Datasets:

notaphoenix

/

debateorg_w_effect_for_conservative

like 0

As the affirmation in this debate, I will be giving the reasons as to why Andrew Jackson should be removed from the twenty dollar bill. The burden of proof is on the affirmation in this debate; I must prove why he should be removed from the twenty-dollar bill. Contention One: Indian Removal Andrew Jackson was a firm supporter of Indian removal policies; policies that took Native American tribes from the land they had lived on for centuries, often moving them west, thousands of miles away. Indian removal was a major Jackson policy, running through the entirety of his tenure as President. Jackson mentioned Indian removal in seven of his annual addresses to Congress (he made eight in total) [1], using language that made his policies sound voluntary and would allow for peaceful movement. This, however, was not seen in action. Under Jackson's administration, in 1830, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act, allowing Jackson to negotiate removal treaties with the Native American nations. This act eventually led to the forced, westward migration of natives [2]. This in turn led to the Trail of Tears, an infamous period where thousands of Natives (believed to be about four thousand) died [3]. Since Jackson's policies led not only to the mass removal of people from their homeland, but thousands dead as well, Jackson should not be on the twenty-dollar bill. Contention Two: Slavery The Jackson administration was not only supportive of Native American removal, but supportive of slavery as well. In fact, one of the main reasons behind Indian removal was to have land for slavery [2]. Jackson was a well-known member of the Democratic Party, which at the time was known for its pro-slavery stance. Jackson denounced abolitionists as "monsters" and asked for Congress to prohibit abolitionist documents from circulating in the South, after a violent episode in Charleston [4]. Perhaps the biggest connection Jackson had to slavery was a personal one; Jackson was a major owner of slaves, totaling at 150 at the time of his death. Had it not been for slavery, then Jackson would not have made his wealth [5]. Because Jackson not only removed Indians for the expansion of slavery, but condemned abolitionists and contributed to the practice of slavery himself, he should not be on the twenty-dollar bill. In conclusion, Andrew Jackson should not be on the twenty-dollar bill due to horrific contributions to the practices of Indian removal and slavery, encouraging and allowing for the expansion of both. I strongly urge a ballot in affirmation of the resolution. Sources: [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... [5] <URL>...

eastcoastsamuel

As the affirmation in this debate, I will be giving the reasons as to why Andrew Jackson should be removed from the twenty dollar bill. The burden of proof is on the affirmation in this debate; I must prove why he should be removed from the twenty-dollar bill. Contention One: Indian Removal Andrew Jackson was a firm supporter of Indian removal policies; policies that took Native American tribes from the land they had lived on for centuries, often moving them west, thousands of miles away. Indian removal was a major Jackson policy, running through the entirety of his tenure as President. Jackson mentioned Indian removal in seven of his annual addresses to Congress (he made eight in total) [1], using language that made his policies sound voluntary and would allow for peaceful movement. This, however, was not seen in action. Under Jackson's administration, in 1830, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act, allowing Jackson to negotiate removal treaties with the Native American nations. This act eventually led to the forced, westward migration of natives [2]. This in turn led to the Trail of Tears, an infamous period where thousands of Natives (believed to be about four thousand) died [3]. Since Jackson's policies led not only to the mass removal of people from their homeland, but thousands dead as well, Jackson should not be on the twenty-dollar bill. Contention Two: Slavery The Jackson administration was not only supportive of Native American removal, but supportive of slavery as well. In fact, one of the main reasons behind Indian removal was to have land for slavery [2]. Jackson was a well-known member of the Democratic Party, which at the time was known for its pro-slavery stance. Jackson denounced abolitionists as "monsters" and asked for Congress to prohibit abolitionist documents from circulating in the South, after a violent episode in Charleston [4]. Perhaps the biggest connection Jackson had to slavery was a personal one; Jackson was a major owner of slaves, totaling at 150 at the time of his death. Had it not been for slavery, then Jackson would not have made his wealth [5]. Because Jackson not only removed Indians for the expansion of slavery, but condemned abolitionists and contributed to the practice of slavery himself, he should not be on the twenty-dollar bill. In conclusion, Andrew Jackson should not be on the twenty-dollar bill due to horrific contributions to the practices of Indian removal and slavery, encouraging and allowing for the expansion of both. I strongly urge a ballot in affirmation of the resolution. Sources: [1] http://www.synaptic.bc.ca... [2] http://www.pbs.org... [3] http://www.u-s-history.com... [4] http://www.presidentprofiles.com... [5] http://www.thehermitage.com...

Politics

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

I would like to thank my opponent for his arguments and for his rebuttals. I will address my opponent's contentions and then move on to my opponent's rebuttals of my own points. My opponent's first contention deals with Andrew Jackson's status of being a pioneer; Jackson rose from the slums to become president, personifying the American Dream. While this is an inspiring story, that does not necessarily mean that his face should be placed on the twenty-dollar bill. J.K. Rowling had a very similar story; she went from someone living on welfare to one of the most richest and well-known women in the entire world, as well as writing one of the most popular children's book series of all time. Does that mean she should be placed on the pound in the United Kingdom? No, it doesn't. An inspiring story does not necessarily mean something like that. My opponent's second contention talks about Andrew Jackson and his brand of democracy, Jacksonian democracy. This sounds good at first, until one truly examines what Jacksonian democracy is; democracy for the common, white man. While it is true that previously in history, democracy was for mainly rich, white men, Jacksonian democracy only truly applied to white men, but this time of all incomes [1]. Women, African-Americans and Native Americans were all still excluded. Jacksonian democracy only applied to the white man. It should also be noted that quite a few of his supporters were wealthy landowners, bankers and businessmen [2]. My opponent's third contention talks about Andrew Jackson supporting the common man. As I have said previously, Jacksonian democracy only applied to the white man; African-Americans, Native Americans and women were still ignored by Jackson. It should also be noted that Jacksonian democracy actually expanded the powers of the executive branch [1], instead of Jackson fighting against big government as my opponent states. My opponent's fourth contention deals with Jackson's reduction of the national debt. While it is true that Jackson was the first--and so far, only--President to pay off the national debt, it should be noted that Jackson's requirement that all government land sales be done with gold and silver in order to prevent a land bubble from collapsing was one of the main reasons why the country entered the longest depression in history [3]. Ironically, it is also a main reason as to why we started having a national debt. Jackson paid off the debt--only to plunge the country into a depression and cause us to start spending again. My opponent's fifth contention is that Andrew Jackson empowered the executive branch. This is contradictory to a previous statement my opponent made in his third contention, where he stated that Jackson fought against big government. Despite this, it is important to note that by expanding the executive branch, Jackson led into the Bank War, where he destroyed the Second Federal Bank of the United States. However, by doing this, he led into the Crash of 1837, the longest depression in the nation's history [4]. My opponent's sixth contention is that Andrew Jackson was a war hero, fighting against the British in the War of 1812. This is true; Jackson fought against the British and was considered a hero following his fighting. But being a war hero, again, does not deserve fame. Placing the other items into consideration--that Jackson supported removal of Native Americans and slavery, as well as causing one of the greatest economic crashes in US history--the fact that he fought against the British is rather insignificant. Now I will address my opponent's rebuttals to my contentions, centering around Jackson's support of slavery and Indian removal. The center of my opponent's rebuttals are that "Jackson was a product of his times". This does not excuse his actions whatsoever. It does not excuse the fact that he owned dozens of slaves and condemned those who went against slavery. If I, for instance, beat someone who was gay with my fists, in our divided climate dealing with gay rights, does the excuse that I was a product of my times excuse my action? It doesn't. Jackson's actions leading to the deaths of thousands of Native Americans cannot be excused with, "Jackson was a product of his times". My opponent's rebuttals to my first contention center around, "Jackson was not wholely responsible for the trail of tears". Looking at history, the Indian Removal Act, passed in 1830, allowed Jackson to make treaties which forcefully removed the Indians from their land. This led directly to the Trail of Tears, resulting in thousands of Native Americans dying. Is it true that the Trail of Tears occurred after Jackson's tenure in office? Yes. But that doesn't excuse the fact that Jackson's actions led directly to that. My opponent's rebuttal to my second contention is that other Presidents had slaves, even more than Jackson, so therefore it does not mean he was bad. This is fallacious thinking. My opponent stating that because people had more slaves than Jackson so Jackson isn't bad does not change that Jackson still owned over one hundred enslaved people. This rebuttal does not touch upon the fact that Jackson denounced abolitionists, nor does it touch upon the fact that Jackson asked Congress to restrict circulation of abolitionist texts. My opponent ends his second round post with a comment remarking on the fact that all people are imperfect, and that JFK and Abraham Lincoln were not perfect people. No, they were not perfect people--no one is. But this does not excuse Jackson's actions. Keep in mind what Jackson did; he forcefully removed the Native Americans from the land they have lived on for centuries, supported the barbaric act of slavery and crashed the United States economy. Should we have this man on our currency? For these reasons, I strongly urge a ballot in affirmation of the resolution. Sources: [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>...

eastcoastsamuel

I would like to thank my opponent for his arguments and for his rebuttals. I will address my opponent's contentions and then move on to my opponent's rebuttals of my own points. My opponent's first contention deals with Andrew Jackson's status of being a pioneer; Jackson rose from the slums to become president, personifying the American Dream. While this is an inspiring story, that does not necessarily mean that his face should be placed on the twenty-dollar bill. J.K. Rowling had a very similar story; she went from someone living on welfare to one of the most richest and well-known women in the entire world, as well as writing one of the most popular children's book series of all time. Does that mean she should be placed on the pound in the United Kingdom? No, it doesn't. An inspiring story does not necessarily mean something like that. My opponent's second contention talks about Andrew Jackson and his brand of democracy, Jacksonian democracy. This sounds good at first, until one truly examines what Jacksonian democracy is; democracy for the common, white man. While it is true that previously in history, democracy was for mainly rich, white men, Jacksonian democracy only truly applied to white men, but this time of all incomes [1]. Women, African-Americans and Native Americans were all still excluded. Jacksonian democracy only applied to the white man. It should also be noted that quite a few of his supporters were wealthy landowners, bankers and businessmen [2]. My opponent's third contention talks about Andrew Jackson supporting the common man. As I have said previously, Jacksonian democracy only applied to the white man; African-Americans, Native Americans and women were still ignored by Jackson. It should also be noted that Jacksonian democracy actually expanded the powers of the executive branch [1], instead of Jackson fighting against big government as my opponent states. My opponent's fourth contention deals with Jackson's reduction of the national debt. While it is true that Jackson was the first--and so far, only--President to pay off the national debt, it should be noted that Jackson's requirement that all government land sales be done with gold and silver in order to prevent a land bubble from collapsing was one of the main reasons why the country entered the longest depression in history [3]. Ironically, it is also a main reason as to why we started having a national debt. Jackson paid off the debt--only to plunge the country into a depression and cause us to start spending again. My opponent's fifth contention is that Andrew Jackson empowered the executive branch. This is contradictory to a previous statement my opponent made in his third contention, where he stated that Jackson fought against big government. Despite this, it is important to note that by expanding the executive branch, Jackson led into the Bank War, where he destroyed the Second Federal Bank of the United States. However, by doing this, he led into the Crash of 1837, the longest depression in the nation's history [4]. My opponent's sixth contention is that Andrew Jackson was a war hero, fighting against the British in the War of 1812. This is true; Jackson fought against the British and was considered a hero following his fighting. But being a war hero, again, does not deserve fame. Placing the other items into consideration--that Jackson supported removal of Native Americans and slavery, as well as causing one of the greatest economic crashes in US history--the fact that he fought against the British is rather insignificant. Now I will address my opponent's rebuttals to my contentions, centering around Jackson's support of slavery and Indian removal. The center of my opponent's rebuttals are that "Jackson was a product of his times". This does not excuse his actions whatsoever. It does not excuse the fact that he owned dozens of slaves and condemned those who went against slavery. If I, for instance, beat someone who was gay with my fists, in our divided climate dealing with gay rights, does the excuse that I was a product of my times excuse my action? It doesn't. Jackson's actions leading to the deaths of thousands of Native Americans cannot be excused with, "Jackson was a product of his times". My opponent's rebuttals to my first contention center around, "Jackson was not wholely responsible for the trail of tears". Looking at history, the Indian Removal Act, passed in 1830, allowed Jackson to make treaties which forcefully removed the Indians from their land. This led directly to the Trail of Tears, resulting in thousands of Native Americans dying. Is it true that the Trail of Tears occurred after Jackson's tenure in office? Yes. But that doesn't excuse the fact that Jackson's actions led directly to that. My opponent's rebuttal to my second contention is that other Presidents had slaves, even more than Jackson, so therefore it does not mean he was bad. This is fallacious thinking. My opponent stating that because people had more slaves than Jackson so Jackson isn't bad does not change that Jackson still owned over one hundred enslaved people. This rebuttal does not touch upon the fact that Jackson denounced abolitionists, nor does it touch upon the fact that Jackson asked Congress to restrict circulation of abolitionist texts. My opponent ends his second round post with a comment remarking on the fact that all people are imperfect, and that JFK and Abraham Lincoln were not perfect people. No, they were not perfect people--no one is. But this does not excuse Jackson's actions. Keep in mind what Jackson did; he forcefully removed the Native Americans from the land they have lived on for centuries, supported the barbaric act of slavery and crashed the United States economy. Should we have this man on our currency? For these reasons, I strongly urge a ballot in affirmation of the resolution. Sources: [1] http://en.citizendium.org... [2] http://www.sheppardsoftware.com... [3] http://www.npr.org... [4] http://www.neh.gov...

Politics

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

Let's take a close look at the debate so far. Let us look at the arguments presented so far. The negation's arguments center around Jackson's being a pioneer, Jacksonian democracy, support of the common man, solution of the national debt, empowering the executive branch and being a war hero. The affirmation's arguments center around Jackson's support and emphasis of Indian removal and slavery. My opponent's rebuttal to my contention is simply this; that one cannot apply twenty-first century standards onto a nineteenth-century man. I find this curious, as my opponent is doing the exact same thing. My opponent is placing twenty-first century standards on Andrew Jackson, with the only difference between the two of us being that he is looking at "favorable" qualities, and I am looking at "unfavorable" qualities. Considering that both of us are doing this, you cannot look to this "rebuttal". So with this in account, let's take a closer look to these contentions. I am raising the hard facts that Andrew Jackson's actions led to the deaths of thousands of Native Americans and the suffering of thousands of enslaved Africans, as well as the crashing of the United States economy. My opponent is trying to say that several of these events occurred after Jackson's presidency, but this is irrelevant. Conclusive evidence, which I have provided, points to Jackson playing a major part in these events. Van Buren was in office for only a few months when the Trail of Tears and Crash of 1837 occurred; is it really likely that he caused these events only a few months into his tenure, or is more likely that the man before had actions that led to these events? You cannot look to any of what my opponent is saying. So what if he was a "pioneer", so what if he fought against the British, so what if he helped the common man (even when his supporters were rich, upper-class men)? His actions led to the deaths and suffering of thousands, as well as economic turmoil for years. Why should we let this man be on our currency?

eastcoastsamuel

Let's take a close look at the debate so far. Let us look at the arguments presented so far. The negation's arguments center around Jackson's being a pioneer, Jacksonian democracy, support of the common man, solution of the national debt, empowering the executive branch and being a war hero. The affirmation's arguments center around Jackson's support and emphasis of Indian removal and slavery. My opponent's rebuttal to my contention is simply this; that one cannot apply twenty-first century standards onto a nineteenth-century man. I find this curious, as my opponent is doing the exact same thing. My opponent is placing twenty-first century standards on Andrew Jackson, with the only difference between the two of us being that he is looking at "favorable" qualities, and I am looking at "unfavorable" qualities. Considering that both of us are doing this, you cannot look to this "rebuttal". So with this in account, let's take a closer look to these contentions. I am raising the hard facts that Andrew Jackson's actions led to the deaths of thousands of Native Americans and the suffering of thousands of enslaved Africans, as well as the crashing of the United States economy. My opponent is trying to say that several of these events occurred after Jackson's presidency, but this is irrelevant. Conclusive evidence, which I have provided, points to Jackson playing a major part in these events. Van Buren was in office for only a few months when the Trail of Tears and Crash of 1837 occurred; is it really likely that he caused these events only a few months into his tenure, or is more likely that the man before had actions that led to these events? You cannot look to any of what my opponent is saying. So what if he was a "pioneer", so what if he fought against the British, so what if he helped the common man (even when his supporters were rich, upper-class men)? His actions led to the deaths and suffering of thousands, as well as economic turmoil for years. Why should we let this man be on our currency?

Politics

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

Let us go back to the main points of this round and see why the voting issues point to the affirmation. But first, I will address some minor issues made by my opponent. In my opponent's last post, my opponent stated that I needed to mention a person to replace Jackson on the twenty dollar bill. I see no reason as to why I have to do this. This debate is about the merits of Jackson, and whether or not the qualities of his character and Presidency deserve him being on currency. This is not a debate about who should be on the currency. It can be a bald eagle on the twenty-dollar bill, or the flag, or anything really; this debate should not hinge on this issue whatsoever. There also appears to be something my opponent is misunderstanding as well; in rebuttal to his point about Jackson solving the national debt, I mentioned that Jackson's actions led to the longest economic depression in national history, and I even provided a source to add bearing to my claim. My opponent's rebuttal to this, as can be seen in his previous post, is that "Jackson actually solved the national debt". As I've said before, I agree with my opponent on this; Jackson did solve the national debt. Yet Jackson's actions eventually led to a long, frustrating economic depression. What should be weighed more in this round; solving the debt, or causing terrific economic turmoil? In my opinion, we should be looking to the latter. I find a comment by my opponent to be rather curious; he states that he "already refuted the Indian Removal Act point", yet his rebuttal is that "Trail of Tears didn't happen under Jackson", "Jackson was not wholely responsible" and the rebuttal my opponent has been referring to this entire debate: "You can't judge a nineteenth-century man by modern standards". As I've established, the first rebuttal does not rebut anything; I've provided evidence and reasoning that connects Jackson's actions to the deaths of thousands of Native Americans. The second doesn't rebut either, because I've never stated anything along the lines of that and, again, I've provided conclusive evidence that shows his actions resulted in TToT. I will now address my opponent's third rebuttal, as it is arguably the major point of the round. My opponent's only real major rebuttal to my points regarding slavery (where I've provided evidence--which he has not rebutted--that Jackson supported and owned slaves and prevented the progression of abolitionism) and Indian Removal (which, as I've previously mentioned, has rebuttals that fall flat) is that one cannot judge a nineteenth-century man with twenty-first century standards. This is my opponent's biggest rebuttal to my contentions as well as my rebuttals to his contentions, and it is easily the most flawed. Imagine, for instance, that we are in the Deep South during the 1950s. Tensions over racial equality are escalating, and African-Americans are finding themselves facing more and more challenges in their path towards equality. In this scenario, I am a white person who believes in segregation. I have become increasingly annoyed by the attempts of African-Americans to gain rights, and I decide to take matters into my own hands. I go out, in the middle of the night, and kill a black family in their sleep. I'm arrested and tried for my crimes, and it seems most, conclusive evidence points to me committing the murders. However, I stand up and I say that I am simply a product of my town and family's racist views--it's not my fault that I killed that family! The court, listening to me, disregards the conclusive evidence and decides to let me go free. Is that justice? Is that right? No. Evidence showed that I killed human beings, perfectly fine humans, and yet I get off by saying I am a product of my times-- is that right? No. And that it is the situation we have on our hands here. My opponent is attempting to use an excuse, a little, tiny excuse, to excuse the deaths of thousands and the continued support of an institution almost all nowadays condemn. Is that right? Keep in mind, this is what you are voting on this round. You, the judge, are voting between hard evidence pointing Jackson to the deaths of thousands and the continued suffering of many more Africans, and being a "war hero" and a "pioneer". Are you going to vote for the hard, conclusive facts or are you going to vote on something that is largely an opinion? Why should you, as a judge, vote for an excuse over hard reasoning and facts? You cannot look to the negation in this debate; I strongly urge you to vote for the affirmation.

eastcoastsamuel

Let us go back to the main points of this round and see why the voting issues point to the affirmation. But first, I will address some minor issues made by my opponent. In my opponent's last post, my opponent stated that I needed to mention a person to replace Jackson on the twenty dollar bill. I see no reason as to why I have to do this. This debate is about the merits of Jackson, and whether or not the qualities of his character and Presidency deserve him being on currency. This is not a debate about who should be on the currency. It can be a bald eagle on the twenty-dollar bill, or the flag, or anything really; this debate should not hinge on this issue whatsoever. There also appears to be something my opponent is misunderstanding as well; in rebuttal to his point about Jackson solving the national debt, I mentioned that Jackson's actions led to the longest economic depression in national history, and I even provided a source to add bearing to my claim. My opponent's rebuttal to this, as can be seen in his previous post, is that "Jackson actually solved the national debt". As I've said before, I agree with my opponent on this; Jackson did solve the national debt. Yet Jackson's actions eventually led to a long, frustrating economic depression. What should be weighed more in this round; solving the debt, or causing terrific economic turmoil? In my opinion, we should be looking to the latter. I find a comment by my opponent to be rather curious; he states that he "already refuted the Indian Removal Act point", yet his rebuttal is that "Trail of Tears didn't happen under Jackson", "Jackson was not wholely responsible" and the rebuttal my opponent has been referring to this entire debate: "You can't judge a nineteenth-century man by modern standards". As I've established, the first rebuttal does not rebut anything; I've provided evidence and reasoning that connects Jackson's actions to the deaths of thousands of Native Americans. The second doesn't rebut either, because I've never stated anything along the lines of that and, again, I've provided conclusive evidence that shows his actions resulted in TToT. I will now address my opponent's third rebuttal, as it is arguably the major point of the round. My opponent's only real major rebuttal to my points regarding slavery (where I've provided evidence--which he has not rebutted--that Jackson supported and owned slaves and prevented the progression of abolitionism) and Indian Removal (which, as I've previously mentioned, has rebuttals that fall flat) is that one cannot judge a nineteenth-century man with twenty-first century standards. This is my opponent's biggest rebuttal to my contentions as well as my rebuttals to his contentions, and it is easily the most flawed. Imagine, for instance, that we are in the Deep South during the 1950s. Tensions over racial equality are escalating, and African-Americans are finding themselves facing more and more challenges in their path towards equality. In this scenario, I am a white person who believes in segregation. I have become increasingly annoyed by the attempts of African-Americans to gain rights, and I decide to take matters into my own hands. I go out, in the middle of the night, and kill a black family in their sleep. I'm arrested and tried for my crimes, and it seems most, conclusive evidence points to me committing the murders. However, I stand up and I say that I am simply a product of my town and family's racist views--it's not my fault that I killed that family! The court, listening to me, disregards the conclusive evidence and decides to let me go free. Is that justice? Is that right? No. Evidence showed that I killed human beings, perfectly fine humans, and yet I get off by saying I am a product of my times-- is that right? No. And that it is the situation we have on our hands here. My opponent is attempting to use an excuse, a little, tiny excuse, to excuse the deaths of thousands and the continued support of an institution almost all nowadays condemn. Is that right? Keep in mind, this is what you are voting on this round. You, the judge, are voting between hard evidence pointing Jackson to the deaths of thousands and the continued suffering of many more Africans, and being a "war hero" and a "pioneer". Are you going to vote for the hard, conclusive facts or are you going to vote on something that is largely an opinion? Why should you, as a judge, vote for an excuse over hard reasoning and facts? You cannot look to the negation in this debate; I strongly urge you to vote for the affirmation.

Politics

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

I would like to thank my opponent for starting this great debate and for presenting his arguments. You, the judge, have to properly weigh the arguments laid out in this round and determine who has the convincing arguments of this round. Let us look at some key issues where you should be voting for the affirmation. I will start by addressing the contentions as laid out by both sides before addressing the rebuttals laid out throughout this debate. Allow me to review the contentions laid out by my opponent; that Jackson was a pioneer, that Jackson "redefined" democracy, that Jackson strongly supported the common man, that Jackson reduced the national debt, that Jackson empowered the executive branch and that Jackson was a war hero. Notice several flaws in my opponent's contentions. The first is that my opponent, throughout this debate, does not quote a single source throughout his posts. Not one. We have no idea how Jackson supported the common man nor how Jackson "redefined" democracy. He has no backing for any of his arguments. It is impossible to look to my opponent's contentions as they are unsubstantiated, without proof. Second, you will notice that five out of six of my opponent's contentions are ones based around opinion; for instance, it is of the opinion of the negation that Jackson was a pioneer, that Jackson redefined democracy and that Jackson was a war hero. On the contrary, the affirmation has provided hard facts that Jackson's actions led to the Trail of Tears and, in turn, three thousand deaths, and the support of slavery and continued suffering of Africans. You cannot weigh what is mainly opinion over hard fact; the affirmation has the more convincing arguments. The sixth contention that my opponent has, that Jackson solved the national debt, is one I will address in a separate topic. Third, the affirmation's two contentions outweigh all six of the negation's contentions. Note what the affirmation's contentions deal with; hard facts about Jackson causing death and destruction. The negation's contentions deal with opinionated topics, about Jackson fighting the British in the War of 1812 and Jackson having a rag-to-riches story. These contentions, just based on the topic of the contentions alone, do not outweigh the affirmation's contentions. If the judge feels that neither side made a more convincing case, the judge must flow to the affirmation because the affirmation has more prominent contentions than the negation. Zooming further into the topics of the contentions, let us look at the rebuttals laid out by either side in this debate. Note the main topics in this debate, dealing with Jackson and Indian removal and slavery as well as Jackson's role in the economy. Looking at economy, the affirmation wins. The negation mentions that Jackson solved the national debt. The affirmation agreed with this. However, it is noteworthy that Jackson's actions of solving the national debt eventually led to the collapsing of the US economy and the longest depression in this nation's history. Note that I provide a source on this, while my opponent provides none. Yet, the negation states that the evidence is not sufficient! He further claims that the actions prevented the South from seceding! Yet the negation provides not a single source. The negation also seems to think that solving the national debt has more weight than crashing the United States economy. Is this really true? What should the judge weigh in this round? A claim backed by a source and logical evidence, or a claim with no evidence that ignores the first claim repeatedly? Economy flows to the affirmation. Looking at lives/impact on Indian removal and slavery, the affirmation wins. Again, the negation leaves no sources or backing for any rebuttals and claims he makes, while the affirmation provided several sources showing that Jackson supported slavery and Indian removal and thus should be removed. This aside, looking at the negation's refutations, none are sufficient. Looking specifically at my opponent's refutations as he states them in his last round post, especially dealing with the Trail of Tears, a, b and c are irrelevant as previously established in this debate (a ignores hard fact, b is based on a claim that the affirmation has not made, and c ignores the hard facts and offers an excuse for the suffering of millions) and d and e are not supported by any backing or evidence. In conclusion, the judge should be flowing to the affirmation for the following reasons; a.) None of the negation's contentions and arguments are supported by evidence, fact or reasoning, b.) The majority of the negation's contentions are based on opinion, not hard fact, c.) The major argumentative issues in this round (economy and lives/slavery/Trail of Tears) were better argued by the affirmation, d.) The negation's rebuttals are unsatisfactory and e.) The affirmation's contentions hold more relevance and bearing than the negations. Judge, vote for the affirmation and for Pro. Thank you.

eastcoastsamuel

I would like to thank my opponent for starting this great debate and for presenting his arguments. You, the judge, have to properly weigh the arguments laid out in this round and determine who has the convincing arguments of this round. Let us look at some key issues where you should be voting for the affirmation. I will start by addressing the contentions as laid out by both sides before addressing the rebuttals laid out throughout this debate. Allow me to review the contentions laid out by my opponent; that Jackson was a pioneer, that Jackson "redefined" democracy, that Jackson strongly supported the common man, that Jackson reduced the national debt, that Jackson empowered the executive branch and that Jackson was a war hero. Notice several flaws in my opponent's contentions. The first is that my opponent, throughout this debate, does not quote a single source throughout his posts. Not one. We have no idea how Jackson supported the common man nor how Jackson "redefined" democracy. He has no backing for any of his arguments. It is impossible to look to my opponent's contentions as they are unsubstantiated, without proof. Second, you will notice that five out of six of my opponent's contentions are ones based around opinion; for instance, it is of the opinion of the negation that Jackson was a pioneer, that Jackson redefined democracy and that Jackson was a war hero. On the contrary, the affirmation has provided hard facts that Jackson's actions led to the Trail of Tears and, in turn, three thousand deaths, and the support of slavery and continued suffering of Africans. You cannot weigh what is mainly opinion over hard fact; the affirmation has the more convincing arguments. The sixth contention that my opponent has, that Jackson solved the national debt, is one I will address in a separate topic. Third, the affirmation's two contentions outweigh all six of the negation's contentions. Note what the affirmation's contentions deal with; hard facts about Jackson causing death and destruction. The negation's contentions deal with opinionated topics, about Jackson fighting the British in the War of 1812 and Jackson having a rag-to-riches story. These contentions, just based on the topic of the contentions alone, do not outweigh the affirmation's contentions. If the judge feels that neither side made a more convincing case, the judge must flow to the affirmation because the affirmation has more prominent contentions than the negation. Zooming further into the topics of the contentions, let us look at the rebuttals laid out by either side in this debate. Note the main topics in this debate, dealing with Jackson and Indian removal and slavery as well as Jackson's role in the economy. Looking at economy, the affirmation wins. The negation mentions that Jackson solved the national debt. The affirmation agreed with this. However, it is noteworthy that Jackson's actions of solving the national debt eventually led to the collapsing of the US economy and the longest depression in this nation's history. Note that I provide a source on this, while my opponent provides none. Yet, the negation states that the evidence is not sufficient! He further claims that the actions prevented the South from seceding! Yet the negation provides not a single source. The negation also seems to think that solving the national debt has more weight than crashing the United States economy. Is this really true? What should the judge weigh in this round? A claim backed by a source and logical evidence, or a claim with no evidence that ignores the first claim repeatedly? Economy flows to the affirmation. Looking at lives/impact on Indian removal and slavery, the affirmation wins. Again, the negation leaves no sources or backing for any rebuttals and claims he makes, while the affirmation provided several sources showing that Jackson supported slavery and Indian removal and thus should be removed. This aside, looking at the negation's refutations, none are sufficient. Looking specifically at my opponent's refutations as he states them in his last round post, especially dealing with the Trail of Tears, a, b and c are irrelevant as previously established in this debate (a ignores hard fact, b is based on a claim that the affirmation has not made, and c ignores the hard facts and offers an excuse for the suffering of millions) and d and e are not supported by any backing or evidence. In conclusion, the judge should be flowing to the affirmation for the following reasons; a.) None of the negation's contentions and arguments are supported by evidence, fact or reasoning, b.) The majority of the negation's contentions are based on opinion, not hard fact, c.) The major argumentative issues in this round (economy and lives/slavery/Trail of Tears) were better argued by the affirmation, d.) The negation's rebuttals are unsatisfactory and e.) The affirmation's contentions hold more relevance and bearing than the negations. Judge, vote for the affirmation and for Pro. Thank you.

