Datasets:

notaphoenix

/

debateorg_w_effect_for_conservative

like 0

the supreme court recognizes that the state constitution of alabama which states that the people of this state have the right to go through the abortion process as long as it is not after 3 weeks of the pregnancy, at the point when the government is seeking laws to protect this so called baby they are valuing and respecting the life of the baby. also when the government tells the people of the society that they cannot use there own common sense to seek a medical procedure that will better the quality of the persons life. at this point the government fails to be a democracy and a protecter of the peoples rights, but an oppressor of the people and since we are looking at the united states this form of government is not what we are trying to pursue. so now as thomas jefferson says in the preamble we the people have the obligation to take action against a form of government that is an oppressor to the people. this means that the people need to take a step to stop the government from having complete control and have rights for them self. abortion would be just one of these rights. in accordance to the murder argument the government of the united states has only so much power but not ultimate power in which they can enslave the people of the society.

johnjones

the supreme court recognizes that the state constitution of alabama which states that the people of this state have the right to go through the abortion process as long as it is not after 3 weeks of the pregnancy, at the point when the government is seeking laws to protect this so called baby they are valuing and respecting the life of the baby. also when the government tells the people of the society that they cannot use there own common sense to seek a medical procedure that will better the quality of the persons life. at this point the government fails to be a democracy and a protecter of the peoples rights, but an oppressor of the people and since we are looking at the united states this form of government is not what we are trying to pursue. so now as thomas jefferson says in the preamble we the people have the obligation to take action against a form of government that is an oppressor to the people. this means that the people need to take a step to stop the government from having complete control and have rights for them self. abortion would be just one of these rights. in accordance to the murder argument the government of the united states has only so much power but not ultimate power in which they can enslave the people of the society.

Politics

should-abortion-be-stay-legal/1/

My opponent is arguing in my side. I ask the BoP to be shared. I will be providing arguments, but Con had already provided arguments for me, as he is Con in the resolution of "should action figures be banned?", so he needs to say that action figures should not be banned, but instead argues my side. Therefore, right now I am filling my BoP, as Con argued against himself, and made no arguments for himself. Vote Pro.

fire_wings

My opponent is arguing in my side. I ask the BoP to be shared. I will be providing arguments, but Con had already provided arguments for me, as he is Con in the resolution of "should action figures be banned?", so he needs to say that action figures should not be banned, but instead argues my side. Therefore, right now I am filling my BoP, as Con argued against himself, and made no arguments for himself. Vote Pro.

Cars

should-action-figures-be-banned/1/

Extend (You don't need to read this part, not even an argument, but I just like Trolling Action is doing a action, such as moving. a figure is a non-living minicharacter. However, an action is moving, but it is non-living, so it doesn't even exist)

fire_wings

Extend (You don't need to read this part, not even an argument, but I just like Trolling Action is doing a action, such as moving. a figure is a non-living minicharacter. However, an action is moving, but it is non-living, so it doesn't even exist)

Cars

should-action-figures-be-banned/1/

EXTEND!!!!!!!!

fire_wings

EXTEND!!!!!!!!

Cars

should-action-figures-be-banned/1/

I would like to begin this round by laying down one fact. First, there are between 7 and 20 million illegal immigrants in the United States. <URL>... . Additionally, I would like to ask my opponent one question: if all these illegal immigrants came into the United States legally, would you turn any away, and would you be supportive of them? America was, of course, founded by immigrants, and is currently populated with the sons and daughters of immigrants, so I think most Americans should be supportive of immigration in principle. Because my opponent has not stated his opinion on this idea, I will assume that he or she is supportive of large-scale legal immigration unless he or she were to say otherwise in a response. This preface leads me to the following argument: Illegal immigrants are often portrayed as being leeches who suck away American jobs, and in most other scenarios, I would be against illegal immigrants. They don't pay taxes, and receive much of the benefits normal citizens do receive. However, I believe the current illegal immigrants should be granted amnesty for one reason: if you are poor, it is nearly impossible to immigrate legally, let alone become an American citizen. Many of America's immigrants in the past would not have been able to immigrate legally, because they would be too poor in the current system. To immigrate legally, you need all sorts of documentation, and while I believe these papers are a noble attempt to stop the people like drug dealers from getting in to America, most of these Latin American immigrants simply do not have the paperwork necessary. When you are living in total poverty under an oppressive government, it is difficult to keep track of things like birth certificates, if you even had them in the first place. <URL>... Therefore, I believe that until the immigration process stops becoming a bureaucratic nightmare, all illegal immigrants should be granted amnesty. In addition, the United States should allow its immigration process to be more open, and allow immigration on a larger scale.

speedofart

I would like to begin this round by laying down one fact. First, there are between 7 and 20 million illegal immigrants in the United States. http://www.csmonitor.com... . Additionally, I would like to ask my opponent one question: if all these illegal immigrants came into the United States legally, would you turn any away, and would you be supportive of them? America was, of course, founded by immigrants, and is currently populated with the sons and daughters of immigrants, so I think most Americans should be supportive of immigration in principle. Because my opponent has not stated his opinion on this idea, I will assume that he or she is supportive of large-scale legal immigration unless he or she were to say otherwise in a response. This preface leads me to the following argument: Illegal immigrants are often portrayed as being leeches who suck away American jobs, and in most other scenarios, I would be against illegal immigrants. They don't pay taxes, and receive much of the benefits normal citizens do receive. However, I believe the current illegal immigrants should be granted amnesty for one reason: if you are poor, it is nearly impossible to immigrate legally, let alone become an American citizen. Many of America's immigrants in the past would not have been able to immigrate legally, because they would be too poor in the current system. To immigrate legally, you need all sorts of documentation, and while I believe these papers are a noble attempt to stop the people like drug dealers from getting in to America, most of these Latin American immigrants simply do not have the paperwork necessary. When you are living in total poverty under an oppressive government, it is difficult to keep track of things like birth certificates, if you even had them in the first place. http://www.alternet.org... Therefore, I believe that until the immigration process stops becoming a bureaucratic nightmare, all illegal immigrants should be granted amnesty. In addition, the United States should allow its immigration process to be more open, and allow immigration on a larger scale.

Politics

should-all-illegal-immigrants-get-amnesty/1/

My opponent did not quite answer my question of whether he or she thought that large scale immigration is good in principle. My opponent only stated that most immigrants got here legally, but are currently staying on expired visas, and are thus illegal. I doubt the validity of this statement, but given that this issue is not extremely important, I will let it slide. The United States federal government should grant illegal immigrants amnesty for two reasons; for economic and for moral reasons. The rest of my argument will be spent dealing with why granting amnesty is not only an economically preferable strategy, but is also the right thing to do. Much of my opponent's argument is spent on spewing statistics stating that illegal immigrants are costing Americans money, and I agree. However, it is important to acknowledge that all of these problems are due to a large influx of people who don't pay taxes, not due to the fact that they are somehow more troublesome. Therefore, these economic issues will disappear as soon as these people start paying taxes. Granting amnesty would make these people legal, and would require them to pay taxes, so it would solve the problem. Nevertheless, inn dealing with these economic losses, the United States has three options: 1) Grant amnesty 2) Deportation 3) Ignore the problem I think my opponent would agree with me when I say the ignoring the problem is a bad option, and will only lead to greater economic loss and systematic problems. Therefore, the choice is between granting amnesty and deportation. My opponent provided his or her own evidence saying that the systematic deportation of millions of illegal immigrants would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. What my opponent does not provide evidence for, however, is for the claim that the United States would be somehow save money in the long run, because the federal government would be more able to manage immigration. This argument does not make any sense, because the economic problems that currently exist are systematic, and will continue to exist as long as illegal immigrants keep getting into America. My opponent provided evidence stating that the United States currently spends billions educating illegal immigrants. Clearly, these immigrants have settled in for the long haul, they are sending their children to American schools! They clearly are intent on staying in America, so if a mass deportation occurs, then these immigrants will just cross the border again, legally or illegally, because they have invested in an American life. Even if the immigration system were reformed after a mass deportation, as my opponent contends, there will still be well-meaning families who will simply go right back to where they were, because my opponent provided evidence stating that for every illegal border-crosser that gets caught, 2.7 make it through. The barrier preventing them from achieving it is the current bureaucratic stranglehold. Granting amnesty would remove this bureaucratic problem, and therefore, would lead to a preferable economic outlook to the status quo, because these immigrants would now be legal, and would pay taxes. My opponent' plan of mass deportation would not solve the current economic problems, because immigrants would continue to enter into the United States, and even if the plan did solve, granting amnesty is the preferable option because it achieves the same results and does not lead to the high costs associated with a mass deportation. Furthermore, amnesty is a more humane option. Crossing the US-Mexico border is a traumatic experience, undergone by people in search of a better life. They are unable to cross the border legally, and so they risk everything for hope. These people are clearly very strong, and are not out to "steal American jobs" (I put that in quotes not to quote my opponent specifically, but rather to quote the stereotypical battle cry of the anti-immigration camp). My opponent argues that a mass deportation would be a better outcome for everyone in the long run, but this argument is not logical. Such a mass deportation would lead to either the repetition of the same problems, or will achieve the same outcome as granting amnesty, but on a longer timeframe and with greater economic cost.

speedofart

My opponent did not quite answer my question of whether he or she thought that large scale immigration is good in principle. My opponent only stated that most immigrants got here legally, but are currently staying on expired visas, and are thus illegal. I doubt the validity of this statement, but given that this issue is not extremely important, I will let it slide. The United States federal government should grant illegal immigrants amnesty for two reasons; for economic and for moral reasons. The rest of my argument will be spent dealing with why granting amnesty is not only an economically preferable strategy, but is also the right thing to do. Much of my opponent's argument is spent on spewing statistics stating that illegal immigrants are costing Americans money, and I agree. However, it is important to acknowledge that all of these problems are due to a large influx of people who don't pay taxes, not due to the fact that they are somehow more troublesome. Therefore, these economic issues will disappear as soon as these people start paying taxes. Granting amnesty would make these people legal, and would require them to pay taxes, so it would solve the problem. Nevertheless, inn dealing with these economic losses, the United States has three options: 1) Grant amnesty 2) Deportation 3) Ignore the problem I think my opponent would agree with me when I say the ignoring the problem is a bad option, and will only lead to greater economic loss and systematic problems. Therefore, the choice is between granting amnesty and deportation. My opponent provided his or her own evidence saying that the systematic deportation of millions of illegal immigrants would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. What my opponent does not provide evidence for, however, is for the claim that the United States would be somehow save money in the long run, because the federal government would be more able to manage immigration. This argument does not make any sense, because the economic problems that currently exist are systematic, and will continue to exist as long as illegal immigrants keep getting into America. My opponent provided evidence stating that the United States currently spends billions educating illegal immigrants. Clearly, these immigrants have settled in for the long haul, they are sending their children to American schools! They clearly are intent on staying in America, so if a mass deportation occurs, then these immigrants will just cross the border again, legally or illegally, because they have invested in an American life. Even if the immigration system were reformed after a mass deportation, as my opponent contends, there will still be well-meaning families who will simply go right back to where they were, because my opponent provided evidence stating that for every illegal border-crosser that gets caught, 2.7 make it through. The barrier preventing them from achieving it is the current bureaucratic stranglehold. Granting amnesty would remove this bureaucratic problem, and therefore, would lead to a preferable economic outlook to the status quo, because these immigrants would now be legal, and would pay taxes. My opponent' plan of mass deportation would not solve the current economic problems, because immigrants would continue to enter into the United States, and even if the plan did solve, granting amnesty is the preferable option because it achieves the same results and does not lead to the high costs associated with a mass deportation. Furthermore, amnesty is a more humane option. Crossing the US-Mexico border is a traumatic experience, undergone by people in search of a better life. They are unable to cross the border legally, and so they risk everything for hope. These people are clearly very strong, and are not out to "steal American jobs" (I put that in quotes not to quote my opponent specifically, but rather to quote the stereotypical battle cry of the anti-immigration camp). My opponent argues that a mass deportation would be a better outcome for everyone in the long run, but this argument is not logical. Such a mass deportation would lead to either the repetition of the same problems, or will achieve the same outcome as granting amnesty, but on a longer timeframe and with greater economic cost.

Politics

should-all-illegal-immigrants-get-amnesty/1/

Have you ever seen the movie The Purge? In this movie, the government gets rid of crime and poverty by basically killing all the poor people. Your main points in your last argument stated that by GETTING RID OF the illegal immigrants, violent crime would drop by 25%. Also, that because these immigrants are poor, they would just mooch off America's welfare system. What happened to "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door Give me your tired, your poor, your tired, poor." My opponent's fundamental arguments are no longer specific to illegal immigrants, they are just about poor people, of which illegal immigrants are a large proportion of. Even if these immigrants would harm the economy, it is America's responsibility to take care of the world's poor who seek her aid. America has, for years, built a reputation on the idea that we will take the world's huddled masses. I do not support a purge of America's poor in order to help the economy. I also believe in America's integrity, that this nation is able to uphold its principles, even when it costs us money. Therefore, I am strongly against any sort of mass deportation.

speedofart

Have you ever seen the movie The Purge? In this movie, the government gets rid of crime and poverty by basically killing all the poor people. Your main points in your last argument stated that by GETTING RID OF the illegal immigrants, violent crime would drop by 25%. Also, that because these immigrants are poor, they would just mooch off America's welfare system. What happened to "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door Give me your tired, your poor, your tired, poor." My opponent's fundamental arguments are no longer specific to illegal immigrants, they are just about poor people, of which illegal immigrants are a large proportion of. Even if these immigrants would harm the economy, it is America's responsibility to take care of the world's poor who seek her aid. America has, for years, built a reputation on the idea that we will take the world's huddled masses. I do not support a purge of America's poor in order to help the economy. I also believe in America's integrity, that this nation is able to uphold its principles, even when it costs us money. Therefore, I am strongly against any sort of mass deportation.

Politics

should-all-illegal-immigrants-get-amnesty/1/

Should animals really be tortured with chemicals from beauty products?

kiran123

Should animals really be tortured with chemicals from beauty products?

Science

should-animals-really-be-tortured-with-chemicals-in-beauty-products/1/

For the preliminary stages, yes. Jus tso was don't literally have skin peeling off of a human being.

vwv

For the preliminary stages, yes. Jus tso was don't literally have skin peeling off of a human being.

Science

should-animals-really-be-tortured-with-chemicals-in-beauty-products/1/

Better to make a rat writhe in agony than a human being... Unless they are worse than a rat by what they have done... never mind... This was forfeited anyway.

vwv

Better to make a rat writhe in agony than a human being... Unless they are worse than a rat by what they have done... never mind... This was forfeited anyway.

Science

should-animals-really-be-tortured-with-chemicals-in-beauty-products/1/

I'll open up with the fact that I do like mangas and animes. In fact, I was at a convention only last summer. (Went as Desmond Miles) You may have missed it, but before my picture was a gentlemanly shark, it was Doctor Stein. But I still don't think that mangas should be incorporated into school. I will explain on the same points you had. 1; Just because your school does not have a counselor does not mean it requires mangas. Depression is different for everyone. My depression was ended by a mixture of video games and debating. It's different for everyone. 2; I run my own school library. I have a wad of Bleach novels that i intend to bring in tomorrow as well. The issue is suitability. What would you put in a secondary school, where twelve and thirteen year old children can visit? Maybe High School of the Dead? No, Hellsing? Screw that, Soul Eater and Death Note. Manga's aren't child friendly. Even Yugioh involved torture 5 episodes into the manga. 3; This one ties back into point one, but not everyone finds life lessons in mangas. What lessons did you learn and where? The aforementioned mangas provided little life lessons for me. 4; How many mangas do you have? I have more than twenty now, but the're seven euro and can be read in mere minutes. They're twice as expensive as any other comics. A counselor would probably be cheaper anyway. The costs of mangas can be rather steep, and few schools can afford it right now. Your school is but one of thousands in the world, not a clear representative. 5; How would you incorporate mangas in? Other than putting them in a library, you can't do an English study on them, and many art teachers scoff at the simplistic faces and clean, colourless images. Incorporation of comics is a difficult thing to do. See you next round, Duncan.

