Datasets:

notaphoenix

/

debateorg_w_effect_for_liberal

like 0

I suppose a closure is in order. What it all comes down to is knowledge of the candidate, the candidate's experience, and wisdom. As evident, and quite coincidental, Obama won a prodominately white state in Iowa's Caucauss. Does this mean he has a chance at the Democratic Nominee? Absolutely. But what it shows more is the fact that race is not a factor in choosing the ideal Presidential Candidate or President for that matter.

FiredUpRepublican

I suppose a closure is in order. What it all comes down to is knowledge of the candidate, the candidate's experience, and wisdom. As evident, and quite coincidental, Obama won a prodominately white state in Iowa's Caucauss. Does this mean he has a chance at the Democratic Nominee? Absolutely. But what it shows more is the fact that race is not a factor in choosing the ideal Presidential Candidate or President for that matter.

Politics

BLACK-PRESIDENT/1/

What the heck can a black man do for this country. It aint gonna happen not this day and age. I don't care what oprah does or says.

He-man

What the heck can a black man do for this country. It aint gonna happen not this day and age. I don't care what oprah does or says.

Politics

BLACK-PRESIDENT/1/

Ok, now we can have a good debate!

AStevenson

Ok, now we can have a good debate!

Politics

Balanced-Budget-Amendment/4/

My Arguments War and National Emergencies When a country is at war, it has to spend a large amount of money. We did so in every war we spent on. President Franklin Roosevelt had to raise spending by a lot in order to win World War 2. We needed to go into debt to fight this war because had we balanced the budget we would have not had the money to fight in it. World War 2 is not the only war we fought in, we must also look at the Cold War, which was mainly won by the actions of Ronald Reagan. After Reagan, George H.W. Bush went to war with Iraq which spent that we needed to keep up a lot of spending. After the war Bill Clinton became president, but because he had no wars to deal with he could reduce military spending and debt as well. Finally, after 9/11, both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama did the responsible thing and raised spending on the military, but due to the ways the terrorists acted, the Department of Homeland Security and other domestic security measures were needed. Like with Roosevelt, Reagan, and the elder Bush, our two most recent presidents need to raise spending in time of war. This can been seen here: click="document.location='/AStevenson/photos/album/2327/16455/'" src="../../../photos/albums/1/3/2327/71662-2327-97emr-a.jpg" alt="Debt from the modern presidencies." /> However, we should not just look at wars, what about other disasters? Hurricanes and other natural disasters all require government assistance. What if a disease comes and spreads worse and is more deadly than the Bubonic Plague? The government must respond to it. This means that we need money. Economics and Revenue Whenever we go into an economic recession, the government loses revenue. As we have seen in 1929 and 2008, recessions can be unexpected. Traditionally, when a recession occurs then we need to relieve the poor. It happened in 1933 with the rise of Franklin Roosevelt and it happened in 2008 with the rise of Barack Obama. This means that the government must take immediate action to fix the recession and that means spend money. This can be even worse when you maybe in the middle of a recession and at war. What about tax cuts? They usually make you lose revenue. Ronald Reagan signed a tax cut in 1981, but revenue dropped. What if this dropped passed the amount of revenue need for spending? Then we would be in debt. I got that from here: click="document.location='/AStevenson/photos/album/2327/16454/'" src="../../../photos/albums/1/3/2327/71662-2327-vpmn3-a.jpg" alt="Government Revenue" /> Congress Breaks a lot of Amendments Congress has broken several constitutional amendments over the years that may have been unpopular, but still happened. This has angered generally everyone, but it still happens. How is a balanced budget amendment going to be any different. Thank you.

AStevenson

My Arguments War and National Emergencies When a country is at war, it has to spend a large amount of money. We did so in every war we spent on. President Franklin Roosevelt had to raise spending by a lot in order to win World War 2. We needed to go into debt to fight this war because had we balanced the budget we would have not had the money to fight in it. World War 2 is not the only war we fought in, we must also look at the Cold War, which was mainly won by the actions of Ronald Reagan. After Reagan, George H.W. Bush went to war with Iraq which spent that we needed to keep up a lot of spending. After the war Bill Clinton became president, but because he had no wars to deal with he could reduce military spending and debt as well. Finally, after 9/11, both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama did the responsible thing and raised spending on the military, but due to the ways the terrorists acted, the Department of Homeland Security and other domestic security measures were needed. Like with Roosevelt, Reagan, and the elder Bush, our two most recent presidents need to raise spending in time of war. This can been seen here: click="document.location='/AStevenson/photos/album/2327/16455/'" src="../../../photos/albums/1/3/2327/71662-2327-97emr-a.jpg" alt="Debt from the modern presidencies." /> However, we should not just look at wars, what about other disasters? Hurricanes and other natural disasters all require government assistance. What if a disease comes and spreads worse and is more deadly than the Bubonic Plague? The government must respond to it. This means that we need money. Economics and Revenue Whenever we go into an economic recession, the government loses revenue. As we have seen in 1929 and 2008, recessions can be unexpected. Traditionally, when a recession occurs then we need to relieve the poor. It happened in 1933 with the rise of Franklin Roosevelt and it happened in 2008 with the rise of Barack Obama. This means that the government must take immediate action to fix the recession and that means spend money. This can be even worse when you maybe in the middle of a recession and at war. What about tax cuts? They usually make you lose revenue. Ronald Reagan signed a tax cut in 1981, but revenue dropped. What if this dropped passed the amount of revenue need for spending? Then we would be in debt. I got that from here: click="document.location='/AStevenson/photos/album/2327/16454/'" src="../../../photos/albums/1/3/2327/71662-2327-vpmn3-a.jpg" alt="Government Revenue" /> Congress Breaks a lot of Amendments Congress has broken several constitutional amendments over the years that may have been unpopular, but still happened. This has angered generally everyone, but it still happens. How is a balanced budget amendment going to be any different. Thank you.

Politics

Balanced-Budget-Amendment/4/

My Arguments I. War and National Emergencies I am glad to here that the balanced budget is allowed to be broken in case of military or other massive national emergencies. However, this ignores times when a high a military budget is needed that even exceeds the total federal revenue. Ronald Reagan knew how to defeat the Soviet Union and the only way possible to compete with the Soviets in the military to raise spending, train the troops, build the fleet, and create SDI. The good news is that we now have no Soviet Union, but in the case of a future second cold war as well as the protection in our era of global terrorism, we need a military build-up. I always put the welfare of the American people first, but we also need to make sure they're protected. So even sometimes when we are not in military conflict, we might need a high military just in case. [1] I do feel that my opponent did not properly address national emergencies. When a hurricane hits, a tornado strikes, or a snow storm falls then the government should send assistance to help the innocent creatures stuck in this emergency. This means we need to spend money even if it does mean going into debt for the benefit of helping the American people. II. Recessions What we see from this graph ( <URL>... ) is the sudden drops in recessions. When a budget is balanced and a recession comes, revenue has historically dropped. We see this is many cases: the 1920 recession, 1981 recession, 2000 recession, and the 2008 recession. However, the most notable in my opinion is the 1948 recession where we saw a massive drop in revenue that has not been seen since. We are not just discussing if FDR's New Deal was right or wrong. I argued that traditionally the poor needed to be relieved in some way when in recession. FDR tried a New Deal and this led to more debt, Obama tried a stimulus and this led to new debt, Reagan passed a massive tax cut and this led to new debt (along with keeping the Soviets at bay), and Harding passed a massive tax cut and this dropped revenue until Coolidge could get it together. Whenever an action is issued in a recession, there is a cost. In this case, the cost is revenue which could lead to the rise of debt. III. Congress Breaks the Constitution I am not arguing that breaking the Constitution is wrong, but I am arguing if this amendment will be efficient. If Congress keeps breaking amendments then this proves that there is a lack of efficency in enforcing the Constitution. The balanced budget amendment willd be no different. Sources 1. Armchair General, "Ronald Reagan's Cold War." 2012.

AStevenson

My Arguments I. War and National Emergencies I am glad to here that the balanced budget is allowed to be broken in case of military or other massive national emergencies. However, this ignores times when a high a military budget is needed that even exceeds the total federal revenue. Ronald Reagan knew how to defeat the Soviet Union and the only way possible to compete with the Soviets in the military to raise spending, train the troops, build the fleet, and create SDI. The good news is that we now have no Soviet Union, but in the case of a future second cold war as well as the protection in our era of global terrorism, we need a military build-up. I always put the welfare of the American people first, but we also need to make sure they're protected. So even sometimes when we are not in military conflict, we might need a high military just in case. [1] I do feel that my opponent did not properly address national emergencies. When a hurricane hits, a tornado strikes, or a snow storm falls then the government should send assistance to help the innocent creatures stuck in this emergency. This means we need to spend money even if it does mean going into debt for the benefit of helping the American people. II. Recessions What we see from this graph ( http://www.debate.org... ) is the sudden drops in recessions. When a budget is balanced and a recession comes, revenue has historically dropped. We see this is many cases: the 1920 recession, 1981 recession, 2000 recession, and the 2008 recession. However, the most notable in my opinion is the 1948 recession where we saw a massive drop in revenue that has not been seen since. We are not just discussing if FDR's New Deal was right or wrong. I argued that traditionally the poor needed to be relieved in some way when in recession. FDR tried a New Deal and this led to more debt, Obama tried a stimulus and this led to new debt, Reagan passed a massive tax cut and this led to new debt (along with keeping the Soviets at bay), and Harding passed a massive tax cut and this dropped revenue until Coolidge could get it together. Whenever an action is issued in a recession, there is a cost. In this case, the cost is revenue which could lead to the rise of debt. III. Congress Breaks the Constitution I am not arguing that breaking the Constitution is wrong, but I am arguing if this amendment will be efficient. If Congress keeps breaking amendments then this proves that there is a lack of efficency in enforcing the Constitution. The balanced budget amendment willd be no different. Sources 1. Armchair General, "Ronald Reagan's Cold War." 2012.

Politics

Balanced-Budget-Amendment/4/

My Arguments National Emergencies I agree with my opponent that things like NFL tickets and "Girls Gone Wild" videos should not be included in the spending, but that does not resolve the aid can bring us into debt. Nevertheless, it is the government's responsibility to help the peopleand that is why aid is sent. Here's an example. Let's say that when Hurricane Sandy struck, the government made $2.5 trillion and spent $2.5 trillion. This would be the situtation in which we would be under a balanced budget. Congress sent $51 billion in aid to help the victims. This would mean that we would have to go into debt to help the people hurt by this disaster. [1] Recessions Even if my opponent disagrees that spending does not work to fix recessions, that does not change that Congress will still take action and do it. Even when recessions come, there is a sudden drop in revenue as my graphs have shown (if no one can find them check my gallery). This sudden drop in revenue puts the nation in debt and breaks the amendment. In addition, tax cuts drop revenue, so that's a mistake. Basically, the government would be force to sit and do nothing to help the people while the recession intensifies. Amendments and Congress The problem here is how efficient the amendment will be and if Congress will obey. Congress and the presidents over time have broke several constitutional amendments. What makes this amendment any different that it will be obeyed. This makes the constitutional amendment inefficient to be effective and my opponent has not proven how the amendment can remain efficient enough to not be broken. [2] Sources 1. <URL>... 2. <URL>...

AStevenson

My Arguments National Emergencies I agree with my opponent that things like NFL tickets and "Girls Gone Wild" videos should not be included in the spending, but that does not resolve the aid can bring us into debt. Nevertheless, it is the government's responsibility to help the peopleand that is why aid is sent. Here's an example. Let's say that when Hurricane Sandy struck, the government made $2.5 trillion and spent $2.5 trillion. This would be the situtation in which we would be under a balanced budget. Congress sent $51 billion in aid to help the victims. This would mean that we would have to go into debt to help the people hurt by this disaster. [1] Recessions Even if my opponent disagrees that spending does not work to fix recessions, that does not change that Congress will still take action and do it. Even when recessions come, there is a sudden drop in revenue as my graphs have shown (if no one can find them check my gallery). This sudden drop in revenue puts the nation in debt and breaks the amendment. In addition, tax cuts drop revenue, so that's a mistake. Basically, the government would be force to sit and do nothing to help the people while the recession intensifies. Amendments and Congress The problem here is how efficient the amendment will be and if Congress will obey. Congress and the presidents over time have broke several constitutional amendments. What makes this amendment any different that it will be obeyed. This makes the constitutional amendment inefficient to be effective and my opponent has not proven how the amendment can remain efficient enough to not be broken. [2] Sources 1. http://www.nytimes.com... 2. http://dailycaller.com...

Politics

Balanced-Budget-Amendment/4/

OK. You guys read my arguments and my opponent's. You guys vote on who won.

AStevenson

OK. You guys read my arguments and my opponent's. You guys vote on who won.

Politics

Balanced-Budget-Amendment/4/

Thank you, AStevenson, for accepting this debate. I wish you the best of luck in this debate. Resolved : The US Should Adopt a Balanced Budget Amendment Definitions : 1) Balanced Budget Amendment - A BBA requires congress to pass a balanced budget for each fiscal year. Currently, there is debate going on in the House and Senate between different versions of the amendment. There is very little difference between the two, however for sake of the debate, I will use the Senate's version found at <URL>... ......; Also important to note, the BBA gives exception in times of war in relationship to defense spending. 2) Balanced Budget - The overall amount of spending within a budget is equal to or less than the revenue brought in. 3) Should - Ought, is proper 4) Adopt - Put into place Rounds 1) Acceptance 2) Opening Statements (ONLY) 3) Rebuttals 4) Rebuttals/Closing Statments Rules 1) If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. 2) No forfeiting or plagarism is acceptable. 3) Please structure and format your arguments in a way that is easy to follow. 4) No trolling - debaters should have adaquet debating experience. 5) Failure to abide by any points above will result in an automatic loss

DoubtingDave

Thank you, AStevenson, for accepting this debate. I wish you the best of luck in this debate. Resolved : The US Should Adopt a Balanced Budget Amendment Definitions : 1) Balanced Budget Amendment - A BBA requires congress to pass a balanced budget for each fiscal year. Currently, there is debate going on in the House and Senate between different versions of the amendment. There is very little difference between the two, however for sake of the debate, I will use the Senate's version found at http://tinyurl.com... ......; Also important to note, the BBA gives exception in times of war in relationship to defense spending. 2) Balanced Budget - The overall amount of spending within a budget is equal to or less than the revenue brought in. 3) Should - Ought, is proper 4) Adopt - Put into place Rounds 1) Acceptance 2) Opening Statements (ONLY) 3) Rebuttals 4) Rebuttals/Closing Statments Rules 1) If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. 2) No forfeiting or plagarism is acceptable. 3) Please structure and format your arguments in a way that is easy to follow. 4) No trolling - debaters should have adaquet debating experience. 5) Failure to abide by any points above will result in an automatic loss

Politics

Balanced-Budget-Amendment/4/

Thank you for accepting this debate on the Balanced Budget Amendment. As another war on the debt limit is looming over us and the fiscal cliff just barely passed over us, we need some serious thoughts on ways to reduce the deficit. One of my proposals is a Balanced Budget Amendment. Pro 1: The BBA Addresses Chronic Deficit For the past several years, the United States has been running deficits upwards of $1 trillion or more and there is no end in sight. We are in a period of chronic deficit and it is deficit that we can no longer sustain. As John Adams purportedly said, " There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt ." [1] These words reign true to this day as we are seeing what is happening in the European Debt Crisis. Figure 1-1 shows how bad the debt has become. So, let's put this into a different perspective. What if the average income family spent like the federal government? Figure 2-1 shows what the consequences would be of such a family. Figure 2-1 The data from this graph is from 2010 where the median income family was $51,360.00. If a typical family followed the government's lead, it would therefore spend 30 cents of every dollar on credit card. This means that the family would have racked up $325,781 in credit card debt - a total equivalent to that of an entire mortgage, only without the house. Who would allow such a family to continue borrowing from them? [3] If such spending is not right for a typical family - what then justifies the federal government to spend in such a manner? What is the main cause of this problem? It isn't that we don't have enough revenue - we simply have too much spending. Figure 3-1 shows the revenue to spending relationships Figure 3-1 [4] As we can see from the above graph, the deficit is government spending - not low revenue. In fact, revenue will surpass the historical average by 2018, spending will still remain even well above that, even after the $2.1 trillion in cuts under the Budget Control Act of 2011 . So, why is the BBA appropriate for this chronic deficit problem? Because it addresses the real problem, which is overspending by the government. Pro 2: Flaw in Democracy One of the great flaws in democracy was attributed to Edmund Burke in 1754 (emphasis added) [5]: A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury . From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The BBA is one way to fix the flaw in democracy because it limits the amount of money that can come from the public treasure. Conclusion The United States should adopt and pass a BBA because it immediately addresses our chronic deficit and spending problems which threaten economic viability of our nation. Secondly, a BBA is appropriate because it fixes the flaws in a democracy by limiting the amount of money that can be taken from the public treasury. [1] <URL>... ...; [2] Courtesy of <URL>... ... [3] Image and caption provided by <URL>... .... [4] Image 3-1 is courtesy of <URL>... ... [5] Quoted in <URL>... ...; Note, if there are any problems with the links above, go to <URL>... ;

DoubtingDave

Thank you for accepting this debate on the Balanced Budget Amendment. As another war on the debt limit is looming over us and the fiscal cliff just barely passed over us, we need some serious thoughts on ways to reduce the deficit. One of my proposals is a Balanced Budget Amendment. Pro 1: The BBA Addresses Chronic Deficit For the past several years, the United States has been running deficits upwards of $1 trillion or more and there is no end in sight. We are in a period of chronic deficit and it is deficit that we can no longer sustain. As John Adams purportedly said, “ There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt .” [1] These words reign true to this day as we are seeing what is happening in the European Debt Crisis. Figure 1-1 shows how bad the debt has become. So, let’s put this into a different perspective. What if the average income family spent like the federal government? Figure 2-1 shows what the consequences would be of such a family. Figure 2-1 The data from this graph is from 2010 where the median income family was $51,360.00. If a typical family followed the government’s lead, it would therefore spend 30 cents of every dollar on credit card. This means that the family would have racked up $325,781 in credit card debt – a total equivalent to that of an entire mortgage, only without the house. Who would allow such a family to continue borrowing from them? [3] If such spending is not right for a typical family – what then justifies the federal government to spend in such a manner? What is the main cause of this problem? It isn’t that we don’t have enough revenue – we simply have too much spending. Figure 3-1 shows the revenue to spending relationships Figure 3-1 [4] As we can see from the above graph, the deficit is government spending – not low revenue. In fact, revenue will surpass the historical average by 2018, spending will still remain even well above that, even after the $2.1 trillion in cuts under the Budget Control Act of 2011 . So, why is the BBA appropriate for this chronic deficit problem? Because it addresses the real problem, which is overspending by the government. Pro 2: Flaw in Democracy One of the great flaws in democracy was attributed to Edmund Burke in 1754 (emphasis added) [5]: A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury . From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The BBA is one way to fix the flaw in democracy because it limits the amount of money that can come from the public treasure. Conclusion The United States should adopt and pass a BBA because it immediately addresses our chronic deficit and spending problems which threaten economic viability of our nation. Secondly, a BBA is appropriate because it fixes the flaws in a democracy by limiting the amount of money that can be taken from the public treasury. [1] http://www.goodreads.com... ...; [2] Courtesy of http://www.heritage.org... ... [3] Image and caption provided by http://www.heritage.org... .... [4] Image 3-1 is courtesy of http://www.heritage.org... ... [5] Quoted in http://www.debate.org... ...; Note, if there are any problems with the links above, go to http://www.debate.org... ;

Politics

Balanced-Budget-Amendment/4/

Thank you for your swift reply. Con 1: War and National Emergencies I agree with con's point here. As I pointed out in the first round, the Balanced Budget Amendment provides provisions for such an event: Section 7. The Congress may waive the provisions of sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of this article in any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in a military conflict that causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by three-fifths of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a roll call vote. Such suspension must identify and be limited to the specific excess of outlays for that fiscal year made necessary by the identified military conflict. <URL>... An obvious objection should be "What stops congress from declaring wars just to have extra deficits?" This is an excellent point that I can foresee my opponent bringing up in the next round. I think that there should be extra provisions: Had the United States have NOT been involved with wars or a national emergency, then the proposed budget would be balanced. Con 2: Recessions My opponent argues that during recessions, government ought to stimulate the economy and help the overall economy to grow. However, FDR's New Deal prolonged the Great Depression " The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. " Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened ." <URL>... ; The Wall Street Journal writes "The main lesson we have learned from the New Deal is that wholesale government intervention can -- and does -- deliver the most unintended of consequences . This was true in the 1930s, when artificially high wages and prices kept us depressed for more than a decade, it was true in the 1970s when price controls were used to combat inflation but just produced shortages. It is true today, when poorly designed regulation produced a banking system that took on too much risk." <URL>... ; We can also use Japan as a way of measuring failed economic stimulus and government interventions. Japan responded to a 1990 recession by passing 10 stimulus spending bills over 8 years, thus building up the largest national debt in the industrialized world, yet its economy remained stagnant.[9] Con 3: Congress breaks a lot of Amendments This argument is a non sequitur. I agree that congress (sadly) breaks a lot of amendments, though that doesn't mean we should have this place. Using my opponent's logic, we would therefore be a dictatorship and have no constitution and no bill of rights at all. That is something neither myself nor my opponent would like!

DoubtingDave

Thank you for your swift reply. Con 1: War and National Emergencies I agree with con's point here. As I pointed out in the first round, the Balanced Budget Amendment provides provisions for such an event: Section 7. The Congress may waive the provisions of sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of this article in any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in a military conflict that causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by three-fifths of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a roll call vote. Such suspension must identify and be limited to the specific excess of outlays for that fiscal year made necessary by the identified military conflict. http://www.heritage.org... An obvious objection should be "What stops congress from declaring wars just to have extra deficits?" This is an excellent point that I can foresee my opponent bringing up in the next round. I think that there should be extra provisions: Had the United States have NOT been involved with wars or a national emergency, then the proposed budget would be balanced. Con 2: Recessions My opponent argues that during recessions, government ought to stimulate the economy and help the overall economy to grow. However, FDR’s New Deal prolonged the Great Depression " The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. " Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened ." http://online.wsj.com... ; The Wall Street Journal writes “The main lesson we have learned from the New Deal is that wholesale government intervention can -- and does -- deliver the most unintended of consequences . This was true in the 1930s, when artificially high wages and prices kept us depressed for more than a decade, it was true in the 1970s when price controls were used to combat inflation but just produced shortages. It is true today, when poorly designed regulation produced a banking system that took on too much risk.” http://www.heritage.org... ; We can also use Japan as a way of measuring failed economic stimulus and government interventions. Japan responded to a 1990 recession by passing 10 stimulus spending bills over 8 years, thus building up the largest national debt in the industrialized world, yet its economy remained stagnant.[9] Con 3: Congress breaks a lot of Amendments This argument is a non sequitur. I agree that congress (sadly) breaks a lot of amendments, though that doesn't mean we should have this place. Using my opponent's logic, we would therefore be a dictatorship and have no constitution and no bill of rights at all. That is something neither myself nor my opponent would like!

Politics

Balanced-Budget-Amendment/4/

Thank you for your swift response. My opponent has not yet responded to any of my opening arguments in favor of the Balanced Budget Amendment. I ask that he does so in the next post. War and National Emergencies I agree that there are times when a high military budget is needed such as during the Cold War. However, both Section 6 and 7, as I already noted, give provisions: Section 6. The Congress may waive the provisions of sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war against a nation-state is in effect and in which a majority of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide for a specific excess by a roll call vote. Section 7. The Congress may waive the provisions of sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of this article in any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in a military conflict that causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by three-fifths of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a roll call vote . Such suspension must identify and be limited to the specific excess of outlays for that fiscal year made necessary by the identified military conflict. <URL>... During natural emergencies, such as during a tornado or during something like Hurricane Sandy, the federal government should provide some help, however there ought to be strict guidelines for giving out money during these times. For example, there was a ton of fraud related to the Hurricane Katrina package that cost tax payers more than 2 billion dollars. Fraud included pay for Caribbean vacations, NFL tickets, Dom Perignon champagne, 'Girls Gone Wild' videos, and at least one sex change operation [1] Recessions The FDR example was not to prove that Roosevelt, or his new deal was wrong, but just to back up the claim that government spending and stimulus spending does NOT relieve, reform, or recover from a recession. It is certainly true that government loses revenue during recession (the worst thing possible during a recession is raising taxes and increase spending!). As the About.com page for economics reports, there are several factors that lead to this [2] : 1. The economy goes into recession, costing many workers their jobs, and at the same time causing corporate profits to decline. This causes less income tax revenue to flow to the government, along with less corporate income tax revenue. Occasionally the flow of income to the government will still grow, but at a slower rate than inflation, meaning that flow of tax revenue has fallen in real terms. 2. Because many workers have lost their jobs, there is increased use of government programs, such as unemployment insurance. Government spending rises as more individuals are calling on government services to help them out through tough times. 3. To help push the economy out of recession and to help those who have lost their jobs, governments often create new social programs during times of recession and depression. FDR's "New Deal" of the 1930s is a prime example of this. Government spending then rises, not just because of increased use of existing programs, but through the creation of new programs. Because of factors one, the government receives less money from taxpayers, while factors two and three, the government spends more money. Money starts flowing out of the government faster than it comes in, causing the government's budget to go into deficit. Congress Breaks Amendments Extend arguments. <URL>... and <URL>... <URL>...

DoubtingDave

Thank you for your swift response. My opponent has not yet responded to any of my opening arguments in favor of the Balanced Budget Amendment. I ask that he does so in the next post. War and National Emergencies I agree that there are times when a high military budget is needed such as during the Cold War. However, both Section 6 and 7, as I already noted, give provisions: Section 6. The Congress may waive the provisions of sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war against a nation-state is in effect and in which a majority of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide for a specific excess by a roll call vote. Section 7. The Congress may waive the provisions of sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of this article in any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in a military conflict that causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by three-fifths of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a roll call vote . Such suspension must identify and be limited to the specific excess of outlays for that fiscal year made necessary by the identified military conflict. http://www.heritage.org... During natural emergencies, such as during a tornado or during something like Hurricane Sandy, the federal government should provide some help, however there ought to be strict guidelines for giving out money during these times. For example, there was a ton of fraud related to the Hurricane Katrina package that cost tax payers more than 2 billion dollars. Fraud included pay for Caribbean vacations, NFL tickets, Dom Perignon champagne, ‘Girls Gone Wild’ videos, and at least one sex change operation [1] Recessions The FDR example was not to prove that Roosevelt, or his new deal was wrong, but just to back up the claim that government spending and stimulus spending does NOT relieve, reform, or recover from a recession. It is certainly true that government loses revenue during recession (the worst thing possible during a recession is raising taxes and increase spending!). As the About.com page for economics reports, there are several factors that lead to this [2] : 1. The economy goes into recession, costing many workers their jobs, and at the same time causing corporate profits to decline. This causes less income tax revenue to flow to the government, along with less corporate income tax revenue. Occasionally the flow of income to the government will still grow, but at a slower rate than inflation, meaning that flow of tax revenue has fallen in real terms. 2. Because many workers have lost their jobs, there is increased use of government programs, such as unemployment insurance. Government spending rises as more individuals are calling on government services to help them out through tough times. 3. To help push the economy out of recession and to help those who have lost their jobs, governments often create new social programs during times of recession and depression. FDR's "New Deal" of the 1930s is a prime example of this. Government spending then rises, not just because of increased use of existing programs, but through the creation of new programs. Because of factors one, the government receives less money from taxpayers, while factors two and three, the government spends more money. Money starts flowing out of the government faster than it comes in, causing the government's budget to go into deficit. Congress Breaks Amendments Extend arguments. http://www.nbcnews.com... and http://tinyurl.com... http://economics.about.com...