Politics

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

androids are better than Iphones. android phones have a wide range of customization without rooting (jail breaking), it gives you access to many different things that Iphones like developer mode, and being able to clear ram if the phone is lagging, also most android phones have a removable battery cover which in case your phone freezes unlike a Iphone where if it freezes you have to wait and hope for the best. another reason that androids is better than Iphone because it allows memory expansion by buying a micro sd card which can go to 128gb.

B0MB3RM4N_J43H4

androids are better than Iphones. android phones have a wide range of customization without rooting (jail breaking), it gives you access to many different things that Iphones like developer mode, and being able to clear ram if the phone is lagging, also most android phones have a removable battery cover which in case your phone freezes unlike a Iphone where if it freezes you have to wait and hope for the best. another reason that androids is better than Iphone because it allows memory expansion by buying a micro sd card which can go to 128gb.

Technology

Androids-are-better-than-IPhones./1/

Than you to the instigator for arranging this debate. In this debate I will be arguing that the iPhone is actually a better product based on the needs of the average smartphone user. I will be focusing my arguments on accessibility, ease of use, and reliability in addition to rebutting to any arguments made by Pro. I will allow Pro to outline his argument in detail before providing the specifics of my stance. Thank you Pro!

EmptyOptimist

Than you to the instigator for arranging this debate. In this debate I will be arguing that the iPhone is actually a better product based on the needs of the average smartphone user. I will be focusing my arguments on accessibility, ease of use, and reliability in addition to rebutting to any arguments made by Pro. I will allow Pro to outline his argument in detail before providing the specifics of my stance. Thank you Pro!

Technology

Androids-are-better-than-IPhones./1/

As stated above, my argument will focus on three points: accessibility, ease of use, and reliability, as follows. ACCESSIBILITY Although I agree that Androids provide more control and customization than the comparable iPhone, my argument hinges on the everyday use by the average user. I contend that the vast majority of cellphone users don't have the knowledge or understanding to use the core accessibility, and many of those that do don't frequently use it. By complicating the phone, I would argue that the android system has actually made itself a worse phone for most users. Interestingly, the thing Apple is most criticized for - it's iron hand over every component of the iPhone experience, is also what has led to its benefit; by limiting the ability of users and companies to modify or layer the OS, Apple has ensured that the user experience is consistent, predictable, and relatively simple. Android, by running an open source OS, has suffered from the consequences; each smartphone manufacturer has created it's own layer on top of the Android experience, which almost universally affected the interface. More on this below. EASE OF USE Apple is constantly and consistently lauded for its user interface, reviews regularly commending Apple on just getting the finish right. Only with the most recent OS releases (iOS8 and Lollipop) is the Android platform being recognized for its UI. But this is because it has essentially copied the UI from the Apple platform, right down to how the features are accessed, Android has tried to leverage its own form of the Apple mantra. [1] Apple, although commandeering in its control over the iOS platform, has ensured that every iPhone customer gets the same consistent and (relatively) easy user interface. This extends to app developers as well - an app that will work on an iPhone 5 will work on every iPhone 5. Despite the higher barrier for App Store approval, developing for an iPhone has been recognized as easier (due to the ease of the XCode interface), and more profitable than developing for Android [2]. Of greater concern for developers, however, is the fragmentation resulting from Android's open source. Developers are required to test their build on several different versions of the OS, and any updates need to be coded accordingly keeping several version of OS in mind. The open source of the platform also increases the potential of apps not working in conjunction with one another - an issue that is incredibly difficult to problem solve by even the most savvy Android user. As my opponent has forfeited this round, I will hold my further arguments in the event that they return and respond. SOURCES [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>...

EmptyOptimist

As stated above, my argument will focus on three points: accessibility, ease of use, and reliability, as follows. ACCESSIBILITY Although I agree that Androids provide more control and customization than the comparable iPhone, my argument hinges on the everyday use by the average user. I contend that the vast majority of cellphone users don't have the knowledge or understanding to use the core accessibility, and many of those that do don't frequently use it. By complicating the phone, I would argue that the android system has actually made itself a worse phone for most users. Interestingly, the thing Apple is most criticized for - it's iron hand over every component of the iPhone experience, is also what has led to its benefit; by limiting the ability of users and companies to modify or layer the OS, Apple has ensured that the user experience is consistent, predictable, and relatively simple. Android, by running an open source OS, has suffered from the consequences; each smartphone manufacturer has created it's own layer on top of the Android experience, which almost universally affected the interface. More on this below. EASE OF USE Apple is constantly and consistently lauded for its user interface, reviews regularly commending Apple on just getting the finish right. Only with the most recent OS releases (iOS8 and Lollipop) is the Android platform being recognized for its UI. But this is because it has essentially copied the UI from the Apple platform, right down to how the features are accessed, Android has tried to leverage its own form of the Apple mantra. [1] Apple, although commandeering in its control over the iOS platform, has ensured that every iPhone customer gets the same consistent and (relatively) easy user interface. This extends to app developers as well - an app that will work on an iPhone 5 will work on every iPhone 5. Despite the higher barrier for App Store approval, developing for an iPhone has been recognized as easier (due to the ease of the XCode interface), and more profitable than developing for Android [2]. Of greater concern for developers, however, is the fragmentation resulting from Android's open source. Developers are required to test their build on several different versions of the OS, and any updates need to be coded accordingly keeping several version of OS in mind. The open source of the platform also increases the potential of apps not working in conjunction with one another - an issue that is incredibly difficult to problem solve by even the most savvy Android user. As my opponent has forfeited this round, I will hold my further arguments in the event that they return and respond. SOURCES [1] http://mashable.com... [2] http://www.appmakr.com...

Technology

Androids-are-better-than-IPhones./1/

Arguments advanced.

EmptyOptimist

Arguments advanced.

Technology

Androids-are-better-than-IPhones./1/

Arguments advanced.

EmptyOptimist

Arguments advanced.

Technology

Androids-are-better-than-IPhones./1/

Arguments advanced.

EmptyOptimist

Arguments advanced.

Technology

Androids-are-better-than-IPhones./1/

I'm ready when you are

Dragonbenbo

I'm ready when you are

Sports

Andy-Dalton-needs-to-be-cut-if-he-doesnt-make-it-back-to-the-playoffs/1/

Ok I will admit Andy Dalton got the bengals to the playoffs three straight years and I will admit that he has had winning records for three straight years but he is so inconsistent. He has a great game next game he just bombs and screws everything up and he has still not won one playoff game when you have had 3 try's plus you got a great offense with AJ Green and Marvin Jones plus Jermaine Greshem and Tyler Eifert and gio Bernard with Sanu so he has so many weapons and he got the addition of Jeremy hill so I feel this is a make or break it season cause if the bengals don't make it to the playoffs this year I feel sit him down and either draft a new QB or get your luck with free agency and if you see the they haven't signed him for an extension because they are scared he is going to screw up!!

Dragonbenbo

Ok I will admit Andy Dalton got the bengals to the playoffs three straight years and I will admit that he has had winning records for three straight years but he is so inconsistent. He has a great game next game he just bombs and screws everything up and he has still not won one playoff game when you have had 3 try's plus you got a great offense with AJ Green and Marvin Jones plus Jermaine Greshem and Tyler Eifert and gio Bernard with Sanu so he has so many weapons and he got the addition of Jeremy hill so I feel this is a make or break it season cause if the bengals don't make it to the playoffs this year I feel sit him down and either draft a new QB or get your luck with free agency and if you see the they haven't signed him for an extension because they are scared he is going to screw up!!

Sports

Andy-Dalton-needs-to-be-cut-if-he-doesnt-make-it-back-to-the-playoffs/1/

Why did you give up??? Is it maybe because I'm right!!

Dragonbenbo

Why did you give up??? Is it maybe because I'm right!!

Sports

Andy-Dalton-needs-to-be-cut-if-he-doesnt-make-it-back-to-the-playoffs/1/

What would you do if you saw someone hurting an animal? Most of you probably would not know what you should REALLY do.Who in their right mind would abuse a poor defenseless cat or dog? Unfortunately, people of all ages abuse animals. This includes senior citizens, adults, teenagers and even children. Sadly, most animal abusers and killers are teenagers. Researchers say that violence against animals often represents displaced hostility and aggression stemming from neglect or abuse by some other family member. What that means is that if a child is abused, they are more likely to be an abuser of animals. Serious or repeated animal cruelty is seen more often in boys than girls. Associated characteristics of a child who abuses animals may include those who do poorly in school, have low self-esteem, few friends, and are bullies who may also be known for skipping school, damaging other peoples" property and have other bad behaviours.Adults who abuse animals may have grown up in an abusive home. Sometimes, during a divorce, one adult may take out their anger on their dog or cat, to get back at the other person. Others do it for no reason. Sadly, teenagers abuse animals for fun, even though there certainly is nothing funny about what they have done. It is the exact opposite " stupidity, irrational and wrong!What should you do if you see someone abusing an animal? Call the police and try and write down as much information as you can, such as what the person looked like, the type of dog, the licence plate of the car, or the address. Do not try and intervene or you could get hurt as well. Always call the police, and they, with the SPCA, will come to help.

Opinion.Org

What would you do if you saw someone hurting an animal? Most of you probably would not know what you should REALLY do.Who in their right mind would abuse a poor defenseless cat or dog? Unfortunately, people of all ages abuse animals. This includes senior citizens, adults, teenagers and even children. Sadly, most animal abusers and killers are teenagers. Researchers say that violence against animals often represents displaced hostility and aggression stemming from neglect or abuse by some other family member. What that means is that if a child is abused, they are more likely to be an abuser of animals. Serious or repeated animal cruelty is seen more often in boys than girls. Associated characteristics of a child who abuses animals may include those who do poorly in school, have low self-esteem, few friends, and are bullies who may also be known for skipping school, damaging other peoples" property and have other bad behaviours.Adults who abuse animals may have grown up in an abusive home. Sometimes, during a divorce, one adult may take out their anger on their dog or cat, to get back at the other person. Others do it for no reason. Sadly, teenagers abuse animals for fun, even though there certainly is nothing funny about what they have done. It is the exact opposite " stupidity, irrational and wrong!What should you do if you see someone abusing an animal? Call the police and try and write down as much information as you can, such as what the person looked like, the type of dog, the licence plate of the car, or the address. Do not try and intervene or you could get hurt as well. Always call the police, and they, with the SPCA, will come to help.

Miscellaneous

Animal-abuse/7/

Animal experimentation should be illegal and frowned upon. It is unfortunate that many people are selfish enough to believe just because we are humans that we are the only ones that deserve to survive. Animals have a right to be treated with value. Injecting monkeys with AIDS and exposing certain other animals to toxic chemicals and radiation is unacceptable. MILLIONS of animals die each year because of experimentation. Not only because of the things that they are exposed to but because they were not adequately anesthetized or abused by the handlers of the experiment.

ashleymariet

Animal experimentation should be illegal and frowned upon. It is unfortunate that many people are selfish enough to believe just because we are humans that we are the only ones that deserve to survive. Animals have a right to be treated with value. Injecting monkeys with AIDS and exposing certain other animals to toxic chemicals and radiation is unacceptable. MILLIONS of animals die each year because of experimentation. Not only because of the things that they are exposed to but because they were not adequately anesthetized or abused by the handlers of the experiment.

Society

Animal-experimentation-for-the-benefit-of-humans./1/

I accept your debate and look forward to your response.

debatingequality

I accept your debate and look forward to your response.

Science

Animal-research-is-very-beneficial-and-not-that-bad/1/

First of all, I would like to state that I am new to this site. I extend my thanks to Daniyar for putting forward this stimulating topic, and accepting my input on the debate of this issue. I would also like to ask the community at large for leniency in view of my relative inexperience! As Daniyar says, this is both a contentious topic and there are few easy answers as to the right and wrong of it. I would first contend that to argue that a specific mode of research has previously provided vital and valuable information is meaningless in the context that most of this research has been undertaken with no other methodology available. Studies can be undertaken upon human cell cultures and engineered tissues, often at less cost than testing on animals. A company by the name of Pharmagene Laboratories in the UK utilises only tissue cultures and computer modelling in it's drug development and testing. ( <URL>... .) I put forth the argument that historically, animal testing was essential due to the lack of viable alternatives; the existence of this company shows that this is now no longer the case. Whether or not this is enough as a method to review a drug's effects on the entire system remains contested by those in favour of medical testing. The UK authorities and relevant boards however accept that this company meets stringent criteria for test safety. In short - I can be grateful to the animal tests of the past for the drugs they have provided us, without seeing a need for animal tests in the future. The next point would be to discuss the failures of animal testing. Animal physiology is not human physiology. The trial of TGN1412, an experimental drug intended to suppress immune system response, is a clear case in point. Despite extensive animal testing, the agent turned out to have an adverse and indeed almost lethal effect on humans ( <URL>... ). Aidsvax failed to protect human test volunteers, despite protecting chimpanzees ( <URL>... ). It has long been stated that animal testing can certainly be downright contradictory in the results it provides, as well as merely misleading. (Indeed, the previously referenced article highlights the uncertainty amongst UK medical professionals that animal testing indeed has clinical relevance). In Dr. Andrew Knight's 'The Costs And Benefits of Animal Experiments' it is stated that in a study of twenty randomly chosen cases, only two proved useful in further developing medicines and/or consistent with clinical trial data. Several additional reviews illustrated cases where adverse effects failed to predict negative effects through animal testing methods. ( <URL>... ) Then we may consider cost. The cost to rear, feed and maintain animal subjects is extremely high, as stated even by proponents of animal testing ( <URL>... ). Alternative methods are cheaper and thus less burdensome on the economy. In societies where governmental funding is provided for medical research, there is a corresponding lessened burden on the taxpayer. The ethical debate is also of primary concern here. No one would put forward the idea that testing on humans in the same manner would be acceptable. Yet animals evince 'intelligence' and quite certainly feel. Scientists have considered it possible to develop a universal intelligence test which animals could take ( <URL>... ) and have variously noted that even molluscs show signs of consciousness (New Scientist, 11th June 2011, p38 'A beautiful mind') and that signs of intelligence and indeed emotion are not wanting from animals (New Scientist, 2nd July 2011, p41 'Claws for Thought'). If someone were to put to me that a small number of humans should be experimented on for research purposes for 'the greater good', I would be adamant in my objection to the idea. The same argument still applies when referring to animals. Of course, I put my species and self-aware consciousness first. If there was a greater good to be achieved by harming animals , if animal research provided a humanitarian benefit, I would support it wholeheartedly. However, my previous arguments indicate that continued animal research is prolonging unnecessary suffering. It goes without saying that cosmetic testing on animals is completely abhorrent and unnecessary. The argument can be put forward for consideration that a great deal of continued experimentation exists because the structure of scientific society, even within ethical boards, is geared toward a psychological comfort with retaining familiar tests, rather than out of strict necessity. It can also be put forward that such experimentation continues because the traditional methods provide psychological comfort to scientists with an emotional investment in them, namely the avoidance of any discomfort they might feel if they were forced to concede that they had participated in acts of needless harm. These arguments are of course not possible to prove, but I feel they are nonetheless worth offering up for consideration. In UK law comprehensive regulations already limit the extent of permissible animal testing allowed in the laboratory, and is not acceptable unless it is believed that no other means of validating an experiment are available. In short, animal testing is already being phased out. It is my belief that as familiarity with new technologies increases and emotional attachments to animal testing falter, what would amount in practice to a ban would result in any case. Discussions of whether or not a complete, immediate ban is practical, I put it to the reader, are based on individual economic concerns with regards to jobs, as opposed to wider socio-economic concerns or research necessity. I conclude by reiterating my arguments as follows. Firstly, to congratulate animal testing on it's previous successes and therefore conclude that it is essential now is a failure of logic. Second, there exist viable alternatives to animal testing such that it is no longer a necessity for a commercial company to satisfy safety testing requirements. Third, the usefulness of testing with regards to the differences in animal and human physiology is in question amongst a large number of practicing medical professionals, and systemic investigations of such trials have shown that animal tests can be misleading and often do not go on to provide the same results in humans at clinical trial. Some indeed have proven harmful. Fourth, the ethics of testing on animals when they can be shown to have intelligence and awareness, if not equal to that of humans, is highly questionable when alternate methods exist. Fifth, there are arguments to be made as to the reasons for scientific 'clinginess' over animal testing in both review boards and the scientists offering up proposals for review. Finally, an immediate ban would not necessarily have a far-reaching negative impact in an economic sense, given the astronomical costs of animal testing as a whole. I respectfully submit these points for perusal, and await the response with interest.

dappleshade

First of all, I would like to state that I am new to this site. I extend my thanks to Daniyar for putting forward this stimulating topic, and accepting my input on the debate of this issue. I would also like to ask the community at large for leniency in view of my relative inexperience! As Daniyar says, this is both a contentious topic and there are few easy answers as to the right and wrong of it. I would first contend that to argue that a specific mode of research has previously provided vital and valuable information is meaningless in the context that most of this research has been undertaken with no other methodology available. Studies can be undertaken upon human cell cultures and engineered tissues, often at less cost than testing on animals. A company by the name of Pharmagene Laboratories in the UK utilises only tissue cultures and computer modelling in it's drug development and testing. ( http://www.newscientist.com... .) I put forth the argument that historically, animal testing was essential due to the lack of viable alternatives; the existence of this company shows that this is now no longer the case. Whether or not this is enough as a method to review a drug's effects on the entire system remains contested by those in favour of medical testing. The UK authorities and relevant boards however accept that this company meets stringent criteria for test safety. In short - I can be grateful to the animal tests of the past for the drugs they have provided us, without seeing a need for animal tests in the future. The next point would be to discuss the failures of animal testing. Animal physiology is not human physiology. The trial of TGN1412, an experimental drug intended to suppress immune system response, is a clear case in point. Despite extensive animal testing, the agent turned out to have an adverse and indeed almost lethal effect on humans ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ). Aidsvax failed to protect human test volunteers, despite protecting chimpanzees ( http://www.safermedicines.org... ). It has long been stated that animal testing can certainly be downright contradictory in the results it provides, as well as merely misleading. (Indeed, the previously referenced article highlights the uncertainty amongst UK medical professionals that animal testing indeed has clinical relevance). In Dr. Andrew Knight's 'The Costs And Benefits of Animal Experiments' it is stated that in a study of twenty randomly chosen cases, only two proved useful in further developing medicines and/or consistent with clinical trial data. Several additional reviews illustrated cases where adverse effects failed to predict negative effects through animal testing methods. ( http://www.newint.org... ) Then we may consider cost. The cost to rear, feed and maintain animal subjects is extremely high, as stated even by proponents of animal testing ( http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk... ). Alternative methods are cheaper and thus less burdensome on the economy. In societies where governmental funding is provided for medical research, there is a corresponding lessened burden on the taxpayer. The ethical debate is also of primary concern here. No one would put forward the idea that testing on humans in the same manner would be acceptable. Yet animals evince 'intelligence' and quite certainly feel. Scientists have considered it possible to develop a universal intelligence test which animals could take ( http://www.newscientist.com... ) and have variously noted that even molluscs show signs of consciousness (New Scientist, 11th June 2011, p38 'A beautiful mind') and that signs of intelligence and indeed emotion are not wanting from animals (New Scientist, 2nd July 2011, p41 'Claws for Thought'). If someone were to put to me that a small number of humans should be experimented on for research purposes for 'the greater good', I would be adamant in my objection to the idea. The same argument still applies when referring to animals. Of course, I put my species and self-aware consciousness first. If there was a greater good to be achieved by harming animals , if animal research provided a humanitarian benefit, I would support it wholeheartedly. However, my previous arguments indicate that continued animal research is prolonging unnecessary suffering. It goes without saying that cosmetic testing on animals is completely abhorrent and unnecessary. The argument can be put forward for consideration that a great deal of continued experimentation exists because the structure of scientific society, even within ethical boards, is geared toward a psychological comfort with retaining familiar tests, rather than out of strict necessity. It can also be put forward that such experimentation continues because the traditional methods provide psychological comfort to scientists with an emotional investment in them, namely the avoidance of any discomfort they might feel if they were forced to concede that they had participated in acts of needless harm. These arguments are of course not possible to prove, but I feel they are nonetheless worth offering up for consideration. In UK law comprehensive regulations already limit the extent of permissible animal testing allowed in the laboratory, and is not acceptable unless it is believed that no other means of validating an experiment are available. In short, animal testing is already being phased out. It is my belief that as familiarity with new technologies increases and emotional attachments to animal testing falter, what would amount in practice to a ban would result in any case. Discussions of whether or not a complete, immediate ban is practical, I put it to the reader, are based on individual economic concerns with regards to jobs, as opposed to wider socio-economic concerns or research necessity. I conclude by reiterating my arguments as follows. Firstly, to congratulate animal testing on it's previous successes and therefore conclude that it is essential now is a failure of logic. Second, there exist viable alternatives to animal testing such that it is no longer a necessity for a commercial company to satisfy safety testing requirements. Third, the usefulness of testing with regards to the differences in animal and human physiology is in question amongst a large number of practicing medical professionals, and systemic investigations of such trials have shown that animal tests can be misleading and often do not go on to provide the same results in humans at clinical trial. Some indeed have proven harmful. Fourth, the ethics of testing on animals when they can be shown to have intelligence and awareness, if not equal to that of humans, is highly questionable when alternate methods exist. Fifth, there are arguments to be made as to the reasons for scientific 'clinginess' over animal testing in both review boards and the scientists offering up proposals for review. Finally, an immediate ban would not necessarily have a far-reaching negative impact in an economic sense, given the astronomical costs of animal testing as a whole. I respectfully submit these points for perusal, and await the response with interest.

