Datasets:

notaphoenix

/

debateorg_w_effect_for_conservative

like 0

Francis Hutcheoson(1694 - 1746), the famous European-Enlightenment philosopher, wrote years before the declaration that the "pursuing happiness is the chief drive and purpose human will [Transforming Leadership: A New Pursuit of Happiness, page.2]". Norman Fiering, a specialist historian, has described Hutcheoson in a peer-reviewed work as "probably the most influential and respected moral philosopher in America in the eighteenth century [Fiering, Norman (1981). Moral Philosophy at Seventeenth-Century Harvard: A Discipline in Transition. University of North Carolina Press. p. 199.]." It is established beyond dispute that the phrase "pursuit of happiness" reflects a philosophy inspired from Hutcheoson himself who was a source of inspiration in the 18th century, and who had works on the pursuit of happiness that preceded the declaration. The resolution is defeated; The phrase is more meaningful than decorative. DEBATE(7PTS) Pro lost the seven points as she forfeited the original debate and started a new one in Round 2. SOURCES(2PTS) Pro claims a seven-point loss is against DDO's rules Rebuttal: The citation that Pro offered( <URL>... ) took me to a webpage on debating tips written by Nate Simmons . There no mention of the debating rules or the seven point loss, but the contrary: "Version 3.0 introduced an amazing new voting system and here are some tips to use it more effectively. " Pro claims Professor Lucas wrote an academic paper. Rebuttal: The citation that Pro offered is a broken-link saying "File not found." I checked the website and it is not a website for peer-reviewed journals but archives.org which archives any document. Pro also lied about the blogger's citation as shown in Round 3. It is established that Pro used what logicians call the "Tu quoque fallacy." Instead of countering the previous accusations of using fabricated sources, she instead accused the accuser of being "false at every point" without any evidence. ARGUMENTS(3PTS) Pro's central argument, "I don't know what it means.... it resonates to me... it seems so." Rebuttal: This was proven to be an argument from ignorance. Pro further argues, "I came, I conquered, I saw" is like "Liberty, Life and the pursuit of happiness." Rebuttal: Pro has already dropped the challenge of showing how Fox's "fair and balanced" would be more aesthetic with an adjective added. In his book, "Believing Bullsh!t," Stephen Law speaks of the "but it fits" fallacy; when a baseless hypothesis would grasp at compatible examples and ignore other contrary/opposing ones. Pro even admits that she has not offered any well-cited, linguistic evidence for her hypothesis, but she insists it is obvious and should be taken for granted. Pro repeats, "Con conceded that "there is no conclusive explanation to why the phrase was used." Rebuttal: I said no such thing. I said there is no conclusive explanation on why it is "more meaningful" or "more decorative" since inductive reasoning, by definition, is inconclusive. Pro has only provided weak arguments and failed to satisfy her BoP. While I have offered... (1) The historic origin of "pursuit of happiness" which proves it is meaningful, and shows Hutcheoson's influence. (2) An explanation of the phrase's philosophic and important meaning. (3) The existence of the phrase in the founder's belief system. (4) Computability of the phrase with the founder's life purpose and the general American dream . CONDUCT(1PT) Pro has called my objections "ridiculous," changed the initial rules of the debate, ignored my explanations and used sleazy tactics(e.g tu quoque tactic)... ... It seems Pro has no background in rationality(e.g appeals to authority or inductive reasoning) or concerns for intellectual honesty. The lawyering tactics she used forced me to hold Diogenes' lamp when reading her turns to find one honest statement under broad daylight, and yet my search was pointless. If you agree with the seven-point loss or the DDO's tips on voting, VOTE CON.

NiqashMotawadi3

Francis Hutcheoson(1694 – 1746), the famous European-Enlightenment philosopher, wrote years before the declaration that the "pursuing happiness is the chief drive and purpose human will [Transforming Leadership: A New Pursuit of Happiness, page.2]". Norman Fiering, a specialist historian, has described Hutcheoson in a peer-reviewed work as "probably the most influential and respected moral philosopher in America in the eighteenth century [Fiering, Norman (1981). Moral Philosophy at Seventeenth-Century Harvard: A Discipline in Transition. University of North Carolina Press. p. 199.]." It is established beyond dispute that the phrase "pursuit of happiness" reflects a philosophy inspired from Hutcheoson himself who was a source of inspiration in the 18th century, and who had works on the pursuit of happiness that preceded the declaration. The resolution is defeated; The phrase is more meaningful than decorative. DEBATE(7PTS) Pro lost the seven points as she forfeited the original debate and started a new one in Round 2. SOURCES(2PTS) Pro claims a seven-point loss is against DDO's rules Rebuttal: The citation that Pro offered( http://www.debate.org... ) took me to a webpage on debating tips written by Nate Simmons . There no mention of the debating rules or the seven point loss, but the contrary: "Version 3.0 introduced an amazing new voting system and here are some tips to use it more effectively. " Pro claims Professor Lucas wrote an academic paper. Rebuttal: The citation that Pro offered is a broken-link saying "File not found." I checked the website and it is not a website for peer-reviewed journals but archives.org which archives any document. Pro also lied about the blogger's citation as shown in Round 3. It is established that Pro used what logicians call the "Tu quoque fallacy." Instead of countering the previous accusations of using fabricated sources, she instead accused the accuser of being "false at every point" without any evidence. ARGUMENTS(3PTS) Pro's central argument, "I don't know what it means.... it resonates to me... it seems so." Rebuttal: This was proven to be an argument from ignorance. Pro further argues, "I came, I conquered, I saw" is like "Liberty, Life and the pursuit of happiness." Rebuttal: Pro has already dropped the challenge of showing how Fox's "fair and balanced" would be more aesthetic with an adjective added. In his book, "Believing Bullsh!t," Stephen Law speaks of the "but it fits" fallacy; when a baseless hypothesis would grasp at compatible examples and ignore other contrary/opposing ones. Pro even admits that she has not offered any well-cited, linguistic evidence for her hypothesis, but she insists it is obvious and should be taken for granted. Pro repeats, "Con conceded that "there is no conclusive explanation to why the phrase was used." Rebuttal: I said no such thing. I said there is no conclusive explanation on why it is "more meaningful" or "more decorative" since inductive reasoning, by definition, is inconclusive. Pro has only provided weak arguments and failed to satisfy her BoP. While I have offered... (1) The historic origin of "pursuit of happiness" which proves it is meaningful, and shows Hutcheoson's influence. (2) An explanation of the phrase's philosophic and important meaning. (3) The existence of the phrase in the founder's belief system. (4) Computability of the phrase with the founder's life purpose and the general American dream . CONDUCT(1PT) Pro has called my objections "ridiculous," changed the initial rules of the debate, ignored my explanations and used sleazy tactics(e.g tu quoque tactic)... ... It seems Pro has no background in rationality(e.g appeals to authority or inductive reasoning) or concerns for intellectual honesty. The lawyering tactics she used forced me to hold Diogenes' lamp when reading her turns to find one honest statement under broad daylight, and yet my search was pointless. If you agree with the seven-point loss or the DDO's tips on voting, VOTE CON.

Miscellaneous

the-pursuit-of-happiness-is-more-decorative-than-meaningful/1/

The US Declaration of Independence famously states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. " I've never understood how "the pursuit of Happiness" adds any extra meaning that isn't covered by "Liberty". So it seems to me that they just put it in because it sounds more sweeping and noble than "Life and Liberty" would on its own. Yet it does seem to be present in American culture. A writer for Time magazine described it as "a central mandate of the national character" (2) This has puzzled me for a while, actually, so I'm hoping someone will explain it all in the debate. (1) <URL>... (2) <URL>...

rross

The US Declaration of Independence famously states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. " I've never understood how "the pursuit of Happiness" adds any extra meaning that isn't covered by "Liberty". So it seems to me that they just put it in because it sounds more sweeping and noble than "Life and Liberty" would on its own. Yet it does seem to be present in American culture. A writer for Time magazine described it as "a central mandate of the national character" (2) This has puzzled me for a while, actually, so I'm hoping someone will explain it all in the debate. (1) http://www.archives.gov... (2) http://content.time.com...

Miscellaneous

the-pursuit-of-happiness-is-more-decorative-than-meaningful/1/

In the introduction to this debate, I invited my opponent to explain the meaning of the phrase "the pursuit of Happiness". To win this debate, Con needs to explain two things: 1. What "pursuit of Happiness" contributes to the Declaration that is not already covered by "Life" and "Liberty". 2. What meaning "pursuit of Happiness" has for present day America, in particular to what extent it is a central mandate of the national character over and above the concepts of "Life" and "Liberty" etc. debate structure Con has chosen to skip an acceptance round and argue first. Therefore, in order for both sides to have an equal space of argument, he should refrain from arguing in round 4. definitions Because this debate is about the meaning of words and phrases, discussion of definitions should remain open. Although I do not disagree with Con's dictionary definitions as such, I accept them only as contributing to the discussion of the words' meaning rather than as absolutely definitive. "The pursuit of Happiness" resonates The Declaration of Independence is one of the most famous texts in the world. Even people outside the United States, with no interest in history and politics have heard of it. It is concise, moving, and its aims - equality and liberty - are entirely admirable. "The pursuit of Happiness" sounds marvellous. Without it, "life and liberty" would be a bit prosaic. Indeed, it could be the very ambiguity of the phrase that adds such poetry to the Declaration. But what does it mean exactly? Con argues that the phrase probably does have a meaning. He guesses that it "is most likely a purpose in the founders belief system". But he does not attempt to explain what that purpose might be. I invite him to make that attempt in the next round. Why was the phrase used? Con concedes that "there is no conclusive explanation to why the phrase used." However, he suggests that despite this, the phrase has meaning, and puts forward two analogies to support this argument. Firstly, he compares the Declaration to a father endowing his daughter with "the pursuit of good investments". I'm afraid that this makes no sense to me at all. How can you endow someone with the pursuit of good investments? endow (verb): give or bequeath an income or property to (a person or institution) (1) Perhaps he means he endowed her with money, freedom to spend it, and wished good investments upon her. Yes, in that example, his blessing of good fortune is indeed additional to him endowing her with money. I can't see how this sheds any light on the "pursuit of Happiness" in the Declaration, however. The Declaration speaks of the pursuit of Happiness as an unalienable Right . Not as a blessing. In his second example, he compares Life and Liberty to the right to vote and decide on DDO, and the pursuit of Happiness to the right to choose the better debater. Again, this is a false analogy. We have a restricted right to vote on DDO, yes, but we are obliged to choose the better debater in the context of the particular debate. This is part of the rules of voting on this site. So Con is comparing the pursuit of Happiness with a rule (rather than an unalienable Right) and, indeed, a restriction on Liberty. Opposites The opposite of Life is death; the opposite of Liberty is slavery. The opposite of the pursuit of Happiness is a disinclination to do so. Con argues that "most humans have the "pursuit of happiness" as a purpose to resume living". I will assume that "resume" is a typo. But even so, his meaning escapes me. Perhaps he means that pursuing happiness is a natural human behavior, like seeking shelter in a storm. In which case, it is redundant in the Declaration, because people will want or pursue happiness whether or not they are formally given such rights. Summary This debate was set up to examine the meaning of "the pursuit of Happiness" in the Declaration of Independence. Con's refusal to do so has been disappointing. (1) <URL>...

rross

In the introduction to this debate, I invited my opponent to explain the meaning of the phrase "the pursuit of Happiness". To win this debate, Con needs to explain two things: 1. What "pursuit of Happiness" contributes to the Declaration that is not already covered by "Life" and "Liberty". 2. What meaning "pursuit of Happiness" has for present day America, in particular to what extent it is a central mandate of the national character over and above the concepts of "Life" and "Liberty" etc. debate structure Con has chosen to skip an acceptance round and argue first. Therefore, in order for both sides to have an equal space of argument, he should refrain from arguing in round 4. definitions Because this debate is about the meaning of words and phrases, discussion of definitions should remain open. Although I do not disagree with Con's dictionary definitions as such, I accept them only as contributing to the discussion of the words' meaning rather than as absolutely definitive. "The pursuit of Happiness" resonates The Declaration of Independence is one of the most famous texts in the world. Even people outside the United States, with no interest in history and politics have heard of it. It is concise, moving, and its aims - equality and liberty - are entirely admirable. "The pursuit of Happiness" sounds marvellous. Without it, "life and liberty" would be a bit prosaic. Indeed, it could be the very ambiguity of the phrase that adds such poetry to the Declaration. But what does it mean exactly? Con argues that the phrase probably does have a meaning. He guesses that it "is most likely a purpose in the founders belief system". But he does not attempt to explain what that purpose might be. I invite him to make that attempt in the next round. Why was the phrase used? Con concedes that "there is no conclusive explanation to why the phrase used." However, he suggests that despite this, the phrase has meaning, and puts forward two analogies to support this argument. Firstly, he compares the Declaration to a father endowing his daughter with "the pursuit of good investments". I'm afraid that this makes no sense to me at all. How can you endow someone with the pursuit of good investments? endow (verb): give or bequeath an income or property to (a person or institution) (1) Perhaps he means he endowed her with money, freedom to spend it, and wished good investments upon her. Yes, in that example, his blessing of good fortune is indeed additional to him endowing her with money. I can't see how this sheds any light on the "pursuit of Happiness" in the Declaration, however. The Declaration speaks of the pursuit of Happiness as an unalienable Right . Not as a blessing. In his second example, he compares Life and Liberty to the right to vote and decide on DDO, and the pursuit of Happiness to the right to choose the better debater. Again, this is a false analogy. We have a restricted right to vote on DDO, yes, but we are obliged to choose the better debater in the context of the particular debate. This is part of the rules of voting on this site. So Con is comparing the pursuit of Happiness with a rule (rather than an unalienable Right) and, indeed, a restriction on Liberty. Opposites The opposite of Life is death; the opposite of Liberty is slavery. The opposite of the pursuit of Happiness is a disinclination to do so. Con argues that "most humans have the "pursuit of happiness" as a purpose to resume living". I will assume that "resume" is a typo. But even so, his meaning escapes me. Perhaps he means that pursuing happiness is a natural human behavior, like seeking shelter in a storm. In which case, it is redundant in the Declaration, because people will want or pursue happiness whether or not they are formally given such rights. Summary This debate was set up to examine the meaning of "the pursuit of Happiness" in the Declaration of Independence. Con's refusal to do so has been disappointing. (1) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Miscellaneous

the-pursuit-of-happiness-is-more-decorative-than-meaningful/1/

"The pursuit of Happiness" is beautiful Professor Lucas, in his article The Stylistic Artistry of the Declaration of Independence , writes: "[T]he preamble is a paradigm of eighteenth-century Enlightenment prose style...Not one word can be moved or replaced without disrupting the balance and harmony of the entire preamble... "Thomas Jefferson, draftsman of the Declaration, was a diligent student of rhythm, accent, timing, and cadence in discourse... [H]e consciously composed for the ear as well as for the eye--a trait that is nowhere better illustrated than in the eloquent cadences of the preamble in the Declaration of Independence." (1) Even today, the words of the preamble are used in everyday art and poetry (2). For example, one blogger calls it "poetic brilliance", singling out the phrase "the pursuit of Happiness" as especially resonant (3). Jefferson was chosen to draft the Declaration on account of his writing skills. John Adams recalled that "Writings of [Jefferson's] were handed about, remarkable for the peculiar felicity of expression." and that when Jefferson asked why he should draft the Declaration, Adams said, "You can write ten times better than I can." (4) A common rhetorical device in speeches is the tricolon , or hendriatis , where three words or phrases are used together. "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is often held up as a classic example of this sort of figure of speech (5,6). "Life and Liberty" would not have had nearly as much aesthetic impact on its own. The Burden of Proof The rhetorical power of "the pursuit of Happiness" is obvious. However, Con has not explained what it means. In fact, he has conceded that "there is no conclusive explanation to why the phrase was used." He argues that he does need to provide a meaning. However, when the phrase is obviously decorative, and no meaning is provided, then the resolution stands: it is more decorative than meaningful. Redundant rights Con said that "most humans have the 'pursuit of happiness' as a purpose to resume living". He argues that Paine (does he mean Jefferson?) simply wrote down a right that people were seeking at the time. The Declaration was adopted when the American colonies were at war with Great Britain. The Americans were defending their rights to Life and Liberty in the face of death and coercion. They were not defending things that could not be taken away from them . For instance, they were not defending a right to be affected by the Earth's gravity, because that is something that cannot be removed. And they were not defending a right to want to be, or try to be happy. Because no foreign nation can affect such things. Defending such rights really would be meaningless. Rules vs rights Con argues that there is no difference between rules and rights, but there obviously is. Compare the US right to bear arms (Amendment II, US Constitution), with a rule that obliged people to bear arms, which would be a gross imposition. the US national character The resolution is written in the present tense ("is"), because meanings can change over time. In the introduction, I elaborated on this idea, referring both to the meaning that was originally intended, as well as the way it's understood in the modern US. Con argues that these explanations are not "obligatory". However, as I have already pointed out, the decorative nature of the phrase - both now and when it was written - has been established. Its meaning has not. The resolution stands. "The pursuit of Happiness" is more decorative than meaningful. (1) <URL>... ; (2) <URL>... (3) <URL>... (4) <URL>... (5) <URL>... (6) <URL>...

rross

"The pursuit of Happiness" is beautiful Professor Lucas, in his article The Stylistic Artistry of the Declaration of Independence , writes: "[T]he preamble is a paradigm of eighteenth-century Enlightenment prose style...Not one word can be moved or replaced without disrupting the balance and harmony of the entire preamble... “Thomas Jefferson, draftsman of the Declaration, was a diligent student of rhythm, accent, timing, and cadence in discourse... [H]e consciously composed for the ear as well as for the eye--a trait that is nowhere better illustrated than in the eloquent cadences of the preamble in the Declaration of Independence.” (1) Even today, the words of the preamble are used in everyday art and poetry (2). For example, one blogger calls it "poetic brilliance", singling out the phrase "the pursuit of Happiness" as especially resonant (3). Jefferson was chosen to draft the Declaration on account of his writing skills. John Adams recalled that "Writings of [Jefferson's] were handed about, remarkable for the peculiar felicity of expression." and that when Jefferson asked why he should draft the Declaration, Adams said, "You can write ten times better than I can." (4) A common rhetorical device in speeches is the tricolon , or hendriatis , where three words or phrases are used together. "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is often held up as a classic example of this sort of figure of speech (5,6). "Life and Liberty" would not have had nearly as much aesthetic impact on its own. The Burden of Proof The rhetorical power of "the pursuit of Happiness" is obvious. However, Con has not explained what it means. In fact, he has conceded that "there is no conclusive explanation to why the phrase was used." He argues that he does need to provide a meaning. However, when the phrase is obviously decorative, and no meaning is provided, then the resolution stands: it is more decorative than meaningful. Redundant rights Con said that "most humans have the 'pursuit of happiness' as a purpose to resume living". He argues that Paine (does he mean Jefferson?) simply wrote down a right that people were seeking at the time. The Declaration was adopted when the American colonies were at war with Great Britain. The Americans were defending their rights to Life and Liberty in the face of death and coercion. They were not defending things that could not be taken away from them . For instance, they were not defending a right to be affected by the Earth's gravity, because that is something that cannot be removed. And they were not defending a right to want to be, or try to be happy. Because no foreign nation can affect such things. Defending such rights really would be meaningless. Rules vs rights Con argues that there is no difference between rules and rights, but there obviously is. Compare the US right to bear arms (Amendment II, US Constitution), with a rule that obliged people to bear arms, which would be a gross imposition. the US national character The resolution is written in the present tense ("is"), because meanings can change over time. In the introduction, I elaborated on this idea, referring both to the meaning that was originally intended, as well as the way it's understood in the modern US. Con argues that these explanations are not "obligatory". However, as I have already pointed out, the decorative nature of the phrase - both now and when it was written - has been established. Its meaning has not. The resolution stands. "The pursuit of Happiness" is more decorative than meaningful. (1) http://www.archives.gov... ; (2) http://prezi.com... (3) http://lexfridman.com... (4) http://www-tc.pbs.org... (5) http://grammar.about.com... (6) http://en.wikipedia.org...

