http://www.examiner.com... http://www.deeshaa.org... Now when you said that Iam a government official if I know about dossier sent to pakistan and U.S.A then here are the links articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-05-04/india/29508331_1_terror-camps-terror-infrastructure-terror-outfits http://www.hindu.com... http://news.rediff.com... you are so obsessed with links that you need a link to a simple fact that if any state is declared terrorist state it's economy comes under pressure. I understand links for important points and facts but for every line you need a link . Even for simple dictionary definitions you have given links to dictionary.com. Then I need to give you link to adam smith theories and every theory of economics that when a country which is heavily dependent on foreign aid and trade is isolated from the world it sinks. Now How can I provide links for every T.V. report watched in 1999 kargil war and after and sent you newspapers.Now when you said I shouldn't assume that you watch T.V or news then should I have assumed that everything you come to know via links or net. Should I provide you link for kargil war, India geographical location and every word I type. There is something known as memory. You read several articles on net, watch news from all over the world, read several reports daily. Now when you mentioned that if Pakistan is a terrorist state then how come terrorist attacks happen on its soil. Then I want to again say that Jihadi group and Pakistani army controls Pakistan which is interested in maintaining its grip no matter what they have to pay for it. Gaddafi too is killing his own men and other dictator and millitary regimes have done the same like Junta in myanmmar. www.nitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2010/0728/WikiLeaks-fallout-US-UK-India-criticize-Pakistan-as-terror-haven "The ISI facilitated militants to cross the border to carry out strikes on Indian targets chosen by the Pakistan Army, several detainees at the Guantanamo Bay facility told US interrogators, according to a fresh set of American diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks. The interrogation reports quoted a detainee as saying that ISI "allowed" militants to travel to India where they conducted bombings, kidnappings and killing of Kashmiri people and the targets were picked up by the Pakistani Army." http://israelagainstterror.blogspot.com... Even Barack Obama has raised questions over Pakistan intentions and he expressed it in fox news interview http://blogs.reuters.com... there are questions all over world over Pakistan my friend http://articles.latimes.com... http://in.reuters.com... dailywww.mail.co.uk/news/article-1383011/Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-Pakistanis-burn-US-flags-backlash-grows.html Now when you said we couldn't prove 26/11 attacks then when was trial held where we lost and pakistan was declared innocent by International community. were you there give me links for that now. We gave dossiers after dossiers. Terrorist ajmal kasab was caught which was accepted to be pakistan citizen by Nawaz sharif (former Pakistan prime minister) . Now don't tell me that you need a link for Prove that Nawaz sharif was pakistan's former P.M. But I will still give you that. http://www.rediff.com... Even C.I.A doesn't trust pakistan army and that is reason behind repeated drone strikes and other activities which pakistan is against and there have been conflicts between both on these strikes. http://news.antiwar.com... http://www.latimes.com... Now when America attacked Afghanistan and till date west calls Afghanistan an affected state not a terrorist state. The whole war if you remember was to free poor Afghanistan from Taliban. Afghani people are nice.

Politics

America-should-declare-Pakistan-a-terrorist-state/1/

Thank you for this interesting debate. Definition Declare- to announce officially <URL>... + Terrorist- a person who terrorizes <URL>... + State- the condition of a person or thing <URL>... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "After getting all the proves of terrorist camps and activities in Pakistan by C.I.A and Indian intelligence wing R.A.W America should waste no time in declaring Pakistan a Terrorist state." Can you give me a source to this statement? "Pakistan has two faces one where it shakes hand with America and other where it back-stabs it by funding Taliban." Can you provide any proof of this statement? "It gave shelter to Osama and other Most wanted terrorist..." How do you know if they did help shelter Osama? Maybe Osama sneaked in to Pakistan to one of his many hide outs which are located throughout the Middle Eastern countries. Why Pakistan isn't a terrorist state. 1) Pakistan is helpful to U.S. "Pakistan plays a vital role in keeping supply lines open for U.S. and Western troops battling Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan. About 40% of NATO's non-weapons supplies move by truck from the Pakistani port city of Karachi to two crossings along the Afghan border." This quote tells the importance of Pakistan to the U.S. If America declares Pakistan a terrorist state what would happen to the friendship between America and Pakistan. Without Pakistan's help with keeping the supply lines open for America, the Western troops fighting Taliban in Afghanistan would suffer of lack of supplies. <URL>... 2) What about country like Afghanistan? "...nearly 10-year-old conflict in Afghanistan: a weak, corrupt and deeply unpopular central government..." This statement tells that country like Afghanistan is more of a terrorist state then Pakistan. Afghanistan was also attacked by many Taliban fighters in Kandahar. <URL>... <URL>... 3) Pakistan alliance is needed to the U.S. "Pakistan is a steady partner when it counts. It stood by the United States when India, America's current darling, danced body-rubbing close with the Soviet Union--to America's detriment." "Pakistan made it possible for the United States to reap the benefit of the Soviet Union's defeat in Afghanistan. The Mujahedeen--more armed poppy growers than religious zealots--fought, died and defeated America's rival superpower in a key strategic part of the world." Pakistan stood by U.S. when U.S. needed them to. Pakistan is a helpful ally who helped America with the war on terror. <URL>... Conclusion Pakistan is a helpful country in the war on terror. Without Pakistan's help supplies wouldn't be delivered to the Western forces fighting insurgents. Country like Afghanistan is more of a terrorist state then Pakistan. Pakistan has helped America when Soviet Union came to the Middle East. Bottom line is that Pakistan is a helpful ally that shouldn't be called a terrorist state.

nerdykiller

Thank you for this interesting debate. Definition Declare- to announce officially http://dictionary.reference.com... + Terrorist- a person who terrorizes http://dictionary.reference.com... + State- the condition of a person or thing http://dictionary.reference.com... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "After getting all the proves of terrorist camps and activities in Pakistan by C.I.A and Indian intelligence wing R.A.W America should waste no time in declaring Pakistan a Terrorist state." Can you give me a source to this statement? "Pakistan has two faces one where it shakes hand with America and other where it back-stabs it by funding Taliban." Can you provide any proof of this statement? "It gave shelter to Osama and other Most wanted terrorist..." How do you know if they did help shelter Osama? Maybe Osama sneaked in to Pakistan to one of his many hide outs which are located throughout the Middle Eastern countries. Why Pakistan isn't a terrorist state. 1) Pakistan is helpful to U.S. "Pakistan plays a vital role in keeping supply lines open for U.S. and Western troops battling Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan. About 40% of NATO's non-weapons supplies move by truck from the Pakistani port city of Karachi to two crossings along the Afghan border." This quote tells the importance of Pakistan to the U.S. If America declares Pakistan a terrorist state what would happen to the friendship between America and Pakistan. Without Pakistan's help with keeping the supply lines open for America, the Western troops fighting Taliban in Afghanistan would suffer of lack of supplies. http://www.latimes.com... 2) What about country like Afghanistan? "...nearly 10-year-old conflict in Afghanistan: a weak, corrupt and deeply unpopular central government..." This statement tells that country like Afghanistan is more of a terrorist state then Pakistan. Afghanistan was also attacked by many Taliban fighters in Kandahar. http://www.latimes.com... http://www.latimes.com... 3) Pakistan alliance is needed to the U.S. "Pakistan is a steady partner when it counts. It stood by the United States when India, America’s current darling, danced body-rubbing close with the Soviet Union—to America’s detriment." "Pakistan made it possible for the United States to reap the benefit of the Soviet Union’s defeat in Afghanistan. The Mujahedeen—more armed poppy growers than religious zealots—fought, died and defeated America’s rival superpower in a key strategic part of the world." Pakistan stood by U.S. when U.S. needed them to. Pakistan is a helpful ally who helped America with the war on terror. http://gazettextra.com... Conclusion Pakistan is a helpful country in the war on terror. Without Pakistan's help supplies wouldn't be delivered to the Western forces fighting insurgents. Country like Afghanistan is more of a terrorist state then Pakistan. Pakistan has helped America when Soviet Union came to the Middle East. Bottom line is that Pakistan is a helpful ally that shouldn't be called a terrorist state.

Politics

America-should-declare-Pakistan-a-terrorist-state/1/

Thank for your argument. I just have to say that you should put the exact link of the website you got your information rather than just the general website. If you just put <URL> it isn't helpful because how am I going to find the article out from many articles uploaded every day. Rebuttals "Well that seems too naive to believe that Osama sneaked into Pakistan without authorities knowing anything about him." - It doesn't seem naive. Osama was the leader of Al Qaeda which is a big organization. I believe that he actually can infiltrate the border and got a safe house in Pakistan. "It was a big mansion without proper legal documents." - Where did you get this information from? Also I don't believe in a country of 1,760,709,573 people living, it was easy to just find Osama right away because he was in a big mansion without legal document. <URL>... ; "Everything was suspicious and the world is talking the same. R.A.W informed America in 2004 about Osama in Karachi. This means you are not interested in reading newspapers and watching television. When you asked about proves of C.I.A and RAW giving proves of terrorist camps in Pakistan then it has been shown times and times again on television. You can also check wikileaks cables for dossiers exchanged between C.I.A and R.A.W." - First of all I think you shouldn't assume that I watch the news. And if you really want to back up your statement then give me links. "I am from India and we are battling state sponsored terrorism from last 27 years. We have given ample dossiers to U.N , U.S.A and Pakistan also. When you mentioned Osama's role against U.S.S.R and Pakistan help in war against terror then it shows that you are not concerned about terrorism elsewhere in the world." - This whole topic is based on Pakistan and whether it should be consider a terrorist state. Of course I concrete most about Pakistan, but like I said in Round 1 I wrote that country like Afghanistan that is more terrorist like than Pakistan. I do care about other terrorism elsewhere in the world. It is disrespectful for you to say that I don't care about others. "If Pakistan is pretending to help you then it not for free , America is giving financial aid to Pakistan. War against terror means War against terror not War which suits American interests. Now you are not realizing Pakistan danger as America couldn't do in case of Taliban and what happened was 9/11." - Like all allies America is giving financial aid to also improve on the friendship with the country. Can you clarify this sentence, "War against terror means War against terror not War which suits American interests." You can't just blame 9/11 all on Pakistan. 9/11 was carried out by Taliban not the whole country, so it gives you no reason what so ever that Pakistan is the one to blame because of this act. "Now as you have mentioned India's alliance with Russia then I must tell you we wanted to be friends with America too but U.S.A was not interested in our friendship with both of them. We were part of Non-alignment movement and we couldn't choose any one block. so we wanted to maintain friendly and cordial relationship with both. Russia said yes while America didn't respond. Now also we want to be friends with every nation. " - I only put the India's alliance because I wanted to put in the whole statement. You said, "We were part of Non-alignment movement and we couldn't choose any one block. so we wanted to maintain friendly and cordial relationship with both." How do you know what your government truly wanted? Are you a government official? "Declaring it a terrorist state would help us and other nations to create much needed pressure on its economy which is being used to fund terrorism." - Can you provide any resources about this. "We are with America in war against terrorism but you can't decide everything according to your country rules in an international issue." - Can you clarify what I said that made you think like this? "Now when you mentioned a poor destroyed nation like Afganistan as a dangerous terrorist state which desperately needs help from international community surprised me. First west ( and I support this one) attacked Afganistan saying that it wants to help it buy freeing it from Taliban and after remaining there for 10 years now the same affected people who first were crushed by Taliban , then saw Nato forces bombarding their Houses are being equated with Taliban. Strange argument. Now We ( international community) should help them." - Afghanistan is a country that is harboring all these terrorist and is being constantly being attack which is why U.S. Army resorts to using airstrikes to kill them. Why do we keep on bombing them is because we our trying to kill the terrorist there. Our forces are there to keep the citizens of Afghanistan safe, but the terrorist keeps on fighting back. If the terrorist stop killing people and terrorizing maybe our soldiers will withdraw. Here is an article saying that terroriost has slain 4 U.S. soldiers. This is the reason our soldiers keep on staying in that country to insure that the terrorists won't do any more damage to that country. <URL>... "All over the world Newspapers are flooded with reports and statements Questioning integrity of Pakistan. Salman Rushdie , American C.I.A heads and thousands of others have said the same. In 1999 Kargil war thousands of Taliban fighters were killed with Pakistani Army soldiers and I.S.I agents. I.S.I trains Talibani fighters." -Can you provide any links or resources other than just writing general links? What I am asking is for my opponent to write where they got the information. Conclusion Pakistan is an important ally. Like I have said before they are an ally to the U.S against the war of terrorism. They have help NATO by help supplying them with supplies the NATO and U.S. needs. In a world like today every ally is important. People believe Pakistan is a terrorist country because they support terrorists. This is not true because if Pakistan did support terrorists than why would terrorists attack Pakistan. <URL>... Other country like Afghanistan is more of a terrorist country than Pakistan. I know that my opponent might hold some grudge or dislike Pakistan because he believes they helped to act out 26/11, but he shouldn't say that Pakistan is hold responsible for that act because you can't prove that Pakistan actually did that. Pakistan is an ally and a great help on the war against terror.

nerdykiller

Thank for your argument. I just have to say that you should put the exact link of the website you got your information rather than just the general website. If you just put www.timesofIndia.com it isn't helpful because how am I going to find the article out from many articles uploaded every day. Rebuttals "Well that seems too naive to believe that Osama sneaked into Pakistan without authorities knowing anything about him." - It doesn't seem naive. Osama was the leader of Al Qaeda which is a big organization. I believe that he actually can infiltrate the border and got a safe house in Pakistan. "It was a big mansion without proper legal documents." - Where did you get this information from? Also I don't believe in a country of 1,760,709,573 people living, it was easy to just find Osama right away because he was in a big mansion without legal document. http://www.census.gov.pk... ; "Everything was suspicious and the world is talking the same. R.A.W informed America in 2004 about Osama in Karachi. This means you are not interested in reading newspapers and watching television. When you asked about proves of C.I.A and RAW giving proves of terrorist camps in Pakistan then it has been shown times and times again on television. You can also check wikileaks cables for dossiers exchanged between C.I.A and R.A.W." - First of all I think you shouldn't assume that I watch the news. And if you really want to back up your statement then give me links. "I am from India and we are battling state sponsored terrorism from last 27 years. We have given ample dossiers to U.N , U.S.A and Pakistan also. When you mentioned Osama's role against U.S.S.R and Pakistan help in war against terror then it shows that you are not concerned about terrorism elsewhere in the world." - This whole topic is based on Pakistan and whether it should be consider a terrorist state. Of course I concrete most about Pakistan, but like I said in Round 1 I wrote that country like Afghanistan that is more terrorist like than Pakistan. I do care about other terrorism elsewhere in the world. It is disrespectful for you to say that I don't care about others. "If Pakistan is pretending to help you then it not for free , America is giving financial aid to Pakistan. War against terror means War against terror not War which suits American interests. Now you are not realizing Pakistan danger as America couldn't do in case of Taliban and what happened was 9/11." - Like all allies America is giving financial aid to also improve on the friendship with the country. Can you clarify this sentence, "War against terror means War against terror not War which suits American interests." You can't just blame 9/11 all on Pakistan. 9/11 was carried out by Taliban not the whole country, so it gives you no reason what so ever that Pakistan is the one to blame because of this act. “Now as you have mentioned India's alliance with Russia then I must tell you we wanted to be friends with America too but U.S.A was not interested in our friendship with both of them. We were part of Non-alignment movement and we couldn't choose any one block. so we wanted to maintain friendly and cordial relationship with both. Russia said yes while America didn't respond. Now also we want to be friends with every nation. " - I only put the India's alliance because I wanted to put in the whole statement. You said, "We were part of Non-alignment movement and we couldn't choose any one block. so we wanted to maintain friendly and cordial relationship with both." How do you know what your government truly wanted? Are you a government official? "Declaring it a terrorist state would help us and other nations to create much needed pressure on its economy which is being used to fund terrorism." - Can you provide any resources about this. "We are with America in war against terrorism but you can't decide everything according to your country rules in an international issue." - Can you clarify what I said that made you think like this? "Now when you mentioned a poor destroyed nation like Afganistan as a dangerous terrorist state which desperately needs help from international community surprised me. First west ( and I support this one) attacked Afganistan saying that it wants to help it buy freeing it from Taliban and after remaining there for 10 years now the same affected people who first were crushed by Taliban , then saw Nato forces bombarding their Houses are being equated with Taliban. Strange argument. Now We ( international community) should help them." - Afghanistan is a country that is harboring all these terrorist and is being constantly being attack which is why U.S. Army resorts to using airstrikes to kill them. Why do we keep on bombing them is because we our trying to kill the terrorist there. Our forces are there to keep the citizens of Afghanistan safe, but the terrorist keeps on fighting back. If the terrorist stop killing people and terrorizing maybe our soldiers will withdraw. Here is an article saying that terroriost has slain 4 U.S. soldiers. This is the reason our soldiers keep on staying in that country to insure that the terrorists won't do any more damage to that country. http://www.latimes.com... "All over the world Newspapers are flooded with reports and statements Questioning integrity of Pakistan. Salman Rushdie , American C.I.A heads and thousands of others have said the same. In 1999 Kargil war thousands of Taliban fighters were killed with Pakistani Army soldiers and I.S.I agents. I.S.I trains Talibani fighters." -Can you provide any links or resources other than just writing general links? What I am asking is for my opponent to write where they got the information. Conclusion Pakistan is an important ally. Like I have said before they are an ally to the U.S against the war of terrorism. They have help NATO by help supplying them with supplies the NATO and U.S. needs. In a world like today every ally is important. People believe Pakistan is a terrorist country because they support terrorists. This is not true because if Pakistan did support terrorists than why would terrorists attack Pakistan. http://www.latimes.com... Other country like Afghanistan is more of a terrorist country than Pakistan. I know that my opponent might hold some grudge or dislike Pakistan because he believes they helped to act out 26/11, but he shouldn't say that Pakistan is hold responsible for that act because you can't prove that Pakistan actually did that. Pakistan is an ally and a great help on the war against terror.