Duncan

I'll open up with the fact that I do like mangas and animes. In fact, I was at a convention only last summer. (Went as Desmond Miles) You may have missed it, but before my picture was a gentlemanly shark, it was Doctor Stein. But I still don't think that mangas should be incorporated into school. I will explain on the same points you had. 1; Just because your school does not have a counselor does not mean it requires mangas. Depression is different for everyone. My depression was ended by a mixture of video games and debating. It's different for everyone. 2; I run my own school library. I have a wad of Bleach novels that i intend to bring in tomorrow as well. The issue is suitability. What would you put in a secondary school, where twelve and thirteen year old children can visit? Maybe High School of the Dead? No, Hellsing? Screw that, Soul Eater and Death Note. Manga's aren't child friendly. Even Yugioh involved torture 5 episodes into the manga. 3; This one ties back into point one, but not everyone finds life lessons in mangas. What lessons did you learn and where? The aforementioned mangas provided little life lessons for me. 4; How many mangas do you have? I have more than twenty now, but the're seven euro and can be read in mere minutes. They're twice as expensive as any other comics. A counselor would probably be cheaper anyway. The costs of mangas can be rather steep, and few schools can afford it right now. Your school is but one of thousands in the world, not a clear representative. 5; How would you incorporate mangas in? Other than putting them in a library, you can't do an English study on them, and many art teachers scoff at the simplistic faces and clean, colourless images. Incorporation of comics is a difficult thing to do. See you next round, Duncan.

Arts

should-anime-and-manga-be-incorporated-into-schools/1/

I believe that anime and manga should be incorporated into our schools for the following reasons: 1. Anime has helped me out with depression; now i say this point because there are some middle schools, and high schools that do not have a counselor( my school does not have one.). Anime can both help and teach people. 2. our libraries are being under used, they have hundreds of books and only some of them are actually checked out. Manga is quite popular in the states, and i know at least 100 people who like to read manga, they tell me, "Why don't we have any manga here in our library?" I have to tell them, " i don't know, i could ask the administrators, but they do not think manga is educational, more like a waste of time." have they ever read it themselves? i highly doubt it. 3. I have learned at least a dozen life lessons from manga and anime, that i would not and have not learned from school. Do you learn how to deal with the loss of a best friend from school? NO, and you cant get help with it because the school does not have a counselor. These are my arguments, please feel free to debate it :)

Razenbran

I believe that anime and manga should be incorporated into our schools for the following reasons: 1. Anime has helped me out with depression; now i say this point because there are some middle schools, and high schools that do not have a counselor( my school does not have one.). Anime can both help and teach people. 2. our libraries are being under used, they have hundreds of books and only some of them are actually checked out. Manga is quite popular in the states, and i know at least 100 people who like to read manga, they tell me, "Why don't we have any manga here in our library?" I have to tell them, " i don't know, i could ask the administrators, but they do not think manga is educational, more like a waste of time." have they ever read it themselves? i highly doubt it. 3. I have learned at least a dozen life lessons from manga and anime, that i would not and have not learned from school. Do you learn how to deal with the loss of a best friend from school? NO, and you cant get help with it because the school does not have a counselor. These are my arguments, please feel free to debate it :)

Arts

should-anime-and-manga-be-incorporated-into-schools/1/

I'm not quite sure what your position is, since the title is a question. But I shall argue the position that clothing is a necessity. Biologically speaking, humans have comparatively little fur. This is because we originated from areas of warm climate with the sun overhead. As bipedal organisms, the sun does not strike our bodies, but strikes our head. This is why he have hair on our heads, but not as much on our bodies. Body hair would cause heat stroke and do little to no protection from the sun's rays in exchange. However, as humans began to migrate out into colder climates, it is necessary for them to fashion their own methods of protection from the cold. Just as it is natural for us to migrate outwards, to be intelligent, and to abuse our environment for our own protection and means, so is it natural for us to construct and wear clothing.

Kleptin

I'm not quite sure what your position is, since the title is a question. But I shall argue the position that clothing is a necessity. Biologically speaking, humans have comparatively little fur. This is because we originated from areas of warm climate with the sun overhead. As bipedal organisms, the sun does not strike our bodies, but strikes our head. This is why he have hair on our heads, but not as much on our bodies. Body hair would cause heat stroke and do little to no protection from the sun's rays in exchange. However, as humans began to migrate out into colder climates, it is necessary for them to fashion their own methods of protection from the cold. Just as it is natural for us to migrate outwards, to be intelligent, and to abuse our environment for our own protection and means, so is it natural for us to construct and wear clothing.

Society

should-clothing-be-mandatory/1/

Well, I guess I'm supposed to keep going. Clothing, aside from being used to protect the body from the cold or the sun, is used to hide parts of our body. Not purely out of shame, but because it may be necessary for society. One very simple example: Imagine if you will, primitive human beings in a society. The alpha male's mate is probably very attractive. This may make things very complicated when a beta male comes across the alpha and his mate and get an erection. Thus, one cannot simply say that clothing is unnecessary and we shouldn't be ashamed of our bodies. Simply speaking, clothing is quite natural for us.

Kleptin

Well, I guess I'm supposed to keep going. Clothing, aside from being used to protect the body from the cold or the sun, is used to hide parts of our body. Not purely out of shame, but because it may be necessary for society. One very simple example: Imagine if you will, primitive human beings in a society. The alpha male's mate is probably very attractive. This may make things very complicated when a beta male comes across the alpha and his mate and get an erection. Thus, one cannot simply say that clothing is unnecessary and we shouldn't be ashamed of our bodies. Simply speaking, clothing is quite natural for us.

Society

should-clothing-be-mandatory/1/

"clothing should be a personal choice and left up to the individual." Yes, so long as you cover up what needs to be covered up as dictated by society and what it feels is decent/indecent. "clothing might of been used as instinct but one should not be forced to cloth them self all the time even in summer. It should be a natural born right to remain the way we are born, naked !!!!!" I believe you mean "might have" not "might of". Your argument here is a false dichotomy. The fact that we do not need to wear as much clothing in the summer does not logically mean we should not wear any clothing at all. We should always wear SOME clothing in public, just different amounts. "it is proves that nudity is healthy and lets our body breath and absorb More sunshine and vitamin D we don't normaly get with clothing on.." False dichotomy. People who get exposed too much to the sun also have a high risk of skin cancer. The key is balance. Yes, sunlight helps us produce vitamin D. But being totally naked doesn't help us much more than wearing at least some decent covering, when you take into account the charge of public indecency. ""Many naturists are convinced that increased exposure to the natural environment, made easier through nudity, can result in numerous health benefits. Sunlight has been shown to be beneficial in some skin conditions, and is required by the body to make vitamin D" (science america on nudity)" I examined this source. It appears all over google and never in a neutral site. This source is always in articles catered to nudists. In this case, it is not a very effective piece of evidence supporting your position because it is just an opinion formed by more nudists, not scientists or professionals. "and in other studies the best sleep is achived while naked! "Not only is sleeping naked more comfortable, but it's good for your health too. Increasing your level of comfort makes it easier for you to relax and sleep, so you get a better night's kip. The resulting deeper, longer sleep makes it easier for your body to regenerate and repair itself, and build up your energy for the day ahead"(sleepnaked.org)" That's fine. As long as you don't sleep naked in public. I have no problem with what people wear in private. "further proves that being naked is a benefactor to our health and should also be up to the discretion of the individual" It doesn't "further prove" anything. Your first example was an opinion with some scientific merit, but fell apart because it didn't relate specifically to your argument. This example about sleeping is fine because my main concern is that a decent amount of clothing be worn at all times IN PUBLIC. I have no problem with people being naked in private. I don't think anyone else does either. *********** My opponent's argument is essentially that clothing has no use and we should simply abandon it. My opponent offers 3 basic benefits: 1. It will allow you to absorb more sunlight 2. It is more comfortable 3. We don't need to be ashamed. First, the sunlight example is useless because we can absorb more than enough sunlight wearing a modest amount of clothing. There's no need for us to be completely naked. That way, we can preserve some social dignity while getting a healthy benefit. Second, what we do in private is up to us. What we do in public we should do in accordance with social rules. Not being naked is one of them. Sleeping naked in private is fine. Third, I have shown that clothing as a method of hiding our genitalia is not a socially created "shame", but a biological necessity to maintain social harmony. My opponent, being blinded by the few positive points of nudity, fails to see and address all the reasons why clothing *should* be worn. I argue that clothing is as natural as human intelligence. When in public, you should be modestly clothed, at least covering the bare essentials.

Kleptin

"clothing should be a personal choice and left up to the individual." Yes, so long as you cover up what needs to be covered up as dictated by society and what it feels is decent/indecent. "clothing might of been used as instinct but one should not be forced to cloth them self all the time even in summer. It should be a natural born right to remain the way we are born, naked !!!!!" I believe you mean "might have" not "might of". Your argument here is a false dichotomy. The fact that we do not need to wear as much clothing in the summer does not logically mean we should not wear any clothing at all. We should always wear SOME clothing in public, just different amounts. "it is proves that nudity is healthy and lets our body breath and absorb More sunshine and vitamin D we don't normaly get with clothing on.." False dichotomy. People who get exposed too much to the sun also have a high risk of skin cancer. The key is balance. Yes, sunlight helps us produce vitamin D. But being totally naked doesn't help us much more than wearing at least some decent covering, when you take into account the charge of public indecency. ""Many naturists are convinced that increased exposure to the natural environment, made easier through nudity, can result in numerous health benefits. Sunlight has been shown to be beneficial in some skin conditions, and is required by the body to make vitamin D" (science america on nudity)" I examined this source. It appears all over google and never in a neutral site. This source is always in articles catered to nudists. In this case, it is not a very effective piece of evidence supporting your position because it is just an opinion formed by more nudists, not scientists or professionals. "and in other studies the best sleep is achived while naked! "Not only is sleeping naked more comfortable, but it's good for your health too. Increasing your level of comfort makes it easier for you to relax and sleep, so you get a better night's kip. The resulting deeper, longer sleep makes it easier for your body to regenerate and repair itself, and build up your energy for the day ahead"(sleepnaked.org)" That's fine. As long as you don't sleep naked in public. I have no problem with what people wear in private. "further proves that being naked is a benefactor to our health and should also be up to the discretion of the individual" It doesn't "further prove" anything. Your first example was an opinion with some scientific merit, but fell apart because it didn't relate specifically to your argument. This example about sleeping is fine because my main concern is that a decent amount of clothing be worn at all times IN PUBLIC. I have no problem with people being naked in private. I don't think anyone else does either. *********** My opponent's argument is essentially that clothing has no use and we should simply abandon it. My opponent offers 3 basic benefits: 1. It will allow you to absorb more sunlight 2. It is more comfortable 3. We don't need to be ashamed. First, the sunlight example is useless because we can absorb more than enough sunlight wearing a modest amount of clothing. There's no need for us to be completely naked. That way, we can preserve some social dignity while getting a healthy benefit. Second, what we do in private is up to us. What we do in public we should do in accordance with social rules. Not being naked is one of them. Sleeping naked in private is fine. Third, I have shown that clothing as a method of hiding our genitalia is not a socially created "shame", but a biological necessity to maintain social harmony. My opponent, being blinded by the few positive points of nudity, fails to see and address all the reasons why clothing *should* be worn. I argue that clothing is as natural as human intelligence. When in public, you should be modestly clothed, at least covering the bare essentials.

Society

should-clothing-be-mandatory/1/

as it is well known that all humans born are not natural in garments but born of naked flesh then immediately are cloth and covered ,shamed. why is this because we are afraid of our naked truth ... we as humans have obtained shame from our first mother and father Adam and Eve .. it was those two who sin in the garden of eden forcing us to see our self's as grotesque and naked. "We live in an atmosphere of shame. We are ashamed of everything that is real about us; ashamed of ourselves, of our relatives, of our incomes, of our accents, of our opinions, of our experience, just as we are ashamed of our naked skins. George Bernard Shaw (<PHONE>), Anglo-Irish playwright, critic. Tanner, in Man and Superman, act 1." and

liberal_at_heart

as it is well known that all humans born are not natural in garments but born of naked flesh then immediately are cloth and covered ,shamed. why is this because we are afraid of our naked truth ... we as humans have obtained shame from our first mother and father Adam and Eve .. it was those two who sin in the garden of eden forcing us to see our self's as grotesque and naked. "We live in an atmosphere of shame. We are ashamed of everything that is real about us; ashamed of ourselves, of our relatives, of our incomes, of our accents, of our opinions, of our experience, just as we are ashamed of our naked skins. George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), Anglo-Irish playwright, critic. Tanner, in Man and Superman, act 1." and

Society

should-clothing-be-mandatory/1/

clothing should be a personal choice and left up to the individual. clothing might of been used as instinct but one should not be forced to cloth them self all the time even in summer. It should be a natural born right to remain the way we are born, naked !!!!! it is proves that nudity is healthy and lets our body breath and absorb More sunshine and vitamin D we don't normaly get with clothing on.. "Many naturists are convinced that increased exposure to the natural environment, made easier through nudity, can result in numerous health benefits. Sunlight has been shown to be beneficial in some skin conditions, and is required by the body to make vitamin D" (science america on nudity) and in other studies the best sleep is achived while naked! "Not only is sleeping naked more comfortable, but it's good for your health too. Increasing your level of comfort makes it easier for you to relax and sleep, so you get a better night's kip. The resulting deeper, longer sleep makes it easier for your body to regenerate and repair itself, and build up your energy for the day ahead"(sleepnaked.org) further proves that being naked is a benefactor to our health and should also be up to the discretion of the individual

liberal_at_heart

clothing should be a personal choice and left up to the individual. clothing might of been used as instinct but one should not be forced to cloth them self all the time even in summer. It should be a natural born right to remain the way we are born, naked !!!!! it is proves that nudity is healthy and lets our body breath and absorb More sunshine and vitamin D we don't normaly get with clothing on.. "Many naturists are convinced that increased exposure to the natural environment, made easier through nudity, can result in numerous health benefits. Sunlight has been shown to be beneficial in some skin conditions, and is required by the body to make vitamin D" (science america on nudity) and in other studies the best sleep is achived while naked! "Not only is sleeping naked more comfortable, but it's good for your health too. Increasing your level of comfort makes it easier for you to relax and sleep, so you get a better night's kip. The resulting deeper, longer sleep makes it easier for your body to regenerate and repair itself, and build up your energy for the day ahead"(sleepnaked.org) further proves that being naked is a benefactor to our health and should also be up to the discretion of the individual

Society

should-clothing-be-mandatory/1/

They should not and CANNOT because "niples" isn't a real word. And "deez nuts" is a mainstream meme that was created for unintelligent and immature purposes. It shouldn't be replaced, it should be removed.

RedSun

They should not and CANNOT because "niples" isn't a real word. And "deez nuts" is a mainstream meme that was created for unintelligent and immature purposes. It shouldn't be replaced, it should be removed.

Funny

should-deez-niples-replace-deez-nuts/1/

my friend wants to know

fintheh1

my friend wants to know

Funny

should-deez-niples-replace-deez-nuts/1/

Donald Trump should not be the next President. His economcis would be bad for the United States [1] and has incited violence at his rallys. [2]. Donald Trump has also endorsed several conspiracy theories including the belief that vaccines cause autism. This would be very bad for the US health care

ThinkBig

Donald Trump should not be the next President. His economcis would be bad for the United States [1] and has incited violence at his rallys. [2]. Donald Trump has also endorsed several conspiracy theories including the belief that vaccines cause autism. This would be very bad for the US health care

Philosophy

should-donald-trump-be-president/5/

Pro has forfeited the debate and failed to explain why Donald J. Trump should be the next President. This debate had a character limit of 500 and time of only 5 minutes, so it was difficult to get a proper opening statement. Vote con.

ThinkBig

Pro has forfeited the debate and failed to explain why Donald J. Trump should be the next President. This debate had a character limit of 500 and time of only 5 minutes, so it was difficult to get a proper opening statement. Vote con.

Philosophy

should-donald-trump-be-president/5/

gay people should be able to adopted ids if they want to it called A free contrey god let them do what ever they want there jst like a guy and a girl haveing a kid.

burbachrocks

gay people should be able to adopted ids if they want to it called A free contrey god let them do what ever they want there jst like a guy and a girl haveing a kid.