Politics

Balanced-Budget-Amendment/4/

My opponent has failed to respond to ANY of my original arguments and ask the voters to take that into consideration as you vote. As this is the final round, I would like to make a summary of several points in this debate: 1) The federal budget is recording chronic deficits and needs to be balanced 2) The BBA fixes a flaw in democracy 3) The BBA allows leeway and exceptions for wars and national emergencies 4) The BBA allows for the national debt to be no more than 20% of the GDP - not 0 as my opponent claims My opponent has not contested any of my arguments and hereby urge a pro vote.

DoubtingDave

My opponent has failed to respond to ANY of my original arguments and ask the voters to take that into consideration as you vote. As this is the final round, I would like to make a summary of several points in this debate: 1) The federal budget is recording chronic deficits and needs to be balanced 2) The BBA fixes a flaw in democracy 3) The BBA allows leeway and exceptions for wars and national emergencies 4) The BBA allows for the national debt to be no more than 20% of the GDP - not 0 as my opponent claims My opponent has not contested any of my arguments and hereby urge a pro vote.

Politics

Balanced-Budget-Amendment/4/

watsUpthr has the burden of proof of showing that "Bald is beautiful!" "I think everyone should go bald! All hair does is separate us from each other." 1) No warrants whatsoever 2) No link to the topic whatsoever 3) What he thinks doesn't matter unless he gives an explanation 4) He gives no clarification for what "separates us from each other" means 4b) Assuming that "separates us from each other" is bad, it's really weird that my opponent has an avatar with people that aren't bald. "If everyone shaved their heads we would save money on shampoos and hair products. We could use that money to help feed the hungry children in other countries." 1) Non-unique, not everyone buys hair products 2) You still need to wash your head, and I don't think that going bald suddenly means you use a bar of soap on your skull. But maybe that's just me. I think the skin on top of our heads is different. 3) Could =/= Will, therefore he can't claim any impacts from Poverty. CASE: 1) Hair is beautiful. When evaluating what's beautiful in this topic, we need to look to popular culture today. This should be held as true in the round because 1) We need an agent to refer back to, otherwise it would be 2) all esoteric, all "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder", and at that point you always vote CON because there's no way to evaluate "Bald is Beautiful" as a fact if beauty is evaluated in each of our eyes. Or, it leads to people just voting for which side of the topic they agree with rather than who does the better debating. That completely defeats the purpose of this site, as this is not Poll.com, but Debate.org. Since the media holds hair to be a major component of beauty, and there are a lot more haired people than bald people in the entertainment industry, you vote CON. 2) Turn the AFF case's impacts. I already made the argument that he can't claim any impacts from solving world poverty, but I'm going to take it a step further: If he gets any impact at all, if he actually DOES save money: Well, people will just buy more things. This leads to more cars which means more pollution and more food which means more obesity and more video games which means more stupidity... Et Cetera. Vote CON. Because bald aint beautiful.

Korezaan

watsUpthr has the burden of proof of showing that "Bald is beautiful!" "I think everyone should go bald! All hair does is separate us from each other." 1) No warrants whatsoever 2) No link to the topic whatsoever 3) What he thinks doesn't matter unless he gives an explanation 4) He gives no clarification for what "separates us from each other" means 4b) Assuming that "separates us from each other" is bad, it's really weird that my opponent has an avatar with people that aren't bald. "If everyone shaved their heads we would save money on shampoos and hair products. We could use that money to help feed the hungry children in other countries." 1) Non-unique, not everyone buys hair products 2) You still need to wash your head, and I don't think that going bald suddenly means you use a bar of soap on your skull. But maybe that's just me. I think the skin on top of our heads is different. 3) Could =/= Will, therefore he can't claim any impacts from Poverty. CASE: 1) Hair is beautiful. When evaluating what's beautiful in this topic, we need to look to popular culture today. This should be held as true in the round because 1) We need an agent to refer back to, otherwise it would be 2) all esoteric, all "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder", and at that point you always vote CON because there's no way to evaluate "Bald is Beautiful" as a fact if beauty is evaluated in each of our eyes. Or, it leads to people just voting for which side of the topic they agree with rather than who does the better debating. That completely defeats the purpose of this site, as this is not Poll.com, but Debate.org. Since the media holds hair to be a major component of beauty, and there are a lot more haired people than bald people in the entertainment industry, you vote CON. 2) Turn the AFF case's impacts. I already made the argument that he can't claim any impacts from solving world poverty, but I'm going to take it a step further: If he gets any impact at all, if he actually DOES save money: Well, people will just buy more things. This leads to more cars which means more pollution and more food which means more obesity and more video games which means more stupidity… Et Cetera. Vote CON. Because bald aint beautiful.

Entertainment

Bald-is-beautiful/1/

"OK...here is an explanation about my separation statement." 1) That is no reason why bald is suddenly pretty. 2) We don't need to go bald to do that. 3) I would argue that by HAVING HAIR, we're already birds of a feather. By going bald, we'd instead be birds of no feathers.... basically, non-unique impact from baldness. "Uh first of all my avatar has no hair...it is a cartoon so any resemblance of hair is not even real." This was when you still had Dorothy or whoever in your profile picture. You can actually go to the profile pics section and pick the bald one.... "MY STATEMENT: "If everyone shaved their heads we would save money on shampoos and hair products. We could use that money to help feed the hungry children in other countries.[...]Could because not everyone would be aware at first as to where the money should gowant to. But if I started campaigns such as "Go Bald for the Broke" or "Go Bald for the Babies" and encouraged the baldies to take that money and send it to the needy we could make a difference when it comes to poverty. But unlike you, I have still have some faith in the human race and think that because the bald people are so beautiful (inside that is) they will cheerfully give the money to the poor." 1) Nontopical; we're talking about if bald is beautiful or not. 2) Campaigns don't solve. As we have experienced very well by efforts to curb global warming, to stop genocide in Darfur, and other awareness movements, they don't work. There isn't any tangible solvency from not using money any more on hair products, as people would just use money on something else. 3) Faith isn't solvency either. 4) Those "some people" are already bald, therefore there would be no net benefits. "I SAY SCREW THE MEDIA!" Alright. Then we look to the argument I provided in R1, 'at that point you always vote CON because there's no way to evaluate "Bald is Beautiful" as a fact if beauty is evaluated in each of our eyes. Or, it leads to people just voting for which side of the topic they agree with rather than who does the better debating. That completely defeats the purpose of this site, as this is not Poll.com, but Debate.org.' This is true because the topic says "Bald is beautiful", and grammar dictates that he must prove the resolution categorically true, which he ISN'T, since he's conceding that some people The instant that not all people think bald is beautiful, you already negate. If he wishes to advocate that we shouldn't look to the resolution from the point of an actor to which we can all evaluate, then it becomes an impossible case to win, since he needs to prove "bald is beautiful" as a fact. Proving that some people think bald is beautiful won't work. "And a side note about movie stars: BRUCE WILLIS IS BALD BRUCE WILLIS IS BEAUTIFUL THEREFORE BALD IS BEAUTIFUL!!" Bruce Willis is not beautiful, therefore your conclusion cannot be reached. Even if he is beautiful, there is no evidence that his beauty is derived from baldness; fallacy of the undistributed middle. "OK either I can't claim impact or I do...which is it? I'm going to go with the "I can"[....]" I'm sorry that you don't understand the concept of layered arguments. You already don't get the impacts because I've refuted all your arguments. "and say that YOU can't PROVE that if it DOES save money that people will buy more things such as clothes , cars and video games. AND you can't prove that cars mean more pollution and video games lead to stupidty. (SIDE note....there are a lot of educational video games!!!)" That's fine. I'm not about to go on a brain strain to prove that more cars means more pollution and more video games leads to stupidity. That's fine. The fact of the matter is, however, you can't prove that people will donate to charity: The only justification you have is that 'I have faith in people', but that doesn't prove solvency at all, I could have faith in my brother to stop being a mentally retarded child and have faith that he's going to skip a grade, and I can have faith that Bush will score a 160 on a legit IQ test tomorrow, and I can have faith that my green plastic cup will turn red, and I can have faith that the track at my school is actually a complicated time machine, but IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. FAITH =/= SOLVENCY. While I agree that I have not proved that video games lead to stupidity and cars lead to more pollution, and I have not proved that people will not give it to charity (I CAN prove it by the way, I'm just really heavily loaded with homework), that doesn't meant that suddenly you win the argument and people WILL donate to solve world hunger. YOU have the burden of proof, not me. "I choose to be more optimistic and say that these bald people will prove that beauty is skin deep and focus more on others, and less on themselves!" Well, I choose not to. Where does this argument get us? "One of Webster's definitions of beautiful is this: having qualities of Beauty : exciting aesthetic pleasure BALD excites aesthetic pleasure in many, although I only have to prove it does this to one, which would be myself of course (and maybe Bruce Willis) therefore BALD IS BEAUTIFUL!!!" He's being conditional with the argument. While this statement here can prove the resolution "I think bald is beautiful!" is true, he cannot prove "bald is beautiful" is true due to his burden to prove it true as a categorically true statement. At the point where I can provide even one example to why that's not true, you negate the resolution. 1) Me. I can confidently say that bald women do not turn me on. 2) The media. 3) A lot of other people. I am quite aware that this is a double fallacy. None of his other arguments about world poverty even matter in the round, as they aren't proving how bald is beautiful at all, he's just trying to say that it will lead to good things. But regardless of whether or not it leads to good things, it doesn't prove why bald is beautiful. His justification in this round, as we have seen, is that HE thinks bald is beautiful and HE thinks that everyone else will too. My argument is, among other things, that if people think bald is beautiful, they would've already been bald. But apparently many people don't think is true, as they choose to keep their hair on their respective heads. Since there are so many people that disagree that bald is beautiful, you can already drop his only relevant argument to this topic.

Korezaan

"OK…here is an explanation about my separation statement." 1) That is no reason why bald is suddenly pretty. 2) We don't need to go bald to do that. 3) I would argue that by HAVING HAIR, we're already birds of a feather. By going bald, we'd instead be birds of no feathers.... basically, non-unique impact from baldness. "Uh first of all my avatar has no hair…it is a cartoon so any resemblance of hair is not even real." This was when you still had Dorothy or whoever in your profile picture. You can actually go to the profile pics section and pick the bald one.... "MY STATEMENT: "If everyone shaved their heads we would save money on shampoos and hair products. We could use that money to help feed the hungry children in other countries.[...]Could because not everyone would be aware at first as to where the money should gowant to. But if I started campaigns such as "Go Bald for the Broke" or "Go Bald for the Babies" and encouraged the baldies to take that money and send it to the needy we could make a difference when it comes to poverty. But unlike you, I have still have some faith in the human race and think that because the bald people are so beautiful (inside that is) they will cheerfully give the money to the poor." 1) Nontopical; we're talking about if bald is beautiful or not. 2) Campaigns don't solve. As we have experienced very well by efforts to curb global warming, to stop genocide in Darfur, and other awareness movements, they don't work. There isn't any tangible solvency from not using money any more on hair products, as people would just use money on something else. 3) Faith isn't solvency either. 4) Those "some people" are already bald, therefore there would be no net benefits. "I SAY SCREW THE MEDIA!" Alright. Then we look to the argument I provided in R1, 'at that point you always vote CON because there's no way to evaluate "Bald is Beautiful" as a fact if beauty is evaluated in each of our eyes. Or, it leads to people just voting for which side of the topic they agree with rather than who does the better debating. That completely defeats the purpose of this site, as this is not Poll.com, but Debate.org.' This is true because the topic says "Bald is beautiful", and grammar dictates that he must prove the resolution categorically true, which he ISN'T, since he's conceding that some people The instant that not all people think bald is beautiful, you already negate. If he wishes to advocate that we shouldn't look to the resolution from the point of an actor to which we can all evaluate, then it becomes an impossible case to win, since he needs to prove "bald is beautiful" as a fact. Proving that some people think bald is beautiful won't work. "And a side note about movie stars: BRUCE WILLIS IS BALD BRUCE WILLIS IS BEAUTIFUL THEREFORE BALD IS BEAUTIFUL!!" Bruce Willis is not beautiful, therefore your conclusion cannot be reached. Even if he is beautiful, there is no evidence that his beauty is derived from baldness; fallacy of the undistributed middle. "OK either I can't claim impact or I do…which is it? I'm going to go with the "I can"[....]" I'm sorry that you don't understand the concept of layered arguments. You already don't get the impacts because I've refuted all your arguments. "and say that YOU can't PROVE that if it DOES save money that people will buy more things such as clothes , cars and video games. AND you can't prove that cars mean more pollution and video games lead to stupidty. (SIDE note….there are a lot of educational video games!!!)" That's fine. I'm not about to go on a brain strain to prove that more cars means more pollution and more video games leads to stupidity. That's fine. The fact of the matter is, however, you can't prove that people will donate to charity: The only justification you have is that 'I have faith in people', but that doesn't prove solvency at all, I could have faith in my brother to stop being a mentally retarded child and have faith that he's going to skip a grade, and I can have faith that Bush will score a 160 on a legit IQ test tomorrow, and I can have faith that my green plastic cup will turn red, and I can have faith that the track at my school is actually a complicated time machine, but IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. FAITH =/= SOLVENCY. While I agree that I have not proved that video games lead to stupidity and cars lead to more pollution, and I have not proved that people will not give it to charity (I CAN prove it by the way, I'm just really heavily loaded with homework), that doesn't meant that suddenly you win the argument and people WILL donate to solve world hunger. YOU have the burden of proof, not me. "I choose to be more optimistic and say that these bald people will prove that beauty is skin deep and focus more on others, and less on themselves!" Well, I choose not to. Where does this argument get us? "One of Webster's definitions of beautiful is this: having qualities of Beauty : exciting aesthetic pleasure BALD excites aesthetic pleasure in many, although I only have to prove it does this to one, which would be myself of course (and maybe Bruce Willis) therefore BALD IS BEAUTIFUL!!!" He's being conditional with the argument. While this statement here can prove the resolution "I think bald is beautiful!" is true, he cannot prove "bald is beautiful" is true due to his burden to prove it true as a categorically true statement. At the point where I can provide even one example to why that's not true, you negate the resolution. 1) Me. I can confidently say that bald women do not turn me on. 2) The media. 3) A lot of other people. I am quite aware that this is a double fallacy. None of his other arguments about world poverty even matter in the round, as they aren't proving how bald is beautiful at all, he's just trying to say that it will lead to good things. But regardless of whether or not it leads to good things, it doesn't prove why bald is beautiful. His justification in this round, as we have seen, is that HE thinks bald is beautiful and HE thinks that everyone else will too. My argument is, among other things, that if people think bald is beautiful, they would've already been bald. But apparently many people don't think is true, as they choose to keep their hair on their respective heads. Since there are so many people that disagree that bald is beautiful, you can already drop his only relevant argument to this topic.

Entertainment

Bald-is-beautiful/1/

I think everyone should go bald! All hair does is separate us from each other. If everyone shaved their heads we would save money on shampoos and hair products. We could use that money to help feed the hungry children in other countries.

watsUpthr

I think everyone should go bald! All hair does is separate us from each other. If everyone shaved their heads we would save money on shampoos and hair products. We could use that money to help feed the hungry children in other countries.

Entertainment

Bald-is-beautiful/1/

OK...here is an explanation about my separation statement. "Birds of a feather flock together!" In other words it seems that people with similar hair hang out with each other more. The head bangers, emos, preps, rich Barbie girls, religious people who do not cut their hair at all, and hippies just to name a few seem to take on similar hairstyles. If we all went "bald" then it would be one step closer to unification!! Of course the next step would be to work on clothing, but hair is a start! " Assuming that "separates us from each other" is bad, it's really weird that my opponent has an avatar with people that aren't bald." Uh first of all my avatar has no hair...it is a cartoon so any resemblance of hair is not even real. And just because I chose him as my avatar does not mean he is me nor represents me. I could have chosen him randomly. BUT even if he did have real hair I would tell him to shave it and to ditch the ridiculous cap and gown as well. MY STATEMENT: "If everyone shaved their heads we would save money on shampoos and hair products. We could use that money to help feed the hungry children in other countries." YOUR REPLY " Non-unique, not everyone buys hair products" Duh, not everyone needs to...but most of those with hair do. Look at the hair product industry....save money from making those chemicals (which leads to environmental problems as well!) and use it to fight poverty. "You still need to wash your head, and I don't think that going bald suddenly means you use a bar of soap on your skull. But maybe that's just me. I think the skin on top of our heads is different." Keep using your shampoo if you must...but many bald people think soap is sufficient. We would still save money by eliminating thousands of other products such as conditioner, coloring, spritz, hair spray, gel....not to mention combs, brushes, pony tail holders, headbands....I could go on and on. "Could =/= Will, therefore he can't claim any impacts from Poverty." Could because not everyone would be aware at first as to where the money should gowant to. But if I started campaigns such as "Go Bald for the Broke" or "Go Bald for the Babies" and encouraged the baldies to take that money and send it to the needy we could make a difference when it comes to poverty. But unlike you, I have still have some faith in the human race and think that because the bald people are so beautiful (inside that is) they will cheerfully give the money to the poor. "1) Hair is beautiful. When evaluating what's beautiful in this topic, we need to look to popular culture today. .....and there are a lot more haired people than bald people in the entertainment industry, you vote CON." I SAY SCREW THE MEDIA! They are messing up society as it is. Why should they determine what beauty is! And as far as your statement that "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" I agree and these eyes say that Bald is Beautiful...I agree that Hair is Beautiful as well...both are beautiful. For that matter everything is Beautiful in its own way. My last paragraph will clarify this more. But if you insist that I don't have a true right to argue that point then why did you give the last statement "Because bald aint beautiful" And a side note about movie stars: BRUCE WILLIS IS BALD BRUCE WILLIS IS BEAUTIFUL THEREFORE BALD IS BEAUTIFUL!! " Turn the AFF case's impacts. I already made the argument that he can't claim any impacts from solving world poverty, but I'm going to take it a step further: If he gets any impact at all, if he actually DOES save money: Well, people will just buy more things. This leads to more cars which means more pollution and more food which means more obesity and more video games which means more stupidity...." OK either I can't claim impact or I do...which is it? I'm going to go with the "I can" and say that YOU can't PROVE that if it DOES save money that people will buy more things such as clothes , cars and video games. AND you can't prove that cars mean more pollution and video games lead to stupidty. (SIDE note....there are a lot of educational video games!!!) I choose to be more optimistic and say that these bald people will prove that beauty is skin deep and focus more on others, and less on themselves! AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST: One of Webster's definitions of beautiful is this: having qualities of Beauty : exciting aesthetic pleasure BALD excites aesthetic pleasure in many, although I only have to prove it does this to one, which would be myself of course (and maybe Bruce Willis) therefore BALD IS BEAUTIFUL!!!

watsUpthr

OK…here is an explanation about my separation statement. "Birds of a feather flock together!" In other words it seems that people with similar hair hang out with each other more. The head bangers, emos, preps, rich Barbie girls, religious people who do not cut their hair at all, and hippies just to name a few seem to take on similar hairstyles. If we all went "bald" then it would be one step closer to unification!! Of course the next step would be to work on clothing, but hair is a start! " Assuming that "separates us from each other" is bad, it's really weird that my opponent has an avatar with people that aren't bald." Uh first of all my avatar has no hair…it is a cartoon so any resemblance of hair is not even real. And just because I chose him as my avatar does not mean he is me nor represents me. I could have chosen him randomly. BUT even if he did have real hair I would tell him to shave it and to ditch the ridiculous cap and gown as well. MY STATEMENT: "If everyone shaved their heads we would save money on shampoos and hair products. We could use that money to help feed the hungry children in other countries." YOUR REPLY " Non-unique, not everyone buys hair products" Duh, not everyone needs to…but most of those with hair do. Look at the hair product industry….save money from making those chemicals (which leads to environmental problems as well!) and use it to fight poverty. "You still need to wash your head, and I don't think that going bald suddenly means you use a bar of soap on your skull. But maybe that's just me. I think the skin on top of our heads is different." Keep using your shampoo if you must...but many bald people think soap is sufficient. We would still save money by eliminating thousands of other products such as conditioner, coloring, spritz, hair spray, gel….not to mention combs, brushes, pony tail holders, headbands….I could go on and on. "Could =/= Will, therefore he can't claim any impacts from Poverty." Could because not everyone would be aware at first as to where the money should gowant to. But if I started campaigns such as "Go Bald for the Broke" or "Go Bald for the Babies" and encouraged the baldies to take that money and send it to the needy we could make a difference when it comes to poverty. But unlike you, I have still have some faith in the human race and think that because the bald people are so beautiful (inside that is) they will cheerfully give the money to the poor. "1) Hair is beautiful. When evaluating what's beautiful in this topic, we need to look to popular culture today. …..and there are a lot more haired people than bald people in the entertainment industry, you vote CON." I SAY SCREW THE MEDIA! They are messing up society as it is. Why should they determine what beauty is! And as far as your statement that "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" I agree and these eyes say that Bald is Beautiful…I agree that Hair is Beautiful as well…both are beautiful. For that matter everything is Beautiful in its own way. My last paragraph will clarify this more. But if you insist that I don't have a true right to argue that point then why did you give the last statement "Because bald aint beautiful" And a side note about movie stars: BRUCE WILLIS IS BALD BRUCE WILLIS IS BEAUTIFUL THEREFORE BALD IS BEAUTIFUL!! " Turn the AFF case's impacts. I already made the argument that he can't claim any impacts from solving world poverty, but I'm going to take it a step further: If he gets any impact at all, if he actually DOES save money: Well, people will just buy more things. This leads to more cars which means more pollution and more food which means more obesity and more video games which means more stupidity…." OK either I can't claim impact or I do…which is it? I'm going to go with the "I can" and say that YOU can't PROVE that if it DOES save money that people will buy more things such as clothes , cars and video games. AND you can't prove that cars mean more pollution and video games lead to stupidty. (SIDE note….there are a lot of educational video games!!!) I choose to be more optimistic and say that these bald people will prove that beauty is skin deep and focus more on others, and less on themselves! AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST: One of Webster's definitions of beautiful is this: having qualities of Beauty : exciting aesthetic pleasure BALD excites aesthetic pleasure in many, although I only have to prove it does this to one, which would be myself of course (and maybe Bruce Willis) therefore BALD IS BEAUTIFUL!!!

Entertainment

Bald-is-beautiful/1/

In this debate , I am saying that the Baltimore "Protest" is out of control . The people are claiming that they are doing what they're doing for Freddie Gray , knowing that they aren't , the death of this man is no excuse for what they're doing , and I'm sure that most people would agree . So in conclusion of this round I'm saying that just because a black man died , doesn't give people of Baltimore Maryland to act the way they are acting .

Ycease

In this debate , I am saying that the Baltimore "Protest" is out of control . The people are claiming that they are doing what they're doing for Freddie Gray , knowing that they aren't , the death of this man is no excuse for what they're doing , and I'm sure that most people would agree . So in conclusion of this round I'm saying that just because a black man died , doesn't give people of Baltimore Maryland to act the way they are acting .

News

Baltimores-action-are-speaking-louder-than-their-words-./1/

So you're saying that these crimes that are being committed are because of Freddie Grays death ? So every time someone dies , that gives people the right to go and rob stores , beat up police , and damage government property ? because it doesn't . Also these people that are breaking into stores are also the ones complaining about how damaged the city already is . if you need proof watch the news. but although some may say that the police deserve this for what they've done . because the police are being blamed for killing this man Freddie Gray because he's black man . but you don't see every black man that's arrested being killed by a white man . I admit sometimes there are . but in this case and also in many other cases there are no signs of racism being connected to this mans murder . Are you saying that racism plays a part in their crimes ? Even though that the people that are committing the crimes are stating why they are , and they're saying that they are doing this because of what the police did to Freddie Gray . Vote Pro ; because con fails to show why the people that are supposed to be protesting for Freddie Gray, why they are committing these crimes .

Ycease

So you're saying that these crimes that are being committed are because of Freddie Grays death ? So every time someone dies , that gives people the right to go and rob stores , beat up police , and damage government property ? because it doesn't . Also these people that are breaking into stores are also the ones complaining about how damaged the city already is . if you need proof watch the news. but although some may say that the police deserve this for what they've done . because the police are being blamed for killing this man Freddie Gray because he's black man . but you don't see every black man that's arrested being killed by a white man . I admit sometimes there are . but in this case and also in many other cases there are no signs of racism being connected to this mans murder . Are you saying that racism plays a part in their crimes ? Even though that the people that are committing the crimes are stating why they are , and they're saying that they are doing this because of what the police did to Freddie Gray . Vote Pro ; because con fails to show why the people that are supposed to be protesting for Freddie Gray, why they are committing these crimes .

News

Baltimores-action-are-speaking-louder-than-their-words-./1/

I'm sure there are others like me who are very excited about the 2008 presidential election. With so much at stake and some very well qualified candidates across the board, this election will be very historic. I am hoping for a well informed opponent who has a strong position and a good nature towards this topic. Good luck. This 2008 election marks the end of the George Bush era - one marked by bitter partisan divides overseeing our economy crumble, the war in Iraq fester, the war on Terror stall, and America's standing in the world is diminish to other world powers. This divide amongst liberals and conservatives, free market or government-intervention types, pro-war or anti-war folks is the biggest problem facing our country today above all these issues, because while we stand divided - at home, in the house and in the senate, none of our problems can get solved the right way. From the Audacity of Hope, Obama writes: "What's troubling is the magnitude of our challenges and the smallness of our politics - the ease with which we are distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, our seeming inability to build a working consensus to tackle any big problem". Obama is the best person we have to unite this country to solve our problems. From his work in the Illinois state legislature to the U.S Senate, he brings to America a new type of governing, one that is our only hope to overcoming these great struggles. His approach emphasizes the common values that everybody holds dear and he tackles the reality of the issue at hand in a compromise that suits all sides equally. The stances of the other candidates may be appealing to some, but they are not enough to lead this country. What's best for this country is achieved only by listening to all sides, and Obama has already proven his ability to do so in his "A More Perfect Union" speech which can be seen here on youtube: He possesses an intelligent and wise mind capable of bridging the gaps of race, wealth, and beliefs to unite us in our common purpose for a better country. Only through unity can the United States of America survive, and only Obama can bring us this unity. That is why he would be a better president than McCain or Clinton.