Politics

America-should-declare-Pakistan-a-terrorist-state/1/

I believe that the 2nd ammendment to The United States Constitution needs to be revised. It is one thing to hunt for sport but to bear arms to 'protect yourself' is dodgy.

sofia_gracie

I believe that the 2nd ammendment to The United States Constitution needs to be revised. It is one thing to hunt for sport but to bear arms to 'protect yourself' is dodgy.

Politics

American-Gun-Control/1/

Guns are weapons created for killing & don't belong in general public! The 2nd highest way criminals obtain a gun is by stealing from licensed gun owners. Clearly some gun owners feel no concern of repercussion for failing to ensure these weapons are kept secure. Which is proof out gun laws are way to loose with way to minor punishment for not taking it seriously & keeping them secure. The general public is obviously not able to keep such dangerous items secure or it wouldn't be the 2nd highest way they are obtained. A gun is a cowards weapon & if he can't get a gun he may not have the nerve to use a knife which is a much closer form of combat. He's certainly not running into a school & stabbing 20 kids to death. Many more of those kids would have lived in that scenario. I feel that if we tighten gun control we can save lives, yes people will still die but I believe that we can reduce the consequences.

sofia_gracie

Guns are weapons created for killing & don't belong in general public! The 2nd highest way criminals obtain a gun is by stealing from licensed gun owners. Clearly some gun owners feel no concern of repercussion for failing to ensure these weapons are kept secure. Which is proof out gun laws are way to loose with way to minor punishment for not taking it seriously & keeping them secure. The general public is obviously not able to keep such dangerous items secure or it wouldn't be the 2nd highest way they are obtained. A gun is a cowards weapon & if he can't get a gun he may not have the nerve to use a knife which is a much closer form of combat. He's certainly not running into a school & stabbing 20 kids to death. Many more of those kids would have lived in that scenario. I feel that if we tighten gun control we can save lives, yes people will still die but I believe that we can reduce the consequences.

Politics

American-Gun-Control/1/

I thank my opponent for this debate. Definitions: - Natural Rights and Natural Law = These rights and this law is established in clearity in the American constitution and Bill of Rights. It is the unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. This Law is established by our creator. This Law is reflected from the Christian Religion. Statements that have bearing = Constitution - The constitution directly forbids the use of our Civil authority to enforce an action that is outside of the Natural Law as governed by the same "self evident" Law. Contention 1) In the same way that Criminals should not be involved in Politics and they are indeed restricted in America, Criminal ideology should also be restricted from participating in legitimate politics of any sort. North American Man/Boy Love Association - is a political special interest group that has purely a criminal intent and desires to legitmize those criminal actions. They desire to have the government "enforce" their desires to rape children. This is an anethema. In the same way, any criminal organization that defends and supports the destruction of the Natural Rights of every single person, should indeed NOT be allowed in politics at any level as my opponent contends. Contention 2) The muslim religion indeed supports and even promotes criminal activities that undermine, destroy and remove the natural rights of individuals. (A muslim may not agree with the tenants of his/her religion but that is irrelevant to the resolution as the religion is at issue not the person involved in the religion) Now I do recognize that there will be facist elements that hijack any religion and use it as the predominant faith in the region. They do this to promote more oppressive regimes and more criminal concepts. Every religion has fallen to this "unbeliever take over" problem. I am not talking about those "regimes" of evil that have indeed made the Islamic Cause far worse. I am directly addressing the Muslim system of Law and Governing called Sharia. Laws that Undermine the Natural Rights of Man in Islam: Religious Law 1- It is determined within Sharia Law that to leave Islam is punishable by death. This is held by the vast majority of Muslims, even if you can show that one or two sub-sects do not hold this, allowing the majority of Muslims to involve their criminal WILL into our political system would be to the oppression of the rights of Muslims that leave the Muslim faith. <URL>... Any law restricting religious conversion perpetrated on any person by the American Civil Authority would indeed be criminal and unconstitutional. Religious Law 2 - "Under sharia law, non-payment of debt is considered a crime, and sufficient reason for imprisonment; imprisonment does not discharge the debt." This is an extreme consequence even held by moderate Saudi Arabia. To imprison a person under such a concept is against the Civil powers of our government and would be criminal should any law enforcement do so within this country. <URL>... This is clearly a criminal mentality we would not want to see within our country. Religious Law 3 - Under Sharia fornicating will be harse punitive repercussions. This should scare every teenager! This is directly against our constitution and would criminally incarcerate the offenders. <URL>... Here is a general listing that should greatly concern you if even the moderates get to influence our politics. This is the warning for travelers and workers to Saudi Arabia a very moderate Sharia country [Source IBID] It's vital that foreigners make themselves aware of the conduct required while living in Saudi Arabia, and particularly the following offences: * Men being in the company of women who aren't close relatives. * Women being with men other than close relatives, who are treated as prostitutes and can be deported with a 'persona non grata' endorsement in their passports, forbidding them from returning to any Gulf state. * Women driving cars. * 'Indiscreet' dress (e.g. shorts or short-sleeved shirts for men, and uncovered hair, short dresses, exposed arms and shoulders for women). * Practising a religion other than Islam, carrying a Bible, wearing a cross. * Blasphemy, particularly if you swear at a Muslim, making derogatory remarks about Islam, taking the name of Allah or the Prophet Mohammed in vain, and any form of behaviour that's deemed to be 'immoral'. * Homosexual acts, which are illegal throughout the region, but for which punishments in Saudi Arabia range from imprisonment to flogging to deportation; there have even been instances of capital punishment. * Drug dealing and possession. (Note that, although most Gulf states decree capital punishment for those caught dealing in drugs, in Saudi Arabia this is invariably carried out.) Conclusion: Clearly we should not allow criminal entities to decide our policies on what and who are criminals. This is all governed as such criminal entites are defined as criminal as they violate the Natural Law of Man that was self evident to our founders and is still self evident to us today. This is laid out in our constitution.

Gileandos

I thank my opponent for this debate. Definitions: - Natural Rights and Natural Law = These rights and this law is established in clearity in the American constitution and Bill of Rights. It is the unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. This Law is established by our creator. This Law is reflected from the Christian Religion. Statements that have bearing = Constitution – The constitution directly forbids the use of our Civil authority to enforce an action that is outside of the Natural Law as governed by the same “self evident” Law. Contention 1) In the same way that Criminals should not be involved in Politics and they are indeed restricted in America, Criminal ideology should also be restricted from participating in legitimate politics of any sort. North American Man/Boy Love Association – is a political special interest group that has purely a criminal intent and desires to legitmize those criminal actions. They desire to have the government “enforce” their desires to rape children. This is an anethema. In the same way, any criminal organization that defends and supports the destruction of the Natural Rights of every single person, should indeed NOT be allowed in politics at any level as my opponent contends. Contention 2) The muslim religion indeed supports and even promotes criminal activities that undermine, destroy and remove the natural rights of individuals. (A muslim may not agree with the tenants of his/her religion but that is irrelevant to the resolution as the religion is at issue not the person involved in the religion) Now I do recognize that there will be facist elements that hijack any religion and use it as the predominant faith in the region. They do this to promote more oppressive regimes and more criminal concepts. Every religion has fallen to this “unbeliever take over” problem. I am not talking about those “regimes” of evil that have indeed made the Islamic Cause far worse. I am directly addressing the Muslim system of Law and Governing called Sharia. Laws that Undermine the Natural Rights of Man in Islam: Religious Law 1- It is determined within Sharia Law that to leave Islam is punishable by death. This is held by the vast majority of Muslims, even if you can show that one or two sub-sects do not hold this, allowing the majority of Muslims to involve their criminal WILL into our political system would be to the oppression of the rights of Muslims that leave the Muslim faith. http://www.cfr.org... Any law restricting religious conversion perpetrated on any person by the American Civil Authority would indeed be criminal and unconstitutional. Religious Law 2 - “Under sharia law, non-payment of debt is considered a crime, and sufficient reason for imprisonment; imprisonment does not discharge the debt.” This is an extreme consequence even held by moderate Saudi Arabia. To imprison a person under such a concept is against the Civil powers of our government and would be criminal should any law enforcement do so within this country. http://www.justlanded.com... This is clearly a criminal mentality we would not want to see within our country. Religious Law 3 – Under Sharia fornicating will be harse punitive repercussions. This should scare every teenager! This is directly against our constitution and would criminally incarcerate the offenders. http://www.justlanded.com... Here is a general listing that should greatly concern you if even the moderates get to influence our politics. This is the warning for travelers and workers to Saudi Arabia a very moderate Sharia country [Source IBID] It’s vital that foreigners make themselves aware of the conduct required while living in Saudi Arabia, and particularly the following offences: · Men being in the company of women who aren’t close relatives. · Women being with men other than close relatives, who are treated as prostitutes and can be deported with a ‘persona non grata’ endorsement in their passports, forbidding them from returning to any Gulf state. · Women driving cars. · ‘Indiscreet’ dress (e.g. shorts or short-sleeved shirts for men, and uncovered hair, short dresses, exposed arms and shoulders for women). · Practising a religion other than Islam, carrying a Bible, wearing a cross. · Blasphemy, particularly if you swear at a Muslim, making derogatory remarks about Islam, taking the name of Allah or the Prophet Mohammed in vain, and any form of behaviour that’s deemed to be ‘immoral’. · Homosexual acts, which are illegal throughout the region, but for which punishments in Saudi Arabia range from imprisonment to flogging to deportation; there have even been instances of capital punishment. · Drug dealing and possession. (Note that, although most Gulf states decree capital punishment for those caught dealing in drugs, in Saudi Arabia this is invariably carried out.) Conclusion: Clearly we should not allow criminal entities to decide our policies on what and who are criminals. This is all governed as such criminal entites are defined as criminal as they violate the Natural Law of Man that was self evident to our founders and is still self evident to us today. This is laid out in our constitution.

Religion

American-Muslims-and-politics/1/

Sadly, I was offered no rebuttal. I would have loved to debate this particular topic. I am incredibly dissapointed.

Gileandos

Sadly, I was offered no rebuttal. I would have loved to debate this particular topic. I am incredibly dissapointed.

Religion

American-Muslims-and-politics/1/

I feel that the interests of American Muslims are better and more immediately served by American Muslim participation in grassroots movements and local politics rather than politics on the state or national level.

NerdyySnipz

I feel that the interests of American Muslims are better and more immediately served by American Muslim participation in grassroots movements and local politics rather than politics on the state or national level.

Religion

American-Muslims-and-politics/1/

This is a debate over whether American football or soccer is the better sport. I will be debating that American football is the better sport, while Cond will be arguing that soccer is the better sport. BOP is shared, so Pro needs to prove American football is better or soccer is worse and Con needs to prove that soccer is better or American fotball is worse. All aspects of the two sports are open to argument, such as the game itself, players, game culture, fans, etc. Rounds will be: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Opening statements Round 3: Argument/Rebuttal Round 4: Final responses/closing argument Going outside the round structure (ie. rebutting the opponent in round 2) is prohibited. Definitions: American football: The code of football played in the United States by leagues such as the NFL and NCAA. Soccer: The code of football governed by FIFA Better: Greater in quality or excellence

TN05

This is a debate over whether American football or soccer is the better sport. I will be debating that American football is the better sport, while Cond will be arguing that soccer is the better sport. BOP is shared, so Pro needs to prove American football is better or soccer is worse and Con needs to prove that soccer is better or American fotball is worse. All aspects of the two sports are open to argument, such as the game itself, players, game culture, fans, etc. Rounds will be: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Opening statements Round 3: Argument/Rebuttal Round 4: Final responses/closing argument Going outside the round structure (ie. rebutting the opponent in round 2) is prohibited. Definitions: American football: The code of football played in the United States by leagues such as the NFL and NCAA. Soccer: The code of football governed by FIFA Better: Greater in quality or excellence

Sports

American-football-is-a-better-sport-than-soccer/1/

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate; I apologize for my lateness for posting this. I accidentally deleted my whole argument, so I needed to re-write it. I believe American football is a better sport than soccer. Contrary to the popular image of soccer-hating Americans, I don't hate soccer - I've played it and I watch the USWNT in the Olympics and World Cup. However, I feel the game is lacking in comparison to football. My first point relates to gameplay style. Quite obviously soccer strategy is limited - you can't touch the ball with your hands except in a few circumstances, and there is only one method of scoring. In contrast, football is more complex - you can run with or throw the ball backwards or forwards, and there are three ways to score. This isn't to say complex things tend to be better than simple things, but in this I think football requires more thought than soccer. The broader range of football rules allows a much broader range of strategy that can be adapted to fit almost any circumstance; a small team might run a misdirection-oriented offense and an aggressive, turnover-oriented defense, while a larger team might run a power-running offense with a hard-hitting defense. The possibilities in football are limited only to the rules and to the imagination of the coach. In contrast, soccer has a rather predictable formula - if you have the ball, try to get it into the goal, and if you don't, try to get it. Strategy is certainly existent in soccer, but not to the extent of football, where it is paramount. To continue with strategy, in football game planning is paramount. Watching film of the other team is extremely important and executing the game plan is vital to success. Each play is a literal battle - teamwork is so important that if even one player fails his task, the other side will immediately exploit it. Teams have hundreds of pre-designed plays that the players have have to learn, and there is potential for many more if the quarterback calls an audible (changes the play before the snap). In close games, playcalling is a crucial element that lifts football into a game of wits. In contrast, soccer places emphasis on offensive players and goalies. Teamwork isn't nearly as vital, and one-on-one matchups such as striker on goalie are much more important. At the end of the game especially, soccer can devolve into a boring spectacle of the winning team kicking the ball away from the goal whenever they get it. In football, this never almost never happens due to the four-downs rule. Time is also managed better in football. Admittedly, football is slower than soccer but at least the clock stops. In soccer, 'stoppage time' is retroactively determined by the official - Manchester United, in particular, is given particularly favorable stoppage time.[1] This is clearly more subject to abuse than football, which stops the clock instead of giving time at the end of a quarter. Football also has a better method of of resolving ties. Football's two overtime methods (college and pro) are both superior to PKs, which are an absurd way to end a soccer game. PKs don't necessarily favor the best team, just like free throws don't always favor the best team in basketball. Soccer used to have the 'golden goal', but it was removed from the Laws of the Game due to concerns out fairness; however, which is more fair - deciding a game based on a single goal scored in actual play, or deciding it based on three goals from PKs? In football, you have a 15-minute overtime period. If the first team with the ball scores a touchdown, they win. If they kick a field goal, the other team gets the ball and can tie the game (in which case it goes to standard sudden death) or even win it with a touchdown. It is a very easy, fair system that rewards the best team. In soccer, however, ties in knockout games will ultimately be resolved by penalty kicks, a system as absurd as deciding a basketball game with free throws or a baseball game on a home-run contest. PKs don't reward the best team, they reward the best penalty-kicking team. Finally, we have the issue of fans. Fans of soccer and football are both passionate about their games, but soccer games all too often devolve into violence and hooliganism. The Cleveland Browns and Philadelphia Eagles both have reputations for rowdy fans, but even their worst moments rarely match up to the thuggery exhibited by some soccer fans. When was the last time you heard of a rogue Eagles fan shooting a flare at the other team? That happened, except it was in Greece and it was a soccer game.[2] Some instances have resulted in hooligan 'firms' combating each other with deadly weapons.[3] Football has 'Bottlegate', an incident where Browns fans showered the field with beer bottles after a controversial call, but incidents like 'Bottlegate' are quite rare in football, even from the rowdiest fans. In short, football offers greater excellence in gameplay, strategy, tie resolution, clock management, and fans. I look forward to my opponent's response. References: 1: <URL>... 2: <URL>... 3: <URL>...