Miscellaneous

should-gay-people-be-able-to-adoped-kids/1/

Your all right about this but if people are making us learn about god then there has 2 be one and if he made adam and eve then we dont know if he made adam and steve. if they dont make adopteing kids wrong then people will get usteu gay pepole adopting. well there was a man that had I baby so he/she had the right organs to have a baby. so if people wnt to be gay then let them be gay. o.k going back to the god subject how do you think this world was made we just didnt pop up here like stupid magic

burbachrocks

Your all right about this but if people are making us learn about god then there has 2 be one and if he made adam and eve then we dont know if he made adam and steve. if they dont make adopteing kids wrong then people will get usteu gay pepole adopting. well there was a man that had I baby so he/she had the right organs to have a baby. so if people wnt to be gay then let them be gay. o.k going back to the god subject how do you think this world was made we just didnt pop up here like stupid magic

Miscellaneous

should-gay-people-be-able-to-adoped-kids/1/

o.kyou are right about all you said and im sorry ifim not doing this very well im just starting to debate and i love debate becuse my broter does it. true we dot kow if god made adam and steve but we do know that people should be able to have a happy life if there gay or not because if 2 guys got married then thats not illagel bt rapping people and you could go to jail for rapping someone you can go to jail for murring a guy if your a guy. i could do the same thig to your mother so it would still be fair. So if gays want to adoped kids then let them live there life they just have t live with people laughing at them and after a wiley then they will get use to peple laughing at them. o.k i probely sucke this debate up but it was fun debateing for the first time on the internet. thank you for debateing with me and i wish you luck.

burbachrocks

o.kyou are right about all you said and im sorry ifim not doing this very well im just starting to debate and i love debate becuse my broter does it. true we dot kow if god made adam and steve but we do know that people should be able to have a happy life if there gay or not because if 2 guys got married then thats not illagel bt rapping people and you could go to jail for rapping someone you can go to jail for murring a guy if your a guy. i could do the same thig to your mother so it would still be fair. So if gays want to adoped kids then let them live there life they just have t live with people laughing at them and after a wiley then they will get use to peple laughing at them. o.k i probely sucke this debate up but it was fun debateing for the first time on the internet. thank you for debateing with me and i wish you luck.

Miscellaneous

should-gay-people-be-able-to-adoped-kids/1/

i believe i should delete this because i dont want boys stalking me on here nor do i want them drooling over me!! :) vote pro!!

asiandebater

i believe i should delete this because i dont want boys stalking me on here nor do i want them drooling over me!! :) vote pro!!

Miscellaneous

should-i-delete-my-profile-on-here/1/

They should live in the United States because, they come here to work, have baby with their wife in the US, and have a better life. I also think that they are a hard-worker with a good talet. If all of the illegal immigrant that make up 5% of the american population were gone tomorrow, accordingly about 5% of jobs would be left empty tomorrow. all of these niches would be UNFULFILLED. it is important that we not just send them all away. in fact, you admit this yourself by claiming that there is a problem because they take a lot of Jose from americans. on subject: you back up your argument by saying "the illegal immigrant our taking jobs from our impoverished that would love the job." anytime that anyone ever takes a job, they are destroying the hypothetical opportunity for another to have that job. these immigrants came here for reason. they came hereto make money because where they came from they were surrounded by poverty. they deserve those jobs, just as much as the next impoverished guy. most illegal immigrants are certainly in poverty.

ojmartinez25

They should live in the United States because, they come here to work, have baby with their wife in the US, and have a better life. I also think that they are a hard-worker with a good talet. If all of the illegal immigrant that make up 5% of the american population were gone tomorrow, accordingly about 5% of jobs would be left empty tomorrow. all of these niches would be UNFULFILLED. it is important that we not just send them all away. in fact, you admit this yourself by claiming that there is a problem because they take a lot of Jose from americans. on subject: you back up your argument by saying "the illegal immigrant our taking jobs from our impoverished that would love the job." anytime that anyone ever takes a job, they are destroying the hypothetical opportunity for another to have that job. these immigrants came here for reason. they came hereto make money because where they came from they were surrounded by poverty. they deserve those jobs, just as much as the next impoverished guy. most illegal immigrants are certainly in poverty.

Politics

should-illegal-immigrants-ive-in-the-Unites-States/1/

I know alot about you by reading and seeing your profile. You like soccer. You got picture of latin america soccer team. I also know that you are hispanic. I also know that your parent were illegal immigrants before they came to the US. Your name is Santos Herrera. So if you are Against illegal immigrants you are letting your parent country down and YOUR PEOPLE DOWN!!!! Back to the topic!!! Illegal immigrants are not lawbreaker. You also say that illgeal immigrantsare drug dealer, robbers, and etc. They are not drug dealers like some US citizen people thet go to the street to sell them. Some US citizen women also sell themself to get money. You also say that illgeal immigrants just come here to have freedom and have a better life. SO I DON'T CARE WHY YOU SSAY THESE WORD WHEN YOU ARE A FULL BLOOD HIPANIC BOY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ojmartinez25

I know alot about you by reading and seeing your profile. You like soccer. You got picture of latin america soccer team. I also know that you are hispanic. I also know that your parent were illegal immigrants before they came to the US. Your name is Santos Herrera. So if you are Against illegal immigrants you are letting your parent country down and YOUR PEOPLE DOWN!!!! Back to the topic!!! Illegal immigrants are not lawbreaker. You also say that illgeal immigrantsare drug dealer, robbers, and etc. They are not drug dealers like some US citizen people thet go to the street to sell them. Some US citizen women also sell themself to get money. You also say that illgeal immigrants just come here to have freedom and have a better life. SO I DON'T CARE WHY YOU SSAY THESE WORD WHEN YOU ARE A FULL BLOOD HIPANIC BOY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Politics

should-illegal-immigrants-ive-in-the-Unites-States/1/

I think that illegal immigrants are lawbreakers and if caught should be sent back to the country of origin. Why? Becaus these people take the jobs of others and lie on who and where and etc. Not only they get to the US illegally, but they forge Us based documents, hoping not to get caught. I saying that illegal immigrants are people that break the laws and only do it to find freedom, but they should do what other people did, apply for residentship or citizenship. But, never to sneak to the US and hope not to get lucky, because they will get caught and continue it. Illegal immigrants are lawbreakers and people that waste peoples' tax money trying to hunt them down. They can go to a life of lawbreaking like drug dealing, robbery, etc. We don't know who these people are and they can do bad things. I'm not saying all illegal immigrants are bad, but their are some out there.

shlh1514

I think that illegal immigrants are lawbreakers and if caught should be sent back to the country of origin. Why? Becaus these people take the jobs of others and lie on who and where and etc. Not only they get to the US illegally, but they forge Us based documents, hoping not to get caught. I saying that illegal immigrants are people that break the laws and only do it to find freedom, but they should do what other people did, apply for residentship or citizenship. But, never to sneak to the US and hope not to get lucky, because they will get caught and continue it. Illegal immigrants are lawbreakers and people that waste peoples' tax money trying to hunt them down. They can go to a life of lawbreaking like drug dealing, robbery, etc. We don't know who these people are and they can do bad things. I'm not saying all illegal immigrants are bad, but their are some out there.

Politics

should-illegal-immigrants-ive-in-the-Unites-States/1/

Number 1) How am I letting my "parent countries down?" And Number 2) How am I letting " YOUR PEOPLE DOWN!!!!?". And women sell themselves because its their chose. Tell me that. You said " Illegal immigrants are not lawbreaker." How are you sure they are lawbreakers. They are already breaking the law by going through the border without being a citizen. You said " They are not drug dealers like some US citizen people thet go to the street to sell them." They can be doing that. YOU don't have any sufficient proof that that they aren't drug dealers, etc. You said " Some US citizen women also sell themselves to get money." As I said before, it is THEIR chose to do it (sometimes). And being hispanic mean anything or it doesn't put me to be for illegal immigrants living in the US. Race is by definition is 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity. 2. a population so related. From <URL>...

shlh1514

Number 1) How am I letting my "parent countries down?" And Number 2) How am I letting " YOUR PEOPLE DOWN!!!!?". And women sell themselves because its their chose. Tell me that. You said " Illegal immigrants are not lawbreaker." How are you sure they are lawbreakers. They are already breaking the law by going through the border without being a citizen. You said " They are not drug dealers like some US citizen people thet go to the street to sell them." They can be doing that. YOU don't have any sufficient proof that that they aren't drug dealers, etc. You said " Some US citizen women also sell themselves to get money." As I said before, it is THEIR chose to do it (sometimes). And being hispanic mean anything or it doesn't put me to be for illegal immigrants living in the US. Race is by definition is 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity. 2. a population so related. From http://dictionary.reference.com...

Politics

should-illegal-immigrants-ive-in-the-Unites-States/1/

Since you never answered any of my questions nor did you tell me your argument I will continue abut how the illegals waste our money hunting them down.The money spent was Below is a sample of homeland security items in the FY2007 Budget, their estimated costs, and the time it takes the Pentagon to burn through the same amount in Iraq. This was the proposed budget as of Feb. 2006. I am not sure how much of this was approved. * 1,500 new Border Patrol agents: $459 million ($306,000 per agent) Iraq spending equivalent: 1.9 days * Container Security Initiative (CSI) to pre-screen U.S.-bound cargo at more than 40 foreign ports: $139 million Iraq spending equivalent: 13.9 hours. * An additional 6,700 Detention Bed Spaces to replace "catch and release" with a "catch and return" policy: $410 million. Iraq spending equivalent: 1.7 days * An enhanced Worksite Enforcement program to "send a strong deterrence message to employers who knowingly hire illegal workers...": $41.7 million Iraq spending equivalent: 4.2 hours * Border technology to enhance electronic surveillance: $100 million Iraq spending equivalent: 10 hours * 18 additional Fugitive Operations teams (raising the total to 70) dedicated to catching the estimated 450,000 individuals who have absconded following their deportation orders: $30 million Iraq spending equivalent: 10 hours * Completion of the San Diego Border Infrastructure System, including multiple fences and patrol roads: $30 million Iraq spending equivalent: 3 hours And now for the grand finale. Although this last item is the least costly, it may yield one of the biggest benefits. After the first 10 miles of border fence was completed, arrests of illegal immigrants trying to cross the San Diego border sector plummeted from about 25,000 per year to 3,000 per year. But of course the San Diego fence pushed the illegal influx eastward, into the (less hospitable) Arizona desert. A serious commitment to border security would require fencing off the entire southern border--all 1,891 miles of it. (For comparison, we have 40,000 miles of Interstate highways.) At $1.7 million per mile (the cost of the first 10 mile stretch in San Diego), the entire U.S.-Mexican border could be sealed off for $3.3 billion dollars. That money culd have been for way better uses to help students or help cites in need.

shlh1514

Since you never answered any of my questions nor did you tell me your argument I will continue abut how the illegals waste our money hunting them down.The money spent was Below is a sample of homeland security items in the FY2007 Budget, their estimated costs, and the time it takes the Pentagon to burn through the same amount in Iraq. This was the proposed budget as of Feb. 2006. I am not sure how much of this was approved. * 1,500 new Border Patrol agents: $459 million ($306,000 per agent) Iraq spending equivalent: 1.9 days * Container Security Initiative (CSI) to pre-screen U.S.-bound cargo at more than 40 foreign ports: $139 million Iraq spending equivalent: 13.9 hours. * An additional 6,700 Detention Bed Spaces to replace "catch and release" with a "catch and return" policy: $410 million. Iraq spending equivalent: 1.7 days * An enhanced Worksite Enforcement program to "send a strong deterrence message to employers who knowingly hire illegal workers…": $41.7 million Iraq spending equivalent: 4.2 hours * Border technology to enhance electronic surveillance: $100 million Iraq spending equivalent: 10 hours * 18 additional Fugitive Operations teams (raising the total to 70) dedicated to catching the estimated 450,000 individuals who have absconded following their deportation orders: $30 million Iraq spending equivalent: 10 hours * Completion of the San Diego Border Infrastructure System, including multiple fences and patrol roads: $30 million Iraq spending equivalent: 3 hours And now for the grand finale. Although this last item is the least costly, it may yield one of the biggest benefits. After the first 10 miles of border fence was completed, arrests of illegal immigrants trying to cross the San Diego border sector plummeted from about 25,000 per year to 3,000 per year. But of course the San Diego fence pushed the illegal influx eastward, into the (less hospitable) Arizona desert. A serious commitment to border security would require fencing off the entire southern border—all 1,891 miles of it. (For comparison, we have 40,000 miles of Interstate highways.) At $1.7 million per mile (the cost of the first 10 mile stretch in San Diego), the entire U.S.-Mexican border could be sealed off for $3.3 billion dollars. That money culd have been for way better uses to help students or help cites in need.

Politics

should-illegal-immigrants-ive-in-the-Unites-States/1/

I accept. With a normative resolution, we have a dual burden of proof, where CON must be able to prove that younger childrens should not have relationships with the opposite sex, and PRO must prove the opposite. I'd like to clarify my own burden in this debate, though, which is not to argue that kid X and Kid Y should necessarly form a relationship, either with each other or with others. Rather, my burden is to prove that, for children who are ready for and desire such a commitment, they should take that leap and form a relationship. CON, on the other hand, is arguing that they ought not. In this sense, he is arguing necessarily not T, where I am arguing possibly T. For that reason, I believe it is fair to say that CON's burden is higher than mine. Rebutting Con's Case CON states, "I believe that kids having boyfriends and girl friends at a young age is wrong." Without any objective criteria for what constitutes right and wrong, or even a standard by which we can reach said criteria, or evidence that such a standard even exists, there is no bass for a claim that anything, never mind childhood relationships, are "wrong." CON states, "they learn at a very young age that there are a lot of people out there who will break your heart from breakups." It is true that children will tend to learn about breakups if they were to have relationships, but what CON fails to understand is that: (1) They're going to learn about the horrors of breakups later on in their lives, anyway, so this does nothing more than prepare them for that later reality at a time when, as children, they're not nearly as emotionally invested in their relationships as they would be when they're, say, 25, and looking toward moving in with one another or considering marriage. CON's proposal to shield these children from reality is doing nothing than babying them, craddle and grave, and acting as though they cannot make their own decisions. (2) If the harsh reality of break-ups is so bad, then why is CON only extending this to children? For instance, why can you have a relationship at 18 years old, but not 16 year olds? How about 18 versus 17, or 18 versus 17.5 or 17.8? He doesn't establish a clear diving line at all, or why we should believwe that this principle ought only apply to children. (3) There are other forms of drama that kids will experience throughout their youth--their parent splitting up, the pressures of school, bullying, etc. Why hasn't CON advocating for banning any of those? If his goal is to prevent heartache, why is he targeting only relationships, which may not even *result* in heartache at all, but not events which directly cause heartache? Clearly, causing heartache cannot be the standard by which we ban something. CON states, "Theses things are bad and can lead to depression or suicide from the belief that nobody loves or will ever love them." I'm going to cross-appy my above evidence about harsh realities and the fact that plenty of other traumatic events--events far worse than a break-up--can cause these types of problems in young children, so that cannot possibly serve as the standard. Moreover, CON fails to provide causation strictly from a breakup to depression or suicide, or the "belief that nobody loves or will ever love them." That's a sign of a deeper, broader psychological problem that rightly deserves treatment, but he cannot explicitly link that casually to X, because the relationship is facile at best. CON also fails to realize that relationships also may bring joy, and may help to ameliorate truama from other parts of a child's life, which turns this point completely. CON states, "The stronger relationships are even worse because that is when people will become sexually active and leave the mother as a teen parent 1 in 3 single mothers have to drop out of high school or college because they have to care for their baby, and pay for them." He claims that the stronger relationships are even worse, which is wildly aburd when placed next to his earlier points about how difficult and traumatizing breakups are, so I encourage our judges to toss out both his points, as neither can be at this point applicable. Next, he makes this wildly absurd jump that strong, committed relationships will necessarily translate to sexual activity, so this is casual at best. He is condemning not young relationships, but young, unsafe sexual activity, so this contention isn't the least bit topical. His statistic on teen parents, also, which he doesn't source, is also irrelevant to this resolution even if it were true, because relationships can blossom even in the absence of unsafe sexual activity. The solution to this is not to prevent children from having relationship, but to instill in them via their parents and educational institutions the tools to have safe sex. We know that, no matter what we do, kids are going to find a way to have sex with one another. Our goal should be to ensure that they are informed of the risks and are willing and able to protect themselves so that it doesn't result in pregnancy. But, even in a case where it does, why does CON want to prevent children from makin their own decisions? Perhaps having a child was right for that couple at that particular point in time. He is attempting to cast a wide net and formulate a non-existent and utterly irrational objective standard, when in reality, it is nothing more than an attempt by whim to impose his subjective opinion onto others. With that, I yield back to CON.