Ahking

I'm sure there are others like me who are very excited about the 2008 presidential election. With so much at stake and some very well qualified candidates across the board, this election will be very historic. I am hoping for a well informed opponent who has a strong position and a good nature towards this topic. Good luck. This 2008 election marks the end of the George Bush era - one marked by bitter partisan divides overseeing our economy crumble, the war in Iraq fester, the war on Terror stall, and America's standing in the world is diminish to other world powers. This divide amongst liberals and conservatives, free market or government-intervention types, pro-war or anti-war folks is the biggest problem facing our country today above all these issues, because while we stand divided - at home, in the house and in the senate, none of our problems can get solved the right way. From the Audacity of Hope, Obama writes: "What's troubling is the magnitude of our challenges and the smallness of our politics - the ease with which we are distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, our seeming inability to build a working consensus to tackle any big problem". Obama is the best person we have to unite this country to solve our problems. From his work in the Illinois state legislature to the U.S Senate, he brings to America a new type of governing, one that is our only hope to overcoming these great struggles. His approach emphasizes the common values that everybody holds dear and he tackles the reality of the issue at hand in a compromise that suits all sides equally. The stances of the other candidates may be appealing to some, but they are not enough to lead this country. What's best for this country is achieved only by listening to all sides, and Obama has already proven his ability to do so in his "A More Perfect Union" speech which can be seen here on youtube: He possesses an intelligent and wise mind capable of bridging the gaps of race, wealth, and beliefs to unite us in our common purpose for a better country. Only through unity can the United States of America survive, and only Obama can bring us this unity. That is why he would be a better president than McCain or Clinton.

Politics

Barack-Obama-Would-Be-a-Better-President-than-McCain-or-Clinton./1/

My apologies again for missing that last round. Well, I'm assuming you are McCain supporter, though you haven't made even that clear, or why Obama would not be better than either of the two candidates. I am familiar with your arguments. Obama may be a great speaker, inspirational and flashy, bold and charismatic - but he has got nothing to back it up with and everyone who supports him is just captivated by his sparkling speeches and deep sexy voice. Those 20 million people who've voted for him so far would surely be ignorant - willing to follow him off of a bridge - if they supported a man who had never led before, had no experience in politics, and was simply a good contestant on "American Idol: Politics Edition". But how can a man who was elected to the US Senate be said to have never led before? My opponent is implying that the job of a US Senator, to propose and vote on pieces of legislature that affect the entire nation, is not a leadership position. Perhaps my opponent is saying that all US Senators are subject to the whims and desires of their constituents, and thus they are truly followers. In that case, it clear why my opponent doesn't make his support of any candidate clear: he thinks he should be president. I joke, but really, Barack Obama served six years in the Illinois State Legislature where he voted on over 4000 bills. He's been in the US Senate since 2005, where he's a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Veterans Affairs Committee, Health Education and Labor & Pensions Committee, and several more. In Senate, he's passed the Obama-Coburn bill which created a database to track all pork spending in Washington. He also passed the Lugar-Obama act which makes securing conventional assault weapons mandatory so they don't get in the hands of terrorists. He's sponsored around 200 bills and voted on many more. He's led, dude, and I believe this answers the question of his experience sufficiently too. It answers the question of his experience because you will never be able to answer this question: how much experience is enough? One term? Lincoln had only one. 8 years in public office? That's how much Hillary had - Obama has 10. It is not how much you've experience but what you've taken from it. And what Obama has taken from it is that problems don't get solved when the country is divided. It doesn't even take a senator to realize that. Want proof of his unity? Those two bills were sponsored by Obama and a Republican. Want proof he's a uniter? Listen to "A More Perfect Union" on youtube. That speech shows an understanding not only of the history of black struggle in America, but of the white perspective as well. A man who is capable of that kind of understanding has the first thing needed to be a uniter. The second thing needed is the desire to do so, and does Obama have that? Yes he does, or else why is he running for president?

Ahking

My apologies again for missing that last round. Well, I'm assuming you are McCain supporter, though you haven't made even that clear, or why Obama would not be better than either of the two candidates. I am familiar with your arguments. Obama may be a great speaker, inspirational and flashy, bold and charismatic - but he has got nothing to back it up with and everyone who supports him is just captivated by his sparkling speeches and deep sexy voice. Those 20 million people who've voted for him so far would surely be ignorant - willing to follow him off of a bridge - if they supported a man who had never led before, had no experience in politics, and was simply a good contestant on "American Idol: Politics Edition". But how can a man who was elected to the US Senate be said to have never led before? My opponent is implying that the job of a US Senator, to propose and vote on pieces of legislature that affect the entire nation, is not a leadership position. Perhaps my opponent is saying that all US Senators are subject to the whims and desires of their constituents, and thus they are truly followers. In that case, it clear why my opponent doesn't make his support of any candidate clear: he thinks he should be president. I joke, but really, Barack Obama served six years in the Illinois State Legislature where he voted on over 4000 bills. He's been in the US Senate since 2005, where he's a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Veterans Affairs Committee, Health Education and Labor & Pensions Committee, and several more. In Senate, he's passed the Obama-Coburn bill which created a database to track all pork spending in Washington. He also passed the Lugar-Obama act which makes securing conventional assault weapons mandatory so they don't get in the hands of terrorists. He's sponsored around 200 bills and voted on many more. He's led, dude, and I believe this answers the question of his experience sufficiently too. It answers the question of his experience because you will never be able to answer this question: how much experience is enough? One term? Lincoln had only one. 8 years in public office? That's how much Hillary had - Obama has 10. It is not how much you've experience but what you've taken from it. And what Obama has taken from it is that problems don't get solved when the country is divided. It doesn't even take a senator to realize that. Want proof of his unity? Those two bills were sponsored by Obama and a Republican. Want proof he's a uniter? Listen to "A More Perfect Union" on youtube. That speech shows an understanding not only of the history of black struggle in America, but of the white perspective as well. A man who is capable of that kind of understanding has the first thing needed to be a uniter. The second thing needed is the desire to do so, and does Obama have that? Yes he does, or else why is he running for president?

Politics

Barack-Obama-Would-Be-a-Better-President-than-McCain-or-Clinton./1/

I'll save my objection of your Bush analysis for a later date. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Obama is intelligent and a terrific speaker. The only problem is that that is where the list ends. As a Republican, I have to say, Obama is the worst candidate of the three. There is this myth, and i use the word myth, that Barack Obama is somehow this uniter and great compromiser. In what way is this, or has ever been, true. i realize he says we need to come together and solve problems. I realize he is the greatest an most inspiring speaker of all time. But what in the world is making people believe that he is a uniter? What has he EVER done to suggest such? Watch..."I am all powerful" Damn, still not true. He is more liberal than Hillary (if you don't believe me see his moveon.org endorsement) despite the fact that independents vote for him. If 'bring the country together' means 'push through my agenda with a Democratic Congress' than yes, he is a uniter. Second, the myth, again myth, that Obama is a leader. Has Barack Obama EVER lead ANYTHING? He was editor for the Harvard Law Review... Other than that he hasn't lead so much as a boyscout troop. Not saying senators haven't made good presidents, but Barack has ZERO, I mean ZERO, experience. Even as a republican, Hillary has impressed me with her wide-ranging and in-depth knowledge of every obscure political topic. Misguided as she may be. Barack doesn't share this characteristic. When asked specific and direct questions off of the script he gives answers like 'to a fair level' or 'do what seems reasonable'. He simply hasn't had the time to familiarize himself with the range of topics a president would face. He has done great for being so young, but should have waited like Hillary did in 04. I'll save both of our time arguing policy procedures, because each of those could go for miles. I realize why so many people support Barack. He is the kind of guy you want to root for. He speaks well, he is funny and I would not be suprised AT ALL if he is the next president. But, his policy is more liberal than Hillary and he is unexperienced. The American public has become so easily influenced that the Presidential election is becoming American Idol: Politics Edition. Simple slogans and unsubstatiated claims, along with pretty speakers and marketable candidates are all that is left. We shouldn't be suprised that our current President pulled a 180 once he got in office, both times.

zander

I'll save my objection of your Bush analysis for a later date. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Obama is intelligent and a terrific speaker. The only problem is that that is where the list ends. As a Republican, I have to say, Obama is the worst candidate of the three. There is this myth, and i use the word myth, that Barack Obama is somehow this uniter and great compromiser. In what way is this, or has ever been, true. i realize he says we need to come together and solve problems. I realize he is the greatest an most inspiring speaker of all time. But what in the world is making people believe that he is a uniter? What has he EVER done to suggest such? Watch..."I am all powerful" Damn, still not true. He is more liberal than Hillary (if you don't believe me see his moveon.org endorsement) despite the fact that independents vote for him. If 'bring the country together' means 'push through my agenda with a Democratic Congress' than yes, he is a uniter. Second, the myth, again myth, that Obama is a leader. Has Barack Obama EVER lead ANYTHING? He was editor for the Harvard Law Review... Other than that he hasn't lead so much as a boyscout troop. Not saying senators haven't made good presidents, but Barack has ZERO, I mean ZERO, experience. Even as a republican, Hillary has impressed me with her wide-ranging and in-depth knowledge of every obscure political topic. Misguided as she may be. Barack doesn't share this characteristic. When asked specific and direct questions off of the script he gives answers like 'to a fair level' or 'do what seems reasonable'. He simply hasn't had the time to familiarize himself with the range of topics a president would face. He has done great for being so young, but should have waited like Hillary did in 04. I'll save both of our time arguing policy procedures, because each of those could go for miles. I realize why so many people support Barack. He is the kind of guy you want to root for. He speaks well, he is funny and I would not be suprised AT ALL if he is the next president. But, his policy is more liberal than Hillary and he is unexperienced. The American public has become so easily influenced that the Presidential election is becoming American Idol: Politics Edition. Simple slogans and unsubstatiated claims, along with pretty speakers and marketable candidates are all that is left. We shouldn't be suprised that our current President pulled a 180 once he got in office, both times.

Politics

Barack-Obama-Would-Be-a-Better-President-than-McCain-or-Clinton./1/

So, since 20 million people have voted for this guy I should just assume that he is an awesome candidate and vote for him? Sound logic. Simply because 20 million people have voted for him does not mean he is a good candidate. In fact, it leads into exactly what I argued earlier; Obama is charismatic and can market well for votes. So voting is leadership now? 1/3 of a term as a senator is experience? By your reasoning, every single legislator would be a perfectly formidable candidate for president. Just about EVERY legislator in Congress has more experience than Obama. Even you examples, such as Lincoln, had a full term under their belt. The bills you cite prove my point. How can you claim Obama is a uniter when all he does is sponsor ridiculously obvious and uncontreversial bills? Stopping terrorists from getting guns? Why not just create the 'happiness for America' Act or a bill to spread love to children? Is this really taking contreversial and difficult positions? The fact that your only evidence for Obama's emmaculate qualities is a speech he gave also proves my point. He can talk all he wants, but where is the action? When has he ever taken steps to overcome racial struggles? It seems that he and Clinton are dividing the country by race (look at the polls). Beyond the fact that he is a socialist, he has absolutely NO reason, whatsoever, to be president. Even if I was a Democrat, I would never vote for Barack Obama. You can not give me one substantial defining characteristic that sets him apart from ANY OTHER first-term legislator other than 'he gives bitchin' speeches'. He can tell me he is a uniter and he can claim to be the great leader of our time, but what in his life would ever lead me to think that, without him having to tell me? His involvement in Congress is run-of-the-mill, other than the fact that Democratic leadership sticks him on a boatload of committees because he has reached rockstar status. John McCain is not my ideal candidate and I don't have time or space to argue the partisan issues like taxes and the war. So, I'll assume I'm a dem and that we agree on most basic issues. What makes you vote for Obama over Hillary? In all of the debates, she demonstrates a much deeper knowledge of every issue and is much more versed in political goings-on. While Obama gives answers like 'The opposite of Bush' and 'I want to help the poor and take down greedy corporations'. Take Barack off of the teleprompter and lets see what this awe-insipiring quality is.

zander

So, since 20 million people have voted for this guy I should just assume that he is an awesome candidate and vote for him? Sound logic. Simply because 20 million people have voted for him does not mean he is a good candidate. In fact, it leads into exactly what I argued earlier; Obama is charismatic and can market well for votes. So voting is leadership now? 1/3 of a term as a senator is experience? By your reasoning, every single legislator would be a perfectly formidable candidate for president. Just about EVERY legislator in Congress has more experience than Obama. Even you examples, such as Lincoln, had a full term under their belt. The bills you cite prove my point. How can you claim Obama is a uniter when all he does is sponsor ridiculously obvious and uncontreversial bills? Stopping terrorists from getting guns? Why not just create the 'happiness for America' Act or a bill to spread love to children? Is this really taking contreversial and difficult positions? The fact that your only evidence for Obama's emmaculate qualities is a speech he gave also proves my point. He can talk all he wants, but where is the action? When has he ever taken steps to overcome racial struggles? It seems that he and Clinton are dividing the country by race (look at the polls). Beyond the fact that he is a socialist, he has absolutely NO reason, whatsoever, to be president. Even if I was a Democrat, I would never vote for Barack Obama. You can not give me one substantial defining characteristic that sets him apart from ANY OTHER first-term legislator other than 'he gives bitchin' speeches'. He can tell me he is a uniter and he can claim to be the great leader of our time, but what in his life would ever lead me to think that, without him having to tell me? His involvement in Congress is run-of-the-mill, other than the fact that Democratic leadership sticks him on a boatload of committees because he has reached rockstar status. John McCain is not my ideal candidate and I don't have time or space to argue the partisan issues like taxes and the war. So, I'll assume I'm a dem and that we agree on most basic issues. What makes you vote for Obama over Hillary? In all of the debates, she demonstrates a much deeper knowledge of every issue and is much more versed in political goings-on. While Obama gives answers like 'The opposite of Bush' and 'I want to help the poor and take down greedy corporations'. Take Barack off of the teleprompter and lets see what this awe-insipiring quality is.

Politics

Barack-Obama-Would-Be-a-Better-President-than-McCain-or-Clinton./1/

I have had sevral discussions with Obama supporters, which my family is one! If you know anything about the anitchrist then you would know that Obama fits most if not all the fittings for this person! He is a man from the middle east, He was raised my Musslim radicals, he has been the only person not to "support" the United States by placing his hand over his heart durring the star spangle banner, he does not wear any patroitic atire on his person! Now how can a person running for the United States presidentce, not support the United States? He also talkes about Great change that will happen when he gets into office, what does that mean? What kind of change? Good? Bad? He never really states what the change will be! Another factor this man is all about Peace... Peace in America, Peace in the Middle East... Just one more fact about the Antichrist! Now you tell me is that all just some big Coincidence, or in fact is the the Begining of the End??

Jer_G

I have had sevral discussions with Obama supporters, which my family is one! If you know anything about the anitchrist then you would know that Obama fits most if not all the fittings for this person! He is a man from the middle east, He was raised my Musslim radicals, he has been the only person not to "support" the United States by placing his hand over his heart durring the star spangle banner, he does not wear any patroitic atire on his person! Now how can a person running for the United States presidentce, not support the United States? He also talkes about Great change that will happen when he gets into office, what does that mean? What kind of change? Good? Bad? He never really states what the change will be! Another factor this man is all about Peace... Peace in America, Peace in the Middle East... Just one more fact about the Antichrist! Now you tell me is that all just some big Coincidence, or in fact is the the Begining of the End??

Politics

Barack-Obama-will-he-become-next-president-and-is-he-the-Anitchrist/1/

"Barack Obama will he become next president and is he the Antichrist?" Whether or not he will become the next President cannot be debated. Can he, should he, does he want to- those are things that can be debated. Is he the AntiChrist? You have made comical points to that effect, but not any valid ones. "He is a man from the middle east" -He is not from the Middle East, he is from the US- he was born in Hawaii. Foreign born citizens cannot run for President. Even if he WAS from the Middle East, this is not a qualifier for being the antichrist, if you can even make arguments for the existence of one in the first place. "He was raised my Muslim radicals" -He lived in Hawaii until the age of 6, and lived there from the age of 10 until he graduated High School. He spent 5 years in Indonesia, and attended a Catholic school as well as a public school that was predominantly Muslim. Even if he WAS raised by radical Muslims, this neither is a qualifier or absolute evidence of him being an anti-christ, were you to argue that one even exists. "he has been the only person not to "support" the United States by placing his hand over his heart during the star spangle banner" -Even if this statement were true, it has nothing to do with being the anti-christ. BUT you don't "support" the US by placing your hand over your heart during the Star Spangled Banner, and not doing so is not a sign of a lack of support for the US. "he does not wear any patriotic atire on his person" -Take this into consideration when you don't vote for the model in the US flag bikini! "Another factor this man is all about Peace... Peace in America, Peace in the Middle East... Just one more fact about the Antichrist!" -How is this a "fact about the Antichrist"?

Mangani

"Barack Obama will he become next president and is he the Antichrist?" Whether or not he will become the next President cannot be debated. Can he, should he, does he want to- those are things that can be debated. Is he the AntiChrist? You have made comical points to that effect, but not any valid ones. "He is a man from the middle east" -He is not from the Middle East, he is from the US- he was born in Hawaii. Foreign born citizens cannot run for President. Even if he WAS from the Middle East, this is not a qualifier for being the antichrist, if you can even make arguments for the existence of one in the first place. "He was raised my Muslim radicals" -He lived in Hawaii until the age of 6, and lived there from the age of 10 until he graduated High School. He spent 5 years in Indonesia, and attended a Catholic school as well as a public school that was predominantly Muslim. Even if he WAS raised by radical Muslims, this neither is a qualifier or absolute evidence of him being an anti-christ, were you to argue that one even exists. "he has been the only person not to "support" the United States by placing his hand over his heart during the star spangle banner" -Even if this statement were true, it has nothing to do with being the anti-christ. BUT you don't "support" the US by placing your hand over your heart during the Star Spangled Banner, and not doing so is not a sign of a lack of support for the US. "he does not wear any patriotic atire on his person" -Take this into consideration when you don't vote for the model in the US flag bikini! "Another factor this man is all about Peace... Peace in America, Peace in the Middle East... Just one more fact about the Antichrist!" -How is this a "fact about the Antichrist"?

Politics

Barack-Obama-will-he-become-next-president-and-is-he-the-Anitchrist/1/

Let's lay out some differences between the Antichrist and Barack Obama: 1) Antichrist= opposed to Christ; Barack Obama= Christian 2) The Antichrist denies Jesus is the Christ; the Antichrist denies the "Father" and the "Son"; the Antichrist denies Jesus come in the flesh; Barack Obama is a Christian who professes Jesus is the Christ (excerpt from "The Audacity of Hope"-I learned that those things I was too weak to accomplish myself, [Jesus] would accomplish with me if I placed my trust in [Jesus]). This is not the only time he has invoked Jesus Christ, spoken of his conversion to Christianity, or invoked the name of God. 3) The Antichrist is a political/religious leader. It is believed by Christians that the Antichrist will come when the Temple of Solomon is rebuilt, and he will reinstitute the sacrifice at the temple. He is believed to be a Jew because the only person who would be allowed to preside over this sacrifice is a Levite priest. This person will be believed by Jews to be the Messiah... Barack Obama is Kenyan/American. He is not Jewish, nor will the decendant of a Muslim be honored by anyone as the Messiah. 4) Even Muslims believe Jesus Christ will destroy the Antichrist. This is completely inconsistent with your assertion that Islam makes him the Antichrist. I could go on and on, but I think I've made my point that Barack Obama cannot possibly be the Antichrist...

Mangani

Let's lay out some differences between the Antichrist and Barack Obama: 1) Antichrist= opposed to Christ; Barack Obama= Christian 2) The Antichrist denies Jesus is the Christ; the Antichrist denies the "Father" and the "Son"; the Antichrist denies Jesus come in the flesh; Barack Obama is a Christian who professes Jesus is the Christ (excerpt from "The Audacity of Hope"-I learned that those things I was too weak to accomplish myself, [Jesus] would accomplish with me if I placed my trust in [Jesus]). This is not the only time he has invoked Jesus Christ, spoken of his conversion to Christianity, or invoked the name of God. 3) The Antichrist is a political/religious leader. It is believed by Christians that the Antichrist will come when the Temple of Solomon is rebuilt, and he will reinstitute the sacrifice at the temple. He is believed to be a Jew because the only person who would be allowed to preside over this sacrifice is a Levite priest. This person will be believed by Jews to be the Messiah... Barack Obama is Kenyan/American. He is not Jewish, nor will the decendant of a Muslim be honored by anyone as the Messiah. 4) Even Muslims believe Jesus Christ will destroy the Antichrist. This is completely inconsistent with your assertion that Islam makes him the Antichrist. I could go on and on, but I think I've made my point that Barack Obama cannot possibly be the Antichrist...

Politics

Barack-Obama-will-he-become-next-president-and-is-he-the-Anitchrist/1/

Can't argue against points that weren't made... so vote Con unless you have an argument in support of Obama being the antichrist.

Mangani

Can't argue against points that weren't made... so vote Con unless you have an argument in support of Obama being the antichrist.

Politics

Barack-Obama-will-he-become-next-president-and-is-he-the-Anitchrist/1/

Okay, several things wrong with the analogy. First, the types of medical services we have now didn't exist back then; you couldn't give a cow to have open heart surgery because it didn't exist yet. There were only very meager procedures that could be performed to help the sick and hurt. At the beginning of the 20th century, the average life expectancy was around 40 years old. Today it is 77 in the U.S. and 67 for the world. Second, not everyone had cows because they were very expensive. Meat was a delicacy and most people ate potatoes. So if you gave a cow for surgery, which didn't exist yet, then you were probably wealthy. Likewise today, if you can pay for surgery out of pocket, you are very wealthy. Third, your metaphor doesn't capture how prices work. And this is why I worry when people with this line of thinking--who can't grasp these basic economic concepts--want to make policy. It's not as if there is a fixed price for cattle or a fixed price for medical services. Things change relative to one another. Changes in livestock processing make raising cattle more efficient, so the price of cattle goes down, while new technologies create new medical procedures which tend to be very expensive at first. But to answer your question about if every one has at least a cow's worth of medical coverage, then the answer is yes. A cow today would run you around <PHONE> dollars <URL>... Anyone can get a job that pays $9 dollars an hour and get an insurance plan that covers them for $5000 dollars. Easy. And even if they can't do that, medicaid and medicare or charity take care of the bill. So yes, everyone literally does have access to a cow. The problem with your argument is that you don't think people should have some kind of basic cut, but rather are entitled to everything they need. But why does need equal entitlement? How much am I entitled to coerce you to fork over for my medical coverage? $10,000 dollars? $20,000 dollars? $2,000,000? This money has to come from somewhere--there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. And just closing your eyes and wishing the government would wave its magic wand and keep everyone from dying or getting sick, isn't the answer.

Daxitarian

Okay, several things wrong with the analogy. First, the types of medical services we have now didn't exist back then; you couldn't give a cow to have open heart surgery because it didn't exist yet. There were only very meager procedures that could be performed to help the sick and hurt. At the beginning of the 20th century, the average life expectancy was around 40 years old. Today it is 77 in the U.S. and 67 for the world. Second, not everyone had cows because they were very expensive. Meat was a delicacy and most people ate potatoes. So if you gave a cow for surgery, which didn't exist yet, then you were probably wealthy. Likewise today, if you can pay for surgery out of pocket, you are very wealthy. Third, your metaphor doesn't capture how prices work. And this is why I worry when people with this line of thinking--who can't grasp these basic economic concepts--want to make policy. It's not as if there is a fixed price for cattle or a fixed price for medical services. Things change relative to one another. Changes in livestock processing make raising cattle more efficient, so the price of cattle goes down, while new technologies create new medical procedures which tend to be very expensive at first. But to answer your question about if every one has at least a cow's worth of medical coverage, then the answer is yes. A cow today would run you around 600-1200 dollars http://newsok.com... Anyone can get a job that pays $9 dollars an hour and get an insurance plan that covers them for $5000 dollars. Easy. And even if they can't do that, medicaid and medicare or charity take care of the bill. So yes, everyone literally does have access to a cow. The problem with your argument is that you don't think people should have some kind of basic cut, but rather are entitled to everything they need. But why does need equal entitlement? How much am I entitled to coerce you to fork over for my medical coverage? $10,000 dollars? $20,000 dollars? $2,000,000? This money has to come from somewhere--there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. And just closing your eyes and wishing the government would wave its magic wand and keep everyone from dying or getting sick, isn't the answer.

Politics

Basic-Minimum-don-t-have-a-cow/1/

"i'm not really sure what your point was clearly but from the best i could gather, i got it done." Reply: The point is that your analogy, falsely, assumes that at one point everyone had access to some basic medical coverage which they no longer have. Also, that you are not arguing for some type of minimum, but rather that people are entitled to whatever they need, costs be damned. "second, even if they didn't have cows back then, they could get access to basic care, as the rule." Reply: You still haven't shown what medical coverage someone could get back then that they can't get now. If you got a cold, you could die; Now one just needs to walk to a drug store and buy some cold medicine. "now, the rule is that when you're just starting out the decade after your parents, you can't." Reply: Let's take me for example. I'm 22, work, and have medical insurance. I just had an ingrown toenail taken out. My co-pay was about $15 dollars. Now if I lived a 100 years ago, I would have either to take it out myself, or pay a specialist that would be very expensive. But the amount of work I have to do now to get it taken out compared to the amount of work I would have to do back then to pay for it are very different. Now I have to do less than 2 hours of work, where as then it could be several days worth of labor. Furthermore, it's not that most young people can't get health insurance--which is false because they younger you are, the easier it is to obtain--it's that most young people don't get it because they don't feel like the risk compared to the amount of assets they own would be worth taking insurance out on. "third, you said that our health care is great, because we live longer. again, you miss the point that i'm not talking literally of then and now. only that like then, all should have access to basic surgery procedures." Reply: False premise here is that everyone had access to basic surgery procedures, which is why people only lived to be around 40. "i'd say it's more in line with "basic" procedures genreally such that it should be transferrable to today...there's procedurs that could be done back then, that cannot be done now due to costs." Reply: Again, you haven't said what "basic" is, or what these procedures are. "The United States ranks 19th in life expectancy and 20th in infant mortality among 23 industrialized nations" Reply: 1. Life expectancy is influenced by other variables besides our healthcare system. 2. We may be 19th, but those statistics are misleading because it is an ordinal type of data that tells you nothing about the differences between 1 and 2, 2 and 3, 3 and 4, etc. The average life expectancy in Great Britain is 78.4 years while in the U.S. it is 77.8 years. But you are 4 times as likely to die while undergoing surgery in Great Britain as you are in the U.S. ( <URL>... ) "a doctor is such that you have insurance costs artificially causing prices to go up,' Reply: The only way prices are artificially made to go up is through government intervention. When the government mandates that insurance companies provide coverage for things their clients don't need or want, that drives up prices. Doctors can drive up prices when they use government regulation as a way to fix market entry and control prices. "it strikes me as you're finding a theory to justify a preconseived notion that you dont want to help them." Reply: Giving money to help with someone's medical expenses is a noble thing to do. Giving other people's money is not. Don't think you have discovered some sort of moral high ground because you want to give everyone health care. YOU are not doing a damn thing for anyone; you want to force other people to do it for you. Coerced virtue is no virtue at all. Arguing for socialist policies may help you sleep at night, but doesn't change the fact that you are doing nothing to help anyone and the policies you push for end up making everyone worse off. "you can close your eyes and pretend our laws and system isn't depriving people of a basic cut, but reality will always triumph over warped thinking." Reply: The only thing that is depriving people of anything is the government. In a free market, nobody takes anything from you without your consent. If you had any grasp of reality, you would have studied economics by now.