Science

Animal-testing-should-be-banned/1/

Once again, I would like to thank Daniyar for opening this debate, and agree once again that this is by no means a clear cut issue! Animal transplants are not really in the purview of testing drugs on animals, and I feel that this argument is therefore a deviation from topic. The case that Daniyar makes in favor of xenotransplantation can most certainly be refuted, however, as follows. The case for xenotransplantation stems from the unfortunate shortfall between the number of patients requiring organ transplants for medical reasons and the number of healthy human organs available. However, there remain significant difficulties with regards to the actual process. Firstly, animal tissues age more readily than humans, meaning that even a successful transplant would likely need replacing, along with repeated costly surgery. Along with the inherent difficulties in avoiding cross-species disease transmission, physiological differences - including size, natural body temperature, and function - it is a fact that so far to date xenotransplantation has rarely been successful due to cellular or immune rejection of the foreign organ. ( <URL>... ). I contend that this methodology had the potential to be useful as an interim stop-gap due to shortages but that research into this will shortly be outstripped by the far more useful in-vitro organ culture ( <URL>... ). Since viable organs have already been grown by this method and transplanted successfully into humans, and since there is no need to overcome the vast problems with xenotransplantation (organ rejection, the vast expense entailed in genetic modification of a species, multiple operations due to aging and so on) as the organ can be grown from the patient's own cells, it is likely that of the two techniques organ culture will prove more viable, less expensive and more ethical. Moving on. Millions of animals are indeed killed for food, used for agriculture and culled. Using animals to save human lives would indeed be a fair use of them, but I must contend first and foremost two points. Firstly, it is certainly not conclusively agreed upon by any means that the slaughter of animals for food is ethical either ( <URL>... ) especially when it is not necessary - the American Dietetic Association has stated that a well-prepared vegetarian diet is not only nutritionally sufficient but may even have nutritional benefits ( <URL>... ). Therefore, to contend that 'animals are slaughtered for food, therefore animal testing and transplantation is acceptable' is in error. Secondly, the labour and culling of animals is strictly regulated in many countries to support the rights of animals and is generally deemed appropriate only when a) avoiding unnecessary cruelty and b) a necessity of itself due to economic need or dangers due to disease. I contend that animal testing fails in both of these criteria due to the presence of alternatives. Daniyar states that "Advocates of animal testing say that, outcomes of testing on animals are the most credible. The proportion of successful cases goes beyond 70%." I contend that Daniyar must provide a source in support of this and provide once again my own counter to this argument, the source provided in my opening statements ( <URL>... ...). Once again, it is also stated that 'due to experiments on animals medicine made a big step forward'. Again, I repeat my objection that to state that 'experiments on animals were of use in an era without alternatives, therefore they remain necessary now' is a logical fallacy. I draw to a close by reiterating that xenotransplantation is by no means the most viable option forward for transplantation and even as a stop-gap measure should the technology become readily available first, which I doubt, it would shortly be replaced by a more humane, cheaper and ultimately safer scientific means. Moreover, the use of animals for nutrition or labour purposes does not constitute a good supporting argument for the ethicality or necessity of animal testing or xenotranplantation. Finally, once again I contend that the previous successes of animal testing, when placed in context in a society with improved alternatives available, do not constitute support for the need for animal testing in this day and age. I await with interest Daniyar's response and once again offer my thanks for this intriguing and stimulating debate.

dappleshade

Once again, I would like to thank Daniyar for opening this debate, and agree once again that this is by no means a clear cut issue! Animal transplants are not really in the purview of testing drugs on animals, and I feel that this argument is therefore a deviation from topic. The case that Daniyar makes in favor of xenotransplantation can most certainly be refuted, however, as follows. The case for xenotransplantation stems from the unfortunate shortfall between the number of patients requiring organ transplants for medical reasons and the number of healthy human organs available. However, there remain significant difficulties with regards to the actual process. Firstly, animal tissues age more readily than humans, meaning that even a successful transplant would likely need replacing, along with repeated costly surgery. Along with the inherent difficulties in avoiding cross-species disease transmission, physiological differences - including size, natural body temperature, and function - it is a fact that so far to date xenotransplantation has rarely been successful due to cellular or immune rejection of the foreign organ. ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ). I contend that this methodology had the potential to be useful as an interim stop-gap due to shortages but that research into this will shortly be outstripped by the far more useful in-vitro organ culture ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ). Since viable organs have already been grown by this method and transplanted successfully into humans, and since there is no need to overcome the vast problems with xenotransplantation (organ rejection, the vast expense entailed in genetic modification of a species, multiple operations due to aging and so on) as the organ can be grown from the patient's own cells, it is likely that of the two techniques organ culture will prove more viable, less expensive and more ethical. Moving on. Millions of animals are indeed killed for food, used for agriculture and culled. Using animals to save human lives would indeed be a fair use of them, but I must contend first and foremost two points. Firstly, it is certainly not conclusively agreed upon by any means that the slaughter of animals for food is ethical either ( http://www.veganoutreach.org... ) especially when it is not necessary - the American Dietetic Association has stated that a well-prepared vegetarian diet is not only nutritionally sufficient but may even have nutritional benefits ( http://www.eatright.org... ). Therefore, to contend that 'animals are slaughtered for food, therefore animal testing and transplantation is acceptable' is in error. Secondly, the labour and culling of animals is strictly regulated in many countries to support the rights of animals and is generally deemed appropriate only when a) avoiding unnecessary cruelty and b) a necessity of itself due to economic need or dangers due to disease. I contend that animal testing fails in both of these criteria due to the presence of alternatives. Daniyar states that "Advocates of animal testing say that, outcomes of testing on animals are the most credible. The proportion of successful cases goes beyond 70%." I contend that Daniyar must provide a source in support of this and provide once again my own counter to this argument, the source provided in my opening statements ( http://www.newint.org... ...). Once again, it is also stated that 'due to experiments on animals medicine made a big step forward'. Again, I repeat my objection that to state that 'experiments on animals were of use in an era without alternatives, therefore they remain necessary now' is a logical fallacy. I draw to a close by reiterating that xenotransplantation is by no means the most viable option forward for transplantation and even as a stop-gap measure should the technology become readily available first, which I doubt, it would shortly be replaced by a more humane, cheaper and ultimately safer scientific means. Moreover, the use of animals for nutrition or labour purposes does not constitute a good supporting argument for the ethicality or necessity of animal testing or xenotranplantation. Finally, once again I contend that the previous successes of animal testing, when placed in context in a society with improved alternatives available, do not constitute support for the need for animal testing in this day and age. I await with interest Daniyar's response and once again offer my thanks for this intriguing and stimulating debate.

Science

Animal-testing-should-be-banned/1/

The resolution is that animals are kept in prisons when kept in zoos. The definition of prison according to Merriam-Webster is "a building (or vessel) in which people are legally held as a punishment for crimes they have committed or while awaiting trial." We do not put animals in zoos for breaking the law; therefore, the resolution is false. Words mean things. You can't just throw them around to make statements more extreme.

Jonbonbon

The resolution is that animals are kept in prisons when kept in zoos. The definition of prison according to Merriam-Webster is "a building (or vessel) in which people are legally held as a punishment for crimes they have committed or while awaiting trial." We do not put animals in zoos for breaking the law; therefore, the resolution is false. Words mean things. You can't just throw them around to make statements more extreme.

Entertainment

Animals-in-a-zoo-are-in-bleak-prisons./1/

Well in that case this is totally debatable. I will be taking the side that animals in zoos are not in bleak prisons. For my first card of evidence, I would like to present this picture of a peacock enjoying his zoo <URL>... And of course, how could we ignore the rancor in his natural habitat here at the zoo? <URL>... The simple fact is that zoos are not prisons. They don't keep animals captive. Here we see an animal enjoying his freedom to come and go from the zoo <URL>... My basic point is that animals are not captives at zoos. They're free animals that stay there by choice. Here's the history behind zoos. They were originally created as houses that animals could come and go from, and people from the village could look at the animals and pet them. This is a picture from back in those days. It's the only surviving picture of the original zoo we have: <URL>... Zoos started to spread throughout the country, and they were keeping all sorts of animals safe and fed. The animals and humans had a wonderful relationship with each other. Beast and man were best friend <URL>... Then one day, the animals got tired of being observed by humans. Rumors started to spread that animals were going to be hunted at these zoos despite the promise of protection. The animals were quiet for a long time, but one day war broke out. These are some of the remaining pictures of the war: <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... So the zoos had the make a change in the way they did things. They put fences around the animals and put them in cages. It was for everyone's protection. Animals, however, we're not captives. They were given a proper escape plan on case they did not want to be there. Here is the great boa constrictor escaping: <URL>... Modern day, the animals do have an illusion of captivity, but they are not captive. They are completely free to leave whenever they want. They just have decided not to open up war on humanity and leave their cages. If humans were to provoke them, however, total war could break out again.

Jonbonbon

Well in that case this is totally debatable. I will be taking the side that animals in zoos are not in bleak prisons. For my first card of evidence, I would like to present this picture of a peacock enjoying his zoo http://1.bp.blogspot.com... And of course, how could we ignore the rancor in his natural habitat here at the zoo? http://www.geekalerts.com... The simple fact is that zoos are not prisons. They don't keep animals captive. Here we see an animal enjoying his freedom to come and go from the zoo https://lh3.googleusercontent.com... My basic point is that animals are not captives at zoos. They're free animals that stay there by choice. Here's the history behind zoos. They were originally created as houses that animals could come and go from, and people from the village could look at the animals and pet them. This is a picture from back in those days. It's the only surviving picture of the original zoo we have: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com... Zoos started to spread throughout the country, and they were keeping all sorts of animals safe and fed. The animals and humans had a wonderful relationship with each other. Beast and man were best friend http://3.bp.blogspot.com... Then one day, the animals got tired of being observed by humans. Rumors started to spread that animals were going to be hunted at these zoos despite the promise of protection. The animals were quiet for a long time, but one day war broke out. These are some of the remaining pictures of the war: http://1.bp.blogspot.com... http://haveyounerd.files.wordpress.com... http://blog.nuraypictures.com... http://4.bp.blogspot.com... So the zoos had the make a change in the way they did things. They put fences around the animals and put them in cages. It was for everyone's protection. Animals, however, we're not captives. They were given a proper escape plan on case they did not want to be there. Here is the great boa constrictor escaping: http://switchboard.nrdc.org... Modern day, the animals do have an illusion of captivity, but they are not captive. They are completely free to leave whenever they want. They just have decided not to open up war on humanity and leave their cages. If humans were to provoke them, however, total war could break out again.

Entertainment

Animals-in-a-zoo-are-in-bleak-prisons./1/

My arguments have been up refuted. I have given a detailed history and explanation of the zoos behind the scenes. My opponent has provided you with nothing. I ask you all to vote in my favor.

Jonbonbon

My arguments have been up refuted. I have given a detailed history and explanation of the zoos behind the scenes. My opponent has provided you with nothing. I ask you all to vote in my favor.

Entertainment

Animals-in-a-zoo-are-in-bleak-prisons./1/

Is a zoo really a prison, just for animals? A prison is any place of confinement or involuntary restraint. Are animals in a zoo being restrained? Stuck in a cage and put on a schedule. Can a zoo really say that they are helping these animals? Or are they stripping them of learning on there on? A legitimate zoo is a place of conservation, running breeding programs to reintroduce threatened species back into their natural habitats. A zoo helps rebreed endangered animals. Zoos have become the last refuge for many species. They are managed by the leading professionals in wildlife and zoological fields. Conserving, protecting and studying endangered and threatened species and the places they inhabit, most facilities work united. A zoo also plays a role in environmental education. However, the word zoo means an establishment, stationary or mobile, that maintains a collection of wild animals that are kept for exhibition for study, conservation and display to the public. Though being taken well care of, the animals are forced to maintain in a small area for a very long time. Unlike a rescue center, a zoo doesn't let the animals go back to being free. Most animals start of in a zoo as babies and are too adapted to be set free. Other animals are forced to adapt to an enclosed environment and put on a strict schedule. Many animals in a zoo die from diseases only found in captivity. Some animals also suffer from zoochosis, which a psychological problem associated with animals that are kept in prolonged captivity. They are secluded away from normal animals that they will normally see in the wild. Animals that are born in a zoo don't have the ability to learn how to hunt and gather food on their own. In conclusion animals are being taken away from their natural habitat and put in cages and behind glass, like a common criminal. To be put on a schedule, become secluded, and surrounded by strange people. In my opinion an animals are in a bleak prison.

kspears11

Is a zoo really a prison, just for animals? A prison is any place of confinement or involuntary restraint. Are animals in a zoo being restrained? Stuck in a cage and put on a schedule. Can a zoo really say that they are helping these animals? Or are they stripping them of learning on there on? A legitimate zoo is a place of conservation, running breeding programs to reintroduce threatened species back into their natural habitats. A zoo helps rebreed endangered animals. Zoos have become the last refuge for many species. They are managed by the leading professionals in wildlife and zoological fields. Conserving, protecting and studying endangered and threatened species and the places they inhabit, most facilities work united. A zoo also plays a role in environmental education. However, the word zoo means an establishment, stationary or mobile, that maintains a collection of wild animals that are kept for exhibition for study, conservation and display to the public. Though being taken well care of, the animals are forced to maintain in a small area for a very long time. Unlike a rescue center, a zoo doesn’t let the animals go back to being free. Most animals start of in a zoo as babies and are too adapted to be set free. Other animals are forced to adapt to an enclosed environment and put on a strict schedule. Many animals in a zoo die from diseases only found in captivity. Some animals also suffer from zoochosis, which a psychological problem associated with animals that are kept in prolonged captivity. They are secluded away from normal animals that they will normally see in the wild. Animals that are born in a zoo don’t have the ability to learn how to hunt and gather food on their own. In conclusion animals are being taken away from their natural habitat and put in cages and behind glass, like a common criminal. To be put on a schedule, become secluded, and surrounded by strange people. In my opinion an animals are in a bleak prison.

Entertainment

Animals-in-a-zoo-are-in-bleak-prisons./1/

In the Merriam-Webster dictionary it also states that the word prison as a noun means a state of confinement or captivity. Key word captivity. I did look the word prison up multiple times before I used the word.

kspears11

In the Merriam-Webster dictionary it also states that the word prison as a noun means a state of confinement or captivity. Key word captivity. I did look the word prison up multiple times before I used the word.

Entertainment

Animals-in-a-zoo-are-in-bleak-prisons./1/

Maybe their free to run around the zoo but not beyond that. Wild animals crave blood. They are taken from their natural habitats and put in cages to be seen by other people as entertainment and for study.

kspears11

Maybe their free to run around the zoo but not beyond that. Wild animals crave blood. They are taken from their natural habitats and put in cages to be seen by other people as entertainment and for study.

Entertainment

Animals-in-a-zoo-are-in-bleak-prisons./1/

<URL>... Battle Cry Samurai Champloo

rockcityboy

https://www.youtube.com... Battle Cry Samurai Champloo

Entertainment

Anime-Music-battle-2/1/

My opponent has failed to give a song that is anime. <URL>...

rockcityboy

My opponent has failed to give a song that is anime. https://www.youtube.com...

Entertainment

Anime-Music-battle-2/1/

Do I even need to post?

rockcityboy

Do I even need to post?

Entertainment

Anime-Music-battle-2/1/

I assert that cartoons are equally good, if not better, than animes. Please make your case PRO.

Cotton_Candy

I assert that cartoons are equally good, if not better, than animes. Please make your case PRO.

Entertainment

Anime-is-better-than-cartoons/2/

I assert that cartoons are just as good as anime if not better. I will make my case by rebutting PRO's arguments. " Its life for me. anime has a much more story and life to it which doesn't make it too much super natural" That argument is rather opinionated, I request you to make it objective. "Cartoons are too obvious and supernatural." That's just a claim that doesn't have any grounnd. " anime is watched by kids and adults too." And so are cartoons. They are entertaining and give you a good laugh.

Cotton_Candy

I assert that cartoons are just as good as anime if not better. I will make my case by rebutting PRO's arguments. " Its life for me. anime has a much more story and life to it which doesn't make it too much super natural" That argument is rather opinionated, I request you to make it objective. "Cartoons are too obvious and supernatural." That's just a claim that doesn't have any grounnd. " anime is watched by kids and adults too." And so are cartoons. They are entertaining and give you a good laugh.

Entertainment

Anime-is-better-than-cartoons/2/

My opponent has not posted any arguments that support his case, hence essentially the resolution has been negated. Vote CON

Cotton_Candy

My opponent has not posted any arguments that support his case, hence essentially the resolution has been negated. Vote CON

Entertainment

Anime-is-better-than-cartoons/2/

Anime is different that cartoon; it is an inspiration. Anime is created from Manga while Cartoons are created from comics and the likes. Even though Manga and Comics are the similar, manga is black and while most of the time. Whereas comics is full blown colour. Therefore, Anime is different from cartoons because anime is a Japanese icon and is not full-blown colour most of the time.

NzmAnhDee

Anime is different that cartoon; it is an inspiration. Anime is created from Manga while Cartoons are created from comics and the likes. Even though Manga and Comics are the similar, manga is black and while most of the time. Whereas comics is full blown colour. Therefore, Anime is different from cartoons because anime is a Japanese icon and is not full-blown colour most of the time.

Entertainment

Anime-is-different-than-cartoons./1/

Based on the arguments I made above, it is completely false. Comics and Manga uses the same kind of system; each draws its own ideas from reality and the likes. They maybe country different, but all in all, the methods are the same. Comics can also be black and white as shown in the page " <URL>... ; The authors proves that comic can also be black and white because some authors are too lazy to colour it. Cartoon comes from Comic, Animes come from manga. The market of the total amount of people who read comic and manga in the world is the same; that is also true with comics. Cartoon is the English word for manga. So, Anime and Cartoons are the same; they are both coloured. And their drawings-mangas and comics- are black and white

NzmAnhDee

Based on the arguments I made above, it is completely false. Comics and Manga uses the same kind of system; each draws its own ideas from reality and the likes. They maybe country different, but all in all, the methods are the same. Comics can also be black and white as shown in the page " http://comicvine.gamespot.com... ; The authors proves that comic can also be black and white because some authors are too lazy to colour it. Cartoon comes from Comic, Animes come from manga. The market of the total amount of people who read comic and manga in the world is the same; that is also true with comics. Cartoon is the English word for manga. So, Anime and Cartoons are the same; they are both coloured. And their drawings-mangas and comics- are black and white

Entertainment

Anime-is-different-than-cartoons./1/

They are drawn similarly for humans draw them. Art comes from one origin, humans. So does Animes and Cartoons, Humans made them, therefore, they are the same. Cartoons are the precursor to Anime, have you seen the drawings; rough. They are practically the same.

NzmAnhDee

They are drawn similarly for humans draw them. Art comes from one origin, humans. So does Animes and Cartoons, Humans made them, therefore, they are the same. Cartoons are the precursor to Anime, have you seen the drawings; rough. They are practically the same.

Entertainment

Anime-is-different-than-cartoons./1/

Anime is different. It s drawn differently than cartoons.

heywil2

Anime is different. It s drawn differently than cartoons.

Entertainment

Anime-is-different-than-cartoons./1/

um... just saying, you are on the wrong side.

heywil2

um... just saying, you are on the wrong side.

Entertainment

Anime-is-different-than-cartoons./1/

Anime is a differently drawn art, and with different styles and different origins. Ex: Tom and Jerry, compared with Naruto. Cartoons are drawn different. Anime needs different skills. Look at the pic.

heywil2

Anime is a differently drawn art, and with different styles and different origins. Ex: Tom and Jerry, compared with Naruto. Cartoons are drawn different. Anime needs different skills. Look at the pic.

Entertainment

Anime-is-different-than-cartoons./1/

Accepted. INTENTIONS: 1. My knowledge on anime is limited to very few T.V. shows, and comic books. For all intensive purposes, I am willing to do research on any anime saga that my opponent brings up in this debate however. My intention is that the reader overlook my in-experience with a lot of anime, as I will be attempting to do this debate through principals, and personal philosophies, etc. 2. In accordance to this debate tying around elective classes, I will try to focus my arguments a little more on neccesities, and try to hash out problems that some current schooling systems may have. My intention is for the audience to realize that my position shouldn't be assumed that I currently agree with all of the trending schooling functions (I know alot of schools offer other silly classes such as "study of middle earth" etc. I look forward to this debate, and wish you good luck Roy! My appolagies for such a long wait. Your definitions seem fine to me. I have no definitions as of this time, as I hope this debate's purpose is clear enough that there won't be such definitional problems here-in the debate.

TUF

Accepted. INTENTIONS: 1. My knowledge on anime is limited to very few T.V. shows, and comic books. For all intensive purposes, I am willing to do research on any anime saga that my opponent brings up in this debate however. My intention is that the reader overlook my in-experience with a lot of anime, as I will be attempting to do this debate through principals, and personal philosophies, etc. 2. In accordance to this debate tying around elective classes, I will try to focus my arguments a little more on neccesities, and try to hash out problems that some current schooling systems may have. My intention is for the audience to realize that my position shouldn't be assumed that I currently agree with all of the trending schooling functions (I know alot of schools offer other silly classes such as "study of middle earth" etc. I look forward to this debate, and wish you good luck Roy! My appolagies for such a long wait. Your definitions seem fine to me. I have no definitions as of this time, as I hope this debate's purpose is clear enough that there won't be such definitional problems here-in the debate.

Education

Anime-studies-should-be-offered-in-American-high-schools/2/

Anime, in the world today, is quite a blissful way for youth to enjoy themselves, and find a great amount of entertainment. I myself, have found myself intricate in some Anime throughout my youth. But should it be taught in schools? The suggested course name for this hypothetical class is "Anime studies", which seems to suggest or imply that the students would be learning first hand, the meanings and concepts that are portrayed in these anime saga's. My purpose in this debate, is not to undermine anime, or the fact that Anime can be meaningful, insightful, or even philosophically intrinsic, but that it overall, will be more of a detriment in the schooling systems than it would be a benefit. Most of my case will be a Rebuttal to Roy's, but for the sake of being professional, I will go over Roy's point individually (though briefly, so as not to repeat myself). REBUTTALS : 1. Anime takes Youth Seriously. My opponent makes a point to the themes and purposes of Japanese based anime, that the concepts of an anime can help teach youth. He uses examples of respect for elders, even though they are sometimes odd. My tack on this example is, that as a youth who is supposed to not only respect their elders, but learn from them as well, will this type of Anime really influence someone to do good? "Our children are watching us live, and what we ARE shouts louder than anything we can say." - Wilferd A. Peterson This Quote supports the argument that children learn from their superiors. According to a study done by the university of Chicago, called the Journey to Abnormal Psychology, " Social skills can be interpreted as everything from the basic polite "please" and "thank you" to speaking in front of crowds." <URL>... <URL>... If the message that these anime's are giving to students revolves around stealing woman's underwear, is the impact of studying this in schools really going to be beneficial? While this is a minor point, The main thing I am trying to get across here, is that while an Anime may have theme's and concepts that people can interpret as good, does it overall serve us to teach them in school? If we wanted to be technical, we could play a porno in schools, using the excuse that it is artistic way to show how people have to choose between true love, and family betrayal, when a young woman is having a sexual affair with her father. We can look into any anime, and find important concepts, but are the youths really focusing on this aspect of the Anime, or the entertainment value of the anime? 2. A Hypermodern society This point is kind of a blunt, context-less way of saying that Japanese anime is a futuristic. However, I am kind at a loss for a rebuttal to this, as it lacks an impact on the benefit this type of anime brings to schools. Not only do literature classes in school use modern, or futuristic context such as a Brave New World, The giver, 1984, Fahrenheit 451, and even the hunger games (as silly as it sounds, yes they are reading it in schools), but they also have their own subjective philosophic value to schools. Shakespeare isn't the only thing taught in schools. I am not going to go into much detail, because my case will touch more on my impact. However, older text's such as Shakespeare, are taught to give students a better understanding of where alot of our literature originates from. <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... 3. Anime and Religion I have no doubt that anime has an impact on religion. For the purpose of clarity, however, what's focus on the importance level of religious aspects being taught in schools. It is my intention to stand by that religious merits, and philosophical beliefs should be kept on a students own time, rather than being gleamed in schools. I stand, that elective classes teaching such religious material, should be taken out of schools, as they can be pursued on a students own time. 4. Multi-Culturalism To me this point seems a little redundant. If we want to study Japanese Culture, can students not take other classes that prioritize a bit more in the bigger cultural aspects of Japan? From one World Studies Course, a student can learn the major principles of Japanese Culture, and other countries as well, while Anime may focus on one specific culture aspect, and devote it's entire saga to that principle alone. I agree completely with Roy, that things can be taken out of the curriculum to make space for something else. But is anime really what we should be substituting it with? MY CASE: Contention 1: The problem with the current schooling system. Before I can address the harms of anime in a schooling system, I have to in-corporate my position on what the flaws of the current system are. So I ask the question: What is the purpose of school? While many different schools have many different mission statements, the overall underlying aspects of school can be collectively agreed on that Civic, Emotional, Cognitive, Vocational, and Social Development. In addition to this, schooling can best be attributed to how it can best best progress, or incorporate skills into a students life, that can better help them be successful later in there own careers. <URL>... Do current schooling systems support these above values? Some do, some don't. Granted, not all schooling systems are flawless, most could definitely use improvement. So we must consider the value of specific classes to a students development. Students have a lot of stress as it is in trying to meet the graduation requirements. Three years of English Two years of mathematics (including Algebra I) Three years of social science (including U.S. history and geography; world history, culture, and geography; one semester of American government; and one semester of economics) Two years of science (including biology and physical science) Two years of physical education One year of foreign language or visual and performing arts <URL>... Not only do students have to worry about failing and restarting classes, but they also have to worry about the effect that studying on their own time will accost them. While some of the more go-getter's can achieve 4.0's and still manage to succeed in these areas, what curricular classes should they explore on their own time? Does it benefit a school to give classes that people seek out for mere entertainment purposes only? Not only would the school have to pour the limited use of government money into classes, that can benefit the school no more than an adding entertainment value to a students life. A class on the art of video games can be just as equally interesting as a class on anime studies, however should it be used in the same school hours that students need to gain the skills listed above? These types of interested are better pursued in their own time, or in college, when a student has their entire life to pursue their own career goals. Contention 2: Priority of classes Tying into point in C1, What type of electives should be offered? The American schooling systems should weigh the principles of importance of classes when it comes to distribution of government resources. In accordance with my opponents point about cutting down curriculum, maybe we cold cut some of the more useless classes, an add in courses that could better benefit the student in their futures. Hands on classes, things that deal with real world applications, etc. American Finance, is an elective class. But shouldn't learning how to stay financially healthy be more important than learning how to write an essay? I love anime, and people should definitely get into it if they want some good entertainment. But is watching Sanosuke get his butt kicked going to benefit someone's education?