TN05

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate; I apologize for my lateness for posting this. I accidentally deleted my whole argument, so I needed to re-write it. I believe American football is a better sport than soccer. Contrary to the popular image of soccer-hating Americans, I don't hate soccer - I've played it and I watch the USWNT in the Olympics and World Cup. However, I feel the game is lacking in comparison to football. My first point relates to gameplay style. Quite obviously soccer strategy is limited - you can't touch the ball with your hands except in a few circumstances, and there is only one method of scoring. In contrast, football is more complex - you can run with or throw the ball backwards or forwards, and there are three ways to score. This isn't to say complex things tend to be better than simple things, but in this I think football requires more thought than soccer. The broader range of football rules allows a much broader range of strategy that can be adapted to fit almost any circumstance; a small team might run a misdirection-oriented offense and an aggressive, turnover-oriented defense, while a larger team might run a power-running offense with a hard-hitting defense. The possibilities in football are limited only to the rules and to the imagination of the coach. In contrast, soccer has a rather predictable formula - if you have the ball, try to get it into the goal, and if you don't, try to get it. Strategy is certainly existent in soccer, but not to the extent of football, where it is paramount. To continue with strategy, in football game planning is paramount. Watching film of the other team is extremely important and executing the game plan is vital to success. Each play is a literal battle - teamwork is so important that if even one player fails his task, the other side will immediately exploit it. Teams have hundreds of pre-designed plays that the players have have to learn, and there is potential for many more if the quarterback calls an audible (changes the play before the snap). In close games, playcalling is a crucial element that lifts football into a game of wits. In contrast, soccer places emphasis on offensive players and goalies. Teamwork isn't nearly as vital, and one-on-one matchups such as striker on goalie are much more important. At the end of the game especially, soccer can devolve into a boring spectacle of the winning team kicking the ball away from the goal whenever they get it. In football, this never almost never happens due to the four-downs rule. Time is also managed better in football. Admittedly, football is slower than soccer but at least the clock stops. In soccer, 'stoppage time' is retroactively determined by the official - Manchester United, in particular, is given particularly favorable stoppage time.[1] This is clearly more subject to abuse than football, which stops the clock instead of giving time at the end of a quarter. Football also has a better method of of resolving ties. Football's two overtime methods (college and pro) are both superior to PKs, which are an absurd way to end a soccer game. PKs don't necessarily favor the best team, just like free throws don't always favor the best team in basketball. Soccer used to have the 'golden goal', but it was removed from the Laws of the Game due to concerns out fairness; however, which is more fair - deciding a game based on a single goal scored in actual play, or deciding it based on three goals from PKs? In football, you have a 15-minute overtime period. If the first team with the ball scores a touchdown, they win. If they kick a field goal, the other team gets the ball and can tie the game (in which case it goes to standard sudden death) or even win it with a touchdown. It is a very easy, fair system that rewards the best team. In soccer, however, ties in knockout games will ultimately be resolved by penalty kicks, a system as absurd as deciding a basketball game with free throws or a baseball game on a home-run contest. PKs don't reward the best team, they reward the best penalty-kicking team. Finally, we have the issue of fans. Fans of soccer and football are both passionate about their games, but soccer games all too often devolve into violence and hooliganism. The Cleveland Browns and Philadelphia Eagles both have reputations for rowdy fans, but even their worst moments rarely match up to the thuggery exhibited by some soccer fans. When was the last time you heard of a rogue Eagles fan shooting a flare at the other team? That happened, except it was in Greece and it was a soccer game.[2] Some instances have resulted in hooligan 'firms' combating each other with deadly weapons.[3] Football has 'Bottlegate', an incident where Browns fans showered the field with beer bottles after a controversial call, but incidents like 'Bottlegate' are quite rare in football, even from the rowdiest fans. In short, football offers greater excellence in gameplay, strategy, tie resolution, clock management, and fans. I look forward to my opponent's response. References: 1: http://deadspin.com... 2: http://www.holdoutsports.com... 3: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Sports

American-football-is-a-better-sport-than-soccer/1/

While my opponent makes excellent points, I believe they can be refuted: My opponent argues that soccer is simpler than football, especially at the amateur level. I would like to quote a book: "I started playing football when I was eight or nine years old. In those days there was no [modern entertainment], so e just used our imaginations. There was an empty lot alongside our house... We used to play there every day until someone decided to build a house on it. We always organized games ourselves. Sometimes we didn't even have a real ball, but we'd still play. We'd stuff some rags into a paper bag, and just like that we had a football... Because we never had twenty-two guys to make a full eleven-to-a-side team during football season, we would create a game for whatever number of players we had. We even played one-on-one if there was only two of us. Sometimes it was two-on-two or four-by-four... No matter where we were or how many guys we had, we could always play football" Now, who would this seem like at first? At first glance, this seems entirely like the story of Pele - a young kid playing pickup soccer on the street. However, this is not a quote from Pele this is from Hall of Fame coach John Madden, who said this in his book Heroes of Football .[1] Like soccer, football can be picked up and played easily - my opponent notes that a specific shape of ball is needed (an oval-shaped object), but the same is true for soccer - soccer needs a roughly round-shaped object. An oval object would not work in soccer, nor would one that is unkickable. A football is somewhat difficult to throw, but throwing isn't a required aspect of the game - many youth leagues run only a few pass plays a game. Passing isn't required in football because you can also run with the ball. My opponent also notes that you can play soccer by yourself - however, there are many ways to play football by yourself as well. Legendary quarterback Sammy Baugh spent hours on end throwing the football through a moving tire swing,[2] and he spent even more time than that punting the ball.[3] As a second point, my opponent notes that scoring tends to be more exciting in soccer than in football. l would argue this is generally the case, but what about the many nil-nil ties? 0-0 games are unheard of in football, and there is always some form of scoring. Celebration is only the case because it is so uncommon; in football, it isn't a great idea to get cocky and celebrate early because the opponent almost always has a shot to come back. Another factor in football is that group celebrations are essentially prohibited, but they still go far beyond just the spike that my opponent notes - for example, let's have a look at the celebrations of Steve Smith, a WR for the Carolina Panthers. His celebrations have included, among other things, being a swashbuckling pirate (at a Bucs game), making a snow angel, being a boxer, being a Hawaiian dancer, changing a baby's diaper, and sliding down the base of a goalpost. His most famous is perhaps the rowboat celebration, which mocked the Vikings' "Loveboat scandal".[4] Steve Smith is not even the best celebrator out there - Chad Johnson and Terrell Owens were much better known for theirs. The fact of the matter is, however, football celebrations are often creative - they just have to confine to a different set of rules. My opponent notes that football does run longer than soccer, mainly due to play stoppages and commercials. I do not dispute this; this is a well-known fact. He proceeds to argue that soccer's constant gameplay is better than football's start-and-stop style. I disagree with that idea. To put it into a narrative perspective, is a movie with constant action for half the movie, a short plot break, and constant action for the second half always better than a movie with rising and falling actions? Of course not. I like an action flick just as much as anyone, but is that formula always better than a more plot-oriented film? Probably not. My opponent also notes that soccer is constant - however, how much of that is actually significant play (ie. fast breaks or shots on goal)? Frankly, much of soccer is spent around midfield, with both teams constantly stealing the ball and nothing really getting done. Further, upon research it has been found soccer players go an average of 6 miles a game - this averages out to roughly 4mph per player. Two-thirds of this distance comes from walking or jogging, and the rest comes from running - mainly in short bursts of 10-40 meters.[5] No such studies are out about American football, but almost all action in the game takes place as a result of short bursts of running. In other words, the constant set of movement in football is running for short bursts - often ending with contact with another player.. The voters can decide which is better, but I do think there is merit to football being a physically exhausting game. My opponent next argues that soccer players are more fit. It is not deniable that lineman are indeed, by typical standards, overweight - the average is 260 pounds.[6] However, the fact of the matter is these players are very fit. Simply being large does not make you a good lineman - you need to be in excellent physical shape to be effective. You must have an extremely quick release off the line (ie. be able to move properly), eat the right foods, and maintain a solid exercise routine. A former Penn State lineman noted that his diet included eggs, whole grains, fruits, and vegetables.[7] Like the Sumo, linemen must be large - but they must also be flexible and fit. Finally, my opponent argues that the worst injuries in soccer are a fractured limb. Football does have its deal of injuries, but sadly, this is not the case in soccer - many soccer players have died on the pitch. Here are a list of deaths resulting from soccer:[8] In 1907 Tommy Blackstock of Manchester United died after heading a ball. In 1909 James Main of Hibernan F.C. died after suffering fatal stomach injuries from a collision. In 1931 John Thomson of Celtic F.C. died after fracturing his skull while diving for the ball In 1934 Sam Raleigh of Gilligham F.C. died after suffering a head injury In 1995 Michael Goodard of Dundela F.C. died after being hit in the chest by the ball In 2001 Serhiy Perkhun of CSKA Moscow died after suffering a head injury in a collision In 2004 Cristiano Junior of Dempo Sports Club died after a collision with a goalie In 2008 Hrvoje Custic of NZ Zadar died after colliding with a wall on the sideline In 2009 Jumadi Abdi PKT Bontang died after suffering severe internal injuries from a collision This doesn't even include people like Patrick Battison, who damaged vertebra and had teeth knocked out following a collision.[9] Clearly soccer is not immune to injuries; incredibly, no deaths have ever occurred in the NFL except for Chuck Hughes, who died of a heart attack in 1971.[10] Heart-related deaths are relatively common in soccer, outnumbering basically every other form of death besides lightning strike.[9] Since American football essentially prohibits games or practices from being played in lightning, this is not a real issue there. As I had responded to all of Con's arguments, I turn the debate over to him. References: 1: Pg. 1, Heroes of Football 2: <URL>... 3: <URL>... 4: 5: <URL>... 6: <URL>... 7: <URL>... 8: <URL>... 9: <URL>... 10: <URL>... /3

TN05

While my opponent makes excellent points, I believe they can be refuted: My opponent argues that soccer is simpler than football, especially at the amateur level. I would like to quote a book: "I started playing football when I was eight or nine years old. In those days there was no [modern entertainment], so e just used our imaginations. There was an empty lot alongside our house... We used to play there every day until someone decided to build a house on it. We always organized games ourselves. Sometimes we didn't even have a real ball, but we'd still play. We'd stuff some rags into a paper bag, and just like that we had a football... Because we never had twenty-two guys to make a full eleven-to-a-side team during football season, we would create a game for whatever number of players we had. We even played one-on-one if there was only two of us. Sometimes it was two-on-two or four-by-four... No matter where we were or how many guys we had, we could always play football" Now, who would this seem like at first? At first glance, this seems entirely like the story of Pele - a young kid playing pickup soccer on the street. However, this is not a quote from Pele this is from Hall of Fame coach John Madden, who said this in his book Heroes of Football .[1] Like soccer, football can be picked up and played easily - my opponent notes that a specific shape of ball is needed (an oval-shaped object), but the same is true for soccer - soccer needs a roughly round-shaped object. An oval object would not work in soccer, nor would one that is unkickable. A football is somewhat difficult to throw, but throwing isn't a required aspect of the game - many youth leagues run only a few pass plays a game. Passing isn't required in football because you can also run with the ball. My opponent also notes that you can play soccer by yourself - however, there are many ways to play football by yourself as well. Legendary quarterback Sammy Baugh spent hours on end throwing the football through a moving tire swing,[2] and he spent even more time than that punting the ball.[3] As a second point, my opponent notes that scoring tends to be more exciting in soccer than in football. l would argue this is generally the case, but what about the many nil-nil ties? 0-0 games are unheard of in football, and there is always some form of scoring. Celebration is only the case because it is so uncommon; in football, it isn't a great idea to get cocky and celebrate early because the opponent almost always has a shot to come back. Another factor in football is that group celebrations are essentially prohibited, but they still go far beyond just the spike that my opponent notes - for example, let's have a look at the celebrations of Steve Smith, a WR for the Carolina Panthers. His celebrations have included, among other things, being a swashbuckling pirate (at a Bucs game), making a snow angel, being a boxer, being a Hawaiian dancer, changing a baby's diaper, and sliding down the base of a goalpost. His most famous is perhaps the rowboat celebration, which mocked the Vikings' "Loveboat scandal".[4] Steve Smith is not even the best celebrator out there - Chad Johnson and Terrell Owens were much better known for theirs. The fact of the matter is, however, football celebrations are often creative - they just have to confine to a different set of rules. My opponent notes that football does run longer than soccer, mainly due to play stoppages and commercials. I do not dispute this; this is a well-known fact. He proceeds to argue that soccer's constant gameplay is better than football's start-and-stop style. I disagree with that idea. To put it into a narrative perspective, is a movie with constant action for half the movie, a short plot break, and constant action for the second half always better than a movie with rising and falling actions? Of course not. I like an action flick just as much as anyone, but is that formula always better than a more plot-oriented film? Probably not. My opponent also notes that soccer is constant - however, how much of that is actually significant play (ie. fast breaks or shots on goal)? Frankly, much of soccer is spent around midfield, with both teams constantly stealing the ball and nothing really getting done. Further, upon research it has been found soccer players go an average of 6 miles a game - this averages out to roughly 4mph per player. Two-thirds of this distance comes from walking or jogging, and the rest comes from running - mainly in short bursts of 10-40 meters.[5] No such studies are out about American football, but almost all action in the game takes place as a result of short bursts of running. In other words, the constant set of movement in football is running for short bursts - often ending with contact with another player.. The voters can decide which is better, but I do think there is merit to football being a physically exhausting game. My opponent next argues that soccer players are more fit. It is not deniable that lineman are indeed, by typical standards, overweight - the average is 260 pounds.[6] However, the fact of the matter is these players are very fit. Simply being large does not make you a good lineman - you need to be in excellent physical shape to be effective. You must have an extremely quick release off the line (ie. be able to move properly), eat the right foods, and maintain a solid exercise routine. A former Penn State lineman noted that his diet included eggs, whole grains, fruits, and vegetables.[7] Like the Sumo, linemen must be large - but they must also be flexible and fit. Finally, my opponent argues that the worst injuries in soccer are a fractured limb. Football does have its deal of injuries, but sadly, this is not the case in soccer - many soccer players have died on the pitch. Here are a list of deaths resulting from soccer:[8] In 1907 Tommy Blackstock of Manchester United died after heading a ball. In 1909 James Main of Hibernan F.C. died after suffering fatal stomach injuries from a collision. In 1931 John Thomson of Celtic F.C. died after fracturing his skull while diving for the ball In 1934 Sam Raleigh of Gilligham F.C. died after suffering a head injury In 1995 Michael Goodard of Dundela F.C. died after being hit in the chest by the ball In 2001 Serhiy Perkhun of CSKA Moscow died after suffering a head injury in a collision In 2004 Cristiano Junior of Dempo Sports Club died after a collision with a goalie In 2008 Hrvoje Ćustić of NZ Zadar died after colliding with a wall on the sideline In 2009 Jumadi Abdi PKT Bontang died after suffering severe internal injuries from a collision This doesn't even include people like Patrick Battison, who damaged vertebra and had teeth knocked out following a collision.[9] Clearly soccer is not immune to injuries; incredibly, no deaths have ever occurred in the NFL except for Chuck Hughes, who died of a heart attack in 1971.[10] Heart-related deaths are relatively common in soccer, outnumbering basically every other form of death besides lightning strike.[9] Since American football essentially prohibits games or practices from being played in lightning, this is not a real issue there. As I had responded to all of Con's arguments, I turn the debate over to him. References: 1: Pg. 1, Heroes of Football 2: http://espn.go.com... 3: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com... 4: 5: http://www.livestrong.com... 6: http://www.livestrong.com... 7: http://www.livestrong.com... 8: http://en.wikipedia.org... 9: http://bleacherreport.com... 10: http://bleacherreport.com... /3