Daxitarian

"i'm not really sure what your point was clearly but from the best i could gather, i got it done." Reply: The point is that your analogy, falsely, assumes that at one point everyone had access to some basic medical coverage which they no longer have. Also, that you are not arguing for some type of minimum, but rather that people are entitled to whatever they need, costs be damned. "second, even if they didn't have cows back then, they could get access to basic care, as the rule." Reply: You still haven't shown what medical coverage someone could get back then that they can't get now. If you got a cold, you could die; Now one just needs to walk to a drug store and buy some cold medicine. "now, the rule is that when you're just starting out the decade after your parents, you can't." Reply: Let's take me for example. I'm 22, work, and have medical insurance. I just had an ingrown toenail taken out. My co-pay was about $15 dollars. Now if I lived a 100 years ago, I would have either to take it out myself, or pay a specialist that would be very expensive. But the amount of work I have to do now to get it taken out compared to the amount of work I would have to do back then to pay for it are very different. Now I have to do less than 2 hours of work, where as then it could be several days worth of labor. Furthermore, it's not that most young people can't get health insurance--which is false because they younger you are, the easier it is to obtain--it's that most young people don't get it because they don't feel like the risk compared to the amount of assets they own would be worth taking insurance out on. "third, you said that our health care is great, because we live longer. again, you miss the point that i'm not talking literally of then and now. only that like then, all should have access to basic surgery procedures." Reply: False premise here is that everyone had access to basic surgery procedures, which is why people only lived to be around 40. "i'd say it's more in line with "basic" procedures genreally such that it should be transferrable to today...there's procedurs that could be done back then, that cannot be done now due to costs." Reply: Again, you haven't said what "basic" is, or what these procedures are. "The United States ranks 19th in life expectancy and 20th in infant mortality among 23 industrialized nations" Reply: 1. Life expectancy is influenced by other variables besides our healthcare system. 2. We may be 19th, but those statistics are misleading because it is an ordinal type of data that tells you nothing about the differences between 1 and 2, 2 and 3, 3 and 4, etc. The average life expectancy in Great Britain is 78.4 years while in the U.S. it is 77.8 years. But you are 4 times as likely to die while undergoing surgery in Great Britain as you are in the U.S. ( http://www.reason.com... ) "a doctor is such that you have insurance costs artificially causing prices to go up,' Reply: The only way prices are artificially made to go up is through government intervention. When the government mandates that insurance companies provide coverage for things their clients don't need or want, that drives up prices. Doctors can drive up prices when they use government regulation as a way to fix market entry and control prices. "it strikes me as you're finding a theory to justify a preconseived notion that you dont want to help them." Reply: Giving money to help with someone's medical expenses is a noble thing to do. Giving other people's money is not. Don't think you have discovered some sort of moral high ground because you want to give everyone health care. YOU are not doing a damn thing for anyone; you want to force other people to do it for you. Coerced virtue is no virtue at all. Arguing for socialist policies may help you sleep at night, but doesn't change the fact that you are doing nothing to help anyone and the policies you push for end up making everyone worse off. "you can close your eyes and pretend our laws and system isn't depriving people of a basic cut, but reality will always triumph over warped thinking." Reply: The only thing that is depriving people of anything is the government. In a free market, nobody takes anything from you without your consent. If you had any grasp of reality, you would have studied economics by now.

Politics

Basic-Minimum-don-t-have-a-cow/1/

i am one to push for all who work to get a basic minimum. i've used examples like a giant on earth who tries to claim everything to the exclusion of everyone else to make my example. i think the following example i've used is best. back in the day, the frontier days... if you wanted a surgery, you would simply give the doctor, at most, a cow, and he'd do it for you. i've used this example before, somewhat facetiously, so i thought i'd bring it pu again as i got no major response. do people have access to the cow metaphorically today? if the average cost for a surgery is 14k and the average open heart is 100k, and we consider these to be pretty basic, then a working person to me should be able to get it. so, there should be catostrophic subsidies for those who need it from the government. now, we can build into this things like the requirement to save in health tax accounts etc for yourself etc, and that if you make more you're more responsible to save etc. and we don't need insurance for all and paying for everytime ya go to the doctor. but that doesn't really say the thigs that matter. but, to say no help at all.... when say all those 30 belows out there couldn't afford it primarly... is at least not addressing my metaphor. (arguably this could apply to manys but it gets more gray) by the time you're 20, you should be able to afford a cow. i don't think most 20 year olds could practically speaking. if you disagree with me, but have no substantial methaphors back at me, won't you at least explicitly acknowledge that you don't think it's just to have the government do this, and ulitmately then don't care that that happens at least in the sense that of governmental help? also... i used this point with that giant on earth but it's applicable here.... if we deny the earth etc to people to take at will and as much as they want with laws of claims and such.... aren't we responsbile for ensuring that at the least everyone has a basic cut to it?

dairygirl4u2c

i am one to push for all who work to get a basic minimum. i've used examples like a giant on earth who tries to claim everything to the exclusion of everyone else to make my example. i think the following example i've used is best. back in the day, the frontier days... if you wanted a surgery, you would simply give the doctor, at most, a cow, and he'd do it for you. i've used this example before, somewhat facetiously, so i thought i'd bring it pu again as i got no major response. do people have access to the cow metaphorically today? if the average cost for a surgery is 14k and the average open heart is 100k, and we consider these to be pretty basic, then a working person to me should be able to get it. so, there should be catostrophic subsidies for those who need it from the government. now, we can build into this things like the requirement to save in health tax accounts etc for yourself etc, and that if you make more you're more responsible to save etc. and we don't need insurance for all and paying for everytime ya go to the doctor. but that doesn't really say the thigs that matter. but, to say no help at all.... when say all those 30 belows out there couldn't afford it primarly... is at least not addressing my metaphor. (arguably this could apply to manys but it gets more gray) by the time you're 20, you should be able to afford a cow. i don't think most 20 year olds could practically speaking. if you disagree with me, but have no substantial methaphors back at me, won't you at least explicitly acknowledge that you don't think it's just to have the government do this, and ulitmately then don't care that that happens at least in the sense that of governmental help? also... i used this point with that giant on earth but it's applicable here.... if we deny the earth etc to people to take at will and as much as they want with laws of claims and such.... aren't we responsbile for ensuring that at the least everyone has a basic cut to it?

Politics

Basic-Minimum-don-t-have-a-cow/1/

the first point, that cows are cheap today, completely misses the point. i said we were talking metaphorically. second, even if they didn't have cows back then, they could get access to basic care, as the rule. again, you're missing the point. now, the rule is that when you're just starting out the decade after your parents, you can't. not to mention other poor people, but they are more debateable. younger people is not debatebale that you've shown anyway. third, you said that our health care is great, because we live longer. again, you miss the point that i'm not talking literally of then and now. only that like then, all should have access to basic surgery procedures. open heart is debateable. i'd say it's more in line with "basic" procedures genreally such that it should be transferrable to today. but, whtever teh case, there's procedurs that could be done back then, that cannot be done now due to costs. as for the basics... consider the following, which shows we're not at all as good as we could be: "The United States ranks 19th in life expectancy and 20th in infant mortality among 23 industrialized nations, according to the CIA's 1993 World Fact Book. The U.S. also has the lowest health care satisfaction rate (11 percent) of the 10 largest industrialized nations (Health Affairs, vol. 9, no. 2)." "Changes in livestock processing make raising cattle more efficient, so the price of cattle goes down, while new technologies create new medical procedures which tend to be very expensive at first." as for the above, you have not explained yourself clear here. i can't read your mind. if people are being denied the basics, we can't simply think "gee, at least someday i will be able to afford the basics" nevermind though, that even with this reasoning, the skyrocketed costs of health care will continue if today is any indicator, and they won't be able to afford the health care. the reason is, you act as if a doctor is like making a motor faster and more efficient. it's not... a doctor is such that you have insurance costs artificially causing prices to go up, and people to abuse the system, and cause problems for others. it strikes me as you're finding a theory to justify a preconseived notion that you dont want to help them. not that you're finding theory and seeing that helping them would be not economically doable so you don't want to. the reason i think this, is because it seems pretty apparent to me the effects wouldn't be that bad. can you give specifics like i did, how you claim it's as bad as you say? eg, the motor analgoy showed the flaw in your thinking. i'm not really sure what your point was clearly but from the best i could gather, i got it done. i recommend you go to the other debate, cause he had some interesting ideas on supply and demand, which i also refuted, and if you bring them up, i'll refute htem ehre. my point is that he's got some ideas you might be able to expand on, and has more basis to. you can close your eyes and pretend our laws and system isn't depriving people of a basic cut, but reality will always triumph over warped thinking.

dairygirl4u2c

the first point, that cows are cheap today, completely misses the point. i said we were talking metaphorically. second, even if they didn't have cows back then, they could get access to basic care, as the rule. again, you're missing the point. now, the rule is that when you're just starting out the decade after your parents, you can't. not to mention other poor people, but they are more debateable. younger people is not debatebale that you've shown anyway. third, you said that our health care is great, because we live longer. again, you miss the point that i'm not talking literally of then and now. only that like then, all should have access to basic surgery procedures. open heart is debateable. i'd say it's more in line with "basic" procedures genreally such that it should be transferrable to today. but, whtever teh case, there's procedurs that could be done back then, that cannot be done now due to costs. as for the basics... consider the following, which shows we're not at all as good as we could be: "The United States ranks 19th in life expectancy and 20th in infant mortality among 23 industrialized nations, according to the CIA's 1993 World Fact Book. The U.S. also has the lowest health care satisfaction rate (11 percent) of the 10 largest industrialized nations (Health Affairs, vol. 9, no. 2)." "Changes in livestock processing make raising cattle more efficient, so the price of cattle goes down, while new technologies create new medical procedures which tend to be very expensive at first." as for the above, you have not explained yourself clear here. i can't read your mind. if people are being denied the basics, we can't simply think "gee, at least someday i will be able to afford the basics" nevermind though, that even with this reasoning, the skyrocketed costs of health care will continue if today is any indicator, and they won't be able to afford the health care. the reason is, you act as if a doctor is like making a motor faster and more efficient. it's not... a doctor is such that you have insurance costs artificially causing prices to go up, and people to abuse the system, and cause problems for others. it strikes me as you're finding a theory to justify a preconseived notion that you dont want to help them. not that you're finding theory and seeing that helping them would be not economically doable so you don't want to. the reason i think this, is because it seems pretty apparent to me the effects wouldn't be that bad. can you give specifics like i did, how you claim it's as bad as you say? eg, the motor analgoy showed the flaw in your thinking. i'm not really sure what your point was clearly but from the best i could gather, i got it done. i recommend you go to the other debate, cause he had some interesting ideas on supply and demand, which i also refuted, and if you bring them up, i'll refute htem ehre. my point is that he's got some ideas you might be able to expand on, and has more basis to. you can close your eyes and pretend our laws and system isn't depriving people of a basic cut, but reality will always triumph over warped thinking.

Politics

Basic-Minimum-don-t-have-a-cow/1/

1) First, Pro suggests that the government should buy out the companies of AT&T; and Comcast. What Pro is essentially suggesting is that the tax payers should pay money to change the new provider that they're paying to. This is illogical, as the country is currently in an economic crisis. With Pro's plan, all tax payers are contributing a large chunk of money to buy a part of an industry to which they may not necessarily subscribe, i.e. internet. Not everybody chooses to utilize the internet as Pro himself pointed out, so it would be unfair to make these people pay for it. Taxes are supposed to be kept to a minimum; having the internet is not a right, and as such, the government has no incentive to try and lower costs of the internet. That is for the market to work out on its own. To combat the current high prices of internet, a new company could emerge with lower prices, attract a lot of customers, and in the end prove to be a viable competitor or perhaps even surpass the current alleged oligopoly. That's what Wal-Mart did :) 2) Pro begins his argument by fear-mongering in claiming that technology, our national freedom and even our children are at risk under the current system. First, while technology is important, the internet is not a right like I've said. Additionally, citizens have access to the internet for free at libraries and other public buildings. Moreover, there are internet cafes, free internet for children at schools, etc. Second, we still have national dialog the same as we did (and got by) before the publicity of the internet. We have these things called books, letters, memos, magazines, newspapers, etc. You know - these things that were around and helpful at sparking the French Revolution, for example. Finally, our children are not at risk - this is a blatant exaggeration. 3) Regarding an internet subscription model, that won't happen thanks to market competition. As soon as one company implements that requirement, people will flock membership to the one that doesn't. Additionally, people can always boycott purchasing these internet plans. Instead, they can access the free internet I've mentioned, or - dare I say it - go without their beloved internet for a little while and prove that just as we don't necessarily have the right to internet, we don't have an obligation to pay for it either. This will cost said companies an exorbitant amount of money if everyone complies, and they will revoke the policy. If people don't comply, it will be our tough luck, because in a capitalistic and democratic society, these companies absolutely have the right to charge us for internet use. Additionally, it should be noted that we already pay a fee to use the internet (mine's about 30 bucks a month), so perhaps this new policy might even SAVE people money. For instance, if they charge 2 bucks per site, and the only sites I frequent from my home are DDO, CNN and Google, then I'd be paying $6 per month for internet instead of 30. I s'pose it depends how these charges are structured though; a policy that Pro nor myself know nothing about at this time. However, keep in mind that even if AT&T; or Comcast don't run their policy like that, other new competitors can. 4) Next Pro insists that people must demand that our freedom shall be protected, and a government-run 'public option' must be introduced. First, again, our freedoms are not being threatened; this is a case of appeal to fear/emotion fallacies. Anyway, Pro does not provide an adequate argument as to why a public option would be most beneficial. Here are his claims: A -- A travesty of American society is that only 63% of households have high-speed internet. Okay, slavery was a travesty. The Holocaust was a travesty. Having just 63% of U.S. households have high-speed internet is NOT a travesty. Moreover, just because France downloads and uploads at higher speeds is hardly a decent argument for increasing the ever-growing bureaucracy of the U.S. government. If I'm downloading the same music as someone in France and it takes them 2 minutes and me 10 minutes, it's certainly not a gigantic infringement upon my rights or danger to my freedom. B -- By establishing a large competitor to every other ISP in America, instant pressure is put on them to improve services and lower the needlessly high prices. I've already detailed how competition in this country works, and why the government paying for Pro's suggested idea is wrong. Further, these companies should already have said incentive thanks to competition. C -- Because the government has a vested interest in the safety of the internet users, it will give the government more access to what we do on the internet. What?! The constitution implies a right to privacy, and The Privacy Act of 1974 prevents the unauthorized disclosure of personal information held by the government. Essentially I disagree with Pro - the government absolutely would become a digital Big Brother.

Danielle

1) First, Pro suggests that the government should buy out the companies of AT&T; and Comcast. What Pro is essentially suggesting is that the tax payers should pay money to change the new provider that they're paying to. This is illogical, as the country is currently in an economic crisis. With Pro's plan, all tax payers are contributing a large chunk of money to buy a part of an industry to which they may not necessarily subscribe, i.e. internet. Not everybody chooses to utilize the internet as Pro himself pointed out, so it would be unfair to make these people pay for it. Taxes are supposed to be kept to a minimum; having the internet is not a right, and as such, the government has no incentive to try and lower costs of the internet. That is for the market to work out on its own. To combat the current high prices of internet, a new company could emerge with lower prices, attract a lot of customers, and in the end prove to be a viable competitor or perhaps even surpass the current alleged oligopoly. That's what Wal-Mart did :) 2) Pro begins his argument by fear-mongering in claiming that technology, our national freedom and even our children are at risk under the current system. First, while technology is important, the internet is not a right like I've said. Additionally, citizens have access to the internet for free at libraries and other public buildings. Moreover, there are internet cafes, free internet for children at schools, etc. Second, we still have national dialog the same as we did (and got by) before the publicity of the internet. We have these things called books, letters, memos, magazines, newspapers, etc. You know - these things that were around and helpful at sparking the French Revolution, for example. Finally, our children are not at risk - this is a blatant exaggeration. 3) Regarding an internet subscription model, that won't happen thanks to market competition. As soon as one company implements that requirement, people will flock membership to the one that doesn't. Additionally, people can always boycott purchasing these internet plans. Instead, they can access the free internet I've mentioned, or - dare I say it - go without their beloved internet for a little while and prove that just as we don't necessarily have the right to internet, we don't have an obligation to pay for it either. This will cost said companies an exorbitant amount of money if everyone complies, and they will revoke the policy. If people don't comply, it will be our tough luck, because in a capitalistic and democratic society, these companies absolutely have the right to charge us for internet use. Additionally, it should be noted that we already pay a fee to use the internet (mine's about 30 bucks a month), so perhaps this new policy might even SAVE people money. For instance, if they charge 2 bucks per site, and the only sites I frequent from my home are DDO, CNN and Google, then I'd be paying $6 per month for internet instead of 30. I s'pose it depends how these charges are structured though; a policy that Pro nor myself know nothing about at this time. However, keep in mind that even if AT&T; or Comcast don't run their policy like that, other new competitors can. 4) Next Pro insists that people must demand that our freedom shall be protected, and a government-run 'public option' must be introduced. First, again, our freedoms are not being threatened; this is a case of appeal to fear/emotion fallacies. Anyway, Pro does not provide an adequate argument as to why a public option would be most beneficial. Here are his claims: A -- A travesty of American society is that only 63% of households have high-speed internet. Okay, slavery was a travesty. The Holocaust was a travesty. Having just 63% of U.S. households have high-speed internet is NOT a travesty. Moreover, just because France downloads and uploads at higher speeds is hardly a decent argument for increasing the ever-growing bureaucracy of the U.S. government. If I'm downloading the same music as someone in France and it takes them 2 minutes and me 10 minutes, it's certainly not a gigantic infringement upon my rights or danger to my freedom. B -- By establishing a large competitor to every other ISP in America, instant pressure is put on them to improve services and lower the needlessly high prices. I've already detailed how competition in this country works, and why the government paying for Pro's suggested idea is wrong. Further, these companies should already have said incentive thanks to competition. C -- Because the government has a vested interest in the safety of the internet users, it will give the government more access to what we do on the internet. What?! The constitution implies a right to privacy, and The Privacy Act of 1974 prevents the unauthorized disclosure of personal information held by the government. Essentially I disagree with Pro - the government absolutely would become a digital Big Brother.

Society

Be-It-Resolved-That-The-Goverment-Should-Nationalize-the-Internet./1/

I'd like to thank my opponent for his well thought out response and making his Bolshevik ideology abundantly clear. I'll continue structuring my argument numerically for clarity and consistency. 1. Pro beings by claiming that the government should be involved in the market because the government "can do it cheaper." Whoa - hello, Communism. Saying "the government can do it cheaper" is a horrible argument. Pro writes, "The fact is that government should not assume that someone else is providing a need for its people, it should take initiative." Again, the internet is not a need! Like I said, the government's only responsibility in a democracy is to protect the rights of its citizens. Because the internet is not a right, the government has no incentive to get involved. 2. Moreover, while Pro accuses me of being short-sighted, he's clearly the one who's wishful thinking. When has the government ever done something without a profit motive? The government's debt is nearly 1.5 trillion dollars. Because politicians can't pay this debt by raising taxes (as doing so hinder their re-election), they're going to ensure that they profit in all of their business endeavors, perhaps not to pay greedy CEOs, but to pay to the State. So, the idea that the government would drastically lower costs is a pipe dream. 3. Next Pro complains about Comcast's profit margins. A business that doesn't think about profit doesn't stay in business. Additionally, Comcast profit margins are less than businesses in many other industries. In fact, they are barely high enough to get people to invest in their stock! People who constantly whine about greed haven't the faintest notion about how business or a capitalist economy works. Here's a clue: If DSL offered service for $11/month as Pro suggested, but Comcast and AT&T; provided better service (i.e. faster speed, more options, etc.) but charged $25/month, then people have the option of which they'd prefer. Just because several companies have a lot of business is NOT indicative of a monopoly, oligopoly, etc. and Pro has not proven as such. 4. Pro continues that a government option would "the cost of an essential need for all families by $168 a year." Again, high-speed internet is NOT a need - it's a luxury. At best, it could be argued that this would be a NEED for government officials, whose internet is paid by government tax dollars anyway. Additionally, no one has argued against the government creating a system specifically for itself. A huge reason why that's an important factor is because the opinion of the people is very important to consider in this matter. For instance, there is a huge divide in our society and our government concerning nationalizing health care let alone the internet! The ideology to combat will be: If the government can get in on the action here, they can justifiably get in on the action anywhere. I mean what's next - government food chains? Pro would say it's unlikely, but hey, at least food is a necessity. If the government implements itself into every aspect of the market, we'll become a Communist nation. This is especially true if the government offers the lowest price in every market, completely eliminating their competitors, and making nearly impossible for small business to compete. 5. Next Pro argues that my ideology is moot because it's impossible for a competitor to compete. First of all, he clearly has no idea how things like the stock exchange and investing work. If you pool resources, get loans, sell stock, etc. then you'd have the funds to make yourself a viable competitor. Second, if the government implements a cheaper alternative, how does Pro expect those businesses to compete OR for other smaller businesses to emerge and compete? Small businesses drive the American economy. 6. Who's to say that the government wouldn't charge per site or download? Moreover, government control = less freedom! They can easily implement censorship and other manipulation. Conclusion: Pro dropped many of my arguments, including: The reality that free internet is accessible; Our 'freedoms' are not being threatened as Pro argued in R1; The government would become a digital Big Brother; etc. Additionally, I propose that there are other alternatives to combating this alleged oligopoly, such as boycotts (at least in the household, if not at businesses and schools) - an argument again that Pro has completely ignored. Plus, he mentioned that combined these 2 companies in question have control of 30% of the U.S. market, so about 15% each. What about the other 70%? Worst case scenario, Americans can switch providers. There are companies with even more of an oligopoly-like reign, including telecommunications providers, air lines (Boeing), Dell - IBM, Haliburton, gas stations, etc. Like with these other companies, the government should take measures to regulate the economy; however, creating a public option is not a viable or proper solution.

Danielle

I'd like to thank my opponent for his well thought out response and making his Bolshevik ideology abundantly clear. I'll continue structuring my argument numerically for clarity and consistency. 1. Pro beings by claiming that the government should be involved in the market because the government "can do it cheaper." Whoa - hello, Communism. Saying "the government can do it cheaper" is a horrible argument. Pro writes, "The fact is that government should not assume that someone else is providing a need for its people, it should take initiative." Again, the internet is not a need! Like I said, the government's only responsibility in a democracy is to protect the rights of its citizens. Because the internet is not a right, the government has no incentive to get involved. 2. Moreover, while Pro accuses me of being short-sighted, he's clearly the one who's wishful thinking. When has the government ever done something without a profit motive? The government's debt is nearly 1.5 trillion dollars. Because politicians can't pay this debt by raising taxes (as doing so hinder their re-election), they're going to ensure that they profit in all of their business endeavors, perhaps not to pay greedy CEOs, but to pay to the State. So, the idea that the government would drastically lower costs is a pipe dream. 3. Next Pro complains about Comcast's profit margins. A business that doesn't think about profit doesn't stay in business. Additionally, Comcast profit margins are less than businesses in many other industries. In fact, they are barely high enough to get people to invest in their stock! People who constantly whine about greed haven't the faintest notion about how business or a capitalist economy works. Here's a clue: If DSL offered service for $11/month as Pro suggested, but Comcast and AT&T; provided better service (i.e. faster speed, more options, etc.) but charged $25/month, then people have the option of which they'd prefer. Just because several companies have a lot of business is NOT indicative of a monopoly, oligopoly, etc. and Pro has not proven as such. 4. Pro continues that a government option would "the cost of an essential need for all families by $168 a year." Again, high-speed internet is NOT a need - it's a luxury. At best, it could be argued that this would be a NEED for government officials, whose internet is paid by government tax dollars anyway. Additionally, no one has argued against the government creating a system specifically for itself. A huge reason why that's an important factor is because the opinion of the people is very important to consider in this matter. For instance, there is a huge divide in our society and our government concerning nationalizing health care let alone the internet! The ideology to combat will be: If the government can get in on the action here, they can justifiably get in on the action anywhere. I mean what's next - government food chains? Pro would say it's unlikely, but hey, at least food is a necessity. If the government implements itself into every aspect of the market, we'll become a Communist nation. This is especially true if the government offers the lowest price in every market, completely eliminating their competitors, and making nearly impossible for small business to compete. 5. Next Pro argues that my ideology is moot because it's impossible for a competitor to compete. First of all, he clearly has no idea how things like the stock exchange and investing work. If you pool resources, get loans, sell stock, etc. then you'd have the funds to make yourself a viable competitor. Second, if the government implements a cheaper alternative, how does Pro expect those businesses to compete OR for other smaller businesses to emerge and compete? Small businesses drive the American economy. 6. Who's to say that the government wouldn't charge per site or download? Moreover, government control = less freedom! They can easily implement censorship and other manipulation. Conclusion: Pro dropped many of my arguments, including: The reality that free internet is accessible; Our 'freedoms' are not being threatened as Pro argued in R1; The government would become a digital Big Brother; etc. Additionally, I propose that there are other alternatives to combating this alleged oligopoly, such as boycotts (at least in the household, if not at businesses and schools) - an argument again that Pro has completely ignored. Plus, he mentioned that combined these 2 companies in question have control of 30% of the U.S. market, so about 15% each. What about the other 70%? Worst case scenario, Americans can switch providers. There are companies with even more of an oligopoly-like reign, including telecommunications providers, air lines (Boeing), Dell - IBM, Haliburton, gas stations, etc. Like with these other companies, the government should take measures to regulate the economy; however, creating a public option is not a viable or proper solution.