TUF

Anime, in the world today, is quite a blissful way for youth to enjoy themselves, and find a great amount of entertainment. I myself, have found myself intricate in some Anime throughout my youth. But should it be taught in schools? The suggested course name for this hypothetical class is "Anime studies", which seems to suggest or imply that the students would be learning first hand, the meanings and concepts that are portrayed in these anime saga's. My purpose in this debate, is not to undermine anime, or the fact that Anime can be meaningful, insightful, or even philosophically intrinsic, but that it overall, will be more of a detriment in the schooling systems than it would be a benefit. Most of my case will be a Rebuttal to Roy's, but for the sake of being professional, I will go over Roy's point individually (though briefly, so as not to repeat myself). REBUTTALS : 1. Anime takes Youth Seriously. My opponent makes a point to the themes and purposes of Japanese based anime, that the concepts of an anime can help teach youth. He uses examples of respect for elders, even though they are sometimes odd. My tack on this example is, that as a youth who is supposed to not only respect their elders, but learn from them as well, will this type of Anime really influence someone to do good? "Our children are watching us live, and what we ARE shouts louder than anything we can say." - Wilferd A. Peterson This Quote supports the argument that children learn from their superiors. According to a study done by the university of Chicago, called the Journey to Abnormal Psychology, " Social skills can be interpreted as everything from the basic polite "please" and "thank you" to speaking in front of crowds." http://www.livestrong.com... http://www.apa.org... If the message that these anime's are giving to students revolves around stealing woman's underwear, is the impact of studying this in schools really going to be beneficial? While this is a minor point, The main thing I am trying to get across here, is that while an Anime may have theme's and concepts that people can interpret as good, does it overall serve us to teach them in school? If we wanted to be technical, we could play a porno in schools, using the excuse that it is artistic way to show how people have to choose between true love, and family betrayal, when a young woman is having a sexual affair with her father. We can look into any anime, and find important concepts, but are the youths really focusing on this aspect of the Anime, or the entertainment value of the anime? 2. A Hypermodern society This point is kind of a blunt, context-less way of saying that Japanese anime is a futuristic. However, I am kind at a loss for a rebuttal to this, as it lacks an impact on the benefit this type of anime brings to schools. Not only do literature classes in school use modern, or futuristic context such as a Brave New World, The giver, 1984, Fahrenheit 451, and even the hunger games (as silly as it sounds, yes they are reading it in schools), but they also have their own subjective philosophic value to schools. Shakespeare isn't the only thing taught in schools. I am not going to go into much detail, because my case will touch more on my impact. However, older text's such as Shakespeare, are taught to give students a better understanding of where alot of our literature originates from. http://www.shmoop.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. Anime and Religion I have no doubt that anime has an impact on religion. For the purpose of clarity, however, what's focus on the importance level of religious aspects being taught in schools. It is my intention to stand by that religious merits, and philosophical beliefs should be kept on a students own time, rather than being gleamed in schools. I stand, that elective classes teaching such religious material, should be taken out of schools, as they can be pursued on a students own time. 4. Multi-Culturalism To me this point seems a little redundant. If we want to study Japanese Culture, can students not take other classes that prioritize a bit more in the bigger cultural aspects of Japan? From one World Studies Course, a student can learn the major principles of Japanese Culture, and other countries as well, while Anime may focus on one specific culture aspect, and devote it's entire saga to that principle alone. I agree completely with Roy, that things can be taken out of the curriculum to make space for something else. But is anime really what we should be substituting it with? MY CASE: Contention 1: The problem with the current schooling system. Before I can address the harms of anime in a schooling system, I have to in-corporate my position on what the flaws of the current system are. So I ask the question: What is the purpose of school? While many different schools have many different mission statements, the overall underlying aspects of school can be collectively agreed on that Civic, Emotional, Cognitive, Vocational, and Social Development. In addition to this, schooling can best be attributed to how it can best best progress, or incorporate skills into a students life, that can better help them be successful later in there own careers. http://www.purposeofschool.com... Do current schooling systems support these above values? Some do, some don't. Granted, not all schooling systems are flawless, most could definitely use improvement. So we must consider the value of specific classes to a students development. Students have a lot of stress as it is in trying to meet the graduation requirements. Three years of English Two years of mathematics (including Algebra I) Three years of social science (including U.S. history and geography; world history, culture, and geography; one semester of American government; and one semester of economics) Two years of science (including biology and physical science) Two years of physical education One year of foreign language or visual and performing arts http://www.cde.ca.gov... Not only do students have to worry about failing and restarting classes, but they also have to worry about the effect that studying on their own time will accost them. While some of the more go-getter's can achieve 4.0's and still manage to succeed in these areas, what curricular classes should they explore on their own time? Does it benefit a school to give classes that people seek out for mere entertainment purposes only? Not only would the school have to pour the limited use of government money into classes, that can benefit the school no more than an adding entertainment value to a students life. A class on the art of video games can be just as equally interesting as a class on anime studies, however should it be used in the same school hours that students need to gain the skills listed above? These types of interested are better pursued in their own time, or in college, when a student has their entire life to pursue their own career goals. Contention 2: Priority of classes Tying into point in C1, What type of electives should be offered? The American schooling systems should weigh the principles of importance of classes when it comes to distribution of government resources. In accordance with my opponents point about cutting down curriculum, maybe we cold cut some of the more useless classes, an add in courses that could better benefit the student in their futures. Hands on classes, things that deal with real world applications, etc. American Finance, is an elective class. But shouldn't learning how to stay financially healthy be more important than learning how to write an essay? I love anime, and people should definitely get into it if they want some good entertainment. But is watching Sanosuke get his butt kicked going to benefit someone's education?

Education

Anime-studies-should-be-offered-in-American-high-schools/2/

REBUTTALS: Purpose My oppoenent made a point to the purpose of Anime, being to provide alternative ways of looking at problems. I am going to refute this with realism. When a teenager watches an Anime, what are they getting from the Anime? Are they looking at the art in the Anime (which by all means, I am not saying isn't there), or are they looking for the comedy, action, or the drama? Let's face it, Anime's in the form of TV shows, and Comic books are meant for entertainment purposes only. They are marketed for entertainment purposes. And ultimately that is what these students care about. Yes there are similar filler classes to Anime studies (like film studies for a prime example), that could essentially say the same thing. While yes, there are students who will milk the class for entertainment, and there are also students who will actually gain something out of it, I tie priority back to this. Aren't there better classes that students can gain this same type of exposure to, that are probably a little bit more beneficial to their education? Point is, everything has to do with entertainment value. The history channel is a prime example of how something meant to be a learning source, was manipulated into entertainment disguised under a learning gesture (IE aliens, and bigfoot). " We want subjects that inspire students to want to learn " The problem is that the type of students who take this class, ware going to be taking it for other reasons. Students will see this type of a class as a relaxing way to pursue their own interests, and be entertained. Does passing or failing this class matter to a student? Will it effect their graduation? Probably not. No one is going to look at a student taking anime classes in high school for a job application, rather than a student who took Financial Literature in the extra curricular activities. 1. Taking youth seriously. Just to clear up the point on Ramna, My general question is this: While teenagers may or may not replicate his actions, what inherant benefit do students gain from watching this is an educational environment? I mean yes, you can find a way to twist some sort of value on to it, (as you can with nearly anything, see my point on the porno) but overall are kids going to learn something from Ramna, or just laugh and continue on the inevitable high school immaturity that is sure to follow the viewing of the video? Again realism. Are high school students really going to care anout the respecting elders just because some fictional characters in a cartoon do? 2. Hypermodern Society I find this kind of a rather low impact point, as I pointed out initially, however I the there was a thought or two that may have been mis-contrued. I am not trying to compare and contrast current commonly studied literature to Anime. The point of the examples was to prove that we already had similar stuff to that, in contention to my opponent's thought's that Shakespeare was outdated. Anyways I am having a hard time finding the significant importance to how justify how a human loving a robot is justification for an entire Anime class to be taught in high school. Is it worth the money, the cutting out of curriculum, and is there benefit to the class enough to support hosting a class like this? I think not. 3. Anime and Religion My opponent asked why I believe religion is not beneficial in schools, so I will briefly elaborate. As I explained in R2, The main purpose of school is to set a student up for a future in the following categories I provided, and sourced. But how does teaching religion benefit students? My opponent talks about cutting out classes to make room for classes like Anime studies. But why would it be a wise decision for a school to cut out classes, for something that can better easily be taught at a free religious organiztion on the students own time? Why hire teachers, pay for the course, and subject students to something that is faith based? School should deal with facts, not popular opinions, as it is the best way to progress a student's education. That aside, the connection between anime and religion being beneficial to school is missing to me. Even if anime and religion tie together, why does that make it an important class for high schoolers? 4. Multi-Culturism Again, we are talking about how the japanese cultures expodentially helps students make better choices, and live a better lfestyle. You are advocating that learning more about the japanese lifestyle is beneficial to High school Students, and I couldn't agree more. But what does Anime focus on that shows significant realistic Japanse culture? You say that it is beneficial so that studens can understand moral choices and see things from a futristic fictional fanbase (say that 3 times fast) idea of what a culture should be like. But the Beautiful dreamer, while definitely interesting, doesn't seem to answer my question of: Why this opposed to a world studies class? Couldn't this world studies class do everthying the anime classes would supposedly do, but more? I understand that there are benefits to really understanding Anime as a means of self pursuing interest, in the inevitable free time you cna spend watching this, but is what can be learned and derived from anime really enough to justify an entire course study to it? I contend, that it is impossible for the majority of students who would be interested in taking this class, to actually get more out of it than a bit of interesting knowledge, that will not really benefit them much in their lifes, other than add to an interesting bit of know-it-all conversations with their friends. MY CASE: C1 And 2: Priorities, and fitting classes I am not trying to say that the class couldn't fit in with a students schedule. I am asking why, it should take priority over a different elective class that may offer a student a bit more intellectually, and realisticly? Which class could better benefit a student's future? I feel Anime Studies falls a bit lower on the priority list. Also the pool of resources that would spend to go into the class wouldn't be worth it, as opposed to some of the other options I had listed. I don't deny that other electives like personal finance ought to be advanced, but I wonder how much students will actually learn when they don't face many of the actual money situations discussed. But honestly, will taking an anime class teach them how to overcome very likely potential problems they may face in the future? Maybe A student can be inspired by something they learned from an anime, but Learning how to stay out of debt, keep fair credit, and stablize themselves seems a bit more important than devoloping a cool moral philosophy from a fictional story, does it not? I am going to end my response on this conclusion. Anime is very entertaining, artistic, and even exciting. But it does not make a good High school class. If anything, Anime is probably one of the major causes towards students bad grades, and distractions. I know I've imagined myself as a super saiyan as my teachers have ranted on about things I cared less about. But Other than entertain me, Anime never really benefitted me or my education. And of the anime's I personally have watched, I am not sure how philosophical's intelligent I have become from watching characters extreme over reactions to simple statements, silly antics, and intense violence. Anime will forever hold a place in my heart, But given the realistic aspect of what Anime actually offers me, or others, I conlude that Anime is overall not beneficial in Highschools.

TUF

REBUTTALS: Purpose My oppoenent made a point to the purpose of Anime, being to provide alternative ways of looking at problems. I am going to refute this with realism. When a teenager watches an Anime, what are they getting from the Anime? Are they looking at the art in the Anime (which by all means, I am not saying isn't there), or are they looking for the comedy, action, or the drama? Let's face it, Anime's in the form of TV shows, and Comic books are meant for entertainment purposes only. They are marketed for entertainment purposes. And ultimately that is what these students care about. Yes there are similar filler classes to Anime studies (like film studies for a prime example), that could essentially say the same thing. While yes, there are students who will milk the class for entertainment, and there are also students who will actually gain something out of it, I tie priority back to this. Aren't there better classes that students can gain this same type of exposure to, that are probably a little bit more beneficial to their education? Point is, everything has to do with entertainment value. The history channel is a prime example of how something meant to be a learning source, was manipulated into entertainment disguised under a learning gesture (IE aliens, and bigfoot). " We want subjects that inspire students to want to learn " The problem is that the type of students who take this class, ware going to be taking it for other reasons. Students will see this type of a class as a relaxing way to pursue their own interests, and be entertained. Does passing or failing this class matter to a student? Will it effect their graduation? Probably not. No one is going to look at a student taking anime classes in high school for a job application, rather than a student who took Financial Literature in the extra curricular activities. 1. Taking youth seriously. Just to clear up the point on Ramna, My general question is this: While teenagers may or may not replicate his actions, what inherant benefit do students gain from watching this is an educational environment? I mean yes, you can find a way to twist some sort of value on to it, (as you can with nearly anything, see my point on the porno) but overall are kids going to learn something from Ramna, or just laugh and continue on the inevitable high school immaturity that is sure to follow the viewing of the video? Again realism. Are high school students really going to care anout the respecting elders just because some fictional characters in a cartoon do? 2. Hypermodern Society I find this kind of a rather low impact point, as I pointed out initially, however I the there was a thought or two that may have been mis-contrued. I am not trying to compare and contrast current commonly studied literature to Anime. The point of the examples was to prove that we already had similar stuff to that, in contention to my opponent's thought's that Shakespeare was outdated. Anyways I am having a hard time finding the significant importance to how justify how a human loving a robot is justification for an entire Anime class to be taught in high school. Is it worth the money, the cutting out of curriculum, and is there benefit to the class enough to support hosting a class like this? I think not. 3. Anime and Religion My opponent asked why I believe religion is not beneficial in schools, so I will briefly elaborate. As I explained in R2, The main purpose of school is to set a student up for a future in the following categories I provided, and sourced. But how does teaching religion benefit students? My opponent talks about cutting out classes to make room for classes like Anime studies. But why would it be a wise decision for a school to cut out classes, for something that can better easily be taught at a free religious organiztion on the students own time? Why hire teachers, pay for the course, and subject students to something that is faith based? School should deal with facts, not popular opinions, as it is the best way to progress a student's education. That aside, the connection between anime and religion being beneficial to school is missing to me. Even if anime and religion tie together, why does that make it an important class for high schoolers? 4. Multi-Culturism Again, we are talking about how the japanese cultures expodentially helps students make better choices, and live a better lfestyle. You are advocating that learning more about the japanese lifestyle is beneficial to High school Students, and I couldn't agree more. But what does Anime focus on that shows significant realistic Japanse culture? You say that it is beneficial so that studens can understand moral choices and see things from a futristic fictional fanbase (say that 3 times fast) idea of what a culture should be like. But the Beautiful dreamer, while definitely interesting, doesn't seem to answer my question of: Why this opposed to a world studies class? Couldn't this world studies class do everthying the anime classes would supposedly do, but more? I understand that there are benefits to really understanding Anime as a means of self pursuing interest, in the inevitable free time you cna spend watching this, but is what can be learned and derived from anime really enough to justify an entire course study to it? I contend, that it is impossible for the majority of students who would be interested in taking this class, to actually get more out of it than a bit of interesting knowledge, that will not really benefit them much in their lifes, other than add to an interesting bit of know-it-all conversations with their friends. MY CASE: C1 And 2: Priorities, and fitting classes I am not trying to say that the class couldn't fit in with a students schedule. I am asking why, it should take priority over a different elective class that may offer a student a bit more intellectually, and realisticly? Which class could better benefit a student's future? I feel Anime Studies falls a bit lower on the priority list. Also the pool of resources that would spend to go into the class wouldn't be worth it, as opposed to some of the other options I had listed. I don't deny that other electives like personal finance ought to be advanced, but I wonder how much students will actually learn when they don't face many of the actual money situations discussed. But honestly, will taking an anime class teach them how to overcome very likely potential problems they may face in the future? Maybe A student can be inspired by something they learned from an anime, but Learning how to stay out of debt, keep fair credit, and stablize themselves seems a bit more important than devoloping a cool moral philosophy from a fictional story, does it not? I am going to end my response on this conclusion. Anime is very entertaining, artistic, and even exciting. But it does not make a good High school class. If anything, Anime is probably one of the major causes towards students bad grades, and distractions. I know I've imagined myself as a super saiyan as my teachers have ranted on about things I cared less about. But Other than entertain me, Anime never really benefitted me or my education. And of the anime's I personally have watched, I am not sure how philosophical's intelligent I have become from watching characters extreme over reactions to simple statements, silly antics, and intense violence. Anime will forever hold a place in my heart, But given the realistic aspect of what Anime actually offers me, or others, I conlude that Anime is overall not beneficial in Highschools.

Education

Anime-studies-should-be-offered-in-American-high-schools/2/

To refrain from being repetitive, I am going to briefly go over the arguments that my opponent made individually, than wrap everything up in a conclusion. I also thank Pro for a very insightful look into Anime, and for opening me up to some new Anime's. Serious Study I have to points to make to counter this one. I have no doubt that Anime CAN be studied seriously. If it was indeed a class, it of course would have to be orchestrated such that it could be studied seriously. But just as my high school film studies class was, no one went into that class expecting to do any real studying. The homework, was more or less, finding fictional films of the 50's and watching them. In the end, what did I really gain from watching Lord of the Flies, and the original King Kong? Maybe a bit of interest in the concepts, but overall, most the people in that class including myself, took it because it was an easy A. While the course study from Anime may be a bit different, the average highschool mind is only going to be taking that class for an easy skate through A. Maybe there will be people who take the class seriously. But that brings up my next point. What are these types of classes bringing to students that benefits the school? How many of these students are actually going to pursue a career in Japanese Anime? And of the ones who just want to gain an acruistic taste for art, philosophy, and religion, what career skills are they really going to benefit from this class? Will kids not drop out of this class when they realize that it isn't full of the mindless action that you speak of? Unfortunately a good portion of teenagers follow this kind of Anime. Also doesn't showing teens this kind of stuff in high school actually do the opposite, of open them up to new things? It's that natural teenagers concept that makes you want to rebel against parents, teachers and society. Generally you want to dis-like and hate rules, and study created in school institutions. Anime Intruction is Helpful In this next point, my opponent has outlined some examples of what concept and values Japanese anime teaches. He shows many ways that Anime can be 'helpful' arguably, but when were talking in terms of subjectivity, Helpful takes a whole different approach. Do these minor concepts justify Anime being used in schools? The point about Saito being manipulative teacher to Sanuke, or the authoratarian father, are they enough to make an entire course for? Now when you speak in terms of what helpful is, to what end is Anime helpful? A students mere interest in a fictional concept, or a Students growth and development? How far can a student carry these values on into their lives to have it really make a difference? Why not spend time and valuable resources on more important classes, or studies? Anime being helpful is subjective, however, we cannot find a probable explanation to believe that this course would be more beneficial than the attribute to someone's own interest. Anime Reaches Students " it's interesting, it's mainstream, it deals with modern society, and avoids the limits of political correctness." My response to this, remains as it was before. Do the student recognize these cultural aspects? Do they even care? When you watch an Anime, you generally seem to moer keen to paying attention to plot and entertainment value. A regular world studies class intends to focus on teaching the students. There is not as much room for distraction from the main point. A student wanting a passing grade will focus, and study, which will inevitably make them learn. A japanese Anime focuses on ONE culture, and is intent on creating entertainment value. Any good Japanese show, has to keep entertainment value as the main purpose in order to achieve viewers. Automatically, the primary focus isn't learning but to attract viewers, which makes the cultural aspect stand out just that much less to students. Curriculum Driven I sort of addressed this earlier. To expound on my point, of course a course in school would have to be curriculum driven. My point is that is won't work. You bring up a point about Geometry. Yes, the passing grade would be the motivational factor to the student. While the class may not be remotely interesting to the student, they inevitably learn. There isn't funny anime drama, or action to distract their mind a way from the main concept of geometry. Geometry is straight forward, and to the point, meaning the student lears no matter what, unless they simply choose to flunk out. How many students will actually understand the deep concepts that Anime brings? Even with someone pasuing a video to stand there and talk about it, will they care? Even if they do understand them, what is being benefited other than an understanding of a fictional drama? Religion What specifically about religion in Anime can we really look at as pushing a student forward in their life? The argued part of religion being talked about in schol is kind of one of the "agree to dis-agree" arguments. However the main argument against this point is that there is no point! Students who are atheistic, agnostic, or of another religion, may not find it fair to be subjected to other religions through the form of a school classroom in which they have to learn. There is already plenty of problem with the teaching of evolution in schools with many students and parents. Do we need another class like this? Do who have interest in this kind of class really know or expect to be adopted in to Japanese religion as they enter into this class? Is it fair to do this to the students? Overall the religion aspect is an unfair way to subjicate someone to a concept against their own will. CONCLUSION My opponent has made some very good points throughout this debate. But here is what I think I have proven that Anime in schools does more harm than good. - Anime's entertainment value is too distracting for students, to pay attention to the values attempted to be taught. - There are better classes that can teach the same thing but with more variety. - Anime is low on the priority level for electives, and takes up space where students could be learning things that benefit them more. - With all of the current classes students need to graduate, a class like this could be distractive and harmful to their progress. - Students can better pursue studies of anime on their own time if they wish to become more knowledgable to Anime. A students own understanding, can open them up to a deeper state of thinking, rather than a teacher telling them what to make of a concept. Anime simply isn't justifiable in schools. Not only is some of the things in anime in appropriate for a schooling environments goals, but it also creates entertainment value instead of learning. It is possible to create both, but not through something that students can easily use as a scape goat class for a good grade. Even the good grade cannot be guaranteed, as there is no incentive for a student to care about these thoughts or concepts as opposed to being entertained, as the Anime is clearly intended to do. My opponent has made some fantastic points, but overall I think I have shown that Anime in schools does more harm than good. I thank Roy for this great debate, and wish him luck in the voting period!

TUF

To refrain from being repetitive, I am going to briefly go over the arguments that my opponent made individually, than wrap everything up in a conclusion. I also thank Pro for a very insightful look into Anime, and for opening me up to some new Anime's. Serious Study I have to points to make to counter this one. I have no doubt that Anime CAN be studied seriously. If it was indeed a class, it of course would have to be orchestrated such that it could be studied seriously. But just as my high school film studies class was, no one went into that class expecting to do any real studying. The homework, was more or less, finding fictional films of the 50's and watching them. In the end, what did I really gain from watching Lord of the Flies, and the original King Kong? Maybe a bit of interest in the concepts, but overall, most the people in that class including myself, took it because it was an easy A. While the course study from Anime may be a bit different, the average highschool mind is only going to be taking that class for an easy skate through A. Maybe there will be people who take the class seriously. But that brings up my next point. What are these types of classes bringing to students that benefits the school? How many of these students are actually going to pursue a career in Japanese Anime? And of the ones who just want to gain an acruistic taste for art, philosophy, and religion, what career skills are they really going to benefit from this class? Will kids not drop out of this class when they realize that it isn't full of the mindless action that you speak of? Unfortunately a good portion of teenagers follow this kind of Anime. Also doesn't showing teens this kind of stuff in high school actually do the opposite, of open them up to new things? It's that natural teenagers concept that makes you want to rebel against parents, teachers and society. Generally you want to dis-like and hate rules, and study created in school institutions. Anime Intruction is Helpful In this next point, my opponent has outlined some examples of what concept and values Japanese anime teaches. He shows many ways that Anime can be 'helpful' arguably, but when were talking in terms of subjectivity, Helpful takes a whole different approach. Do these minor concepts justify Anime being used in schools? The point about Saito being manipulative teacher to Sanuke, or the authoratarian father, are they enough to make an entire course for? Now when you speak in terms of what helpful is, to what end is Anime helpful? A students mere interest in a fictional concept, or a Students growth and development? How far can a student carry these values on into their lives to have it really make a difference? Why not spend time and valuable resources on more important classes, or studies? Anime being helpful is subjective, however, we cannot find a probable explanation to believe that this course would be more beneficial than the attribute to someone's own interest. Anime Reaches Students " it's interesting, it's mainstream, it deals with modern society, and avoids the limits of political correctness." My response to this, remains as it was before. Do the student recognize these cultural aspects? Do they even care? When you watch an Anime, you generally seem to moer keen to paying attention to plot and entertainment value. A regular world studies class intends to focus on teaching the students. There is not as much room for distraction from the main point. A student wanting a passing grade will focus, and study, which will inevitably make them learn. A japanese Anime focuses on ONE culture, and is intent on creating entertainment value. Any good Japanese show, has to keep entertainment value as the main purpose in order to achieve viewers. Automatically, the primary focus isn't learning but to attract viewers, which makes the cultural aspect stand out just that much less to students. Curriculum Driven I sort of addressed this earlier. To expound on my point, of course a course in school would have to be curriculum driven. My point is that is won't work. You bring up a point about Geometry. Yes, the passing grade would be the motivational factor to the student. While the class may not be remotely interesting to the student, they inevitably learn. There isn't funny anime drama, or action to distract their mind a way from the main concept of geometry. Geometry is straight forward, and to the point, meaning the student lears no matter what, unless they simply choose to flunk out. How many students will actually understand the deep concepts that Anime brings? Even with someone pasuing a video to stand there and talk about it, will they care? Even if they do understand them, what is being benefited other than an understanding of a fictional drama? Religion What specifically about religion in Anime can we really look at as pushing a student forward in their life? The argued part of religion being talked about in schol is kind of one of the "agree to dis-agree" arguments. However the main argument against this point is that there is no point! Students who are atheistic, agnostic, or of another religion, may not find it fair to be subjected to other religions through the form of a school classroom in which they have to learn. There is already plenty of problem with the teaching of evolution in schools with many students and parents. Do we need another class like this? Do who have interest in this kind of class really know or expect to be adopted in to Japanese religion as they enter into this class? Is it fair to do this to the students? Overall the religion aspect is an unfair way to subjicate someone to a concept against their own will. CONCLUSION My opponent has made some very good points throughout this debate. But here is what I think I have proven that Anime in schools does more harm than good. - Anime's entertainment value is too distracting for students, to pay attention to the values attempted to be taught. - There are better classes that can teach the same thing but with more variety. - Anime is low on the priority level for electives, and takes up space where students could be learning things that benefit them more. - With all of the current classes students need to graduate, a class like this could be distractive and harmful to their progress. - Students can better pursue studies of anime on their own time if they wish to become more knowledgable to Anime. A students own understanding, can open them up to a deeper state of thinking, rather than a teacher telling them what to make of a concept. Anime simply isn't justifiable in schools. Not only is some of the things in anime in appropriate for a schooling environments goals, but it also creates entertainment value instead of learning. It is possible to create both, but not through something that students can easily use as a scape goat class for a good grade. Even the good grade cannot be guaranteed, as there is no incentive for a student to care about these thoughts or concepts as opposed to being entertained, as the Anime is clearly intended to do. My opponent has made some fantastic points, but overall I think I have shown that Anime in schools does more harm than good. I thank Roy for this great debate, and wish him luck in the voting period!

Education

Anime-studies-should-be-offered-in-American-high-schools/2/

I believe that, despite his sex scandal, US politician Anthony Weiner should not have resigned from office. Pro argues that he should not have resigned. Con argues that he should have resigned. Thank you.

InVinoVeritas

I believe that, despite his sex scandal, US politician Anthony Weiner should not have resigned from office. Pro argues that he should not have resigned. Con argues that he should have resigned. Thank you.

Politics

Anthony-Weiner-should-not-have-resigned-his-seat-in-Congress/1/

1) a) It was consensual . b) It was legal. 2) a) He was lying to protect his marriage, his children, and his career . Most men would under the circumstances he was under. b) It was legal ; he wasn't under oath when he lied. 3) Yes, there was press across the nation. However, the claim "he could not get over it" should be dismissed as pure speculation. You would think that the public wouldn't get over Clinton's scandal, but it did... And after his acquittal, Clinton continued his successful career . We have seen throughout recent political history many scandals pop up: Larry Craig successfully completed his term in the US Senate AFTER his "bathroom sex" scandal and simply chose not to seek re-election. [1] John McCain left his wife for another woman because of a devastating car crash that left her disfigured and still ran for election for presidency years later with little public worry about the matter. [2] Newt Gingrich left his wife for another woman when she had been diagnosed with cancer ; moreover, he admits to having past extramarital affairs . [3] [4] We should not judge people's moral decisions in their personal lives when considering whether or not they will make good politicians. Poor moral choices do not reflect a politician's ability to hold strong stances in politics and continue to work for public interest, representing people's political beliefs. I see no logical connection between Weiner's lack of marital faithfulness and sending nude pictures on Twitter to a lack of political effectiveness. It should not matter, especially since no laws being broken. Despite the scandal resulting from his "immoral behavior," as many deem it, Anthony Weiner should not have resigned. Thank you. [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>...