Sports

American-football-is-a-better-sport-than-soccer/1/

With the final round upon us, I would like to wish my opponent luck. This has been an excellent debate and I look forward to seeing your final argument, as well as the opinion of the voters. In response to my opponent's rebuttal of my complexity argument: I want to immediately concede that soccer is more than just the basic formula - my main intent was not to do deep into soccer's more complex strategies, but to compare the base formula with the unpredictable base formula of football. I will respond to those points, however. Yes, many plays are decided by coaches. This is common. I will note that, for the most part, coaches do not take 30 seconds to call plays. For the most part, plays are determined pretty quickly and sent to the QB so he has time to tell the other players and the team can line up. I concede my opponent is not inslulting my intelligence. :) I do concede soccer players do indeed set up strategy on the fly; the same also happens in football, for instance. Think about it this way - a quarterback can audible (change the play), a receiver can deviate from his route if he thinks it will work better (most likely if he isn't the first read), a running back can stop blocking on a pass play if he sees some opening, etc. Similarly, the defense can audible or make quick reads - this is actually required these days given the increasing complexity of offenses. The point of the game isn't to execute the plays properly, it is to gain as much yardage as possible, and if it works nobody is really going to complain about it. If it fails on the other hand... I agree any soccer player can technically score. However, how common is it for a defensive player (say, a full-back), to score? Like the linemen of football, defenders do not score that often as it is not their job. You might see one ocassionally do it (similar to the hilarious tackle-eligible linemen who might catch a pass at the goal line). I reject Con's assertation that football plays involve only some of the team - by nessecity, plays involve all the team. Soccer teams can and do function efficiently a man down - it doesn't help, but you aren't condemned to lose because of it. If even a single lineman decides to take a play off, it will not end well for the offense. Each player is required to pull their own weight for the entire game. I concede that soccer does involve teamwork. In response to the time management arguments: The 40-second rule is not designed to allow teams to reset , it is designed to prevent the offense from sitting on ball all game. Many teams use the so-called 'hurry-up offense', which is a fast-tempo strategy that minimizes the amount of time used up. The idea coaches waste timeout to give networks commercial breaks is, frankly, insane - they are paid to win games, not help the networks. My opponent is incorrect in saying the NCAA stops the clock after each play in the final 2 minutes; they do not. After each first down within that period, the clock is temporarily stopped until the ball has been spotted. I don't like this rule (I prefer the NFL rulebook in general, with a few exceptions), but the idea is to prevent lolligagging referees from hurting the offense. In response to the tie resolution arguments: I agree my opponent in that two-hour tied games are not very good. However, why not just run a full replay? That alone is more likely to determine a winner. As for the golden goal, isn't soccer a game of endurance? Why not reward that with the much-needed three points? I agree the NFL overtime system was originally flawed. They fixed it now. Why can soccer not do the same? NFL overtime was traditionally sacrosanct, but we realized something needed to be done - so we changed it. In response to the fan arguments: I agree that not all soccer fans are hooligans. I disagree that the vuvuzela is a sign of excellent soccer culture. :P I disagree wholeheartedly that popularity is a sign something is better. I agree with my opponent that fans reduce the reputation of soccer. I also agree that riots do happen after the Super Bowl, but that is the only time they actually happen. In game riots are unheard of in football, and fans throwing stuff at players is also unheard of. This is a good thing for football, not so much for soccer. Now, with the responses out of the way I will list the arguments my opponent has not refuted or responded to. These are only from the first round, since my opponent has not responded to my Round 3 comments yet (I assume he will do so in this round, and I would request he treat my responses similarly) Stoppage time, as determined by officials, is subject to abuse. Football fans do not attack other fans with deadly weapons. While the second point is rather minor - let's be honest, armed hooligans aren't common in the developed world these days - the first is very significant. More time equals more opportunities to shoot at goal. In the 2009 Manchester derby, Manchester United won on a stoppage time goal 5 minutes and 26 seconds in. Let's just say the time added was favorable to Manchester U - almost seven minutes were given, nearly twice as much as suggested minimum of four.[1] This sort of thing does not happen in football because we stop our clocks when they need to be stopped rather than retroactively giving time back. With that done, I would like to close my case. I believe my arguments have shown that football is better than soccer in a number of ways. In one of the most significant, timekeeping, my opponent did not refute the potential for abuse from the stoppage time system. Nothing in football is this bad. In addition, I believe I have refuted my opponent's key points - Simplicity, Excitement, Length, Fitness, and Injuries. At the very least my counterguments offer room for thought; at the most, the negate his points. In short, I think my arguments have proven that either football is better than soccer or soccer is worse than football. I turn the debate over to my opponent for his final responses and closing argument - thank you, and vote Pro! References: 1: <URL>...

TN05

With the final round upon us, I would like to wish my opponent luck. This has been an excellent debate and I look forward to seeing your final argument, as well as the opinion of the voters. In response to my opponent's rebuttal of my complexity argument: I want to immediately concede that soccer is more than just the basic formula - my main intent was not to do deep into soccer's more complex strategies, but to compare the base formula with the unpredictable base formula of football. I will respond to those points, however. Yes, many plays are decided by coaches. This is common. I will note that, for the most part, coaches do not take 30 seconds to call plays. For the most part, plays are determined pretty quickly and sent to the QB so he has time to tell the other players and the team can line up. I concede my opponent is not inslulting my intelligence. :) I do concede soccer players do indeed set up strategy on the fly; the same also happens in football, for instance. Think about it this way - a quarterback can audible (change the play), a receiver can deviate from his route if he thinks it will work better (most likely if he isn't the first read), a running back can stop blocking on a pass play if he sees some opening, etc. Similarly, the defense can audible or make quick reads - this is actually required these days given the increasing complexity of offenses. The point of the game isn't to execute the plays properly, it is to gain as much yardage as possible, and if it works nobody is really going to complain about it. If it fails on the other hand... I agree any soccer player can technically score. However, how common is it for a defensive player (say, a full-back), to score? Like the linemen of football, defenders do not score that often as it is not their job. You might see one ocassionally do it (similar to the hilarious tackle-eligible linemen who might catch a pass at the goal line). I reject Con's assertation that football plays involve only some of the team - by nessecity, plays involve all the team. Soccer teams can and do function efficiently a man down - it doesn't help, but you aren't condemned to lose because of it. If even a single lineman decides to take a play off, it will not end well for the offense. Each player is required to pull their own weight for the entire game. I concede that soccer does involve teamwork. In response to the time management arguments: The 40-second rule is not designed to allow teams to reset , it is designed to prevent the offense from sitting on ball all game. Many teams use the so-called 'hurry-up offense', which is a fast-tempo strategy that minimizes the amount of time used up. The idea coaches waste timeout to give networks commercial breaks is, frankly, insane - they are paid to win games, not help the networks. My opponent is incorrect in saying the NCAA stops the clock after each play in the final 2 minutes; they do not. After each first down within that period, the clock is temporarily stopped until the ball has been spotted. I don't like this rule (I prefer the NFL rulebook in general, with a few exceptions), but the idea is to prevent lolligagging referees from hurting the offense. In response to the tie resolution arguments: I agree my opponent in that two-hour tied games are not very good. However, why not just run a full replay? That alone is more likely to determine a winner. As for the golden goal, isn't soccer a game of endurance? Why not reward that with the much-needed three points? I agree the NFL overtime system was originally flawed. They fixed it now. Why can soccer not do the same? NFL overtime was traditionally sacrosanct, but we realized something needed to be done - so we changed it. In response to the fan arguments: I agree that not all soccer fans are hooligans. I disagree that the vuvuzela is a sign of excellent soccer culture. :P I disagree wholeheartedly that popularity is a sign something is better. I agree with my opponent that fans reduce the reputation of soccer. I also agree that riots do happen after the Super Bowl, but that is the only time they actually happen. In game riots are unheard of in football, and fans throwing stuff at players is also unheard of. This is a good thing for football, not so much for soccer. Now, with the responses out of the way I will list the arguments my opponent has not refuted or responded to. These are only from the first round, since my opponent has not responded to my Round 3 comments yet (I assume he will do so in this round, and I would request he treat my responses similarly) Stoppage time, as determined by officials, is subject to abuse. Football fans do not attack other fans with deadly weapons. While the second point is rather minor - let's be honest, armed hooligans aren't common in the developed world these days - the first is very significant. More time equals more opportunities to shoot at goal. In the 2009 Manchester derby, Manchester United won on a stoppage time goal 5 minutes and 26 seconds in. Let's just say the time added was favorable to Manchester U - almost seven minutes were given, nearly twice as much as suggested minimum of four.[1] This sort of thing does not happen in football because we stop our clocks when they need to be stopped rather than retroactively giving time back. With that done, I would like to close my case. I believe my arguments have shown that football is better than soccer in a number of ways. In one of the most significant, timekeeping, my opponent did not refute the potential for abuse from the stoppage time system. Nothing in football is this bad. In addition, I believe I have refuted my opponent's key points - Simplicity, Excitement, Length, Fitness, and Injuries. At the very least my counterguments offer room for thought; at the most, the negate his points. In short, I think my arguments have proven that either football is better than soccer or soccer is worse than football. I turn the debate over to my opponent for his final responses and closing argument - thank you, and vote Pro! References: 1: http://www.guardian.co.uk...

Sports

American-football-is-a-better-sport-than-soccer/1/

I accept your offer and agree to all the terms and definitions. As a soccer enthusiast I look forward to this debate.

guesswhat101

I accept your offer and agree to all the terms and definitions. As a soccer enthusiast I look forward to this debate.

Sports

American-football-is-a-better-sport-than-soccer/1/

Oh it's fine, ironically the same happened to me. Arguments: 1. Soccer is simple There's a reason soccer is the most popular game in the world and that's because it can be played by almost anyone at anytime. Football requires a specific ball shape as well as being quite difficult to throw the first couple attempts. Soccer on the other hand can be played with hundreds of different objects. The soccer legend Pele grew up playing with a grapefruit or rolled up sock [1]. This allows anyone, from children in Africa to kids on a college campus in New York to play a pickup game at any time. Added to that, you can even play the game by yourself, whether it be shooting goals or passing the ball to yourself off a wall. Later in life, rules do emerge though and the game can be complicated. But anyone can sit down and watch a soccer game, no prior experience needed. Granted, the minor rules and offsides can be confusing at first but it's an easier game to understand for a beginner than a NFL game. 2. Scoring is more exciting in soccer Soccer games can last their full length with only one or two goals being scored so therefore, compared to a football game where there are both multiple ways for teams to score and both teams almost always score multiple times, scoring in soccer is rarer. Just look at the goal celebrations that teams do [2], either way better than a guy throwing the ball at the ground as hard as he can. 3. Length of game Football is 60 minutes long. Soccer is 90. But how is an NFL game 195-210 minutes long while FIFA games usually average around 120? Well, one of the reasons is the constant commercials that the NFL and now even the NCAA air. There are commercials before and after kickoff now. That means for around 15 seconds of gameplay, the viewer has to watch several minutes of commercials. In soccer however, that isn't the case as there is only once chance to show commercials and that's during halftime. You get to watch 45 minutes straight of soccer without interruption unlike football where the most you get is around 5 minutes if it's a long drive. Also, this shows the endurance needed to play a soccer game compared to a football game. 4. Fitness of players I will concede that it takes a different body type to excel as a linebacker rather than a midfielder, that's obvious. However, in a country with obesity being such a prevelant problem, should the people the kids idolize be overweight? " The issue of weight and heart risks has spread even to high schools, where studies indicate that more than half of linemen are overweight. Some medical experts have called for weight limits on players, though that seems unlikely in the immediate future. Even so, some former N.F.L. linemen wonder whether it is really necessary to weigh 300 pounds to play effectively today." [4]. Soccer players on the other hand, have to be neither underweight or overweight in order to succed at what they do. Most elite soccer players have a normal BMI [5]. This is also due in part to the fact that football players get rests every 15 or so seconds during a game. Added to that, they only play half the game because offense and defense are two seperate to units. On top of all that, substitutions are fairly common during a drive in football. Soccer on the other hand has none of that. Players play for up to 45 minutes straight, with substitutions being few and far between. 5. Injuries I again concede that football is much more of a contact sport than soccer. But then you have some players going out and intentionally going out with the intent of harm. Take for example the New Orleans Saints who offered bounties based on who they hurt and how badly they hurt them [6]. Also, in regardance in injuries, soccer injuries are much less common than football injuries [7] [8]. Added to that, they are also less severe, the worst a soccer player can get is maybe a fractured limb compared to permanent brain damage that some football players sustain after years of playing [7] [8]. Some football players have even died on the field, ranging from pros to even high school boys [9]. [1] <URL>... [2] # [4] <URL>... ; [5] <URL>... [6] <URL>... [7] <URL>... [8] <URL>... [9] <URL>...

guesswhat101

Oh it’s fine, ironically the same happened to me. Arguments: 1. Soccer is simple There’s a reason soccer is the most popular game in the world and that’s because it can be played by almost anyone at anytime. Football requires a specific ball shape as well as being quite difficult to throw the first couple attempts. Soccer on the other hand can be played with hundreds of different objects. The soccer legend Pele grew up playing with a grapefruit or rolled up sock [1]. This allows anyone, from children in Africa to kids on a college campus in New York to play a pickup game at any time. Added to that, you can even play the game by yourself, whether it be shooting goals or passing the ball to yourself off a wall. Later in life, rules do emerge though and the game can be complicated. But anyone can sit down and watch a soccer game, no prior experience needed. Granted, the minor rules and offsides can be confusing at first but it’s an easier game to understand for a beginner than a NFL game. 2. Scoring is more exciting in soccer Soccer games can last their full length with only one or two goals being scored so therefore, compared to a football game where there are both multiple ways for teams to score and both teams almost always score multiple times, scoring in soccer is rarer. Just look at the goal celebrations that teams do [2], either way better than a guy throwing the ball at the ground as hard as he can. 3. Length of game Football is 60 minutes long. Soccer is 90. But how is an NFL game 195-210 minutes long while FIFA games usually average around 120? Well, one of the reasons is the constant commercials that the NFL and now even the NCAA air. There are commercials before and after kickoff now. That means for around 15 seconds of gameplay, the viewer has to watch several minutes of commercials. In soccer however, that isn't the case as there is only once chance to show commercials and that’s during halftime. You get to watch 45 minutes straight of soccer without interruption unlike football where the most you get is around 5 minutes if it’s a long drive. Also, this shows the endurance needed to play a soccer game compared to a football game. 4. Fitness of players I will concede that it takes a different body type to excel as a linebacker rather than a midfielder, that’s obvious. However, in a country with obesity being such a prevelant problem, should the people the kids idolize be overweight? “ The issue of weight and heart risks has spread even to high schools, where studies indicate that more than half of linemen are overweight. Some medical experts have called for weight limits on players, though that seems unlikely in the immediate future. Even so, some former N.F.L. linemen wonder whether it is really necessary to weigh 300 pounds to play effectively today.” [4]. Soccer players on the other hand, have to be neither underweight or overweight in order to succed at what they do. Most elite soccer players have a normal BMI [5]. This is also due in part to the fact that football players get rests every 15 or so seconds during a game. Added to that, they only play half the game because offense and defense are two seperate to units. On top of all that, substitutions are fairly common during a drive in football. Soccer on the other hand has none of that. Players play for up to 45 minutes straight, with substitutions being few and far between. 5. Injuries I again concede that football is much more of a contact sport than soccer. But then you have some players going out and intentionally going out with the intent of harm. Take for example the New Orleans Saints who offered bounties based on who they hurt and how badly they hurt them [6]. Also, in regardance in injuries, soccer injuries are much less common than football injuries [7] [8]. Added to that, they are also less severe, the worst a soccer player can get is maybe a fractured limb compared to permanent brain damage that some football players sustain after years of playing [7] [8]. Some football players have even died on the field, ranging from pros to even high school boys [9]. [1] http://5mag.co... [2] # [4] http://www.nytimes.com... ; [5] http://www.livestrong.com... [6] http://espn.go.com... [7] http://www.forbes.com... [8] http://www.forbes.com... [9] http://abcnews.go.com...