Miscellaneous

the-pursuit-of-happiness-is-more-decorative-than-meaningful/1/

The phrase veni, vidi, vici (I came, I saw, I conquered) is so stylish it is repeated now, more than 2000 years later, by those who know nothing about Julius Caesar's campaigns. Style matters because it engages directly with the emotions and the memory. If JC had written "I came, I conquered", it would still have informed the Senate of the outcome. Adding "I saw" changed the meaning only slightly, but added greatly to the aesthetics. "I saw" is more decorative than meaningful. Similarly, "the pursuit of Happiness" ends the preamble to the Declaration of Independence in a strong and stylish fashion. It does not add much meaning, though. It is more decorative than meaningful too. evidence of style In Round 1, Con argued without a scrap of evidence that '"Pursuit of happiness" is most likely a purpose in the founders' belief system. However, last round, I quoted one of the founders - John Adams - as saying that he asked Jefferson to draft the resolution on account of his expressive writing skills. This is evidence that the style of the Declaration was a primary consideration when it was written . Con has refused to respond to this evidence. Instead, he argues that quoting John Adams, the founder of the Declaration, is "unjustified appeal to authority". Con's objection is ridiculous. Last round I provided some examples of people who had written about the beauty of the preamble and particularly "the pursuit of Happiness". People are authorities on their own aesthetic response to something. To say (as Con does) that they need to provide, within their material, evidence of agreement from other "experts" is just silly. Con called a quote from an academic paper by S. Lucas, Professor of Communicative Arts at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, an unjustified appeal to authority. But then he complained that the two sources on the use of the tricolon were not "peer-reviewed linguistic studies". Totally contradictory. no meaning has been presented in this debate In his first round, Con conceded that "there is no conclusive explanation to why the phrase was used" . However, last round he argued that the phrase was used "to emphasize a main purpose behind having such rights". That is, Life and Liberty are the unalienable rights, and their purpose is the pursuit of Happiness, according to Con. Unfortunately, this explanation directly contradicts the Declaration itself, which states that "all men...are endowed...with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The pursuit of Happiness is an unalienable Right , according to the declaration, not a purpose of other rights. Nor is it a rule or a psychological urge. Con's suggested explanation is rejected. No coherent meaning for the phrase has been presented in this debate, but its aesthetic qualities have been established. The resolution holds: "the pursuit of Happiness is more decorative than meaningful". debate conduct Con chose to use most of his characters on insults and false accusations. Because I did provide evidence and argue, I only have space left to respond very briefly. Reprehensibly, Con told readers to award him 7 points because of the way I framed the debate. Such voting would be in violation of the site's rules (1). Con falsely claimed that I created new terms and conditions in Round 2. I wrote a gentle introduction because I hoped for a constructive, friendly debate. After Con's first round, I rephrased it in stronger language. The terms and conditions did not change. Con declared he deserves an extra round, because I didn't say that the first round was for acceptance. That both sides get equal space to argue is something I automatically assumed. I left it open for my opponent to argue 1st or 2nd. Con has chosen to violate a basic rule of fairness. Con accused me of "intentional lies" in representing internal and external sources. This is false at every point. (1) <URL>...

rross

The phrase veni, vidi, vici (I came, I saw, I conquered) is so stylish it is repeated now, more than 2000 years later, by those who know nothing about Julius Caesar's campaigns. Style matters because it engages directly with the emotions and the memory. If JC had written "I came, I conquered", it would still have informed the Senate of the outcome. Adding "I saw" changed the meaning only slightly, but added greatly to the aesthetics. "I saw" is more decorative than meaningful. Similarly, "the pursuit of Happiness" ends the preamble to the Declaration of Independence in a strong and stylish fashion. It does not add much meaning, though. It is more decorative than meaningful too. evidence of style In Round 1, Con argued without a scrap of evidence that '"Pursuit of happiness" is most likely a purpose in the founders' belief system. However, last round, I quoted one of the founders - John Adams - as saying that he asked Jefferson to draft the resolution on account of his expressive writing skills. This is evidence that the style of the Declaration was a primary consideration when it was written . Con has refused to respond to this evidence. Instead, he argues that quoting John Adams, the founder of the Declaration, is "unjustified appeal to authority". Con's objection is ridiculous. Last round I provided some examples of people who had written about the beauty of the preamble and particularly "the pursuit of Happiness". People are authorities on their own aesthetic response to something. To say (as Con does) that they need to provide, within their material, evidence of agreement from other "experts" is just silly. Con called a quote from an academic paper by S. Lucas, Professor of Communicative Arts at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, an unjustified appeal to authority. But then he complained that the two sources on the use of the tricolon were not "peer-reviewed linguistic studies". Totally contradictory. no meaning has been presented in this debate In his first round, Con conceded that "there is no conclusive explanation to why the phrase was used" . However, last round he argued that the phrase was used "to emphasize a main purpose behind having such rights". That is, Life and Liberty are the unalienable rights, and their purpose is the pursuit of Happiness, according to Con. Unfortunately, this explanation directly contradicts the Declaration itself, which states that "all men...are endowed...with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The pursuit of Happiness is an unalienable Right , according to the declaration, not a purpose of other rights. Nor is it a rule or a psychological urge. Con's suggested explanation is rejected. No coherent meaning for the phrase has been presented in this debate, but its aesthetic qualities have been established. The resolution holds: "the pursuit of Happiness is more decorative than meaningful". debate conduct Con chose to use most of his characters on insults and false accusations. Because I did provide evidence and argue, I only have space left to respond very briefly. Reprehensibly, Con told readers to award him 7 points because of the way I framed the debate. Such voting would be in violation of the site's rules (1). Con falsely claimed that I created new terms and conditions in Round 2. I wrote a gentle introduction because I hoped for a constructive, friendly debate. After Con's first round, I rephrased it in stronger language. The terms and conditions did not change. Con declared he deserves an extra round, because I didn't say that the first round was for acceptance. That both sides get equal space to argue is something I automatically assumed. I left it open for my opponent to argue 1st or 2nd. Con has chosen to violate a basic rule of fairness. Con accused me of "intentional lies" in representing internal and external sources. This is false at every point. (1) http://www.debate.org...

Miscellaneous

the-pursuit-of-happiness-is-more-decorative-than-meaningful/1/

I assume we are debating weather Abortion should be legal or not. Although I agree with my opponent, I'm in the mood to debate and will play the devil's advocate. I'm going to define 1 term here. Dictionary.com defines abortion as: The removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. My opponent stated that abortion is killing a person; he has yet to demonstrate how an embryo or a fetus is a person. However, for the sake of an interesting debate, I will concede this contention and agree with my opponent that an embryo, as well as a fetus is a complete, full fledged person, with 100% human rights. Now I will show you how abortion should still be permissible. The person inside the mother may have 100% percent human rights; however, the fetus is in a state of leeching off the mother's body without the mother's permission. If I needed a bone marrow transplant and only one other person on the entire planet had a perfect bone marrow match, and I needed her bone marrow to save my life, do I have the right to forcibly take her bone marrow? Of course not! The same thing applies to a fetus, even though the fetus is a person, it does not have the right to leech off other people's nutrients without their permission. Possible objections to my argument: Objection#1) the analogy is flawed because the mother caused the fetus to be in a state of dependence to begin with, therefore the mother is obligated to give nutrients she can spare to the fetus. Rebuttle#1) it may be true that the mother caused the fetus to be in a state of dependence, but had the mother not caused the fetus to be dependent on her, the fetus would have never existed in the first place. Objection number 1 would work if I caused damage to someone and because of that damage, that person needed a bone marrow transplant, then he would have the right to take my bone marrow without my permission, however this is not the case with abortion, the mother caused no damage to the fetus, in fact, she did just the opposite, she brought the fetus into a state of being, from non-existence. If a doctor performs an operation that saves a persons life, and because of that operation, the person will need a bone marrow transplant in 5 years, can the patient now force the doctor to give up his bone marrow without the doctors permission? Of course not! It's about damage, not causality. The doctor had causality of dependence on his patient, yet he is still not obligated to donate his bone marrow. Likewise, the Doctor did not have damage on his hands, and therefore he is exempt from giving up his bone marrow to his patient. The same reasoning applies for abortion. The mother has causality of dependence on the fetus, but she did not have damage. In fact, she did just the opposite of damage to the fetus, she brought it into being. Therefore objection #1 does not give the fetus the right to forcibly take nutrients from the mother's body without the permission of the mother, anymore than the patient has the right to forcibly take nutrients from the doctor in the case listed above. Objection # 2) Your analogy is flawed. Abortion cuts up little babies; it doesn't just take them out of the womb to sever the nutrients from the mother. It directly attacks the fetus that is dependent. Rebuttal #2) This is somewhat true. Some forms of abortion specifically target the fetus, rather than just severing the umbilical cord. I will concede the point that these forms of abortions are wrong. However, not all forms of abortions do that. Many abortions simply cut the umbilical cord, thus severing the flow of nutrients from the mother to child, until the child suffocates. Other forms deliver the baby prematurely fully intact. These forms of abortion are supported by my analogies, and thus, should be permissible. Objection#3) But the mother agreed to have sex! Thus she agrees to take full responsibility of the consequences of her actions. And if having a baby that is dependent on her body is one of the consequences, so be it! Rebuttal #3) Imagine a hypothetical scenario if you will: There is a park, notoriously filled with criminals. These criminals have one special objective: to kidnap women and force them to undergo a bone marrow transplant operation. If a woman knows this can happen, and still chooses to take a walk in that park, does that make it right for the criminals to force her to donate nutrients from her body? Just like sex, the woman knew the possible consequences of her actions; she knew the risks of walking in that park. However, that does not make it right for another person to forcibly /use her body any way he wishes. Remember, the fetus is a 100% person after all So there's some food for thought, devil's advocate, signing off!

Bitz

I assume we are debating weather Abortion should be legal or not. Although I agree with my opponent, I'm in the mood to debate and will play the devil's advocate. I'm going to define 1 term here. Dictionary.com defines abortion as: The removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. My opponent stated that abortion is killing a person; he has yet to demonstrate how an embryo or a fetus is a person. However, for the sake of an interesting debate, I will concede this contention and agree with my opponent that an embryo, as well as a fetus is a complete, full fledged person, with 100% human rights. Now I will show you how abortion should still be permissible. The person inside the mother may have 100% percent human rights; however, the fetus is in a state of leeching off the mother's body without the mother's permission. If I needed a bone marrow transplant and only one other person on the entire planet had a perfect bone marrow match, and I needed her bone marrow to save my life, do I have the right to forcibly take her bone marrow? Of course not! The same thing applies to a fetus, even though the fetus is a person, it does not have the right to leech off other people's nutrients without their permission. Possible objections to my argument: Objection#1) the analogy is flawed because the mother caused the fetus to be in a state of dependence to begin with, therefore the mother is obligated to give nutrients she can spare to the fetus. Rebuttle#1) it may be true that the mother caused the fetus to be in a state of dependence, but had the mother not caused the fetus to be dependent on her, the fetus would have never existed in the first place. Objection number 1 would work if I caused damage to someone and because of that damage, that person needed a bone marrow transplant, then he would have the right to take my bone marrow without my permission, however this is not the case with abortion, the mother caused no damage to the fetus, in fact, she did just the opposite, she brought the fetus into a state of being, from non-existence. If a doctor performs an operation that saves a persons life, and because of that operation, the person will need a bone marrow transplant in 5 years, can the patient now force the doctor to give up his bone marrow without the doctors permission? Of course not! It's about damage, not causality. The doctor had causality of dependence on his patient, yet he is still not obligated to donate his bone marrow. Likewise, the Doctor did not have damage on his hands, and therefore he is exempt from giving up his bone marrow to his patient. The same reasoning applies for abortion. The mother has causality of dependence on the fetus, but she did not have damage. In fact, she did just the opposite of damage to the fetus, she brought it into being. Therefore objection #1 does not give the fetus the right to forcibly take nutrients from the mother's body without the permission of the mother, anymore than the patient has the right to forcibly take nutrients from the doctor in the case listed above. Objection # 2) Your analogy is flawed. Abortion cuts up little babies; it doesn't just take them out of the womb to sever the nutrients from the mother. It directly attacks the fetus that is dependent. Rebuttal #2) This is somewhat true. Some forms of abortion specifically target the fetus, rather than just severing the umbilical cord. I will concede the point that these forms of abortions are wrong. However, not all forms of abortions do that. Many abortions simply cut the umbilical cord, thus severing the flow of nutrients from the mother to child, until the child suffocates. Other forms deliver the baby prematurely fully intact. These forms of abortion are supported by my analogies, and thus, should be permissible. Objection#3) But the mother agreed to have sex! Thus she agrees to take full responsibility of the consequences of her actions. And if having a baby that is dependent on her body is one of the consequences, so be it! Rebuttal #3) Imagine a hypothetical scenario if you will: There is a park, notoriously filled with criminals. These criminals have one special objective: to kidnap women and force them to undergo a bone marrow transplant operation. If a woman knows this can happen, and still chooses to take a walk in that park, does that make it right for the criminals to force her to donate nutrients from her body? Just like sex, the woman knew the possible consequences of her actions; she knew the risks of walking in that park. However, that does not make it right for another person to forcibly /use her body any way he wishes. Remember, the fetus is a 100% person after all  So there's some food for thought, devil's advocate, signing off!

News

the-topic-of-this-debate-is-abortion/1/

Extend my arguments...I guess....Come on wwb371. This whole forfeiting thing is really not cool.....

Bitz

Extend my arguments...I guess....Come on wwb371. This whole forfeiting thing is really not cool.....

News

the-topic-of-this-debate-is-abortion/1/

Straight forfeits...yuck. The minimum character limit has to go. I have nothing more to say yet this site forces me to say more...

Bitz

Straight forfeits...yuck. The minimum character limit has to go. I have nothing more to say yet this site forces me to say more...

News

the-topic-of-this-debate-is-abortion/1/

The united states fed gv. should substantially decrease the production of militaqry warfare not only because it will save money but because it will also get troops out of foreign countries. By reducing military warfare we arent stopping our progress in foreign countries just saving the lives of some of the people over there. When there are less weapons the united states wont have enough arms to supply the amount of troops we have now which will cause them to bring troops home because they wont keep troops out if they are not protected. Vote affirmative on the basis of saving money and saving lives

Vania.Ruiz

The united states fed gv. should substantially decrease the production of militaqry warfare not only because it will save money but because it will also get troops out of foreign countries. By reducing military warfare we arent stopping our progress in foreign countries just saving the lives of some of the people over there. When there are less weapons the united states wont have enough arms to supply the amount of troops we have now which will cause them to bring troops home because they wont keep troops out if they are not protected. Vote affirmative on the basis of saving money and saving lives

Politics

the-united-federal-government-should-substiantially-decrease-the-production-of-military-warfare/1/

Let me specify, the mentality of saying that we need to be ther in other coutries in oppresing them. It basically justifies the USA to go around and tell the entire world what to do and when.

Vania.Ruiz

Let me specify, the mentality of saying that we need to be ther in other coutries in oppresing them. It basically justifies the USA to go around and tell the entire world what to do and when.

Politics

the-united-federal-government-should-substiantially-decrease-the-production-of-military-warfare/1/

Spelling check please?

Vania.Ruiz

Spelling check please?

Politics

the-united-federal-government-should-substiantially-decrease-the-production-of-military-warfare/1/

people should strike for their voices to be heard

inga17

people should strike for their voices to be heard

Politics

this-house-wold-encourage-peple-to-strike/1/

I accept. As Con, I will be arguing that this debate is indeed for a reason. Good luck.

MassiveDump

I accept. As Con, I will be arguing that this debate is indeed for a reason. Good luck.

Miscellaneous

this-is-for-no-reason/1/

Well then fine. Here's a video: BUT THAT WON'T BE A VERY FUN FIVE-ROUND DEBATE, WILL IT? All Debates Serve to Improve One's Arguing Skills The purpose of debate.org is to provide a place where users can excercise their skills in creating a rational argument. This debate is no exception to that purpose. I feel that's the only contention I need, seeing that Pro did not provide an argument. Vote Con

MassiveDump

Well then fine. Here's a video: BUT THAT WON'T BE A VERY FUN FIVE-ROUND DEBATE, WILL IT? All Debates Serve to Improve One's Arguing Skills The purpose of debate.org is to provide a place where users can excercise their skills in creating a rational argument. This debate is no exception to that purpose. I feel that's the only contention I need, seeing that Pro did not provide an argument. Vote Con

Miscellaneous

this-is-for-no-reason/1/

What my opponent argued can be rebutted quite simply. The reason for him making a debate fro no reason was to either improve his arguing skills on a unique topic, or because he didn't know anything better to debate about. Extend my original argument. On top of that, to fulfill my opponent's original intent for the debate, my random things were more entertaining, as he didn't post any. Pro- 0 Con - 3

MassiveDump

What my opponent argued can be rebutted quite simply. The reason for him making a debate fro no reason was to either improve his arguing skills on a unique topic, or because he didn't know anything better to debate about. Extend my original argument. On top of that, to fulfill my opponent's original intent for the debate, my random things were more entertaining, as he didn't post any. Pro- 0 Con - 3

Miscellaneous

this-is-for-no-reason/1/

Extend Both Arguments Pro- 0 Con- 2 Open to voters- 1 Either way, Con wins.

MassiveDump

Extend Both Arguments Pro- 0 Con- 2 Open to voters- 1 Either way, Con wins.

Miscellaneous

this-is-for-no-reason/1/

Here's a link to jello time: <URL>... But Pro conceded all arguments. Vote Con

MassiveDump

Here's a link to jello time: http://www.jellotime.com... But Pro conceded all arguments. Vote Con

Miscellaneous

this-is-for-no-reason/1/

hes better more superbowls more sb mvps the only thing is less touchdowns

KingJames123

hes better more superbowls more sb mvps the only thing is less touchdowns

Sports

tom-brady-is-better-than-peyton-manning/6/

They've both studied their way to the top. "Being around Tom, and I've heard the same thing Jim [Caldwell, Ravens offensive coordinator] said about Peyton, they study more than anybody that I've ever known," Pees said. Since the 1970 merger, Brady is history's best in career winning percentage (.775), and Manning (.696) is third. They are separated only by a guy named Joe Montana. Incredibly, Brady could go 0-16 next season and still have a better percentage than the second-place Montana.Brady was the league's Comeback Player of the Year in 2009 after having the ACL in his left knee shredded the season before.The other major difference in these two careers is postseason play. Brady is 18-7 in playoff games, and Manning is 10-11. Eight of the 13 times Manning has led his team into the postseason, his team lost its first game. The three times they've met in the postseason -- Brady is 2-1 -- the winner has gone on to win the Super Bowl. Three times in fives Super Bowl trips, Brady has won the ultimate game. Manning has one championship ring in two trips. In the minds of many observers, that is the deciding factor in the Brady-Manning debate. Peyton Manning has been to two Super Bowls, Tom Brady to five.The one Peyton won was because of how well the defense played through the playoffs. It will take at least one more Super Bowl ring for Manning to pass Brady in the legacy department.

KingJames123

They've both studied their way to the top. "Being around Tom, and I've heard the same thing Jim [Caldwell, Ravens offensive coordinator] said about Peyton, they study more than anybody that I've ever known," Pees said. Since the 1970 merger, Brady is history's best in career winning percentage (.775), and Manning (.696) is third. They are separated only by a guy named Joe Montana. Incredibly, Brady could go 0-16 next season and still have a better percentage than the second-place Montana.Brady was the league's Comeback Player of the Year in 2009 after having the ACL in his left knee shredded the season before.The other major difference in these two careers is postseason play. Brady is 18-7 in playoff games, and Manning is 10-11. Eight of the 13 times Manning has led his team into the postseason, his team lost its first game. The three times they've met in the postseason -- Brady is 2-1 -- the winner has gone on to win the Super Bowl. Three times in fives Super Bowl trips, Brady has won the ultimate game. Manning has one championship ring in two trips. In the minds of many observers, that is the deciding factor in the Brady-Manning debate. Peyton Manning has been to two Super Bowls, Tom Brady to five.The one Peyton won was because of how well the defense played through the playoffs. It will take at least one more Super Bowl ring for Manning to pass Brady in the legacy department.