InVinoVeritas

1) a) It was consensual . b) It was legal. 2) a) He was lying to protect his marriage, his children, and his career . Most men would under the circumstances he was under. b) It was legal ; he wasn't under oath when he lied. 3) Yes, there was press across the nation. However, the claim "he could not get over it" should be dismissed as pure speculation. You would think that the public wouldn't get over Clinton's scandal, but it did... And after his acquittal, Clinton continued his successful career . We have seen throughout recent political history many scandals pop up: Larry Craig successfully completed his term in the US Senate AFTER his "bathroom sex" scandal and simply chose not to seek re-election. [1] John McCain left his wife for another woman because of a devastating car crash that left her disfigured and still ran for election for presidency years later with little public worry about the matter. [2] Newt Gingrich left his wife for another woman when she had been diagnosed with cancer ; moreover, he admits to having past extramarital affairs . [3] [4] We should not judge people's moral decisions in their personal lives when considering whether or not they will make good politicians. Poor moral choices do not reflect a politician's ability to hold strong stances in politics and continue to work for public interest, representing people's political beliefs. I see no logical connection between Weiner's lack of marital faithfulness and sending nude pictures on Twitter to a lack of political effectiveness. It should not matter, especially since no laws being broken. Despite the scandal resulting from his "immoral behavior," as many deem it, Anthony Weiner should not have resigned. Thank you. [1] http://www.politico.com... [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Politics

Anthony-Weiner-should-not-have-resigned-his-seat-in-Congress/1/

1. The opponent is assumes there is a relationship between sexual loyalty to your wife and having the ability to represent people on political issues. There is no basis for this claim. And, yes, there was a public outcry (as there tends to be after a scandal) but he was not obligated to resign. 2. I agree that to a vast majority of people, lying is immoral. However, I repeat lying is not illegal , so he was not obligated to leave his office. And, also, most men who cheat on their wives vehemently deny it. Weiner lied because he values his career, his family, and his public image. Clinton lied about his affair, and the public forgave him; the same could have happened to Weiner had to stayed in office. 3. The opponent's illogical rationale is: "because Weiner's approval rating was low after his scandal, he should have resigned." Let me note that the approval rating of Congress as a whole is 9%. Should we get rid of Congress? [1] Senator Roland Burris' approval rating was constantly in the teens after his scandal, yet he did not resign. [2] It is absurd for the opponent to infer that a politician should resign because his or her approval rating is low at a certain point in his or her career. 4. Indeed, Johnson's moral beliefs could have affected his political decisions. That, however, certainly does not prove that moral beliefs MUST affect political decisions. I am curious to know why the opponent believes with such certainty Weiner's immoral sexual conduct would directly affect his political decisions. Voters are given the right to judge political candidates on any factors they deem important, including moral beliefs; however, they cannot force a politician to leave his office due to moral beliefs , because that is unconstitutional. Even though Jackson may have been biased due to his racist views, I do not think that gives the public the right to force him to resign. --- The opponent completely avoided my references to John McCain and Newt Gingrich . They both made decisions earlier in their lives that the public would deem extremely immoral. [3] [4] Despite this, they both became successful, effective politicians and presidential candidates . Their immoral decisions certainly did not keep them from moving forward in their political careers. Weiner's situation could have been the same. Let us also note the late Robert Byrd . Earlier in his life, he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan and a top officer in his local Klan unit. Later on, as a politician, he renounced his racist beliefs and became very successful, eventually joining the Senate . The public finds involvement in supremacist groups like the KKK to be extremely immoral, probably more immoral than adultery, yet Byrd was still able to have a successful political career until his death in mid-2010. [5] --- In conclusion , Weiner should not have resigned because: I. Immoral sexual decisions is certainly not an indicator a lack of political integrity. II. A vast majority of men who cheat on their wives lie about it. Weiner did it to protect his career and family, so he had rational reasons to lie. III. Other politicians such as John McCain, Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and Robert Byrd were able to overcome immoral decisions in their pasts . Weiner had the potential to do the same. IV. If he had stayed in office, Weiner could have been an effective politician and fixed his public image . --- Thank you. [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... [5] <URL>...

InVinoVeritas

1. The opponent is assumes there is a relationship between sexual loyalty to your wife and having the ability to represent people on political issues. There is no basis for this claim. And, yes, there was a public outcry (as there tends to be after a scandal) but he was not obligated to resign. 2. I agree that to a vast majority of people, lying is immoral. However, I repeat lying is not illegal , so he was not obligated to leave his office. And, also, most men who cheat on their wives vehemently deny it. Weiner lied because he values his career, his family, and his public image. Clinton lied about his affair, and the public forgave him; the same could have happened to Weiner had to stayed in office. 3. The opponent's illogical rationale is: "because Weiner's approval rating was low after his scandal, he should have resigned." Let me note that the approval rating of Congress as a whole is 9%. Should we get rid of Congress? [1] Senator Roland Burris' approval rating was constantly in the teens after his scandal, yet he did not resign. [2] It is absurd for the opponent to infer that a politician should resign because his or her approval rating is low at a certain point in his or her career. 4. Indeed, Johnson's moral beliefs could have affected his political decisions. That, however, certainly does not prove that moral beliefs MUST affect political decisions. I am curious to know why the opponent believes with such certainty Weiner's immoral sexual conduct would directly affect his political decisions. Voters are given the right to judge political candidates on any factors they deem important, including moral beliefs; however, they cannot force a politician to leave his office due to moral beliefs , because that is unconstitutional. Even though Jackson may have been biased due to his racist views, I do not think that gives the public the right to force him to resign. --- The opponent completely avoided my references to John McCain and Newt Gingrich . They both made decisions earlier in their lives that the public would deem extremely immoral. [3] [4] Despite this, they both became successful, effective politicians and presidential candidates . Their immoral decisions certainly did not keep them from moving forward in their political careers. Weiner's situation could have been the same. Let us also note the late Robert Byrd . Earlier in his life, he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan and a top officer in his local Klan unit. Later on, as a politician, he renounced his racist beliefs and became very successful, eventually joining the Senate . The public finds involvement in supremacist groups like the KKK to be extremely immoral, probably more immoral than adultery, yet Byrd was still able to have a successful political career until his death in mid-2010. [5] --- In conclusion , Weiner should not have resigned because: I. Immoral sexual decisions is certainly not an indicator a lack of political integrity. II. A vast majority of men who cheat on their wives lie about it. Weiner did it to protect his career and family, so he had rational reasons to lie. III. Other politicians such as John McCain, Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and Robert Byrd were able to overcome immoral decisions in their pasts . Weiner had the potential to do the same. IV. If he had stayed in office, Weiner could have been an effective politician and fixed his public image . --- Thank you. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2] http://www.politico.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Politics

Anthony-Weiner-should-not-have-resigned-his-seat-in-Congress/1/

1) "...Anthony Weiner is a Congressmen[.] [H]e is supposed to represent his voters with integrity, respect, and leadership." A politician strictly represents voters politically! His lack of integrity in his marriage has not been proven to have anything do with his integrity in regards to his voters. Yes, his act may cause voters to think more lowly of him, but that just means that he would have a tough time running for re-election, if he were to seek it. It does not mean, though, that he should resign from his current office. The fact of the matter is that no charges were filed against him, and he was not impeached. Hence, there was no legal obligation for him to resign. 2) Weiner's approval rating dropped, yes. But who's to say that he couldn't have recovered and made his approval rating skyrocket? I don't see how his having a low approval rating immediately after his scandal justified an act of resignation. 3) I agree with the opponent that we could not get rid of Congress just because its approval rating is 9%, because it is a central part of the US government system. Do you know what else is a central part of the US government system? Its politicians, the people who compose it. That is why we cannot say a Congressman should leave simply because he has a low approval rating. "Roland Burris [...] has done nothing scandalous to warrant a mass movement for his outing..." Burris was accused of being involved in an illegitimate fundraising scheme with Rod Blagojevich, a man whose scandal led to a sentence of 14 years in prison. I'd say that is pretty scandalous. And there is certainly a mass movement for his outing; 62% of Illinois voters want him to resign. [1] He, nonetheless, stayed and continued his political career. All of a sudden the opponent states that Weiner should have been "removed from Congress." That, however, would be completely illegal under the Constitution , because he was not incriminated of anything. It was up to Weiner whether he wanted to resign or not , and no one had the right to remove him. 4) The opponent fails to make a logical connection between sexually immoral behavior and inability to represent voters as a politician. The opponent claims that his lack of sexual control would cause him to not think thoroughly about bills and acts he is supporting, but this is baseless. Such claims are simply assumptions. McCain's and Gingrich's actions were repulsive . These scandals were major points made against them during their campaigns for presidency, yet they did not drop out because of them. McCain did very well in the polls and ended up losing to Obama in a close battle, and Gingrich is looking very good in current Republican polls. This just shows that Weiner had the potential to come back instead of resigning. Yes, people forgave Byrd and his involvement in the KKK... and, with time, perhaps people would have forgiven Weiner, too. Unfortunately, he gave in to his situation and left his place in Congress, probably avoiding a political career for good. My argument, with comments on the opponent's refutations: I. Immoral sexual decisions is certainly does not indicate a lack of political integrity. The opponent has yet to effectively refute this idea. II. A vast majority of men who cheat on their wives lie about it. Weiner did it to protect his career and family, so he had rational reasons to lie. The opponent compares this to a man killing his wife. This is not a strong analogy because Murder is illegal, unlike adultery. Also, the opponent is confused; I am not talking about the rationality of the act itself, but rather the rationality behind defending it. Hence, it would be perfectly rational for the murderer to deny killing his wife, if his motivation is to protect himself, his career, and the rest of his family. III. Other politicians such as John McCain, Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and Robert Byrd were able to overcome immoral decisions in their pasts. Weiner had the potential to do the same. The opponent assumes that Weiner, if he had stayed in office, would not have been forgiven by the public. This is merely speculation. IV. If he had stayed in office, Weiner could have been an effective politician and fixed his public image. It is not an opinion. I said "could have." He had the potential of turning it around through effective political leadership and gaining the support of voters back. The opponent fails to effectively and logically refute Pro's established claims, so vote Pro. Many thanks to the opponent and the readers. (And I respectfully ask the opponent to use his last round as strictly a "thank you and vote for me" round, because we have each already had three rounds to argue our cases.) [1] <URL>...

InVinoVeritas

1) "...Anthony Weiner is a Congressmen[.] [H]e is supposed to represent his voters with integrity, respect, and leadership." A politician strictly represents voters politically! His lack of integrity in his marriage has not been proven to have anything do with his integrity in regards to his voters. Yes, his act may cause voters to think more lowly of him, but that just means that he would have a tough time running for re-election, if he were to seek it. It does not mean, though, that he should resign from his current office. The fact of the matter is that no charges were filed against him, and he was not impeached. Hence, there was no legal obligation for him to resign. 2) Weiner's approval rating dropped, yes. But who's to say that he couldn't have recovered and made his approval rating skyrocket? I don't see how his having a low approval rating immediately after his scandal justified an act of resignation. 3) I agree with the opponent that we could not get rid of Congress just because its approval rating is 9%, because it is a central part of the US government system. Do you know what else is a central part of the US government system? Its politicians, the people who compose it. That is why we cannot say a Congressman should leave simply because he has a low approval rating. "Roland Burris [...] has done nothing scandalous to warrant a mass movement for his outing..." Burris was accused of being involved in an illegitimate fundraising scheme with Rod Blagojevich, a man whose scandal led to a sentence of 14 years in prison. I'd say that is pretty scandalous. And there is certainly a mass movement for his outing; 62% of Illinois voters want him to resign. [1] He, nonetheless, stayed and continued his political career. All of a sudden the opponent states that Weiner should have been "removed from Congress." That, however, would be completely illegal under the Constitution , because he was not incriminated of anything. It was up to Weiner whether he wanted to resign or not , and no one had the right to remove him. 4) The opponent fails to make a logical connection between sexually immoral behavior and inability to represent voters as a politician. The opponent claims that his lack of sexual control would cause him to not think thoroughly about bills and acts he is supporting, but this is baseless. Such claims are simply assumptions. McCain's and Gingrich's actions were repulsive . These scandals were major points made against them during their campaigns for presidency, yet they did not drop out because of them. McCain did very well in the polls and ended up losing to Obama in a close battle, and Gingrich is looking very good in current Republican polls. This just shows that Weiner had the potential to come back instead of resigning. Yes, people forgave Byrd and his involvement in the KKK... and, with time, perhaps people would have forgiven Weiner, too. Unfortunately, he gave in to his situation and left his place in Congress, probably avoiding a political career for good. My argument, with comments on the opponent's refutations: I. Immoral sexual decisions is certainly does not indicate a lack of political integrity. The opponent has yet to effectively refute this idea. II. A vast majority of men who cheat on their wives lie about it. Weiner did it to protect his career and family, so he had rational reasons to lie. The opponent compares this to a man killing his wife. This is not a strong analogy because Murder is illegal, unlike adultery. Also, the opponent is confused; I am not talking about the rationality of the act itself, but rather the rationality behind defending it. Hence, it would be perfectly rational for the murderer to deny killing his wife, if his motivation is to protect himself, his career, and the rest of his family. III. Other politicians such as John McCain, Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and Robert Byrd were able to overcome immoral decisions in their pasts. Weiner had the potential to do the same. The opponent assumes that Weiner, if he had stayed in office, would not have been forgiven by the public. This is merely speculation. IV. If he had stayed in office, Weiner could have been an effective politician and fixed his public image. It is not an opinion. I said "could have." He had the potential of turning it around through effective political leadership and gaining the support of voters back. The opponent fails to effectively and logically refute Pro's established claims, so vote Pro. Many thanks to the opponent and the readers. (And I respectfully ask the opponent to use his last round as strictly a "thank you and vote for me" round, because we have each already had three rounds to argue our cases.) [1] http://www.rasmussenreports.com...

Politics

Anthony-Weiner-should-not-have-resigned-his-seat-in-Congress/1/

I accept. Humans beings are not superior beings and have no objectively greater value in contrast to other creatures. The notion of superiority itself is an artifice and highly arbitrary. The environment does have resources that we may use, but this is not exclusive to us, and it is highly irresponsible for humans to gratuitously exploit the Earth for our convenience. The logic that superior beings have rights over the weak is along the same logic of "superior" human beings having rights over "weaker" human beings. Imagined superiority does not afford humans with sovereignty over other life forms, especially with wild abandon and gross gratuity.

treeless

I accept. Humans beings are not superior beings and have no objectively greater value in contrast to other creatures. The notion of superiority itself is an artifice and highly arbitrary. The environment does have resources that we may use, but this is not exclusive to us, and it is highly irresponsible for humans to gratuitously exploit the Earth for our convenience. The logic that superior beings have rights over the weak is along the same logic of "superior" human beings having rights over "weaker" human beings. Imagined superiority does not afford humans with sovereignty over other life forms, especially with wild abandon and gross gratuity.

Economics

Anthropocentrism-vs.-Biocentrism/2/

Everybody knows about new anti-Islamic movie "innocence of Muslims". In my point of view it should be censored in order to be more patient and respectful to another religion.

Saule

Everybody knows about new anti-Islamic movie "innocence of Muslims". In my point of view it should be censored in order to be more patient and respectful to another religion.

Religion

Anti-Islamic-movie-innocence-of-Muslims-should-be-censored./1/

My opponent wants to know why this movie outweigh the freedom of speech's right. Today a lot of countries have freedom of speech and these countries try not to censor anything. Even though, these countries agree that freedom of speech have confines in order not to put rubbish into television. The movie "The Innocence of Muslims" has gone to the limit because of enormous scenes that are disgusting and doubtful. This movie would make the audience believe into the unauthentic historical events. First of all "Innocence of Muslim" offends Muslim people. I was born in Muslim family, all my relatives and most friends are Muslim. According to this movie we believe in something bad and inferior. Second, movie "innocence of Muslims" contains a lot of violence. It was really difficult to watch. This movie made me feel terrible and would happen with children? Third, it is like a provocation and feed to terrorist movements to make evil things. In conclusion I want to write that all the reason that were mentioned outweigh freedom of speech.

Saule

My opponent wants to know why this movie outweigh the freedom of speech's right. Today a lot of countries have freedom of speech and these countries try not to censor anything. Even though, these countries agree that freedom of speech have confines in order not to put rubbish into television. The movie "The Innocence of Muslims" has gone to the limit because of enormous scenes that are disgusting and doubtful. This movie would make the audience believe into the unauthentic historical events. First of all "Innocence of Muslim" offends Muslim people. I was born in Muslim family, all my relatives and most friends are Muslim. According to this movie we believe in something bad and inferior. Second, movie "innocence of Muslims" contains a lot of violence. It was really difficult to watch. This movie made me feel terrible and would happen with children? Third, it is like a provocation and feed to terrorist movements to make evil things. In conclusion I want to write that all the reason that were mentioned outweigh freedom of speech.

Religion

Anti-Islamic-movie-innocence-of-Muslims-should-be-censored./1/

Alright well first off there is no reason to just say that the BBC and the World News Channels are the best. Because 1. They all have the same credibility if not more within the US 2. You assume that Non-American new channels are better (and yes that's what you are doing the BBC). 3. I have grown to distrust anything I hear on the news, and you automatically assume that everyone else is better, than the US, which is wrong in its self you have no reason to discredit any other news source even in a debate. Now your job in your next argument is post which news channels we are talking about and also explain why you are bashing America, and also defend yourself.

AdamCW12

Alright well first off there is no reason to just say that the BBC and the World News Channels are the best. Because 1. They all have the same credibility if not more within the US 2. You assume that Non-American new channels are better (and yes that's what you are doing the BBC). 3. I have grown to distrust anything I hear on the news, and you automatically assume that everyone else is better, than the US, which is wrong in its self you have no reason to discredit any other news source even in a debate. Now your job in your next argument is post which news channels we are talking about and also explain why you are bashing America, and also defend yourself.

Politics

Anybody-who-wants-the-REAL-news-watches-BBC-or-foreign-World-News-channels./1/

At the point when you began to bash American is when you posted the debate saying that real news comes from BBC and Foreign News Channels, and to say that those stations are the only biased one is a big, big overstatement. You automatically assume that they aren't not biased that all they do is preach the truth, and at the point you think that you lose the debate cause you are so one sided the BBC and every other news stations have there own biased so dont say those are the only biased stations. So now here is what you have to do to win provide evidence that BBC is not biased.

AdamCW12

At the point when you began to bash American is when you posted the debate saying that real news comes from BBC and Foreign News Channels, and to say that those stations are the only biased one is a big, big overstatement. You automatically assume that they aren't not biased that all they do is preach the truth, and at the point you think that you lose the debate cause you are so one sided the BBC and every other news stations have there own biased so dont say those are the only biased stations. So now here is what you have to do to win provide evidence that BBC is not biased.

Politics

Anybody-who-wants-the-REAL-news-watches-BBC-or-foreign-World-News-channels./1/

Well first off that is my argument all news sites and channels are all biased in some way... Which does not make Foreign Word News Channels better. You proved me right everyone will now vote negative because you cant prove that they arnt biased cause i know they are.

AdamCW12

Well first off that is my argument all news sites and channels are all biased in some way... Which does not make Foreign Word News Channels better. You proved me right everyone will now vote negative because you cant prove that they arnt biased cause i know they are.

Politics

Anybody-who-wants-the-REAL-news-watches-BBC-or-foreign-World-News-channels./1/

Uhhh no you these people dont "hate you" you just make stupid arguments about stupid things. Let me break this down for you. 1. You have no evidence throughout the debate on how BBC or Foreign news channels are even better... Flow that to the negative. 2. I agree that news sites are biased, but not just American news sites, ALL news sites. 3. You win nothing by proving nothing. I win everything i prove in my last two points why i win. So here is what people should vote on 1. Ron Paul sucks (sorry he does) 2. The Aff Proves notthing 3. The neg proves that while american news sites are biased so are ALL news sites. 4. The Final Voting Issues is no evidence has been presented by the aff (who has the burden of proof) for him to win. So Vote for the neg today because of that alone.

AdamCW12

Uhhh no you these people dont "hate you" you just make stupid arguments about stupid things. Let me break this down for you. 1. You have no evidence throughout the debate on how BBC or Foreign news channels are even better... Flow that to the negative. 2. I agree that news sites are biased, but not just American news sites, ALL news sites. 3. You win nothing by proving nothing. I win everything i prove in my last two points why i win. So here is what people should vote on 1. Ron Paul sucks (sorry he does) 2. The Aff Proves notthing 3. The neg proves that while american news sites are biased so are ALL news sites. 4. The Final Voting Issues is no evidence has been presented by the aff (who has the burden of proof) for him to win. So Vote for the neg today because of that alone.

Politics

Anybody-who-wants-the-REAL-news-watches-BBC-or-foreign-World-News-channels./1/

PLEASE READ ALL OF THE ARGUMENTS BEFORE VOTING. This is a four rounder. Just give a 1 paragraph outline of what you'll be saying. I'll be proving that all news channels are bias and have some connection or other with the government and so don't tell you everything. I'll then prove that BBC is the only honest network, although they might be headed for a turn soon. I also have two other networks I'll be outlining that are good. I will probably lose this debate because most people on this site, who are under 16, just vote after reading the topic.

revleader5

PLEASE READ ALL OF THE ARGUMENTS BEFORE VOTING. This is a four rounder. Just give a 1 paragraph outline of what you'll be saying. I'll be proving that all news channels are bias and have some connection or other with the government and so don't tell you everything. I'll then prove that BBC is the only honest network, although they might be headed for a turn soon. I also have two other networks I'll be outlining that are good. I will probably lose this debate because most people on this site, who are under 16, just vote after reading the topic.

Politics

Anybody-who-wants-the-REAL-news-watches-BBC-or-foreign-World-News-channels./1/

I like how you are acusing me of hating american news channels. I don't hate every news station that has something to do with America. I only really hate NBC, Fox, CBS, ABC, and CNN. They are obviously bias. This is not true at all. Please tell me where I ever said I automatically assume american news channels are lying.

revleader5

I like how you are acusing me of hating american news channels. I don't hate every news station that has something to do with America. I only really hate NBC, Fox, CBS, ABC, and CNN. They are obviously bias. This is not true at all. Please tell me where I ever said I automatically assume american news channels are lying.

Politics

Anybody-who-wants-the-REAL-news-watches-BBC-or-foreign-World-News-channels./1/

You cannot prove that the networks are unbiased. I can prove they are. To destroy your upcoming 3rd round argument, I'll prove they are biased in the 4th round. I want to see what you'll say in this round, seeing as how you now have no argument except to tell me, "How are they biased?" which I've already said I'll explain in round 3.

revleader5

You cannot prove that the networks are unbiased. I can prove they are. To destroy your upcoming 3rd round argument, I'll prove they are biased in the 4th round. I want to see what you'll say in this round, seeing as how you now have no argument except to tell me, "How are they biased?" which I've already said I'll explain in round 3.

Politics

Anybody-who-wants-the-REAL-news-watches-BBC-or-foreign-World-News-channels./1/

Thank you for proving MY point. You will just keep on saying they aren't biased and I'm proving your point. You proved my point by saying I proved yours when I said nothing. You, my friend, are full of crap. You obviously have shown no knowledge of any bias in medias. I will lose this debate however because I have built up a huge following of people who hate me. Congrats.

revleader5

Thank you for proving MY point. You will just keep on saying they aren't biased and I'm proving your point. You proved my point by saying I proved yours when I said nothing. You, my friend, are full of crap. You obviously have shown no knowledge of any bias in medias. I will lose this debate however because I have built up a huge following of people who hate me. Congrats.

Politics

Anybody-who-wants-the-REAL-news-watches-BBC-or-foreign-World-News-channels./1/

In the Jewish religion, they believe, as individuals and as a majority, that they can be harmonized to God even after sinning.. By sinning they can lose their souls, but can earn their salvation back through repenting and living morally. In Christianity, an individual must believe Jesus Christ is their Lord and savior to enter the gates of heaven. If you didn't already have this understanding, the Jewish God and the Christian God are the same supreme being. Christianity was established after Judaism. So, if a Jewish man were to want to go to heaven, he would have to believe that Jesus Christ is his Lord and savior. By that definition, the Jewish man through that ideology, he would be considered a Christian man. The only difference between the Christian Bible and the Jewish bible is the lack of the New Testament in the Torah. The ten commandments (which are followed by both religions in the old testament), states one must not have no other gods before God. In Christianity, one must believe Jesus Christ, the son, is the same being as God, the father. This means the belief of Jesus Christ as God himself doesn't contradict the commandment, since they're at an equal position. So with this in mind, does this mean not only Christians, but anyone who can believe that their god is equivalent to the God of the Christians and Jews can be saved living accordingly to the commandments?

Newtrallectual

In the Jewish religion, they believe, as individuals and as a majority, that they can be harmonized to God even after sinning.. By sinning they can lose their souls, but can earn their salvation back through repenting and living morally. In Christianity, an individual must believe Jesus Christ is their Lord and savior to enter the gates of heaven. If you didn't already have this understanding, the Jewish God and the Christian God are the same supreme being. Christianity was established after Judaism. So, if a Jewish man were to want to go to heaven, he would have to believe that Jesus Christ is his Lord and savior. By that definition, the Jewish man through that ideology, he would be considered a Christian man. The only difference between the Christian Bible and the Jewish bible is the lack of the New Testament in the Torah. The ten commandments (which are followed by both religions in the old testament), states one must not have no other gods before God. In Christianity, one must believe Jesus Christ, the son, is the same being as God, the father. This means the belief of Jesus Christ as God himself doesn't contradict the commandment, since they're at an equal position. So with this in mind, does this mean not only Christians, but anyone who can believe that their god is equivalent to the God of the Christians and Jews can be saved living accordingly to the commandments?

Religion

Anyone-can-go-to-heaven-as-long-as-they-believe-their-God-is-equal-to-Jehovah/1/

Animals.

emospongebob527

Animals.

Miscellaneous

Anything-from-the-list/1/

" I find pet's a real pain but they may seem cute and cuddly or if it's sweet and rough looking cause they are still a royal pain. " Therefore the new resolution should be: " Pets " " Where I live there's lot's of pigeon's and they are the worst things you can come across cause they carry diseases ." Therefore the new resolution should be: " Disease carrying pigeons that inhabit my town " " Back to pets, So they take alot of responsibility of looking after and I think it's total waste of time. ............. Putting pets down doesn't apply to animals. " If there would be a world without adults but with animals and children alone they would wish they never had or met animals forever. " How so? My case for animals: 1. Humans are animals. 2. Denying rights and freedom to animals also negates any freedoms humans should have because we are animals. 3. Animals need rights. 4. Either, no rights to all animals (including humans) 5. Or rights to all animals.

emospongebob527

" I find pet's a real pain but they may seem cute and cuddly or if it's sweet and rough looking cause they are still a royal pain. " Therefore the new resolution should be: " Pets " " Where I live there's lot's of pigeon's and they are the worst things you can come across cause they carry diseases ." Therefore the new resolution should be: " Disease carrying pigeons that inhabit my town " " Back to pets, So they take alot of responsibility of looking after and I think it's total waste of time. ............. Putting pets down doesn't apply to animals. " If there would be a world without adults but with animals and children alone they would wish they never had or met animals forever. " How so? My case for animals: 1. Humans are animals. 2. Denying rights and freedom to animals also negates any freedoms humans should have because we are animals. 3. Animals need rights. 4. Either, no rights to all animals (including humans) 5. Or rights to all animals.

Miscellaneous

Anything-from-the-list/1/

How boring.

emospongebob527

How boring.

Miscellaneous

Anything-from-the-list/1/

*Yawn

emospongebob527

*Yawn

Miscellaneous

Anything-from-the-list/1/

So this is my 2nd debate and this is just for fun. Select a topic for me... 1. Piercings 2. Teachers 3. Animals

rynix

So this is my 2nd debate and this is just for fun. Select a topic for me... 1. Piercings 2. Teachers 3. Animals

Miscellaneous

Anything-from-the-list/1/

Ok im not sure where to begin so.... I'm against animals. Reason's why Let's start with pets first... I find pet's a real pain but they may seem cute and cuddly or if it's sweet and rough looking cause they are still a royal pain. Yes I hate animals and I have no respect for them. Where I live there's lot's of pigeon's and they are the worst things you can come across cause they carry diseases. Back to pets, So they take alot of responsibility of looking after and I think it's total waste of time. Small children start noticing animals when they go on trip's or read books by the pictures which is unacceptable. But few years later they are wanting a pet by begging their parent's which they are forced to agree cause they do not want to upset their son/daughter. I think that's terrible that's why animals should not exist because of young children. If there would be a world without adults but with animals and children alone they would wish they never had or met animals forever.

rynix

Ok im not sure where to begin so.... I'm against animals. Reason's why Let's start with pets first... I find pet's a real pain but they may seem cute and cuddly or if it's sweet and rough looking cause they are still a royal pain. Yes I hate animals and I have no respect for them. Where I live there's lot's of pigeon's and they are the worst things you can come across cause they carry diseases. Back to pets, So they take alot of responsibility of looking after and I think it's total waste of time. Small children start noticing animals when they go on trip's or read books by the pictures which is unacceptable. But few years later they are wanting a pet by begging their parent's which they are forced to agree cause they do not want to upset their son/daughter. I think that's terrible that's why animals should not exist because of young children. If there would be a world without adults but with animals and children alone they would wish they never had or met animals forever.