Sports

American-football-is-a-better-sport-than-soccer/1/

I like to order my arguments so I'm going to organize my opponent's arguments (Round 2) numerically. 1. Complexity Yes I will concede that football does have more possibilities when it comes to play calling. The stereotypical football chalkboard, complete with X's and O's is rather accurate, as I played a couple years of football myself. And yes, football does tend to allow more complex plays such as the "Statue of Liberty". However, I would like to point out that NFL players get up to 40 seconds (realistically around 30 though) to decide and call plays. Added to that, many NFL plays aren't decided on by the players itself but a coach sitting up in a box, radioing in plays. Soccer on the other hand doesn't have these breaks in between every play. Rather, it is a pretty constant game. However, during those few breaks such as corner kicks, play-calling does emerge [1], and it can be just as complicated as football, but unlike football, te defense reacts along with the offense. "In contrast, soccer has a rather predictable formula - if you have the ball, try to get it into the goal, and if you don't, try to get it." To a common observer (I'm not insulting my opponent's intelligence) this would seem so. But, as a 13 year veteran of organized soccer, I can tell you this is not so. While football revolves around the use of hundreds predesigned plays, higher levels of soccer is played using several basic strategies. And unlike football where they have a coach to plan it all out for them, the players of a soccer game have to change things around while they play, adjusting for their opponent's actions. A common strategy in a soccer game is "The Triangle" [2]. Just like I said before, this is exceedingly simple, one that kids learn. However, in the heat of a game, the offense must modify it, depending on the defense they are face with. The defense can be arranged in all sorts of patterns and so can the offense as this list shows [3]. Also, responding to my opponent's that " Teamwork isn't nearly as vital, and one-on-one matchups such as striker on goalie are much more important.", this is far from the truth. Only several men in the world can outmanuever an entire defense and even then, the defense has to make major mistakes or be awful for this to happen. Soccer is a game of passing and teamwork. In a game where the players get very few breaks, passing becomes key as it takes less effort to pass a ball to the center of the field than to dribble the ball there yourself. Rarely will a goal be scored by a breakaway down the entire field. Rather, the entire team is involved as the ball is slowly shifted downfield by a combination of forward, backward, and side-way passes. Added to that, everyone touches the ball and has a chance to score (except for the goalkeeper, they rarely score unless they are pulled or in a non-professional game manages to kick it across the field and score, I've had that happen to my team once before but it's pretty rare) in soccer [4] [5]. Compared to football where the majority of plays involve only involve some of the team, this seems to support my argument that soccer does involve a lot of teamwork. 2. Time Management I think I covered this in my original argument but I will briefly go over it again. First off, allowing 40 seconds for an offense and defense to reset as well as call a play is ridiculous. I could understand if the quarterback or captain was trying to decide which play to do but he is simply passing on instructions, the play is decided upstairs. Also, the commercial breaks in a televised football game are out of control. There has even been suspicion that some coaches purposely extend a game by calling timeouts just so networks can get extra commercial breaks [6]. Also, the stoppage of time in football can be quite ridiculous as such as in the NCAA where in the last 2 minutes of the game, the clock is stopped after every single play [7]. It's tedious enough already with both teams getting a free break with the 2 minute warning and with all the timeouts and spiking of the ball being called. There is no real flow in a football game unlike the constant ebb of a soccer match. 3. Tie Resolution I completely agree with the fact that PKs don't determine the better team. However, PKs are a necessary evil because as you pointed on this round in your refutations, games can go 90 minutes without a goal being scored and with only 30 minutes of overtime, sometimes goals aren't even scored there. A two hour game ending with a tie shows that the teams are practically the same skill level and there isn't much alternative to PKs to decide a winner. Sure, they could go back to the golden goal rule and just have both teams play until the first goal is scored, but that could last awhile and would only prove which team as greater endurance. NFL football has been flawed in the past with their overtime system, as a team only needed to gain around 40 yards before kicking a field goal and winning it, before the opposing team even had an opportunity to touch the ball. However, they did fix this injustice recently. 4. Fans If you have ever seen the movie Eurotrip, the phrase "soccer hooligans" brings to mind the typical stereotype of a soccer fan that my opponent has brought up. However, there is nothing like attending a soccer game, especially in Europe. Fans are so much more passionate of a soccer game than their counterparts attending a football game. From an entire half of a stadium going doing the Poznan [8] to the constant buzz of a vuvuzuela. No football game can compare to the energy and passion exuded by soccer fans [10]. The fact that people can become so enthralled by this game is remarkable. I think this shows why soccer is better sport than football. However, my opponent does point out some nasty incidents that have erupted. While some riots can be atributed to the diplomatic situation between countries and other alcohol (not an excuse though), a chunk of them are because soccer fans are hugley passionate about their teams. This passion as I said before isn't a bad thing but the lack of restraint on the part of fans isn't and it tarnishes the reputation of soccer. However, the NFL causes riots of its own, as riots tend to break out after Super Bowls, as shown by this year [10] [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... (association_football) [4] <URL>... [5] <URL>... [6] <URL>... [7] <URL>... [8] <URL>... [9] <URL>... [10] <URL>... I look forward to the final round.

guesswhat101

I like to order my arguments so I’m going to organize my opponent's arguments (Round 2) numerically. 1. Complexity Yes I will concede that football does have more possibilities when it comes to play calling. The stereotypical football chalkboard, complete with X’s and O’s is rather accurate, as I played a couple years of football myself. And yes, football does tend to allow more complex plays such as the “Statue of Liberty”. However, I would like to point out that NFL players get up to 40 seconds (realistically around 30 though) to decide and call plays. Added to that, many NFL plays aren’t decided on by the players itself but a coach sitting up in a box, radioing in plays. Soccer on the other hand doesn’t have these breaks in between every play. Rather, it is a pretty constant game. However, during those few breaks such as corner kicks, play-calling does emerge [1], and it can be just as complicated as football, but unlike football, te defense reacts along with the offense. “In contrast, soccer has a rather predictable formula - if you have the ball, try to get it into the goal, and if you don't, try to get it.” To a common observer (I’m not insulting my opponent’s intelligence) this would seem so. But, as a 13 year veteran of organized soccer, I can tell you this is not so. While football revolves around the use of hundreds predesigned plays, higher levels of soccer is played using several basic strategies. And unlike football where they have a coach to plan it all out for them, the players of a soccer game have to change things around while they play, adjusting for their opponent’s actions. A common strategy in a soccer game is “The Triangle” [2]. Just like I said before, this is exceedingly simple, one that kids learn. However, in the heat of a game, the offense must modify it, depending on the defense they are face with. The defense can be arranged in all sorts of patterns and so can the offense as this list shows [3]. Also, responding to my opponent’s that “ Teamwork isn't nearly as vital, and one-on-one matchups such as striker on goalie are much more important.”, this is far from the truth. Only several men in the world can outmanuever an entire defense and even then, the defense has to make major mistakes or be awful for this to happen. Soccer is a game of passing and teamwork. In a game where the players get very few breaks, passing becomes key as it takes less effort to pass a ball to the center of the field than to dribble the ball there yourself. Rarely will a goal be scored by a breakaway down the entire field. Rather, the entire team is involved as the ball is slowly shifted downfield by a combination of forward, backward, and side-way passes. Added to that, everyone touches the ball and has a chance to score (except for the goalkeeper, they rarely score unless they are pulled or in a non-professional game manages to kick it across the field and score, I’ve had that happen to my team once before but it’s pretty rare) in soccer [4] [5]. Compared to football where the majority of plays involve only involve some of the team, this seems to support my argument that soccer does involve a lot of teamwork. 2. Time Management I think I covered this in my original argument but I will briefly go over it again. First off, allowing 40 seconds for an offense and defense to reset as well as call a play is ridiculous. I could understand if the quarterback or captain was trying to decide which play to do but he is simply passing on instructions, the play is decided upstairs. Also, the commercial breaks in a televised football game are out of control. There has even been suspicion that some coaches purposely extend a game by calling timeouts just so networks can get extra commercial breaks [6]. Also, the stoppage of time in football can be quite ridiculous as such as in the NCAA where in the last 2 minutes of the game, the clock is stopped after every single play [7]. It’s tedious enough already with both teams getting a free break with the 2 minute warning and with all the timeouts and spiking of the ball being called. There is no real flow in a football game unlike the constant ebb of a soccer match. 3. Tie Resolution I completely agree with the fact that PKs don’t determine the better team. However, PKs are a necessary evil because as you pointed on this round in your refutations, games can go 90 minutes without a goal being scored and with only 30 minutes of overtime, sometimes goals aren’t even scored there. A two hour game ending with a tie shows that the teams are practically the same skill level and there isn’t much alternative to PKs to decide a winner. Sure, they could go back to the golden goal rule and just have both teams play until the first goal is scored, but that could last awhile and would only prove which team as greater endurance. NFL football has been flawed in the past with their overtime system, as a team only needed to gain around 40 yards before kicking a field goal and winning it, before the opposing team even had an opportunity to touch the ball. However, they did fix this injustice recently. 4. Fans If you have ever seen the movie Eurotrip, the phrase “soccer hooligans” brings to mind the typical stereotype of a soccer fan that my opponent has brought up. However, there is nothing like attending a soccer game, especially in Europe. Fans are so much more passionate of a soccer game than their counterparts attending a football game. From an entire half of a stadium going doing the Poznan [8] to the constant buzz of a vuvuzuela. No football game can compare to the energy and passion exuded by soccer fans [10]. The fact that people can become so enthralled by this game is remarkable. I think this shows why soccer is better sport than football. However, my opponent does point out some nasty incidents that have erupted. While some riots can be atributed to the diplomatic situation between countries and other alcohol (not an excuse though), a chunk of them are because soccer fans are hugley passionate about their teams. This passion as I said before isn’t a bad thing but the lack of restraint on the part of fans isn’t and it tarnishes the reputation of soccer. However, the NFL causes riots of its own, as riots tend to break out after Super Bowls, as shown by this year [10] [1] http://www.suggestsoft.com... [2] http://www.soccer-academy.net... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... (association_football) [4] http://3.bp.blogspot.com... [5] http://www.soccerbythenumbers.com... [6] http://sports.yahoo.com... [7] http://deadspin.com... [8] http://www.thesun.co.uk... [9] https://www.youtube.com... [10] http://bleacherreport.com... I look forward to the final round.

Sports

American-football-is-a-better-sport-than-soccer/1/

I apologize if my final argument seems haphazard, I am trying to reply to as many points as possible. Clarification on simplicity I concede that both sports can be played individually, I have a very limited experience of football and didn't mean to imply that only soccer can. I also agree that both sports can be played easily together, i.e. it's easy to get a pickup game going. What I meant to imply is that the sport of soccer has a basis that is simpler. You take a round object (I also mean to clarify that it's a lot easier to get a round object to play soccer with than a suitable substitute for a football) and strike it with your foot. To me, this seems simpler than the basis of football, which I leave to the reader to define, as others may have different definitions. Exciting Argument I also concede to the point that a 0-0 tie can be quite boring for some, especially people new to soccer and those in America who are used to football, but as a soccer enthusiast myself I find nothing wrong with these games. For me to describe the game of soccer as "beautiful" would require an explanation I'm not quite sure how to word. I can't describe why. I believe a key reason why soccer is a better sport is because of its fluidity. Unlike the start and stop nature of football which I find annoying but my opponent equates, quite nicely I might add, to an action movie. This is accurate, a game off football is much more like an action movie than soccer is. However, soccer is one of those older movies, before there was advanced CGI and stuff to that nature. In those movies, such as maybe "Silence of the lambs", the intensity builds as the time goes on, with everyone leaning forward in their seats as the movie progresses, engrossed in the plot development, which while not action packed, is still hypnotizing. This is what I would equate soccer to. This I find better than than the on and off action of a football game. Regarding the celebration argument, yes there are some creative guys out there and they do go beyond the stereotypical spike I referenced. However, they are hugley limited by rules and their creativity is greatly diminished, unlike in a soccer game where ther are far less rules governing celebrations. Injury and Fitness Most soccer players wouldn't do well in a football game and most football players wouldn't do well in a soccer match. Each athlete has spent a majority of his life training for a specific job. However, I only point this out because of the adverse effects of obesity, the prevalence of obesity in the NFL, and the effects it has on younger football players. Also, related to deaths and injury, I concede that soccer has had its share of deaths. But so has football. However, when there is such a vast number of people playing soccer and over such a long time, deaths do happen. However, in a sport played by less people such as football and where middle school kids are dying from it, I see this as a bigger problem. Also, many football players have after career complications, resulting from their years playing. Many experience death before their 50th birthday, well below the national lifespan average [1]. Fans I will concede that soccer fans can be more passionate and also wish to clarify that I didn't mean that soccer was more popular just because it had more fans, I apologize for wording that wrongly. However, while some fans do tarnish the sports reputation (I agree wholeheartedly on the disgracefulness of soccer riots), they are not just in the sport of soccer, every sport has them. Also, I believe that the fans, the vast majority of them, add to the sport of soccer. I already covered this earlier so I won't bore anyone by reiterating it. However, I would like to say that for many, a soccer game, especially FIFA, is incredibly exciting. Soccer fans are so much more passionate about their teams (which leads to bad things though as has been pointed out before) and this leads to a more lively game experience than one would experience at a football game. MU stoppage time Refs are human. When you have tens of thousands of passionate fans screaming for one side, you're tempted to go with them. Do I think this is acceptable? Not at all. Stoppage time should be determined by a ref perhaps offsite or sitting up in a press box. [1] <URL>... To conclude, I would like to cite again soccer's fluidity and complexity, as well as its simplicity. There's a reason soccer gains immense popularity in impoverished areas (i.e. Africa). In the words of John Cruijiff, "Soccer is simple, but it is difficult to play simple". I would also like to thank my opponent for an insightful and polite debating experience. Finally, to remind the readers, just like my opponent has, that the BOP is equal. Vote Con!

guesswhat101

I apologize if my final argument seems haphazard, I am trying to reply to as many points as possible. Clarification on simplicity I concede that both sports can be played individually, I have a very limited experience of football and didn't mean to imply that only soccer can. I also agree that both sports can be played easily together, i.e. it's easy to get a pickup game going. What I meant to imply is that the sport of soccer has a basis that is simpler. You take a round object (I also mean to clarify that it's a lot easier to get a round object to play soccer with than a suitable substitute for a football) and strike it with your foot. To me, this seems simpler than the basis of football, which I leave to the reader to define, as others may have different definitions. Exciting Argument I also concede to the point that a 0-0 tie can be quite boring for some, especially people new to soccer and those in America who are used to football, but as a soccer enthusiast myself I find nothing wrong with these games. For me to describe the game of soccer as "beautiful" would require an explanation I'm not quite sure how to word. I can't describe why. I believe a key reason why soccer is a better sport is because of its fluidity. Unlike the start and stop nature of football which I find annoying but my opponent equates, quite nicely I might add, to an action movie. This is accurate, a game off football is much more like an action movie than soccer is. However, soccer is one of those older movies, before there was advanced CGI and stuff to that nature. In those movies, such as maybe "Silence of the lambs", the intensity builds as the time goes on, with everyone leaning forward in their seats as the movie progresses, engrossed in the plot development, which while not action packed, is still hypnotizing. This is what I would equate soccer to. This I find better than than the on and off action of a football game. Regarding the celebration argument, yes there are some creative guys out there and they do go beyond the stereotypical spike I referenced. However, they are hugley limited by rules and their creativity is greatly diminished, unlike in a soccer game where ther are far less rules governing celebrations. Injury and Fitness Most soccer players wouldn't do well in a football game and most football players wouldn't do well in a soccer match. Each athlete has spent a majority of his life training for a specific job. However, I only point this out because of the adverse effects of obesity, the prevalence of obesity in the NFL, and the effects it has on younger football players. Also, related to deaths and injury, I concede that soccer has had its share of deaths. But so has football. However, when there is such a vast number of people playing soccer and over such a long time, deaths do happen. However, in a sport played by less people such as football and where middle school kids are dying from it, I see this as a bigger problem. Also, many football players have after career complications, resulting from their years playing. Many experience death before their 50th birthday, well below the national lifespan average [1]. Fans I will concede that soccer fans can be more passionate and also wish to clarify that I didn't mean that soccer was more popular just because it had more fans, I apologize for wording that wrongly. However, while some fans do tarnish the sports reputation (I agree wholeheartedly on the disgracefulness of soccer riots), they are not just in the sport of soccer, every sport has them. Also, I believe that the fans, the vast majority of them, add to the sport of soccer. I already covered this earlier so I won't bore anyone by reiterating it. However, I would like to say that for many, a soccer game, especially FIFA, is incredibly exciting. Soccer fans are so much more passionate about their teams (which leads to bad things though as has been pointed out before) and this leads to a more lively game experience than one would experience at a football game. MU stoppage time Refs are human. When you have tens of thousands of passionate fans screaming for one side, you're tempted to go with them. Do I think this is acceptable? Not at all. Stoppage time should be determined by a ref perhaps offsite or sitting up in a press box. [1] http://killerinfographics.com... To conclude, I would like to cite again soccer's fluidity and complexity, as well as its simplicity. There's a reason soccer gains immense popularity in impoverished areas (i.e. Africa). In the words of John Cruijiff, "Soccer is simple, but it is difficult to play simple". I would also like to thank my opponent for an insightful and polite debating experience. Finally, to remind the readers, just like my opponent has, that the BOP is equal. Vote Con!