Society

Be-It-Resolved-That-The-Goverment-Should-Nationalize-the-Internet./1/

I'd like to thank my opponent, Mr. Marx, for his presentation thus far. 1. I'll begin by responding to my opponent's proposed "putrid hypocrisy" of my argument. He says that since this debate is taking place on the internet, that the internet must be a right. I stand in firm negation of this absurd and fallacious assertion. Rights are something that you are born with. Access to high-speed internet is not one of them! Regardless of how useful the internet may be or how often we might use it, the internet is not a right. Period. My opponent's attempt at trying to make it appear so by appealing to its function is ridiculous. He says, "It is for these social, political, educational, humanitarian and productivity reasons that the government should benefit the whole and not only nationalize, but -socialize- the internet." Fortunately, we don't live in a Socialist nation. The ONLY things the government should socialize, if anything, are that which are deemed rights. Because Pro has not and can not prove that having the internet is a right, this is an embarrassing argument on his behalf and one that most definitely belongs to the Con. Further, I'll prove for economic and political reasons throughout this discussion why Pro's proposal would not be a good idea. 2. Next, Pro writes, "I would not only accuse the con side of being short sighted, but I can prove it! Herein, she contradicts herself in the span of two sentences: When has the government ever done something without a profit motive? The government's debt is nearly 1.5 trillion dollars." For now, I'll ignore the fact that Pro completely misused the terms 'short-sighted' and 'contradiction' because this is not an English class, though you'll note that nothing about that statement demonstrated short-sightedness or a contradiction of any kind. Nevertheless, I'll demonstrate how Pro is wrong in this regard. In fact, his statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Here he is trying to prove that simply because we have a debt, that the government is obviously not trying to make money. However, what do you think taxes are to begin with? Here in Illinois, they are seeking to raise prices on things like soda. They've already jacked the prices on cigarettes and other things. Now why is the government taxing these items? To profit, to help relieve some of the debt. So, here you'll note that Pro didn't prove a thing. Also, Pro says, "I don't agree with the size of the debt, I think that the government is right to provide us with more." He wants to give us more debt? Interesting. Additionally, "One of the best ways to give the people more -and- reduce the debt over time is to socialize the internet and ensure an immediate social payoff and an eventual economic one." Ladies and gentleman, you'll note that in absolutely no way, shape or form did Pro prove how socializing the internet will decrease our government debt! Moreover, Pro has failed to detail what this "economic pay off" will entail. Therefore he has earned no credibility what these points and again this argument should go to the Con. 3. My 3rd point was about Comcast profiting less than other businesses, and barely making enough to have shareholders invest in their stock. Instead of responding to this reality, Pro claimed that certain things (like medicare and food stamps) shouldn't have a profit margin to begin with. This draws upon the hasty generalization that programs like this should even exist, let alone profit. Also, Pro is saying that the internet is just as important as health care and food. Before I respond to this accordingly, Pro must prove that this is the case. Also, please cite your sources so I can respond to the bit about the alleged oligopoly from an economic stand point. 4. Pro continues, "She tries to instill fear by promising that the government will take over the entire economy next..." Lol this was after he said in R1 "Our national dialog, our freedom of information and our children are at risk..." lol and implied that our freedom was being threatened. Anyway, no, I did not imply that the government would take over the economy. What I said was that our capitalistic nation calls for there to be no government socialization in any market that the people don't deem to be a right... and again, the internet is not one of them. 5. Pro ignored my 5th point regarding competition and investment. 6. Pro says, "If they hike our rates, we'll vote them out of office; simple." Now there's the idea! Except think of it this way: If private companies do that to us, we'll ditch them (boycotts, switch providers, etc.). Here comes the fundamental difference in our ideologies: "Most people would rather, or have to, over-pay for internet than to not have it at all; this is not a decision that they should have to make." I completely disagree. I'm out of characters for now, and will conclude all final arguments in the next round from a location with free wireless internet :)

Danielle

I'd like to thank my opponent, Mr. Marx, for his presentation thus far. 1. I'll begin by responding to my opponent's proposed "putrid hypocrisy" of my argument. He says that since this debate is taking place on the internet, that the internet must be a right. I stand in firm negation of this absurd and fallacious assertion. Rights are something that you are born with. Access to high-speed internet is not one of them! Regardless of how useful the internet may be or how often we might use it, the internet is not a right. Period. My opponent's attempt at trying to make it appear so by appealing to its function is ridiculous. He says, "It is for these social, political, educational, humanitarian and productivity reasons that the government should benefit the whole and not only nationalize, but -socialize- the internet." Fortunately, we don't live in a Socialist nation. The ONLY things the government should socialize, if anything, are that which are deemed rights. Because Pro has not and can not prove that having the internet is a right, this is an embarrassing argument on his behalf and one that most definitely belongs to the Con. Further, I'll prove for economic and political reasons throughout this discussion why Pro's proposal would not be a good idea. 2. Next, Pro writes, "I would not only accuse the con side of being short sighted, but I can prove it! Herein, she contradicts herself in the span of two sentences: When has the government ever done something without a profit motive? The government's debt is nearly 1.5 trillion dollars." For now, I'll ignore the fact that Pro completely misused the terms 'short-sighted' and 'contradiction' because this is not an English class, though you'll note that nothing about that statement demonstrated short-sightedness or a contradiction of any kind. Nevertheless, I'll demonstrate how Pro is wrong in this regard. In fact, his statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Here he is trying to prove that simply because we have a debt, that the government is obviously not trying to make money. However, what do you think taxes are to begin with? Here in Illinois, they are seeking to raise prices on things like soda. They've already jacked the prices on cigarettes and other things. Now why is the government taxing these items? To profit, to help relieve some of the debt. So, here you'll note that Pro didn't prove a thing. Also, Pro says, "I don't agree with the size of the debt, I think that the government is right to provide us with more." He wants to give us more debt? Interesting. Additionally, "One of the best ways to give the people more -and- reduce the debt over time is to socialize the internet and ensure an immediate social payoff and an eventual economic one." Ladies and gentleman, you'll note that in absolutely no way, shape or form did Pro prove how socializing the internet will decrease our government debt! Moreover, Pro has failed to detail what this "economic pay off" will entail. Therefore he has earned no credibility what these points and again this argument should go to the Con. 3. My 3rd point was about Comcast profiting less than other businesses, and barely making enough to have shareholders invest in their stock. Instead of responding to this reality, Pro claimed that certain things (like medicare and food stamps) shouldn't have a profit margin to begin with. This draws upon the hasty generalization that programs like this should even exist, let alone profit. Also, Pro is saying that the internet is just as important as health care and food. Before I respond to this accordingly, Pro must prove that this is the case. Also, please cite your sources so I can respond to the bit about the alleged oligopoly from an economic stand point. 4. Pro continues, "She tries to instill fear by promising that the government will take over the entire economy next..." Lol this was after he said in R1 "Our national dialog, our freedom of information and our children are at risk..." lol and implied that our freedom was being threatened. Anyway, no, I did not imply that the government would take over the economy. What I said was that our capitalistic nation calls for there to be no government socialization in any market that the people don't deem to be a right... and again, the internet is not one of them. 5. Pro ignored my 5th point regarding competition and investment. 6. Pro says, "If they hike our rates, we'll vote them out of office; simple." Now there's the idea! Except think of it this way: If private companies do that to us, we'll ditch them (boycotts, switch providers, etc.). Here comes the fundamental difference in our ideologies: "Most people would rather, or have to, over-pay for internet than to not have it at all; this is not a decision that they should have to make." I completely disagree. I'm out of characters for now, and will conclude all final arguments in the next round from a location with free wireless internet :)

Society

Be-It-Resolved-That-The-Goverment-Should-Nationalize-the-Internet./1/

I'd like to thank my opponent, Mr. Lenin for this debate, and encourage him to take his Che Guevara mask off and get some fresh air, since it's not even Halloween yet! Now let's get back to the debate... 1. We once again find ourselves in perhaps the most indicative argument of this debate: whether or not access to high speed internet is a right. Again, I stand in FIRM negation. You'll notice that Pro cited the example of one's "right to trial" and yet I have no idea why; there is absolutely no connection. All he did was prove that people have some rights - and I agree with him - but still, access to the internet is not one of them. Rights are things that you are born with; they're moral principles sanctioning one's freedom of action in a social context. In that regard, a right to trial exists. A right to the internet does not. Rights say that morally certain actions are right, and all other actions that forcibly interfere with those actions are wrong. Nobody is forcibly interfering with Pro or anyone else from accessing high speed internet (which would be the only argument), so therefore his point fails. 2. Pro maintains that the government should socialize the internet, because any "profit" i.e. higher ratio of gain than what was invested would go towards giving us (citizens) things that provide utility. I'll begin by quoting Robert Scheer -- "What is proposed is not the nationalization of private corporations, but rather a corporate takeover of government. The marriage of highly concentrated corporate power with an authoritarian state... is more accurately referred to as "financial fascism" [than socialism]. After all, even Hitler never nationalized the Mercedes-Benz company, but rather entered into a very profitable partnership with the current car company's corporate ancestor, which made out quite well until Hitler's bubble burst." Additionally, if the government socializes the internet, the competition will be eliminated (Americans would not choose the option with the higher cost). So, what is the incentive for this government to create better and more productive services? Moreover, capitalism gives people the opportunity to dictate the market via supply and demand. Without competition, my #2 point remains: How do we know that the government won't raise its prices drastically at a later point - say when the competition has been eliminated - or even kept it JUST below the other competitors? That would make the entire thing not worth it, as we have no incentive to socialize something and limit our freedoms if we're not even getting huge monetary gains. Socializing puts economics in the hands of the government and not the people. 3. Here we are again. Pro thinks that the internet should not turn an overall profit because it provides us rights. Okay, lawyers defend our rights too, and yet they still profit. Are lawyers and judges not "mechanisms of the Bill of Rights?" Plus, I'd agree that the internet is a so-called mechanism of our rights (though I think that applies to nearly everything), and as such, I believe that we all have the RIGHT to purchase internet services. This premise completely negates the conclusion to his entire argument and debate. 4. Pro didn't respond to my 4th point, so. 5. First of all, I don't think there's anything wrong with Wal-Mart. In fact, my R1 argument SPECIFICALLY said, "To combat the current high prices of internet, a new company could emerge with lower prices, attract a lot of customers, and in the end prove to be a viable competitor or perhaps even surpass the current alleged oligopoly. That's what Wal-Mart did :) " I maintain this argument as a reason for how and why the free market could lower the cost of the internet. Also, Pro said that socializing would lead other companies to create a better service and product. This premise alone completely destroys his argument, as that very same incentive exists today without socialization. Moreover, if a drastically superior product is created, then it's reasonable to assume Pro would want to socialize that too. After all, he's arguing for socialization on the base of human necessity. If a better, more popular item became the norm as the internet has, he'd want to socialize that out of "necessity" as well. 6. Pro said that if the government hikes up internet rates (which I posed as a potential problem), we'll simply vote the politicians out of office. What I said was that by these private companies hiking up our rates, we could effectively do the same thing via boycotts, switching providers, etc. The reality is that we're too apathetic to do it. Why would it be any different with politicians? Also, again this very argument put forth by Pro destroys his own. Say the Government and Comcast were 2 providers. The costs suddenly skyrocketed for both, and the people demanded change. The government said No. Then what? We'd be forced to make a choice, which has been my proposal all along.

Danielle

I'd like to thank my opponent, Mr. Lenin for this debate, and encourage him to take his Che Guevara mask off and get some fresh air, since it's not even Halloween yet! Now let's get back to the debate... 1. We once again find ourselves in perhaps the most indicative argument of this debate: whether or not access to high speed internet is a right. Again, I stand in FIRM negation. You'll notice that Pro cited the example of one's "right to trial" and yet I have no idea why; there is absolutely no connection. All he did was prove that people have some rights - and I agree with him - but still, access to the internet is not one of them. Rights are things that you are born with; they're moral principles sanctioning one's freedom of action in a social context. In that regard, a right to trial exists. A right to the internet does not. Rights say that morally certain actions are right, and all other actions that forcibly interfere with those actions are wrong. Nobody is forcibly interfering with Pro or anyone else from accessing high speed internet (which would be the only argument), so therefore his point fails. 2. Pro maintains that the government should socialize the internet, because any "profit" i.e. higher ratio of gain than what was invested would go towards giving us (citizens) things that provide utility. I'll begin by quoting Robert Scheer -- "What is proposed is not the nationalization of private corporations, but rather a corporate takeover of government. The marriage of highly concentrated corporate power with an authoritarian state... is more accurately referred to as "financial fascism" [than socialism]. After all, even Hitler never nationalized the Mercedes-Benz company, but rather entered into a very profitable partnership with the current car company's corporate ancestor, which made out quite well until Hitler's bubble burst." Additionally, if the government socializes the internet, the competition will be eliminated (Americans would not choose the option with the higher cost). So, what is the incentive for this government to create better and more productive services? Moreover, capitalism gives people the opportunity to dictate the market via supply and demand. Without competition, my #2 point remains: How do we know that the government won't raise its prices drastically at a later point - say when the competition has been eliminated - or even kept it JUST below the other competitors? That would make the entire thing not worth it, as we have no incentive to socialize something and limit our freedoms if we're not even getting huge monetary gains. Socializing puts economics in the hands of the government and not the people. 3. Here we are again. Pro thinks that the internet should not turn an overall profit because it provides us rights. Okay, lawyers defend our rights too, and yet they still profit. Are lawyers and judges not "mechanisms of the Bill of Rights?" Plus, I'd agree that the internet is a so-called mechanism of our rights (though I think that applies to nearly everything), and as such, I believe that we all have the RIGHT to purchase internet services. This premise completely negates the conclusion to his entire argument and debate. 4. Pro didn't respond to my 4th point, so. 5. First of all, I don't think there's anything wrong with Wal-Mart. In fact, my R1 argument SPECIFICALLY said, "To combat the current high prices of internet, a new company could emerge with lower prices, attract a lot of customers, and in the end prove to be a viable competitor or perhaps even surpass the current alleged oligopoly. That's what Wal-Mart did :) " I maintain this argument as a reason for how and why the free market could lower the cost of the internet. Also, Pro said that socializing would lead other companies to create a better service and product. This premise alone completely destroys his argument, as that very same incentive exists today without socialization. Moreover, if a drastically superior product is created, then it's reasonable to assume Pro would want to socialize that too. After all, he's arguing for socialization on the base of human necessity. If a better, more popular item became the norm as the internet has, he'd want to socialize that out of "necessity" as well. 6. Pro said that if the government hikes up internet rates (which I posed as a potential problem), we'll simply vote the politicians out of office. What I said was that by these private companies hiking up our rates, we could effectively do the same thing via boycotts, switching providers, etc. The reality is that we're too apathetic to do it. Why would it be any different with politicians? Also, again this very argument put forth by Pro destroys his own. Say the Government and Comcast were 2 providers. The costs suddenly skyrocketed for both, and the people demanded change. The government said No. Then what? We'd be forced to make a choice, which has been my proposal all along.

Society

Be-It-Resolved-That-The-Goverment-Should-Nationalize-the-Internet./1/

Let's deal with some definitions; 'This Government' is herein defined as the United States of America, for the sake of simplicity. 'Nationalize' should be recognized as a buy-out of AT&T; and Comcast, which accounts for 30% of the U.S market for internet service providers. Entrance to the market should not be restricted and no new regulations shall be put on the rest of the ISPs (internet service providers) in the market. I would suggest, though not require, that my opponent begin with a constructive argument for their case and leave the deconstruction for the next 3 rounds. ----- Friends, we find ourselves at a crossroads. The world's most vital technology is at risk. Our national dialog, our freedom of information and our children are at risk. On one side, the large internet service providers are rallying for a new system to government the internet, where an average person must pay for a subscription model to access the internet. Much in the same way one pays for cable, these ISPs want to limit your access to the internet. Consider this; you want to go on youtube, but you can only watch 3 today, unless you want to upgrade to the gold plan for $20 a month more. You want to download a torrent but that's a big no-no in the ISP's eyes, so you can't go on those sites at all. You want to go on skype to talk to your mother across the country, but that cuts into Verizon's long distance calling, so you're blocked from that, too. It's a scary scenario that I think damages the country. So what should be done? The people must demand that our freedom shall be protected, and a government-run 'public option' must be introduced. Given that AT&T; and Comcast already have the infrastructure in place, it makes the most sense to start there. The facts, my friends, are in support of my case. Firstly, I would like to call attention to a travesty of American society; only 63% of households have high-speed internet. The United States trails the world in broadband penetration and it is hurting American growth. It is limiting our children in their education, it is hurting businesses and it making life more difficult for average Americans. Look, for example, at France. Internet penetration is at 68% and thanks to a recent recognition of high speed internet as human right, DSL in France is not only somewhat cheaper than the same service in American, it is on average more than 5 times faster, and in some places as much as 28 times as fast. In Finland where high speed internet is a legal right, there is 83% penetration. How can this same right be denied in America? My second point is that of competition. By establishing a large competitor to every other ISP in America, instant pressure is put on them to improve services and lower the needlessly high prices. Given that the government will only be taking on 30% of the market, there is a huge area of opportunity for small, local providers to enter the market. Right now, the current ISPs are not only complacent but in cahoots. Any semblance of real competition is merely a facade, as they are working together to crush net neutrality and establish a subscription model for the internet that will harm the forward-thinking way of life in America. My final point is that of security. By giving the government a stake in the internet business, the middle man will be cut out. Because the government has a vested interest in the safety of the internet users, it will give the government the opportunity not to censor the internet, but to protect against any illegal elements. That is to say that the government will be given the power to find and punish those in possession of child pornography or other illegal material. This -does not- imply that the government will become the digital Big Brother, but merely that they will continue to the monitor the internet as they do at present, but with more accuracy and openness. I look forward to my opponent's response. SOURCES: U.S broadband penetration; <URL>... Finland case study; <URL>... Internet in France; <URL>... DSL speed by state; <URL>... DSL prices around the world; <URL>... E.U internet stats; <URL>...

MistahKurtz

Let's deal with some definitions; 'This Government' is herein defined as the United States of America, for the sake of simplicity. 'Nationalize' should be recognized as a buy-out of AT&T; and Comcast, which accounts for 30% of the U.S market for internet service providers. Entrance to the market should not be restricted and no new regulations shall be put on the rest of the ISPs (internet service providers) in the market. I would suggest, though not require, that my opponent begin with a constructive argument for their case and leave the deconstruction for the next 3 rounds. ----- Friends, we find ourselves at a crossroads. The world's most vital technology is at risk. Our national dialog, our freedom of information and our children are at risk. On one side, the large internet service providers are rallying for a new system to government the internet, where an average person must pay for a subscription model to access the internet. Much in the same way one pays for cable, these ISPs want to limit your access to the internet. Consider this; you want to go on youtube, but you can only watch 3 today, unless you want to upgrade to the gold plan for $20 a month more. You want to download a torrent but that's a big no-no in the ISP's eyes, so you can't go on those sites at all. You want to go on skype to talk to your mother across the country, but that cuts into Verizon's long distance calling, so you're blocked from that, too. It's a scary scenario that I think damages the country. So what should be done? The people must demand that our freedom shall be protected, and a government-run 'public option' must be introduced. Given that AT&T; and Comcast already have the infrastructure in place, it makes the most sense to start there. The facts, my friends, are in support of my case. Firstly, I would like to call attention to a travesty of American society; only 63% of households have high-speed internet. The United States trails the world in broadband penetration and it is hurting American growth. It is limiting our children in their education, it is hurting businesses and it making life more difficult for average Americans. Look, for example, at France. Internet penetration is at 68% and thanks to a recent recognition of high speed internet as human right, DSL in France is not only somewhat cheaper than the same service in American, it is on average more than 5 times faster, and in some places as much as 28 times as fast. In Finland where high speed internet is a legal right, there is 83% penetration. How can this same right be denied in America? My second point is that of competition. By establishing a large competitor to every other ISP in America, instant pressure is put on them to improve services and lower the needlessly high prices. Given that the government will only be taking on 30% of the market, there is a huge area of opportunity for small, local providers to enter the market. Right now, the current ISPs are not only complacent but in cahoots. Any semblance of real competition is merely a facade, as they are working together to crush net neutrality and establish a subscription model for the internet that will harm the forward-thinking way of life in America. My final point is that of security. By giving the government a stake in the internet business, the middle man will be cut out. Because the government has a vested interest in the safety of the internet users, it will give the government the opportunity not to censor the internet, but to protect against any illegal elements. That is to say that the government will be given the power to find and punish those in possession of child pornography or other illegal material. This -does not- imply that the government will become the digital Big Brother, but merely that they will continue to the monitor the internet as they do at present, but with more accuracy and openness. I look forward to my opponent's response. SOURCES: U.S broadband penetration; http://www.websiteoptimization.com... Finland case study; http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com... Internet in France; http://en.wikipedia.org... DSL speed by state; http://www.speedmatters.org... DSL prices around the world; http://goldsteinreport.com... E.U internet stats; http://www.internetworldstats.com...

Society

Be-It-Resolved-That-The-Goverment-Should-Nationalize-the-Internet./1/

I thank my wonderful opponent for such a well thought out response, and for making it abundantly clear her Luddite connections. Side opposition's point is that of cost. She has said that it does not make sense to buy out these industries because the poor tax payer will have to foot the bill. This disingenuous argument forgets a massive factor; the government can do it cheaper. Yes, it will cost the tax payer money to nationalize these industries -in the short term.- Evidently my opponent's shortsightedness here limits her, as it is quite evident that by entering the industry, the government would need no profit. Do you have any idea what sort of profit margins these companies make? Let's crunch the numbers. The price for an average, middle of the road DSL connection from AT&T; is $25. AT&T; and Comcast both garner 59% profit margins (!!!) Let's do this simplistically and say that the other 41% represents the upkeep for maintain their DSL service (this is not the case, and it would actually be considerably lower, considering the government does not need lobbyists, advertising, etc.), then the implications are that the government would only aim for 4% profit margins. That means that people will be paying just over $11/month for DSL (it would realistically be a lot lower, for many reasons.) By combing AT&T; and Comcast, their operating costs can be significantly reduced which would allow for more profit and a lower cost The companies have a combined profit of $23.743 billion before taxes. Assuming the profit margin is reduced to 4%, that means the companies will have a new profit of $3.5 billion. That's not given a lot of thing that would actually push profit up, so that is very conservative number. The companies, together, are worth $225.9 billion. Now, given that the government is only nationalizing the ISP portion of these businesses, I am going to hazard a guess and say that the real cost would be something like 40% of that ($90b) and we must do the same to the profits ($1.4b) And given the reasons I already established and coupled with other factors, the real cost would likely be lower and the profits higher. So let's recap; the government does a deal that will turn into profit in less than 60 years and costs less than 14% of, say, the overall defense budget. What's more, it reduces the cost of an essential need for all families by $168 a year and of every level of government, who rely on the internet. That's not bad. My opponent's second points hinges on the idea that people don't -need.- Internet, and that children are fine by being limited. Her argument equates to, "Those poor people are fine without food stamps, there's soup kitchens." The fact is that government should not assume that someone else is providing a need for its people, it should take initiative. Beyond that, my opponent boils down my argument to simply giving everyone internet, which is totally untrue. My argument hinges on the fact that the government can give everyone AND provide it better and cheaper. The internet allows children and adults alike work and learn more productively and make their lives easier. It allows businesses and governments to work more efficiently and it cuts down on operating costs. Hell, it also reduces the amount of physical activities we have to do (ie writing letters, driving to the library, printing books and newspapers, etc.) and helps reduce our carbon emissions. My opponent's third point is ignorant to reality. These companies have, together been advocating the destruction of network neutrality for years. They are now coming dangerously close to succeeding, and they have every intention of doing it. Because all the large competitors wish to do it, there is no chance for a small provider to come along because starting up as an ISP is wildly expensive and those ISPs who have a subscription model will be making enough money to destroy or buy-out any provider that comes along to try and provide the more user-friendly system. And yes, people currently pay a monthly fee, but these plans involve -keeping- that fee and than adding more ways to gouge money from users. Loading up Debate.org may be 30 cents. Every refresh will be another 30 cents. This works much in the same way data plans work for a BlackBerry. Good luck watching videos. "I've already detailed how competition in this country works, and why the government paying for Pro's suggested idea is wrong. Further, these companies should already have said incentive thanks to competition." While I won't be able to deconstruct my opponent's entire argument at this point; it is this falsehood that must be addressed. There is a natural oligarchy of ISPs in America that completely destroys the idea of 'competition' and free market economics. The barriers to entry are just to high to have real competition. Sources will be in the comments.

MistahKurtz

I thank my wonderful opponent for such a well thought out response, and for making it abundantly clear her Luddite connections. Side opposition's point is that of cost. She has said that it does not make sense to buy out these industries because the poor tax payer will have to foot the bill. This disingenuous argument forgets a massive factor; the government can do it cheaper. Yes, it will cost the tax payer money to nationalize these industries -in the short term.- Evidently my opponent's shortsightedness here limits her, as it is quite evident that by entering the industry, the government would need no profit. Do you have any idea what sort of profit margins these companies make? Let's crunch the numbers. The price for an average, middle of the road DSL connection from AT&T; is $25. AT&T; and Comcast both garner 59% profit margins (!!!) Let's do this simplistically and say that the other 41% represents the upkeep for maintain their DSL service (this is not the case, and it would actually be considerably lower, considering the government does not need lobbyists, advertising, etc.), then the implications are that the government would only aim for 4% profit margins. That means that people will be paying just over $11/month for DSL (it would realistically be a lot lower, for many reasons.) By combing AT&T; and Comcast, their operating costs can be significantly reduced which would allow for more profit and a lower cost The companies have a combined profit of $23.743 billion before taxes. Assuming the profit margin is reduced to 4%, that means the companies will have a new profit of $3.5 billion. That's not given a lot of thing that would actually push profit up, so that is very conservative number. The companies, together, are worth $225.9 billion. Now, given that the government is only nationalizing the ISP portion of these businesses, I am going to hazard a guess and say that the real cost would be something like 40% of that ($90b) and we must do the same to the profits ($1.4b) And given the reasons I already established and coupled with other factors, the real cost would likely be lower and the profits higher. So let's recap; the government does a deal that will turn into profit in less than 60 years and costs less than 14% of, say, the overall defense budget. What's more, it reduces the cost of an essential need for all families by $168 a year and of every level of government, who rely on the internet. That's not bad. My opponent's second points hinges on the idea that people don't -need.- Internet, and that children are fine by being limited. Her argument equates to, "Those poor people are fine without food stamps, there's soup kitchens." The fact is that government should not assume that someone else is providing a need for its people, it should take initiative. Beyond that, my opponent boils down my argument to simply giving everyone internet, which is totally untrue. My argument hinges on the fact that the government can give everyone AND provide it better and cheaper. The internet allows children and adults alike work and learn more productively and make their lives easier. It allows businesses and governments to work more efficiently and it cuts down on operating costs. Hell, it also reduces the amount of physical activities we have to do (ie writing letters, driving to the library, printing books and newspapers, etc.) and helps reduce our carbon emissions. My opponent's third point is ignorant to reality. These companies have, together been advocating the destruction of network neutrality for years. They are now coming dangerously close to succeeding, and they have every intention of doing it. Because all the large competitors wish to do it, there is no chance for a small provider to come along because starting up as an ISP is wildly expensive and those ISPs who have a subscription model will be making enough money to destroy or buy-out any provider that comes along to try and provide the more user-friendly system. And yes, people currently pay a monthly fee, but these plans involve -keeping- that fee and than adding more ways to gouge money from users. Loading up Debate.org may be 30 cents. Every refresh will be another 30 cents. This works much in the same way data plans work for a BlackBerry. Good luck watching videos. "I've already detailed how competition in this country works, and why the government paying for Pro's suggested idea is wrong. Further, these companies should already have said incentive thanks to competition." While I won't be able to deconstruct my opponent's entire argument at this point; it is this falsehood that must be addressed. There is a natural oligarchy of ISPs in America that completely destroys the idea of 'competition' and free market economics. The barriers to entry are just to high to have real competition. Sources will be in the comments.