Sports

tom-brady-is-better-than-peyton-manning/6/

Before I start, I would like to thank Mitali lad for posting this topic. It is an odd duck, and I just kept coming back to it, considering what I would say in this. So thank you Mitali, for posting this strange and obscure debate. -- >>People from all over are eager to know Indian culture,its customs and tradition.<< Culturally speaking, India is partially different from other countries. Because of it's geography it revives many immigrants, as well as invaders in ages past, earning the title of 2nd most populated country of the world. That earns it a sort of mix of cultures, a melting pot of ideals and customs that is gathered from the surrounding nations. However, their culture is somewhat hard to grasp, an acquired taste. Most of the cultural head points are in reclusive temples or mosques, so they are not as welcoming to outsiders or tourist as other cultures might be. Indian culture is also founded heavily on religion, and is still influenced by it today. That can also push visitors away, becoming isolated in a surging country of strong religion, and might be almost scary for some. In 1992 to 1993, religious tension erupted when Hindu and Muslims clashed in street riots all over Bombay, resulting in at least 1400 deaths. Even now, tensions between those two religions are high, and risk erupting into rioting again. >>people residing in polar/cold countries love Indian climate.<< The Indian climate is not all warm and humid, which what might attract visitors from colder nations. Its climate ranges from empty deserts in the western region, alpine areas and even glaciers hail in the north, and humid jungles in its southern region. It is not especially warm either, its summer only lasting two short months before heading into a long wet monsoon season. Therefore, it would not attract people ranging from cold regions as much as you stated. >>They even like celebrating festivals in India.<< American Heritage defines festivals as: "An occasion for feasting or celebration, especially a day or time of religious significance that recurs at regular intervals." Festivals can be celebrated in any nation. As you have not specified if these festivals are of Indian heritage or otherwise, there is no reason to go to any country to celebrate a festival unless it involves that country directly. Would I, American born celebrate Christmas in India? Perhaps if relatives lived in India, but you did not specify that either. >>Now-a-days people also get married in Indian style.<< Despite having no evidence to fortify this claim, this statement is questionable, at best. Why would Indian marriage be any more appealing than marriage of another country? If you were not born of Indian heritage nor your wife or husband, there would be no reason to marry in Indian custom. >>India is best place for shopping.<< <URL>... According to the CIA fact book, the United States has the "largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world" which makes that statement false. As my opponent's profile does say that she is from India, it would not be unusual to try and promote her own country. That shows pride in one's birthplace and I admire that. Still facts are facts, and India is not increasing in tourism. It is one of the most popular places for tourism, I will not deny that. However, has it become more popular? Most likely, no.

MarxistKid

Before I start, I would like to thank Mitali lad for posting this topic. It is an odd duck, and I just kept coming back to it, considering what I would say in this. So thank you Mitali, for posting this strange and obscure debate. -- >>People from all over are eager to know Indian culture,its customs and tradition.<< Culturally speaking, India is partially different from other countries. Because of it's geography it revives many immigrants, as well as invaders in ages past, earning the title of 2nd most populated country of the world. That earns it a sort of mix of cultures, a melting pot of ideals and customs that is gathered from the surrounding nations. However, their culture is somewhat hard to grasp, an acquired taste. Most of the cultural head points are in reclusive temples or mosques, so they are not as welcoming to outsiders or tourist as other cultures might be. Indian culture is also founded heavily on religion, and is still influenced by it today. That can also push visitors away, becoming isolated in a surging country of strong religion, and might be almost scary for some. In 1992 to 1993, religious tension erupted when Hindu and Muslims clashed in street riots all over Bombay, resulting in at least 1400 deaths. Even now, tensions between those two religions are high, and risk erupting into rioting again. >>people residing in polar/cold countries love Indian climate.<< The Indian climate is not all warm and humid, which what might attract visitors from colder nations. Its climate ranges from empty deserts in the western region, alpine areas and even glaciers hail in the north, and humid jungles in its southern region. It is not especially warm either, its summer only lasting two short months before heading into a long wet monsoon season. Therefore, it would not attract people ranging from cold regions as much as you stated. >>They even like celebrating festivals in India.<< American Heritage defines festivals as: "An occasion for feasting or celebration, especially a day or time of religious significance that recurs at regular intervals." Festivals can be celebrated in any nation. As you have not specified if these festivals are of Indian heritage or otherwise, there is no reason to go to any country to celebrate a festival unless it involves that country directly. Would I, American born celebrate Christmas in India? Perhaps if relatives lived in India, but you did not specify that either. >>Now-a-days people also get married in Indian style.<< Despite having no evidence to fortify this claim, this statement is questionable, at best. Why would Indian marriage be any more appealing than marriage of another country? If you were not born of Indian heritage nor your wife or husband, there would be no reason to marry in Indian custom. >>India is best place for shopping.<< https://www.cia.gov... According to the CIA fact book, the United States has the "largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world" which makes that statement false. As my opponent's profile does say that she is from India, it would not be unusual to try and promote her own country. That shows pride in one's birthplace and I admire that. Still facts are facts, and India is not increasing in tourism. It is one of the most popular places for tourism, I will not deny that. However, has it become more popular? Most likely, no.

Education

tourism-in-India-is-increasing-or-detoriorating/1/

I think that tourism in India is increasing because Indian culture is attracting the visitors all over the world. People from all over are eager to know Indian culture,its customs and tradition. The people residing in polar/cold countries love Indian climate. They even like celebrating festivals in India. Now-a-days people also get married in Indian style. India is best place for shopping.

mitali_lad

I think that tourism in India is increasing because Indian culture is attracting the visitors all over the world. People from all over are eager to know Indian culture,its customs and tradition. The people residing in polar/cold countries love Indian climate. They even like celebrating festivals in India. Now-a-days people also get married in Indian style. India is best place for shopping.

Education

tourism-in-India-is-increasing-or-detoriorating/1/

God=NotGay=Me Satan=Gay=You

cho123

God=NotGay=Me Satan=Gay=You

Science

trinity-future-now-and-past/1/

You do not exist.

cho123

You do not exist.

Science

trinity-future-now-and-past/1/

You do not exist.

cho123

You do not exist.

Science

trinity-future-now-and-past/1/

Prove it...

cho123

Prove it...

Science

trinity-future-now-and-past/1/

You not knowing you do not exist proves that I am not knowing that i am not I am and not you does not prove it.

cho123

You not knowing you do not exist proves that I am not knowing that i am not I am and not you does not prove it.

Science

trinity-future-now-and-past/1/

keeping the words under god goes against the first amendment

mikkedavis87

keeping the words under god goes against the first amendment

Politics

under-god-in-the-pledge/1/

true but just the fact that the atheist have to hear it makes them uncomfortable

mikkedavis87

true but just the fact that the atheist have to hear it makes them uncomfortable

Politics

under-god-in-the-pledge/1/

hello friends!!!!!!!today i am here to debate for the motion that universal brotherhood is more valuable than patriotism.universal brotherhood creates bonding between people but patiotism makes us to be narrow minded not only in our thought but also in our actions.it makes us selfish but universal brotherhood is all about loving the whole world...........

subhasrirayaguru

hello friends!!!!!!!today i am here to debate for the motion that universal brotherhood is more valuable than patriotism.universal brotherhood creates bonding between people but patiotism makes us to be narrow minded not only in our thought but also in our actions.it makes us selfish but universal brotherhood is all about loving the whole world...........

Society

universal-brotherhood-or-patriotism/1/

I will be happy to debate this topic, my friend. I will be arguing the point that, "War is NEVER the answer to anything and if war becomes an option, then the previous options must be revisited for the safety of humanity". Personally, I view the act of war as man's inability and/or ignorance to properly answer the question, "War, what is it good for?". In ancient times, war was an integral part of the so-called "manhood" stage, and to be called a "hero", one must live a "warrior lifestyle", a life devoted to the sword. Nowadays, humanity struggles to replace the out-dated prerequisite for the title "hero", as it constantly faces challenges such as those that you mentioned, i.e. war, destruction, etc. So we can now see that if we abandon the ways of war, the true definition of "hero" will be revealed. This raises another question, "Should a hero kill or be killed? or should a hero love AND be loved?" You could argue that a hero is loved because he killed or was killed, however this argument unquestionably proves how primitive and warrior-like our mind still is and how unwilling we are to transition out of that mindset. I constantly hear on the news, that generals and presidents are saying, "we need to cut the head off the snake", referring to their opponents. But you and I know that if goals such as these are achieved, then the problem is never solved and instead makes the accused ones look like martyrs in the eyes of their admirers. In this sense, admiration will only lead to revenge, which in turn restarts the cycle of violence. In a world such as ours, humanity needs to systematically analyze the problems in the world and terminate them at their source. The main one in my mind would be prejudice because it is the fuel that runs the engine of war and it's removal should be the focal point of ever nation, rather than turning to war as their only solution. A great example would be the United States of America. I love Americans but their nation is run on this engine of war and the people take pride in their army that brings destruction to the doorstep of nations. So, taking pride of something that causes destruction and death, is contrary to world peace. In conclusion, you had mentioned the word "traitor" in a scenario which you described as a negotiation between 2 nations. If the prejudice, pride of destruction, greed, and ignorance were abandoned during a consultative portion of a international meeting, then war would no longer exist. A poet said once, "I see humans, but I don't see humanity" your turn :)

persianimmortal

I will be happy to debate this topic, my friend. I will be arguing the point that, "War is NEVER the answer to anything and if war becomes an option, then the previous options must be revisited for the safety of humanity". Personally, I view the act of war as man's inability and/or ignorance to properly answer the question, "War, what is it good for?". In ancient times, war was an integral part of the so-called "manhood" stage, and to be called a "hero", one must live a "warrior lifestyle", a life devoted to the sword. Nowadays, humanity struggles to replace the out-dated prerequisite for the title "hero", as it constantly faces challenges such as those that you mentioned, i.e. war, destruction, etc. So we can now see that if we abandon the ways of war, the true definition of "hero" will be revealed. This raises another question, "Should a hero kill or be killed? or should a hero love AND be loved?" You could argue that a hero is loved because he killed or was killed, however this argument unquestionably proves how primitive and warrior-like our mind still is and how unwilling we are to transition out of that mindset. I constantly hear on the news, that generals and presidents are saying, "we need to cut the head off the snake", referring to their opponents. But you and I know that if goals such as these are achieved, then the problem is never solved and instead makes the accused ones look like martyrs in the eyes of their admirers. In this sense, admiration will only lead to revenge, which in turn restarts the cycle of violence. In a world such as ours, humanity needs to systematically analyze the problems in the world and terminate them at their source. The main one in my mind would be prejudice because it is the fuel that runs the engine of war and it's removal should be the focal point of ever nation, rather than turning to war as their only solution. A great example would be the United States of America. I love Americans but their nation is run on this engine of war and the people take pride in their army that brings destruction to the doorstep of nations. So, taking pride of something that causes destruction and death, is contrary to world peace. In conclusion, you had mentioned the word "traitor" in a scenario which you described as a negotiation between 2 nations. If the prejudice, pride of destruction, greed, and ignorance were abandoned during a consultative portion of a international meeting, then war would no longer exist. A poet said once, "I see humans, but I don't see humanity" your turn :)

Politics

using-violence-to-destroy-violence-bring-more-harm-than-good/1/

My opponent has failed to produce an argument in defense of his claims. Forfeiture is not acceptable :/ Vote Pro.

persianimmortal

My opponent has failed to produce an argument in defense of his claims. Forfeiture is not acceptable :/ Vote Pro.

Politics

using-violence-to-destroy-violence-bring-more-harm-than-good/1/

Again, my opponent has failed to produce an argument in defense of his claims. Forfeiture is not acceptable :/ Therefore, la victoire est pour moi. Vote Pro.

persianimmortal

Again, my opponent has failed to produce an argument in defense of his claims. Forfeiture is not acceptable :/ Therefore, la victoire est pour moi. Vote Pro.

Politics

using-violence-to-destroy-violence-bring-more-harm-than-good/1/

well, we can see in the history that people always deal with violence by using violence. that's why we can see so many wars and conflicts throughout the world such as WW1, the cold war, Vietnam war and so on. well, I believe that war does not only bring good to those who won but also harm like death of people, economic problems and huge destruction. Yet I believe that it is the best way to deal with it. by fighting back, we can deal with the conflict quickly and both side will also agree with the result. for example, If the government only use words to disperse the demonstrators, it wont work. only by sending police and cars would do. if u don't trust me, look by yourself. also not to mention that traitor could possibly be occurred if we both sides only negotiate which also will end up with war, right? Wallahu A'lam

qashmir

well, we can see in the history that people always deal with violence by using violence. that's why we can see so many wars and conflicts throughout the world such as WW1, the cold war, Vietnam war and so on. well, I believe that war does not only bring good to those who won but also harm like death of people, economic problems and huge destruction. Yet I believe that it is the best way to deal with it. by fighting back, we can deal with the conflict quickly and both side will also agree with the result. for example, If the government only use words to disperse the demonstrators, it wont work. only by sending police and cars would do. if u don't trust me, look by yourself. also not to mention that traitor could possibly be occurred if we both sides only negotiate which also will end up with war, right? Wallahu A'lam

Politics

using-violence-to-destroy-violence-bring-more-harm-than-good/1/

Seeing as my opponent hasn't done so, I offer the following definitions on the topic at hand Vegan: a vegetarian who omits all animal products from the diet. "in today's world, millions of people gourge on meat and expecially in america the human abuses his right to eat meat" Eating is not a privilege; it is an essential part of life. We cannot say that a human abuses his right to eat meat because eating is not a "right" it is a basic biological process(Feel free to offer more clarification). "engourges in the fact that man is at the top of the foodchain" By stating this, my opponent has agreed to the fact that man is at the top of the food chain. Therefore, in the natural setup of the food chain, man is and does eat the species under it. Now on to my points.... 1. While vegan-ism lowers the risk of some health problems, it raises the risk of others. While vegan-ism is successful in lowering the risks of diabetes, heart disease, etc., it heightens the risks of other health problems such as malnutrition. Nutrients such as vitamin b12 are "only naturally occurring in animal cells and yeast or mold cells" (1). Vegan sources to this and other nutrients are scarce. 2. Vegan-ism is largely impractical As a vegan, you most likely must rely on vitamins and supplements. Since a major premise of vegan-ism is pro-nature, shouldn't the negative agree that it is best to get vitamins and nutrients in nature's natural packaging. By not getting these essential nutrients, the vegan risks health problems. A vegan goes as far as to not wear silk or wool, not to eat eggs, milk, butter, yogurt, cheese, honey, refined sugar (found in most all baked goods), as well as meats. This diet and lifestyle in itself proves to be largely impractical in "today's society". Sources (1) <URL>... I await your arguments =)

Sym626

Seeing as my opponent hasn't done so, I offer the following definitions on the topic at hand Vegan: a vegetarian who omits all animal products from the diet. "in today's world, millions of people gourge on meat and expecially in america the human abuses his right to eat meat" Eating is not a privilege; it is an essential part of life. We cannot say that a human abuses his right to eat meat because eating is not a "right" it is a basic biological process(Feel free to offer more clarification). "engourges in the fact that man is at the top of the foodchain" By stating this, my opponent has agreed to the fact that man is at the top of the food chain. Therefore, in the natural setup of the food chain, man is and does eat the species under it. Now on to my points.... 1. While vegan-ism lowers the risk of some health problems, it raises the risk of others. While vegan-ism is successful in lowering the risks of diabetes, heart disease, etc., it heightens the risks of other health problems such as malnutrition. Nutrients such as vitamin b12 are "only naturally occurring in animal cells and yeast or mold cells" (1). Vegan sources to this and other nutrients are scarce. 2. Vegan-ism is largely impractical As a vegan, you most likely must rely on vitamins and supplements. Since a major premise of vegan-ism is pro-nature, shouldn't the negative agree that it is best to get vitamins and nutrients in nature's natural packaging. By not getting these essential nutrients, the vegan risks health problems. A vegan goes as far as to not wear silk or wool, not to eat eggs, milk, butter, yogurt, cheese, honey, refined sugar (found in most all baked goods), as well as meats. This diet and lifestyle in itself proves to be largely impractical in "today's society". Sources (1) http://www.starchefs.com... I await your arguments =)

Health

veganisim-is-a-good-life-choice/1/

*I would also like to remind my opponent that no new points of debate can be brought up in round 3 closing arguments, or they must be ignored by the voters. " 'Malnutrition' is not a likely factor. Many foods are available other than meat to proved protein and the nutrients against malnutrition," The problem with this statement is malnutrition IS a likely factor. Malnutrition doesn't just include a lack of protein, but other nutrients as well. "Adequate total nutrition includes the following nutrients: protein, energy (calories), vitamin A and carotene, vitamin D, vitamin E, vitamin K, thiamine, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B6, pantothenic acid, biotin, folate, vitamin C, antioxidants, calcium, iron, zinc, selenium, magnesium, and iodine. " (1) Vegans are also at risk of Osteoporosis, Rickets, Iron-deficiency anemia, Macrocytic anemia, and Emaciation or slowed growth. That aside we haven't fully addressed the issue of the question at hand "veganism is a good life choice". Veganism is a good life choice for whom? Since the question doesn't specify, let's explore this further... A simple google search on babies killed or suffering from severe malnutrition because of veganism yields 1,490 results. Babies, children, and the elderly following strict vegan diets are high risk of severe under nourishment and malnutrition. Vegans omit all forms of dairy and eggs, and it's fair to say that even if a vegan was to breast feed, the breast milk of a vegan mother lacks docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA, the omega-3 fat found in fatty fish. It is difficult to overstate the importance of DHA, vital as it is for eye and brain development. (2)(sorry at the moment i don't have the time to fully expand on this) While veganism has health and environmental benefits, A strict vegan removing all traces of animal products from their diet can face an expensive, difficult, and impractical task. To answer the animal rights issue, moderate eating of meat which takes place in developing countries still allows countless animals to continue living and doesn't abuse their lives or raise them for slaughter. Human hunting of animals such as deer helps reduce overpopulation since in many areas of the United States there is a lack of natural predators. When hunting takes place moderately, it is often the weaker of the species killed. Which, in turn, helps cleanse the gene pool and allow stronger, healthier species to grow. (once again my apologies for not expanding as I would like or giving more facts) (1)Malnutrition. (n.d.). Nutrition and Well-Being A to Z. Retrieved August 19, 2008, from Reference.com website: <URL>... (2) <URL>...

Sym626

*I would also like to remind my opponent that no new points of debate can be brought up in round 3 closing arguments, or they must be ignored by the voters. " 'Malnutrition' is not a likely factor. Many foods are available other than meat to proved protein and the nutrients against malnutrition," The problem with this statement is malnutrition IS a likely factor. Malnutrition doesn't just include a lack of protein, but other nutrients as well. "Adequate total nutrition includes the following nutrients: protein, energy (calories), vitamin A and carotene, vitamin D, vitamin E, vitamin K, thiamine, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B6, pantothenic acid, biotin, folate, vitamin C, antioxidants, calcium, iron, zinc, selenium, magnesium, and iodine. " (1) Vegans are also at risk of Osteoporosis, Rickets, Iron-deficiency anemia, Macrocytic anemia, and Emaciation or slowed growth. That aside we haven't fully addressed the issue of the question at hand "veganism is a good life choice". Veganism is a good life choice for whom? Since the question doesn't specify, let's explore this further... A simple google search on babies killed or suffering from severe malnutrition because of veganism yields 1,490 results. Babies, children, and the elderly following strict vegan diets are high risk of severe under nourishment and malnutrition. Vegans omit all forms of dairy and eggs, and it's fair to say that even if a vegan was to breast feed, the breast milk of a vegan mother lacks docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA, the omega-3 fat found in fatty fish. It is difficult to overstate the importance of DHA, vital as it is for eye and brain development. (2)(sorry at the moment i don't have the time to fully expand on this) While veganism has health and environmental benefits, A strict vegan removing all traces of animal products from their diet can face an expensive, difficult, and impractical task. To answer the animal rights issue, moderate eating of meat which takes place in developing countries still allows countless animals to continue living and doesn't abuse their lives or raise them for slaughter. Human hunting of animals such as deer helps reduce overpopulation since in many areas of the United States there is a lack of natural predators. When hunting takes place moderately, it is often the weaker of the species killed. Which, in turn, helps cleanse the gene pool and allow stronger, healthier species to grow. (once again my apologies for not expanding as I would like or giving more facts) (1)Malnutrition. (n.d.). Nutrition and Well-Being A to Z. Retrieved August 19, 2008, from Reference.com website: http://www.reference.com... (2) http://www.babble.com...