Miscellaneous

Anything-from-the-list/1/

They are. They describe most of every detail. In movies there are videos and that just comes straight out. In books it describes how the character is feeling to do it. It points out details that you might not notice in the movie.

segregory

They are. They describe most of every detail. In movies there are videos and that just comes straight out. In books it describes how the character is feeling to do it. It points out details that you might not notice in the movie.

Miscellaneous

Are-Books-Better-Than-The-Movies/2/

I hope others can see the meaning in that.

segregory

I hope others can see the meaning in that.

Miscellaneous

Are-Books-Better-Than-The-Movies/2/

Sadly this may be a Catch-22 situation for Con, as his proofs are likely to be historic cases. I believe one may pull any court case they wish to further their argument, it is up to the other side to find flaws in the case or issues of relevancy to dismiss it. Rebuttals: Korematsu v. United States was a legal battle against the constitutionality of Americans of Japanese ancestry being sent to government camps during WWII (1). Dred Scott v. Sandford was a legal ruling to prevent African Americans from suing in federal court, which was heavily influenced behind the scenes by president-elect James Buchanan (2). Both cases are horrible, and are fine examples of the changing nature of how America as a nation interprets the constitution. The first is comparable to what the Nazis were doing to Jewish people; that it happened to not get as bad, is irrelevant to what the average citizen in either country knew about them being taken away. Thus an argument about rights could be made that ' WWII was a bad time for civil rights, ' and legal cases of the time would be valid in supporting that claim. Sources: (1) <URL>... (2) <URL>...

Ragnar

Sadly this may be a Catch-22 situation for Con, as his proofs are likely to be historic cases. I believe one may pull any court case they wish to further their argument, it is up to the other side to find flaws in the case or issues of relevancy to dismiss it. Rebuttals: Korematsu v. United States was a legal battle against the constitutionality of Americans of Japanese ancestry being sent to government camps during WWII (1). Dred Scott v. Sandford was a legal ruling to prevent African Americans from suing in federal court, which was heavily influenced behind the scenes by president-elect James Buchanan (2). Both cases are horrible, and are fine examples of the changing nature of how America as a nation interprets the constitution. The first is comparable to what the Nazis were doing to Jewish people; that it happened to not get as bad, is irrelevant to what the average citizen in either country knew about them being taken away. Thus an argument about rights could be made that ' WWII was a bad time for civil rights, ' and legal cases of the time would be valid in supporting that claim. Sources: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org...

Politics

Are-Court-cases-valid-in-a-historic-argument/1/

I agree that the existence of court rulings, are not alone enough to win most arguments. They make mistakes, and shall continue to make mistakes; this shall be further magnified by time when social norms change away from what they are today. However there is a big leap between 'even respectable educated people on the supreme court make mistakes,' and 'supreme court rulings have no validity in historic arguments.' Paraphrased from my round 1: arguing about issues in different parts of history, legal proceedings from such times are highly valid. Also of note is which way the different judges voted, a ruling barely passed vs. a ruling unanimously passed. For example say we wanted to argue about abortion... 40 years ago with a 7-2 vote Roe v. Wade (1) greatly changed the face of the issue, and nearly put an end to coat-hanger abortions; please find any way that legal case would not be valid information on the topic? Rebuttals: My opponent stated in round 2 " One has the right to free speech ... How can freedom of speech be limited? Free is free, not semi-free or Quasi-free. " I could clap, but then I remembered his round 1 statement " I believe that one cannot say 'Well, the court said this about this in this year,' to further their argument about rights. " So freedom of speech should be limited any time people are disagreeing with each other? It should in fact be semi-free or quasi-free? " The people should go by the Constitution, not the ruling of the Supreme Court when it comes to the Constitutionality of something. " We as a people often disagree with what the constitution means, that is why there's amendments and so many legal battles over it. Yes mistakes are made, but even those mistakes are valid in historic arguments since they reflect the nature of people in those time periods. Sources: (1) <URL>...

Ragnar

I agree that the existence of court rulings, are not alone enough to win most arguments. They make mistakes, and shall continue to make mistakes; this shall be further magnified by time when social norms change away from what they are today. However there is a big leap between 'even respectable educated people on the supreme court make mistakes,' and 'supreme court rulings have no validity in historic arguments.' Paraphrased from my round 1: arguing about issues in different parts of history, legal proceedings from such times are highly valid. Also of note is which way the different judges voted, a ruling barely passed vs. a ruling unanimously passed. For example say we wanted to argue about abortion... 40 years ago with a 7-2 vote Roe v. Wade (1) greatly changed the face of the issue, and nearly put an end to coat-hanger abortions; please find any way that legal case would not be valid information on the topic? Rebuttals: My opponent stated in round 2 " One has the right to free speech ... How can freedom of speech be limited? Free is free, not semi-free or Quasi-free. " I could clap, but then I remembered his round 1 statement " I believe that one cannot say 'Well, the court said this about this in this year,' to further their argument about rights. " So freedom of speech should be limited any time people are disagreeing with each other? It should in fact be semi-free or quasi-free? " The people should go by the Constitution, not the ruling of the Supreme Court when it comes to the Constitutionality of something. " We as a people often disagree with what the constitution means, that is why there's amendments and so many legal battles over it. Yes mistakes are made, but even those mistakes are valid in historic arguments since they reflect the nature of people in those time periods. Sources: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...

Politics

Are-Court-cases-valid-in-a-historic-argument/1/

Sadly Con could not join us for the final round. Extend all arguments.

Ragnar

Sadly Con could not join us for the final round. Extend all arguments.

Politics

Are-Court-cases-valid-in-a-historic-argument/1/

The Supreme Court has ruled many ridiculous cases such as Korematsu v. U.S. with regards to rights etc. I believe that one cannot say "Well, the court said this about this in this year," to further their argument about rights. Scott v. Sanford said that slaves weren't citizens, but property!

tyounes312

The Supreme Court has ruled many ridiculous cases such as Korematsu v. U.S. with regards to rights etc. I believe that one cannot say "Well, the court said this about this in this year," to further their argument about rights. Scott v. Sanford said that slaves weren't citizens, but property!

Politics

Are-Court-cases-valid-in-a-historic-argument/1/

Yes, hate to break it but the court doesn't always rule the correct verdict A.K.A. Plessy v. Ferguson where it was upheld that separate but equal facilities are equal. When arguing the Constitutionality of something a court case cannot justify it. One has the right to free speech, but in cases like U.S. v. Schenck and Alger Hiss's trial (yes he was a Communist) freedom of speech was "limited". How can freedom of speech be limited? Free is free, not semi-free or Quasi-free. The people should go by the Constitution, not the ruling of the Supreme Court when it comes to the Constitutionality of something.

tyounes312

Yes, hate to break it but the court doesn't always rule the correct verdict A.K.A. Plessy v. Ferguson where it was upheld that separate but equal facilities are equal. When arguing the Constitutionality of something a court case cannot justify it. One has the right to free speech, but in cases like U.S. v. Schenck and Alger Hiss's trial (yes he was a Communist) freedom of speech was "limited". How can freedom of speech be limited? Free is free, not semi-free or Quasi-free. The people should go by the Constitution, not the ruling of the Supreme Court when it comes to the Constitutionality of something.

Politics

Are-Court-cases-valid-in-a-historic-argument/1/

I am against GM foods. They are unnatural and go against God.

Wylted

I am against GM foods. They are unnatural and go against God.

Science

Are-GM-foods-beneficial/1/

Let's forgive that forfeit and just make this debate a round shorter.

Wylted

Let's forgive that forfeit and just make this debate a round shorter.

Science

Are-GM-foods-beneficial/1/

GM foods are unhealthy, do not create greater yields, are not safe, the side effects are not completely known. <URL>... Vote me.

Wylted

GM foods are unhealthy, do not create greater yields, are not safe, the side effects are not completely known. http://www.responsibletechnology.org... Vote me.

Science

Are-GM-foods-beneficial/1/

I think that GM foods are perfectly fine. We have been eating GM foods for 100s of years. We all eat them without knowing. I dare you to abject.

abby110301

I think that GM foods are perfectly fine. We have been eating GM foods for 100s of years. We all eat them without knowing. I dare you to abject.

Science

Are-GM-foods-beneficial/1/

Pitbulls are actually nice animals, they have to be trained to attack and fight so dont blame the poor inecoent animals blame the owners.

AwkwardPoptart

Pitbulls are actually nice animals, they have to be trained to attack and fight so dont blame the poor inecoent animals blame the owners.

Society

Are-Pitbulls-evil-mean-animals.-Dont-you-dare-say-yes/1/

I will start by saying my points in this argument. Sources: <URL>... <URL>... Definition of Evil: profoundly immoral and malevolent. Pit Bulls are definitely a dangerous animal. Some Pit Bulls can be tamed, but there are several reports and cases referring to the Pit Bull as being the number one dog to turn on their owners and attack them. According to Dog Notebook (2016), Pit Bulls have been known to attack children, the elderly, their owners; anyone that happens to be in their path. This includes them being the number one dog to cause most fatalities compared to any other dog. Pit Bulls are also a fighting dog; meaning they are meant to engage other dogs into a bloody fight until one remains standing. Yes, this would have been engaged by the owner of the dogs, but they run on their instinct and will to live. The reason this particular breed of dog is considered evil is mostly because of the lives they take. People have the stories of their child, spouse, or mother being teared apart by such a vicious creature. Several people have been apart of court cases because of a felony after their dog attacked. According to DogsBite.org (2008) 29-year-old mother, Marissa Abrego, faces one count of injury to a child, a second-degree felony. If convicted, she may face up to 20 years in jail and a $10,000 fine. (This was all from her chained up Pit Bull in the front yard!) Texas also has a deadly track record of Pit Bull attacks. In 2008, a child with the name of Pablo Lopez was placed into his aunt and uncle's care by CPS (Child Protective Services). They had a Pit Bull named Greco that ended up killing Pablo. (DogsBite.org) People have a very good reason to fear and call pit bulls evil for their designated stigma. Several campaigns around the united states have erupted from these vicious attacks. Several Cities and States have banned Pit Bulls from being owned and on private property. Even if the stigma around a Pit Bull is that they are evil creatures and should not be allowed in homes, they have a very good reason to say that.

BuleFirePhonix

I will start by saying my points in this argument. Sources: http://www.dognotebook.com... http://blog.dogsbite.org... Definition of Evil: profoundly immoral and malevolent. Pit Bulls are definitely a dangerous animal. Some Pit Bulls can be tamed, but there are several reports and cases referring to the Pit Bull as being the number one dog to turn on their owners and attack them. According to Dog Notebook (2016), Pit Bulls have been known to attack children, the elderly, their owners; anyone that happens to be in their path. This includes them being the number one dog to cause most fatalities compared to any other dog. Pit Bulls are also a fighting dog; meaning they are meant to engage other dogs into a bloody fight until one remains standing. Yes, this would have been engaged by the owner of the dogs, but they run on their instinct and will to live. The reason this particular breed of dog is considered evil is mostly because of the lives they take. People have the stories of their child, spouse, or mother being teared apart by such a vicious creature. Several people have been apart of court cases because of a felony after their dog attacked. According to DogsBite.org (2008) 29-year-old mother, Marissa Abrego, faces one count of injury to a child, a second-degree felony. If convicted, she may face up to 20 years in jail and a $10,000 fine. (This was all from her chained up Pit Bull in the front yard!) Texas also has a deadly track record of Pit Bull attacks. In 2008, a child with the name of Pablo Lopez was placed into his aunt and uncle's care by CPS (Child Protective Services). They had a Pit Bull named Greco that ended up killing Pablo. (DogsBite.org) People have a very good reason to fear and call pit bulls evil for their designated stigma. Several campaigns around the united states have erupted from these vicious attacks. Several Cities and States have banned Pit Bulls from being owned and on private property. Even if the stigma around a Pit Bull is that they are evil creatures and should not be allowed in homes, they have a very good reason to say that.

Society

Are-Pitbulls-evil-mean-animals.-Dont-you-dare-say-yes/1/

I hope my opponent does not forfeit this next round.

BuleFirePhonix

I hope my opponent does not forfeit this next round.

Society

Are-Pitbulls-evil-mean-animals.-Dont-you-dare-say-yes/1/

This debate has now ended, cast your votes for your favorite debate.

BuleFirePhonix

This debate has now ended, cast your votes for your favorite debate.

Society

Are-Pitbulls-evil-mean-animals.-Dont-you-dare-say-yes/1/

Introduction I'd like to thank my opponent on challenging me to my first debate. I hope I provide him with a worthy challenge. My opponent has made the claim that religious people are insane. By making this claim he is saying that if a person is religious, they are also insane; that every religious person who has ever lived is or was insane . My opponent will need to show that this statement is true. To show that my opponent is incorrect I only need to show that one or more religious people are not insane. Definitions The definition of insane taken from pro: "Not having or showing reason, not sound judgment, or good sense" Since "religious" hasn't been defined, and can seem quite vague, I will provide a definition of "religion", where "religious" people are people who follow a "religion". I will try to use as concise and coherent a definition as I can. For a belief to be classed as a religion to should meet most but not necessarily all of these conditions. "Belief in something sacred (for example, gods or other supernatural beings). A distinction between sacred and profane objects. Ritual acts focused on sacred objects. A moral code believed to have a sacred or supernatural basis. Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual. Prayer and other forms of communication with the supernatural. A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it. A more or less total organization of one's life based on the world view. A social group bound together by the above." [1] This definition covers religious beliefs such as but nowhere near limited to Buddhism, Judaism, Pantheism, Hinduism, Islam, Taoism, Christianity and Sikhism. Arguments We have agreed to present arguments in the first round, but not rebuttals, so I will provide those in the next round. So to show that a person is not insane I only need to demonstrate that they show reasoning, sound judgement or good sense. If I can show this is true for at least one religious person then pro's claim is shown to be incorrect. Religious people may have some irrational beliefs, but the question then becomes, does having some irrational beliefs make you insane? I don't think it does. I'd wager that we have all believed something irrational in our lives, but because overall we show reasoning and good judgement, we are sane. To show that all religious people who are alive and who have ever lived are insane, you will have to show that not one single person who is religious can demonstrate or have sound judgement, good sense or reasoning. To do this you would have to show that; They should not be legally responsible for any contracts that they sign. That they can't offer any valuable insight into science, mathematics or philosophy That they should not be allowed to vote. And finally you will have to also show that they do not have the ability to keep themselves or others relatively safe in the world they live in. Many great thinkers such as Socrates [2] , Rene Descartes [3] , Charles Babbage [4] , Max Planck, Gregor Mendel, [6] Leanhard Euler [7] and Albert Einstein [8] were religious to varying degrees, just to name a few. Are you claiming these, plus all other religious great thinkers were insane ? They have shown sound judgement, so by your definition they are not insane. Closing statement Pro now has the burden to show that every religious person who has ever lived is insane. I do not believe pro can meet this burden. Again I thank my opponent for providing me with this challenge. Vote con. Citations 1: <URL>... 2: <URL>... 3: <URL>... 4: <URL>... 5: <URL>... 6: <URL>... 7: <URL>... 8: <URL>...

AlbinoBunny

Introduction I’d like to thank my opponent on challenging me to my first debate. I hope I provide him with a worthy challenge. My opponent has made the claim that religious people are insane. By making this claim he is saying that if a person is religious, they are also insane; that every religious person who has ever lived is or was insane . My opponent will need to show that this statement is true. To show that my opponent is incorrect I only need to show that one or more religious people are not insane. Definitions The definition of insane taken from pro: “Not having or showing reason, not sound judgment, or good sense” Since “religious” hasn’t been defined, and can seem quite vague, I will provide a definition of “religion”, where “religious” people are people who follow a “religion”. I will try to use as concise and coherent a definition as I can. For a belief to be classed as a religion to should meet most but not necessarily all of these conditions. “Belief in something sacred (for example, gods or other supernatural beings). A distinction between sacred and profane objects. Ritual acts focused on sacred objects. A moral code believed to have a sacred or supernatural basis. Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual. Prayer and other forms of communication with the supernatural. A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it. A more or less total organization of one’s life based on the world view. A social group bound together by the above.” [1] This definition covers religious beliefs such as but nowhere near limited to Buddhism, Judaism, Pantheism, Hinduism, Islam, Taoism, Christianity and Sikhism. Arguments We have agreed to present arguments in the first round, but not rebuttals, so I will provide those in the next round. So to show that a person is not insane I only need to demonstrate that they show reasoning, sound judgement or good sense. If I can show this is true for at least one religious person then pro’s claim is shown to be incorrect. Religious people may have some irrational beliefs, but the question then becomes, does having some irrational beliefs make you insane? I don’t think it does. I’d wager that we have all believed something irrational in our lives, but because overall we show reasoning and good judgement, we are sane. To show that all religious people who are alive and who have ever lived are insane, you will have to show that not one single person who is religious can demonstrate or have sound judgement, good sense or reasoning. To do this you would have to show that; They should not be legally responsible for any contracts that they sign. That they can’t offer any valuable insight into science, mathematics or philosophy That they should not be allowed to vote. And finally you will have to also show that they do not have the ability to keep themselves or others relatively safe in the world they live in. Many great thinkers such as Socrates [2] , René Descartes [3] , Charles Babbage [4] , Max Planck, Gregor Mendel, [6] Leanhard Euler [7] and Albert Einstein [8] were religious to varying degrees, just to name a few. Are you claiming these, plus all other religious great thinkers were insane ? They have shown sound judgement, so by your definition they are not insane. Closing statement Pro now has the burden to show that every religious person who has ever lived is insane. I do not believe pro can meet this burden. Again I thank my opponent for providing me with this challenge. Vote con. Citations 1: http://goo.gl... 2: http://goo.gl... 3: http://goo.gl... 4: http://goo.gl... 5: http://goo.gl... 6: http://goo.gl... 7: http://goo.gl... 8: http://goo.gl...

Philosophy

Are-Religious-people-insane/1/

My opponent has correctly pointed out that you need to be very precise with your meanings in debates or there"s a good chance that you will be tied up with a debate over "semantics, syntax, definitions, perception and other technicalities." I am disheartened to hear that this has damaged his enthusiasm for debates, but can fully understand his position. From what I have observed, part of being a good debater comes from these experiences and learning how to close up these loopholes so that a debate can be made over the proper claim and not a distorted one. Through this debate I will try to share the burden of proof, and not just claim "my opponent has to do all the leg work as he has the burden of proof". So far I have provided arguments in my favour, just as he has provided arguments in his favour. In the next few rounds we will dispute each others" arguments, and he who has the better arguments wins, each carrying the burden of proof on their shoulders. My definition of "religious" was not very precise because such a complex thing as religion cannot be given such a definition. For the sake of this debate though, I will agree with my opponent that "Prayer and other forms of communication with the supernatural." is always a condition for religious belief. I also want to voice the concern that with the claim you"ve made, this debate may well be decided on semantics, however hard we try to avoid this. The vagueness of the terms "religious" and "insane" will probably be the main contention of the debate.

AlbinoBunny

My opponent has correctly pointed out that you need to be very precise with your meanings in debates or there"s a good chance that you will be tied up with a debate over "semantics, syntax, definitions, perception and other technicalities." I am disheartened to hear that this has damaged his enthusiasm for debates, but can fully understand his position. From what I have observed, part of being a good debater comes from these experiences and learning how to close up these loopholes so that a debate can be made over the proper claim and not a distorted one. Through this debate I will try to share the burden of proof, and not just claim "my opponent has to do all the leg work as he has the burden of proof". So far I have provided arguments in my favour, just as he has provided arguments in his favour. In the next few rounds we will dispute each others" arguments, and he who has the better arguments wins, each carrying the burden of proof on their shoulders. My definition of "religious" was not very precise because such a complex thing as religion cannot be given such a definition. For the sake of this debate though, I will agree with my opponent that "Prayer and other forms of communication with the supernatural." is always a condition for religious belief. I also want to voice the concern that with the claim you"ve made, this debate may well be decided on semantics, however hard we try to avoid this. The vagueness of the terms "religious" and "insane" will probably be the main contention of the debate.

Philosophy

Are-Religious-people-insane/1/

Rebuttals "Religious people belie ve things without evidence, talk to invisible beings and expect "miracles" to happen because of it. They think a 2000 year old book has all the answers to the Universe and would rather believe snakes talk, people walk on water and people are made from sand, rather than read a science book." This is not true for all religious people, or even most of them. "I will argue that anyone who really believes that as true, is in fact, insane according to the above definition." And I will disagree with you on this according to the above definition, with the points I have previously stated. "I could just look up "insane" in the dictionary, but I want to use a more realistic approach." Just reminding Pro that we have already defined "insane" as "Not having or showing reason, not sound judgment, or good sense". "Society has such an institution called an insane asylum, where people who are proved to be insane are placed. One of the criteria for them being committed to such an institution is their inability to differentiate between reality and non-reality. For example, somebody may really believe they are Abraham Lincoln, even though in reality, they are not. It can be proved that they are not Abraham Lincoln and the person who believes they are can be shown evidence to prove they are wrong. The insane person, will ignore or deny the evidence in favor of their belief." Pro, we've already defined "insane", I hope this is not you trying to redefine what we have already agreed for the term "insane" to mean. "Another example of somebody committed to an asylum is one who talks to imaginary things that don't exist. They may claim to hear voices and insist they are actually speaking to someone or something that can't be proved to exist." Sometimes people hear voices, and this affects their life to such an extent that they can be defined as legally insane. As far as I am aware, this is correct. "Now, I will point out that there is, or has never been, any evidence for anything supernatural. That's not my opinion. If my opponent can find proof of something supernatural existing, I will admit I was wrong." Supernatural - "attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces". Meh, Photons appearing in two places at once and an LED with above 100% electrical efficiency? I'm willing to drop this point though. "In any case, I want to look at some of the things a religious person is known to do: 1. Belief in something sacred (for example, gods or other supernatural beings). Since there is no scientific evidence for any Gods or supernatural beings, a religious person would have to rely of faith in order to believe it. Faith is to believe something without evidence, which is not rational." I agree that faith is irrational (although not quite insane). "2. The thing my opponent agreed to that all religious people do is "Prayer and other forms of communication with the supernatural" As I pointed out before, there has never been any scientific evidence for something supernatural to exist. Once again, a religious person would have to rely on faith in order to believe that they are communicating with something supernatural. I will also add that most people who try to communicate with the supernatural, do so expecting some kind of reward or positive change. This type of wishful thinking has not been proved to be successful. There have been scientific studies to confirm this. <URL>... ... " I'm starting to wonder if I should pick up the point about the supernatural, even though I disagree with it myself. Other than that contention which I have decided to let go at least for this round, I agree with the above. "I could go over the other irrational things religious people do, but I think I'll concentrate on the above two for now." They are irrational, but I don't believe that they are "insane". "There seems to be a similarity between people committed to insane asylums and those who are religious. Both try to communicate to things that can not be proved to exist. Both ignore proof that their beliefs can be proved wrong." Not all people who are committed to insane asylums try to "communicate to things that can not (sic) be proved (sic) to exist". They do seem quite resistant to evidence opposing their beliefs though. "In fact, if a religious person would substitute Abraham Lincoln, Napoleon Bonaparte or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for "God", they would most certainly be asked to at least go through a psychiatric evaluation. It is just not normal to believe in things that don't exist without evidence and attempt to communicate with them, expecting, or even claiming to get a reply." Would they? Is this in the U.S? Are you saying that people who try to communicate with the dead are insane? Especially so if they think that they got a reply? Also please remember the definition of "insane" we are using for this debate. "For some reason, that I am unaware of, the word "God" makes one immune to the same standards of insanity other people are held to. This may be due to the extreme volume of insane people who claim "god" is the one they are communicating with. It would be impossible to commit that many people to asylums at once. However, claiming that because of the high number of people who believe that there is a supernatural God they communicate with, it makes their claims true, and rational, would be a logical fallacy. An appeal to the majority, also known as an "ad populem" does not prove something to be correct. I would therefore suggest that religion is a legal form of insanity." There are "Standards of insanity"? As far as I can tell it's not even a medical term in the U.S, I'm struggling to understand what standards you are referring to. I agree with you that it isn't a practical solution to commit all religious people to mental asylums. "Argumentum ad populum" is a logical fallacy. I disagree with your claim that this makes religion a legal form of insanity. I have stated my arguments against this claim above. "If religious people, were, in fact, committed to asylums the way others with similar insane symptoms were committed, they would, in fact not be able to be legally responsible for any contracts that they sign, not be able to offer any valuable insight into science, mathematics or philosophy, not be allowed to vote nor have the ability to keep themselves or others relatively safe in the world they live in." The symptoms may be similar, but if that's how doctors diagnosed patients (similar symptoms), there would be a lot of misdiagnosis. If they are committed to a mental asylum this would mean that they would not be legally responsible for any contracts they sign, if. I have stated above why they are not insane (at least not insane just because they're religious), so they don't need to be committed because they're religious, because they're not insane. Even if they were committed they could offer valuable insight into science, mathematics or philosophy, if they were so inclined. I have shown that many people with religious beliefs have contributed to those fields. Also there doesn't seem to be a link between being religious and the ability to function well and keep yourself and others around you safe. "I am not just making claims from opinion. I am using logic based on facts." I cannot find a logical link from what you've said that makes all religious people insane from the above agreed definition of "insane", though. "I look forward to the next round." So do I. I believe my points still stand and I have refuted enough of Pro's points so that his case doesn't stand. I hope Pro keeps his enthusiasm up in the next round. Vote Con. :)