Society

Be-It-Resolved-That-The-Goverment-Should-Nationalize-the-Internet./1/

My opponent certainly has a well thought out case, I think it would make Senator McCarthy proud. 1. There is an intense, putrid hypocricy in my opponent's argument that I hope everyone is reading into; without the internet, this debate would never take place. Or rather, without the internet, many debates would not be taking place. The internet is the world's larges town hall where anyone and everyone can participate in frank discussion. My opponent belittles this by saying that the internet is not 'needed', but I wonder how often has the requirement been in her life. Has she ever had a school assignment reliant on internet sources? Has she ever carried on a long distance relationship? Has she ever been in a teleconference? Has she ever donated to an online charity that builds schools in Uganda? I would be interested in the answer. It is for these social, political, educational, humanitarian and productivity reasons that the government should benefit the whole and not only nationalize, but -socialize- the internet. Not just take it over for the sake of its own being, but make it open the public for the sake of the public. 2. I would not only accuse the con side of being short sighted, but I can prove it! Herein, she contradicts herself in the span of two sentences; "When has the government ever done something without a profit motive? The government's debt is nearly 1.5 trillion dollars." It is quite evident that the debt, while unfortunate, is the evidence that the government is not in it for the profit, but for us. While I don't agree with the size of the debt, I think that the government is right to provide us with more. One of the best ways to give the people more -and- reduce the debt over time is to socialize the internet and ensure an immediate social payoff and an eventual economic one. 3. My opponent here creates an a deplorable scarecrow from my argument. There is nothing wrong with profit; it can be a really great thing to keep our system going. However, should social security have a 59% profit margin? Should Medicare have a 59% profit margin? Should the food stamp program have a 59% profit margin? No! The internet is too important to our democracy and social order to be left to the fickleness of the market and corporate structure. Furthermore, my opponent says; "Just because several companies have a lot of business is NOT indicative of a monopoly, oligopoly, etc. and Pro has not proven as such." I will prove so right now; The top ten internet service providers in the United States own nearly 70% of the market. The top five own over 56%. Only 11 companies have over one million subscribers and most have no room to expand because they are purely local. Only 12 take at least 1% of the market share. This small group of companies provide internet to tens of millions of internet users, and they want you to pay more for it! By defeating network neutrality, this small groups wants to charge you more and restrict what sites you can go on. Who's to stop them? They have a stanglehold on the market. 4. My opponent's next fallacy is a slippery slope if I ever saw one. She tries to instill fear by promising that the government will take over the entire economy next, which is flagrantly untrue. Perhaps if food in America cost double what it did in the rest of the country, was of vastly inferior quality and held us back in the world, I would advocate a nationalization of that industry. However, that is not necessary because we have a hugely competitive food market that gives our citizens high quality food for reasonable prices while still providing a profit to its shareholders. The ISPs would rather have half of America paying hand-over-fist for service than have everyone paying a reasonable price. 6. The government would never make uses pay per download because we have the tools at our disposal to stop them. If they hike our rates, we'll vote them out of office; simple. As a conclusion, I have dropped -none- of Con's arguments. I have already established that the 'free' internet of our already underfunded libraries is inconvenient and the cost of the internet itself is burdening our libraries. Let's take another argument that I have apparently 'dropped' "Additionally, I propose that there are other alternatives to combating this alleged oligopoly, such as boycotts (at least in the household, if not at businesses and schools)" First, my opponent here agrees with me about the importance of the internet. My opponent doesn't understand that internet in the household is just as important as in businesses and schools as it is at home. Most people would rather, or have to, over-pay for internet than to not have it at all; this is not a decision that they should have to make. In closing, my opponent's case relies on the fact that people don't need internet. I ask that everyone think about their lives, then think about it without the internet. Thank you. ISP info; http://bi

MistahKurtz

My opponent certainly has a well thought out case, I think it would make Senator McCarthy proud. 1. There is an intense, putrid hypocricy in my opponent's argument that I hope everyone is reading into; without the internet, this debate would never take place. Or rather, without the internet, many debates would not be taking place. The internet is the world's larges town hall where anyone and everyone can participate in frank discussion. My opponent belittles this by saying that the internet is not 'needed', but I wonder how often has the requirement been in her life. Has she ever had a school assignment reliant on internet sources? Has she ever carried on a long distance relationship? Has she ever been in a teleconference? Has she ever donated to an online charity that builds schools in Uganda? I would be interested in the answer. It is for these social, political, educational, humanitarian and productivity reasons that the government should benefit the whole and not only nationalize, but -socialize- the internet. Not just take it over for the sake of its own being, but make it open the public for the sake of the public. 2. I would not only accuse the con side of being short sighted, but I can prove it! Herein, she contradicts herself in the span of two sentences; "When has the government ever done something without a profit motive? The government's debt is nearly 1.5 trillion dollars." It is quite evident that the debt, while unfortunate, is the evidence that the government is not in it for the profit, but for us. While I don't agree with the size of the debt, I think that the government is right to provide us with more. One of the best ways to give the people more -and- reduce the debt over time is to socialize the internet and ensure an immediate social payoff and an eventual economic one. 3. My opponent here creates an a deplorable scarecrow from my argument. There is nothing wrong with profit; it can be a really great thing to keep our system going. However, should social security have a 59% profit margin? Should Medicare have a 59% profit margin? Should the food stamp program have a 59% profit margin? No! The internet is too important to our democracy and social order to be left to the fickleness of the market and corporate structure. Furthermore, my opponent says; "Just because several companies have a lot of business is NOT indicative of a monopoly, oligopoly, etc. and Pro has not proven as such." I will prove so right now; The top ten internet service providers in the United States own nearly 70% of the market. The top five own over 56%. Only 11 companies have over one million subscribers and most have no room to expand because they are purely local. Only 12 take at least 1% of the market share. This small group of companies provide internet to tens of millions of internet users, and they want you to pay more for it! By defeating network neutrality, this small groups wants to charge you more and restrict what sites you can go on. Who's to stop them? They have a stanglehold on the market. 4. My opponent's next fallacy is a slippery slope if I ever saw one. She tries to instill fear by promising that the government will take over the entire economy next, which is flagrantly untrue. Perhaps if food in America cost double what it did in the rest of the country, was of vastly inferior quality and held us back in the world, I would advocate a nationalization of that industry. However, that is not necessary because we have a hugely competitive food market that gives our citizens high quality food for reasonable prices while still providing a profit to its shareholders. The ISPs would rather have half of America paying hand-over-fist for service than have everyone paying a reasonable price. 6. The government would never make uses pay per download because we have the tools at our disposal to stop them. If they hike our rates, we'll vote them out of office; simple. As a conclusion, I have dropped -none- of Con's arguments. I have already established that the 'free' internet of our already underfunded libraries is inconvenient and the cost of the internet itself is burdening our libraries. Let's take another argument that I have apparently 'dropped' "Additionally, I propose that there are other alternatives to combating this alleged oligopoly, such as boycotts (at least in the household, if not at businesses and schools)" First, my opponent here agrees with me about the importance of the internet. My opponent doesn't understand that internet in the household is just as important as in businesses and schools as it is at home. Most people would rather, or have to, over-pay for internet than to not have it at all; this is not a decision that they should have to make. In closing, my opponent's case relies on the fact that people don't need internet. I ask that everyone think about their lives, then think about it without the internet. Thank you. ISP info; http://bi

Society

Be-It-Resolved-That-The-Goverment-Should-Nationalize-the-Internet./1/

I would like to congratulate my opponent on the excellent debate, but would ask her to kindly replace Ronald Reagan's corpse back to whence it came. 1. My opponent continues to ignore the fact that access to the internet is a right. Perhaps it is not found within the bill of rights itself, but I would argue that it is a national progression. For example, the citizen has the right to a fair trail by a jury of his peers, does he not? So, naturally, the government simply ensures that there are enough private corporations to allow the citizen to pay for his trial and receive some form of justice. Correct? No. The government, to ensure this liberty, owns and operates the means of trial by jury, also known as the American legal system. So given this, what rights are made accessible by the internet? Freedom of press? Certainly. Freedom of expression? Absolutely. Freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, the right to petition; all made accessible and more powerful by the internet. And these rights do not apply only to those with the money, but to everyone. It is abundantly clear that the government recognizes not just the right of the concept but also of its accessibility and facilitation. For my opponent to deny this is two-faced; she supports the idea, but not the practice. I will use her own quote in support of my case; "The ONLY things the government should socialize, if anything, are that which are deemed rights." 2. My opponent goes on to argue that taxes are proof of a profit motivation. This is inherently false, and I explain so only for her benefit, as most people can instantly see through this. We pay taxes for stuff. That's right, we give the government money so that it may bring back to us a utility. Furthermore, we are to understand that the utility is usually in some way enforcing and strengthening our rights and privileges as citizens. What better than to digitize our more sacred and cherished liberties? My opponent goes on to take my argument out of context, accusing me of wanting more debt even when I was obviously arguing the contrary. I proved, with mathematical certainty, that socializing the internet will provide us with income. If my opponent failed to read this, that is not my concern. I want more services and less debt, isn't that true of every citizen? Everyone except my opponent, that is, who seems to want nothing for her money. 3. My opponent's 'refutation' of my claims relies only on her already established, already proven fallacious and incorrect points. I have identified that the internet should not turn an overall profit because it provides us rights, therefore it is a mechanism of the bill of rights and therefore not open to private enterprise. My opponent ignores this and tries to force my into arguing that the internet is more important food, which I have never stated. My argument is that the internet, just as food stamps and medicare, helps us to realize our enshrined rights as citizens. Furthermore, my opponent attacks me for not providing a source that I did provide. 5. My opponent's avocation for competition needs no refutation because I agree with it; I have already argued for competition between the government and the other providers. Because the government has no real interest in attracting new people, merely with providing the option, it need not become mobile in the market. Therefore, the other companies will have the opportunity to provide specialized, and maybe even better services for those who want to pay. By my opponent's logic, Wal-Mart should not be allowed because it kills competition, when in fact there is a fierce crowd of companies who are locally competing quite strongly with the corporate giant. 6. My opponent returns to harping about the nice idea of voting with the almighty dollar. However, she forgets that in this oligopoly, there is no hope for the consumer to effectuate real change because almost every single comerical ISP is out to screw you. They are steadily making you pay high rights, more often and for less services. Where else are you going to go? My argument boils down to this, my friends; the internet provides us access to so many rights so easily that it, in itself, is a right. Therefore, just like the government provides the utilities and due process to, say, protect against illegal search and seizure, the government should be giving to us the ability to realize the highest possible level of free speech and freedom of expression. While the economic and educational (which my opponent has not refuted) benefits are multi-fold, the government -must- socialize the internet for the sake of the rights that we are born with. Thank you.

MistahKurtz

I would like to congratulate my opponent on the excellent debate, but would ask her to kindly replace Ronald Reagan's corpse back to whence it came. 1. My opponent continues to ignore the fact that access to the internet is a right. Perhaps it is not found within the bill of rights itself, but I would argue that it is a national progression. For example, the citizen has the right to a fair trail by a jury of his peers, does he not? So, naturally, the government simply ensures that there are enough private corporations to allow the citizen to pay for his trial and receive some form of justice. Correct? No. The government, to ensure this liberty, owns and operates the means of trial by jury, also known as the American legal system. So given this, what rights are made accessible by the internet? Freedom of press? Certainly. Freedom of expression? Absolutely. Freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, the right to petition; all made accessible and more powerful by the internet. And these rights do not apply only to those with the money, but to everyone. It is abundantly clear that the government recognizes not just the right of the concept but also of its accessibility and facilitation. For my opponent to deny this is two-faced; she supports the idea, but not the practice. I will use her own quote in support of my case; "The ONLY things the government should socialize, if anything, are that which are deemed rights." 2. My opponent goes on to argue that taxes are proof of a profit motivation. This is inherently false, and I explain so only for her benefit, as most people can instantly see through this. We pay taxes for stuff. That's right, we give the government money so that it may bring back to us a utility. Furthermore, we are to understand that the utility is usually in some way enforcing and strengthening our rights and privileges as citizens. What better than to digitize our more sacred and cherished liberties? My opponent goes on to take my argument out of context, accusing me of wanting more debt even when I was obviously arguing the contrary. I proved, with mathematical certainty, that socializing the internet will provide us with income. If my opponent failed to read this, that is not my concern. I want more services and less debt, isn't that true of every citizen? Everyone except my opponent, that is, who seems to want nothing for her money. 3. My opponent's 'refutation' of my claims relies only on her already established, already proven fallacious and incorrect points. I have identified that the internet should not turn an overall profit because it provides us rights, therefore it is a mechanism of the bill of rights and therefore not open to private enterprise. My opponent ignores this and tries to force my into arguing that the internet is more important food, which I have never stated. My argument is that the internet, just as food stamps and medicare, helps us to realize our enshrined rights as citizens. Furthermore, my opponent attacks me for not providing a source that I did provide. 5. My opponent's avocation for competition needs no refutation because I agree with it; I have already argued for competition between the government and the other providers. Because the government has no real interest in attracting new people, merely with providing the option, it need not become mobile in the market. Therefore, the other companies will have the opportunity to provide specialized, and maybe even better services for those who want to pay. By my opponent's logic, Wal-Mart should not be allowed because it kills competition, when in fact there is a fierce crowd of companies who are locally competing quite strongly with the corporate giant. 6. My opponent returns to harping about the nice idea of voting with the almighty dollar. However, she forgets that in this oligopoly, there is no hope for the consumer to effectuate real change because almost every single comerical ISP is out to screw you. They are steadily making you pay high rights, more often and for less services. Where else are you going to go? My argument boils down to this, my friends; the internet provides us access to so many rights so easily that it, in itself, is a right. Therefore, just like the government provides the utilities and due process to, say, protect against illegal search and seizure, the government should be giving to us the ability to realize the highest possible level of free speech and freedom of expression. While the economic and educational (which my opponent has not refuted) benefits are multi-fold, the government -must- socialize the internet for the sake of the rights that we are born with. Thank you.

Society

Be-It-Resolved-That-The-Goverment-Should-Nationalize-the-Internet./1/

My opponent will be debating that beauty pageants for children do not do more harm than good. The first round will be just for accepting the debate and in the second round we begin with my argument. Each round we will have to respond to our opponent's arguments and post at least one new argument. Thanks for accepting and I look forward to this debate.

laleona89

My opponent will be debating that beauty pageants for children do not do more harm than good. The first round will be just for accepting the debate and in the second round we begin with my argument. Each round we will have to respond to our opponent's arguments and post at least one new argument. Thanks for accepting and I look forward to this debate.

Society

Beauty-pageants-for-children-do-more-harm-than-good./1/

Parents should love their children no matter what. In the world there is always someone that judges you depending on your appearance. It can be a girl from school thinking you don't dress appropriately to fit in her group or a boy, etc; but then there is your family who you can always go to and not worry that they will judge you. What happens when the parents start pressuring their children to look a certain way or to talk, walk, act, BE a certain way. What do the children think about this pressure coming from their parents to be perfect. The child's parents are basically telling them that they are not perfect and they should change themselves to please others or to please their society. Also, this image the parents are trying to change their children into damages and takes away the child's innocence by fake smiles, eyelashes and appearance. Another problem is that this beauty pageants consume both the parent's and the child's attention and time that they forget about the education of the kid. All of the girls aged eight to ten interviewed by A&E; Network were not concerned with any future education. What does that say? Parents prefer spending money on designer clothes than spending them on schools, books, school supplies, etc. What will happen when the kid is eliminated from the pageant or when she is no longer a valid candidate to enter one. The kids trust on their parents to to secure their future is betrayed. There are not many careers that you can follow by being a beauty queen; maybe modeling but there is a very slim chance that a beauty queen can succeed in the modeling business. According to the Better Business Bureau not many beauty pageant competitors land modeling careers when they grow up. Finally, is the pressure to perform on stage and the effects of loosing or just the effects of the pressure of being a certain way. "Being a Barbie doll says your body has to be a certain way and your hair a certain way. In girls particularly, this can unleash a whole complex of destructive self-experiences that can lead to eating disorders and all kinds of body distortion in term of body image," said William Pinsof, a clinical psychologist and president of the Family Institute at Northwestern University. The effects of beauty pageants on the mind and body of children is disastrous. Is it really worth it to risk a child's mental and physical state for a beauty pageant? Source: <URL>...

laleona89

Parents should love their children no matter what. In the world there is always someone that judges you depending on your appearance. It can be a girl from school thinking you don't dress appropriately to fit in her group or a boy, etc; but then there is your family who you can always go to and not worry that they will judge you. What happens when the parents start pressuring their children to look a certain way or to talk, walk, act, BE a certain way. What do the children think about this pressure coming from their parents to be perfect. The child's parents are basically telling them that they are not perfect and they should change themselves to please others or to please their society. Also, this image the parents are trying to change their children into damages and takes away the child's innocence by fake smiles, eyelashes and appearance. Another problem is that this beauty pageants consume both the parent's and the child's attention and time that they forget about the education of the kid. All of the girls aged eight to ten interviewed by A&E; Network were not concerned with any future education. What does that say? Parents prefer spending money on designer clothes than spending them on schools, books, school supplies, etc. What will happen when the kid is eliminated from the pageant or when she is no longer a valid candidate to enter one. The kids trust on their parents to to secure their future is betrayed. There are not many careers that you can follow by being a beauty queen; maybe modeling but there is a very slim chance that a beauty queen can succeed in the modeling business. According to the Better Business Bureau not many beauty pageant competitors land modeling careers when they grow up. Finally, is the pressure to perform on stage and the effects of loosing or just the effects of the pressure of being a certain way. "Being a Barbie doll says your body has to be a certain way and your hair a certain way. In girls particularly, this can unleash a whole complex of destructive self-experiences that can lead to eating disorders and all kinds of body distortion in term of body image," said William Pinsof, a clinical psychologist and president of the Family Institute at Northwestern University. The effects of beauty pageants on the mind and body of children is disastrous. Is it really worth it to risk a child's mental and physical state for a beauty pageant? Source: http://www.minorcon.org...

Society

Beauty-pageants-for-children-do-more-harm-than-good./1/

I accept this argument, but I reject the condition that in each round each of us has to present a new argument in addition to discussing the previous ones. That seems arbitrary and it should not be mandatory. If anything, we should be required to make every point we can think of in round #2 and then simply discuss those points back and forth for the subsequent rounds so that each idea is given maximum consideration. However, I'm sympathetic to the fact that one of us might think of a new idea in subsequent rounds and want to share it, so I won't argue that each round should be limited in scope to arguments raised in the beginning. All I'm saying is that I don't agree with the idea that each round has to present new arguments. Also, for what it's worth, I'm not a fan of children's beauty pageants, but I think I can competently represent this "more good than harm" side of the argument. I'll defend the pageants, but don't take me for some kind of "pageant mom."

unlockable

I accept this argument, but I reject the condition that in each round each of us has to present a new argument in addition to discussing the previous ones. That seems arbitrary and it should not be mandatory. If anything, we should be required to make every point we can think of in round #2 and then simply discuss those points back and forth for the subsequent rounds so that each idea is given maximum consideration. However, I'm sympathetic to the fact that one of us might think of a new idea in subsequent rounds and want to share it, so I won't argue that each round should be limited in scope to arguments raised in the beginning. All I'm saying is that I don't agree with the idea that each round has to present new arguments. Also, for what it's worth, I'm not a fan of children's beauty pageants, but I think I can competently represent this "more good than harm" side of the argument. I'll defend the pageants, but don't take me for some kind of "pageant mom."

Society

Beauty-pageants-for-children-do-more-harm-than-good./1/

Beauty pageants for children do not do more harm than good. My opponent's first paragraph complains that "the child's parents are basically telling them that they are not perfect and they should change themselves to please others or to please their society. Also, this image the parents are trying to change their children into damages and takes away the child's innocence by fake smiles, eyelashes and appearance." If it is true that this highly educational message is communicated to beauty pageant children by their parents, then I believe it supports my assertion that beauty pageants do not do more harm than good. Children are not perfect--nobody is perfect--and they should be disabused of that notion lest they develop vulnerable, inflated egos that will inevitably be pierced by the realities of life. Likewise, depending on a person's goals, people SHOULD learn to change themselves in order to please others or to please their society. To secure certain status in society, such as becoming a doctor, lawyer, or staying out of prison, you have to "jump through hoops" and impress people and conform to other people's standards. Certain avenues in life are simply unavailable to those who fail to please others: social elites and beauty pageants have that in common. Teach a kid to smile and prance and schmooze in beauty pageants, and she'll have an easier time pursuing her goals in networking, romance, and every other charisma-affected competitive environment. Also, losing one's innocence happens sooner or later. If it happens in the course of a beauty pageant, when the consequences are relatively harmless, then it's a very good thing: the child learns that appearances matter, that life isn't fair, and that losing sucks. It is much better to learn these lessons in a beauty pageant than to experience them for the first time by being date-raped or otherwise exploited for sex in later years, by being rejected for a job or a scholarship application for failing to impress someone, or whatever. Being judged by an arbitrary standard in an inconsequential competition builds a sense of perspective, and it emotionally prepares a person for being arbitrarily or unfairly judged in life's more consequential competitions later on. The second paragraph claims that beauty pageants inappropriately consume children's attention, but presents no evidence or argument about how a child's attention should be apportioned. My opponent's complaint that the 8-10 year old beauty pageant girls are unconcerned with their future education is only meaningful if she can show that other 8-10 year old girls ARE actually concerned with their future education. Also, my opponent hasn't justified her pro-education bias: perhaps the child is instead interested in business, art, having fun, reading for pleasure, etc., and I believe all of these things are acceptable objects of a child's attention, not just education. Moreover, my opponent has undermined her previous complaint about children's "lost innocence" by showing evidence that beauty pageant girls are unconcerned with their future education: to be lackadaisical about the future is a telltale sign of childlike innocence. Finally, my opponent cites no evidence to support her claim that these girls' educational needs are being neglected. Participating in beauty pageants is an extra-curricular activity, like piano lessons or soccer camp, and contestants are presumably enrolled in school. My opponent's claim about parents "spending money on designer clothes than spending them on schools, books, school supplies, etc." is also meaningless. There is always a trade-off involved when you spend money on something: if i buy books for my child that means I can't spend that money on food, shelter, health care, travel, etc. What matters isn't a trade-off per se, but rather the effect of the trade-off. Where is the evidence that the kids' parents don't already spend a sufficient amount of money on the girls' school supplies? I doubt that these pageant girls have to scratch their homework into dirt while their parents buy makeup and fashion on the weekends. My author asks the money question: "What will happen when the kid is eliminated from the pageant or when she is no longer a valid candidate to enter one?" What happens when a child loses a beauty pageant--just like when a child loses a major sporting event or academic competition or whatever--is that the child learns that losing isn't the end of the world. She develops character and fortitude that her peers might lack. This is great for the child. Uniquely, though, when she outgrows the beauty pageants and is no longer eligible, she learns the importance of "Seizing the Day" (Carpe Diem). It gives her perspective of how fleeting are youth, life, and the opportunities contained therein. The beauty pageant girl's peers might think that they'll be young forever or that they can sit on their hands when life challenges them or presents opportunities, but the beauty pageant girl will be wiser than that because she will have learned how important it is to cherish the present. My opponent misunderstands the purpose of beauty pageants and the perception of people participating in them. It doesn't matter that most contestants in children's beauty pageants do not become professional models, because beauty pageants are not purposed for landing modeling contracts: that's the role of talent agencies. The beauty pageants are just a competition, an opportunity for people to sing and dance and look pretty before a crowd. Most children who participate in the pageant do it as hobby, and then they grow out of it, like karate lessons or Looney Tunes. Only the ones who care about the pageant subculture stay in the pageant subculture. (Similarly, most kids who sign up for music lessons or sports camp don't become professional musicians or athletes; should we condemn those activities as well? Of course not.) The kids' faith in their parents ability to "secure the future" is not betrayed by the beauty pageant because the kids still have food and shelter, and that's possibly all that the parents owe to their minor. If the child expects perpetual and total sponsorship by the parents, then the child will be unprepared for adulthood, and preparing children for adulthood is the societal purpose of parenting them. Since the beauty pageant teaches the aforementioned lessons in character and perspective, the beauty pageant will have been beneficial to the child. My opponent's last points are about the pressures of performing on stage and conforming to society's standards of beauty. The first pressure is a good, educational pressure because it develops confidence. The only way to grow out of "stage fright" is to perform before an audience: this could be a spelling bee, a music recital, or a beauty pageant. Growing out of stage fright helps you to express yourself, to be a public speaker, to voice your opinion at business meetings and group conversations, to defend yourself against verbal attack, to ask your crush on a date, or to do anything else that demands confidence. Insulate your child in "books and school supplies" as my opponent suggested, and you'll raise a weak little bookworm who will have a hard time making friends, achieving professional success and otherwise enjoying society. The pressure of conforming to society's standards of beauty is also an important one to experience. Society will impose its standards of beauty upon you no matter what your hobby. You can recognize this and make efforts to enhance your attractiveness (diet, exercise, fashion, etc.) or you can ignore it and be deemed ugly. People whom society deems attractive have fewer obstacles in almost every social pursuit. Pageant girls who exploit this fact will be empowered in the long run as aspiring doctors, lawyers, soldiers, businesswomen, politicians, etc., as well as in the areas of friendship, romance, and social status.

unlockable

Beauty pageants for children do not do more harm than good. My opponent's first paragraph complains that "the child's parents are basically telling them that they are not perfect and they should change themselves to please others or to please their society. Also, this image the parents are trying to change their children into damages and takes away the child's innocence by fake smiles, eyelashes and appearance." If it is true that this highly educational message is communicated to beauty pageant children by their parents, then I believe it supports my assertion that beauty pageants do not do more harm than good. Children are not perfect--nobody is perfect--and they should be disabused of that notion lest they develop vulnerable, inflated egos that will inevitably be pierced by the realities of life. Likewise, depending on a person's goals, people SHOULD learn to change themselves in order to please others or to please their society. To secure certain status in society, such as becoming a doctor, lawyer, or staying out of prison, you have to "jump through hoops" and impress people and conform to other people's standards. Certain avenues in life are simply unavailable to those who fail to please others: social elites and beauty pageants have that in common. Teach a kid to smile and prance and schmooze in beauty pageants, and she'll have an easier time pursuing her goals in networking, romance, and every other charisma-affected competitive environment. Also, losing one's innocence happens sooner or later. If it happens in the course of a beauty pageant, when the consequences are relatively harmless, then it's a very good thing: the child learns that appearances matter, that life isn't fair, and that losing sucks. It is much better to learn these lessons in a beauty pageant than to experience them for the first time by being date-raped or otherwise exploited for sex in later years, by being rejected for a job or a scholarship application for failing to impress someone, or whatever. Being judged by an arbitrary standard in an inconsequential competition builds a sense of perspective, and it emotionally prepares a person for being arbitrarily or unfairly judged in life's more consequential competitions later on. The second paragraph claims that beauty pageants inappropriately consume children's attention, but presents no evidence or argument about how a child's attention should be apportioned. My opponent's complaint that the 8-10 year old beauty pageant girls are unconcerned with their future education is only meaningful if she can show that other 8-10 year old girls ARE actually concerned with their future education. Also, my opponent hasn't justified her pro-education bias: perhaps the child is instead interested in business, art, having fun, reading for pleasure, etc., and I believe all of these things are acceptable objects of a child's attention, not just education. Moreover, my opponent has undermined her previous complaint about children's "lost innocence" by showing evidence that beauty pageant girls are unconcerned with their future education: to be lackadaisical about the future is a telltale sign of childlike innocence. Finally, my opponent cites no evidence to support her claim that these girls' educational needs are being neglected. Participating in beauty pageants is an extra-curricular activity, like piano lessons or soccer camp, and contestants are presumably enrolled in school. My opponent's claim about parents "spending money on designer clothes than spending them on schools, books, school supplies, etc." is also meaningless. There is always a trade-off involved when you spend money on something: if i buy books for my child that means I can't spend that money on food, shelter, health care, travel, etc. What matters isn't a trade-off per se, but rather the effect of the trade-off. Where is the evidence that the kids' parents don't already spend a sufficient amount of money on the girls' school supplies? I doubt that these pageant girls have to scratch their homework into dirt while their parents buy makeup and fashion on the weekends. My author asks the money question: "What will happen when the kid is eliminated from the pageant or when she is no longer a valid candidate to enter one?" What happens when a child loses a beauty pageant--just like when a child loses a major sporting event or academic competition or whatever--is that the child learns that losing isn't the end of the world. She develops character and fortitude that her peers might lack. This is great for the child. Uniquely, though, when she outgrows the beauty pageants and is no longer eligible, she learns the importance of "Seizing the Day" (Carpe Diem). It gives her perspective of how fleeting are youth, life, and the opportunities contained therein. The beauty pageant girl's peers might think that they'll be young forever or that they can sit on their hands when life challenges them or presents opportunities, but the beauty pageant girl will be wiser than that because she will have learned how important it is to cherish the present. My opponent misunderstands the purpose of beauty pageants and the perception of people participating in them. It doesn't matter that most contestants in children's beauty pageants do not become professional models, because beauty pageants are not purposed for landing modeling contracts: that's the role of talent agencies. The beauty pageants are just a competition, an opportunity for people to sing and dance and look pretty before a crowd. Most children who participate in the pageant do it as hobby, and then they grow out of it, like karate lessons or Looney Tunes. Only the ones who care about the pageant subculture stay in the pageant subculture. (Similarly, most kids who sign up for music lessons or sports camp don't become professional musicians or athletes; should we condemn those activities as well? Of course not.) The kids' faith in their parents ability to "secure the future" is not betrayed by the beauty pageant because the kids still have food and shelter, and that's possibly all that the parents owe to their minor. If the child expects perpetual and total sponsorship by the parents, then the child will be unprepared for adulthood, and preparing children for adulthood is the societal purpose of parenting them. Since the beauty pageant teaches the aforementioned lessons in character and perspective, the beauty pageant will have been beneficial to the child. My opponent's last points are about the pressures of performing on stage and conforming to society's standards of beauty. The first pressure is a good, educational pressure because it develops confidence. The only way to grow out of "stage fright" is to perform before an audience: this could be a spelling bee, a music recital, or a beauty pageant. Growing out of stage fright helps you to express yourself, to be a public speaker, to voice your opinion at business meetings and group conversations, to defend yourself against verbal attack, to ask your crush on a date, or to do anything else that demands confidence. Insulate your child in "books and school supplies" as my opponent suggested, and you'll raise a weak little bookworm who will have a hard time making friends, achieving professional success and otherwise enjoying society. The pressure of conforming to society's standards of beauty is also an important one to experience. Society will impose its standards of beauty upon you no matter what your hobby. You can recognize this and make efforts to enhance your attractiveness (diet, exercise, fashion, etc.) or you can ignore it and be deemed ugly. People whom society deems attractive have fewer obstacles in almost every social pursuit. Pageant girls who exploit this fact will be empowered in the long run as aspiring doctors, lawyers, soldiers, businesswomen, politicians, etc., as well as in the areas of friendship, romance, and social status.