Health

veganisim-is-a-good-life-choice/1/

Okay.... Seeing as my opponent hasn't refuted any of my arguments, and ended the debate in a childish manner I'll simply point out some never addressed arguments. Since these arguments were never addressed, we have to assume the aff agrees. 1. Eating meat is not a right 2. Vegan-ism is impractical 3. Malnutrition IS a likely factor if the diet isn't created appropriately. 4. WHO is veganism a life choice for??? 5. Eating meat moderately answers the animal cruelty issue "the world would end from global warming first" I warned my opponent that any new points brought up in closing arguments have to be ignored.... "people like you would eat all the animals!!!" Omnivores are not causing animal extinction. I'll simply leave it at that Ummm...... I think the winner is somewhat obvious... vote neg!

Sym626

Okay.... Seeing as my opponent hasn't refuted any of my arguments, and ended the debate in a childish manner I'll simply point out some never addressed arguments. Since these arguments were never addressed, we have to assume the aff agrees. 1. Eating meat is not a right 2. Vegan-ism is impractical 3. Malnutrition IS a likely factor if the diet isn't created appropriately. 4. WHO is veganism a life choice for??? 5. Eating meat moderately answers the animal cruelty issue "the world would end from global warming first" I warned my opponent that any new points brought up in closing arguments have to be ignored.... "people like you would eat all the animals!!!" Omnivores are not causing animal extinction. I'll simply leave it at that Ummm...... I think the winner is somewhat obvious... vote neg!

Health

veganisim-is-a-good-life-choice/1/

in todays world, millions of people gourge on meat and expecially in america the human abuses his right to eat meat and engourges in the fact that man is at the top of the foodchain

meadow_55

in todays world, millions of people gourge on meat and expecially in america the human abuses his right to eat meat and engourges in the fact that man is at the top of the foodchain

Health

veganisim-is-a-good-life-choice/1/

while your reasoning's are good some still are debatable considering that "Malnutrition" is not a likely factor. Many foods are available other than meat to proved protein and the nutrients against malnutrition, soy being just one of them, can replace meat that the vegan saves for the others, which will save many animals life's which humans greedfully take

meadow_55

while your reasoning's are good some still are debatable considering that "Malnutrition" is not a likely factor. Many foods are available other than meat to proved protein and the nutrients against malnutrition, soy being just one of them, can replace meat that the vegan saves for the others, which will save many animals life's which humans greedfully take

Health

veganisim-is-a-good-life-choice/1/

Im not saying that some health promblems wont be a factor but the chances are slim to none considering there are dozens of other protein sourses plus if it ever came down that the world would end from global warming first or people like you would eat all the animals!!! good bye I WIN!!!! HAHAHAHA

meadow_55

Im not saying that some health promblems wont be a factor but the chances are slim to none considering there are dozens of other protein sourses plus if it ever came down that the world would end from global warming first or people like you would eat all the animals!!! good bye I WIN!!!! HAHAHAHA

Health

veganisim-is-a-good-life-choice/1/

I feel that High school and JH's should feature something other than meats drenched in sauce, ketchup, oils, and salt. Many schools, still are based on the fact that a child will at meat if there is nothing else, or they suppose that you will pack your own lunch if you don't eat meat. I sit with 2 vegetarians at my lunch table and for a week and a half they had nothing but meats in our lunch lines. Now I don't think that they should be able to provide a lunch for kids who cant eat peanut butter, but not for vegetarians. I leave the rest up to my opponent to make an argument, Thank you.

World_through_my_eyes

I feel that High school and JH's should feature something other than meats drenched in sauce, ketchup, oils, and salt. Many schools, still are based on the fact that a child will at meat if there is nothing else, or they suppose that you will pack your own lunch if you don't eat meat. I sit with 2 vegetarians at my lunch table and for a week and a half they had nothing but meats in our lunch lines. Now I don't think that they should be able to provide a lunch for kids who cant eat peanut butter, but not for vegetarians. I leave the rest up to my opponent to make an argument, Thank you.

Education

vegetarian-school-lunches/1/

Vegetarianism - the practice of following a diet based on plant-based foods including fruits, vegetables, cereal grains, nuts, and seeds, with or without dairy products and eggs. It costs 3.00$ to make a school lunch. the schools get 2.50 for the lunches. as i will continue to say, adding a salad bar would add .10cents, now I don't think that this will affect many people in the long run. As you may know, vegetarian foods have no cholesterol and lots of fiber; meat, eggs, and dairy products contain a lot of cholesterol and have no fiber. No wonder that meat-eaters are nine times more likely to be obese than vegans are. Recent surveys show that about 2% of children under age 18 consider themselves vegetarians, about the same percentage as adults. With nearly 50 million children attending public schools, that means approximately 1 million children who don't eat meet line up for school lunches each day. "Less than 5% of the population are vegetarian, so there's a potential that the food will be wasted when students choose meaty items instead." Of the 50 million children in schools you are saying 1 millions choices would be "wasted"? And that is only 2% of vegetarians, as you can see my opponent cannot keep their facts correct. Schools in many areas have responded by adding salad bars as well as more fruits, vegetables and meatless entrees, according to Marcia Smith, president of the American School Food Service Association. Over the past five years, some schools have begun serving a vegetarian item every day, she said. Schools must also accommodate children who don't eat meat for religious reasons. To rebut your Hindi comment, my friends, Ravi Deasi and Swetak Pradhan are Hindi. His family finds it easier to go all vegetarian then no beef, in case you dd not know this hinds don't eat beef other meats are fine. Also if some of the schools can add vegetarian maels, even if it IS just a salad bar, they still can be respected. " "I sit with 2 vegetarians at my lunch table AND for a week and a half they had nothing but meats in our lunch lines" This argument really has no impact for the pro side. That's great that you sat with vegetarians for a week and a half. I'm happy for you. I really am. However, what's your point?" If anyone would actually pay attention and read what I said iI would not need to restate myself. i did not say I had, i said and which means i continue to in the context of the sentence. i apologize for the off topic, but we do get points for things like that, and this my help you understand how that "point" of mine effects my topic. <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>...

World_through_my_eyes

Vegetarianism - the practice of following a diet based on plant-based foods including fruits, vegetables, cereal grains, nuts, and seeds, with or without dairy products and eggs. It costs 3.00$ to make a school lunch. the schools get 2.50 for the lunches. as i will continue to say, adding a salad bar would add .10cents, now I don't think that this will affect many people in the long run. As you may know, vegetarian foods have no cholesterol and lots of fiber; meat, eggs, and dairy products contain a lot of cholesterol and have no fiber. No wonder that meat-eaters are nine times more likely to be obese than vegans are. Recent surveys show that about 2% of children under age 18 consider themselves vegetarians, about the same percentage as adults. With nearly 50 million children attending public schools, that means approximately 1 million children who don't eat meet line up for school lunches each day. "Less than 5% of the population are vegetarian, so there's a potential that the food will be wasted when students choose meaty items instead." Of the 50 million children in schools you are saying 1 millions choices would be "wasted"? And that is only 2% of vegetarians, as you can see my opponent cannot keep their facts correct. Schools in many areas have responded by adding salad bars as well as more fruits, vegetables and meatless entrees, according to Marcia Smith, president of the American School Food Service Association. Over the past five years, some schools have begun serving a vegetarian item every day, she said. Schools must also accommodate children who don't eat meat for religious reasons. To rebut your Hindi comment, my friends, Ravi Deasi and Swetak Pradhan are Hindi. His family finds it easier to go all vegetarian then no beef, in case you dd not know this hinds don't eat beef other meats are fine. Also if some of the schools can add vegetarian maels, even if it IS just a salad bar, they still can be respected. " "I sit with 2 vegetarians at my lunch table AND for a week and a half they had nothing but meats in our lunch lines" This argument really has no impact for the pro side. That's great that you sat with vegetarians for a week and a half. I'm happy for you. I really am. However, what's your point?" If anyone would actually pay attention and read what I said iI would not need to restate myself. i did not say I had, i said and which means i continue to in the context of the sentence. i apologize for the off topic, but we do get points for things like that, and this my help you understand how that "point" of mine effects my topic. http://www.todaysdietitian.com... http://www.usnews.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.todaysdietitian.com...

Education

vegetarian-school-lunches/1/

I believe that a lot of people don"t stress this topic enough. Especially where i from so I make it a habit to put my beliefs and opinions in the open.

a7x_slipknot00

I believe that a lot of people don"t stress this topic enough. Especially where i from so I make it a habit to put my beliefs and opinions in the open.

People

vegetarianism/10/

vi_spex has claimed in comments before that he literally can't lose a debate. I negate that claim by making two points. 1. I myself have beaten vi_spex at debating twice. Debate: <URL>... Result: Post Voting Period. lol101 wins 4-0 Debate: <URL>... Result: Post Voting Period. lol101 wins 6-0 2. As of right now, vi_spex has lost 177 debates and has a win ratio of 6.35 %. <URL>... Thus, I have proven that vi_spex can lose a debate. My opponent must prove otherwise using evidence to debunk my argument and sources.

lol101

vi_spex has claimed in comments before that he literally can't lose a debate. I negate that claim by making two points. 1. I myself have beaten vi_spex at debating twice. Debate: http://www.debate.org... Result: Post Voting Period. lol101 wins 4-0 Debate: http://www.debate.org... Result: Post Voting Period. lol101 wins 6-0 2. As of right now, vi_spex has lost 177 debates and has a win ratio of 6.35 %. http://www.debate.org... Thus, I have proven that vi_spex can lose a debate. My opponent must prove otherwise using evidence to debunk my argument and sources.

Funny

vi-spex-cannot-lose-a-debate/1/

votes prove nothing

vi_spex

votes prove nothing

Funny

vi-spex-cannot-lose-a-debate/1/

video games are fun and are good for children and plus it keeps them and me out of the parents way then when the child starts to go through teen ages it still plays video games but not as much because the teenager has friends to hang out with.

deathknight1559

video games are fun and are good for children and plus it keeps them and me out of the parents way then when the child starts to go through teen ages it still plays video games but not as much because the teenager has friends to hang out with.

Technology

video-games-are-entaining-and-are-fun-they-arnt-bad-in-any-way-your-also-giving-your-fingers-exercis/1/

video games are not bad for your fingers and there isn o proof of that theory because as u get older your bones grow stronger but when your bones get even older they get weaker depends on how much calleries u have plus yopur a smart asss bitch

deathknight1559

video games are not bad for your fingers and there isn o proof of that theory because as u get older your bones grow stronger but when your bones get even older they get weaker depends on how much calleries u have plus yopur a smart asss bitch

Technology

video-games-are-entaining-and-are-fun-they-arnt-bad-in-any-way-your-also-giving-your-fingers-exercis/1/

n1 your an ediot n2 your fat n3 your muclly and look ugly n4 i coulnt be bothered reading your long argument because i rather go play a video game than listen to u \

deathknight1559

n1 your an ediot n2 your fat n3 your muclly and look ugly n4 i coulnt be bothered reading your long argument because i rather go play a video game than listen to u \

Technology

video-games-are-entaining-and-are-fun-they-arnt-bad-in-any-way-your-also-giving-your-fingers-exercis/1/

True, America became what it is today partly do to vigilante justice. However while it was needed to make America what it is today, there is no point in it anymore. What is left to gain with anyone being able to give justice which they see fit. What that amounts to is what would become a land of do as you please, and as some may find that to be an ideal, America is not fit for that. Just look at this country for what it is, it is organized, bringing freedom for anyone to deliver justice as they want would break the machine this country is based on. While the idea of it may seem pure at first, it will bring more corruption to the forefront, which is not necessary for growth. Crime can not be stopped, but it can be put on notice, but vigilante justice would only bring more conflict that will just stop any progression for America.

RuggieRug

True, America became what it is today partly do to vigilante justice. However while it was needed to make America what it is today, there is no point in it anymore. What is left to gain with anyone being able to give justice which they see fit. What that amounts to is what would become a land of do as you please, and as some may find that to be an ideal, America is not fit for that. Just look at this country for what it is, it is organized, bringing freedom for anyone to deliver justice as they want would break the machine this country is based on. While the idea of it may seem pure at first, it will bring more corruption to the forefront, which is not necessary for growth. Crime can not be stopped, but it can be put on notice, but vigilante justice would only bring more conflict that will just stop any progression for America.

Politics

vigilante-justice/1/

Due to your forfeit of the round, I will not present any further arguments yet.

RuggieRug

Due to your forfeit of the round, I will not present any further arguments yet.

Politics

vigilante-justice/1/

Well my opposition has refused to make any solid arguments for this debate, I believe I have. I will not restate the arguments that I have already made. As there is nothing to counter in this case.

RuggieRug

Well my opposition has refused to make any solid arguments for this debate, I believe I have. I will not restate the arguments that I have already made. As there is nothing to counter in this case.

Politics

vigilante-justice/1/

vigilante justice should be allowed because this country originated on vigilantism from the Boston tea party to the kkk and the super hero people wannabes around the city protecting the people against crimes in the middle of the night.

debate_man98223

vigilante justice should be allowed because this country originated on vigilantism from the Boston tea party to the kkk and the super hero people wannabes around the city protecting the people against crimes in the middle of the night.

Politics

vigilante-justice/1/

Please comment

Bees

Please comment

Philosophy

violence-is-the-last-refuge-of-incompetent-or-the-incompetence-leads-to-violence/1/

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" is a quote from Isaac Azimov's novel Foundation. The character Salvor Hardin, a ruthless politician who uses underhanded but clever tactics, uses it to describe the unsubtle efforts of his opponents. It means violence is used by people who are too unintelligent or incompetent to achieve their ends by less crude measures. Sadly, this is not yet a debate. My opponent has not stated a position or a contention. I have commented, as asked. I assume, since he chose to be "con," that he does not believe that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent? Perhaps he thinks they prefer to begin with violence to persuade others, and if that fails, they gradually work their way through their options until they reach interpretive dance? Please clarify. Inquiring minds want to know what your position is on this issue, Bees.

Chrysippus

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" is a quote from Isaac Azimov's novel Foundation. The character Salvor Hardin, a ruthless politician who uses underhanded but clever tactics, uses it to describe the unsubtle efforts of his opponents. It means violence is used by people who are too unintelligent or incompetent to achieve their ends by less crude measures. Sadly, this is not yet a debate. My opponent has not stated a position or a contention. I have commented, as asked. I assume, since he chose to be "con," that he does not believe that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent? Perhaps he thinks they prefer to begin with violence to persuade others, and if that fails, they gradually work their way through their options until they reach interpretive dance? Please clarify. Inquiring minds want to know what your position is on this issue, Bees.

Philosophy

violence-is-the-last-refuge-of-incompetent-or-the-incompetence-leads-to-violence/1/

...I should have expected this. Every time I do this, I swear to myself that I'll only ever again accept debates from people who have debated before. Should have just let this one go. It could have been an interesting topic, given the right opponent; it could have been a fun exchange, even with a poor opponent. But when he doesn't even log in again after posting the debate, there's nothing to do. /post

Chrysippus

...I should have expected this. Every time I do this, I swear to myself that I'll only ever again accept debates from people who have debated before. Should have just let this one go. It could have been an interesting topic, given the right opponent; it could have been a fun exchange, even with a poor opponent. But when he doesn't even log in again after posting the debate, there's nothing to do. /post

Philosophy

violence-is-the-last-refuge-of-incompetent-or-the-incompetence-leads-to-violence/1/

Filling space.

Chrysippus

Filling space.

Philosophy

violence-is-the-last-refuge-of-incompetent-or-the-incompetence-leads-to-violence/1/

Wasting time.

Chrysippus

Wasting time.

Philosophy

violence-is-the-last-refuge-of-incompetent-or-the-incompetence-leads-to-violence/1/

So much for that.

Chrysippus

So much for that.

Philosophy

violence-is-the-last-refuge-of-incompetent-or-the-incompetence-leads-to-violence/1/

voting for trump is irresponsible trump wants to cut taxes and add another trillion a year to the deficit. our debt is becoming a national security issue. he wants to repeal obamacare with no real alternative to replace it. people with medicaid expansion would no longer have healthcare, millions won't have subsidies to make care affordable, and insurance companies won't be able to afford covering people with preexisting conditions. (they can't afford them to a large extent with the subsidies and mandate, but apparently trump wants neither of these things so that'd make the problem worse) trump's views of immigration are okay but with his flip flop on amnesty, he's not far away from clinton. he's okay on trade but at least rhetoric wise he's the same as clinton. those are the major things. clinton is a status quo candidate. the only real difference is taxes and healthcare, and on those trump is irresponsible. thus anyone who would vote for him is being irresponsible.

dairygirl4u2c

voting for trump is irresponsible trump wants to cut taxes and add another trillion a year to the deficit. our debt is becoming a national security issue. he wants to repeal obamacare with no real alternative to replace it. people with medicaid expansion would no longer have healthcare, millions won't have subsidies to make care affordable, and insurance companies won't be able to afford covering people with preexisting conditions. (they can't afford them to a large extent with the subsidies and mandate, but apparently trump wants neither of these things so that'd make the problem worse) trump's views of immigration are okay but with his flip flop on amnesty, he's not far away from clinton. he's okay on trade but at least rhetoric wise he's the same as clinton. those are the major things. clinton is a status quo candidate. the only real difference is taxes and healthcare, and on those trump is irresponsible. thus anyone who would vote for him is being irresponsible.

Politics

voting-4-trump-is-irresponsible/1/

instead of asking a bunch of irrelevant questions, con should be arguing why it's responsible to vote for trump. i argued why it's irresponsible to vote for trump.... because you're getting an irresponsible person into office.

dairygirl4u2c

instead of asking a bunch of irrelevant questions, con should be arguing why it's responsible to vote for trump. i argued why it's irresponsible to vote for trump.... because you're getting an irresponsible person into office.

Politics

voting-4-trump-is-irresponsible/1/

i showed common sense that my points show irresponsibility. even the congressional budget office says if we dont get our budget in order bad things might occur. as for obamacare, showed how preexisting conditions and medicaid were important to give people healthcare, and all you do is say it would be cheaper. yes, but at what cost. do you not care about poor and disabled people?

dairygirl4u2c

i showed common sense that my points show irresponsibility. even the congressional budget office says if we dont get our budget in order bad things might occur. as for obamacare, showed how preexisting conditions and medicaid were important to give people healthcare, and all you do is say it would be cheaper. yes, but at what cost. do you not care about poor and disabled people?

Politics

voting-4-trump-is-irresponsible/1/

To start off, may I ask where you are getting your information from? Second I see no argument. You simply state some opinions about Trump's political views, however, you fail to mention how his political views makes the voter the irresponsible one. I am also curious to know what your definition of irresponsibility is? Are you simply stating that those who agree with Trump's political views are irresponsible, or those who are specifically for Trump. Because if you consider all those who simply side with Trump's political views are you including the broader spectrum of people who tend to align themselves with the republican party? I am just trying to get better clarity of what is actually being debated at hand.

emily.baker012

To start off, may I ask where you are getting your information from? Second I see no argument. You simply state some opinions about Trump's political views, however, you fail to mention how his political views makes the voter the irresponsible one. I am also curious to know what your definition of irresponsibility is? Are you simply stating that those who agree with Trump's political views are irresponsible, or those who are specifically for Trump. Because if you consider all those who simply side with Trump's political views are you including the broader spectrum of people who tend to align themselves with the republican party? I am just trying to get better clarity of what is actually being debated at hand.