AlbinoBunny

Rebuttals “Religious people belie ve things without evidence, talk to invisible beings and expect "miracles" to happen because of it. They think a 2000 year old book has all the answers to the Universe and would rather believe snakes talk, people walk on water and people are made from sand, rather than read a science book.” This is not true for all religious people, or even most of them. “I will argue that anyone who really believes that as true, is in fact, insane according to the above definition.” And I will disagree with you on this according to the above definition, with the points I have previously stated. “I could just look up "insane" in the dictionary, but I want to use a more realistic approach.” Just reminding Pro that we have already defined “insane” as “Not having or showing reason, not sound judgment, or good sense”. “Society has such an institution called an insane asylum, where people who are proved to be insane are placed. One of the criteria for them being committed to such an institution is their inability to differentiate between reality and non-reality. For example, somebody may really believe they are Abraham Lincoln, even though in reality, they are not. It can be proved that they are not Abraham Lincoln and the person who believes they are can be shown evidence to prove they are wrong. The insane person, will ignore or deny the evidence in favor of their belief.” Pro, we’ve already defined “insane”, I hope this is not you trying to redefine what we have already agreed for the term “insane” to mean. “Another example of somebody committed to an asylum is one who talks to imaginary things that don't exist. They may claim to hear voices and insist they are actually speaking to someone or something that can't be proved to exist.” Sometimes people hear voices, and this affects their life to such an extent that they can be defined as legally insane. As far as I am aware, this is correct. “Now, I will point out that there is, or has never been, any evidence for anything supernatural. That's not my opinion. If my opponent can find proof of something supernatural existing, I will admit I was wrong.” Supernatural – “attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces”. Meh, Photons appearing in two places at once and an LED with above 100% electrical efficiency? I’m willing to drop this point though. “In any case, I want to look at some of the things a religious person is known to do: 1. Belief in something sacred (for example, gods or other supernatural beings). Since there is no scientific evidence for any Gods or supernatural beings, a religious person would have to rely of faith in order to believe it. Faith is to believe something without evidence, which is not rational.” I agree that faith is irrational (although not quite insane). “2. The thing my opponent agreed to that all religious people do is "Prayer and other forms of communication with the supernatural" As I pointed out before, there has never been any scientific evidence for something supernatural to exist. Once again, a religious person would have to rely on faith in order to believe that they are communicating with something supernatural. I will also add that most people who try to communicate with the supernatural, do so expecting some kind of reward or positive change. This type of wishful thinking has not been proved to be successful. There have been scientific studies to confirm this. http://web.med.harvard.edu... ... “ I’m starting to wonder if I should pick up the point about the supernatural, even though I disagree with it myself. Other than that contention which I have decided to let go at least for this round, I agree with the above. “I could go over the other irrational things religious people do, but I think I'll concentrate on the above two for now.” They are irrational, but I don’t believe that they are “insane”. “There seems to be a similarity between people committed to insane asylums and those who are religious. Both try to communicate to things that can not be proved to exist. Both ignore proof that their beliefs can be proved wrong.” Not all people who are committed to insane asylums try to “communicate to things that can not (sic) be proved (sic) to exist”. They do seem quite resistant to evidence opposing their beliefs though. “In fact, if a religious person would substitute Abraham Lincoln, Napoleon Bonaparte or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for "God", they would most certainly be asked to at least go through a psychiatric evaluation. It is just not normal to believe in things that don't exist without evidence and attempt to communicate with them, expecting, or even claiming to get a reply.” Would they? Is this in the U.S? Are you saying that people who try to communicate with the dead are insane? Especially so if they think that they got a reply? Also please remember the definition of “insane” we are using for this debate. “For some reason, that I am unaware of, the word "God" makes one immune to the same standards of insanity other people are held to. This may be due to the extreme volume of insane people who claim "god" is the one they are communicating with. It would be impossible to commit that many people to asylums at once. However, claiming that because of the high number of people who believe that there is a supernatural God they communicate with, it makes their claims true, and rational, would be a logical fallacy. An appeal to the majority, also known as an "ad populem" does not prove something to be correct. I would therefore suggest that religion is a legal form of insanity.” There are “Standards of insanity”? As far as I can tell it’s not even a medical term in the U.S, I’m struggling to understand what standards you are referring to. I agree with you that it isn’t a practical solution to commit all religious people to mental asylums. “Argumentum ad populum” is a logical fallacy. I disagree with your claim that this makes religion a legal form of insanity. I have stated my arguments against this claim above. “If religious people, were, in fact, committed to asylums the way others with similar insane symptoms were committed, they would, in fact not be able to be legally responsible for any contracts that they sign, not be able to offer any valuable insight into science, mathematics or philosophy, not be allowed to vote nor have the ability to keep themselves or others relatively safe in the world they live in.” The symptoms may be similar, but if that’s how doctors diagnosed patients (similar symptoms), there would be a lot of misdiagnosis. If they are committed to a mental asylum this would mean that they would not be legally responsible for any contracts they sign, if. I have stated above why they are not insane (at least not insane just because they’re religious), so they don’t need to be committed because they’re religious, because they’re not insane. Even if they were committed they could offer valuable insight into science, mathematics or philosophy, if they were so inclined. I have shown that many people with religious beliefs have contributed to those fields. Also there doesn’t seem to be a link between being religious and the ability to function well and keep yourself and others around you safe. “I am not just making claims from opinion. I am using logic based on facts.” I cannot find a logical link from what you’ve said that makes all religious people insane from the above agreed definition of “insane”, though. “I look forward to the next round.” So do I. I believe my points still stand and I have refuted enough of Pro’s points so that his case doesn’t stand. I hope Pro keeps his enthusiasm up in the next round. Vote Con. :)

Philosophy

Are-Religious-people-insane/1/

Rebuttals " 1. Pascal's Wager Pascal's Wager suggests that believing is God would be the best action to take, since you have nothing to lose and eternal life to gain. So, let's put this to the test. Is this showing reason, sound judgement or good sense? No, because it's actually showing ignorance. This type if thinking is ignoring several facts. A. The fact that there's no evidence that can prove eternal life is possible, proves they are not showing reason, sound judgement or good sense; just wishful thinking. B. The fact that they do actually have things to lose, such as valuable time wasted going to Church and praying. They can also lose money donating to churches. Trying to use faulty logic that you have nothing to lose by being religious is not showing reason, sound judgement or good sense." They are considering the consequences of their actions, which shows reasoning. "2. Peer pressure A person might feel like they must be religious in order to be able to socialize or function in society. This, of course, is not true. Again, it's not showing or having reason, sound judgement or good sense." Being peer pressured into things because of society's stigmas is not a sign of insanity; it shows the good sense of wanting to be accepted by a group. " 3. Indoctrination Many people are indoctrinated at a young age to become religious. This does not involve showing or having reason, sound judgement or good sense. It's a form of brainwashing." When you are young you are more impressionable, but this does not mean that children are insane. " 4. Irrational fear Many people are religious because they have an irrational fear of death, or an irrational fear of going to hell. This does not show reason, sound judgement or good sense." It is in fact rational to be scared of pain and death. " 5. Ignorance Some people are religious because of their ignorance of science. They believe in God because they want to believe in God, no matter what evidence is presented that may prove them wrong. This does not show reason, sound judgement or good sense." This may be closed minded, but being closed minded does not make you insane. Being ignorant does not mean you are insane either. " 6. Irrational feelings Some people are religious, because they have a very low self esteem and feel like they are worthless without a God. This does not show reason, sound judgement or good sense." Turning to religion is not insanity, it is a coping mechanism. "7. The belief of the supernatural. In order to have or show reason, sound judgement or good sense, you need to accept the fact that for something to be proven true, you need demonstrable evidence. The burden of proof is on those who make a positive claim. Those who claim the supernatural is real, without demonstrable proof, can not have or show reason, sound judgement or good sense." They are irrational about believing in something without evidence, but as my arguments showed, this is not the same as being insane. Closing statement Pro has argued that the above points show a person to be irrational . I have shown that some of the above points aren't irrational, but some are. I have also shown, building on my original argument, that having something in your life which you are irrational about, does not make you insane . Just as Pro might present some irrational ideas about what makes a person insane, does not actually make Pro insane himself. Pro has yet to provide a rebuttal to my original argument. Vote Con.

AlbinoBunny

Rebuttals “ 1. Pascal's Wager Pascal's Wager suggests that believing is God would be the best action to take, since you have nothing to lose and eternal life to gain. So, let's put this to the test. Is this showing reason, sound judgement or good sense? No, because it's actually showing ignorance. This type if thinking is ignoring several facts. A. The fact that there's no evidence that can prove eternal life is possible, proves they are not showing reason, sound judgement or good sense; just wishful thinking. B. The fact that they do actually have things to lose, such as valuable time wasted going to Church and praying. They can also lose money donating to churches. Trying to use faulty logic that you have nothing to lose by being religious is not showing reason, sound judgement or good sense.” They are considering the consequences of their actions, which shows reasoning. “2. Peer pressure A person might feel like they must be religious in order to be able to socialize or function in society. This, of course, is not true. Again, it's not showing or having reason, sound judgement or good sense.” Being peer pressured into things because of society’s stigmas is not a sign of insanity; it shows the good sense of wanting to be accepted by a group. “ 3. Indoctrination Many people are indoctrinated at a young age to become religious. This does not involve showing or having reason, sound judgement or good sense. It's a form of brainwashing.” When you are young you are more impressionable, but this does not mean that children are insane. “ 4. Irrational fear Many people are religious because they have an irrational fear of death, or an irrational fear of going to hell. This does not show reason, sound judgement or good sense.” It is in fact rational to be scared of pain and death. “ 5. Ignorance Some people are religious because of their ignorance of science. They believe in God because they want to believe in God, no matter what evidence is presented that may prove them wrong. This does not show reason, sound judgement or good sense.” This may be closed minded, but being closed minded does not make you insane. Being ignorant does not mean you are insane either. “ 6. Irrational feelings Some people are religious, because they have a very low self esteem and feel like they are worthless without a God. This does not show reason, sound judgement or good sense.” Turning to religion is not insanity, it is a coping mechanism. “7. The belief of the supernatural. In order to have or show reason, sound judgement or good sense, you need to accept the fact that for something to be proven true, you need demonstrable evidence. The burden of proof is on those who make a positive claim. Those who claim the supernatural is real, without demonstrable proof, can not have or show reason, sound judgement or good sense.” They are irrational about believing in something without evidence, but as my arguments showed, this is not the same as being insane. Closing statement Pro has argued that the above points show a person to be irrational . I have shown that some of the above points aren’t irrational, but some are. I have also shown, building on my original argument, that having something in your life which you are irrational about, does not make you insane . Just as Pro might present some irrational ideas about what makes a person insane, does not actually make Pro insane himself. Pro has yet to provide a rebuttal to my original argument. Vote Con.

Philosophy

Are-Religious-people-insane/1/

Definition of insane: Not having or showing reason, not sound judgment, or good sense No claiming "something can't come from nothing". Nobody has ever had a "nothing" to examine, so it can't even be defined what a "nothing" is. No claiming "everything must have a cause". Causality didn't exist until after the Bing Bang, which means the Big Bang could have happened without a cause. No claiming the Universe came from nothing. The Universe came from a singularity, which is something. According to Professor Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist, the singularity was a millionth of a billionth of a centimeter wide. No word games. No playing with semantics. No using wikipedia. It's a not a reliable source. No using Creationist websites. They are proved to be complete nonsense. No vague definition of words. If you use a word that can have several meanings, make it clear what you actually mean. No adding new arguments as you go along. State your arguments in the first round and be prepared to defend them later. Do not try to flood the last round with new arguments that I don't get a chance to address. That's dishonest and cheating. No using information without defining the way you interpret it. There should be no accusations about how somebody interpreted something wrong. Religious people believe things without evidence, talk to invisible beings and expect "miracles" to happen because of it. They think a 2000 year old book has all the answers to the Universe and would rather believe snakes talk, people walk on water and people are made from sand, rather than read a science book. Christianity is the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. I will argue that anyone who really believes that as true, is in fact, insane according to the above definition.

qopel

Definition of insane: Not having or showing reason, not sound judgment, or good sense No claiming "something can't come from nothing". Nobody has ever had a "nothing" to examine, so it can't even be defined what a "nothing" is. No claiming "everything must have a cause". Causality didn't exist until after the Bing Bang, which means the Big Bang could have happened without a cause. No claiming the Universe came from nothing. The Universe came from a singularity, which is something. According to Professor Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist, the singularity was a millionth of a billionth of a centimeter wide. No word games. No playing with semantics. No using wikipedia. It's a not a reliable source. No using Creationist websites. They are proved to be complete nonsense. No vague definition of words. If you use a word that can have several meanings, make it clear what you actually mean. No adding new arguments as you go along. State your arguments in the first round and be prepared to defend them later. Do not try to flood the last round with new arguments that I don't get a chance to address. That's dishonest and cheating. No using information without defining the way you interpret it. There should be no accusations about how somebody interpreted something wrong. Religious people believe things without evidence, talk to invisible beings and expect "miracles" to happen because of it. They think a 2000 year old book has all the answers to the Universe and would rather believe snakes talk, people walk on water and people are made from sand, rather than read a science book. Christianity is the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. I will argue that anyone who really believes that as true, is in fact, insane according to the above definition.

Philosophy

Are-Religious-people-insane/1/

I'd like to congratulate my opponent on his first debate. I will admit that I will probably lose, mostly due to vote bombs, since there seems to many angry debaters here who don't like my style, and vote with emotion, rather than with reason. I will also add that I am very impressed with the argument my opponent has laid out. My experience with debates is limited, but I have found out quickly that debates aren't really about truth, but about semantics, syntax, definitions, perception and other technicalities. In any case I'll continue, even though my enthusiasm for debates has been destroyed by the experience. It seems I now have a burden of proof. My opponent has attempted to define "Religious". The problem I have is that "For a belief to be classified as a religion it should meet most but not necessarily all of these conditions." That means if I pick a specific condition, my opponent can just blow it off because "most" is not "all". In order to avoid this technicality, I would like to pick one of the conditions and ask my opponent to agree to it as always having to be a condition for religious belief. That condition is: "Prayer and other forms of communication with the supernatural." If my opponent will agree to this, I will continue on with my debate. I want to thank my worthy opponent ahead of time for his fairness and understanding.

qopel

I'd like to congratulate my opponent on his first debate. I will admit that I will probably lose, mostly due to vote bombs, since there seems to many angry debaters here who don't like my style, and vote with emotion, rather than with reason. I will also add that I am very impressed with the argument my opponent has laid out. My experience with debates is limited, but I have found out quickly that debates aren't really about truth, but about semantics, syntax, definitions, perception and other technicalities. In any case I'll continue, even though my enthusiasm for debates has been destroyed by the experience. It seems I now have a burden of proof. My opponent has attempted to define "Religious". The problem I have is that "For a belief to be classified as a religion it should meet most but not necessarily all of these conditions." That means if I pick a specific condition, my opponent can just blow it off because "most" is not "all". In order to avoid this technicality, I would like to pick one of the conditions and ask my opponent to agree to it as always having to be a condition for religious belief. That condition is: "Prayer and other forms of communication with the supernatural." If my opponent will agree to this, I will continue on with my debate. I want to thank my worthy opponent ahead of time for his fairness and understanding.

Philosophy

Are-Religious-people-insane/1/

I want to thank my opponent for agreeing to "Prayer and other forms of communication with the supernatural." as always a condition for religious belief. The debate is "Are Religious people insane?" I could just look up "insane" in the dictionary, but I want to use a more realistic approach. Society has such an institution called an insane asylum, where people who are proved to be insane are placed. One of the criteria for them being committed to such an institution is their inability to differentiate between reality and non-reality. For example, somebody may really believe they are Abraham Lincoln, even though in reality, they are not. It can be proved that they are not Abraham Lincoln and the person who believes they are can be shown evidence to prove they are wrong. The insane person, will ignore or deny the evidence in favor of their belief. Another example of somebody committed to an asylum is one who talks to imaginary things that don't exist. They may claim to hear voices and insist they are actually speaking to someone or something that can't be proved to exist. Now, I will point out that there is, or has never been, any evidence for anything supernatural. That's not my opinion. If my opponent can find proof of something supernatural existing, I will admit I was wrong. In any case, I want to look at some of the things a religious person is known to do: 1. Belief in something sacred (for example, gods or other supernatural beings). Since there is no scientific evidence for any Gods or supernatural beings, a religious person would have to rely of faith in order to believe it. Faith is to believe something without evidence, which is not rational. 2. The thing my opponent agreed to that all religious people do is "Prayer and other forms of communication with the supernatural" As I pointed out before, there has never been any scientific evidence for something supernatural to exist. Once again, a religious person would have to rely on faith in order to believe that they are communicating with something supernatural. I will also add that most people who try to communicate with the supernatural, do so expecting some kind of reward or positive change. This type of wishful thinking has not been proved to be successful. There have been scientific studies to confirm this. <URL>... I could go over the other irrational things religious people do, but I think I'll concentrate on the above two for now. There seems to be a similarity between people committed to insane asylums and those who are religious. Both try to communicate to things that can not be proved to exist. Both ignore proof that their beliefs can be proved wrong. In fact, if a religious person would substitute Abraham Lincoln, Napoleon Bonaparte or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for "God", they would most certainly be asked to at least go through a psychiatric evaluation. It is just not normal to believe in things that don't exist without evidence and attempt to communicate with them, expecting, or even claiming to get a reply. For some reason, that I am unaware of, the word "God" makes one immune to the same standards of insanity other people are held to. This may be due to the extreme volume of insane people who claim "god" is the one they are communicating with. It would be impossible to commit that many people to asylums at once. However, claiming that because of the high number of people who believe that there is a supernatural God they communicate with, it makes their claims true, and rational, would be a logical fallacy. An appeal to the majority, also known as an "ad populem" does not prove something to be correct. I would therefore suggest that religion is a legal form of insanity. If religious people, were, in fact, committed to asylums the way others with similar insane symptoms were committed, they would, in fact not be able to be legally responsible for any contracts that they sign, not be able to offer any valuable insight into science, mathematics or philosophy, not be allowed to vote nor have the ability to keep themselves or others relatively safe in the world they live in. I am not just making claims from opinion. I am using logic based on facts. I look forward to the next round.

qopel

I want to thank my opponent for agreeing to "Prayer and other forms of communication with the supernatural." as always a condition for religious belief. The debate is "Are Religious people insane?" I could just look up "insane" in the dictionary, but I want to use a more realistic approach. Society has such an institution called an insane asylum, where people who are proved to be insane are placed. One of the criteria for them being committed to such an institution is their inability to differentiate between reality and non-reality. For example, somebody may really believe they are Abraham Lincoln, even though in reality, they are not. It can be proved that they are not Abraham Lincoln and the person who believes they are can be shown evidence to prove they are wrong. The insane person, will ignore or deny the evidence in favor of their belief. Another example of somebody committed to an asylum is one who talks to imaginary things that don't exist. They may claim to hear voices and insist they are actually speaking to someone or something that can't be proved to exist. Now, I will point out that there is, or has never been, any evidence for anything supernatural. That's not my opinion. If my opponent can find proof of something supernatural existing, I will admit I was wrong. In any case, I want to look at some of the things a religious person is known to do: 1. Belief in something sacred (for example, gods or other supernatural beings). Since there is no scientific evidence for any Gods or supernatural beings, a religious person would have to rely of faith in order to believe it. Faith is to believe something without evidence, which is not rational. 2. The thing my opponent agreed to that all religious people do is "Prayer and other forms of communication with the supernatural" As I pointed out before, there has never been any scientific evidence for something supernatural to exist. Once again, a religious person would have to rely on faith in order to believe that they are communicating with something supernatural. I will also add that most people who try to communicate with the supernatural, do so expecting some kind of reward or positive change. This type of wishful thinking has not been proved to be successful. There have been scientific studies to confirm this. http://web.med.harvard.edu... I could go over the other irrational things religious people do, but I think I'll concentrate on the above two for now. There seems to be a similarity between people committed to insane asylums and those who are religious. Both try to communicate to things that can not be proved to exist. Both ignore proof that their beliefs can be proved wrong. In fact, if a religious person would substitute Abraham Lincoln, Napoleon Bonaparte or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for "God", they would most certainly be asked to at least go through a psychiatric evaluation. It is just not normal to believe in things that don't exist without evidence and attempt to communicate with them, expecting, or even claiming to get a reply. For some reason, that I am unaware of, the word "God" makes one immune to the same standards of insanity other people are held to. This may be due to the extreme volume of insane people who claim "god" is the one they are communicating with. It would be impossible to commit that many people to asylums at once. However, claiming that because of the high number of people who believe that there is a supernatural God they communicate with, it makes their claims true, and rational, would be a logical fallacy. An appeal to the majority, also known as an "ad populem" does not prove something to be correct. I would therefore suggest that religion is a legal form of insanity. If religious people, were, in fact, committed to asylums the way others with similar insane symptoms were committed, they would, in fact not be able to be legally responsible for any contracts that they sign, not be able to offer any valuable insight into science, mathematics or philosophy, not be allowed to vote nor have the ability to keep themselves or others relatively safe in the world they live in. I am not just making claims from opinion. I am using logic based on facts. I look forward to the next round.

Philosophy

Are-Religious-people-insane/1/

OK, I'm going to try to take this with a different approach. Since we agreed to define insane as "Not having or showing reason, not sound judgment, or good sense" I think it will be easier if I didn't try to set the standard of insanity by somebody who is committed to an insane asylum. So, let's look at WHY people are religious: 1. Pascal's Wager Pascal's Wager suggests that believing is God would be the best action to take, since you have nothing to lose and eternal life to gain. So, let's put this to the test. Is this showing reason, sound judgement or good sense? No, because it's actually showing ignorance. This type if thinking is ignoring several facts. A. The fact that there's no evidence that can prove eternal life is possible, proves they are not showing reason, sound judgement or good sense; just wishful thinking. B. The fact that they do actually have things to lose, such as valuable time wasted going to Church and praying. They can also lose money donating to churches. Trying to use faulty logic that you have nothing to lose by being religious is not showing reason, sound judgement or good sense. 2. Peer pressure A person might feel like they must be religious in order to be able to socialize or function in society. This, of course, is not true. Again, it's not showing or having reason, sound judgement or good sense. 3. Indoctrination Many people are indoctrinated at a young age to become religious. This does not involve showing or having reason, sound judgement or good sense. It's a form of brainwashing. 4. Irrational fear Many people are religious because they have an irrational fear of death, or an irrational fear of going to hell. This does not show reason, sound judgement or good sense. 5. Ignorance Some people are religious because of their ignorance of science. They believe in God because they want to believe in God, no matter what evidence is presented that may prove them wrong. This does not show reason, sound judgement or good sense. 6. Irrational feelings Some people are religious, because they have a very low self esteem and feel like they are worthless without a God. This does not show reason, sound judgement or good sense. 7. The belief of the supernatural. In order to have or show reason, sound judgement or good sense, you need to accept the fact that for something to be proven true, you need demonstrable evidence. The burden of proof is on those who make a positive claim. Those who claim the supernatural is real, without demonstrable proof, can not have or show reason, sound judgement or good sense. Because, there is no showing or having reason, sound judgement or good sense, why anyone would be religious, I will claim that Religious people are, in fact, insane.

qopel

OK, I'm going to try to take this with a different approach. Since we agreed to define insane as "Not having or showing reason, not sound judgment, or good sense" I think it will be easier if I didn't try to set the standard of insanity by somebody who is committed to an insane asylum. So, let's look at WHY people are religious: 1. Pascal's Wager Pascal's Wager suggests that believing is God would be the best action to take, since you have nothing to lose and eternal life to gain. So, let's put this to the test. Is this showing reason, sound judgement or good sense? No, because it's actually showing ignorance. This type if thinking is ignoring several facts. A. The fact that there's no evidence that can prove eternal life is possible, proves they are not showing reason, sound judgement or good sense; just wishful thinking. B. The fact that they do actually have things to lose, such as valuable time wasted going to Church and praying. They can also lose money donating to churches. Trying to use faulty logic that you have nothing to lose by being religious is not showing reason, sound judgement or good sense. 2. Peer pressure A person might feel like they must be religious in order to be able to socialize or function in society. This, of course, is not true. Again, it's not showing or having reason, sound judgement or good sense. 3. Indoctrination Many people are indoctrinated at a young age to become religious. This does not involve showing or having reason, sound judgement or good sense. It's a form of brainwashing. 4. Irrational fear Many people are religious because they have an irrational fear of death, or an irrational fear of going to hell. This does not show reason, sound judgement or good sense. 5. Ignorance Some people are religious because of their ignorance of science. They believe in God because they want to believe in God, no matter what evidence is presented that may prove them wrong. This does not show reason, sound judgement or good sense. 6. Irrational feelings Some people are religious, because they have a very low self esteem and feel like they are worthless without a God. This does not show reason, sound judgement or good sense. 7. The belief of the supernatural. In order to have or show reason, sound judgement or good sense, you need to accept the fact that for something to be proven true, you need demonstrable evidence. The burden of proof is on those who make a positive claim. Those who claim the supernatural is real, without demonstrable proof, can not have or show reason, sound judgement or good sense. Because, there is no showing or having reason, sound judgement or good sense, why anyone would be religious, I will claim that Religious people are, in fact, insane.

Philosophy

Are-Religious-people-insane/1/

Pascal's Wager "They are considering the consequences of their actions, which shows reasoning." They are using consequences that are made up and not backed by evidence. That's just as insane as considering the possibility of the sun exploding if I write a bad check. Peer Pressure "Being peer pressured into things because of society"s stigmas is not a sign of insanity; it shows the good sense of wanting to be accepted by a group." Giving in to peer pressure is a sign of insecurity, gullibility and insanity. Wanting to be accepted by a group is not good sense; it's an emotional desire. Wanting to belong to groups, like the Manson family, is not good sense. Religion is a cult. The cult requires that you put aside sane and rational understandings of reality in favor of irrational, unproven "facts", such as virgin births, talking snakes, walking on water and life after death. That's insane. indoctrination "When you are young you are more impressionable, but this does not mean that children are insane." True, you are not insane before you are indoctrinated, however, once you are conditioned to believe things that are not true, you then become insane. If I took a sane child and told him he was, in fact, Abraham Lincoln and will grow up to be the president, and that child truly believed it after years of indoctrination, that child would be committed to an insane asylum. Irrational fear "It is in fact rational to be scared of pain and death." Fear of pain and death is rational. The fear of pain and death due to something that doesn't exist is not rational. There are people who have irrational fears based on imaginary things who are in insane asylums due to that fear. For example, somebody may have a fear of killer spiders that are always ready to crawl on them. This fear consumes how they live. To live a life fearing the torture of hell and making decisions based on that consumes how they live and is insane. Irrational fear is the reason why people seek help from metal health experts. Ignorance "This may be closed minded, but being closed minded does not make you insane. Being ignorant does not mean you are insane either." If you believe you are really Abraham Lincoln and are given evidence that proves you are not, but you IGNORE those facts in favor of your belief, you remain insane. True, ignorance alone isn't insanity, but used as an excuse to believe something without evidence, is insane. Believing you are going to hell, for example and ignoring sane logic and reasoning that a hell can't exist, in order to keep believing you are going to hell, is insane. Irrational feelings "Turning to religion is not insanity, it is a coping mechanism" Coping mechanisms are not sane ways to cope with situations. They are triggered by extreme situations that can cause insanity. During the first radio broadcast of "War of the Worlds", many believed that we were, in fact, being invaded by Martians. The coping mechanism for some was to actually commit suicide. Suicide is an insane act, when other options are available. The extreme situation of being faced with eternal torture in hell, triggers the insane coping mechanism of worshipping a "saviour". The belief of the supernatural "They are irrational about believing in something without evidence, but as my arguments showed, this is not the same as being insane." Insane is the opposite of sane. A sane person accepts rational beliefs based on demonstrable evidence. Insane people accept irrational beliefs based on faith. CONCLUSION In order to be sane, you need to be able to differentiate between what is real and what is not real. People who insist that things like angels and Gods not only exist, but can be interacted with by prayer, are insane. It has been agreed by my opponent that a condition for being religious is, "Prayer and other forms of communication with the supernatural." This is not only believing that it's possible that the supernatural can exist (sane), it is asserting that the supernatural DOES, in fact, exist and can be interacted with in the natural world through prayer(insane). I would like to thank my opponent for this interesting debate. Although I enjoyed it, it most likely will be my last debate here, due to the enormous amount of vote bombs I receive from people who don't agree with my style of debating and seem to feel somehow justified to take it upon themselves to punish me for such style. I will not tolerate being the victim of vigilantes.

qopel

Pascal's Wager "They are considering the consequences of their actions, which shows reasoning." They are using consequences that are made up and not backed by evidence. That's just as insane as considering the possibility of the sun exploding if I write a bad check. Peer Pressure "Being peer pressured into things because of society"s stigmas is not a sign of insanity; it shows the good sense of wanting to be accepted by a group." Giving in to peer pressure is a sign of insecurity, gullibility and insanity. Wanting to be accepted by a group is not good sense; it's an emotional desire. Wanting to belong to groups, like the Manson family, is not good sense. Religion is a cult. The cult requires that you put aside sane and rational understandings of reality in favor of irrational, unproven "facts", such as virgin births, talking snakes, walking on water and life after death. That's insane. indoctrination "When you are young you are more impressionable, but this does not mean that children are insane." True, you are not insane before you are indoctrinated, however, once you are conditioned to believe things that are not true, you then become insane. If I took a sane child and told him he was, in fact, Abraham Lincoln and will grow up to be the president, and that child truly believed it after years of indoctrination, that child would be committed to an insane asylum. Irrational fear "It is in fact rational to be scared of pain and death." Fear of pain and death is rational. The fear of pain and death due to something that doesn't exist is not rational. There are people who have irrational fears based on imaginary things who are in insane asylums due to that fear. For example, somebody may have a fear of killer spiders that are always ready to crawl on them. This fear consumes how they live. To live a life fearing the torture of hell and making decisions based on that consumes how they live and is insane. Irrational fear is the reason why people seek help from metal health experts. Ignorance "This may be closed minded, but being closed minded does not make you insane. Being ignorant does not mean you are insane either." If you believe you are really Abraham Lincoln and are given evidence that proves you are not, but you IGNORE those facts in favor of your belief, you remain insane. True, ignorance alone isn't insanity, but used as an excuse to believe something without evidence, is insane. Believing you are going to hell, for example and ignoring sane logic and reasoning that a hell can't exist, in order to keep believing you are going to hell, is insane. Irrational feelings "Turning to religion is not insanity, it is a coping mechanism" Coping mechanisms are not sane ways to cope with situations. They are triggered by extreme situations that can cause insanity. During the first radio broadcast of "War of the Worlds", many believed that we were, in fact, being invaded by Martians. The coping mechanism for some was to actually commit suicide. Suicide is an insane act, when other options are available. The extreme situation of being faced with eternal torture in hell, triggers the insane coping mechanism of worshipping a "saviour". The belief of the supernatural "They are irrational about believing in something without evidence, but as my arguments showed, this is not the same as being insane." Insane is the opposite of sane. A sane person accepts rational beliefs based on demonstrable evidence. Insane people accept irrational beliefs based on faith. CONCLUSION In order to be sane, you need to be able to differentiate between what is real and what is not real. People who insist that things like angels and Gods not only exist, but can be interacted with by prayer, are insane. It has been agreed by my opponent that a condition for being religious is, "Prayer and other forms of communication with the supernatural." This is not only believing that it's possible that the supernatural can exist (sane), it is asserting that the supernatural DOES, in fact, exist and can be interacted with in the natural world through prayer(insane). I would like to thank my opponent for this interesting debate. Although I enjoyed it, it most likely will be my last debate here, due to the enormous amount of vote bombs I receive from people who don't agree with my style of debating and seem to feel somehow justified to take it upon themselves to punish me for such style. I will not tolerate being the victim of vigilantes.