Society

Beauty-pageants-for-children-do-more-harm-than-good./1/

In this final round, I hereby reiterate the arguments I made in last round's rebuttal. My arguments have gone unanswered, therefore my opponent concedes the argument. So vote for me. Even if Pro hadn't conceded, I believe my arguments are more persuasive on the merits, anyhow. So vote for me. I responded to and refuted all of my opponent's assertions. My opponent did not respond to my refutations, thus we can assume that she acquiesces to them and concedes the argument. So vote for me!

unlockable

In this final round, I hereby reiterate the arguments I made in last round's rebuttal. My arguments have gone unanswered, therefore my opponent concedes the argument. So vote for me. Even if Pro hadn't conceded, I believe my arguments are more persuasive on the merits, anyhow. So vote for me. I responded to and refuted all of my opponent's assertions. My opponent did not respond to my refutations, thus we can assume that she acquiesces to them and concedes the argument. So vote for me!

Society

Beauty-pageants-for-children-do-more-harm-than-good./1/

lol The Behemoth is a Freemasonry symbol here is my proof and Evidence that the The Behemoth is a Freemasonry symbol please check out this link i rest my case what more proof dose Paddy want lol ehehhehehehehehehehhehehe,ahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahah

Dale.G

lol The Behemoth is a Freemasonry symbol here is my proof and Evidence that the The Behemoth is a Freemasonry symbol please check out this link i rest my case what more proof dose Paddy want lol ehehhehehehehehehehhehehe,ahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahah

Entertainment

Behemoth-are-not-a-Freemason-Band/1/

Paddy if you watched the video Evidence I have given you, you would see that Behemoth symbol next to the Freemason Paddy why are you trying to deny what is being presented to you Paddy you need to be honest and tell the truth anyone who watches the video proof that I have shown will see that Behemoth Symbol is being used in the Freemasonry Paddy I notice you did not give any links or any way of defending your position lol here is another link <URL>... (religion) / Me Quote and Freemasonry is a cult

Dale.G

Paddy if you watched the video Evidence I have given you, you would see that Behemoth symbol next to the Freemason Paddy why are you trying to deny what is being presented to you Paddy you need to be honest and tell the truth anyone who watches the video proof that I have shown will see that Behemoth Symbol is being used in the Freemasonry Paddy I notice you did not give any links or any way of defending your position lol here is another link http://villains.wikia.com... (religion) / Me Quote and Freemasonry is a cult

Entertainment

Behemoth-are-not-a-Freemason-Band/1/

Paddy where is your proof and evidence that Behemoth is a band lol Paddy prove your point

Dale.G

Paddy where is your proof and evidence that Behemoth is a band lol Paddy prove your point

Entertainment

Behemoth-are-not-a-Freemason-Band/1/

lol Paddy one of the links you gave I read where it say's this The band started as a traditional black metal act (<PHONE>), then merged to a blackened death metal style (<PHONE>) and finally evolved to a modern death metal band (2004-now). Krzysztof Azarewicz wrote many of the lyrics on the following albums: Satanica, Thelema.6, Zos Kia Cultus, / Me Quote so Paddy you are listing to Satanica and cultus music and Freemason they are into Satanica, and Cultus, music and when I clicked onto Cultus, I found in the song list Horns ov Baphomet so Paddy do you listen to that song called horns ov Baphomet Paddy I rest my case again checkmate I win,

Dale.G

lol Paddy one of the links you gave I read where it say's this The band started as a traditional black metal act (1991-1996), then merged to a blackened death metal style (1997-2003) and finally evolved to a modern death metal band (2004-now). Krzysztof Azarewicz wrote many of the lyrics on the following albums: Satanica, Thelema.6, Zos Kia Cultus, / Me Quote so Paddy you are listing to Satanica and cultus music and Freemason they are into Satanica, and Cultus, music and when I clicked onto Cultus, I found in the song list Horns ov Baphomet so Paddy do you listen to that song called horns ov Baphomet Paddy I rest my case again checkmate I win,

Entertainment

Behemoth-are-not-a-Freemason-Band/1/

Paddy I don't think you understand Baphomet is within the Freemasonry here I will post again the video evidence that Baphomet is in the Freemasonry <URL>... / Me Quote Paddy you listen to Satanica, and Cultus, Music thus PROOF: Illuminati Freemasons Worship Baphomet (Satan, Lucifer) / Me Quote Paddy you now know that Baphomet is within the Freemasonry thus I have proven to you the evidence is right there it is you that needs to take the time to listen to what has being presented to you But I can see that you do not accept the truth but Paddy weather you like it or not you listen to evil music I thought you did not believe in God Paddy needs to learn to accept the truth :) even if the truth hurt's :)

Dale.G

Paddy I don't think you understand Baphomet is within the Freemasonry here I will post again the video evidence that Baphomet is in the Freemasonry http://www.youtube.com... / Me Quote Paddy you listen to Satanica, and Cultus, Music thus PROOF: Illuminati Freemasons Worship Baphomet (Satan, Lucifer) / Me Quote Paddy you now know that Baphomet is within the Freemasonry thus I have proven to you the evidence is right there it is you that needs to take the time to listen to what has being presented to you But I can see that you do not accept the truth but Paddy weather you like it or not you listen to evil music I thought you did not believe in God Paddy needs to learn to accept the truth :) even if the truth hurt's :)

Entertainment

Behemoth-are-not-a-Freemason-Band/1/

A while ago, shortly before you banned me from your group, you decided arbitrarily that I must be a Freemason. Your logic was that a band I listen to, Polish Blackened Death Metal band Behemoth, are (in your words, and your words only) a Freemason band. You came to the conclusion that Behemoth are Freemasons based on the fact that they have a song called 'Horns Ov Baphomet', and the fact that the aforementioned song was on an album called Zos Kia Cultus, which has a picture of a Baphomet-like creature on the cover. I would like to debate you on whether or not they are, indeed, Freemasons.

DeusMortisEst

A while ago, shortly before you banned me from your group, you decided arbitrarily that I must be a Freemason. Your logic was that a band I listen to, Polish Blackened Death Metal band Behemoth, are (in your words, and your words only) a Freemason band. You came to the conclusion that Behemoth are Freemasons based on the fact that they have a song called 'Horns Ov Baphomet', and the fact that the aforementioned song was on an album called Zos Kia Cultus, which has a picture of a Baphomet-like creature on the cover. I would like to debate you on whether or not they are, indeed, Freemasons.

Entertainment

Behemoth-are-not-a-Freemason-Band/1/

This video doesn't mention Behemoth. Your argument seems to hinge on the notion that if an artist creates something that depicts or references an entity, that must automatically mean that the artist actively worships said entity, which means that the authors of any book of the bible that references a demon or a 'false god' were active worshippers of the demon or 'false god'. There is not much more I can argue because you haven't really made much of an argument.

DeusMortisEst

This video doesn't mention Behemoth. Your argument seems to hinge on the notion that if an artist creates something that depicts or references an entity, that must automatically mean that the artist actively worships said entity, which means that the authors of any book of the bible that references a demon or a 'false god' were active worshippers of the demon or 'false god'. There is not much more I can argue because you haven't really made much of an argument.

Entertainment

Behemoth-are-not-a-Freemason-Band/1/

You're confused. Behemoth is a name of a band. The entity you are claiming they worship is Baphomet. Try to keep up. Maybe Freemasonry IS a cult, I don't see how that is even relevant here...

DeusMortisEst

You're confused. Behemoth is a name of a band. The entity you are claiming they worship is Baphomet. Try to keep up. Maybe Freemasonry IS a cult, I don't see how that is even relevant here...

Entertainment

Behemoth-are-not-a-Freemason-Band/1/

I don't know how you went 3 rounds of this debate without accepting and understanding that Behemoth are a band, especially since I clearly stated it all the way back in round one. However, here is the evidence: <URL>... (band) <URL>...

DeusMortisEst

I don't know how you went 3 rounds of this debate without accepting and understanding that Behemoth are a band, especially since I clearly stated it all the way back in round one. However, here is the evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org... (band) http://www.metal-archives.com...

Entertainment

Behemoth-are-not-a-Freemason-Band/1/

Ok Dale, so of the three albums you listed ('Satanica', 'Thelema.6', 'Zos Kia Cultus') I've only actually heard one (Zos Kia Cultus). Again you make the assumption that art necessarily imitates life. You have not provided any proof that any members of Behemoth actively worship Baphomet, or are members of the Freemasons. You have shown evidence that the band are are interested in such subjects, but not that their interest is rooted in their religious ideas. Also, the lyricist you mentioned (Krzysztof Azarewicz) isn't actually a member of Behemoth, he has just contributed lyrics to three of their nine (soon to be ten) albums. That is a huge minority of their lyrics. Yes there is a song called Horns Ov Baphomet on Zos Kia Cultus, and yes I have listened to it before. That is wholly irrelevant to the debate.

DeusMortisEst

Ok Dale, so of the three albums you listed ('Satanica', 'Thelema.6', 'Zos Kia Cultus') I've only actually heard one (Zos Kia Cultus). Again you make the assumption that art necessarily imitates life. You have not provided any proof that any members of Behemoth actively worship Baphomet, or are members of the Freemasons. You have shown evidence that the band are are interested in such subjects, but not that their interest is rooted in their religious ideas. Also, the lyricist you mentioned (Krzysztof Azarewicz) isn't actually a member of Behemoth, he has just contributed lyrics to three of their nine (soon to be ten) albums. That is a huge minority of their lyrics. Yes there is a song called Horns Ov Baphomet on Zos Kia Cultus, and yes I have listened to it before. That is wholly irrelevant to the debate.

Entertainment

Behemoth-are-not-a-Freemason-Band/1/

Thanks for the challenge. Clarifications: I'll reject my opponent's definition of homosexuality in favor of the medical definition, which is: sexuality directed toward someone of the same sex [1].The medical definition of sexuality is: pertaining to, characterized by, involving, or endowed with sex or the sex organs and their functions [2]. With those proper clarifications, we can see how one can posses sexuality without ever being sexually active. In other words, sexuality (and homosexuality) is largely in part determined by nature in addition to nurture. Because our sex organs, sex functions and sexual behaviors and attractions can all be attributed to neurological going-ons of the brain, then clearly one can be born predisposed to homosexuality. Science: A plethora of scientists believe that there are genetic contributions to one's sexuality, and even the Evangelical scientists who believe that it might not necessarily be a gay gene that's responsible acknowledge that there are still biological factors which contribute to one's sexual identity. Here are just some of many examples supporting my case [3], [4], [5]. Of couse further debate and clarification can be discussed upon request. However, I'm assuming that my opponent is reasonable enough to understand that sex and sexuality are obviously linked to the brain. Arguments: So onto the debate. Con's argument is that one can choose to be gay (option 1) or choose from a handful of other options to avoid their sexuality. I will present the following options and dismantle every single so-called choice that my opponent presents: 2. Suicide A) As I have pointed out, there is substantial evidence that genetics and other biological determinants heavily influence sexual orientation. In that case, suicide is not a viable option for an infant either inside or outside of the womb. These individuals cannot make the conscious decision to commit suicide, nor would they actually be able to do so. In that case, suicide is NOT a feasible choice for one that young, and therefore one would have to live as a homosexual, thereby affirming the resolution. B) If one chooses to end their life i.e. cease to "be," then one is not choosing not to be gay but rather choosing death. Even if one chooses death over being gay, the reality is that they were once gay, and being gay at that point in time still amounts to being gay without it being a choice. So, while of course one can always make the decision to end their lives, the fact remains that before they choose to do so, they were gay - not by choice. Again, the resolution is affirmed. 3. Living in Seclusion This is the most asinine argument I've ever heard. Even if one lived in seclusion, they would still identify as a homosexual. One can be a virgin or not sexually active and still maintain a sexual identity. This point does absolutely nothing to negate the resolution. 4. Sedation While it's true that one cannot be in a relationship while sedated (or have any sexual feelings or relations), the fact remains that one is still a homosexual genetically, biologically, or - as with the suicide example - they were gay prior to the sedation. Moreover, one can still engage in sexual intercourse while sedated [6]. That brings me to my contentions... Pro's Contentions: 1. Rape Con's presented definition of homosexuality was having the romantic or sexual attraction OR BEHAVIOR among members of the same sex. Whether we use that definition or my own, the fact remains that one can engage in gay sex without their consent. In instances of rape, one is involved in homosexual activity and they DID NOT HAVE A CHOICE. Therefore, I have once again negated the resolution. If you believe that it is not sex itself but rather the willingness or rather predisposition to enjoying gay sex which distinguishes one from being gay verses just experiencing gay acts, then you must accept the reality that biological factors play a role in one's sexual identity. Who you're attracted to is dependent upon chemicals and other biological occurrences. So, you'll see that even if one chooses sedation or suicide, the fact remains that while alive - the individual did not choose to be gay. And furthermore, after death, there is no one to choose an alternative to being gay so the non-living entity is irrelevant. 2. Being To clarify further on my opponent's proposal, one might be able to choose not to BE gay as in be gay in the future (i.e. by committing suicide). However, one cannot avoid BEING gay as in being gay that very moment (as in prior to suicide or sedation). This is a point I feel that I've made abundantly clear throughout the debate, but figured I'd reiterate for clarification. 3. Biology Christians and other groups teach that you can overcome being gay via prayer or other rituals. I'm hoping my opponent doesn't choose to go that futile route (too easy to prove wrong). But just in case, here is further proof that sex pertains to the brain [7]. Conclusion: One's sexuality is determined largely in part to biological factors. As such, if one is either genetically or somehow otherwise predisposed to being gay, then they are in fact born that way as in have developed into being that way during pregnancy. As such, said individual does not have the mental or physical capacity to willingly choose death or sedation. Therefore, they are being gay without the choice of being gay. Further, while one might choose death over being gay in the future (i.e. choose not to be gay), one cannot help or avoid being gay in the moment. So, at some point or another, one is gay without or prior to the choice. All of my opponent's contentions have been negated. Of course I reserve the right to extend any contentions for the Pro in the next round. For now, back to Con. [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... [5] <URL>... [6] <URL>... [7] <URL>...

Danielle

Thanks for the challenge. Clarifications: I'll reject my opponent's definition of homosexuality in favor of the medical definition, which is: sexuality directed toward someone of the same sex [1].The medical definition of sexuality is: pertaining to, characterized by, involving, or endowed with sex or the sex organs and their functions [2]. With those proper clarifications, we can see how one can posses sexuality without ever being sexually active. In other words, sexuality (and homosexuality) is largely in part determined by nature in addition to nurture. Because our sex organs, sex functions and sexual behaviors and attractions can all be attributed to neurological going-ons of the brain, then clearly one can be born predisposed to homosexuality. Science: A plethora of scientists believe that there are genetic contributions to one's sexuality, and even the Evangelical scientists who believe that it might not necessarily be a gay gene that's responsible acknowledge that there are still biological factors which contribute to one's sexual identity. Here are just some of many examples supporting my case [3], [4], [5]. Of couse further debate and clarification can be discussed upon request. However, I'm assuming that my opponent is reasonable enough to understand that sex and sexuality are obviously linked to the brain. Arguments: So onto the debate. Con's argument is that one can choose to be gay (option 1) or choose from a handful of other options to avoid their sexuality. I will present the following options and dismantle every single so-called choice that my opponent presents: 2. Suicide A) As I have pointed out, there is substantial evidence that genetics and other biological determinants heavily influence sexual orientation. In that case, suicide is not a viable option for an infant either inside or outside of the womb. These individuals cannot make the conscious decision to commit suicide, nor would they actually be able to do so. In that case, suicide is NOT a feasible choice for one that young, and therefore one would have to live as a homosexual, thereby affirming the resolution. B) If one chooses to end their life i.e. cease to "be," then one is not choosing not to be gay but rather choosing death. Even if one chooses death over being gay, the reality is that they were once gay, and being gay at that point in time still amounts to being gay without it being a choice. So, while of course one can always make the decision to end their lives, the fact remains that before they choose to do so, they were gay - not by choice. Again, the resolution is affirmed. 3. Living in Seclusion This is the most asinine argument I've ever heard. Even if one lived in seclusion, they would still identify as a homosexual. One can be a virgin or not sexually active and still maintain a sexual identity. This point does absolutely nothing to negate the resolution. 4. Sedation While it's true that one cannot be in a relationship while sedated (or have any sexual feelings or relations), the fact remains that one is still a homosexual genetically, biologically, or - as with the suicide example - they were gay prior to the sedation. Moreover, one can still engage in sexual intercourse while sedated [6]. That brings me to my contentions... Pro's Contentions: 1. Rape Con's presented definition of homosexuality was having the romantic or sexual attraction OR BEHAVIOR among members of the same sex. Whether we use that definition or my own, the fact remains that one can engage in gay sex without their consent. In instances of rape, one is involved in homosexual activity and they DID NOT HAVE A CHOICE. Therefore, I have once again negated the resolution. If you believe that it is not sex itself but rather the willingness or rather predisposition to enjoying gay sex which distinguishes one from being gay verses just experiencing gay acts, then you must accept the reality that biological factors play a role in one's sexual identity. Who you're attracted to is dependent upon chemicals and other biological occurrences. So, you'll see that even if one chooses sedation or suicide, the fact remains that while alive - the individual did not choose to be gay. And furthermore, after death, there is no one to choose an alternative to being gay so the non-living entity is irrelevant. 2. Being To clarify further on my opponent's proposal, one might be able to choose not to BE gay as in be gay in the future (i.e. by committing suicide). However, one cannot avoid BEING gay as in being gay that very moment (as in prior to suicide or sedation). This is a point I feel that I've made abundantly clear throughout the debate, but figured I'd reiterate for clarification. 3. Biology Christians and other groups teach that you can overcome being gay via prayer or other rituals. I'm hoping my opponent doesn't choose to go that futile route (too easy to prove wrong). But just in case, here is further proof that sex pertains to the brain [7]. Conclusion: One's sexuality is determined largely in part to biological factors. As such, if one is either genetically or somehow otherwise predisposed to being gay, then they are in fact born that way as in have developed into being that way during pregnancy. As such, said individual does not have the mental or physical capacity to willingly choose death or sedation. Therefore, they are being gay without the choice of being gay. Further, while one might choose death over being gay in the future (i.e. choose not to be gay), one cannot help or avoid being gay in the moment. So, at some point or another, one is gay without or prior to the choice. All of my opponent's contentions have been negated. Of course I reserve the right to extend any contentions for the Pro in the next round. For now, back to Con. [1] http://www.medterms.com... [2] http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... [3] http://www.newscientist.com... [4] http://news.google.com... [5] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [6] http://www.nytimes.com... [7] http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Society

Being-gay-is-not-a-choice./1/

Clarifications: My opponent denies the MEDICAL DEFINITION of homosexuality in favor of the *Wikipedia* definition. Clearly the proper medical definition should prevail in this debate; the only reason Con refuses to accept it is because he cannot win this debate unless the definition is skewed in his favor. The purpose of the debate is to affirm or negate the resolution. Both the instigator and contender should give definitions that are applicable to the resolution. The audience should decide which one is the proper term. Again, Con's explanation is from Wikipedia; mine is from the medical community. Moreover, this debate isn't so much about homosexuality as it is about being gay (homosexual). So, even if *homosexuality* is defined as the romantic or sexual attraction towards members of the same sex, the fact remains that being a homosexual merely means possessing those feelings - or being inclined to possess those feelings - not necessarily acting on them. So, one might be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc. without ever having sex; it's all about how your brain is wired to act (what it is built to respond to). Rebuttal: 2. Suicide Con begins, "Infants have no homosexual characteristics at all." That is completely false. If there is a gay gene (which many scientists agree there is), it means that infants are born gay -- that is, predisposed to homosexuality. It is the *genes* and other *biological determinants* that influence sexuality. In fact, as my sources have pointed out (which Con did not negate at all), scientists have now discovered various links and patterns related to homosexuality that explains why the "gay gene" can and does get passed on and to whom. Further, "Sexual health is more than the absence of sexual pathology. The anatomy, gender and function of the human body is the foundation of identity. The awareness of the sexual self as an integrated aspect of identity begins in INFANCY with the attitudes about the physical body" [1]. So, here we can see that Con's contention that infants are without sexuality is blatantly false, and my notion that infants do not have the mental or physical capacity to commit suicide stands. 3. Seclusion Con writes, "How can one maintain a sexual identity if one has nobody to establish such an identity with?" In other words, Con is saying that if one is not having sex with anyone, then one does not have a sexuality... so they aren't gay or straight. Again, that is incredibly FALSE. Ladies and gentlemen, you only have to consider your own sexuality to determine the validity of this statement. Before you ever had sex (or for those of you who are still virgins) -- don't you know what sexuality you are? Don't you know which sex or gender you're attracted to and would like to have sex with? If so, you're acknowledging that one can absolutely be considered gay or straight before they ever have sex, or even if they deny themselves sex or choose not to have sex. Con asks, "Why would a person in seclusion possibly fit the definition of "homosexual?" Even using Con's completely flawed definition of homosexuality -- having the romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex -- we can see how obviously someone who is living in seclusion can still be gay! It only requires having romantic or SEXUAL ATTRACTION to someone of the same sex. That "someone" can be a celebrity, porn star or even fictional person that one masturbates to. The point is: even in seclusion, one can still have sexual attractions or thoughts. If it's for someone of the same sex/gender, then they're gay by both Pro's and Con's presented definitions. Con's argument fails. 4. Sedation Con writes, "Genetics and non-neurological biology are irrelevant to the definition at hand. A person can be sedated before ever being gay in the first place." Again, this is completely FALSE. I've already explained and proven via scientific data that sexuality is most definitely linked to genetics and other biological factors. This is common sense and information learned in every 8th grade health class. Your brain and bodily functions are responsible for sexual attraction and intercourse. We have a reproductive system for a reason; that system is led by none other than the brain. Also, I don't understand why Con's neglecting my example of someone having sex while sedated. Fortunately it's not a major part of my case. Anyway, further proof: Genetic evidence suggests a heritable component and putative gene loci on the X chromosome. Homosexuality may have evolved to promote same sex affiliation through a conserved neurodevelopmental mechanism. Recent findings suggest this mechanism involves atypical neurohormonal differentiation of the brain. Key areas for future research include the neurobiological basis of preferred sexual targets and correlates of female homosexuality [2]. Arguments: 1. Rape When presented with my example of rape (which fits the parameters of Con's flawed definition), Con's only response was, "As this is a rare situation, it cannot be used to affirm a general resolution." Fellow debaters, please consider the debates you have read and participated in here on DDO. Is that a true statement? Absolutely not. A resolution is general, yes, but rare examples can absolutely be used as evidence for either side. Furthermore, rape is not as rare or extreme as my opponent would like you to believe; 1 in 6 women and 1 in 33 men are sexually abused per year [3]. 2. Being Once again, even if someone commits suicide before having gay sex, they are still gay beings (they may simply not be sexually active gay beings, the same way heterosexuals can be straight but not sexually active). As such, if one commits suicide to prevent themselves from being gay, they're still gay before committing the suicide. Again, the only way Con can win this point is to prove that homosexuality is not genetic or determinant on any biological factors. Of course this is impossible to prove and as such my point stands. 3. Biology The point of this contention was to prove how homosexuality is linked to biology and as such it affirms all of my others points. Counter-Examples: Being Pro or Con is irrelevant. Each side has an equal burden of proof. Con says that he only needs one counter-example to disprove the resolution, which he has given in terms of suicide and sedation. Why should Con's extreme examples be considered but my more common example of rape should not? That is a double standard certainly not supported by any debate etiquette or paradigms; Con's simply trying to help further his failed position. Nevertheless, the resolution is entirely true. Conclusion: Medical evidence supports the theory that people are born predisposed to homosexuality (being attracted to the same sex). Before one acknowledges their sexual identity, they are still privy to their sexuality -- they are simply unaware of it yet or not yet biologically inclined towards sex. This applies to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. Just because one might be a virgin, secluded or sedated does not mean that they are not gay; it just means that they're not having gay sex. While secluded, one may very well still have gay feelings (which even supports Con's definition). If one chooses death, they may very well choose to cease being gay; however, cannot deter from the fact that they were gay up until the time they were dead. So, if an individual is gay for *any moment in time* I argue that it is not their choice. The resolution is affirmed. [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>...