Politics

voting-4-trump-is-irresponsible/1/

That is faulty correlation. Saying that Trump is irresponsibility is projected onto the voters does not make any logical sense. 3 mere examples of Trumps political views doe not prove him to be irresponsible. You simply state some plausible outcomes of what would happen if he was president as if they were facts set into stone. However it is highly disagreeable. For example, I say that removing Obamacare will actually be beneficial to the health care system and the cost would drop. Show me the proof that each of your arguments against Trump with credible sources.

emily.baker012

That is faulty correlation. Saying that Trump is irresponsibility is projected onto the voters does not make any logical sense. 3 mere examples of Trumps political views doe not prove him to be irresponsible. You simply state some plausible outcomes of what would happen if he was president as if they were facts set into stone. However it is highly disagreeable. For example, I say that removing Obamacare will actually be beneficial to the health care system and the cost would drop. Show me the proof that each of your arguments against Trump with credible sources.

Politics

voting-4-trump-is-irresponsible/1/

Again common sense is very subjective. The congressional budget office may say that "if we don't get our budget in order bad things will happen". This I can agree to but when it comes to how the budget problem is solved there is no right way and stating that Trump's reduction of taxes is going to make it worse has no validity, except your perception of it simply being common sense. To me, common sense, means reducing tax and cutting unnecessary social programs that our government pours millions into everywhere. With that perspective, what makes your common sense more valid and true than mine? If you had provided sound and solid evidence with credible sources, I would have been able to reevaluate my stance. However, with out the evidence, to me it is just an opinion. The same goes for the rest of your examples you provided no substantial evidence to base your opinions on. It is also important to recognize that you state how Obamacare is benefits the citizens as if its the only correct way to provide health care. How can we know that Trump doesn't have a plan that can work equally as well? Finally, asking me if I "care about the poor and disabled people" is irrelevant to the argument. We are arguing whether Trump supporters are irresponsible, not my stance on social issues. In conclusion, I believe that those who vote for Trump are not irresponsible. Those who vote for him simply believe that he would be the best fit in office. For those who do agree with his political stance, have different opinions than those who oppose him and his views. Those opinions in no way reflect their character. I believe that it would be better to state: " I don't agree with those supporting Trump for reasons A, B and C. Here is the evidence supporting my claim that these reasons may have negative effects on the United States in the following year." But attacking someones character based on the fact that it doesn't align with your personal opinions does not provide a sound argument in justifying Trump voters as irresponsible.

emily.baker012

Again common sense is very subjective. The congressional budget office may say that "if we don't get our budget in order bad things will happen". This I can agree to but when it comes to how the budget problem is solved there is no right way and stating that Trump's reduction of taxes is going to make it worse has no validity, except your perception of it simply being common sense. To me, common sense, means reducing tax and cutting unnecessary social programs that our government pours millions into everywhere. With that perspective, what makes your common sense more valid and true than mine? If you had provided sound and solid evidence with credible sources, I would have been able to reevaluate my stance. However, with out the evidence, to me it is just an opinion. The same goes for the rest of your examples you provided no substantial evidence to base your opinions on. It is also important to recognize that you state how Obamacare is benefits the citizens as if its the only correct way to provide health care. How can we know that Trump doesn't have a plan that can work equally as well? Finally, asking me if I "care about the poor and disabled people" is irrelevant to the argument. We are arguing whether Trump supporters are irresponsible, not my stance on social issues. In conclusion, I believe that those who vote for Trump are not irresponsible. Those who vote for him simply believe that he would be the best fit in office. For those who do agree with his political stance, have different opinions than those who oppose him and his views. Those opinions in no way reflect their character. I believe that it would be better to state: " I don't agree with those supporting Trump for reasons A, B and C. Here is the evidence supporting my claim that these reasons may have negative effects on the United States in the following year." But attacking someones character based on the fact that it doesn't align with your personal opinions does not provide a sound argument in justifying Trump voters as irresponsible.

Politics

voting-4-trump-is-irresponsible/1/

I am pro for waffles..... its got little pockets for sryup and butter. Panckase just flop there and let the sryup run off.

GTrilogy

I am pro for waffles..... its got little pockets for sryup and butter. Panckase just flop there and let the sryup run off.

Miscellaneous

waffles-vs-panckas/1/

>>>I am pro for waffles..... its got little pockets for sryup and butter. Panckase just flop there and let the sryup run off.<<< My opponent argues that a panckase's lack of syrup pockets makes it inferior to waffles, which have syrup pockets. Well, what if I preferred that syrup pockets are absent because I like having syrup run off? ;) My opponent must show that waffles are objectively superior than panckase or panckas, whichever term floats your boat.

emospongebob527

>>>I am pro for waffles..... its got little pockets for sryup and butter. Panckase just flop there and let the sryup run off.<<< My opponent argues that a panckase's lack of syrup pockets makes it inferior to waffles, which have syrup pockets. Well, what if I preferred that syrup pockets are absent because I like having syrup run off? ;) My opponent must show that waffles are objectively superior than panckase or panckas, whichever term floats your boat.

Miscellaneous

waffles-vs-panckas/1/

BOP has not been upheld. Vote Con.

emospongebob527

BOP has not been upheld. Vote Con.

Miscellaneous

waffles-vs-panckas/1/

I'm unsure as to whether my opponent is arguing that we shouldn't have gone over there in the first place, or that we shouldn't be over there now, so I'll refute both points. Thanks to my opponent for starting the debate. Please vote for the better argumentation, not what you agree with. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Let's begin. His first point that was that the entire reason for going over there was to find weapons of mass destruction, and we didn't find any. Well, right there he gives you a reason for going over: looking for WMD. Just because we didn't find WMD doesn't invalidate the reason for going over there in the first place. It seemed probable at the time, and it was a major issue of national security. If I'm playing a game of chess, and I move my knight to protect my queen, when in fact my opponent was never going after my queen, it doesn't mean that I was wrong in defending my queen. Now, in response to why we're over there now: it's just not a good idea to pull out. The region would collapse and just be worse off than it was before. We have a responsibility to finish what we started.

Geekis_Khan

I'm unsure as to whether my opponent is arguing that we shouldn't have gone over there in the first place, or that we shouldn't be over there now, so I'll refute both points. Thanks to my opponent for starting the debate. Please vote for the better argumentation, not what you agree with. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Let's begin. His first point that was that the entire reason for going over there was to find weapons of mass destruction, and we didn't find any. Well, right there he gives you a reason for going over: looking for WMD. Just because we didn't find WMD doesn't invalidate the reason for going over there in the first place. It seemed probable at the time, and it was a major issue of national security. If I'm playing a game of chess, and I move my knight to protect my queen, when in fact my opponent was never going after my queen, it doesn't mean that I was wrong in defending my queen. Now, in response to why we're over there now: it's just not a good idea to pull out. The region would collapse and just be worse off than it was before. We have a responsibility to finish what we started.

Politics

war-in-iraq/6/

First of all, I agree with my opponent - they SHOULDN'T have had WMD. But there was a good chance they might. It seemed very probable that Saddam was breaking the treaties. Therefore, my argument about a justified reason for entering the war flows through. I also extend my chess analogy. And, yeah, it was a dictatorship before. But that doesn't mean it couldn't get worse. The fact of the matter is the region is extremely unstable right now, with factions warring to try to gain power. If we pull out, then our forces, which are currently propping up the democratic government and protecting it, are gone. This means the government will not have nearly enough of the necessary defense. It will collapse, and some Islamo-Fascist faction will take control, setting up another dictatorship. Seeing as how divided we've made that country, a genocide would be even more likely. Thus, I extend my argument about a worse situation developing should we pull out. My opponent also asked why we're concerned with a country we fought in the past. Well, we're still concerned with Korea, Germany, and Japan. And even though the Cold War never developed into a real war, we are still concerned with Russia. Countries that we've been at war with are of the utmost concern for us. As far as the economy goes - wars cost money. That doesn't mean it's not worth it. As far as the debt goes, all those trillions of dollars don't all come from the war. True, it has a lot to with it, but the fact of the matter is that this debt has been with us. Every nation has a debt. This doesn't put us in such a horrible position. I'd also like to point out that every time the US has made a big cut in its debt, a recession has followed. I look forward to the next round.

Geekis_Khan

First of all, I agree with my opponent - they SHOULDN'T have had WMD. But there was a good chance they might. It seemed very probable that Saddam was breaking the treaties. Therefore, my argument about a justified reason for entering the war flows through. I also extend my chess analogy. And, yeah, it was a dictatorship before. But that doesn't mean it couldn't get worse. The fact of the matter is the region is extremely unstable right now, with factions warring to try to gain power. If we pull out, then our forces, which are currently propping up the democratic government and protecting it, are gone. This means the government will not have nearly enough of the necessary defense. It will collapse, and some Islamo-Fascist faction will take control, setting up another dictatorship. Seeing as how divided we've made that country, a genocide would be even more likely. Thus, I extend my argument about a worse situation developing should we pull out. My opponent also asked why we're concerned with a country we fought in the past. Well, we're still concerned with Korea, Germany, and Japan. And even though the Cold War never developed into a real war, we are still concerned with Russia. Countries that we've been at war with are of the utmost concern for us. As far as the economy goes - wars cost money. That doesn't mean it's not worth it. As far as the debt goes, all those trillions of dollars don't all come from the war. True, it has a lot to with it, but the fact of the matter is that this debt has been with us. Every nation has a debt. This doesn't put us in such a horrible position. I'd also like to point out that every time the US has made a big cut in its debt, a recession has followed. I look forward to the next round.

Politics

war-in-iraq/6/

my dear opponent i am curious from reading your previous debate about neutrality one what your views are one war are this is my first time using this service and am therefore a novice but i am eager to start so i wolud be honoured if you would ingage in this debate with me

darren

my dear opponent i am curious from reading your previous debate about neutrality one what your views are one war are this is my first time using this service and am therefore a novice but i am eager to start so i wolud be honoured if you would ingage in this debate with me

Politics

war-is-not-the-answer/1/

Terrorism, and the Islamic extremism from which much of it is born, are legitimate threats to the security of our nation, and the world. These are serious concerns that must be faced; and that portion of the case for the War on Terror is certainly valid. My case, however, hinges not upon claiming the threat invalid or not serious enough to prompt action, but upon the argument, which I will present here, that war is not the way to handle the threat of terrorism. I will present 5 points to support this claim: 1.The most effective way to solve the problem of Islamic extremism, and thus a large portion of terrorism, is by opposition from within the Arab world. Islamic extremists distort the true messages of Islam; and they are, and will remain, a small minority within the Muslim population. The most effective way the problem of Islamic extremism can truly be solved is by a counter-movement from the vast majority of Muslims who are much more cool-headed, telling the extremists that they refuse to let them hijack international perception of their faith. The fact of the matter is that most Muslims are not pleased that the world now has the perception of their faith as violent and extremist; after all, what rational individual would be pleased with their culture and their faith being polluted in this way? What we need is to encourage moderate Muslim leaders to speak out against the extremists; and this, it can reasonably be assumed, would be a more powerful message against Islamic extremism than hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis due to American intervention. 2.War is not an effective means of dealing with terrorism. Terrorism is not a traditional threat. It is boundary-less, decentralized, and all but leaderless. It is a tactic used by many of the enemies of America, not a foe that can be pinned down by large-scale military operations. In the past, America has always been effective in war when we officially declared war against a concrete threat, set a precise mission or missions to accomplish, and sent our troops in force to pursue those goals. We have not traditionally been successful in war when we don't do these things; and terrorism is something that, by its very definition, cannot be faced off in such a concrete manner. The best definition we have of who our enemies are are a few lists of terrorist organizations compiled by our intelligence; and for a soldier in the field, there is no definite way to distinguish between these enemies and civilians. Everything about facing terrorism with traditional warfare is completely and fundamentally wrong. 3.The true nature of our struggle with terrorism is a battle of ideologies. What is facing off in this conflict are not two distinct "sides" comprised of allied nations; it is instead two ideologies: the ideology of freedom and democracy, and the ideology of oppression and extremism. This is not, in any way, a traditional war. There is no definite boundary between the two ideologies, and there is not a single nation in the world that is comprised entirely of people supporting one side. These opposing ideologies must battle it out. The best we can do, as a nation, is to peacefully promote the side most of us believe in. 4.Any future direct threats to Americans can be dealt with internally by increased domestic security and police action. There is no doubt that we don't want another 9/11. And certainly, there is a potential for such an event, regardless of the foreign policy we pursue to confront terrorism and extremism. But if this threat cannot be faced by our military in traditional manners, how do we combat it? The answer is simple: we increase our domestic security (while being careful, of course, not to step on personal liberties), and we improve communication between our intelligence agencies and our police bodies, so that any threat of another attack on America can be discovered and dealt with before it comes to fruition. 5.The costs of our military actions in this faulty "War on Terror" are staggering. The current death toll of American soldiers in the war in Iraq is 3911, with 28822 wounded.* Furthermore, a recent report by Congressional Democrats regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan entitled "War at Any Price?" found "that the total economic costs incurred to date -- including "hidden" expenses, such as higher oil prices, interest on borrowing, and the long-term care of injured soldiers -- are already about twice the 800 billion dollars the Bush administration has asked Congress to appropriate through 2008." The report also goes on to say that this total cost could be as high as $3.5 trillion by 2017.** It doesn't take detailed analysis to know that these costs, both human and monetary, are not worth it. In conclusion, the War on Terror is based upon the fallacy that terrorism is a traditional enemy that can be faced by traditional large-scale military operations. The threat can more effectively be faced off through opposition within the Muslim world, as well as our peaceful support of the ideology that we want to prevail, and improved domestic security. Furthermore, the costs of the war are too high to be worth it. Altogether, it is clear that the War on Terror is not the proper course of action for America in dealing with the threat of terrorism and Islamic extremism. Thank you. * <URL>... ** <URL>...

zakkuchan

Terrorism, and the Islamic extremism from which much of it is born, are legitimate threats to the security of our nation, and the world. These are serious concerns that must be faced; and that portion of the case for the War on Terror is certainly valid. My case, however, hinges not upon claiming the threat invalid or not serious enough to prompt action, but upon the argument, which I will present here, that war is not the way to handle the threat of terrorism. I will present 5 points to support this claim: 1.The most effective way to solve the problem of Islamic extremism, and thus a large portion of terrorism, is by opposition from within the Arab world. Islamic extremists distort the true messages of Islam; and they are, and will remain, a small minority within the Muslim population. The most effective way the problem of Islamic extremism can truly be solved is by a counter-movement from the vast majority of Muslims who are much more cool-headed, telling the extremists that they refuse to let them hijack international perception of their faith. The fact of the matter is that most Muslims are not pleased that the world now has the perception of their faith as violent and extremist; after all, what rational individual would be pleased with their culture and their faith being polluted in this way? What we need is to encourage moderate Muslim leaders to speak out against the extremists; and this, it can reasonably be assumed, would be a more powerful message against Islamic extremism than hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis due to American intervention. 2.War is not an effective means of dealing with terrorism. Terrorism is not a traditional threat. It is boundary-less, decentralized, and all but leaderless. It is a tactic used by many of the enemies of America, not a foe that can be pinned down by large-scale military operations. In the past, America has always been effective in war when we officially declared war against a concrete threat, set a precise mission or missions to accomplish, and sent our troops in force to pursue those goals. We have not traditionally been successful in war when we don't do these things; and terrorism is something that, by its very definition, cannot be faced off in such a concrete manner. The best definition we have of who our enemies are are a few lists of terrorist organizations compiled by our intelligence; and for a soldier in the field, there is no definite way to distinguish between these enemies and civilians. Everything about facing terrorism with traditional warfare is completely and fundamentally wrong. 3.The true nature of our struggle with terrorism is a battle of ideologies. What is facing off in this conflict are not two distinct "sides" comprised of allied nations; it is instead two ideologies: the ideology of freedom and democracy, and the ideology of oppression and extremism. This is not, in any way, a traditional war. There is no definite boundary between the two ideologies, and there is not a single nation in the world that is comprised entirely of people supporting one side. These opposing ideologies must battle it out. The best we can do, as a nation, is to peacefully promote the side most of us believe in. 4.Any future direct threats to Americans can be dealt with internally by increased domestic security and police action. There is no doubt that we don't want another 9/11. And certainly, there is a potential for such an event, regardless of the foreign policy we pursue to confront terrorism and extremism. But if this threat cannot be faced by our military in traditional manners, how do we combat it? The answer is simple: we increase our domestic security (while being careful, of course, not to step on personal liberties), and we improve communication between our intelligence agencies and our police bodies, so that any threat of another attack on America can be discovered and dealt with before it comes to fruition. 5.The costs of our military actions in this faulty "War on Terror" are staggering. The current death toll of American soldiers in the war in Iraq is 3911, with 28822 wounded.* Furthermore, a recent report by Congressional Democrats regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan entitled "War at Any Price?" found "that the total economic costs incurred to date -- including "hidden" expenses, such as higher oil prices, interest on borrowing, and the long-term care of injured soldiers -- are already about twice the 800 billion dollars the Bush administration has asked Congress to appropriate through 2008." The report also goes on to say that this total cost could be as high as $3.5 trillion by 2017.** It doesn't take detailed analysis to know that these costs, both human and monetary, are not worth it. In conclusion, the War on Terror is based upon the fallacy that terrorism is a traditional enemy that can be faced by traditional large-scale military operations. The threat can more effectively be faced off through opposition within the Muslim world, as well as our peaceful support of the ideology that we want to prevail, and improved domestic security. Furthermore, the costs of the war are too high to be worth it. Altogether, it is clear that the War on Terror is not the proper course of action for America in dealing with the threat of terrorism and Islamic extremism. Thank you. * http://www.antiwar.com... ** http://ipsnews.net...