ResponsiblyIrresponsible

I accept. With a normative resolution, we have a dual burden of proof, where CON must be able to prove that younger childrens should not have relationships with the opposite sex, and PRO must prove the opposite. I'd like to clarify my own burden in this debate, though, which is not to argue that kid X and Kid Y should necessarly form a relationship, either with each other or with others. Rather, my burden is to prove that, for children who are ready for and desire such a commitment, they should take that leap and form a relationship. CON, on the other hand, is arguing that they ought not. In this sense, he is arguing necessarily not T, where I am arguing possibly T. For that reason, I believe it is fair to say that CON's burden is higher than mine. Rebutting Con's Case CON states, "I believe that kids having boyfriends and girl friends at a young age is wrong." Without any objective criteria for what constitutes right and wrong, or even a standard by which we can reach said criteria, or evidence that such a standard even exists, there is no bass for a claim that anything, never mind childhood relationships, are "wrong." CON states, "they learn at a very young age that there are a lot of people out there who will break your heart from breakups." It is true that children will tend to learn about breakups if they were to have relationships, but what CON fails to understand is that: (1) They're going to learn about the horrors of breakups later on in their lives, anyway, so this does nothing more than prepare them for that later reality at a time when, as children, they're not nearly as emotionally invested in their relationships as they would be when they're, say, 25, and looking toward moving in with one another or considering marriage. CON's proposal to shield these children from reality is doing nothing than babying them, craddle and grave, and acting as though they cannot make their own decisions. (2) If the harsh reality of break-ups is so bad, then why is CON only extending this to children? For instance, why can you have a relationship at 18 years old, but not 16 year olds? How about 18 versus 17, or 18 versus 17.5 or 17.8? He doesn't establish a clear diving line at all, or why we should believwe that this principle ought only apply to children. (3) There are other forms of drama that kids will experience throughout their youth--their parent splitting up, the pressures of school, bullying, etc. Why hasn't CON advocating for banning any of those? If his goal is to prevent heartache, why is he targeting only relationships, which may not even *result* in heartache at all, but not events which directly cause heartache? Clearly, causing heartache cannot be the standard by which we ban something. CON states, "Theses things are bad and can lead to depression or suicide from the belief that nobody loves or will ever love them." I'm going to cross-appy my above evidence about harsh realities and the fact that plenty of other traumatic events--events far worse than a break-up--can cause these types of problems in young children, so that cannot possibly serve as the standard. Moreover, CON fails to provide causation strictly from a breakup to depression or suicide, or the "belief that nobody loves or will ever love them." That's a sign of a deeper, broader psychological problem that rightly deserves treatment, but he cannot explicitly link that casually to X, because the relationship is facile at best. CON also fails to realize that relationships also may bring joy, and may help to ameliorate truama from other parts of a child's life, which turns this point completely. CON states, "The stronger relationships are even worse because that is when people will become sexually active and leave the mother as a teen parent 1 in 3 single mothers have to drop out of high school or college because they have to care for their baby, and pay for them." He claims that the stronger relationships are even worse, which is wildly aburd when placed next to his earlier points about how difficult and traumatizing breakups are, so I encourage our judges to toss out both his points, as neither can be at this point applicable. Next, he makes this wildly absurd jump that strong, committed relationships will necessarily translate to sexual activity, so this is casual at best. He is condemning not young relationships, but young, unsafe sexual activity, so this contention isn't the least bit topical. His statistic on teen parents, also, which he doesn't source, is also irrelevant to this resolution even if it were true, because relationships can blossom even in the absence of unsafe sexual activity. The solution to this is not to prevent children from having relationship, but to instill in them via their parents and educational institutions the tools to have safe sex. We know that, no matter what we do, kids are going to find a way to have sex with one another. Our goal should be to ensure that they are informed of the risks and are willing and able to protect themselves so that it doesn't result in pregnancy. But, even in a case where it does, why does CON want to prevent children from makin their own decisions? Perhaps having a child was right for that couple at that particular point in time. He is attempting to cast a wide net and formulate a non-existent and utterly irrational objective standard, when in reality, it is nothing more than an attempt by whim to impose his subjective opinion onto others. With that, I yield back to CON.

People

should-kids-younger-than-18-have-relationships-with-the-opposite-sex/1/

Extend. Vote PRO.

ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Extend. Vote PRO.

People

should-kids-younger-than-18-have-relationships-with-the-opposite-sex/1/

I believe that kids having boyfriends and girl friends at a young age is wrong. they learn at a very young age that there are a lot of people out there who will break your heart from breakups. Theses things are bad and can lead to depression or suicide from the belief that nobody loves or will ever love them. The stronger relationships are even worse because that is when people will become sexually active and leave the mother as a teen parent 1 in 3 single mothers have to drop out of high school or college because they have to care for their baby, and pay for them. Having young love is a bad idea.

lizz6217

I believe that kids having boyfriends and girl friends at a young age is wrong. they learn at a very young age that there are a lot of people out there who will break your heart from breakups. Theses things are bad and can lead to depression or suicide from the belief that nobody loves or will ever love them. The stronger relationships are even worse because that is when people will become sexually active and leave the mother as a teen parent 1 in 3 single mothers have to drop out of high school or college because they have to care for their baby, and pay for them. Having young love is a bad idea.

People

should-kids-younger-than-18-have-relationships-with-the-opposite-sex/1/

I take that the first round will be acceptance, yet due to the fact that there are three rounds in total and you have already introduced your case and points, I will thus follow up with mine. As the contender of this specific debate, I will appeal by focusing the main thrust of my overall framework based on not only meta-ethical standpoints for which justifications and premises can be based, but also for a point on which arguments may be based. Preface: As PRO fails to address and provide for any definitions for the purpose of this debate, I will take it that we will all agree to the definitions: 1> Legalized as: To give legal validity or sanction to Now, as we look towards my opponent's case, we indeed find a myriad of issues that are presented immediately without the usual careful inspection. In no manner is PRO appealing to the fundamental issues of ethical concerns that is the basis for meta-ethical views or even the premises for this resolution itself. ____ 'Liberty'? As PRO bases this point off of one basic sentence for which we can surely ascertain the premises and framework of his contention: "The first and most basic reason that marijuana should be legal is that there is no good reason for it not to be legal." Yet we find a myriad of problems concerning this sentence as well as the rest of his case. The justification for any claim rests upon the ability to provide sufficient and adequate reason for which belief and jurisdiction may be based. To assert such a claim is truly absurd as well as fundamentally insufficient to provide the basis for his contention. Now, PRO continues to write that the choice of consumption rests on the 'free will' of an individual; yet even so, he concedes the fundamental basis which also makes his contention unsound both logically and ethically: that it is permissible for a government to impose certain regulations if it would pose a significant threat. Now, by conceding just such a point, PRO not only fails to justify his claim, but on the other hand goes to implement his views to my case; liberty is only valid in the context for which we do not provide infringement upon other individuals' personal interests or rights. Yet marijuana provides us with such a objective fact: "It is responsible for the great majority of crime, including 85% for shoplifting, 70-80% of burglaries and 54% of robberies in the United States alone." [1] In the United Kingdom alone, 30,000 people die every year of smoking cannabis [2]. In the United States there are no similar statistics, but it is a factor in at least 64,000 deaths annually [3]. Indeed, I fail to find any form of tangible justification for the claim that marijuana is intrinsically less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, in the form of a warrant by evidence, or any other form sufficient or adequate to provide for the validity of this statement. Thus we can disregard this as well as any other vague statements based off of this very premise. As PRO fails to provide adequate justification for this point, as well as making claims that I have specifically shown to cater to my values, this should be discarded for the rest of this debate. 'Cost' When we look to this argument, we immediately find it to be a non-sequitur. Not only is this not logically sound, but is inherently fallacious in nature as according to a social context. When we do, as PRO advocates, compromise the funds necessary to incarcerate such criminals participating in drug trafficking, consumation, violence, etc, the fundamental pivotal point will yet also be neglected: safety and a socially sound life. Once again, PRO fails to provide any form of justification for which his argument is able to be provided for, and thus we question the validity as well as intrinsic plausibility of this contention. Indeed, even if you are willing to disregard my arguments, here would be another point of consideration: the values and principles advocated by my opponent would be easily met with by less bureaucratic procedures. Thus not only can his argument not provide sufficiently for his case, but also goes on to supplement my principles in its unsound nature. 'Prohibition'? Yet PRO makes another bold claim that we find immediately to be logically fallacious once again. He states that prohibition may even INCREASE drug use; now, by taking this into careful consideration, we find that legalization in of itself provides for the premises on which accessibility itself may be found in easier and hugely greater quantities than as it is at the present. Thus said, I find no logical premise for which prohibition may increase; rather by supplementing such a position, my opponent is explicitly asserting that marijuana use itself is harmful, and thus should be limited in accessibility. The fallacious of this argument should once again be used to provide for grounds on which jurisdiction may be based. 'Hemp' I find no justification on PRO's part to respond adequately or even provide a full argument for this point. The basis of this argument does not exist, thus it may be discarded. 'Religious Use'? Utilization of marijuana in religion is not asserted by PRO in any form in this point that provides ANY form of justification, other than his personal subjective beliefs. Now, looking to his point of 'prohibition the free exercise of religion', the fundamental principle which my opponent so flagrantly misconstrues is that the free exercise of a religion, or any right for that matter entailed as part of our Constitution is met with by support to the extent such that it may not cause harm to individuals. Indeed, as I have provided sufficient justification for why this is false in our social context, this argument is invalid. 'Success' PRO makes a rather bold yet fallacious claim that as certain individuals have made it their subjective decisions to use marijuana and have succeeded in certain ventures, there is a direct correlation. Now, not only is this logically unsound and fallacious, but also provides no proper justification for such a correlation. PRO seems to be asserting the following difference principle: DP: If an individual has used a certain substance and has provided 'success' in certain ventures, it is wholly due to such. Not only do we find this absurd in a logical context, but fallacious in of itself. As I have sufficiently provided for the grounds on which my opponent's points are an abject failure in correlation with the resolution, I will now extend my arguments as such. __ Deterrance: The fundamental principle for which marijuana should be banned rests on the premise of both an meta-ethical as well as a logical standpoint that criminalizing such a substance provides the basic grounds on which it deters usage and consumption. After it was legalized for a short period of time, the US states suffered a catastrophic fate, with 51% of 12th graders admitting to using the substance. It was recriminalized here as well, after which usage rates dropped an astonishing 57%. [4] Deterrance provides an ethical block and obstacle for which individuals are discouraged in the context of our society to use such a substance. Not only is it plausible in nature, but the tangible effects provide sufficient grounds for which it is valid. Financial Impact: The social context can be viewed from the impact that it presents on its full spectrum: 75% of drug users are employed (which also means 25% are unemployed, 16% above the national average). But because users suffer from lack of interest, their productivity suffers. For example, in 2000, approximately 110 billion dollars were lost from drug affected productivity. On a social scale, we see tangible effects of marijuana on an individual as well as a national context. The premises for which my framework is based focuses its thrust on a tangible social context; as PRO fails to provide sufficient logical or even valid justification for arguments, I await any further responses on his part.

EthanHuOnDebateOrg

I take that the first round will be acceptance, yet due to the fact that there are three rounds in total and you have already introduced your case and points, I will thus follow up with mine. As the contender of this specific debate, I will appeal by focusing the main thrust of my overall framework based on not only meta-ethical standpoints for which justifications and premises can be based, but also for a point on which arguments may be based. Preface: As PRO fails to address and provide for any definitions for the purpose of this debate, I will take it that we will all agree to the definitions: 1> Legalized as: To give legal validity or sanction to Now, as we look towards my opponent's case, we indeed find a myriad of issues that are presented immediately without the usual careful inspection. In no manner is PRO appealing to the fundamental issues of ethical concerns that is the basis for meta-ethical views or even the premises for this resolution itself. ____ 'Liberty'? As PRO bases this point off of one basic sentence for which we can surely ascertain the premises and framework of his contention: "The first and most basic reason that marijuana should be legal is that there is no good reason for it not to be legal." Yet we find a myriad of problems concerning this sentence as well as the rest of his case. The justification for any claim rests upon the ability to provide sufficient and adequate reason for which belief and jurisdiction may be based. To assert such a claim is truly absurd as well as fundamentally insufficient to provide the basis for his contention. Now, PRO continues to write that the choice of consumption rests on the 'free will' of an individual; yet even so, he concedes the fundamental basis which also makes his contention unsound both logically and ethically: that it is permissible for a government to impose certain regulations if it would pose a significant threat. Now, by conceding just such a point, PRO not only fails to justify his claim, but on the other hand goes to implement his views to my case; liberty is only valid in the context for which we do not provide infringement upon other individuals' personal interests or rights. Yet marijuana provides us with such a objective fact: "It is responsible for the great majority of crime, including 85% for shoplifting, 70-80% of burglaries and 54% of robberies in the United States alone." [1] In the United Kingdom alone, 30,000 people die every year of smoking cannabis [2]. In the United States there are no similar statistics, but it is a factor in at least 64,000 deaths annually [3]. Indeed, I fail to find any form of tangible justification for the claim that marijuana is intrinsically less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, in the form of a warrant by evidence, or any other form sufficient or adequate to provide for the validity of this statement. Thus we can disregard this as well as any other vague statements based off of this very premise. As PRO fails to provide adequate justification for this point, as well as making claims that I have specifically shown to cater to my values, this should be discarded for the rest of this debate. 'Cost' When we look to this argument, we immediately find it to be a non-sequitur. Not only is this not logically sound, but is inherently fallacious in nature as according to a social context. When we do, as PRO advocates, compromise the funds necessary to incarcerate such criminals participating in drug trafficking, consumation, violence, etc, the fundamental pivotal point will yet also be neglected: safety and a socially sound life. Once again, PRO fails to provide any form of justification for which his argument is able to be provided for, and thus we question the validity as well as intrinsic plausibility of this contention. Indeed, even if you are willing to disregard my arguments, here would be another point of consideration: the values and principles advocated by my opponent would be easily met with by less bureaucratic procedures. Thus not only can his argument not provide sufficiently for his case, but also goes on to supplement my principles in its unsound nature. 'Prohibition'? Yet PRO makes another bold claim that we find immediately to be logically fallacious once again. He states that prohibition may even INCREASE drug use; now, by taking this into careful consideration, we find that legalization in of itself provides for the premises on which accessibility itself may be found in easier and hugely greater quantities than as it is at the present. Thus said, I find no logical premise for which prohibition may increase; rather by supplementing such a position, my opponent is explicitly asserting that marijuana use itself is harmful, and thus should be limited in accessibility. The fallacious of this argument should once again be used to provide for grounds on which jurisdiction may be based. 'Hemp' I find no justification on PRO's part to respond adequately or even provide a full argument for this point. The basis of this argument does not exist, thus it may be discarded. 'Religious Use'? Utilization of marijuana in religion is not asserted by PRO in any form in this point that provides ANY form of justification, other than his personal subjective beliefs. Now, looking to his point of 'prohibition the free exercise of religion', the fundamental principle which my opponent so flagrantly misconstrues is that the free exercise of a religion, or any right for that matter entailed as part of our Constitution is met with by support to the extent such that it may not cause harm to individuals. Indeed, as I have provided sufficient justification for why this is false in our social context, this argument is invalid. 'Success' PRO makes a rather bold yet fallacious claim that as certain individuals have made it their subjective decisions to use marijuana and have succeeded in certain ventures, there is a direct correlation. Now, not only is this logically unsound and fallacious, but also provides no proper justification for such a correlation. PRO seems to be asserting the following difference principle: DP: If an individual has used a certain substance and has provided 'success' in certain ventures, it is wholly due to such. Not only do we find this absurd in a logical context, but fallacious in of itself. As I have sufficiently provided for the grounds on which my opponent's points are an abject failure in correlation with the resolution, I will now extend my arguments as such. __ Deterrance: The fundamental principle for which marijuana should be banned rests on the premise of both an meta-ethical as well as a logical standpoint that criminalizing such a substance provides the basic grounds on which it deters usage and consumption. After it was legalized for a short period of time, the US states suffered a catastrophic fate, with 51% of 12th graders admitting to using the substance. It was recriminalized here as well, after which usage rates dropped an astonishing 57%. [4] Deterrance provides an ethical block and obstacle for which individuals are discouraged in the context of our society to use such a substance. Not only is it plausible in nature, but the tangible effects provide sufficient grounds for which it is valid. Financial Impact: The social context can be viewed from the impact that it presents on its full spectrum: 75% of drug users are employed (which also means 25% are unemployed, 16% above the national average). But because users suffer from lack of interest, their productivity suffers. For example, in 2000, approximately 110 billion dollars were lost from drug affected productivity. On a social scale, we see tangible effects of marijuana on an individual as well as a national context. The premises for which my framework is based focuses its thrust on a tangible social context; as PRO fails to provide sufficient logical or even valid justification for arguments, I await any further responses on his part.