Sports

American-football-is-a-better-sport-than-soccer/1/

The industrial revolution was bad for the United states. It may have been good economically and we may still be using the same ways of making things they did then, but in the end, many children were deprived of an education, many people got injured, and the united states became huge. (I'm sorry, just trying to get some practice in for a debate in class)

crunchcrunchgoesthewhale

The industrial revolution was bad for the United states. It may have been good economically and we may still be using the same ways of making things they did then, but in the end, many children were deprived of an education, many people got injured, and the united states became huge. (I'm sorry, just trying to get some practice in for a debate in class)

Education

American-industrial-revolution-good-or-bad/1/

I thank my opponent for participating in this tournament DEFINITIONS: Ideal - a conception of something in its perfection( <URL>... ) Beneficial - conferring benefit; advantageous; helpful ( <URL>... ) ARGUMENT: 1A: Accountability "The NCLB Act will strengthen Title I accountability by requiring States to implement state wide accountability systems covering all public schools and students. These systems must be based on challenging State standards in reading and mathematics, annual testing for all students in grades 3-8, and annual state wide progress objectives ensuring that all groups of students reach proficiency within 12 years. Assessment results and State progress objectives must be broken out by poverty, race, ethnicity, disability, and limited English proficiency to ensure that no group is left behind. School districts and schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward state wide proficiency goals will, over time, be subject to improvement, corrective action, and restructuring measures aimed at getting them back on course to meet State standards. Schools that meet or exceed AYP objectives or close achievement gaps will be eligible for State Academic Achievement Awards." ( <URL>... ) We need accountability in our schools. We can't assume that schools are doing everything they should. We cannot possibly fix the academic problem in the United States if we don't hold schools that don't do well accountable. We need to give funding to schools that do well, so that other schools will try to do better. 1B: Tests can help pinpoint the problem With nothing to measure academic standard with, it is impossible to see what a schools problem may be. With tests in various subjects, it can be easy to see where a school needs to improve. The same applies for regular students. Rather than using just one standard (grades) to measure performance on, with tests you have a more precise and balanced standard to use. 1C: NCLB is effective This source shows that NCLB has raised student standards. ( <URL>... ) Thank you.

ournamestoolong

I thank my opponent for participating in this tournament DEFINITIONS: Ideal - a conception of something in its perfection( http://dictionary.reference.com... ) Beneficial - conferring benefit; advantageous; helpful ( http://dictionary.reference.com... ) ARGUMENT: 1A: Accountability "The NCLB Act will strengthen Title I accountability by requiring States to implement state wide accountability systems covering all public schools and students. These systems must be based on challenging State standards in reading and mathematics, annual testing for all students in grades 3-8, and annual state wide progress objectives ensuring that all groups of students reach proficiency within 12 years. Assessment results and State progress objectives must be broken out by poverty, race, ethnicity, disability, and limited English proficiency to ensure that no group is left behind. School districts and schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward state wide proficiency goals will, over time, be subject to improvement, corrective action, and restructuring measures aimed at getting them back on course to meet State standards. Schools that meet or exceed AYP objectives or close achievement gaps will be eligible for State Academic Achievement Awards." ( http://www.ed.gov... ) We need accountability in our schools. We can't assume that schools are doing everything they should. We cannot possibly fix the academic problem in the United States if we don't hold schools that don't do well accountable. We need to give funding to schools that do well, so that other schools will try to do better. 1B: Tests can help pinpoint the problem With nothing to measure academic standard with, it is impossible to see what a schools problem may be. With tests in various subjects, it can be easy to see where a school needs to improve. The same applies for regular students. Rather than using just one standard (grades) to measure performance on, with tests you have a more precise and balanced standard to use. 1C: NCLB is effective This source shows that NCLB has raised student standards. ( http://www.ed.gov... ) Thank you.

Entertainment

An-ideal-form-of-No-Child-Left-Behind-would-be-beneficial-to-the-welfare-of-the-United-States/1/

Thank you for responding to this debate. "Realistic- interested in, concerned with, or based on what is real or practical" This definition is irrelevant to this debate, as we are discussing an IDEAL form of NCLB. "Yes, we do need accountability but not the way it is set presently. That's there are some flaws in the law. The main one is that, by 2014, 100 PERCENT of students need to be proficient in reading. I will get more into this with my own contentions later on." These flaws only appear because the law in its form now is not ideal. "That's all true but you fail to recognize all the problems with NCLB. You simply mention the good points of the law, but fail to mention its flaws." Again, we're talking about an ideal form of the law. "Just because something is effective temporarily doesn't mean it will be effective in the long-run. As more and more schools fail to reach the ever raising proficiency rate they will lose funding, the top people will lose their jobs, and the students will suffer. This means that gradually students across the country will suffer in the education department." Not if the schools are able to improve based on the information they have gotten from the tests, as they would in an ideal form of the law. "The problem is that everybody, even immigrant students who have lived in the country for barely a year, are required to past these tests. It is impossible for 100% of students to become reading proficient. Schools who fail to meet the requirements have money diverted away from tutors, and a restructuring of leadership at the schools. People will lose their jobs because of this law and have to find somewhere else to work. The states will realize this and, not wanting to lose funding for their schools, will make a change with what they consider "proficiency". That's because the law lets the States decide what is acceptable proficiency. This means that the states will simply lower the standard of proficiency so low that they can get 100%. This will hurt the students and deny them the education they truly deserve." The goal of NCLB is not to raise reading proficiency to 100%. If that were true, the passing standard would have lowered. They have not, in fact, standards for proficiency has raised. "School time is precious and teachers often don't have enough of it. These tests take a very significant portion of the school year away from teachers. These teachers then can't always teach everything their students need to know. That means that even though students are getting ahead in one area they are still falling behind in the other 2 or 3. Since only Math and Reading tests are required in Texas (using my state as an example) and the Science and Social Studies tests don't come until 8th grade, many students aren't prepared for the latter tests. They do fine and pass the Math and Reading, but the Science and Social Studies catches them completely unawares because they've been catching up since 4th grade. Often teachers will have to skip sections to save time and thus steal a good part of education from all the students in his/her class." Saying that in many schools, students switch classes based on subject, equal time is given, and students learn all subjects equally. Using the info they have gotten from tests, teachers can know how to better improve in teaching their students. "In the future we need this law to keep working. By setting impossibly high goals with too sever of punishments, the law will hurt the education system in the long run. This means that overall students WILL get worse educations and the very thing the law was suppose to help will be severely damaged." With an ideal form of the law, the standards will not be too high, nor will the punishments be.

ournamestoolong

Thank you for responding to this debate. "Realistic- interested in, concerned with, or based on what is real or practical" This definition is irrelevant to this debate, as we are discussing an IDEAL form of NCLB. "Yes, we do need accountability but not the way it is set presently. That's there are some flaws in the law. The main one is that, by 2014, 100 PERCENT of students need to be proficient in reading. I will get more into this with my own contentions later on." These flaws only appear because the law in its form now is not ideal. "That's all true but you fail to recognize all the problems with NCLB. You simply mention the good points of the law, but fail to mention its flaws." Again, we're talking about an ideal form of the law. "Just because something is effective temporarily doesn't mean it will be effective in the long-run. As more and more schools fail to reach the ever raising proficiency rate they will lose funding, the top people will lose their jobs, and the students will suffer. This means that gradually students across the country will suffer in the education department." Not if the schools are able to improve based on the information they have gotten from the tests, as they would in an ideal form of the law. "The problem is that everybody, even immigrant students who have lived in the country for barely a year, are required to past these tests. It is impossible for 100% of students to become reading proficient. Schools who fail to meet the requirements have money diverted away from tutors, and a restructuring of leadership at the schools. People will lose their jobs because of this law and have to find somewhere else to work. The states will realize this and, not wanting to lose funding for their schools, will make a change with what they consider "proficiency". That's because the law lets the States decide what is acceptable proficiency. This means that the states will simply lower the standard of proficiency so low that they can get 100%. This will hurt the students and deny them the education they truly deserve." The goal of NCLB is not to raise reading proficiency to 100%. If that were true, the passing standard would have lowered. They have not, in fact, standards for proficiency has raised. "School time is precious and teachers often don't have enough of it. These tests take a very significant portion of the school year away from teachers. These teachers then can't always teach everything their students need to know. That means that even though students are getting ahead in one area they are still falling behind in the other 2 or 3. Since only Math and Reading tests are required in Texas (using my state as an example) and the Science and Social Studies tests don't come until 8th grade, many students aren't prepared for the latter tests. They do fine and pass the Math and Reading, but the Science and Social Studies catches them completely unawares because they've been catching up since 4th grade. Often teachers will have to skip sections to save time and thus steal a good part of education from all the students in his/her class." Saying that in many schools, students switch classes based on subject, equal time is given, and students learn all subjects equally. Using the info they have gotten from tests, teachers can know how to better improve in teaching their students. "In the future we need this law to keep working. By setting impossibly high goals with too sever of punishments, the law will hurt the education system in the long run. This means that overall students WILL get worse educations and the very thing the law was suppose to help will be severely damaged." With an ideal form of the law, the standards will not be too high, nor will the punishments be.

Entertainment

An-ideal-form-of-No-Child-Left-Behind-would-be-beneficial-to-the-welfare-of-the-United-States/1/

I'm sorry you couldn't post that. Thak you.

ournamestoolong

I'm sorry you couldn't post that. Thak you.

Entertainment

An-ideal-form-of-No-Child-Left-Behind-would-be-beneficial-to-the-welfare-of-the-United-States/1/

First we must define an omni-god, he is all loving or good, all powerful, and all knowing. This god is also the creator of the universe. Problem of evil basically If God is all-good, he would destroy evil. If God is all-powerful, he could destroy evil. But evil is not destroyed. Therefore, such a God (all-good and all-powerful) does not exist. My opponent wll have to come up with a solution that does not limit gods power, goodness,or knowledge. He/she can start in the 1st round but will not be able to add new in the 3rd round, my opponent should just respond with close or end.

izbo10

First we must define an omni-god, he is all loving or good, all powerful, and all knowing. This god is also the creator of the universe. Problem of evil basically If God is all-good, he would destroy evil. If God is all-powerful, he could destroy evil. But evil is not destroyed. Therefore, such a God (all-good and all-powerful) does not exist. My opponent wll have to come up with a solution that does not limit gods power, goodness,or knowledge. He/she can start in the 1st round but will not be able to add new in the 3rd round, my opponent should just respond with close or end.

Religion

An-omni-god-can-avoid-the-problem-of-evil/1/

Premise 1: if god created the universe and he is all knowing then finite beings can not possibly be aware of all evils and all goods within their limited scope of knowledge. Since god has an unlimited scope of time through which he can observe his creation what we perceive as evil at the time may actually turn out to be good . If god is all powerful it was within his power to acheive this good by other means. Since god is all knowing he would know we percieve these means as evils and people would suffer. To make people suffer fo this, makes him less then all loving being he could have acheived it in a way that wouldn't have caused this. Premise 2: His plan involves what we perceive to be some evil although within the context of eternity this seems trivial especially since an eternity that is filled with bliss and god's love outweighs any finite amount of evil that a human being may endure within the limited scope of his or her life. So some evil is outweighed by infinite love. Again this limits gods power, it makes it as if god could not acheive this plan by any other means. He is all powerful so other means are possible. Any evil he does makes it impossible to reach all loving as evil is the opposite of good or loving. Therefore he can never reach the status of all. He would also be aware since he knows all of the perception of these evils, and to make someone feel the amount of suffering a child feels if they are raped, or a holocaust victim would have felt is not loving, being in gods knowledge he would have known that the humans experiencing this only had a limited perspective on this so it would make the suffering seem very bad to them. Premise 3: If god is all powerful then this has to be the best of all possible universes So in this premise we are suppose to limit gods power yet say he is all powerful. You know this isnt true, as long as you agree a world without child rape or the holocaust would be a better universe so in known of these premises does god reach all 3 levels of all loving, all powerful, and all knowing.

izbo10

Premise 1: if god created the universe and he is all knowing then finite beings can not possibly be aware of all evils and all goods within their limited scope of knowledge. Since god has an unlimited scope of time through which he can observe his creation what we perceive as evil at the time may actually turn out to be good . If god is all powerful it was within his power to acheive this good by other means. Since god is all knowing he would know we percieve these means as evils and people would suffer. To make people suffer fo this, makes him less then all loving being he could have acheived it in a way that wouldn't have caused this. Premise 2: His plan involves what we perceive to be some evil although within the context of eternity this seems trivial especially since an eternity that is filled with bliss and god's love outweighs any finite amount of evil that a human being may endure within the limited scope of his or her life. So some evil is outweighed by infinite love. Again this limits gods power, it makes it as if god could not acheive this plan by any other means. He is all powerful so other means are possible. Any evil he does makes it impossible to reach all loving as evil is the opposite of good or loving. Therefore he can never reach the status of all. He would also be aware since he knows all of the perception of these evils, and to make someone feel the amount of suffering a child feels if they are raped, or a holocaust victim would have felt is not loving, being in gods knowledge he would have known that the humans experiencing this only had a limited perspective on this so it would make the suffering seem very bad to them. Premise 3: If god is all powerful then this has to be the best of all possible universes So in this premise we are suppose to limit gods power yet say he is all powerful. You know this isnt true, as long as you agree a world without child rape or the holocaust would be a better universe so in known of these premises does god reach all 3 levels of all loving, all powerful, and all knowing.