Politics

war-on-terrorism/1/

First off, I am offended by your last statement about me copying and pasting. The only thing I copied and pasted was one news source's analysis on the Democratic study in my last point, and when I did that, I put it in quotes and cited the source with asterisks. The rest of my case was entirely my own work, and I am offended by even the implication that I would plagiarize. Secondly, most people believing in something (or a claim of such, whether correct or not) is not valid reasoning for its truth under any circumstances in logical debate. Debate is about formulating and defending a case for your side, not simply discussing which side more people agree with. 1. You ignored the actual claim I was making. You were on track in your first sentence on this point. ("If you believe that the best way to deal with these terrorists is by using moderate muslims then you need to rethink your foreign policy.") But then, instead of backing up this claim and giving me a reason why I ought to rethink my foreign policy, you sidestepped the point I made and acted like I said we need to ignore the threat and not deal with it. I never made such a claim in my entire case; all I said was that war is not the proper way of dealing with it. And in this particular point, my claim boiled down to saying that a backlash from moderate Muslims "would be a more powerful message against Islamic extremism than hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis due to American intervention", which you didn't address whatsoever. 2. Here, it is obvious that you either misunderstood my point or couldn't refute it. This point in my initial case was about the non-traditional nature of the threat of terrorism, and my claim that it can't be dealt with through war. You're not addressing this point if you don't address that claim. 3. Again, you missed and/or ignored my point. If you don't address the actual claim (that this is a battle of ideologies, not a traditional war between two definite sides), then you haven't offered a meaningful attack on this point. But I'll humor what you said here anyway, just for the sake of clarifying my point. Yes, I absolutely think we should talk to our enemies. It would be much more effective than invading nations that have at best an indirect connection to our enemies, because it would show these nations, and the world in general, that we and the rest of the democratic western world are open to peace and diplomacy, which would certainly be a positive development. This is a battle of ideologies, and ideologies cannot be forced through war, especially an ideology as inherently peaceful as democracy and freedom. 4. Yes, I'm saying we should focus on defense rather than offense. And yes, I realize you can't win a war through defense. But in case you forgot, I'm arguing that there shouldn't BE a war at all. And the claim that we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here is ridiculous. The fact that we're in Iraq or Afghanistan does not in any way stop a terrorist from coming to the United States. If you think it does, I'd love to hear why. 5. No, when I say the costs aren't worth it, I'm saying that an irrational war against a threat that cannot be faced through war is not worth the cost. Of course I think freedom, democracy, and America are worth fighting for; if I lived during World War II, I'd fully support the war effort, and I'd even consider enlisting. But I don't think the War on Terror is an effective way to deal with the threats we are facing today; and THAT's why I don't support it, not because I'm unpatriotic or cowardly. In your closing statement, you just restate something I've already agreed with: that terrorists and extremists are a legitimate threat. The whole "I wish you could realize..." statement is about something I've already realized, which would be clear if you were paying attention at all to my case. And you haven't adequately addressed the areas that we DO disagree on, so this is a pointless thing for you to spend your time trying to prove. My opponent, in his previous round, repeatedly sidestepped the central points I made against the use of war as a means to deal with terrorism. Most of his attacks missed my points entirely, and the claims that he made through them, he did not back up whatsoever.

zakkuchan

First off, I am offended by your last statement about me copying and pasting. The only thing I copied and pasted was one news source's analysis on the Democratic study in my last point, and when I did that, I put it in quotes and cited the source with asterisks. The rest of my case was entirely my own work, and I am offended by even the implication that I would plagiarize. Secondly, most people believing in something (or a claim of such, whether correct or not) is not valid reasoning for its truth under any circumstances in logical debate. Debate is about formulating and defending a case for your side, not simply discussing which side more people agree with. 1. You ignored the actual claim I was making. You were on track in your first sentence on this point. ("If you believe that the best way to deal with these terrorists is by using moderate muslims then you need to rethink your foreign policy.") But then, instead of backing up this claim and giving me a reason why I ought to rethink my foreign policy, you sidestepped the point I made and acted like I said we need to ignore the threat and not deal with it. I never made such a claim in my entire case; all I said was that war is not the proper way of dealing with it. And in this particular point, my claim boiled down to saying that a backlash from moderate Muslims "would be a more powerful message against Islamic extremism than hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis due to American intervention", which you didn't address whatsoever. 2. Here, it is obvious that you either misunderstood my point or couldn't refute it. This point in my initial case was about the non-traditional nature of the threat of terrorism, and my claim that it can't be dealt with through war. You're not addressing this point if you don't address that claim. 3. Again, you missed and/or ignored my point. If you don't address the actual claim (that this is a battle of ideologies, not a traditional war between two definite sides), then you haven't offered a meaningful attack on this point. But I'll humor what you said here anyway, just for the sake of clarifying my point. Yes, I absolutely think we should talk to our enemies. It would be much more effective than invading nations that have at best an indirect connection to our enemies, because it would show these nations, and the world in general, that we and the rest of the democratic western world are open to peace and diplomacy, which would certainly be a positive development. This is a battle of ideologies, and ideologies cannot be forced through war, especially an ideology as inherently peaceful as democracy and freedom. 4. Yes, I'm saying we should focus on defense rather than offense. And yes, I realize you can't win a war through defense. But in case you forgot, I'm arguing that there shouldn't BE a war at all. And the claim that we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here is ridiculous. The fact that we're in Iraq or Afghanistan does not in any way stop a terrorist from coming to the United States. If you think it does, I'd love to hear why. 5. No, when I say the costs aren't worth it, I'm saying that an irrational war against a threat that cannot be faced through war is not worth the cost. Of course I think freedom, democracy, and America are worth fighting for; if I lived during World War II, I'd fully support the war effort, and I'd even consider enlisting. But I don't think the War on Terror is an effective way to deal with the threats we are facing today; and THAT's why I don't support it, not because I'm unpatriotic or cowardly. In your closing statement, you just restate something I've already agreed with: that terrorists and extremists are a legitimate threat. The whole "I wish you could realize..." statement is about something I've already realized, which would be clear if you were paying attention at all to my case. And you haven't adequately addressed the areas that we DO disagree on, so this is a pointless thing for you to spend your time trying to prove. My opponent, in his previous round, repeatedly sidestepped the central points I made against the use of war as a means to deal with terrorism. Most of his attacks missed my points entirely, and the claims that he made through them, he did not back up whatsoever.

Politics

war-on-terrorism/1/

My opponent's forfeiting of this final round, despite the fact that he was online several times since I posted my second round, leads me to believe that he has intentionally given up this debate. That in itself should count this as a win for me; but just for emphasis, I'll point out some key points about this debate: -My opponent was the instigator, yet he didn't offer any of his own points to the debate, or any support for anything he said. -My points were solid, and went mostly un-touched by my opponent. -My opponent used his second round (and his only post of any length at all) to make an appeal to popularity, several straw man arguments, and a reiteration of a non-resolutional point that I'd already conceded (that terrorism is a threat). -My opponent also used personal attacks, including the insinuation that I plagiarized, which I in no way did (and I'm sure you could verify that with a few google searches). -I refuted my opponent's attacks thoroughly, where they came anywhere near my case. I hope everyone votes based on the debate, rather than their knee-jerk reaction to the topic.

zakkuchan

My opponent's forfeiting of this final round, despite the fact that he was online several times since I posted my second round, leads me to believe that he has intentionally given up this debate. That in itself should count this as a win for me; but just for emphasis, I'll point out some key points about this debate: -My opponent was the instigator, yet he didn't offer any of his own points to the debate, or any support for anything he said. -My points were solid, and went mostly un-touched by my opponent. -My opponent used his second round (and his only post of any length at all) to make an appeal to popularity, several straw man arguments, and a reiteration of a non-resolutional point that I'd already conceded (that terrorism is a threat). -My opponent also used personal attacks, including the insinuation that I plagiarized, which I in no way did (and I'm sure you could verify that with a few google searches). -I refuted my opponent's attacks thoroughly, where they came anywhere near my case. I hope everyone votes based on the debate, rather than their knee-jerk reaction to the topic.

Politics

war-on-terrorism/1/

this is for the ballzyest man or women out there you have to fight me about hitler muah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha i want you to start and i'll go holocaust on your ars let the jewish blood fly let us begin (yells out) MORTAL KOMBAT

davidhancock

this is for the ballzyest man or women out there you have to fight me about hitler muah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha i want you to start and i'll go holocaust on your ars let the jewish blood fly let us begin (yells out) MORTAL KOMBAT

Miscellaneous

was-hitler-a-good-guy-after-all/1/

1 hitler helped in over pop. crises 2 he was portraid as a monster because he lost the war 3 the jewish were send the country into debt 4 hitler killed them in a eco friendly way 5 he rebuilt germanies economy 6 he loved kids as long as they werent ann frank 7 he taught jews hide and seek 8 he was loved by his people 9 he never personally killed a jewish person 10 no other country cared till he started counquring europe 11 he had great fasion sense 12 good public speaker 13 he made me what i am today 14 he got the jewish isreal because of what he did 15 he acted on what he believed (thats more than i can say for most people) 16 he commited seppku so he is freed of shame 17 lived up to presidental promises 18 he wrote a book 19 he was only following a philosopher 20 he should have had a sitcom called everyone loves hitler he was that awesome 21 he struck fear into his opponets like brave heart 22 he sent jewish people to god free of charge and they didnt have to do good either 23 we inprisoned japanese what makes us better 24 hitler stood by his beliefs didnt chicken out 25 his sign ment good luck vote pro because hitler was not bad just miss understood like so many people like kim jong ill

davidhancock

1 hitler helped in over pop. crises 2 he was portraid as a monster because he lost the war 3 the jewish were send the country into debt 4 hitler killed them in a eco friendly way 5 he rebuilt germanies economy 6 he loved kids as long as they werent ann frank 7 he taught jews hide and seek 8 he was loved by his people 9 he never personally killed a jewish person 10 no other country cared till he started counquring europe 11 he had great fasion sense 12 good public speaker 13 he made me what i am today 14 he got the jewish isreal because of what he did 15 he acted on what he believed (thats more than i can say for most people) 16 he commited seppku so he is freed of shame 17 lived up to presidental promises 18 he wrote a book 19 he was only following a philosopher 20 he should have had a sitcom called everyone loves hitler he was that awesome 21 he struck fear into his opponets like brave heart 22 he sent jewish people to god free of charge and they didnt have to do good either 23 we inprisoned japanese what makes us better 24 hitler stood by his beliefs didnt chicken out 25 his sign ment good luck vote pro because hitler was not bad just miss understood like so many people like kim jong ill

Miscellaneous

was-hitler-a-good-guy-after-all/1/

k bro if its comon knowledge you dont need sites i dont make rash claims so disreguard this arguement its a waste of time to say this cause guess what to make this claim you used no evidence its sad to run this steaming pile of debate disreguard this because there is no proven abuse and if there is he failed to pull it out of my arguement also these are self made arguements if he took the time to answer them he would be winning right now also if you spent the time to read my arguement you would realize i've prempted alot of your arguements I gave twenty five reasons why he is good and the con dropped them so at this point you have no choice but to vote pro but ill answer his arguements ok so arguement 1 on his side; he states that hitler locked people up but he never specifies who was thrown into camps he said and i quote "The white race is regarded as pure and the black people are mediocre. The other people (asians, jews, gays, slaves, communists etc.) are all considered Untermensch. Now we all know that we all are people, no matter how we may look. But hes willing to go so far by throwing them all in the concentration camps. Thats crime #1, and not something a good guy will do." does he say hitler locked up the asians,jews,gays,slaves,communists or did he say throw them all in camps what he said could be anyone thrown in camps including whites you see he never excludes so turn arguement he wasn't segerating 2; why would citizens go along with what he was doing look to egypt they aint happy so they revolt why didnt they could that mean the biggest group was happy and before he says that not all were happy look to the us gov. i personally hate it but does that make obama a bad guy 3; cross apply my first arguement by killing them he lowered the pop. there by helping in the long run 4; is it not true at a time the US citizens hated commies turn this as well because to live up to beliefes makes a truely great leader 5; what he said doesn't prove hatred if i send a kid out to dig holes does it mean i hate him/her no digging holes builds charater maybe thats what hitler thought turn this that actually makes him a great leader vote pro look to the arguements above i will not have hitlers name tarnished

davidhancock

k bro if its comon knowledge you dont need sites i dont make rash claims so disreguard this arguement its a waste of time to say this cause guess what to make this claim you used no evidence its sad to run this steaming pile of debate disreguard this because there is no proven abuse and if there is he failed to pull it out of my arguement also these are self made arguements if he took the time to answer them he would be winning right now also if you spent the time to read my arguement you would realize i've prempted alot of your arguements I gave twenty five reasons why he is good and the con dropped them so at this point you have no choice but to vote pro but ill answer his arguements ok so arguement 1 on his side; he states that hitler locked people up but he never specifies who was thrown into camps he said and i quote "The white race is regarded as pure and the black people are mediocre. The other people (asians, jews, gays, slaves, communists etc.) are all considered Untermensch. Now we all know that we all are people, no matter how we may look. But hes willing to go so far by throwing them all in the concentration camps. Thats crime #1, and not something a good guy will do." does he say hitler locked up the asians,jews,gays,slaves,communists or did he say throw them all in camps what he said could be anyone thrown in camps including whites you see he never excludes so turn arguement he wasn't segerating 2; why would citizens go along with what he was doing look to egypt they aint happy so they revolt why didnt they could that mean the biggest group was happy and before he says that not all were happy look to the us gov. i personally hate it but does that make obama a bad guy 3; cross apply my first arguement by killing them he lowered the pop. there by helping in the long run 4; is it not true at a time the US citizens hated commies turn this as well because to live up to beliefes makes a truely great leader 5; what he said doesn't prove hatred if i send a kid out to dig holes does it mean i hate him/her no digging holes builds charater maybe thats what hitler thought turn this that actually makes him a great leader vote pro look to the arguements above i will not have hitlers name tarnished

Miscellaneous

was-hitler-a-good-guy-after-all/1/

ok im gonna go down the list so its easy to read No eveidece arguement: again he doesnt pull out of my argurment actual proof like i said all my arguements VS this was dropped if my opponet ever actually debated even for a year he would know that he needs to answer all arguements no matter how ridiculas they are by dropping so many arguements you will still end up voting pro even if i have never debated before because my goods outweigh the bads and ill have you notice i never dropped an arguement vote him up on evedence vote him down on all else 1: ok as i said in my first arguement we interned japanese what makes us any better 2: ok you dropped my answer the germans were generally happy look to egypt again and you dropped my turn so this only proves he was a good guy i understand your arguement its painfully obvious that you didnt read my answer 3: ok so the killing in nagisake and hiroshima made truemen a bad guy also you didnt answer my answer so again he was helping not hurting 4: i never consided this i said is it not true at a time the US citizens hated commies turn this as well because to live up to beliefes makes a truely great leader so by sticking by his beliefs he was made great 5: i didnt say they were going to dig holes but i did say war builds charater and thats what he was doing ok so i am not a NAZI as i said in the comments vote pro because i presented the better arguements more arguements i never dropped an arguement i had all of my arguements dropped its time to vote pro not because i a neo nazi who isnt spitting crap the con just refuses to answer my arguements if he spent a little time answering these i would be saying vote con right now i didnt come into this to win but when a debater does this kind of debating i have to take a movement against it

davidhancock

ok im gonna go down the list so its easy to read No eveidece arguement: again he doesnt pull out of my argurment actual proof like i said all my arguements VS this was dropped if my opponet ever actually debated even for a year he would know that he needs to answer all arguements no matter how ridiculas they are by dropping so many arguements you will still end up voting pro even if i have never debated before because my goods outweigh the bads and ill have you notice i never dropped an arguement vote him up on evedence vote him down on all else 1: ok as i said in my first arguement we interned japanese what makes us any better 2: ok you dropped my answer the germans were generally happy look to egypt again and you dropped my turn so this only proves he was a good guy i understand your arguement its painfully obvious that you didnt read my answer 3: ok so the killing in nagisake and hiroshima made truemen a bad guy also you didnt answer my answer so again he was helping not hurting 4: i never consided this i said is it not true at a time the US citizens hated commies turn this as well because to live up to beliefes makes a truely great leader so by sticking by his beliefs he was made great 5: i didnt say they were going to dig holes but i did say war builds charater and thats what he was doing ok so i am not a NAZI as i said in the comments vote pro because i presented the better arguements more arguements i never dropped an arguement i had all of my arguements dropped its time to vote pro not because i a neo nazi who isnt spitting crap the con just refuses to answer my arguements if he spent a little time answering these i would be saying vote con right now i didnt come into this to win but when a debater does this kind of debating i have to take a movement against it

Miscellaneous

was-hitler-a-good-guy-after-all/1/

im gonna go down the line again 1; his arguement didnt answer mine in the last round i said that the US is no better and he conisides this what he is saying is that the US is just as bad as hitler by considing this 2; he misunderstood my arguement if germany wasnt happy then they should have overthrown there leader right? 3; ok his btw is wrong if the treaty of versi wasnt passed hitler would never gotten power and he still consided my turn so vote pro on this arguement 4; ok so all people who made killings out of selfdefense are bad by my opponets logic and he consided my arguement that he stuck to his beliefs thats what good guys do :P 5; ok about his arguement all he says that it destroys charater but ill conside to this hitler thought he was doing good to the children honest mistake not a bad guy move ok by my opponets arguement at the end Lets just say, my opponent has the mind of a mental retard. Vote Con. then shouldnt i be dead cause of hitler ok he tried to go back and answer the arguements he dropped them 4 rounds ago he has no juristiction to bring them across now also presenting new arguements this late is a move pulled byh horrid move and total BS vote pro he just called me retard thats un called for and not what real debaters do vote pro there are way to many dropped arguements to vote con even if i lost all five arguements of his he dropped my entire case off the bat dont allow him to bring them up now i out weigh him with case pros dont let beliefs fule your decision vote on who presented there case the best and thats me (im not a nazi and it really wasnt cool to say im a retard i have two mentally disabled brothers and what you said makes me pissed its not cool and i really dont want to hear that horse sh#t in the future please you might be a cool dude but using those insults is horrible)

davidhancock

im gonna go down the line again 1; his arguement didnt answer mine in the last round i said that the US is no better and he conisides this what he is saying is that the US is just as bad as hitler by considing this 2; he misunderstood my arguement if germany wasnt happy then they should have overthrown there leader right? 3; ok his btw is wrong if the treaty of versi wasnt passed hitler would never gotten power and he still consided my turn so vote pro on this arguement 4; ok so all people who made killings out of selfdefense are bad by my opponets logic and he consided my arguement that he stuck to his beliefs thats what good guys do :P 5; ok about his arguement all he says that it destroys charater but ill conside to this hitler thought he was doing good to the children honest mistake not a bad guy move ok by my opponets arguement at the end Lets just say, my opponent has the mind of a mental retard. Vote Con. then shouldnt i be dead cause of hitler ok he tried to go back and answer the arguements he dropped them 4 rounds ago he has no juristiction to bring them across now also presenting new arguements this late is a move pulled byh horrid move and total BS vote pro he just called me retard thats un called for and not what real debaters do vote pro there are way to many dropped arguements to vote con even if i lost all five arguements of his he dropped my entire case off the bat dont allow him to bring them up now i out weigh him with case pros dont let beliefs fule your decision vote on who presented there case the best and thats me (im not a nazi and it really wasnt cool to say im a retard i have two mentally disabled brothers and what you said makes me pissed its not cool and i really dont want to hear that horse sh#t in the future please you might be a cool dude but using those insults is horrible)

Miscellaneous

was-hitler-a-good-guy-after-all/1/

Bring it on :P I say Hitler was NOT a good guy. But first, you as the Instigator has to provide arguments as to why Hitler was a good guy after all.

dinokiller

Bring it on :P I say Hitler was NOT a good guy. But first, you as the Instigator has to provide arguments as to why Hitler was a good guy after all.

Miscellaneous

was-hitler-a-good-guy-after-all/1/

You made all those statements, but none of them are backed up with sources. I could say Hitler was a god that fires nukes with his finger, but that doesnt make it true. Arguments without sources are automatically regarded as false. Now lets talk about why Hitler is NOT a good guy by looking at his propaganda. 1. First of all, his idea of Ubermensch and Untermensch. The white race is regarded as pure and the black people are mediocre. The other people (asians, jews, gays, slaves, communists etc.) are all considered Untermensch. Now we all know that we all are people, no matter how we may look. But hes willing to go so far by throwing them all in the concentration camps. Thats crime #1, and not something a good guy will do. 2. Next is the idea of totalitarianism. He rules whole Germany under fear and controls every citizens private life. In other words, the citizens had no power over their own private life and are instead being told how they must life. This is another form of dictatorship. 3. The murdering of all handicapped people. He saw no use of handicapped ones since they only could eat and sleep so he also decides to eliminate them. Now we look at Hitler's own crimes. 1. The burning of Reichstag is of course the most noticeable one. The plan was to set Reichstag on fire and put a communist that was drugged inside it to make it look like the communists were rebelling against Germany. The plan worked and all communists were sent to concentration camps. 2. The hate of childrens. Don't be fooled by how nice he acts towards childrens on the newspapers. In reality, he hates childrens and is even going so far as to send them into war as child soldiers. I think i've brought enough points as to why hes not a good guy, so vote Con. Source: <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>...

dinokiller

You made all those statements, but none of them are backed up with sources. I could say Hitler was a god that fires nukes with his finger, but that doesnt make it true. Arguments without sources are automatically regarded as false. Now lets talk about why Hitler is NOT a good guy by looking at his propaganda. 1. First of all, his idea of Ubermensch and Untermensch. The white race is regarded as pure and the black people are mediocre. The other people (asians, jews, gays, slaves, communists etc.) are all considered Untermensch. Now we all know that we all are people, no matter how we may look. But hes willing to go so far by throwing them all in the concentration camps. Thats crime #1, and not something a good guy will do. 2. Next is the idea of totalitarianism. He rules whole Germany under fear and controls every citizens private life. In other words, the citizens had no power over their own private life and are instead being told how they must life. This is another form of dictatorship. 3. The murdering of all handicapped people. He saw no use of handicapped ones since they only could eat and sleep so he also decides to eliminate them. Now we look at Hitler's own crimes. 1. The burning of Reichstag is of course the most noticeable one. The plan was to set Reichstag on fire and put a communist that was drugged inside it to make it look like the communists were rebelling against Germany. The plan worked and all communists were sent to concentration camps. 2. The hate of childrens. Don't be fooled by how nice he acts towards childrens on the newspapers. In reality, he hates childrens and is even going so far as to send them into war as child soldiers. I think i've brought enough points as to why hes not a good guy, so vote Con. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://wiki.answers.com...