Philosophy

Are-Religious-people-insane/1/

This Is My Own Opinoin But Video Games Just Somehow Make Life better In Many Fun Ways

BlackKidGamer

This Is My Own Opinoin But Video Games Just Somehow Make Life better In Many Fun Ways

Games

Are-Video-Games-Better-Than-TV/1/

I would like to open up, with the point that I've been hearing that there is a lot of controversy as to the object of video games being a form art. A definition of art can fall into three parts: a. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium. b. The study of these activities. c. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group. Video games are very fine examples of art, because they are usually appealing to our sight and hearing. The creators of the games are, yes trying to give us a game to enjoy, but also they are allowed boundless opportunities to use their creativity and imagination, which sounds like art to me. I would next like to present some examples of gaming "works of art" in terms of graphics and storyline. I saw storyline because a lot of literature is considered art and I see it that a well developed story line of a game is also a key to the game being a true master piece. Here are some examples. - The Final Fantasy Series - Halo Series - The Legend of Zelda Series - Mass Effect - Half-Life 2 - Portal Just to name some, all these game(s) all have stunning graphics [for their time] and a very gripping plot line. I think that when it comes down to it all, things like Halo 3 and the Mona Lisa have the basic thing that makes art, art. That thing is basic human creativity and intuition for beauty. I now leave the floor open to a challenger.

TheSexicanMexican

I would like to open up, with the point that I've been hearing that there is a lot of controversy as to the object of video games being a form art. A definition of art can fall into three parts: a. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium. b. The study of these activities. c. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group. Video games are very fine examples of art, because they are usually appealing to our sight and hearing. The creators of the games are, yes trying to give us a game to enjoy, but also they are allowed boundless opportunities to use their creativity and imagination, which sounds like art to me. I would next like to present some examples of gaming "works of art" in terms of graphics and storyline. I saw storyline because a lot of literature is considered art and I see it that a well developed story line of a game is also a key to the game being a true master piece. Here are some examples. - The Final Fantasy Series - Halo Series - The Legend of Zelda Series - Mass Effect - Half-Life 2 - Portal Just to name some, all these game(s) all have stunning graphics [for their time] and a very gripping plot line. I think that when it comes down to it all, things like Halo 3 and the Mona Lisa have the basic thing that makes art, art. That thing is basic human creativity and intuition for beauty. I now leave the floor open to a challenger.

Arts

Are-Videogames-Art/1/

Thank you to philosphical for accepting my debate. Firstly, I would like to point something out. "GAMEMAKERS "but also they are allowed boundless opportunities to use their creativity and imagination, which sounds like art to me." video games in themselves are not where the creativity and imagination spark from. the creators of the game being the ones who put forth all the creativity are the ones using imagination and creativity." When I stated they are allowed boundless opportunities, they DID refer the game creators, themselves, not the game. I never in any said that the players were artistic for viewing and playing said games. "While the people who made them game used a form of art in making the game by being creative and imaginitive, the game in itself does not provide a form of productivity or, seemingly, a specific influential point. For example, everything that is considered art has a certain meaning or phase to the the benefit of learning.meaning Every piece of art must have an influential meaning that can be used as pertaining to human life. Although games like halo and final fantasy did have alot of imagination and creativity used in them and are very fun, they pose no specific point or influential benefits." Not all art, in said case, does have meaning. Take for example, the painting called "Cash Crop." This painting is simply a picture of a couple of houses and trees, with rows upon rows of housing areas in the background. Now, don't get me wrong this is a very nice painting, but my opponent says that ", everything that is considered art has a certain meaning or phase to the the benefit of learning. Meaning every piece of art must have an influential meaning that can be used as pertaining to human life." I don't see how this painting holds any beneficial point or helps humanity learn anything. "When and if a game pertained to the inspiration of mankind other than the destruction of it, it could be used as an example of 'a piece of art'. however this is not the case with games such as in all the games you have listed." As you say, that a game is pertained to the inspiration of mankind rather than the destruction of it, that may be true. If you truly think though sometimes disaster brings out the best in us. For example I will take the game "Mass Effect." The main problem is that an army of synthetic robots led by a rouge agent are trying to resurrect an ancient destructive force known only as "the Reapers." As humanity's and probably the galaxy's only hope, you defy the odds. Also take into not that humanity, in game, is very young in the galactic age, and most of the other species revere them as insolent and incompetent. When the Reapers finally attack, though, all the species ban their forces together and take one final stand as one peoples to defy a god. I know that I said not all art has a lesson, but in this case and in many others, both in real life and in video games, it has. In Mass Effect it is that when disaster strikes, it brings out the best in people and sometimes even rivals join forces to do what's right. Thank you for reading - TSM

TheSexicanMexican

Thank you to philosphical for accepting my debate. Firstly, I would like to point something out. "GAMEMAKERS "but also they are allowed boundless opportunities to use their creativity and imagination, which sounds like art to me." video games in themselves are not where the creativity and imagination spark from. the creators of the game being the ones who put forth all the creativity are the ones using imagination and creativity." When I stated they are allowed boundless opportunities, they DID refer the game creators, themselves, not the game. I never in any said that the players were artistic for viewing and playing said games. "While the people who made them game used a form of art in making the game by being creative and imaginitive, the game in itself does not provide a form of productivity or, seemingly, a specific influential point. For example, everything that is considered art has a certain meaning or phase to the the benefit of learning.meaning Every piece of art must have an influential meaning that can be used as pertaining to human life. Although games like halo and final fantasy did have alot of imagination and creativity used in them and are very fun, they pose no specific point or influential benefits." Not all art, in said case, does have meaning. Take for example, the painting called "Cash Crop." This painting is simply a picture of a couple of houses and trees, with rows upon rows of housing areas in the background. Now, don't get me wrong this is a very nice painting, but my opponent says that ", everything that is considered art has a certain meaning or phase to the the benefit of learning. Meaning every piece of art must have an influential meaning that can be used as pertaining to human life." I don't see how this painting holds any beneficial point or helps humanity learn anything. "When and if a game pertained to the inspiration of mankind other than the destruction of it, it could be used as an example of 'a piece of art'. however this is not the case with games such as in all the games you have listed." As you say, that a game is pertained to the inspiration of mankind rather than the destruction of it, that may be true. If you truly think though sometimes disaster brings out the best in us. For example I will take the game "Mass Effect." The main problem is that an army of synthetic robots led by a rouge agent are trying to resurrect an ancient destructive force known only as "the Reapers." As humanity's and probably the galaxy's only hope, you defy the odds. Also take into not that humanity, in game, is very young in the galactic age, and most of the other species revere them as insolent and incompetent. When the Reapers finally attack, though, all the species ban their forces together and take one final stand as one peoples to defy a god. I know that I said not all art has a lesson, but in this case and in many others, both in real life and in video games, it has. In Mass Effect it is that when disaster strikes, it brings out the best in people and sometimes even rivals join forces to do what's right. Thank you for reading - TSM

Arts

Are-Videogames-Art/1/

Ok firstly I would like to say I am sorry that I was unable to post my round 3 debate I had some issues at home which prevented me. Onto the debate. I would first like to point out that I was also wrong on the "Cash Crop" and that my opponent has some very valid points about it, but when I first glanced at it I didn't even know where it was taking place or it helped with the power of Chicago. Per say, I was a tourist in an art museum and "Cash Crop" was on display I wouldn't really know a lot about it unless I had researched it or there was a brief history next to the display. My Opponent: "It is put in a fictional sistuation, in which the gamers main goal is to kill the enemy. therefor all the gamer learns from experiencing this game, is that you need to kill, and thats the only moral the gamer will achieve." This may be so, but if anyone has actually ever played through the whole game, they would know that it does have parts of it that are inspirational, for instance they actual game cutscenes that you CANNOT elude, like at the end when the Reapers attack, all the species on the station ban together in one final stand. (Link at bottom of debate) If that's not even the slightest bit inspirational I don't know what is. My Opponent: "Back to what you were saying with the "Cash crop" painting. Even if that painting had no specific meaning, it couldn't be called a piece of art. Every piece of art must have a meaning. you cant just draw a scribble on a piece of paper and call it art. for it to be able to be claimed "art" their must have been creativity and imagination involved in its making AND the viewer must gain a sense of progression and learning from the artwork." I know what my opponent is saying that all art has SOME form of meaning in it, no matter how extravagant like in Starry Night or to something much more subtle as in Mass Effect. The viewer (or in this case gamer) usually does gain some sense of learning I will just run through 2 examples. 1) In Mass Effect, the gamer learns of leadership, choices, and team work. I know that playing the game doesn't make it art, but the fact the developers put that in there because all 3 of those points are a big part of the game and it gives the gamer a sense of leadership. 2) In the game, Legend of Zelda, a gamer learns of heroism, the art of love, and adventure. This is my final round, I would like to thank philosphical for accepting this debate and for making it such a challenge, I hope, sir, that we dance the battle of debates soon in the future. Thank you for reading, dear viewers, and whomever you vote for, please actually consider this, I wont be telling you to vote Pro because it just may not be your view, just vote on what you really like and dislike, but if you do vote Pro donate a couple points to Con, and I also hope that you will to me if you vote Con. Again thank you to philosophical for a great debate. -TSM Mass Effect Cutscene:

TheSexicanMexican

Ok firstly I would like to say I am sorry that I was unable to post my round 3 debate I had some issues at home which prevented me. Onto the debate. I would first like to point out that I was also wrong on the "Cash Crop" and that my opponent has some very valid points about it, but when I first glanced at it I didn't even know where it was taking place or it helped with the power of Chicago. Per say, I was a tourist in an art museum and "Cash Crop" was on display I wouldn't really know a lot about it unless I had researched it or there was a brief history next to the display. My Opponent: "It is put in a fictional sistuation, in which the gamers main goal is to kill the enemy. therefor all the gamer learns from experiencing this game, is that you need to kill, and thats the only moral the gamer will achieve." This may be so, but if anyone has actually ever played through the whole game, they would know that it does have parts of it that are inspirational, for instance they actual game cutscenes that you CANNOT elude, like at the end when the Reapers attack, all the species on the station ban together in one final stand. (Link at bottom of debate) If that's not even the slightest bit inspirational I don't know what is. My Opponent: "Back to what you were saying with the "Cash crop" painting. Even if that painting had no specific meaning, it couldn't be called a piece of art. Every piece of art must have a meaning. you cant just draw a scribble on a piece of paper and call it art. for it to be able to be claimed "art" their must have been creativity and imagination involved in its making AND the viewer must gain a sense of progression and learning from the artwork." I know what my opponent is saying that all art has SOME form of meaning in it, no matter how extravagant like in Starry Night or to something much more subtle as in Mass Effect. The viewer (or in this case gamer) usually does gain some sense of learning I will just run through 2 examples. 1) In Mass Effect, the gamer learns of leadership, choices, and team work. I know that playing the game doesn't make it art, but the fact the developers put that in there because all 3 of those points are a big part of the game and it gives the gamer a sense of leadership. 2) In the game, Legend of Zelda, a gamer learns of heroism, the art of love, and adventure. This is my final round, I would like to thank philosphical for accepting this debate and for making it such a challenge, I hope, sir, that we dance the battle of debates soon in the future. Thank you for reading, dear viewers, and whomever you vote for, please actually consider this, I wont be telling you to vote Pro because it just may not be your view, just vote on what you really like and dislike, but if you do vote Pro donate a couple points to Con, and I also hope that you will to me if you vote Con. Again thank you to philosophical for a great debate. -TSM Mass Effect Cutscene:

Arts

Are-Videogames-Art/1/

I can adamantly attest that we are all not going to Hell. Historical View: Throughout History there have been countless people who have never set foot into Hell, Norway. They in fact, did not know or even believe Hell to exist! <URL>... Personal View: I personally will never visit this tourist trap! Comprehensive View: My opponent would have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that "we are all going to hell". I do not believe that my opponent could speak for the free will of all people on earth to make such a broad assessment as that. Conclusion: Though it is quite nice during the summer, it is a horrible place when Hell freezes over. Additionally, I believe that attractions such as below are far to limiting in its ability to attract "we all" as a destination: " Hell currently has a grocery store , gas station , and a retirement home . Until late 1995, the European route E6 highway was aligned through Hell and across the Hell bridge to Sandfaerhus (nearby Trondheim Airport, Vaernes ). The new road now goes around the village." I thank my opponent for this debate and I wish him luck i n the following round.

Gileandos

I can adamantly attest that we are all not going to Hell. Historical View: Throughout History there have been countless people who have never set foot into Hell, Norway. They in fact, did not know or even believe Hell to exist! http://en.wikipedia.org... Personal View: I personally will never visit this tourist trap! Comprehensive View: My opponent would have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that “we are all going to hell”. I do not believe that my opponent could speak for the free will of all people on earth to make such a broad assessment as that. Conclusion: Though it is quite nice during the summer, it is a horrible place when Hell freezes over. Additionally, I believe that attractions such as below are far to limiting in its ability to attract “we all” as a destination: “ Hell currently has a grocery store , gas station , and a retirement home . Until late 1995, the European route E6 highway was aligned through Hell and across the Hell bridge to Sandfærhus (nearby Trondheim Airport, Værnes ). The new road now goes around the village.” I thank my opponent for this debate and I wish him luck i n the following round.

Religion

Are-We-Going-To-Hell/1/

I am glad to know that my opponent is a "her" rather than a "him"! Realize that my opponent brought her gender into the debate not I! The fact it is a "she" rather than a "he", assures the veracity of my viewpoint. As we all know women are very limited in their capacity to determine what is true. Her hormones at any point in time can completely impede her judgement. Now readers, do not be concerned that I am a sexist. My wife completely affirms that indeed girls are unstable. One moment rational human being next moment... chaos! Sadly, as you can see, this has already happened. We are having a great dialogue over an absurd notion that "we all" would go to Hell (horrible place it is) and she brings up a place of eternal torment! I am glad that she did indeed concede the debate but... It does not stop there, she then goes on to claim that indeed all religions are true and all religions place of eternal torment, will affect all of us! That is just crazy! Contention 1: Imagine Yama is offended by the "good souls" of the Christian God Yahweh. Is my opponent indeed suggesting that Yama will attack Yahweh to steal the souls in Heaven to ensure they are punished to the satisfaction of the Hindu religion? Absurd. Lets just allow the "logic" play out as my opponent suggests. Let's review the claim that indeed we are open to the punishment assured by all hells. Let's imagine if Yama did indeed attempt to assert his punishment on the souls of Yahweh the Christian God. Fade to dream scene with the fuzziness remaining around the edges... Yama comes to the gates of Yahweh's Heaven after the end of the world (roughly December 21 st 2012). "You are The Peter?" Yama asks of St. Peter. "Yes I am and you are Yama, and you are slated to go to Hell according to The Book of Life". Responds St. Peter without even looking at Yama out of his book. Yama looks incredibly offended "How do you know my name and I do not submit to you. I am here to collect all of the souls in Heaven that should be in my Hell." St. Peter responds "Yahweh is omniscient and He knows everybody's name and everybody's deeds. You did not meet God's qualifications to get into Heaven so you are going to Hell." Yama gets angrier. "I am the ruler in Hell, I choose who goes and who does not go. I have armies at my behest.." St. Peter interepts " They also are going to Hell btw.. please continue" "How dare you. I will decide who does and does not go to Hell. I am here to collect the souls that go to Hell." Yama starts towards the Gate. St. Peter steps in his way after looking in his book the entire time to ask "Let me get this straight. You, Yama, are going to bust your way into Heaven, the Throne room of a Metaphysical Omnimax being and tell this being who has the following abilities: 1) Able to speak the entire universe into existence 2) Is completely Metaphysical and unable to be seen, touched, destroyed etc.. 3) Able to divide himself into three persons yet maintain a single essence 4) Able to allow his person to become physical but allow his essence to remain metaphysical 5) Know the thoughts and motivations of everything in the universe 6) Has zero limitation as to time (Imagine his one second punch, in physical form of course!) 7) Able to speak Legions upon Legions of little gods, demi-gods, powerful beings, into existence within the blink of an eye. 8) Able to resurrect anyone that has died. 9) Able to regenerate faithful humans into beings more powerful than any other being in the known universe And your grand idea is to stroll up to the person who has been put in charge of determining your housing arrangement for all of eternity and attempt to break in?" St. Peter pulls out his infamous sword and states with a smile "Good luck". ******************************************************************************************* You can see the absurdity of proposing that somehow logic dictates that all religions have an equal claim to their version of hell. Conclusion: Though most would find the veracity religions hard to pick between, I have not found it that hard. This is the process: Determine if the supernatural is possible Determine if the omnimax being is possible through scientific validation - (I have through math both validated the omnimax and the supernatural) Eliminate religions that develop complexity outside of the omnimax This should bring you to two religions. Pursue those Gods and discover which answers personally. (I have personally encountered Jesus) Thus you will find that indeed that logically "we all" are not going to Hell. My opponents notion that all religions could somehow be true does not play out in practicality. I am certain I am not going to Hell. I am very very uncertain for my opponent. I would not mind having a serious debate on the process of discovering which religion is indeed the "True" religion. After all I wish that no single person would go to Hell and I personally have the ability to convince a large number of people that indeed I have the True religion if they are able to evaluate science and supernaturalism appropriately.

Gileandos

I am glad to know that my opponent is a “her” rather than a “him”! Realize that my opponent brought her gender into the debate not I! The fact it is a “she” rather than a “he”, assures the veracity of my viewpoint. As we all know women are very limited in their capacity to determine what is true. Her hormones at any point in time can completely impede her judgement. Now readers, do not be concerned that I am a sexist. My wife completely affirms that indeed girls are unstable. One moment rational human being next moment… chaos! Sadly, as you can see, this has already happened. We are having a great dialogue over an absurd notion that “we all” would go to Hell (horrible place it is) and she brings up a place of eternal torment! I am glad that she did indeed concede the debate but… It does not stop there, she then goes on to claim that indeed all religions are true and all religions place of eternal torment, will affect all of us! That is just crazy! Contention 1: Imagine Yama is offended by the “good souls” of the Christian God Yahweh. Is my opponent indeed suggesting that Yama will attack Yahweh to steal the souls in Heaven to ensure they are punished to the satisfaction of the Hindu religion? Absurd. Lets just allow the “logic” play out as my opponent suggests. Let’s review the claim that indeed we are open to the punishment assured by all hells. Let’s imagine if Yama did indeed attempt to assert his punishment on the souls of Yahweh the Christian God. Fade to dream scene with the fuzziness remaining around the edges… Yama comes to the gates of Yahweh’s Heaven after the end of the world (roughly December 21 st 2012). “You are The Peter?” Yama asks of St. Peter. “Yes I am and you are Yama, and you are slated to go to Hell according to The Book of Life”. Responds St. Peter without even looking at Yama out of his book. Yama looks incredibly offended “How do you know my name and I do not submit to you. I am here to collect all of the souls in Heaven that should be in my Hell.” St. Peter responds “Yahweh is omniscient and He knows everybody’s name and everybody’s deeds. You did not meet God’s qualifications to get into Heaven so you are going to Hell.” Yama gets angrier. “I am the ruler in Hell, I choose who goes and who does not go. I have armies at my behest..” St. Peter interepts “ They also are going to Hell btw.. please continue” “How dare you. I will decide who does and does not go to Hell. I am here to collect the souls that go to Hell.” Yama starts towards the Gate. St. Peter steps in his way after looking in his book the entire time to ask “Let me get this straight. You, Yama, are going to bust your way into Heaven, the Throne room of a Metaphysical Omnimax being and tell this being who has the following abilities: 1) Able to speak the entire universe into existence 2) Is completely Metaphysical and unable to be seen, touched, destroyed etc.. 3) Able to divide himself into three persons yet maintain a single essence 4) Able to allow his person to become physical but allow his essence to remain metaphysical 5) Know the thoughts and motivations of everything in the universe 6) Has zero limitation as to time (Imagine his one second punch, in physical form of course!) 7) Able to speak Legions upon Legions of little gods, demi-gods, powerful beings, into existence within the blink of an eye. 8) Able to resurrect anyone that has died. 9) Able to regenerate faithful humans into beings more powerful than any other being in the known universe And your grand idea is to stroll up to the person who has been put in charge of determining your housing arrangement for all of eternity and attempt to break in?” St. Peter pulls out his infamous sword and states with a smile “Good luck”. ******************************************************************************************* You can see the absurdity of proposing that somehow logic dictates that all religions have an equal claim to their version of hell. Conclusion: Though most would find the veracity religions hard to pick between, I have not found it that hard. This is the process: Determine if the supernatural is possible Determine if the omnimax being is possible through scientific validation - (I have through math both validated the omnimax and the supernatural) Eliminate religions that develop complexity outside of the omnimax This should bring you to two religions. Pursue those Gods and discover which answers personally. (I have personally encountered Jesus) Thus you will find that indeed that logically “we all” are not going to Hell. My opponents notion that all religions could somehow be true does not play out in practicality. I am certain I am not going to Hell. I am very very uncertain for my opponent. I would not mind having a serious debate on the process of discovering which religion is indeed the “True” religion. After all I wish that no single person would go to Hell and I personally have the ability to convince a large number of people that indeed I have the True religion if they are able to evaluate science and supernaturalism appropriately.

Religion

Are-We-Going-To-Hell/1/

I thank you for yielding the debate. Please do let me know if you would like to have a serious debate on the "determining the veracity of a religion over all others".

Gileandos

I thank you for yielding the debate. Please do let me know if you would like to have a serious debate on the "determining the veracity of a religion over all others".

Religion

Are-We-Going-To-Hell/1/

This argument is not to be taken entirely seriously. Potential contenders, please have a sense of humor. So, are we all going to Hell?

jessij

This argument is not to be taken entirely seriously. Potential contenders, please have a sense of humor. So, are we all going to Hell?

Religion

Are-We-Going-To-Hell/1/

First up, I'm a girl. Just thought I'd put that out there, haha. I concede to your argument relating to Hell, the geographical location. However, in relation to Hell, the place of eternal torment, if we take into account every religion, then we are all damned. Almost every religion believes in a sort of Heaven/Hell concept - a place of eternal peace and reward, and a place of eternal torment. Many of these religions also state that if you do not follow their beliefs, you will be subjected to eternal torment. So, since there are more than 2 religions in existence, and it's highly likely that nobody follows every single religion, from a logical standpoint we are all going to Hell.

jessij

First up, I'm a girl. Just thought I'd put that out there, haha. I concede to your argument relating to Hell, the geographical location. However, in relation to Hell, the place of eternal torment, if we take into account every religion, then we are all damned. Almost every religion believes in a sort of Heaven/Hell concept - a place of eternal peace and reward, and a place of eternal torment. Many of these religions also state that if you do not follow their beliefs, you will be subjected to eternal torment. So, since there are more than 2 religions in existence, and it's highly likely that nobody follows every single religion, from a logical standpoint we are all going to Hell.

Religion

Are-We-Going-To-Hell/1/

I concede to your argument, simply because I loved the scene at Heaven's gates. You win, bro.

jessij

I concede to your argument, simply because I loved the scene at Heaven's gates. You win, bro.

Religion

Are-We-Going-To-Hell/1/

Hi!!! When you say "Zoos" I'm going to assume you mean all zoos as you did not specify. In some Third World country's the conditions for animals are horrible. They are mistreated and have very small areas to roam in. From an Islamic view: Allah Almighty created animals to live in communities like us. This means that He created means of communication and understanding for them. This simply raises the animals to a level which prohibits us to imprison them and to lock them up for life in zoos A question: Just those two religions?

DudeStop

Hi!!! When you say "Zoos" I'm going to assume you mean all zoos as you did not specify. In some Third World country's the conditions for animals are horrible. They are mistreated and have very small areas to roam in. From an Islamic view: Allah Almighty created animals to live in communities like us. This means that He created means of communication and understanding for them. This simply raises the animals to a level which prohibits us to imprison them and to lock them up for life in zoos A question: Just those two religions?

Religion

Are-Zoos-right-in-religions-like-Islam-or-Christianity/1/

Great arguments

DudeStop

Great arguments

Religion

Are-Zoos-right-in-religions-like-Islam-or-Christianity/1/

Zoos should be allowed

Lariat

Zoos should be allowed

Religion

Are-Zoos-right-in-religions-like-Islam-or-Christianity/1/