Miscellaneous

should-marijuana-be-legalized./1/

I appreciate my opponent; Likewise, my arguments may be extended for validity across the flow. Thanks!

EthanHuOnDebateOrg

I appreciate my opponent; Likewise, my arguments may be extended for validity across the flow. Thanks!

Miscellaneous

should-marijuana-be-legalized./1/

As PRO has chosen to do as such, all my arguments and points may be extended across the flow for validity and voting. I thank him very much for this debate, as it has provided me a method for which I can focus my debating skills on a comparatively narrower spectrum to enhance my writing as well. Vote CON!

EthanHuOnDebateOrg

As PRO has chosen to do as such, all my arguments and points may be extended across the flow for validity and voting. I thank him very much for this debate, as it has provided me a method for which I can focus my debating skills on a comparatively narrower spectrum to enhance my writing as well. Vote CON!

Miscellaneous

should-marijuana-be-legalized./1/

i am sorry if i do not have proper grammar in this argument, it is due to my brother spilling soda on the keyboard. I will begin by listing reasons and defending my reasons. Liberty: people deserve freedom to use marijuana. The first and most basic reason that marijuana should be legal is that there is no good reason for it not to be legal. Some people ask 'why should marijuana be legalized?" but we should ask "Why should marijuana be illegal?" From a philosophical point of view, individuals deserve the right to make choices for themselves. The government only has a right to limit those choices if the individual's actions endanger someone else. This does not apply to marijuana, since the individual who chooses to use marijuana does so according to his or her own free will. The government also may have a right to limit individual actions if the actions pose a significant threat to the individual. But this argument does not logically apply to marijuana because marijuana is far less dangerous than some drugs which are legal, such as alcohol and tobacco. cost: keeping marijuana illegal is expensive. The second important reason that marijuana should be legal is that it would save our government lots of money. In the United States, all levels of government (federal, state, and local authorities) participate in the "War on Drugs." We currently spend billions of dollars every year to chase peaceful people who happen to like to get high. These people get locked up in prison and the taxpayers have to foot the bill. We have to pay for food, housing, health care, attorney fees, court costs, and other expenses to lock these people up. This is extremely expensive! We could save billions of dollars every year as a nation if we stop wasting money locking people up for having marijuana. In addition, if marijuana were legal, the government would be able to collect taxes on it, and would have a lot more money to pay for effective drug education programs and other important causes and would ut us a step toward a better economy. Failure: prohibition doesn't help. The third major reason that marijuana should be legal is because prohibition does not help the country in any way, and causes a lot of problems. There is no good evidence that prohibition decreases drug use, and there are several theories that suggest prohibition might actually increase drug use (i.e. the "forbidden fruit" effect, and easier accessibility for youth). One unintended effect of marijuana prohibition is that marijuana is very popular in American high schools. Why? Because it is available. You don't have to be 21 to buy marijuana -- marijuana dealers usually don't care how old you are as long as you have money. It is actually easier for many high school students to obtain marijuana than it is for them to obtain alcohol, because alcohol is legal and therefore regulated to keep it away from kids. If our goal is to reduce drug consumption, then we should focus on open and honest programs to educate youth, regulation to keep drugs away from kids, and treatment programs for people with drug problems. But the current prohibition scheme does not allow such reasonable approaches to marijuana; instead we are stuck with 'DARE' police officers spreading lies about drugs in schools, and policies that result in jail time rather than treatment for people with drug problems. We tried prohibition with alcohol, and that failed miserably. We should be able to learn our lesson and stop repeating the same mistake. hemp; The hemp plant is a valuable natural resource. Legalizing marijuana would eliminate the confusion surrounding hemp and allow us to take advantage of hemp's agricultural and industrial uses. religous use; Some religions instruct their followers to use marijuana. Just like Christianity and Judaism instruct their followers to drink wine on certain occaisions, some Hindus, Buddhists, Rastafarians, and members of other religions use marijuana as part of their spiritual and religious ceremonies. These people deserve the freedom to practice their religion as they see fit. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that the government cannot 'prohibit the free exercise' of religion, and so marijuana should be legal. marijuana leads to succsess; i can prove this statement because just look at the past users of cannabis, such as the past four presidents all admit smoking or eating marijuana at one point in their life. george washington and the founding fathers of our very own country have writting that state that they smoked marijuana for migranes or when they had a cold, or felt restes at night, they even planted and harvested it as a crop. many of the great comedians use it to help relax. even joe rogan, voice of usc and past host of fear factor still uses it. based on the numerous of people that have used it in the past and the success they had we can conclude that marijuana does in fact cause success.

shipman37

i am sorry if i do not have proper grammar in this argument, it is due to my brother spilling soda on the keyboard. I will begin by listing reasons and defending my reasons. Liberty: people deserve freedom to use marijuana. The first and most basic reason that marijuana should be legal is that there is no good reason for it not to be legal. Some people ask 'why should marijuana be legalized?" but we should ask "Why should marijuana be illegal?" From a philosophical point of view, individuals deserve the right to make choices for themselves. The government only has a right to limit those choices if the individual's actions endanger someone else. This does not apply to marijuana, since the individual who chooses to use marijuana does so according to his or her own free will. The government also may have a right to limit individual actions if the actions pose a significant threat to the individual. But this argument does not logically apply to marijuana because marijuana is far less dangerous than some drugs which are legal, such as alcohol and tobacco. cost: keeping marijuana illegal is expensive. The second important reason that marijuana should be legal is that it would save our government lots of money. In the United States, all levels of government (federal, state, and local authorities) participate in the "War on Drugs." We currently spend billions of dollars every year to chase peaceful people who happen to like to get high. These people get locked up in prison and the taxpayers have to foot the bill. We have to pay for food, housing, health care, attorney fees, court costs, and other expenses to lock these people up. This is extremely expensive! We could save billions of dollars every year as a nation if we stop wasting money locking people up for having marijuana. In addition, if marijuana were legal, the government would be able to collect taxes on it, and would have a lot more money to pay for effective drug education programs and other important causes and would ut us a step toward a better economy. Failure: prohibition doesn't help. The third major reason that marijuana should be legal is because prohibition does not help the country in any way, and causes a lot of problems. There is no good evidence that prohibition decreases drug use, and there are several theories that suggest prohibition might actually increase drug use (i.e. the "forbidden fruit" effect, and easier accessibility for youth). One unintended effect of marijuana prohibition is that marijuana is very popular in American high schools. Why? Because it is available. You don't have to be 21 to buy marijuana -- marijuana dealers usually don't care how old you are as long as you have money. It is actually easier for many high school students to obtain marijuana than it is for them to obtain alcohol, because alcohol is legal and therefore regulated to keep it away from kids. If our goal is to reduce drug consumption, then we should focus on open and honest programs to educate youth, regulation to keep drugs away from kids, and treatment programs for people with drug problems. But the current prohibition scheme does not allow such reasonable approaches to marijuana; instead we are stuck with 'DARE' police officers spreading lies about drugs in schools, and policies that result in jail time rather than treatment for people with drug problems. We tried prohibition with alcohol, and that failed miserably. We should be able to learn our lesson and stop repeating the same mistake. hemp; The hemp plant is a valuable natural resource. Legalizing marijuana would eliminate the confusion surrounding hemp and allow us to take advantage of hemp's agricultural and industrial uses. religous use; Some religions instruct their followers to use marijuana. Just like Christianity and Judaism instruct their followers to drink wine on certain occaisions, some Hindus, Buddhists, Rastafarians, and members of other religions use marijuana as part of their spiritual and religious ceremonies. These people deserve the freedom to practice their religion as they see fit. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that the government cannot 'prohibit the free exercise' of religion, and so marijuana should be legal. marijuana leads to succsess; i can prove this statement because just look at the past users of cannabis, such as the past four presidents all admit smoking or eating marijuana at one point in their life. george washington and the founding fathers of our very own country have writting that state that they smoked marijuana for migranes or when they had a cold, or felt restes at night, they even planted and harvested it as a crop. many of the great comedians use it to help relax. even joe rogan, voice of usc and past host of fear factor still uses it. based on the numerous of people that have used it in the past and the success they had we can conclude that marijuana does in fact cause success.

Miscellaneous

should-marijuana-be-legalized./1/

nuclear power plant should be setup in maharashtra as it would provide enough electricity for consumption

amantiwari

nuclear power plant should be setup in maharashtra as it would provide enough electricity for consumption

Science

should-nuclear-power-plant-be-setup-in-maharashtra-or-not/1/

No, as pollution and radioactive waste would harm the environment, and risk the health of others.

birdlandmemories

No, as pollution and radioactive waste would harm the environment, and risk the health of others.

Science

should-nuclear-power-plant-be-setup-in-maharashtra-or-not/1/

People who watch zombie movies and or shows are going to be more willing to think there's going to be a zombie apocalypse. If there were less shows about zombies i think the world would be better then it was.

ShadowTheNekoGirl

People who watch zombie movies and or shows are going to be more willing to think there's going to be a zombie apocalypse. If there were less shows about zombies i think the world would be better then it was.

TV

should-people-stop-watching-zombie-shows/1/

I think people should watch Zombie shows. Before any war, it is important to scout your enemy and perform reconnaissance. You need to understand tactics, tendencies, and develop mitigating strategies. When the apocalypse hits, we will be prepared. But there will be no apocalypse you say? Are you sure? Wouldn't it be better to be prepared than to bet the fate of the planet on your skepticism? Since you have not stated: Position in first argument. Case in second. Rebuttal/conclusion in third.

diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid

I think people should watch Zombie shows. Before any war, it is important to scout your enemy and perform reconnaissance. You need to understand tactics, tendencies, and develop mitigating strategies. When the apocalypse hits, we will be prepared. But there will be no apocalypse you say? Are you sure? Wouldn't it be better to be prepared than to bet the fate of the planet on your skepticism? Since you have not stated: Position in first argument. Case in second. Rebuttal/conclusion in third.

TV

should-people-stop-watching-zombie-shows/1/

I was going to have fun with this but since you didn't bother coming back, I'll keep it short. The problem with the premise is that you assume people are really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, stupid. It's television. It's not real. Really!

diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid

I was going to have fun with this but since you didn't bother coming back, I'll keep it short. The problem with the premise is that you assume people are really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, stupid. It's television. It's not real. Really!

TV

should-people-stop-watching-zombie-shows/1/

I'm not sure what you expected from this debate. You should become a lawyer. Judge: prosecutor, please make your opening statement. NekkidGirl: I think he's guilty. Judge: .... And? NekkidGirl: the prosecution rests. NekkidGirl: I'm nekkid. But hiding.

diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid

I'm not sure what you expected from this debate. You should become a lawyer. Judge: prosecutor, please make your opening statement. NekkidGirl: I think he's guilty. Judge: .... And? NekkidGirl: the prosecution rests. NekkidGirl: I'm nekkid. But hiding.

TV

should-people-stop-watching-zombie-shows/1/

School should be on four DAYS. Monday, Tuesday, Wedsnday, and Thursday is good enough for children. if this did happen maybe they should add more school hours in a day. like a 30 minutes or so but school is hard enough especcialy for teens because their body is growing and they need Food, personal hygine, and SLEEP. they can't get that with school since you have to wake up around 7:30!!! maybe instead of only four days of school why not start school later instead 7:30, 7:45, 8:10, 8:45 that is bull crap

andywolf39

School should be on four DAYS. Monday, Tuesday, Wedsnday, and Thursday is good enough for children. if this did happen maybe they should add more school hours in a day. like a 30 minutes or so but school is hard enough especcialy for teens because their body is growing and they need Food, personal hygine, and SLEEP. they can't get that with school since you have to wake up around 7:30!!! maybe instead of only four days of school why not start school later instead 7:30, 7:45, 8:10, 8:45 that is bull crap

Education

should-school-be-four-days-only/1/

First of all for my viewers he put very little capitals so that brings him down on who had better spelling/grammar so you should vote for me. And my opponents argument is not strong so you should vote on me for most convening arguments unless he changes and he totally rocks it. But that wont happen. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Argument: We should not have 4 days of school because we get holidays and summer of. And if we would change the people who had 5 days of school would not think it is fair. And also you need time to study and be smart. Even with 5 days of school some people are still not smart. Also most schools have short days. We only have 8 hours out of 24 for school. One third of the day. Tell me what most of the kids would be doing if we had and extra day off. They would be playing around with technology, so if we had an extra day it would be a waste. I for one think we should have only 1 day off. Come get real school isn't that bad. Why do you think that they didn't start 4 days of school in the first place? Most likely because it is not a good idea. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Rebuttals: "As you see right now my opponent has forfeited his round thus means he gave up which means he has disobeyed the rules. So I advise you to vote for me. " Well most school have a short day on Thursday "if this did happen maybe they should add more school hours in a day. like a 30 minutes or so but school is" Well 30 minutes it not enough for less of an extra. You need to add on 2 hours to get it equal to having a 5 days. hard enough especcialy for teens because their body is growing and they need Food, personal hygine, and SLEEP." They already have enough food. Sorry but did you forget about lunch? Also personal hygiene is something you can do at home. Sleep seriously? When you get back from school you still have a lot of time tell sleep. We already sleep enough. And if you had an extra day off just for sleep than you would become lazy.

i_know_all_and_i_will_win

First of all for my viewers he put very little capitals so that brings him down on who had better spelling/grammar so you should vote for me. And my opponents argument is not strong so you should vote on me for most convening arguments unless he changes and he totally rocks it. But that wont happen. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Argument: We should not have 4 days of school because we get holidays and summer of. And if we would change the people who had 5 days of school would not think it is fair. And also you need time to study and be smart. Even with 5 days of school some people are still not smart. Also most schools have short days. We only have 8 hours out of 24 for school. One third of the day. Tell me what most of the kids would be doing if we had and extra day off. They would be playing around with technology, so if we had an extra day it would be a waste. I for one think we should have only 1 day off. Come get real school isn't that bad. Why do you think that they didn't start 4 days of school in the first place? Most likely because it is not a good idea. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Rebuttals: "As you see right now my opponent has forfeited his round thus means he gave up which means he has disobeyed the rules. So I advise you to vote for me. " Well most school have a short day on Thursday "if this did happen maybe they should add more school hours in a day. like a 30 minutes or so but school is" Well 30 minutes it not enough for less of an extra. You need to add on 2 hours to get it equal to having a 5 days. hard enough especcialy for teens because their body is growing and they need Food, personal hygine, and SLEEP." They already have enough food. Sorry but did you forget about lunch? Also personal hygiene is something you can do at home. Sleep seriously? When you get back from school you still have a lot of time tell sleep. We already sleep enough. And if you had an extra day off just for sleep than you would become lazy.