Miscellaneous

was-hitler-a-good-guy-after-all/1/

Obviously Pro has never debated before and his arguments makes no sense however u look at it. I could waste 6 hours on thinking a story, but that doesn't make it true without proof. However, i've shown you Hitler's numbers of crimes that proves hes not a good guy. 1. Obviously you ignored my whole point, or you didnt understood it. The point is that he sended people into concentration camp is what the crime is all about. Send people into concentration and gas them = not good guy. 2. Obviously, you dont even know what totalitarianism means. Do you see obama forcing us to wave the american flag at his birthday? NO Do you see him mentioning what we have to eat on which day? NO Do you see him limiting our gas usage? NO Well, thats what Hitler has done, but with YES in the end. 3. The fact that you're killing is what it turns you into a bad guy. You know how immoral killing is and especially against ones who are defenseless. 4. I dont care, but it seems you accepted this point. You just had agreed with me now that Hitler isnt a good guy. 5. You are dumb enough to realize that he isnt sending them to a hole to dig. Hes sending them into war with guns flying everywhere. It brings children into danger and of course no one will see him as a great leader this way. This debate is biased as Pro is just another Neo-Nazi who refuses to see hitler as a bad guy. Vote Con, i dont care what Pro now said, hes spitting crap since the beginning of the debate.

dinokiller

Obviously Pro has never debated before and his arguments makes no sense however u look at it. I could waste 6 hours on thinking a story, but that doesn't make it true without proof. However, i've shown you Hitler's numbers of crimes that proves hes not a good guy. 1. Obviously you ignored my whole point, or you didnt understood it. The point is that he sended people into concentration camp is what the crime is all about. Send people into concentration and gas them = not good guy. 2. Obviously, you dont even know what totalitarianism means. Do you see obama forcing us to wave the american flag at his birthday? NO Do you see him mentioning what we have to eat on which day? NO Do you see him limiting our gas usage? NO Well, thats what Hitler has done, but with YES in the end. 3. The fact that you're killing is what it turns you into a bad guy. You know how immoral killing is and especially against ones who are defenseless. 4. I dont care, but it seems you accepted this point. You just had agreed with me now that Hitler isnt a good guy. 5. You are dumb enough to realize that he isnt sending them to a hole to dig. Hes sending them into war with guns flying everywhere. It brings children into danger and of course no one will see him as a great leader this way. This debate is biased as Pro is just another Neo-Nazi who refuses to see hitler as a bad guy. Vote Con, i dont care what Pro now said, hes spitting crap since the beginning of the debate.

Miscellaneous

was-hitler-a-good-guy-after-all/1/

Aside from the insults that fits better on himself, hes a total failure :P 1. So if I imprison your whole lane by force because they threw a rock through my window, im a good guy then? Yeah yeah right. 2. Derp, Egypt is happy because they have overthrown their ruler. Do you think the germans were happy too when they have no power over their private life? 3. The nukes were used for the greater good. (ending of war) And btw, Hitler was the cause of the war anyway. 4. He killed people that he didnt agreed on, thats what bad guys do, simple :P 5. Seems it destroys people's character more then building it. Think about how crazy you will become if every day, you hear womans and childrens screaming, people on fire and begging for their life and seeing organs blown out of people. Nuff said, his summary even contradicted itself, proving hes a nazi. "ok so i am not a NAZI" "not because i a neo nazi who" "13. he made me what i am today" (from second round) I dont have to say anything more i guess, -inserttrollfais- Now because ur being bitching about your arguments at first round, brace yourself 1 hitler helped in over pop. crises He already made the plans Drang nach Osten, why did he had to kill people for overpopulation crisis?? 2 he was portraid as a monster because he lost the war Hes being portraid as a monster before too by german citizens. (totalitarianism) 3 the jewish were send the country into debt The jews had nothing to do with the eco crisis, it was all because of the Versailles Treaty. 4 hitler killed them in a eco friendly way Proves he isnt a good guy, he killed people. 5 he rebuilt germanies economy By sending them to work in weapon factories, powering the weapon production for war. 6 he loved kids as long as they werent ann frank He hates childrens, this argument above is a neo nazi's discriminatic statement. 7 he taught jews hide and seek O rly? Did he really teached them all one by one or did those jews all know how to hide already? 8 he was loved by his people And hated. 9 he never personally killed a jewish person But he ordered people to kill them off. 10 no other country cared till he started counquring europe That makes no difference, hes the main cause of jews to die so hes a bad guy, it doesnt matter how other countries think about it. 11 he had great fasion sense Does that automatically make him a good guy? -_- 12 good public speaker What does it have to do with him being a good guy then? O_O 13 he made me what i am today Because you're a neo nazi, a threat to the world 14 he got the jewish isreal because of what he did If he didnt do what he did, they could live in any country happily with others and without having a war with Palestinas. 15 he acted on what he believed (thats more than i can say for most people) Yes, and what he believed is bad, so hes a bad guy. 16 he commited seppku so he is freed of shame He died of poison, not seppuku. 17 lived up to presidental promises Hes not even a president. 18 he wrote a book I could also write a book now about how you stupid neo nazis can burn in hell. 19 he was only following a philosopher So what? -_- 20 he should have had a sitcom called everyone loves hitler he was that awesome Public opinion has no meaning here. -judge strikes it away- 21 he struck fear into his opponets like brave heart And the fear didnt seem to work out good as they got mauled in the end by the allies. 22 he sent jewish people to god free of charge and they didnt have to do good either How do you even know that they are all send to god? -_- 23 we inprisoned japanese what makes us better We didnt even felt better by doing that, just a prisoner of war. 24 hitler stood by his beliefs didnt chicken out And commits suicide by poisoning after the Allies comes knocking at the front door. 25 his sign ment good luck And how did you even know he really mean that? Lets just say, my opponent has the mind of a mental retard. Vote Con.

dinokiller

Aside from the insults that fits better on himself, hes a total failure :P 1. So if I imprison your whole lane by force because they threw a rock through my window, im a good guy then? Yeah yeah right. 2. Derp, Egypt is happy because they have overthrown their ruler. Do you think the germans were happy too when they have no power over their private life? 3. The nukes were used for the greater good. (ending of war) And btw, Hitler was the cause of the war anyway. 4. He killed people that he didnt agreed on, thats what bad guys do, simple :P 5. Seems it destroys people's character more then building it. Think about how crazy you will become if every day, you hear womans and childrens screaming, people on fire and begging for their life and seeing organs blown out of people. Nuff said, his summary even contradicted itself, proving hes a nazi. "ok so i am not a NAZI" "not because i a neo nazi who" "13. he made me what i am today" (from second round) I dont have to say anything more i guess, -inserttrollfais- Now because ur being bitching about your arguments at first round, brace yourself 1 hitler helped in over pop. crises He already made the plans Drang nach Osten, why did he had to kill people for overpopulation crisis?? 2 he was portraid as a monster because he lost the war Hes being portraid as a monster before too by german citizens. (totalitarianism) 3 the jewish were send the country into debt The jews had nothing to do with the eco crisis, it was all because of the Versailles Treaty. 4 hitler killed them in a eco friendly way Proves he isnt a good guy, he killed people. 5 he rebuilt germanies economy By sending them to work in weapon factories, powering the weapon production for war. 6 he loved kids as long as they werent ann frank He hates childrens, this argument above is a neo nazi's discriminatic statement. 7 he taught jews hide and seek O rly? Did he really teached them all one by one or did those jews all know how to hide already? 8 he was loved by his people And hated. 9 he never personally killed a jewish person But he ordered people to kill them off. 10 no other country cared till he started counquring europe That makes no difference, hes the main cause of jews to die so hes a bad guy, it doesnt matter how other countries think about it. 11 he had great fasion sense Does that automatically make him a good guy? -_- 12 good public speaker What does it have to do with him being a good guy then? O_O 13 he made me what i am today Because you're a neo nazi, a threat to the world 14 he got the jewish isreal because of what he did If he didnt do what he did, they could live in any country happily with others and without having a war with Palestinas. 15 he acted on what he believed (thats more than i can say for most people) Yes, and what he believed is bad, so hes a bad guy. 16 he commited seppku so he is freed of shame He died of poison, not seppuku. 17 lived up to presidental promises Hes not even a president. 18 he wrote a book I could also write a book now about how you stupid neo nazis can burn in hell. 19 he was only following a philosopher So what? -_- 20 he should have had a sitcom called everyone loves hitler he was that awesome Public opinion has no meaning here. -judge strikes it away- 21 he struck fear into his opponets like brave heart And the fear didnt seem to work out good as they got mauled in the end by the allies. 22 he sent jewish people to god free of charge and they didnt have to do good either How do you even know that they are all send to god? -_- 23 we inprisoned japanese what makes us better We didnt even felt better by doing that, just a prisoner of war. 24 hitler stood by his beliefs didnt chicken out And commits suicide by poisoning after the Allies comes knocking at the front door. 25 his sign ment good luck And how did you even know he really mean that? Lets just say, my opponent has the mind of a mental retard. Vote Con.

Miscellaneous

was-hitler-a-good-guy-after-all/1/

And to bring down the final blow to this troller. "1; his arguement didnt answer mine in the last round i said that the US is no better and he conisides this what he is saying is that the US is just as bad as hitler by considing this" Why are you bringing US in this? The resolution is "was hitler a good guy after all" It has nothing to do with US, but u accepted that Hitler was a bad guy after all and thats fine for me ^^ "2; he misunderstood my arguement if germany wasnt happy then they should have overthrown there leader right?" The reason that hes not overthrown was fear. He spreaded fear across the country and everyone that dares to oppose him goes to concentration camps. He had the power to do so too hence its called dictature. "3; ok his btw is wrong if the treaty of versi wasnt passed hitler would never gotten power and he still consided my turn so vote pro on this arguement" The point is that hitler was a bad guy, u get no points for having arguments that has nothing to do with the resolution. "4; ok so all people who made killings out of selfdefense are bad by my opponets logic and he consided my arguement that he stuck to his beliefs thats what good guys do :P" You readed it wrong, an act of self defense is always allowed. If you were about to kill me, and i accidently shot you with you dying in the end, its self defense because if i didnt protected myself, i would be the one dying. Hitler was never attacked by jews, but he killed them off anyway. In other words, hes a mass murderer and a bad guy :P "5; ok about his arguement all he says that it destroys charater but ill conside to this hitler thought he was doing good to the children honest mistake not a bad guy move" You gotta be kidding me. Any sane person will know what happens if you send someone into war. And it seems Hitler was clearly sane so, in other words, he was sending those childrens into war on purpose, not on mistake. "then shouldnt i be dead cause of hitler ok he tried to go back and answer the arguements he dropped them 4 rounds ago he has no juristiction to bring them across now also presenting new arguements this late is a move pulled byh horrid move and total BS vote pro he just called me retard thats un called for and not what real debaters do vote pro there are way to many dropped arguements to vote con even if i lost all five arguements of his he dropped my entire case off the bat dont allow him to bring them up now i out weigh him with case pros dont let beliefs fule your decision vote on who presented there case the best and thats me (im not a nazi and it really wasnt cool to say im a retard i have two mentally disabled brothers and what you said makes me pissed its not cool and i really dont want to hear that horse sh#t in the future please you might be a cool dude but using those insults is horrible)" Was too long, didnt read it. You cant deny the fact that you're a neo nazi. You've contradicted yourself numberous times and you've got the mind of a nazi. Also, if you make weird arguments like "hitler taugh the jews hide and seek" or "he send jews to god free for charge", you deserve to be called a mental retard. Readers, vote Con.

dinokiller

And to bring down the final blow to this troller. "1; his arguement didnt answer mine in the last round i said that the US is no better and he conisides this what he is saying is that the US is just as bad as hitler by considing this" Why are you bringing US in this? The resolution is "was hitler a good guy after all" It has nothing to do with US, but u accepted that Hitler was a bad guy after all and thats fine for me ^^ "2; he misunderstood my arguement if germany wasnt happy then they should have overthrown there leader right?" The reason that hes not overthrown was fear. He spreaded fear across the country and everyone that dares to oppose him goes to concentration camps. He had the power to do so too hence its called dictature. "3; ok his btw is wrong if the treaty of versi wasnt passed hitler would never gotten power and he still consided my turn so vote pro on this arguement" The point is that hitler was a bad guy, u get no points for having arguments that has nothing to do with the resolution. "4; ok so all people who made killings out of selfdefense are bad by my opponets logic and he consided my arguement that he stuck to his beliefs thats what good guys do :P" You readed it wrong, an act of self defense is always allowed. If you were about to kill me, and i accidently shot you with you dying in the end, its self defense because if i didnt protected myself, i would be the one dying. Hitler was never attacked by jews, but he killed them off anyway. In other words, hes a mass murderer and a bad guy :P "5; ok about his arguement all he says that it destroys charater but ill conside to this hitler thought he was doing good to the children honest mistake not a bad guy move" You gotta be kidding me. Any sane person will know what happens if you send someone into war. And it seems Hitler was clearly sane so, in other words, he was sending those childrens into war on purpose, not on mistake. "then shouldnt i be dead cause of hitler ok he tried to go back and answer the arguements he dropped them 4 rounds ago he has no juristiction to bring them across now also presenting new arguements this late is a move pulled byh horrid move and total BS vote pro he just called me retard thats un called for and not what real debaters do vote pro there are way to many dropped arguements to vote con even if i lost all five arguements of his he dropped my entire case off the bat dont allow him to bring them up now i out weigh him with case pros dont let beliefs fule your decision vote on who presented there case the best and thats me (im not a nazi and it really wasnt cool to say im a retard i have two mentally disabled brothers and what you said makes me pissed its not cool and i really dont want to hear that horse sh#t in the future please you might be a cool dude but using those insults is horrible)" Was too long, didnt read it. You cant deny the fact that you're a neo nazi. You've contradicted yourself numberous times and you've got the mind of a nazi. Also, if you make weird arguments like "hitler taugh the jews hide and seek" or "he send jews to god free for charge", you deserve to be called a mental retard. Readers, vote Con.

Miscellaneous

was-hitler-a-good-guy-after-all/1/

Counter: Osama hussian obama has to exist to be a good man. Side thought: Have a drink of some sort, I recommend bleach.

SoulTechNameIII

Counter: Osama hussian obama has to exist to be a good man. Side thought: Have a drink of some sort, I recommend bleach.

Education

was-osama-hussain-obama-a-good-man-111/1/

He was the 1st president of iraq. he was a good man now he is dead. He united iraqamerica, by doing 9/11. any arguments against my statement is a logical fallacy.

will9925452

He was the 1st president of iraq. he was a good man now he is dead. He united iraqamerica, by doing 9/11. any arguments against my statement is a logical fallacy.

Education

was-osama-hussain-obama-a-good-man-111/1/

I don't really know what to post here unless you want to actually talk about Islam. I actually don't know THAT much about Islam, just a little more than the basics. I'm not Muslim myself but some of my family is.

artC

I don't really know what to post here unless you want to actually talk about Islam. I actually don't know THAT much about Islam, just a little more than the basics. I'm not Muslim myself but some of my family is.

Religion

we-dont-need-to-debate.-But-i-saw-you-comment-on-another-debate-about-Islam./1/

You should have only made this one round long. I don't want it to look like I forfeited anything so I'm posting this argument.

artC

You should have only made this one round long. I don't want it to look like I forfeited anything so I'm posting this argument.

Religion

we-dont-need-to-debate.-But-i-saw-you-comment-on-another-debate-about-Islam./1/

It is very annoying to see that I have debates due. This will hopefully be the last debate that I'm in that is not really a debate.

artC

It is very annoying to see that I have debates due. This will hopefully be the last debate that I'm in that is not really a debate.

Religion

we-dont-need-to-debate.-But-i-saw-you-comment-on-another-debate-about-Islam./1/

we should allow euthanasia of those living tortured lives. why euthanasia is the moral solution in this situation: -most people's biggest fear isn't death... it's pained living. that's why the "torture" debate is so gut wrenching and passion filled. -we understand intuitiely that we should put dog's "out of their misery", as the humane thing to do. why with people is it suddenly inhumane? there is some merit to claiming people aren't dogs and have a higher dignity... but this argument about dignity could even more easily be used the other way, it's all the more reason to be humane and "put them out of their misery", espeically when we are thinking it's about humane activity etc to begin with in the one situation. -liberty. at best this is a tough issue. why do we let the government decide who's right in a tough issue, when the person this is affecting most could be the decider? plus if you were real about it... probably a high percentage of those who might be against euthanasia would suddenly be for it if they found themself (or possibly a loved one) in a terrible situation.

dairygirl4u2c

we should allow euthanasia of those living tortured lives. why euthanasia is the moral solution in this situation: -most people's biggest fear isn't death... it's pained living. that's why the "torture" debate is so gut wrenching and passion filled. -we understand intuitiely that we should put dog's "out of their misery", as the humane thing to do. why with people is it suddenly inhumane? there is some merit to claiming people aren't dogs and have a higher dignity... but this argument about dignity could even more easily be used the other way, it's all the more reason to be humane and "put them out of their misery", espeically when we are thinking it's about humane activity etc to begin with in the one situation. -liberty. at best this is a tough issue. why do we let the government decide who's right in a tough issue, when the person this is affecting most could be the decider? plus if you were real about it... probably a high percentage of those who might be against euthanasia would suddenly be for it if they found themself (or possibly a loved one) in a terrible situation.

Politics

we-should-allow-euthanasia-of-those-living-tortured-lives/1/

i went out with my arguments flaring, so should you have. now i have less time to prove that "pro" should win the debate.

dairygirl4u2c

i went out with my arguments flaring, so should you have. now i have less time to prove that "pro" should win the debate.