Religion

An-omni-god-can-avoid-the-problem-of-evil/1/

Again, I bring up his omniscience and omnipotence. I believe our universe being the best of all possible alternatives is inherent in my opponents argument since he postulated a god that created the universe and omniscience and omnipotence are two of three necessary conditions in order to call him god. Since the best of all possible universes is inherent in my opponents argument and we are here to discuss the universe we come up with: P1. This is the best of all possible universes P2. Our existence is evident since we are here to discuss these issues C. Therefore we live in the best of all possible universes The problem here is premise 1, we do not live in the best possible universe. That is the point of the problem of evil is that there are better possible universes. Universes that do not include things like Child Rape and holocaust. In order to deny this, you must believe a universe without these 2 things would be worse. This is especially troubling with a all powerful god who could easily reconcile any problem that arose from the universe being this way. The syllogism goes like this: If a omni-god who fit this definition existed we would be in the best possible universe. We can conceive of better possible universes Conclusion the omni-god does not exist otherwise we would live in one of our conceived better universes. My opponent then goes onto variations of freewill. Now with freewill we must remember that this god is the creator of the universe. He knows all, so he had forsight to what would happen with freewill and certain physical attributes. My opponent is limiting gods ability to design us with freewill but not the ability to rape children or pull off the holocaust. Afterall, if said god does exists, he created us in such a way that we can't punch clear through another mans chest, yet you don't hear freewill being challenged because of that. So, since if he did design us he made the design decisions that limit our ability to act on our will. We can list many things we cannot act upon such as: Swimming to the bottom of the ocean without assistance Flying without assistance spinning fast enough to drill a hole in the ground. With design decisions coming from the designer, freewill is not an excuse once it is demonstrated that design decisions would effect our ability to act on our freewill. I would also say that the freewill excuse is special pleading for god. If a person watched a child get raped and didn't act on it when they could have stopped it, not one person would sit there and say freewill was a viable excuse for this. We know the moral thing to do is stop it. God must know about it he has all knowledge. He can stop it he is all powerful after all. Yet he doesn't act in the loving way and stop it. Considering this world has so many factors that limit our ability to act on free will, it would make no sense to say god could not be another. I think the part where he argues that its better because we don't live under a tyrant is self defeating. Exactly how could an all loving being making loving decisions to interfere in freewill be a tyrant? So in conclusion is previous 2 arguments rely on 2 faulty premises the first one is that this is the best possible universe. Once we realize that we can imagine better universes, this makes it a cognitive dissonance in our heads to believe that is is the product of a omni-god. The 2nd one is that freewill is independent of all other forces and a unrestricted free will. Once you realize that many things act of our ability to act our will, including our physical attributes, that the designer would have made, you realize freewill is not an excuse. I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

izbo10

Again, I bring up his omniscience and omnipotence. I believe our universe being the best of all possible alternatives is inherent in my opponents argument since he postulated a god that created the universe and omniscience and omnipotence are two of three necessary conditions in order to call him god. Since the best of all possible universes is inherent in my opponents argument and we are here to discuss the universe we come up with: P1. This is the best of all possible universes P2. Our existence is evident since we are here to discuss these issues C. Therefore we live in the best of all possible universes The problem here is premise 1, we do not live in the best possible universe. That is the point of the problem of evil is that there are better possible universes. Universes that do not include things like Child Rape and holocaust. In order to deny this, you must believe a universe without these 2 things would be worse. This is especially troubling with a all powerful god who could easily reconcile any problem that arose from the universe being this way. The syllogism goes like this: If a omni-god who fit this definition existed we would be in the best possible universe. We can conceive of better possible universes Conclusion the omni-god does not exist otherwise we would live in one of our conceived better universes. My opponent then goes onto variations of freewill. Now with freewill we must remember that this god is the creator of the universe. He knows all, so he had forsight to what would happen with freewill and certain physical attributes. My opponent is limiting gods ability to design us with freewill but not the ability to rape children or pull off the holocaust. Afterall, if said god does exists, he created us in such a way that we can't punch clear through another mans chest, yet you don't hear freewill being challenged because of that. So, since if he did design us he made the design decisions that limit our ability to act on our will. We can list many things we cannot act upon such as: Swimming to the bottom of the ocean without assistance Flying without assistance spinning fast enough to drill a hole in the ground. With design decisions coming from the designer, freewill is not an excuse once it is demonstrated that design decisions would effect our ability to act on our freewill. I would also say that the freewill excuse is special pleading for god. If a person watched a child get raped and didn't act on it when they could have stopped it, not one person would sit there and say freewill was a viable excuse for this. We know the moral thing to do is stop it. God must know about it he has all knowledge. He can stop it he is all powerful after all. Yet he doesn't act in the loving way and stop it. Considering this world has so many factors that limit our ability to act on free will, it would make no sense to say god could not be another. I think the part where he argues that its better because we don't live under a tyrant is self defeating. Exactly how could an all loving being making loving decisions to interfere in freewill be a tyrant? So in conclusion is previous 2 arguments rely on 2 faulty premises the first one is that this is the best possible universe. Once we realize that we can imagine better universes, this makes it a cognitive dissonance in our heads to believe that is is the product of a omni-god. The 2nd one is that freewill is independent of all other forces and a unrestricted free will. Once you realize that many things act of our ability to act our will, including our physical attributes, that the designer would have made, you realize freewill is not an excuse. I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

Religion

An-omni-god-can-avoid-the-problem-of-evil/1/

Let me first answer your question: An atom. Now I'll respond to your argument. You state that I must accept omnipresence as an attribute of god. What other attributes must I also accept and why? In addition, I do not need you to prove a god. I need you to prove why an omnipresent god is necessarily atheist.

Kleptin

Let me first answer your question: An atom. Now I'll respond to your argument. You state that I must accept omnipresence as an attribute of god. What other attributes must I also accept and why? In addition, I do not need you to prove a god. I need you to prove why an omnipresent god is necessarily atheist.

Religion

An-omnipresent-God-is-an-atheist./1/

You do understand that your entire argument here is based on nothing but semantics right? Your argument: God makes up the majority of everything. God makes up the majority of us. Therefore, we are God Therefore, God is us. A few of us are atheist Therefore, God is atheist. Problems: 1. The fact that something makes up the majority of something else does not mean that it then becomes its sole identity. If I have a solution of 20% HCl acid, it is a solution of 20% HCl acid. By your definition, it would be water. Try drinking it and see what happens. After all, it's just water, and it's good for you, right? 2. Even if I granted you the first part, which I don't, since it was logically fallacious, the second part is a problem too. If we as a collective are God, it does not mean that God is us. The United States of America is a democratic republic. However, this does not mean that a democratic republic is The United States of America. 3. Let's assume that I suffer some sort of massive aneurysm and I grant you the first two. There's another problem. If we can give an attribute to a small part of something, that does not necessarily mean that it applies to the whole. My outermost epithelial cells are dead. By your logic, I am dead. By your definition, God is not only us, God is everything. This means that the group of "things" that can be atheist (humans) are insignificant compared to everything else in the universe. So no, just because people are atheist it does not mean that God is atheist. Even if all humans on earth were atheist, it wouldn't line up with your logic that God is atheist. So no, not quite as clear as you thought, and you're very welcome for the debate.

Kleptin

You do understand that your entire argument here is based on nothing but semantics right? Your argument: God makes up the majority of everything. God makes up the majority of us. Therefore, we are God Therefore, God is us. A few of us are atheist Therefore, God is atheist. Problems: 1. The fact that something makes up the majority of something else does not mean that it then becomes its sole identity. If I have a solution of 20% HCl acid, it is a solution of 20% HCl acid. By your definition, it would be water. Try drinking it and see what happens. After all, it's just water, and it's good for you, right? 2. Even if I granted you the first part, which I don't, since it was logically fallacious, the second part is a problem too. If we as a collective are God, it does not mean that God is us. The United States of America is a democratic republic. However, this does not mean that a democratic republic is The United States of America. 3. Let's assume that I suffer some sort of massive aneurysm and I grant you the first two. There's another problem. If we can give an attribute to a small part of something, that does not necessarily mean that it applies to the whole. My outermost epithelial cells are dead. By your logic, I am dead. By your definition, God is not only us, God is everything. This means that the group of "things" that can be atheist (humans) are insignificant compared to everything else in the universe. So no, just because people are atheist it does not mean that God is atheist. Even if all humans on earth were atheist, it wouldn't line up with your logic that God is atheist. So no, not quite as clear as you thought, and you're very welcome for the debate.

Religion

An-omnipresent-God-is-an-atheist./1/

My opponent may provide anything he wishes, I allow him first and last argument out of respect. The only thing I must do is clarify a few terms for this debate. Omnipresent- everywhere all the time the resolution implies the existence of a God with this characteristic, so don't tell me to "prove it", I'll make my case after my opponents opening argument, however I would like one question to be answered: What is the smallest block of life, the minutest stone which lays the first foundation of life?

draxxt

My opponent may provide anything he wishes, I allow him first and last argument out of respect. The only thing I must do is clarify a few terms for this debate. Omnipresent- everywhere all the time the resolution implies the existence of a God with this characteristic, so don't tell me to "prove it", I'll make my case after my opponents opening argument, however I would like one question to be answered: What is the smallest block of life, the minutest stone which lays the first foundation of life?

Religion

An-omnipresent-God-is-an-atheist./1/

For the record, my first speech was written simply to set up a simple framework for the debate to prevent any semantics arguments or arguments of style, rather than actual philosophy. "Now I'll respond to your argument. You state that I must accept omnipresence as an attribute of god. What other attributes must I also accept and why?" The resolution is: "AN omnipresent God is an atheist." The resolution does not say "God is an atheist." It is an omnipresent god. Therefore, there doesn't have to be any other attribute to said god. Most gods, in a wide spectrum of faith, are omnipresent: (Just to list a few: Christianity Islam Judaism Pagaen Wiccan.) You may choose amongst any of these gods, and assume that they have some nonbelievers. (Atheists, other religions, nihilists etc.) As you've defined, the smallest particle known to man is an atom and even further still, a god with omniprescence would exist within subatomic particles. Starting to get a picture? What are all beings made of? Atoms. We are entirely constructed of atoms. If a god is omnipresent, he is everywhere and inside everything. We must assume that there are small cracks, as in stone, within atoms that god must be in. He must be in the particles that make up the atoms, and so, God makes up the majority of the atom. That being said, if he makes up the majority of every atom, and these atoms make up us, then God is us. We are God. So now that we've shown that we ARE God, we must look back to what I stated above. There are atheists for any religion, disbelievers, so if there is one disbeliever ( a point you said that you would accept) then God, which we are, is an Atheist. I don't believe anything else needs to be said, as it's clearly obvious which side to vote for. The logic is clear, vote Pro. Thanks again, FB

draxxt

For the record, my first speech was written simply to set up a simple framework for the debate to prevent any semantics arguments or arguments of style, rather than actual philosophy. "Now I'll respond to your argument. You state that I must accept omnipresence as an attribute of god. What other attributes must I also accept and why?" The resolution is: "AN omnipresent God is an atheist." The resolution does not say "God is an atheist." It is an omnipresent god. Therefore, there doesn't have to be any other attribute to said god. Most gods, in a wide spectrum of faith, are omnipresent: (Just to list a few: Christianity Islam Judaism Pagaen Wiccan.) You may choose amongst any of these gods, and assume that they have some nonbelievers. (Atheists, other religions, nihilists etc.) As you've defined, the smallest particle known to man is an atom and even further still, a god with omniprescence would exist within subatomic particles. Starting to get a picture? What are all beings made of? Atoms. We are entirely constructed of atoms. If a god is omnipresent, he is everywhere and inside everything. We must assume that there are small cracks, as in stone, within atoms that god must be in. He must be in the particles that make up the atoms, and so, God makes up the majority of the atom. That being said, if he makes up the majority of every atom, and these atoms make up us, then God is us. We are God. So now that we've shown that we ARE God, we must look back to what I stated above. There are atheists for any religion, disbelievers, so if there is one disbeliever ( a point you said that you would accept) then God, which we are, is an Atheist. I don't believe anything else needs to be said, as it's clearly obvious which side to vote for. The logic is clear, vote Pro. Thanks again, FB

Religion

An-omnipresent-God-is-an-atheist./1/

Hello, pro, and thanks for the debate opportunity! Claim of pro: The only way to effectively organize and distribute goods and services in absence of the state is to have as capitalist society. True capitalism actually requires there to be no state intervention. Furthermore, anarcho-communist or socialist philosophies ignore human nature. Claim 1: The only way to equally distribute goods to citizens is through the absence of the state and currency. Claim 2: There is no such thing as a free market. Claim 3: "Anarcho"-capitalism is not an actual form of anarchism, because not only does it tolerate, but it embraces an unnecessary hierarchy. Final Claim: Capitalism is contradictory to parts of human nature, not communism. Now I shall define terms not for an argument, but for clarity. Anarchism - "Belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion." Anarcho-Communism/Socialism - "Anarchist communism is a form of anarchism that advocates the abolition of the State and capitalism in favour of a horizontal network of voluntary associations through which everyone will be free to satisfy his or her needs" "Anarcho"-Capitalism - "A market-based society with no government. Instead of government, all goods and services would be provided by private businesses." State - "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government." For further clarification, it is a country with a hierarchical government and borders. If you disagree with any of these definitions pro, inform me in the comments and we can change them. Good luck!

Anarcho-Socialist

Hello, pro, and thanks for the debate opportunity! Claim of pro: The only way to effectively organize and distribute goods and services in absence of the state is to have as capitalist society. True capitalism actually requires there to be no state intervention. Furthermore, anarcho-communist or socialist philosophies ignore human nature. Claim 1: The only way to equally distribute goods to citizens is through the absence of the state and currency. Claim 2: There is no such thing as a free market. Claim 3: "Anarcho"-capitalism is not an actual form of anarchism, because not only does it tolerate, but it embraces an unnecessary hierarchy. Final Claim: Capitalism is contradictory to parts of human nature, not communism. Now I shall define terms not for an argument, but for clarity. Anarchism - "Belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion." Anarcho-Communism/Socialism - "Anarchist communism is a form of anarchism that advocates the abolition of the State and capitalism in favour of a horizontal network of voluntary associations through which everyone will be free to satisfy his or her needs" "Anarcho"-Capitalism - "A market-based society with no government. Instead of government, all goods and services would be provided by private businesses." State - "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government." For further clarification, it is a country with a hierarchical government and borders. If you disagree with any of these definitions pro, inform me in the comments and we can change them. Good luck!

Politics

Anarcho-Capitalism-is-the-only-effective-way-to-have-a-stateless-society/1/

Extension

Anarcho-Socialist

Extension

Politics

Anarcho-Capitalism-is-the-only-effective-way-to-have-a-stateless-society/1/

Extension

Anarcho-Socialist

Extension

Politics

Anarcho-Capitalism-is-the-only-effective-way-to-have-a-stateless-society/1/

Andrew Jackson should NOT be removed from the 20$ bill for the following six reasons. (1) Andrew Jackson was a pioneer. Andrew Jackson rose from the slums of a Scotch Irish settlement to become president of the United States, showing that anybody in America, no matter social or economic class, can become somebody of importance. (2) Andrew Jackson redefined democracy. Jacksonian democracy brought in a new age of politics that is still in use today. Before this kind of democracy, mostly rich, stereotypical white men participated in politics. (3) Andrew Jackson strongly supported the common man. Andrew Jackson was the first man to be elected by ordinary people as supposed to rich aristocrats, and Jackson continued to fight against big government and support the middle class. (4) Andrew Jackson reduced the national debt to zero. Andrew Jackson paid off all the debt from the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and all of America's other debts. This feat has never been accomplished before, and has not been accomplished since. (5) Andrew Jackson empowered the executive branch. Jackson made the presidency strong, and created executive privileges that helped many other presidents accomplish what they needed to do. (6) Andrew Jackson was a war hero. Jackson fought bravely in the War of 1812 and helped defeat the British. In conclusion, Andrew Jackson was a great man. He contains all of the necessary traits that other people on bills have, and is totally deserving of being the face of our nation. Vote for con.

dragonb95

Andrew Jackson should NOT be removed from the 20$ bill for the following six reasons. (1) Andrew Jackson was a pioneer. Andrew Jackson rose from the slums of a Scotch Irish settlement to become president of the United States, showing that anybody in America, no matter social or economic class, can become somebody of importance. (2) Andrew Jackson redefined democracy. Jacksonian democracy brought in a new age of politics that is still in use today. Before this kind of democracy, mostly rich, stereotypical white men participated in politics. (3) Andrew Jackson strongly supported the common man. Andrew Jackson was the first man to be elected by ordinary people as supposed to rich aristocrats, and Jackson continued to fight against big government and support the middle class. (4) Andrew Jackson reduced the national debt to zero. Andrew Jackson paid off all the debt from the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and all of America's other debts. This feat has never been accomplished before, and has not been accomplished since. (5) Andrew Jackson empowered the executive branch. Jackson made the presidency strong, and created executive privileges that helped many other presidents accomplish what they needed to do. (6) Andrew Jackson was a war hero. Jackson fought bravely in the War of 1812 and helped defeat the British. In conclusion, Andrew Jackson was a great man. He contains all of the necessary traits that other people on bills have, and is totally deserving of being the face of our nation. Vote for con.