Education

should-school-be-four-days-only/1/

I hope my opponent returns more arguments intended.

i_know_all_and_i_will_win

I hope my opponent returns more arguments intended.

Education

should-school-be-four-days-only/1/

I think I won.

i_know_all_and_i_will_win

I think I won.

Education

should-school-be-four-days-only/1/

Good game.

i_know_all_and_i_will_win

Good game.

Education

should-school-be-four-days-only/1/

Schools should ban junk food.

Diamante

Schools should ban junk food.

Education

should-schools-ban-junk-food/1/

You have the complete burden of proof. I feel that it is the parents responsibility to keep their children healthy and that the school should not infringe upon that right/responsibility.

tmar19652

You have the complete burden of proof. I feel that it is the parents responsibility to keep their children healthy and that the school should not infringe upon that right/responsibility.

Education

should-schools-ban-junk-food/1/

It appears that my opponent has fallen victim to their own 5 minute per round debate. They have not fulfilled their burden of proof and I urge you to vote con.

tmar19652

It appears that my opponent has fallen victim to their own 5 minute per round debate. They have not fulfilled their burden of proof and I urge you to vote con.

Education

should-schools-ban-junk-food/1/

I accept this debate. Since Pro has not established any rules, here are a couple guidelines to follow: 1) Be polite and respectful. Avoid the ad hominem logical fallacy. 2) Sources are not necessary, but recommended. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pro's resolution is that people who are short have better acceleration and running speeds than tall people, who do not have good acceleration and are not speedy. Therefore, short people should play left, center, and right striker in the sport soccer, while the tall people should play left, center, and right defense because they lack the aforementioned traits. As Con, I will argue that speed and acceleration are not mutually exclusive when it comes to tall and short people, but rather that it all varies depending on the physical fitness of the person. Burden of proof is on Pro to provide evidence and/or sound reasoning to support their resolution. Definitions Tall: G reater in height than the average person, building, etc. [1] Short: Having little height; not tall [2] Acceleration: T he act or process of moving faster or happening more quickly; the act or process of accelerating [3] Speed: T he rate at which someone or something moves or travels [4] The Simple Logic & Syllogism It is factual that not all people are the same, both physically and mentally. Pro's fatal flaw is that they fail to consider this. Physical ability in terms of agility is not mutually exclusive to short people. There can be, and there are countless cases where tall people can run and accelerate quicker than short people or even average people. These physical traits vary broadly among the population, and can be attained by most. Pro is arguing by stereotype (to be clear, the stereotype that tall people are clunky and sluggish and short people are quick and agile). Here's a simple syllogism to demonstrate the reasoning better: (P1) Tall people may or may not have excellent acceleration and running speeds. (P2) Short people may or may not have excellent acceleration and running speeds. (C) Therefore, acceleration and running speeds are traits that vary between people of different heights. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- In conclusion, positions for players regarding the sport of soccer should be based individually on each player's demonstrated abilities, not their height. If there is a short player who is sluggish and not in the best physical shape, it is more logical to place them on defense. If a tall player is agile and in great physical shape, it is more logical to place them in a striker or midfielder position. Vote Con. [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>...

JustAnotherFloridaGuy

I accept this debate. Since Pro has not established any rules, here are a couple guidelines to follow: 1) Be polite and respectful. Avoid the ad hominem logical fallacy. 2) Sources are not necessary, but recommended. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pro's resolution is that people who are short have better acceleration and running speeds than tall people, who do not have good acceleration and are not speedy. Therefore, short people should play left, center, and right striker in the sport soccer, while the tall people should play left, center, and right defense because they lack the aforementioned traits. As Con, I will argue that speed and acceleration are not mutually exclusive when it comes to tall and short people, but rather that it all varies depending on the physical fitness of the person. Burden of proof is on Pro to provide evidence and/or sound reasoning to support their resolution. Definitions Tall: G reater in height than the average person, building, etc. [1] Short: Having little height; not tall [2] Acceleration: T he act or process of moving faster or happening more quickly; the act or process of accelerating [3] Speed: T he rate at which someone or something moves or travels [4] The Simple Logic & Syllogism It is factual that not all people are the same, both physically and mentally. Pro's fatal flaw is that they fail to consider this. Physical ability in terms of agility is not mutually exclusive to short people. There can be, and there are countless cases where tall people can run and accelerate quicker than short people or even average people. These physical traits vary broadly among the population, and can be attained by most. Pro is arguing by stereotype (to be clear, the stereotype that tall people are clunky and sluggish and short people are quick and agile). Here's a simple syllogism to demonstrate the reasoning better: (P1) Tall people may or may not have excellent acceleration and running speeds. (P2) Short people may or may not have excellent acceleration and running speeds. (C) Therefore, acceleration and running speeds are traits that vary between people of different heights. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- In conclusion, positions for players regarding the sport of soccer should be based individually on each player's demonstrated abilities, not their height. If there is a short player who is sluggish and not in the best physical shape, it is more logical to place them on defense. If a tall player is agile and in great physical shape, it is more logical to place them in a striker or midfielder position. Vote Con. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Society

should-short-people-be-forwards-in-soccer/1/

Pro has forfeited. I extend all my arguments and leave Pro their last round to formulate an argument. As of now, Pro's resolution has been negated and I maintain my current arguments. Vote Con.

JustAnotherFloridaGuy

Pro has forfeited. I extend all my arguments and leave Pro their last round to formulate an argument. As of now, Pro's resolution has been negated and I maintain my current arguments. Vote Con.

Society

should-short-people-be-forwards-in-soccer/1/

Pro has forfeited the debate. I extend all my arguments. Pro's resolution has been negated and they have not upheld their burden of proof. Vote Con.

JustAnotherFloridaGuy

Pro has forfeited the debate. I extend all my arguments. Pro's resolution has been negated and they have not upheld their burden of proof. Vote Con.

Society

should-short-people-be-forwards-in-soccer/1/

they are fast and have great acceleration who wouldn't. tall people can never live up to this they should stick to defending.

bigdaddy2345

they are fast and have great acceleration who wouldn't. tall people can never live up to this they should stick to defending.

Society

should-short-people-be-forwards-in-soccer/1/

The government exists to protect the rights and property of the people. One's person is their own property. Like almost everything in life, ingesting any type of drug has both its pros and cons - benefits and dangers. While it is true that smoking tobacco carries with it an increased risk of cancer, I fail to see how that should have any legal bearing whatsoever. Today the United States has many second-hand smoke laws regarding tobacco ingestion; in other words, it is only legal to smoke tobacco in designated areas or on your own property away from where it can be considered harmful to others. While it's true that alcohol and tobacco are harmful, so are a plethora of other legal things including: environmental pollutants; sun bathing; eating fatty foods; stress; lack of sleep; etc. The government cannot make everything that of which can be potentially harmful illegal. There is a certain element of responsibility in all of our personal choices. For instance, we know sun tanning greatly damages our skin AND causes cancer; however, people still choose to engage in this behavior. The same logic can be applied to the drugs in question. The government can issue general warnings and studies about the potential dangers of these drugs, and people can choose whether or not that would hinder their consumption. Not every aspect of tobacco is harmful. "A byproduct of cigarette smoke is carbon- dioxide, which in high doses is lethal. However, scientists have discovered that in low dosages, carbon-dioxide in a person's bloodstream prevents blood from "clotting". Blood clots in the bloodstream are the leading cause of heart attacks and strokes" [1]. So, some people should have the liberty of receiving the potential benefits of this drug. Again, there are pros and cons to almost everything. Driving in an automobile has risks, yet we choose to engage in that behavior. And just as the government poses restrictions on this activity, so too can they impose restrictions or other legal burdens regarding the distribution of legal alcohol and tobacco. Since the inception of this country, people have been smoking tobacco and consuming alcohol. In fact, innumerable farmers make their living from farming this crop. Why should the government have the right to deny these people this option? It is their burden to act responsibly under the influence of these drugs, and in choosing this behavior, they are choosing to accept the risks. Because people would still engage in consuming these products whether or not they were illegal, the government would have to implement a DEA like organization to crack down on these abuses and violations. First, This will cost the tax payers more money at a time where the economy is floundering. Second, not having a DEA and allowing people to make their own responsible choices means an increase in democracy and liberty. Third, there is a HUGE amount of government corruption regarding the drug industry. With these products being illegal, they will gain the same status such as other illegal drugs today: cocaine, marijuana, MDMA, etc. We should eliminate bureaucratic trouble making systems as much as possible. Legalization would mean a lower price; thus, related crimes (like theft and gangs) would be reduced. Police and court resources would be freed up for more serious crimes. Drug dealers (including some terrorists) would lose most or all of their business. The FDA and/or others could regulate the quality and safety of drugs. Finally, drug busts often trap young people in a flawed system that turns them into lifelong criminals which is not good for the individual OR the state. Source: [1] <URL>...

Danielle

The government exists to protect the rights and property of the people. One's person is their own property. Like almost everything in life, ingesting any type of drug has both its pros and cons - benefits and dangers. While it is true that smoking tobacco carries with it an increased risk of cancer, I fail to see how that should have any legal bearing whatsoever. Today the United States has many second-hand smoke laws regarding tobacco ingestion; in other words, it is only legal to smoke tobacco in designated areas or on your own property away from where it can be considered harmful to others. While it's true that alcohol and tobacco are harmful, so are a plethora of other legal things including: environmental pollutants; sun bathing; eating fatty foods; stress; lack of sleep; etc. The government cannot make everything that of which can be potentially harmful illegal. There is a certain element of responsibility in all of our personal choices. For instance, we know sun tanning greatly damages our skin AND causes cancer; however, people still choose to engage in this behavior. The same logic can be applied to the drugs in question. The government can issue general warnings and studies about the potential dangers of these drugs, and people can choose whether or not that would hinder their consumption. Not every aspect of tobacco is harmful. "A byproduct of cigarette smoke is carbon- dioxide, which in high doses is lethal. However, scientists have discovered that in low dosages, carbon-dioxide in a person's bloodstream prevents blood from "clotting". Blood clots in the bloodstream are the leading cause of heart attacks and strokes" [1]. So, some people should have the liberty of receiving the potential benefits of this drug. Again, there are pros and cons to almost everything. Driving in an automobile has risks, yet we choose to engage in that behavior. And just as the government poses restrictions on this activity, so too can they impose restrictions or other legal burdens regarding the distribution of legal alcohol and tobacco. Since the inception of this country, people have been smoking tobacco and consuming alcohol. In fact, innumerable farmers make their living from farming this crop. Why should the government have the right to deny these people this option? It is their burden to act responsibly under the influence of these drugs, and in choosing this behavior, they are choosing to accept the risks. Because people would still engage in consuming these products whether or not they were illegal, the government would have to implement a DEA like organization to crack down on these abuses and violations. First, This will cost the tax payers more money at a time where the economy is floundering. Second, not having a DEA and allowing people to make their own responsible choices means an increase in democracy and liberty. Third, there is a HUGE amount of government corruption regarding the drug industry. With these products being illegal, they will gain the same status such as other illegal drugs today: cocaine, marijuana, MDMA, etc. We should eliminate bureaucratic trouble making systems as much as possible. Legalization would mean a lower price; thus, related crimes (like theft and gangs) would be reduced. Police and court resources would be freed up for more serious crimes. Drug dealers (including some terrorists) would lose most or all of their business. The FDA and/or others could regulate the quality and safety of drugs. Finally, drug busts often trap young people in a flawed system that turns them into lifelong criminals which is not good for the individual OR the state. Source: [1] http://www.oohoi.com...

Society

should-smoking-and-alcohol-be-illegal/1/

Just as I suspected. Extend my arguments por favor.

Danielle

Just as I suspected. Extend my arguments por favor.

Society

should-smoking-and-alcohol-be-illegal/1/

Thanks for the debate (or not). Please extend my arguments.

Danielle

Thanks for the debate (or not). Please extend my arguments.

Society

should-smoking-and-alcohol-be-illegal/1/

i will accept

IceClimbers

i will accept

Society

should-the-drinking-age-be-lowered/3/

well i think 21 is the correct age for drinking even tho we are adults at 18 i still think we should give it a few years before we start drinking whenever we want,which will be explain after you explain your case on why drinking age should be lowered

IceClimbers

well i think 21 is the correct age for drinking even tho we are adults at 18 i still think we should give it a few years before we start drinking whenever we want,which will be explain after you explain your case on why drinking age should be lowered

Society

should-the-drinking-age-be-lowered/3/

well thank you.. now you can continue explaining or FF it doesn't matter i just do this for fun not to win or lose.

IceClimbers

well thank you.. now you can continue explaining or FF it doesn't matter i just do this for fun not to win or lose.

Society

should-the-drinking-age-be-lowered/3/

lol well lets just say anything to finish out the rounds

IceClimbers

lol well lets just say anything to finish out the rounds

Society

should-the-drinking-age-be-lowered/3/

okay thanks for the debate

IceClimbers

okay thanks for the debate

Society

should-the-drinking-age-be-lowered/3/

I think the legal age for drinking should be lowered from 21, to 18, because the legal age of consent is 18, you can smoke when you are 18 anyway, why not being able to drink?

debatorman123

I think the legal age for drinking should be lowered from 21, to 18, because the legal age of consent is 18, you can smoke when you are 18 anyway, why not being able to drink?

Society

should-the-drinking-age-be-lowered/3/

I don't know why the government isn't letting 18 year olds drink, even though it is the legal age of consent and smoking age. When you turn 18, you are considered an adult, we should be able to drink like one.

debatorman123

I don't know why the government isn't letting 18 year olds drink, even though it is the legal age of consent and smoking age. When you turn 18, you are considered an adult, we should be able to drink like one.

Society

should-the-drinking-age-be-lowered/3/

I actually think you are right about that. I was just thinking we, as adults, should have more responsibility with things.

debatorman123

I actually think you are right about that. I was just thinking we, as adults, should have more responsibility with things.

Society

should-the-drinking-age-be-lowered/3/

im glad you understand. I do it for the same reason.

debatorman123

im glad you understand. I do it for the same reason.

Society

should-the-drinking-age-be-lowered/3/

im fine with that as long as its quick

debatorman123

im fine with that as long as its quick

Society

should-the-drinking-age-be-lowered/3/

We already have health care for all residents. It's just that some residents don't want to pay for their own care. The government shouldn't pay for everyone's care, everyone should take responsibility for themselves. If the government is going to use my tax money to pay for everyone's health care, then I should have the right to make sure you and everyone else live healthy, and not eat junk food, smoke or drink, to keep the rates that I pay, down.

luv4china

∙We already have health care for all residents. It's just that some residents don't want to pay for their own care. The government shouldn't pay for everyone's care, everyone should take responsibility for themselves. If the government is going to use my tax money to pay for everyone's health care, then I should have the right to make sure you and everyone else live healthy, and not eat junk food, smoke or drink, to keep the rates that I pay, down.

Health

should-the-us-government-gurantee-health-insurance-for-all-residents/1/

Well, if they care about their health then they would pay for their healthcare. and Can the United States afford to? Universal health care is what is called an entitlement, like Social Security or Medicare. If we have the government start providing our health care be prepared for long waits for treatments and tests as well as the possibility of being denied treatment on the basis of economic feasibility by a government bureaucrat.

luv4china

Well, if they care about their health then they would pay for their healthcare. and Can the United States afford to? Universal health care is what is called an entitlement, like Social Security or Medicare. If we have the government start providing our health care be prepared for long waits for treatments and tests as well as the possibility of being denied treatment on the basis of economic feasibility by a government bureaucrat.

Health

should-the-us-government-gurantee-health-insurance-for-all-residents/1/

I don't think that the war on terrorism should continue because so many people will die, and lots will be innocent.

543210

I don't think that the war on terrorism should continue because so many people will die, and lots will be innocent.

News

should-the-war-on-terrorism-continue/1/

I accept, and will be arguing that there should be school uniforms for... This seems to be undefined. I will argue that there should be school uniforms for sports teams.

KingofEverything

I accept, and will be arguing that there should be school uniforms for... This seems to be undefined. I will argue that there should be school uniforms for sports teams.