Politics

we-should-allow-euthanasia-of-those-living-tortured-lives/1/

hell my name is dairy

dairygirl4u2c

hell my name is dairy

Politics

we-should-allow-euthanasia-of-those-living-tortured-lives/1/

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see anything that need to be rebuttled in your first argument. What I see is you stating what you believe on the matter, thus introducing the debate. Given the fact I find nothing that needs countering, I will preceed into my first argument without addressing yours. You claim that what is necessary for salvation is not clearly taught. In a sense you are right, because going from pastor to pastor you will find many different opinions on what is the bare necessity. This is because man is not perfect. The Bible, however, IS clear on what is necessary for salvation, and whether you are Atheist, Agnostic, or Christian you canot deny it. You are entitled to believe that it means nothing, but you cannot say that the Bible is ambiguous on the matter. [The jailer] "brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:30-31) What is beliefe, though? As you said, even Satan believes in God. Belief in God is not simply accepring his existance, but it also includes his presence in your life. "The Spirit Himself [thus] testifies together with our own spirit, [assuring us] that we are children of God." (Romans 8:16) The presence of the Holy Sprirt is necessary for salvation, because it is the very presence of God in our lives. The Bible is also VERY clear on the fact that you must be repentant of your sins in order to be saved. No one who has not repented has forgiveness, and without forgiveness you cannot be saved. Satan mey believe in God, but dos not have the presence of the Hole Spirit in his life, and does not seek repentance for his sins. Another necessity for salvation is making an attempt to live like Christ. We cannot do this perfectly obviously, but we are commanded to try to the best of our ability. "For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of the light (for the fruit if the spirit is in all goodness, righteousness, and truth), finding out what is acceptable to the Lord." (Ephesians 5:8-10) This tells us that we must seek out the way of the Lord, and live our lives as He would. It is also saying that the fruit of the spirit will be appearant in the lives of true believers. What are the fruits of the Spirit? Love, joy, peace, patients, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. These will be visibly evident in true followers of Christ, and necessarily follow true belief in Christ. There is also the command to love God. Jesus says this is the greatest commandment, and it says "You must love the Lord you God with all you heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength." I can assure you that Satan does not love God with all his heart, and this is what he lacks for salvation. The presence of the Holy Spirit and seking after God are necessary for salvation, but they come after our love for God. So not only belief in God is required, then, but also love of Him. It is easy to say you "love God" though, and that is where the presence of the Holy Spirit and the fruit of the Spirit come in. If they are not evident, then it is questionable whether or not said person is a true believer. Thank! Renzzy

Renzzy

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see anything that need to be rebuttled in your first argument. What I see is you stating what you believe on the matter, thus introducing the debate. Given the fact I find nothing that needs countering, I will preceed into my first argument without addressing yours. You claim that what is necessary for salvation is not clearly taught. In a sense you are right, because going from pastor to pastor you will find many different opinions on what is the bare necessity. This is because man is not perfect. The Bible, however, IS clear on what is necessary for salvation, and whether you are Atheist, Agnostic, or Christian you canot deny it. You are entitled to believe that it means nothing, but you cannot say that the Bible is ambiguous on the matter. [The jailer] "brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:30-31) What is beliefe, though? As you said, even Satan believes in God. Belief in God is not simply accepring his existance, but it also includes his presence in your life. "The Spirit Himself [thus] testifies together with our own spirit, [assuring us] that we are children of God." (Romans 8:16) The presence of the Holy Sprirt is necessary for salvation, because it is the very presence of God in our lives. The Bible is also VERY clear on the fact that you must be repentant of your sins in order to be saved. No one who has not repented has forgiveness, and without forgiveness you cannot be saved. Satan mey believe in God, but dos not have the presence of the Hole Spirit in his life, and does not seek repentance for his sins. Another necessity for salvation is making an attempt to live like Christ. We cannot do this perfectly obviously, but we are commanded to try to the best of our ability. "For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of the light (for the fruit if the spirit is in all goodness, righteousness, and truth), finding out what is acceptable to the Lord." (Ephesians 5:8-10) This tells us that we must seek out the way of the Lord, and live our lives as He would. It is also saying that the fruit of the spirit will be appearant in the lives of true believers. What are the fruits of the Spirit? Love, joy, peace, patients, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. These will be visibly evident in true followers of Christ, and necessarily follow true belief in Christ. There is also the command to love God. Jesus says this is the greatest commandment, and it says "You must love the Lord you God with all you heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength." I can assure you that Satan does not love God with all his heart, and this is what he lacks for salvation. The presence of the Holy Spirit and seking after God are necessary for salvation, but they come after our love for God. So not only belief in God is required, then, but also love of Him. It is easy to say you "love God" though, and that is where the presence of the Holy Spirit and the fruit of the Spirit come in. If they are not evident, then it is questionable whether or not said person is a true believer. Thank! Renzzy

Religion

what-one-must-believe-to-be-saved-is-not-taught-clearly...-or-at-all-if-in-proper-terms/1/

Whether or not pastors agree on it does not make the actual teaching ambiguous, and we both agree on this. The question, though, is if you were learning how to be saved for the first time, you might ask a pastor, but generally you would go to the Bible. If they are not in agreement, do you believe the teacher who can translate it however he wants, or would you believe the Bible, which has been around almost as long as the religion? Personally I would believe the Bible. Man can say what he wants about the Bible and teach accordingly, but the Bible teaches what it means, and what must be done in order for salvation is not the most controversial of Christian doctrines. The necessities for salvation are belief in God and love for Him. These are the bare minimum. If you truly believe in God, and truly love Him, then the fuits of the spirit will show in your life. Whether or not pastors and teachers debate on what is necessary, the Bible teaches the true bare minimum to be saved. It is difficult to find out just what is needed to be saved today, with all of the different denominations of the church, but you can always go back to the Bible. The Bible teaches it clearly. Like I said, even Atheists and Agnostics can agree with this, because you cannot deny it. Thanks, Renzzy

Renzzy

Whether or not pastors agree on it does not make the actual teaching ambiguous, and we both agree on this. The question, though, is if you were learning how to be saved for the first time, you might ask a pastor, but generally you would go to the Bible. If they are not in agreement, do you believe the teacher who can translate it however he wants, or would you believe the Bible, which has been around almost as long as the religion? Personally I would believe the Bible. Man can say what he wants about the Bible and teach accordingly, but the Bible teaches what it means, and what must be done in order for salvation is not the most controversial of Christian doctrines. The necessities for salvation are belief in God and love for Him. These are the bare minimum. If you truly believe in God, and truly love Him, then the fuits of the spirit will show in your life. Whether or not pastors and teachers debate on what is necessary, the Bible teaches the true bare minimum to be saved. It is difficult to find out just what is needed to be saved today, with all of the different denominations of the church, but you can always go back to the Bible. The Bible teaches it clearly. Like I said, even Atheists and Agnostics can agree with this, because you cannot deny it. Thanks, Renzzy

Religion

what-one-must-believe-to-be-saved-is-not-taught-clearly...-or-at-all-if-in-proper-terms/1/

The pastors and teachers of today do not always agree on what the bares minimum is to be saved, but the Bible always teaches belief and love. With true love for God comes trust in Him, and the fruits of the Spirit. Anyone can go to the Bible and read that plainly. Simple Love is not enough, because the bible say that you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. This is plainly taught. You may say that you truly love God, and I am in no position to judge you, but you know your heart, and whether you truly believe in and love God or not. All I have to say, then, is that the Bible does in fact teach what is the bare minimum, but whether or not you truly believe it or not is up to you. Thanks, Renzzy

Renzzy

The pastors and teachers of today do not always agree on what the bares minimum is to be saved, but the Bible always teaches belief and love. With true love for God comes trust in Him, and the fruits of the Spirit. Anyone can go to the Bible and read that plainly. Simple Love is not enough, because the bible say that you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. This is plainly taught. You may say that you truly love God, and I am in no position to judge you, but you know your heart, and whether you truly believe in and love God or not. All I have to say, then, is that the Bible does in fact teach what is the bare minimum, but whether or not you truly believe it or not is up to you. Thanks, Renzzy

Religion

what-one-must-believe-to-be-saved-is-not-taught-clearly...-or-at-all-if-in-proper-terms/1/

i ask christians and they say "believe in jesus". then i point out that the devil does. so they say believe he's your savior. then i point out that some believe that different people see that differently... a good message or atonement etc. a fundamentalist would say a good message is not sufficient. so... you have to believe in atonement is one element. some don't believe he's god... is that okay? a dogamatic would start to list things you must believe. then i point out that that's dogmatic, and most would shy away from that. they want to have their cake... easy answer... and eat it too.. not giving a clear answer. it could be generally whatever savior means to you. but what if someone believes he's god etc, a new convert? that wouldn't cut it. basically everyone is at different stages. it seems the right conclusion is it depends on hwere you are in your walk. some people say you can't violate a tenant of the bible beliefs of Jesus... but oesnt i know many who say they don't believe he's god or aren't sure despite the bible. does that mean they're not saved? i know some who say it don't matter if they believe these things... they must believe in atonement. if that's the case though, then atonement is a necessary thing. i could point out many christian who don't know what that is... beyond the mere lack of knoing the definition etc. so could it be it's not what you believe but rather what you don't? that doesn't help cause the list problem is just starting in the negative direction. it seems the right answer is it depends on where you are and your heart relationship with God in terms of your believe in jesus. how many christians would say that when you ask them what you must believe? i know of none. so... beyond the whole faith v works debate.. even in terms of faith... what one must believe is not clear or taught very well.

dairygirl4u2c

i ask christians and they say "believe in jesus". then i point out that the devil does. so they say believe he's your savior. then i point out that some believe that different people see that differently... a good message or atonement etc. a fundamentalist would say a good message is not sufficient. so... you have to believe in atonement is one element. some don't believe he's god... is that okay? a dogamatic would start to list things you must believe. then i point out that that's dogmatic, and most would shy away from that. they want to have their cake... easy answer... and eat it too.. not giving a clear answer. it could be generally whatever savior means to you. but what if someone believes he's god etc, a new convert? that wouldn't cut it. basically everyone is at different stages. it seems the right conclusion is it depends on hwere you are in your walk. some people say you can't violate a tenant of the bible beliefs of Jesus... but oesnt i know many who say they don't believe he's god or aren't sure despite the bible. does that mean they're not saved? i know some who say it don't matter if they believe these things... they must believe in atonement. if that's the case though, then atonement is a necessary thing. i could point out many christian who don't know what that is... beyond the mere lack of knoing the definition etc. so could it be it's not what you believe but rather what you don't? that doesn't help cause the list problem is just starting in the negative direction. it seems the right answer is it depends on where you are and your heart relationship with God in terms of your believe in jesus. how many christians would say that when you ask them what you must believe? i know of none. so... beyond the whole faith v works debate.. even in terms of faith... what one must believe is not clear or taught very well.

Religion

what-one-must-believe-to-be-saved-is-not-taught-clearly...-or-at-all-if-in-proper-terms/1/

the teaching is not clear if pastors cannot agree on it. it's said to be simple, but it's not, at elast according to them. my premise is that they're not clear, so that's all i have to prove. i'd agree with the idea that the actual teaching is probably clear. you post the requirements that love God and neighbor. but, i'm in other debates where they are listing off things needed. no one can agree what exactly needs to be believe. "believe" is too genearal.... a long list is too specifric, for the very minimum. just to be clear, i'm saying the absolute minimum required to believe is not being taught.

dairygirl4u2c

the teaching is not clear if pastors cannot agree on it. it's said to be simple, but it's not, at elast according to them. my premise is that they're not clear, so that's all i have to prove. i'd agree with the idea that the actual teaching is probably clear. you post the requirements that love God and neighbor. but, i'm in other debates where they are listing off things needed. no one can agree what exactly needs to be believe. "believe" is too genearal.... a long list is too specifric, for the very minimum. just to be clear, i'm saying the absolute minimum required to believe is not being taught.

Religion

what-one-must-believe-to-be-saved-is-not-taught-clearly...-or-at-all-if-in-proper-terms/1/

well considering you're the very few very few who says the requirements you do, i think my case is shown that it's not clear bc of the pastors etc. i'd agree with you the new commandment you list is what saves. and what is love etc,,,, that can take a lifetime to learn how to do proper. but the basic premise is to do all that and to try and you're good. i think we're just doing semantics and such so i'm done unless htere's more to be said.

dairygirl4u2c

well considering you're the very few very few who says the requirements you do, i think my case is shown that it's not clear bc of the pastors etc. i'd agree with you the new commandment you list is what saves. and what is love etc,,,, that can take a lifetime to learn how to do proper. but the basic premise is to do all that and to try and you're good. i think we're just doing semantics and such so i'm done unless htere's more to be said.

Religion

what-one-must-believe-to-be-saved-is-not-taught-clearly...-or-at-all-if-in-proper-terms/1/

Alright I accept and now for definitions. Conflict: fight, battle, war (1) Idealism: "it generally suggests the priority of ideals, principles, values, and goals over concrete realities. Idealists are understood to represent the world as it might or should be, unlike pragmatists, who focus on the world as it presently is." (2) Pragmatism: in other words "realism: the attribute of accepting the facts of life and favoring practicality and literal truth" (3) Valued: Consider (someone or something) to be important or beneficial 1. <URL>... 2. <URL>... 3. wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

THEBOMB

Alright I accept and now for definitions. Conflict: fight, battle, war (1) Idealism: "it generally suggests the priority of ideals, principles, values, and goals over concrete realities. Idealists are understood to represent the world as it might or should be, unlike pragmatists, who focus on the world as it presently is." (2) Pragmatism: in other words "realism: the attribute of accepting the facts of life and favoring practicality and literal truth" (3) Valued: Consider (someone or something) to be important or beneficial 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Philosophy

when-in-conflict-idealism-ought-to-be-valued-above-pragmatism/1/

I thank my opponent for this wonderful debate. This debate brings up the old questions of: Is it better to aim high, and not reach, or to aim at average and reach it? Is it better to be good or fair? Is it better to be optimistic or pessimistic? If you are good you see people can change. If you are fair you value absolute justice. Pessimists are realists while optimists are idealists. Burden of Proof: My opponent has the burden to prove that in all conflicts between Idealism and Pragmatism, Pragmatism is better. All I must prove is in a single case idealism should be held over Pragmatism or idealism should be held equal to Pragmatism. Contention 1: The Criminal Justice System Here is where the question of is it better to be good or to be just. I define good in the Christian sense: grace or mercy. An idealist would say it is better to be good. A pragmatist would say it is better to have absolute justice. I say it is important to be both good and just. As applied to the Criminal Justice System, a pragmatist would say an eye for an eye. An idealist would say there is a problem, let's fix it. Idealist perspective on the Criminal Justice System: S1. All people have intelligence Subs1. Criminals have intelligence S2. Criminals do not act in a certain way without a reason C. It is up to society to figure out why the Criminal acts this way and fix it so they can become a productive member of society. For an idealist, the Criminal Justice System is about rehabilitation. Pragmatist Perspective on the Criminal Justice System: S1. Criminals break the law S2. There MUST be absolute Justice in a society or else the society is flawed. (People should get what they deserve) S3. Society should punish individuals for bad actions. C. The Criminal Justice System should hold absolute justice and punishment. For a pragmatist, the Criminal Justice System is about punishment. Both sides still do hold something in common, justice, although in radically different ways. An idealist holds all people should be treated "fairly" in the sense that if a person had a bad childhood (grew up in a drug infested neighborhood, sexual abuse, physical abuse, etc.) They should be compensated if they grow up to be criminal (rehabilitation). A pragmatist holds all people should be treated equally regardless of their childhood environment. The Criminal Justice System should have dual purpose yes, it should promote Absolute justice and equality but, it also should provide rehabilitation simply because people do not just become criminals because they want to. Not everyone at the bottom of the socio-economic scale is there because of their own actions, but, often because of someone else's negligence. While someone who commits a crime should be punished they also should be rehabilitated. In a pragmatist's perspective, there should be only punishment. In an idealists perspective, only rehabilitation. Combining the two creates the best product, a system which both punishes and rehabilitates criminals. Both systems alone have problems. There needs to be a balance. Contention 2: The Average Joe This goes along with contention 1 in a way. (But, for someone who is not criminal) S1. All people are imperfect S2. All people are rational (discounting any psychological problems) S3. Imperfect, rational, people can be good people (as in law-abiding etc.) S4. Because people are imperfect bad things will happen to people SubS4. These bad things include: a run in with a "bad crowd", wrong place wrong time resulting in a broken law. S5. Breaking the law is irrational C. People are inherently fixable Let me give you an example of where you need to have a balance between the two, drugs in the United States. Most teenagers will experiment with drugs; many teenagers get caught by the police. In a system which values only Absolute Justice these teenagers, who are just making a single mistake, are going to have to go to prison for an equal sentence with the career drug dealer who sells the marijuana. My question for my opponent is, should a person who made a single mistake be punished equally with a person who is the cause of the said mistake; someone who devotes their life to this cause? My answer is no, it must be seen that it is human nature to make mistakes and while you should be punished for a mistake it should not be as severe. Furthermore, since all people are imperfect should it not be accepted that at one point or another everybody will fall short of the law? Yes, everybody will eventually make a mistake, should a person who contributes much to society be punished for a single mistake? Should all of society be punished by society's laws? Contention 3: The slave trade This is one of those systems where pragmatisms and idealism conflicted. It was more idealistic to ban the slave trade, but, more pragmatic to keep the slave trade. By definition, slavery is immoral. The slave trade is immoral. It was not pragmatic to ban the slave trade simply because it was literally thought of as an impossible task. In an idealistic world, there is no slavery. Slavery is now illegal in basically the entire world, this shows idealism has been favored over pragmatism in the past, and in the future should be able to.

THEBOMB

I thank my opponent for this wonderful debate. This debate brings up the old questions of: Is it better to aim high, and not reach, or to aim at average and reach it? Is it better to be good or fair? Is it better to be optimistic or pessimistic? If you are good you see people can change. If you are fair you value absolute justice. Pessimists are realists while optimists are idealists. Burden of Proof: My opponent has the burden to prove that in all conflicts between Idealism and Pragmatism, Pragmatism is better. All I must prove is in a single case idealism should be held over Pragmatism or idealism should be held equal to Pragmatism. Contention 1: The Criminal Justice System Here is where the question of is it better to be good or to be just. I define good in the Christian sense: grace or mercy. An idealist would say it is better to be good. A pragmatist would say it is better to have absolute justice. I say it is important to be both good and just. As applied to the Criminal Justice System, a pragmatist would say an eye for an eye. An idealist would say there is a problem, let's fix it. Idealist perspective on the Criminal Justice System: S1. All people have intelligence Subs1. Criminals have intelligence S2. Criminals do not act in a certain way without a reason C. It is up to society to figure out why the Criminal acts this way and fix it so they can become a productive member of society. For an idealist, the Criminal Justice System is about rehabilitation. Pragmatist Perspective on the Criminal Justice System: S1. Criminals break the law S2. There MUST be absolute Justice in a society or else the society is flawed. (People should get what they deserve) S3. Society should punish individuals for bad actions. C. The Criminal Justice System should hold absolute justice and punishment. For a pragmatist, the Criminal Justice System is about punishment. Both sides still do hold something in common, justice, although in radically different ways. An idealist holds all people should be treated "fairly" in the sense that if a person had a bad childhood (grew up in a drug infested neighborhood, sexual abuse, physical abuse, etc.) They should be compensated if they grow up to be criminal (rehabilitation). A pragmatist holds all people should be treated equally regardless of their childhood environment. The Criminal Justice System should have dual purpose yes, it should promote Absolute justice and equality but, it also should provide rehabilitation simply because people do not just become criminals because they want to. Not everyone at the bottom of the socio-economic scale is there because of their own actions, but, often because of someone else's negligence. While someone who commits a crime should be punished they also should be rehabilitated. In a pragmatist's perspective, there should be only punishment. In an idealists perspective, only rehabilitation. Combining the two creates the best product, a system which both punishes and rehabilitates criminals. Both systems alone have problems. There needs to be a balance. Contention 2: The Average Joe This goes along with contention 1 in a way. (But, for someone who is not criminal) S1. All people are imperfect S2. All people are rational (discounting any psychological problems) S3. Imperfect, rational, people can be good people (as in law-abiding etc.) S4. Because people are imperfect bad things will happen to people SubS4. These bad things include: a run in with a "bad crowd", wrong place wrong time resulting in a broken law. S5. Breaking the law is irrational C. People are inherently fixable Let me give you an example of where you need to have a balance between the two, drugs in the United States. Most teenagers will experiment with drugs; many teenagers get caught by the police. In a system which values only Absolute Justice these teenagers, who are just making a single mistake, are going to have to go to prison for an equal sentence with the career drug dealer who sells the marijuana. My question for my opponent is, should a person who made a single mistake be punished equally with a person who is the cause of the said mistake; someone who devotes their life to this cause? My answer is no, it must be seen that it is human nature to make mistakes and while you should be punished for a mistake it should not be as severe. Furthermore, since all people are imperfect should it not be accepted that at one point or another everybody will fall short of the law? Yes, everybody will eventually make a mistake, should a person who contributes much to society be punished for a single mistake? Should all of society be punished by society's laws? Contention 3: The slave trade This is one of those systems where pragmatisms and idealism conflicted. It was more idealistic to ban the slave trade, but, more pragmatic to keep the slave trade. By definition, slavery is immoral. The slave trade is immoral. It was not pragmatic to ban the slave trade simply because it was literally thought of as an impossible task. In an idealistic world, there is no slavery. Slavery is now illegal in basically the entire world, this shows idealism has been favored over pragmatism in the past, and in the future should be able to.

Philosophy

when-in-conflict-idealism-ought-to-be-valued-above-pragmatism/1/

Via forfeit extend all arguments....

THEBOMB

Via forfeit extend all arguments....

Philosophy

when-in-conflict-idealism-ought-to-be-valued-above-pragmatism/1/

Sadly this debate has been forfeited by my opponent. ):

THEBOMB

Sadly this debate has been forfeited by my opponent. ):

Philosophy

when-in-conflict-idealism-ought-to-be-valued-above-pragmatism/1/