Politics

Andrew-Jackson-should-be-removed-from-the-20-Dollar-Bill/1/

Andrew Jackson was a product of his times. Any other president from his era on bills were also racists. It is unfair to judge a 19th century man with 21st century standards. Refutations: 1. Indian Removal Act First of all, it should be noted that Jackson was not wholely responsible for the trail of tears. Martin Van Buren, his sucessor, who was not a democrat, enacted Indian Removal. At the time, it was a popular belief that America should expand westward and push Indians as we go. Whilst now we can look back and see this is racist, it was a normal thing to think at the time. 2. Massive slave owner. It should be noted that Thomas Jefferson had 650 slaves, George Washington had 250, etc etc. It was normal to have slaves back then. It does not make him a bad man. If you get rid of Jackson from the bill, you might as well do away with everyone else in favor of someone "perfect" (aka nobody). JFK was a famous adulterer. Abraham Lincoln believed the black people should never vote, and so did all of his predecessors. All of the presidents had flaws and did bad things. This does not detract from their greatness.

dragonb95

Andrew Jackson was a product of his times. Any other president from his era on bills were also racists. It is unfair to judge a 19th century man with 21st century standards. Refutations: 1. Indian Removal Act First of all, it should be noted that Jackson was not wholely responsible for the trail of tears. Martin Van Buren, his sucessor, who was not a democrat, enacted Indian Removal. At the time, it was a popular belief that America should expand westward and push Indians as we go. Whilst now we can look back and see this is racist, it was a normal thing to think at the time. 2. Massive slave owner. It should be noted that Thomas Jefferson had 650 slaves, George Washington had 250, etc etc. It was normal to have slaves back then. It does not make him a bad man. If you get rid of Jackson from the bill, you might as well do away with everyone else in favor of someone "perfect" (aka nobody). JFK was a famous adulterer. Abraham Lincoln believed the black people should never vote, and so did all of his predecessors. All of the presidents had flaws and did bad things. This does not detract from their greatness.

Politics

Andrew-Jackson-should-be-removed-from-the-20-Dollar-Bill/1/

Thank you for posting so lucidly. I would like to counter refute my oppoints refutations and then reaffirm by rebuttals. My opponent says this being a pioneer does not mean greatness. This is totally false. I think that rising from poverty to greatness is a sure sign that someone is a good person. If JK Rowling had political importance than I think she would be a great person to be on a pound note. My opponent said that Jacksonian democracy was only for white men, and not women and people of color. First of all, no one thought that women and people of color were equal to white people. Sure, some people thought that slavery was bad, but there were no political movements saying that they were equal. Jacksonian Democracy was the most advanced political party of the time. It evolved into the current democratic party. Jacksonian democracy is still used today and envelops people of all gender and nationality. My opponent said that Andrew Jackson only supported the common man and not people of color and women. However, as I have stated in my last counter refutation, it was the belief of the time. Nobody supported women in the 1830s, so why should we judge Andrew Jackson for not doing so as well? All of his predecessors and many sucessors thought that women are less than men. Until very recently, many presidents were sexist. My opponent said that the debt went back up after his time in office, however, it should be noted that Andrew Jackson removed 58$ million of debt and it raised 3.3$ million when he left, so an overall sucess. Also, it is completely false that Jackson is "solely responsible" for the panic of 1837. There were many factors that led into it. It happened during Martin Van Buren's presidency... My opponent said that Jackson empowering the executive branch was contradictory to him supportin the common man, however, him empowering the executive branch helped the common man greatly. Before, rich aristrocrats in congress, the senate, and the court controlled most of America, but Jackson gave the presidency more power, which helped him support the common man against the rest of the government. Also, it should be noted that the bank of the United States was completely corrupt at the time and favored northern states over southern and western states. It put all of the nation's financial power into one privatize bank that could be easily abused by congress. My opponent also said that being a war hero does not make someone great. However, Andrew Jackson defeated the British in that war and was awarded rank of major general for his bravery. George Washington was a great man for being general in the Revolution, Lincoln was a great man for being a major part in the civil war, all these great men on bills had military merit that made them great men. I would like to reaffirm my rebuttals now. 1. Everyone had slaves at the time. We cannot judge him for sharing beliefs with millions of other people. As to the trail of tears, Jackson saw the native americans as adversaries. Many had supported the British in the war of 1812, and he saw it as a war over precious land with limited resources. We have modern sympathies and a historical perspective that makes it seem like the way the Indians were treated was horribly unfair, but that isn't how people saw this issue as it was unfolding. The sectional conflict between slave states vs. free labor states had already heated up, diffused temporarily by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. If new lands for cotton cultivation weren't added to the Union, Jackson feared the South might become scared the North was becoming too powerful in Congress and secede from the Union, as indeed happened eventually. Jackson was trying to protect the citizens. 2. WE CANNOT JUDGE A NINETEENTH CENTURY MAN BY TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY STANDARDS! That is what this debate comes down to! While we may be sympathetic for native americans now, at the time they were opposing us in a war. While slavery was bad, many great men were pro-slavery. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, the list goes on. All of them were amazing people, and we cannot say that they are bad just because they owned slaves along with everyone else.

dragonb95

Thank you for posting so lucidly. I would like to counter refute my oppoints refutations and then reaffirm by rebuttals. My opponent says this being a pioneer does not mean greatness. This is totally false. I think that rising from poverty to greatness is a sure sign that someone is a good person. If JK Rowling had political importance than I think she would be a great person to be on a pound note. My opponent said that Jacksonian democracy was only for white men, and not women and people of color. First of all, no one thought that women and people of color were equal to white people. Sure, some people thought that slavery was bad, but there were no political movements saying that they were equal. Jacksonian Democracy was the most advanced political party of the time. It evolved into the current democratic party. Jacksonian democracy is still used today and envelops people of all gender and nationality. My opponent said that Andrew Jackson only supported the common man and not people of color and women. However, as I have stated in my last counter refutation, it was the belief of the time. Nobody supported women in the 1830s, so why should we judge Andrew Jackson for not doing so as well? All of his predecessors and many sucessors thought that women are less than men. Until very recently, many presidents were sexist. My opponent said that the debt went back up after his time in office, however, it should be noted that Andrew Jackson removed 58$ million of debt and it raised 3.3$ million when he left, so an overall sucess. Also, it is completely false that Jackson is "solely responsible" for the panic of 1837. There were many factors that led into it. It happened during Martin Van Buren's presidency... My opponent said that Jackson empowering the executive branch was contradictory to him supportin the common man, however, him empowering the executive branch helped the common man greatly. Before, rich aristrocrats in congress, the senate, and the court controlled most of America, but Jackson gave the presidency more power, which helped him support the common man against the rest of the government. Also, it should be noted that the bank of the United States was completely corrupt at the time and favored northern states over southern and western states. It put all of the nation's financial power into one privatize bank that could be easily abused by congress. My opponent also said that being a war hero does not make someone great. However, Andrew Jackson defeated the British in that war and was awarded rank of major general for his bravery. George Washington was a great man for being general in the Revolution, Lincoln was a great man for being a major part in the civil war, all these great men on bills had military merit that made them great men. I would like to reaffirm my rebuttals now. 1. Everyone had slaves at the time. We cannot judge him for sharing beliefs with millions of other people. As to the trail of tears, Jackson saw the native americans as adversaries. Many had supported the British in the war of 1812, and he saw it as a war over precious land with limited resources. We have modern sympathies and a historical perspective that makes it seem like the way the Indians were treated was horribly unfair, but that isn't how people saw this issue as it was unfolding. The sectional conflict between slave states vs. free labor states had already heated up, diffused temporarily by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. If new lands for cotton cultivation weren't added to the Union, Jackson feared the South might become scared the North was becoming too powerful in Congress and secede from the Union, as indeed happened eventually. Jackson was trying to protect the citizens. 2. WE CANNOT JUDGE A NINETEENTH CENTURY MAN BY TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY STANDARDS! That is what this debate comes down to! While we may be sympathetic for native americans now, at the time they were opposing us in a war. While slavery was bad, many great men were pro-slavery. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, the list goes on. All of them were amazing people, and we cannot say that they are bad just because they owned slaves along with everyone else.

Politics

Andrew-Jackson-should-be-removed-from-the-20-Dollar-Bill/1/

My opponent wishes to take a closer look at this debate. He says that my only rebuttal for his trail of tears point was that we can't judge a 18th century man by twenty first century standards, but this is completely false. I also listed a long rebuttal on the political war between the native americans and Jackson and how that justifies westward expansion. I do also stand by the fact that Jackson should not be judged for owning slaves when his political greatness is so prominent. My opponent also says that I am appying 21st century standards to Jackson in positive ways and refuting his negative ways, thus I am a hypocrite, which is completely false. He said that I am looking at "favorable qualities" that are "twenty-first century" qualities, however he failed to a name a single contention of mine that is a "twenty first century standard". Being a war hero, rising from poor to rich, solving the national debt, deomcratic values, how are any of my points things that are only deemed favorable in our day and age? Now he views his own contentions, which I will refute. I have already refuted the Indian Removal Act point. As to "Andrew Jackson's actions led to the suffering of thousands of enslaved Africans," There is absolutely no source for this. Just because he didn't act on slavery like Abraham Lincoln doesn't mean he is responsible for all the slavery in America. He says that Jackson crashed the economy, however, Jackson actually solved the national debt. To conclude my argument, we should let this man be on our currency because he redefined America and stood up for what's right with the common people. Also, if you take Jackson off the bill then there is a blank spot! My opponent has not mentioned one person who should replace him, and if he does, I will refute their choice. Thank you.

dragonb95

My opponent wishes to take a closer look at this debate. He says that my only rebuttal for his trail of tears point was that we can't judge a 18th century man by twenty first century standards, but this is completely false. I also listed a long rebuttal on the political war between the native americans and Jackson and how that justifies westward expansion. I do also stand by the fact that Jackson should not be judged for owning slaves when his political greatness is so prominent. My opponent also says that I am appying 21st century standards to Jackson in positive ways and refuting his negative ways, thus I am a hypocrite, which is completely false. He said that I am looking at "favorable qualities" that are "twenty-first century" qualities, however he failed to a name a single contention of mine that is a "twenty first century standard". Being a war hero, rising from poor to rich, solving the national debt, deomcratic values, how are any of my points things that are only deemed favorable in our day and age? Now he views his own contentions, which I will refute. I have already refuted the Indian Removal Act point. As to "Andrew Jackson's actions led to the suffering of thousands of enslaved Africans," There is absolutely no source for this. Just because he didn't act on slavery like Abraham Lincoln doesn't mean he is responsible for all the slavery in America. He says that Jackson crashed the economy, however, Jackson actually solved the national debt. To conclude my argument, we should let this man be on our currency because he redefined America and stood up for what's right with the common people. Also, if you take Jackson off the bill then there is a blank spot! My opponent has not mentioned one person who should replace him, and if he does, I will refute their choice. Thank you.

Politics

Andrew-Jackson-should-be-removed-from-the-20-Dollar-Bill/1/

I will now conclude this debate. I would like to thank my opponent for such lively and punctual rounds. It was a pleasure. Key Refutations 1. My opponent mentioned three of my rebuttals to his trail of tears point but left out my FOURTH AND FIFTH REBUTTAL, which he failed to counter refute, and that is that Jackson did this to protect the citizens and stop the south from seceding. See argument #3. THIS IS KEY. HE HAS NOT COUNTER REFUTED THESE REBUTTALS. 2. My opponent said that he doesn't have to mention who should be on the twenty dollar bill instead of Andrew Jackson, however he should completely do this if he wants to prove that Andrew Jackson is not worthy of being on the bill. I see it as completely necessary to show who would be on the bill instead of Jackson, because even if Jackson was bad, (which he is not) my opponent has named no one that is better than him. We are debating whether the United States Government should remove Andrew Jackson from the bill. They would need a replacement. 3. My opponent says that Jackson's actions led to a depression, however, his evidence is not conclusive. It is still unsure what caused the Panic of 1837. Jackson solved the national debt! Also, it is worth noting that my opponent has brought up the Specie Circular as well as the Vetoing of the Second National Bank as things that led to the depression, however Jackson did these things to stop the south from seceding, which he was successful in doing. For weight in this argument, it should be "solving the national debt and stopping the south from seceding, or a possible contribution to a recession." 4. I would like to restate my rebuttals for the Indian Removal Act, all five of them (two of them he has not counter refuted, and none he has counter refuted thoroughly or succesfully). a. The Trail of Tears didn't happen under Jackson b. Jackson was not wholely responsible c. You can't judge a nineteenth-century man by twenty-first century standards. d. Andrew Jackson saw the native americans as enemies because they supported the British in the war of 1812 and were holding precious land that both sides needed. e. If new lands for cotton cultivation weren't added to the Union, Jackson feared the South might become scared the North was becoming too powerful and secede from the Union. 5. My opponent had a long and irrelevant allegory for Jackson, where Jackson "killed a family of black people" This is a silly metaphor. Jackson did nothing to harm the slaves. He just didn't act on slavery like Abraham Lincoln. He tried to stop the circulation of abolitionist texts because they were conspiratorial towards the government. Jackson did not harm the slaves in any way. In conclusion, men can't be judged by attitudes. Men can't be deemed "not great" because they didn't abolish slavery. When looking at this debate, look at all the amazing things Jackson accomplished during his presidency, all of the standards he set, all of the good deeds he did for this country, then look at my opponent's arguments. Jackson expanded American territory (I have completely justified this in my refutations), Jackson was racist (like every other president on bills and all of his contemporaries), Jackson may have contributed to recession (for reasons I have justified,). Vote con!

dragonb95

I will now conclude this debate. I would like to thank my opponent for such lively and punctual rounds. It was a pleasure. Key Refutations 1. My opponent mentioned three of my rebuttals to his trail of tears point but left out my FOURTH AND FIFTH REBUTTAL, which he failed to counter refute, and that is that Jackson did this to protect the citizens and stop the south from seceding. See argument #3. THIS IS KEY. HE HAS NOT COUNTER REFUTED THESE REBUTTALS. 2. My opponent said that he doesn't have to mention who should be on the twenty dollar bill instead of Andrew Jackson, however he should completely do this if he wants to prove that Andrew Jackson is not worthy of being on the bill. I see it as completely necessary to show who would be on the bill instead of Jackson, because even if Jackson was bad, (which he is not) my opponent has named no one that is better than him. We are debating whether the United States Government should remove Andrew Jackson from the bill. They would need a replacement. 3. My opponent says that Jackson's actions led to a depression, however, his evidence is not conclusive. It is still unsure what caused the Panic of 1837. Jackson solved the national debt! Also, it is worth noting that my opponent has brought up the Specie Circular as well as the Vetoing of the Second National Bank as things that led to the depression, however Jackson did these things to stop the south from seceding, which he was successful in doing. For weight in this argument, it should be "solving the national debt and stopping the south from seceding, or a possible contribution to a recession." 4. I would like to restate my rebuttals for the Indian Removal Act, all five of them (two of them he has not counter refuted, and none he has counter refuted thoroughly or succesfully). a. The Trail of Tears didn't happen under Jackson b. Jackson was not wholely responsible c. You can't judge a nineteenth-century man by twenty-first century standards. d. Andrew Jackson saw the native americans as enemies because they supported the British in the war of 1812 and were holding precious land that both sides needed. e. If new lands for cotton cultivation weren't added to the Union, Jackson feared the South might become scared the North was becoming too powerful and secede from the Union. 5. My opponent had a long and irrelevant allegory for Jackson, where Jackson "killed a family of black people" This is a silly metaphor. Jackson did nothing to harm the slaves. He just didn't act on slavery like Abraham Lincoln. He tried to stop the circulation of abolitionist texts because they were conspiratorial towards the government. Jackson did not harm the slaves in any way. In conclusion, men can't be judged by attitudes. Men can't be deemed "not great" because they didn't abolish slavery. When looking at this debate, look at all the amazing things Jackson accomplished during his presidency, all of the standards he set, all of the good deeds he did for this country, then look at my opponent's arguments. Jackson expanded American territory (I have completely justified this in my refutations), Jackson was racist (like every other president on bills and all of his contemporaries), Jackson may have contributed to recession (for reasons I have justified,). Vote con!

Politics

Andrew-Jackson-should-be-removed-from-the-20-Dollar-Bill/1/