Education

should-there-be-school-uniforms/1/

There should be school uniforms for sports teams for the following reasons. A) If we didn't have uniforms for sports teams, people may find it difficult to identify people. Yes, a player in a sports team is likely to know most of the people in his team, but if one person on a team looked identical to another, and both were on different teams, then a uniform would definitely help differentiate between the two and not cause confusion. People watching sports games may also find it difficult to identify certain players for a school sports team. B) Some sports require safer equipment for you to play. Pads and a helmet are part of a Football uniform, and what happens when you take that away? More broken bones, more blood, and more disfigured muscles. Injuries in Football can get pretty ugly. Back in the 1900's when you didn't have as much safety equipment, you could actually get KILLED playing Football. And playing like they did back then could certainly lead to some serious injuries assuming there are no deaths. C) It would be far less creative to not use uniforms for our sports. We wear shirts everyday, and quite frankly, without sports uniforms, actual games would just look like kids playing around for recess. You don't get much of that team vibe. There's no school spirit in not wearinf uniforms and it would be very unusual since the norm today is for people to wear uniforms during games.

KingofEverything

There should be school uniforms for sports teams for the following reasons. A) If we didn't have uniforms for sports teams, people may find it difficult to identify people. Yes, a player in a sports team is likely to know most of the people in his team, but if one person on a team looked identical to another, and both were on different teams, then a uniform would definitely help differentiate between the two and not cause confusion. People watching sports games may also find it difficult to identify certain players for a school sports team. B) Some sports require safer equipment for you to play. Pads and a helmet are part of a Football uniform, and what happens when you take that away? More broken bones, more blood, and more disfigured muscles. Injuries in Football can get pretty ugly. Back in the 1900's when you didn't have as much safety equipment, you could actually get KILLED playing Football. And playing like they did back then could certainly lead to some serious injuries assuming there are no deaths. C) It would be far less creative to not use uniforms for our sports. We wear shirts everyday, and quite frankly, without sports uniforms, actual games would just look like kids playing around for recess. You don't get much of that team vibe. There's no school spirit in not wearinf uniforms and it would be very unusual since the norm today is for people to wear uniforms during games.

Education

should-there-be-school-uniforms/1/

Vote King

KingofEverything

Vote King

Education

should-there-be-school-uniforms/1/

Troops should be deployed to stop th rising threat of isis

foxwell64

Troops should be deployed to stop th rising threat of isis

Society

should-troops-be-deployed-in-isis/1/

Isis has been on the radar since last year and needs to be stopped we must take action we have to stop isis so we must send troops onto the grounds of isis territory

foxwell64

Isis has been on the radar since last year and needs to be stopped we must take action we have to stop isis so we must send troops onto the grounds of isis territory

Society

should-troops-be-deployed-in-isis/1/

So overall us troops should be put on the ground to fight Isis

foxwell64

So overall us troops should be put on the ground to fight Isis

Society

should-troops-be-deployed-in-isis/1/

I don't think so

soccer10921

I don't think so

Society

should-troops-be-deployed-in-isis/1/

I thank Pro for initiating this debate. It is upon Pro to show that Violent video games should be banned. I must show that violent video games should not be banned. Refutations A. Aggression increases The statement Pro really seems like he is making is that violent video games increase aggression in youth, a claim that is completely unsupported. In fact, I have a substantial amount of evidence to cause Pro's point to fall. Let's look at the supreme court case that came out of this accusation, and the verdict. "In sum, the evidence presented by the State does not support the Legislature's purported interest in preventing psychological or neurological harm. Nearly all of the research is based on correlation, not evidence of causation, and most of the studies suffer from significant, admitted flaws in methodology as they relate to the State's claimed interest. None of the research establishes or suggests a causal link between minors playing violent video games and actual psychological or neurological harm, and inferences to that effect would not be reasonable. In fact, some of the studies caution against inferring causation." [1] Violent games seem to have no negative factors on youth. Medical and psychological experts agree, saying: "It's clear that the 'big fears' bandied about in the press - that violent video games make children significantly more violent in the real world; that children engage in the illegal, immoral, sexist and violent acts they see in some of these games - are not supported by the current research , at least in such a simplistic form. That should make sense to anyone who thinks about it. After all, millions of children and adults play these games, yet the world has not been reduced to chaos and anarchy." [2] To show even more proof that disproves Pro's statement's, we can see actual statistics in correlation between violent video game usage and actual juvenille aggressive reports... "According to federal crime statistics, the rate of juvenile violent crime in the United States is at a 30-year low. Researchers find that people serving time for violent crimes typically consume less media before committing their crimes than the average person in the general population. It's true that young offenders who have committed school shootings in America have also been game players. But young people in general are more likely to be gamers - 90 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls play. The overwhelming majority of kids who play do NOT commit antisocial acts. " [3] Now, why would it be that in the last thirty years, the time period where violent video games have shot up in development [4], that the juvenile violent crime rate is at an all time low if these games increase aggression? Pro's point falls Pro then makes a second point which is really another way of saying the first, so I will only lightly touch on it...Behavioral scripts. This claim is again completely opinionated and backed with no source. If Pro is to say behavioral scripts develop " from the repetition of actions ", then you can say that someone who brushes their teeth every morning will brush their teeht automatically when they see a toothbrush. Equally, it's like saying a person who has to wake up early the majority of the year for schooling will ALWAYS wake up early; I think we all know this not to be true. Now moving on to my contentions. 1. Violent video games prepare the youth "Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low. It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware." Posner adds, "To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it." [5] Violence is all around us; whether it's foreign countries, domestic gangs, or through whatever medium, it's here to stay. Banning violent video games because of potential aggression harm younger individuals, as the quote above states. A younger person is much more likely to overreact when exposed to a violent situation if he has never been exposed to violence before....this is just common sense. Violent video games give a good medium for these kids to experience the world's anger, and prepare for it. "The Sims designer Will Wright argues that games are perhaps the only medium that allows us to experience guilt over the actions of fictional characters." [5] This says that through games, one can actually at a younger age start to identify morals and guilt, and make decisions that have consequences, preparing them for the real world. Many violent games these days have open ended decision making: just a few are Grand theft auto, Fallout 3, and Oblivion. 2. Revenue would drop, harming the economy The video games system we live in this day and age brings in a vast sum of money; in 2008, $11.7 billion dollars was gained through video games [6] "97% of 12-17 year olds in the US played video games in 2008, thus fueling an $11.7 billion domestic video game industry. In 2008, 10 of the top 20 best-selling video games in the US contained violence. " [6] It's safe to say that banning these games, which I have proven have no negative effects on adolescents and have no imact on their aggression level, would just cause a lot of problems. You would ruin the gaming industry, have kids who wouldn't be prepared for the real world, and in reality just take out very fun aspects of games. What a bore video games would be if all of them were violence free; we all feel this way, and it's common sense that these video games are the best of the best. After all, 10 of the top 20 best-sellers had violence. Thank You Sources 1. Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a 3-0 majority opinion written by Consuelo Callahan, JD, on Feb. 20, 2009 2. Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth about Violent Video Games: Lawrence Kutner, PhD, and Cheryl K. Olson, ScD, co-founders of the Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health and Media 3. Henry Jenkins, PhD, Provost's Professor of Communication, Journalism, and Cinematic Arts at University of Southern California 4. <URL>... 5. <URL>... 6. <URL>...

PartamRuhem

I thank Pro for initiating this debate. It is upon Pro to show that Violent video games should be banned. I must show that violent video games should not be banned. Refutations A. Aggression increases The statement Pro really seems like he is making is that violent video games increase aggression in youth, a claim that is completely unsupported. In fact, I have a substantial amount of evidence to cause Pro's point to fall. Let's look at the supreme court case that came out of this accusation, and the verdict. "In sum, the evidence presented by the State does not support the Legislature's purported interest in preventing psychological or neurological harm. Nearly all of the research is based on correlation, not evidence of causation, and most of the studies suffer from significant, admitted flaws in methodology as they relate to the State's claimed interest. None of the research establishes or suggests a causal link between minors playing violent video games and actual psychological or neurological harm, and inferences to that effect would not be reasonable. In fact, some of the studies caution against inferring causation." [1] Violent games seem to have no negative factors on youth. Medical and psychological experts agree, saying: "It's clear that the ‘big fears' bandied about in the press - that violent video games make children significantly more violent in the real world; that children engage in the illegal, immoral, sexist and violent acts they see in some of these games - are not supported by the current research , at least in such a simplistic form. That should make sense to anyone who thinks about it. After all, millions of children and adults play these games, yet the world has not been reduced to chaos and anarchy." [2] To show even more proof that disproves Pro's statement's, we can see actual statistics in correlation between violent video game usage and actual juvenille aggressive reports... "According to federal crime statistics, the rate of juvenile violent crime in the United States is at a 30-year low. Researchers find that people serving time for violent crimes typically consume less media before committing their crimes than the average person in the general population. It's true that young offenders who have committed school shootings in America have also been game players. But young people in general are more likely to be gamers - 90 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls play. The overwhelming majority of kids who play do NOT commit antisocial acts. " [3] Now, why would it be that in the last thirty years, the time period where violent video games have shot up in development [4], that the juvenile violent crime rate is at an all time low if these games increase aggression? Pro's point falls Pro then makes a second point which is really another way of saying the first, so I will only lightly touch on it...Behavioral scripts. This claim is again completely opinionated and backed with no source. If Pro is to say behavioral scripts develop " from the repetition of actions ", then you can say that someone who brushes their teeth every morning will brush their teeht automatically when they see a toothbrush. Equally, it's like saying a person who has to wake up early the majority of the year for schooling will ALWAYS wake up early; I think we all know this not to be true. Now moving on to my contentions. 1. Violent video games prepare the youth "Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low. It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware." Posner adds, "To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it." [5] Violence is all around us; whether it's foreign countries, domestic gangs, or through whatever medium, it's here to stay. Banning violent video games because of potential aggression harm younger individuals, as the quote above states. A younger person is much more likely to overreact when exposed to a violent situation if he has never been exposed to violence before....this is just common sense. Violent video games give a good medium for these kids to experience the world's anger, and prepare for it. "The Sims designer Will Wright argues that games are perhaps the only medium that allows us to experience guilt over the actions of fictional characters." [5] This says that through games, one can actually at a younger age start to identify morals and guilt, and make decisions that have consequences, preparing them for the real world. Many violent games these days have open ended decision making: just a few are Grand theft auto, Fallout 3, and Oblivion. 2. Revenue would drop, harming the economy The video games system we live in this day and age brings in a vast sum of money; in 2008, $11.7 billion dollars was gained through video games [6] "97% of 12-17 year olds in the US played video games in 2008, thus fueling an $11.7 billion domestic video game industry. In 2008, 10 of the top 20 best-selling video games in the US contained violence. " [6] It's safe to say that banning these games, which I have proven have no negative effects on adolescents and have no imact on their aggression level, would just cause a lot of problems. You would ruin the gaming industry, have kids who wouldn't be prepared for the real world, and in reality just take out very fun aspects of games. What a bore video games would be if all of them were violence free; we all feel this way, and it's common sense that these video games are the best of the best. After all, 10 of the top 20 best-sellers had violence. Thank You Sources 1. Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a 3-0 majority opinion written by Consuelo Callahan, JD, on Feb. 20, 2009 2. Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth about Violent Video Games: Lawrence Kutner, PhD, and Cheryl K. Olson, ScD, co-founders of the Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health and Media 3. Henry Jenkins, PhD, Provost's Professor of Communication, Journalism, and Cinematic Arts at University of Southern California 4. http://www.suite101.com... 5. http://www.pbs.org... 6. http://videogames.procon.org...

Technology

should-vilent-video-games-be-banned/1/

There are a couple key issues with my opponent's argument. First, I would like to state that she has avoided all my contentions, leaving them standing. Also, she has dropped a contention of her own (behavioral scripts) and brought in a brand new one. (violence towards women) I will refute my opponents argument then extend my case. Refutations Pro brings up sources, which she lacked last round, yet still provides not details to these sources. They are simply stated as "A 2009 study" and "a 1998 study". Are these reliable sources? Can you, as the reader, verify any of this? Of course not, but I will show how it is irrelevant anyway. In my last round, I quoted the co-founders of the Harvard Medical School center for mental health and media, and they explicitly said "...that children engage in the illegal, immoral, sexist and violent acts they see in some of these games - are not supported by the current research". The last part is key. IT shows that all research up to date is not conclusive and should be written off, which is exactly what you should do with my opponent's "facts". This, and the fact that my opponent still has provided no actually source, causes her whole argument to fall, and I win. Seeing as there has been no discussion of my two points as to why violent video games should not be banned, I won't sit here and just give more details; keeping it easy on the reader's eyes. I will simply extend all arguments, and hope that my opponent's next response is more whole. Thank You

PartamRuhem

There are a couple key issues with my opponent's argument. First, I would like to state that she has avoided all my contentions, leaving them standing. Also, she has dropped a contention of her own (behavioral scripts) and brought in a brand new one. (violence towards women) I will refute my opponents argument then extend my case. Refutations Pro brings up sources, which she lacked last round, yet still provides not details to these sources. They are simply stated as "A 2009 study" and "a 1998 study". Are these reliable sources? Can you, as the reader, verify any of this? Of course not, but I will show how it is irrelevant anyway. In my last round, I quoted the co-founders of the Harvard Medical School center for mental health and media, and they explicitly said "...that children engage in the illegal, immoral, sexist and violent acts they see in some of these games - are not supported by the current research". The last part is key. IT shows that all research up to date is not conclusive and should be written off, which is exactly what you should do with my opponent's "facts". This, and the fact that my opponent still has provided no actually source, causes her whole argument to fall, and I win. Seeing as there has been no discussion of my two points as to why violent video games should not be banned, I won't sit here and just give more details; keeping it easy on the reader's eyes. I will simply extend all arguments, and hope that my opponent's next response is more whole. Thank You

Technology

should-vilent-video-games-be-banned/1/

I extend all arguments...if Pro gives a response after this, I hope the judges don't let her FF take a huge toll on the voting.

PartamRuhem

I extend all arguments...if Pro gives a response after this, I hope the judges don't let her FF take a huge toll on the voting.

Technology

should-vilent-video-games-be-banned/1/

Disappointing...extend.

PartamRuhem

Disappointing...extend.

Technology

should-vilent-video-games-be-banned/1/

I hope everyone votes accordingly... thanks

PartamRuhem

I hope everyone votes accordingly... thanks

Technology

should-vilent-video-games-be-banned/1/

Violent video games require active participation, repetition, and identification with the violent character. With new game controllers allowing more physical interaction, the immersive and interactive characteristics of video games can increase the likelihood of youth violence. Playing violent video games causes the development of aggressive behavioral scripts . A behavioral script is developed from the repetition of actions and affects the subconscious mind. An example of a common behavioral script is a driving script that tells drivers to get in a vehicle, put on a seat belt, and turn on the ignition. Similarly, violent video games can lead to scripts that tell youth to respond aggressively in certain situations. Violence in video games may lead to real world violence when scripts are automatically triggered in daily life, such as being nudged in a school hallway.

missylacy

Violent video games require active participation, repetition, and identification with the violent character. With new game controllers allowing more physical interaction, the immersive and interactive characteristics of video games can increase the likelihood of youth violence. Playing violent video games causes the development of aggressive behavioral scripts . A behavioral script is developed from the repetition of actions and affects the subconscious mind. An example of a common behavioral script is a driving script that tells drivers to get in a vehicle, put on a seat belt, and turn on the ignition. Similarly, violent video games can lead to scripts that tell youth to respond aggressively in certain situations. Violence in video games may lead to real world violence when scripts are automatically triggered in daily life, such as being nudged in a school hallway.

Technology

should-vilent-video-games-be-banned/1/

Playing violent video games increases aggressive behavior and arousal . A 2009 study found that it takes up to four minutes for the level of aggressive thoughts and feelings in children to return to normal after playing violent video games. It takes five to ten minutes for heart rate and aggressive behavior to return to baseline. Video games that show the most blood generate more aggressive thoughts. When blood is present in video games, there is a measurable increase in arousal and hostility . A 1998 study found that 21% of games sampled involved violence against women . Exposure to sexual violence in video games is linked to increases in violence towards women and false attitudes about rape such as that women incite men to rape or that women secretly desire rape.

missylacy

Playing violent video games increases aggressive behavior and arousal . A 2009 study found that it takes up to four minutes for the level of aggressive thoughts and feelings in children to return to normal after playing violent video games. It takes five to ten minutes for heart rate and aggressive behavior to return to baseline. Video games that show the most blood generate more aggressive thoughts. When blood is present in video games, there is a measurable increase in arousal and hostility . A 1998 study found that 21% of games sampled involved violence against women . Exposure to sexual violence in video games is linked to increases in violence towards women and false attitudes about rape such as that women incite men to rape or that women secretly desire rape.

Technology

should-vilent-video-games-be-banned/1/

I guess I mineswell throw my opinion out there. I will be arguing for kissing girls in high school. I'm going to ask for a better definition of the debate, though.

Kaynex

I guess I mineswell throw my opinion out there. I will be arguing for kissing girls in high school. I'm going to ask for a better definition of the debate, though.

Society

should-we-kiss-girls-in-high-school/1/

I agree that you shouldn't eat someone's face in the middle of the halls, but I see nothing wrong with minor kisses here and there. School, like any other public place, is fine with public displays of affection.

Kaynex

I agree that you shouldn't eat someone's face in the middle of the halls, but I see nothing wrong with minor kisses here and there. School, like any other public place, is fine with public displays of affection.

Society

should-we-kiss-girls-in-high-school/1/

I think we should not kiss girls in high school

buddy123king

I think we should not kiss girls in high school

Society

should-we-kiss-girls-in-high-school/1/

You make the assumption that since the women's rights social movement has gained popularity that this social movement applies to the army. At its core, the army is very violent and fight driven. This role of fighting is best to be given to a man. They are more equipped to battle based off of our very biology and survival instinct. Men are more adept to fighting. We should use this to maximize the efficiency of our army by having a stronger army out in battle. I am not forbidding women from joining the army because they have the freedom to do so but by our very biology we should take advantage of the fact the men are biologically stronger and are more suitable for war, which is why women should not be forced into the army. One other thing. You mentioned feminism but that does not pertain to the army. That pertains to social movements so that isn't very relevant to this debate.

Debate_King1475

You make the assumption that since the women's rights social movement has gained popularity that this social movement applies to the army. At its core, the army is very violent and fight driven. This role of fighting is best to be given to a man. They are more equipped to battle based off of our very biology and survival instinct. Men are more adept to fighting. We should use this to maximize the efficiency of our army by having a stronger army out in battle. I am not forbidding women from joining the army because they have the freedom to do so but by our very biology we should take advantage of the fact the men are biologically stronger and are more suitable for war, which is why women should not be forced into the army. One other thing. You mentioned feminism but that does not pertain to the army. That pertains to social movements so that isn't very relevant to this debate.

People

should-women-have-to-register-for-the-draft-at-18/1/

I apologize to everybody who read this, and also to my patient opponent knick-knack, who I practically begged to accept the last one. I'm going to give my real arguments on this... But will still let my opponent start, but before he does, I want to define a few things.... Silence = quiet Golden = amazing So the basic idea is that silence is amazing. I will state the exact topic again Silence Is Golden. Good luck neg.

CoronerPerry

I apologize to everybody who read this, and also to my patient opponent knick-knack, who I practically begged to accept the last one. I'm going to give my real arguments on this... But will still let my opponent start, but before he does, I want to define a few things.... Silence = quiet Golden = amazing So the basic idea is that silence is amazing. I will state the exact topic again Silence Is Golden. Good luck neg.

Miscellaneous

silence-is-golden-the-way-it-should-be-debated/1/

"I am assuming that my opponent means that if there was silence all of the time, then it would be amazing" as for that statement, the assumption would be incorrect. The meaning is not silence all the time, otherwise the topic would be, "constant silence is golden" Although, even pretending that the topic was what my opponent assumed, his only point is that there wouldn't be any progression in society, which is false. There are quite a few different forms of communication, one of which is sign language. Sign language could easily be used in the case that everyone always had to be silent. Another form of communication is text messaging/IMing/e-mailing. People use these forms of communication constantly. Most teenagers use these forms of communication a lot more than even talking. Although, that is only if what my opponent assumed was true, which it was not true. As for the topic, silence is golden. Just being able to have everything be quiet, for even one minute, would be the most golden, the most amazing thing ever. Imagine the feeling, just to relax in the temporary silence. Thankyou

CoronerPerry

"I am assuming that my opponent means that if there was silence all of the time, then it would be amazing" as for that statement, the assumption would be incorrect. The meaning is not silence all the time, otherwise the topic would be, "constant silence is golden" Although, even pretending that the topic was what my opponent assumed, his only point is that there wouldn't be any progression in society, which is false. There are quite a few different forms of communication, one of which is sign language. Sign language could easily be used in the case that everyone always had to be silent. Another form of communication is text messaging/IMing/e-mailing. People use these forms of communication constantly. Most teenagers use these forms of communication a lot more than even talking. Although, that is only if what my opponent assumed was true, which it was not true. As for the topic, silence is golden. Just being able to have everything be quiet, for even one minute, would be the most golden, the most amazing thing ever. Imagine the feeling, just to relax in the temporary silence. Thankyou

Miscellaneous

silence-is-golden-the-way-it-should-be-debated/1/

"I am sorry for misunderstanding the topic." it's no problem, I don't think anybody will hold it against you. "My contention still is -While in silence there is little human communication, therefore, there is little progression of society" although, if I have anything to say about it, I hope the voters will hold this against you. I explained the resolution clearly, and yet you still go with this. the topic does not say CONSTANT silence, just Silence. the only point that you've ever had has fallen, and yet you brought it back, even after I explained the resolution. "Also there would be no transferring of knowledge, so no education and learning. There would be no science, or mathematics, or development of government." again, it is not constant silence... "For my opponent, not everybody knows sign language, so therefore, little to no communication." for my sign language statement, I was simply speculating a rebuttle to your assumption of COMPLETE silence. besides, if we had complete silence where nobody can talk, society would always create another form of communication. "Also not everybody in the world has technology such as phones or the Internet. So these people would not be able to receive information, or be capable of becoming a progressive society." true, not all places have technololgy, but again, not CONSTANT silence. even still, if it was that way, these places already aren't progressing much, nothing would change. "And there is never a true silence (absence of sound), so the feeling of being in silence does not exist and has never existed. Unless, the person was deaf." again, I will give a breakdown of the resolution. "SILENCE IS GOLDEN" nowhere does it say COMPLETE silence. my opponent is putting words into the resolution that are not there. I am simply stating that silence in its own is golden. To satisfy my opponent, I will give him a lot more to debate about. Silence, meaning: absence of any sound or noise Golden, meaning: splendid, glorious, joyous. -(dictionary.reference.com) Silence Is Golden, meaning: Silence is of great value. -(American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition) or, Silence Is Golden, meaning: Keeping one's mouth shut is a great virtue, as in Don't tell anyone else about it. -(American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms) now if my opponent would have touched on the second definiton, it would still be following the resolution. there are so many times in life where it is so much better just to keep your mouth shut. Solomon said: "The one who guards his mouth preserves his life; the one who opens wide his lips comes to ruin". (Pro. 13:3). These words speak truth. By letting your words out constantly, you can, and most likely will cause problems. think of it this way... you are in the army, and given private information. your friend asks you about it, and you decide to let your friend in on it. later, you find that your friend was an enemy spy, and you just gave him the information you needed. it would have been much better to just keep your mouth shut. in another point, your friend is fighting with his wife, and you decide to say something. what you say offends them, and they decide to get a divorce. if you would have followed the old adage: silence is golden, then your friend and his wife would still be together. but, to hit back on my original definition of silence is golden... pretend you just had a long day at work... you're extremely exhausted, and you come home to three kids. would you rather the kids be loud and obnoxious, like usual, or would you like them to be silent, so you can relax. I choose silent, because silence is golden. silence helps a person think, your brain can operate better when there is a lot less noise around you. silence is golden in the form that it can help you learn/study better, and more efficient. I believe I have presented enough information to prove that silence truly is golden. Vote PRO! :-D now to knick-knack....

CoronerPerry

"I am sorry for misunderstanding the topic." it's no problem, I don't think anybody will hold it against you. "My contention still is -While in silence there is little human communication, therefore, there is little progression of society" although, if I have anything to say about it, I hope the voters will hold this against you. I explained the resolution clearly, and yet you still go with this. the topic does not say CONSTANT silence, just Silence. the only point that you've ever had has fallen, and yet you brought it back, even after I explained the resolution. "Also there would be no transferring of knowledge, so no education and learning. There would be no science, or mathematics, or development of government." again, it is not constant silence... "For my opponent, not everybody knows sign language, so therefore, little to no communication." for my sign language statement, I was simply speculating a rebuttle to your assumption of COMPLETE silence. besides, if we had complete silence where nobody can talk, society would always create another form of communication. "Also not everybody in the world has technology such as phones or the Internet. So these people would not be able to receive information, or be capable of becoming a progressive society." true, not all places have technololgy, but again, not CONSTANT silence. even still, if it was that way, these places already aren't progressing much, nothing would change. "And there is never a true silence (absence of sound), so the feeling of being in silence does not exist and has never existed. Unless, the person was deaf." again, I will give a breakdown of the resolution. "SILENCE IS GOLDEN" nowhere does it say COMPLETE silence. my opponent is putting words into the resolution that are not there. I am simply stating that silence in its own is golden. To satisfy my opponent, I will give him a lot more to debate about. Silence, meaning: absence of any sound or noise Golden, meaning: splendid, glorious, joyous. -(dictionary.reference.com) Silence Is Golden, meaning: Silence is of great value. -(American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition) or, Silence Is Golden, meaning: Keeping one's mouth shut is a great virtue, as in Don't tell anyone else about it. -(American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms) now if my opponent would have touched on the second definiton, it would still be following the resolution. there are so many times in life where it is so much better just to keep your mouth shut. Solomon said: "The one who guards his mouth preserves his life; the one who opens wide his lips comes to ruin". (Pro. 13:3). These words speak truth. By letting your words out constantly, you can, and most likely will cause problems. think of it this way... you are in the army, and given private information. your friend asks you about it, and you decide to let your friend in on it. later, you find that your friend was an enemy spy, and you just gave him the information you needed. it would have been much better to just keep your mouth shut. in another point, your friend is fighting with his wife, and you decide to say something. what you say offends them, and they decide to get a divorce. if you would have followed the old adage: silence is golden, then your friend and his wife would still be together. but, to hit back on my original definition of silence is golden... pretend you just had a long day at work... you're extremely exhausted, and you come home to three kids. would you rather the kids be loud and obnoxious, like usual, or would you like them to be silent, so you can relax. I choose silent, because silence is golden. silence helps a person think, your brain can operate better when there is a lot less noise around you. silence is golden in the form that it can help you learn/study better, and more efficient. I believe I have presented enough information to prove that silence truly is golden. Vote PRO! :-D now to knick-knack....

Miscellaneous

silence-is-golden-the-way-it-should-be-debated/1/

I am assuming that my opponent means that if there was silence all of the time, then it would be amazing. Still not fully understanding the topic, (please explain in comment section) this is all I have for now: -While in silence there little human communication, therefore, there is little progression of society. Your turn.

knick-knack

I am assuming that my opponent means that if there was silence all of the time, then it would be amazing. Still not fully understanding the topic, (please explain in comment section) this is all I have for now: -While in silence there little human communication, therefore, there is little progression of society. Your turn.

Miscellaneous

silence-is-golden-the-way-it-should-be-debated/1/

I am sorry for misunderstanding the topic. My opponent has not yet constructed a case as to why Silence is Golden. All he has said is- "Just being able to have everything be quiet, for even one minute, would be the most golden, the most amazing thing ever". My contention still is -While in silence there is little human communication, therefore, there is little progression of society Also there would be no transferring of knowledge, so no education and learning. There would be no science, or mathematics, or development of government. For my opponent, not everybody knows sign language, so therefore, little to no communication. Also not everybody in the world has technology such as phones or the Internet. So these people would not be able to receive information, or be capable of becoming a progressive society. And there is never a true silence (absence of sound), so the feeling of being in silence does not exist and has never existed. Unless, the person was deaf. I will wait for my opponent to construct a case in the last round so that I am able to announce a rebuttal. Vote Con. Now to Coroner.

knick-knack

I am sorry for misunderstanding the topic. My opponent has not yet constructed a case as to why Silence is Golden. All he has said is- "Just being able to have everything be quiet, for even one minute, would be the most golden, the most amazing thing ever". My contention still is -While in silence there is little human communication, therefore, there is little progression of society Also there would be no transferring of knowledge, so no education and learning. There would be no science, or mathematics, or development of government. For my opponent, not everybody knows sign language, so therefore, little to no communication. Also not everybody in the world has technology such as phones or the Internet. So these people would not be able to receive information, or be capable of becoming a progressive society. And there is never a true silence (absence of sound), so the feeling of being in silence does not exist and has never existed. Unless, the person was deaf. I will wait for my opponent to construct a case in the last round so that I am able to announce a rebuttal. Vote Con. Now to Coroner.

Miscellaneous

silence-is-golden-the-way-it-should-be-debated/1/

Thank you to my opponent for FINALLY constructing a case. This topic is built around silence not around human communication, which has sadly been the debate thus far. which may be my fault... My contention still remains -While in silence there is little human communication, therefore, there is little progression of society. Yes I do understand the resolution but my contention is still the same. My opponent agrees with my definition of silence meaning the absence of any sound, so the feeling of silence does not and will never exist. (there is no difference between complete silence and silence) While in silence even if it is brief or momentary. There would be no communication between human beings, therefore no development of society for that period of time, however long. Now for my opponents case. All of the examples used by the PRO side relate to speaking towards another human. This has nothing to do with silence because regardless if there is speaking there is still no silence. So in the end I would like to agree that if you are asked for top secret information by a friend it would be best to keep your mouth shut. But sadly sometimes there are morons that will get us all killed someday. Silence is not golden as I have rightfully proven. Please vote CON. Thank you.

knick-knack

Thank you to my opponent for FINALLY constructing a case. This topic is built around silence not around human communication, which has sadly been the debate thus far. which may be my fault... My contention still remains -While in silence there is little human communication, therefore, there is little progression of society. Yes I do understand the resolution but my contention is still the same. My opponent agrees with my definition of silence meaning the absence of any sound, so the feeling of silence does not and will never exist. (there is no difference between complete silence and silence) While in silence even if it is brief or momentary. There would be no communication between human beings, therefore no development of society for that period of time, however long. Now for my opponents case. All of the examples used by the PRO side relate to speaking towards another human. This has nothing to do with silence because regardless if there is speaking there is still no silence. So in the end I would like to agree that if you are asked for top secret information by a friend it would be best to keep your mouth shut. But sadly sometimes there are morons that will get us all killed someday. Silence is not golden as I have rightfully proven. Please vote CON. Thank you.

Miscellaneous

silence-is-golden-the-way-it-should-be-debated/1/

State your case young one.

emospongebob527

State your case young one.

Entertainment

smelisox-rulz/1/

" smelisox forfeited this round. " Lol, I love it when they say this.

emospongebob527

" smelisox forfeited this round. " Lol, I love it when they say this.

Entertainment

smelisox-rulz/1/

BOP has not been upheld.

emospongebob527

BOP has not been upheld.

Entertainment

smelisox-rulz/1/

The child asphyxiates/ chokes from over consumption of popcorn, eating too much at a time... and had things in both arms, so would be hard to call out for help. Children have a tendency for greediness and gluttony. This is such a silly riddle. There are many answers, so I can't really be wrong, because my answer would make sense. I win!

NiamC

The child asphyxiates/ chokes from over consumption of popcorn, eating too much at a time... and had things in both arms, so would be hard to call out for help. Children have a tendency for greediness and gluttony. This is such a silly riddle. There are many answers, so I can't really be wrong, because my answer would make sense. I win!

Funny

solve-riddle-in-5-min/1/

a child is seen dead at the movie theater with popcorn is his hand and a water bottle what happend

taken123

a child is seen dead at the movie theater with popcorn is his hand and a water bottle what happend

Funny

solve-riddle-in-5-min/1/