Danielle

Clarifications: My opponent denies the MEDICAL DEFINITION of homosexuality in favor of the *Wikipedia* definition. Clearly the proper medical definition should prevail in this debate; the only reason Con refuses to accept it is because he cannot win this debate unless the definition is skewed in his favor. The purpose of the debate is to affirm or negate the resolution. Both the instigator and contender should give definitions that are applicable to the resolution. The audience should decide which one is the proper term. Again, Con's explanation is from Wikipedia; mine is from the medical community. Moreover, this debate isn't so much about homosexuality as it is about being gay (homosexual). So, even if *homosexuality* is defined as the romantic or sexual attraction towards members of the same sex, the fact remains that being a homosexual merely means possessing those feelings - or being inclined to possess those feelings - not necessarily acting on them. So, one might be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc. without ever having sex; it's all about how your brain is wired to act (what it is built to respond to). Rebuttal: 2. Suicide Con begins, "Infants have no homosexual characteristics at all." That is completely false. If there is a gay gene (which many scientists agree there is), it means that infants are born gay -- that is, predisposed to homosexuality. It is the *genes* and other *biological determinants* that influence sexuality. In fact, as my sources have pointed out (which Con did not negate at all), scientists have now discovered various links and patterns related to homosexuality that explains why the "gay gene" can and does get passed on and to whom. Further, "Sexual health is more than the absence of sexual pathology. The anatomy, gender and function of the human body is the foundation of identity. The awareness of the sexual self as an integrated aspect of identity begins in INFANCY with the attitudes about the physical body" [1]. So, here we can see that Con's contention that infants are without sexuality is blatantly false, and my notion that infants do not have the mental or physical capacity to commit suicide stands. 3. Seclusion Con writes, "How can one maintain a sexual identity if one has nobody to establish such an identity with?" In other words, Con is saying that if one is not having sex with anyone, then one does not have a sexuality... so they aren't gay or straight. Again, that is incredibly FALSE. Ladies and gentlemen, you only have to consider your own sexuality to determine the validity of this statement. Before you ever had sex (or for those of you who are still virgins) -- don't you know what sexuality you are? Don't you know which sex or gender you're attracted to and would like to have sex with? If so, you're acknowledging that one can absolutely be considered gay or straight before they ever have sex, or even if they deny themselves sex or choose not to have sex. Con asks, "Why would a person in seclusion possibly fit the definition of "homosexual?" Even using Con's completely flawed definition of homosexuality -- having the romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex -- we can see how obviously someone who is living in seclusion can still be gay! It only requires having romantic or SEXUAL ATTRACTION to someone of the same sex. That "someone" can be a celebrity, porn star or even fictional person that one masturbates to. The point is: even in seclusion, one can still have sexual attractions or thoughts. If it's for someone of the same sex/gender, then they're gay by both Pro's and Con's presented definitions. Con's argument fails. 4. Sedation Con writes, "Genetics and non-neurological biology are irrelevant to the definition at hand. A person can be sedated before ever being gay in the first place." Again, this is completely FALSE. I've already explained and proven via scientific data that sexuality is most definitely linked to genetics and other biological factors. This is common sense and information learned in every 8th grade health class. Your brain and bodily functions are responsible for sexual attraction and intercourse. We have a reproductive system for a reason; that system is led by none other than the brain. Also, I don't understand why Con's neglecting my example of someone having sex while sedated. Fortunately it's not a major part of my case. Anyway, further proof: Genetic evidence suggests a heritable component and putative gene loci on the X chromosome. Homosexuality may have evolved to promote same sex affiliation through a conserved neurodevelopmental mechanism. Recent findings suggest this mechanism involves atypical neurohormonal differentiation of the brain. Key areas for future research include the neurobiological basis of preferred sexual targets and correlates of female homosexuality [2]. Arguments: 1. Rape When presented with my example of rape (which fits the parameters of Con's flawed definition), Con's only response was, "As this is a rare situation, it cannot be used to affirm a general resolution." Fellow debaters, please consider the debates you have read and participated in here on DDO. Is that a true statement? Absolutely not. A resolution is general, yes, but rare examples can absolutely be used as evidence for either side. Furthermore, rape is not as rare or extreme as my opponent would like you to believe; 1 in 6 women and 1 in 33 men are sexually abused per year [3]. 2. Being Once again, even if someone commits suicide before having gay sex, they are still gay beings (they may simply not be sexually active gay beings, the same way heterosexuals can be straight but not sexually active). As such, if one commits suicide to prevent themselves from being gay, they're still gay before committing the suicide. Again, the only way Con can win this point is to prove that homosexuality is not genetic or determinant on any biological factors. Of course this is impossible to prove and as such my point stands. 3. Biology The point of this contention was to prove how homosexuality is linked to biology and as such it affirms all of my others points. Counter-Examples: Being Pro or Con is irrelevant. Each side has an equal burden of proof. Con says that he only needs one counter-example to disprove the resolution, which he has given in terms of suicide and sedation. Why should Con's extreme examples be considered but my more common example of rape should not? That is a double standard certainly not supported by any debate etiquette or paradigms; Con's simply trying to help further his failed position. Nevertheless, the resolution is entirely true. Conclusion: Medical evidence supports the theory that people are born predisposed to homosexuality (being attracted to the same sex). Before one acknowledges their sexual identity, they are still privy to their sexuality -- they are simply unaware of it yet or not yet biologically inclined towards sex. This applies to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. Just because one might be a virgin, secluded or sedated does not mean that they are not gay; it just means that they're not having gay sex. While secluded, one may very well still have gay feelings (which even supports Con's definition). If one chooses death, they may very well choose to cease being gay; however, cannot deter from the fact that they were gay up until the time they were dead. So, if an individual is gay for *any moment in time* I argue that it is not their choice. The resolution is affirmed. [1] http://www.ejhs.org... [2] http://www.sciencedirect.com... [3] http://www.rainn.org...

Society

Being-gay-is-not-a-choice./1/

Clarifications: Perfect. Con admits that he simply cannot win this debate if homosexuality is defined properly. In other words, Con must use a faulty definition in order to win this debate... because he can't support his case any other way. He says he'd agree with me if my proper definition is used, but that's only because I have proven him to be 100% wrong on this topic in general. You'll note that this debate only came into fruition because I disagreed with his position on the subject in another debate and challenged him on it; as such he chose a definition of homosexuality from Wikipedia (lol) that he thinks makes it impossible for Pro to win. I maintain that the definitions should be discussed - especially on this topic - since no mention was made in R1 that the definition HAD to be accepted, and it's understood in every debate that people have different ways of defining things. For instance, in a debate about free will, you'll see that Pro presents one definition of free will and then Con presents another [1]. This clarification is most certainly allowed and encouraged so long as it's done in the first round, and the instigator makes no rule against it (which you'll notice that Con did not). The only way my definition should not be used is if Con argues that my definition is incorrect. However, because my definition is the correct medical definition, then it should be upheld. Again, I'll let the audience decide what source they think is more valid - the medical community, or Wikipedia. Moving on, we'll discuss the word "homosexual" since that's what this debate is actually about - being gay. You'll note that Con never once defined gay or homosexual ~ just homosexuality. As such, my explanation of homosexual should stand. I have described it as being one that possesses the qualities of homosexuality. That includes gay genes, biological factors and all other sexual instincts, attractions or behavior towards another of the same sex or gender. Rebuttal: 2. Suicide Con says that my argument here completely rests on my definition; however, once again that is completely wrong. I have proven and even quoted doctor/scientists who explain that sexual identity is achieved in INFANCY which Con originally said was impossible before I proved him wrong. So, since I was right about that point and Con completely dropped that argument in the last round, then I am right in saying that an infant does not have the mental or physical capacity for suicide and my point stands. Also, Con says I dropped his argument "As the parents make the choice to allow for the child to exist, the child's being gay is still a choice." I didn't drop it -- I just proved how it was impossible, so I thought Con would understand that I already negated this absolutely ridiculous position. The resolution implies that BEING gay is a choice, NOT *raising a gay child* is a choice. So, even the parents choose to raise a gay child, the child does not have a choice and therefore this point actually supports my position rather than Con's. 3. Seclusion Con writes, "If one has never known anybody else in his or her entire life, then they would not even understand sexuality at all." I can't even begin to describe how non-sensical this argument is. First of all, if one lived in seclusion their entire life since birth, then it wouldn't be their choice but their parents (or some other entities) choice. Therefore this weak argument has already been negated. However, you'll notice that Con dropped every single one of my other points from the last round regarding this horrible contention. In R2 I pointed out why this premise made no sense. Con absolutely 100% dropped my arguments about the genetic and biological factors that go into determining one's sexuality. Of course this was after he said that there was no link, and I proved him wrong just as I have with every other point that he's made. Nevertheless, let me reiterate how asinine this argument really is. Not to mention that it's completely untrue! Even if one had lived in complete seclusion from other people, there's no telling that they'd be completely secluded from sex. Moreover, Con never pointed out until the last round that the person would have had to be secluded since birth. As we all know, introducing new arguments in the final round is bad conduct and against debating paradigms. However, that's irrelevant because it's not even possible. For that to happen, it would have been at the hand of the infant's care taker and therefore not their choice. This point is void. 4. Sedation Con completely ignores all arguments related to biology because he cannot argue them. Arguments: 1. Rape Here we have a most interesting argument. Con insists that "Rare examples are not enough to affirm a resolution" yet sees no problem with using rare examples to negate a resolution. For instance, expecting that one remain secluded from infancy --> forever is absurd. Similarly, committing suicide is just as ridiculous. And furthermore, a resolution without a doubt can be proven by using a rare example [2]. Nevertheless, you'll notice that Con never disputed my example of rape - he just pointed out that rape was rare. Just because something is rare doesn't mean that it can't be used as evidence. For instance, if I say "Pitching a perfect game is possible" and point out that it's been done before -- in far less than 3% of games might I add -- then of course that evidence can be used to support the resolution despite how rare it is. Also, Con's statistic is also skewed; I pointed out in the last round that the stats regarding sexual abuse are more around the area of 15% of people per year. Nevertheless, I have won this point using Con's own very definition and tactics. If his definition of homosexuality includes those who engage in homosexual behavior, then surely those who are raped fall within the category of gay. This includes all of the men who are raped in prison, or boys who were subjected to sexual abuse at the hand of others or priests. These people have been 'gay' and it was not their choice. Moreover, this example most definitely applies because Con's own definition uses the word "situationally" which clearly an act of rape is. 2. Being Once again, Con completely dropped the contentions here because he can't argue them. Counter-Examples: Extend my arguments. Conclusion: This entire debate is based on Con's inability to defend the position that one can choose their sexuality. Because he obviously cannot prove that one chooses to be gay -- and we all know what that statement really implies -- he has relied on (a) semantics and (b) a faulty definition. By his own admission, Con has completely neglected the TRUE definition of homosexuality in favor of one that suits his position. That is not an example of winning a debate ~ it is an example of manipulation. Listing suicide as an alternative to accepting one's sexual identity is clearly a semantics argument; it's a shame that Con can't win a debate the real way (via actual arguments with proper definitions). I have explained why my definition should prevail in this debate. You'll also notice that I've proven how Con is wrong even using his own faulty definition. To re-cap, one is born gay (WITH A GAY GENE) -- they just haven't realized yet that they are gay. There is no "alcoholic gene" so Con's example fails. One might be genetically inclined towards addiction; however, can avoid it. You cannot avoid your sexuality. Again, even if one commits suicide, they were gay before committing suicide. The same logic applies to sedation or seclusion, though it's much easier to see how Con's seclusion argument is horrible; life-long seclusion would not be the individual's choice. Resolution affirmed. [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>...

Danielle

Clarifications: Perfect. Con admits that he simply cannot win this debate if homosexuality is defined properly. In other words, Con must use a faulty definition in order to win this debate... because he can't support his case any other way. He says he'd agree with me if my proper definition is used, but that's only because I have proven him to be 100% wrong on this topic in general. You'll note that this debate only came into fruition because I disagreed with his position on the subject in another debate and challenged him on it; as such he chose a definition of homosexuality from Wikipedia (lol) that he thinks makes it impossible for Pro to win. I maintain that the definitions should be discussed - especially on this topic - since no mention was made in R1 that the definition HAD to be accepted, and it's understood in every debate that people have different ways of defining things. For instance, in a debate about free will, you'll see that Pro presents one definition of free will and then Con presents another [1]. This clarification is most certainly allowed and encouraged so long as it's done in the first round, and the instigator makes no rule against it (which you'll notice that Con did not). The only way my definition should not be used is if Con argues that my definition is incorrect. However, because my definition is the correct medical definition, then it should be upheld. Again, I'll let the audience decide what source they think is more valid - the medical community, or Wikipedia. Moving on, we'll discuss the word "homosexual" since that's what this debate is actually about - being gay. You'll note that Con never once defined gay or homosexual ~ just homosexuality. As such, my explanation of homosexual should stand. I have described it as being one that possesses the qualities of homosexuality. That includes gay genes, biological factors and all other sexual instincts, attractions or behavior towards another of the same sex or gender. Rebuttal: 2. Suicide Con says that my argument here completely rests on my definition; however, once again that is completely wrong. I have proven and even quoted doctor/scientists who explain that sexual identity is achieved in INFANCY which Con originally said was impossible before I proved him wrong. So, since I was right about that point and Con completely dropped that argument in the last round, then I am right in saying that an infant does not have the mental or physical capacity for suicide and my point stands. Also, Con says I dropped his argument "As the parents make the choice to allow for the child to exist, the child's being gay is still a choice." I didn't drop it -- I just proved how it was impossible, so I thought Con would understand that I already negated this absolutely ridiculous position. The resolution implies that BEING gay is a choice, NOT *raising a gay child* is a choice. So, even the parents choose to raise a gay child, the child does not have a choice and therefore this point actually supports my position rather than Con's. 3. Seclusion Con writes, "If one has never known anybody else in his or her entire life, then they would not even understand sexuality at all." I can't even begin to describe how non-sensical this argument is. First of all, if one lived in seclusion their entire life since birth, then it wouldn't be their choice but their parents (or some other entities) choice. Therefore this weak argument has already been negated. However, you'll notice that Con dropped every single one of my other points from the last round regarding this horrible contention. In R2 I pointed out why this premise made no sense. Con absolutely 100% dropped my arguments about the genetic and biological factors that go into determining one's sexuality. Of course this was after he said that there was no link, and I proved him wrong just as I have with every other point that he's made. Nevertheless, let me reiterate how asinine this argument really is. Not to mention that it's completely untrue! Even if one had lived in complete seclusion from other people, there's no telling that they'd be completely secluded from sex. Moreover, Con never pointed out until the last round that the person would have had to be secluded since birth. As we all know, introducing new arguments in the final round is bad conduct and against debating paradigms. However, that's irrelevant because it's not even possible. For that to happen, it would have been at the hand of the infant's care taker and therefore not their choice. This point is void. 4. Sedation Con completely ignores all arguments related to biology because he cannot argue them. Arguments: 1. Rape Here we have a most interesting argument. Con insists that "Rare examples are not enough to affirm a resolution" yet sees no problem with using rare examples to negate a resolution. For instance, expecting that one remain secluded from infancy --> forever is absurd. Similarly, committing suicide is just as ridiculous. And furthermore, a resolution without a doubt can be proven by using a rare example [2]. Nevertheless, you'll notice that Con never disputed my example of rape - he just pointed out that rape was rare. Just because something is rare doesn't mean that it can't be used as evidence. For instance, if I say "Pitching a perfect game is possible" and point out that it's been done before -- in far less than 3% of games might I add -- then of course that evidence can be used to support the resolution despite how rare it is. Also, Con's statistic is also skewed; I pointed out in the last round that the stats regarding sexual abuse are more around the area of 15% of people per year. Nevertheless, I have won this point using Con's own very definition and tactics. If his definition of homosexuality includes those who engage in homosexual behavior, then surely those who are raped fall within the category of gay. This includes all of the men who are raped in prison, or boys who were subjected to sexual abuse at the hand of others or priests. These people have been 'gay' and it was not their choice. Moreover, this example most definitely applies because Con's own definition uses the word "situationally" which clearly an act of rape is. 2. Being Once again, Con completely dropped the contentions here because he can't argue them. Counter-Examples: Extend my arguments. Conclusion: This entire debate is based on Con's inability to defend the position that one can choose their sexuality. Because he obviously cannot prove that one chooses to be gay -- and we all know what that statement really implies -- he has relied on (a) semantics and (b) a faulty definition. By his own admission, Con has completely neglected the TRUE definition of homosexuality in favor of one that suits his position. That is not an example of winning a debate ~ it is an example of manipulation. Listing suicide as an alternative to accepting one's sexual identity is clearly a semantics argument; it's a shame that Con can't win a debate the real way (via actual arguments with proper definitions). I have explained why my definition should prevail in this debate. You'll also notice that I've proven how Con is wrong even using his own faulty definition. To re-cap, one is born gay (WITH A GAY GENE) -- they just haven't realized yet that they are gay. There is no "alcoholic gene" so Con's example fails. One might be genetically inclined towards addiction; however, can avoid it. You cannot avoid your sexuality. Again, even if one commits suicide, they were gay before committing suicide. The same logic applies to sedation or seclusion, though it's much easier to see how Con's seclusion argument is horrible; life-long seclusion would not be the individual's choice. Resolution affirmed. [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://www.debate.org...

Society

Being-gay-is-not-a-choice./1/

Gay - homosexual - having the romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex, situationally or as an enduring disposition <URL>... Choice - the mental process of thinking involved with the process of judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one of them for action <URL>... I contend that being gay is a choice on behalf of the person whose sexuality is being questioned. There are at least two choices that we can guarantee for people who feel as if they have no choice in the matter: 1. Be gay. 2. Suicide. A dead person has no attractions to anyone, and is therefore not gay. Additional choices: 3. Live in seclusion. A person living in total seclusion can no longer be gay, as there are no longer any people to have an attraction towards. 4. Be sedated. While sedated, a person has no consciousness, and cannot have any relationship with anyone. With these three choices to be considered, I leave the floor to my opponent. Thank you for accepting.

mongeese

Gay - homosexual - having the romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex, situationally or as an enduring disposition http://en.wikipedia.org... Choice - the mental process of thinking involved with the process of judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one of them for action http://en.wikipedia.org... I contend that being gay is a choice on behalf of the person whose sexuality is being questioned. There are at least two choices that we can guarantee for people who feel as if they have no choice in the matter: 1. Be gay. 2. Suicide. A dead person has no attractions to anyone, and is therefore not gay. Additional choices: 3. Live in seclusion. A person living in total seclusion can no longer be gay, as there are no longer any people to have an attraction towards. 4. Be sedated. While sedated, a person has no consciousness, and cannot have any relationship with anyone. With these three choices to be considered, I leave the floor to my opponent. Thank you for accepting.

Society

Being-gay-is-not-a-choice./1/

Again, thanks for accepting. Firstly, I shall reject my opponent's rejection of my own definition for this debate. My definition was introduced first, and by accepting this debate, my opponent should have also accepted the defitions, as detailed in this debate I had earlier [1]. There is no good reason as to why my opponent's definition would trump my own. As for the science of it, while sexuality may be linked to the brain, the brain is merely one thing among many. Whether or not the brain is the only factor is yet to be seen, as choice has not been entirely ruled out. Now, onto the points I made last round: 2-. Suicide Infants have no homosexual characteristics at all. They do not ever have "the romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex." Their brains aren't developed enough to do such things. Therefore, infants are completely irrelevant to this debate. They would not develop into homosexuals until much later. Additionally, the gayness of infants is still a choice, but in this case, it would be the choice of the parents. The parents make the conscious decision to raise the child. However, young children have suicided [2], likely before developing sexual behavior or attraction, so given that they have the option of death before ever being homosexual, this point remains. 3-. Living in Seclusion How can one maintain a sexual identity if one has nobody to establish such an identity with? My opponent's virgin analogy apparently assumes the virgin to actually live with other people, as opposed to the hypothetical secluded person. Why would a person in seclusion possibly fit the definition of "homosexual"? 4-. Sedation Genetics and non-neurological biology are irrelevant to the definition at hand. A person can be sedated before ever being gay in the first place. Finally, having sexual intercourse while sedated is merely one rare event that my opponent cannot possibly use to affirm a conjecture. Counterexamples are only acceptable in negating a conjecture. 1+. Rape As this is a rare situation, it cannot be used to affirm a general resolution, as outlined above. For the random addition about death, the non-living entity is not gay, and is still relevant, due to having made the permanent choice not to be gay. 2+. Being These actions can be taken before sexuality develops, as I have outlined. 3+. Biology Why does this contention even exist? It is just a counter-contention to a contention that was never introduced. Conclusion: Infants are not gay, but may become gay around puberty, so future gays are not present gays. Parents have the choice of not allowing their child to have any chance of being gay in the future. Death and sedation can be chosen before sexuality develops. Counterexamples: I would like to point out that as I am CON, I am the one who only needs one counter-example (such as abortion, killing the child before its neurology develops [3], or abandoning a child in the woods to grow up in seclusion with no sexuality whatsoever) to negate the resolution. My opponent's few examples that could potentially show the resolution to be true in certain instances are irrelevant, as PRO needs to show the resolution to be entirely true. For example, in this debate [3], CON pointed out counterexamples, so that should the net result be that the end result was the resoltuion being sometimes true and sometimes false, Arguments would go to CON. With that said, I'll leave the floor to PRO. 1. <URL>... 2. <URL>... 3. <URL>... 4. <URL>...

mongeese

Again, thanks for accepting. Firstly, I shall reject my opponent's rejection of my own definition for this debate. My definition was introduced first, and by accepting this debate, my opponent should have also accepted the defitions, as detailed in this debate I had earlier [1]. There is no good reason as to why my opponent's definition would trump my own. As for the science of it, while sexuality may be linked to the brain, the brain is merely one thing among many. Whether or not the brain is the only factor is yet to be seen, as choice has not been entirely ruled out. Now, onto the points I made last round: 2-. Suicide Infants have no homosexual characteristics at all. They do not ever have "the romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex." Their brains aren't developed enough to do such things. Therefore, infants are completely irrelevant to this debate. They would not develop into homosexuals until much later. Additionally, the gayness of infants is still a choice, but in this case, it would be the choice of the parents. The parents make the conscious decision to raise the child. However, young children have suicided [2], likely before developing sexual behavior or attraction, so given that they have the option of death before ever being homosexual, this point remains. 3-. Living in Seclusion How can one maintain a sexual identity if one has nobody to establish such an identity with? My opponent's virgin analogy apparently assumes the virgin to actually live with other people, as opposed to the hypothetical secluded person. Why would a person in seclusion possibly fit the definition of "homosexual"? 4-. Sedation Genetics and non-neurological biology are irrelevant to the definition at hand. A person can be sedated before ever being gay in the first place. Finally, having sexual intercourse while sedated is merely one rare event that my opponent cannot possibly use to affirm a conjecture. Counterexamples are only acceptable in negating a conjecture. 1+. Rape As this is a rare situation, it cannot be used to affirm a general resolution, as outlined above. For the random addition about death, the non-living entity is not gay, and is still relevant, due to having made the permanent choice not to be gay. 2+. Being These actions can be taken before sexuality develops, as I have outlined. 3+. Biology Why does this contention even exist? It is just a counter-contention to a contention that was never introduced. Conclusion: Infants are not gay, but may become gay around puberty, so future gays are not present gays. Parents have the choice of not allowing their child to have any chance of being gay in the future. Death and sedation can be chosen before sexuality develops. Counterexamples: I would like to point out that as I am CON, I am the one who only needs one counter-example (such as abortion, killing the child before its neurology develops [3], or abandoning a child in the woods to grow up in seclusion with no sexuality whatsoever) to negate the resolution. My opponent's few examples that could potentially show the resolution to be true in certain instances are irrelevant, as PRO needs to show the resolution to be entirely true. For example, in this debate [3], CON pointed out counterexamples, so that should the net result be that the end result was the resoltuion being sometimes true and sometimes false, Arguments would go to CON. With that said, I'll leave the floor to PRO. 1. http://www.Debate.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://www.debate.org...

Society

Being-gay-is-not-a-choice./1/

My opponent claims that her own definition fits the debate more than the definition that I already established in Round 1, mostly by comparing the sources of the two definitions. She accuses of the debate being skewed in my direction by my own definition. However, the debate would be skewed in my opponent's favor if we choose her own definition. If my opponent did not like the definition that I initially chose, and felt that a debate using such a definition would be unfair, then she should have stated such in the Comments section. My opponent had the complete freedom to not accept this debate if she felt that the definition were unfair. However, if my opponent's definition is allowed to prevail, then I have no freedom whatsoever to back out of an unfair debate. As my debate with crackofdawn_jr already outlined, this freedom to back out is what already gives the Contender an equal ability to control the definition. However, if the Contender can accept a debate, then pick any definition whatsoever, no matter how biased it may be, then the Instigator is no longer debating the debate that he or she already prepared. That would be like writing and signing a contract, then passing it over to the other person, then watching as they rewrite the definitions for every single word so that you'll end up in massive debt to them and sign the contract. That hardly sounds fair. The only way for the signing of the contract to be completely fair for both parties is if after one person writes, defines, and signs the contract, the second person can either sign or try to negotiate the contract. After signing, it's too late, unless the original writer of the contract chooses allow it, which does not apply to this case in the slightest. Now, if we were to go with my opponent's definition, that would be completely unfair. I actually agree with the PRO position given PRO's definition. I am PRO with my opponent's definition, but CON with my own definition. I wished to debate as CON under my own definition, and my opponent has no right to force me to take a completely different side just because she doesn't feel my source to be adequate. The reason I chose the source I did was because it had the definition that I wished to debate with. The alternative to my posting a definition would be renaming the resolution to "Having the romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex is not a mental process of thinking involved with the process of judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one of them for action." It would be the only way to debate what I want to debate, and it can't even fit in the topic box. Essentially, when one reads the resolution, and the Instigator has already defined words in the resolution, the resolution should be treated with the defined words substituted out by their respective definitions, so that the topic is short and succint, while still being comprehendible. This is all outlined even more thoroughly in this debate of mine: <URL>... My opponent's second statement is that people who are inclined to possess feelings of homosexuality are, by my definition, homosexual. However, one reading the definition can easily find this to be false. Having an attraction is different from being inclined to pontentially have attractions. That would be like calling everybody alcoholics because their brains are wired to be potential alcoholics, even if they've never tasted alcoholic beverages. Therefore, my opponent's accusation is wrong. All of my opponent's arguments using her own definition are completely irrelevant to this debate, as I have already thoroughly outlined above. 2-. Suicide My opponent's arguments completely rely on her own definition, and are therefore void. My opponent ignored my sentence from Round 2, "Additionally, the gayness of infants is still a choice, but in this case, it would be the choice of the parents. The parents make the conscious decision to raise the child." As the parents make the choice to allow for the child to exist, the child's being gay is still a choice. This is a dropped argument, and therefore conceded. 3-. Seclusion If one has never known anybody else in his or her entire life, then they would not even understand sexuality at all. 4-. Sedation All references to genetics and biology are void, as detailed above. The rape case, as I'll more clearly address below, is not nearly enough to affirm a resolution. 1+. Rape My opponent misrepresents what I said. Rare examples are not enough to affirm a resolution. If one said, "Rectangles are rhombuses," the response would be, "That only applies in the case of squares." Squares being both rectangles and rhombuses is not enough to affirm "Rectangles are rhombuses." Similarly, just because some situations of being gay may be without choice, doesn't mean that the all-encompassing "Being gay is not a choice" is affirmed. Rare examples can be used as evidence, but only as evidence. Conclusions cannot draw only from rare examples, as outlined in the squares scenario. As for the rarity of rape, I never said it was extremely rare. I merely said that it was rare. 3% seems fairly rare to me. 2+. Being This contention completely relies on CON's skewed, un-consented to definition. Ignore it. Counter-Examples: False. The fact is that counterexamples disprove conjectures. Given the conjecture of being gay not being a choice, and the counterexample of being gay sometimes being a choice, the conjecture is inherently false. Additionally, my situations are not rare at all. Almost anybody can make the choice of suicide. Conclusion Analysis: Most of my opponent's conclusion relies on the definition not pertaining to this debate. As for the random throw-in of sedated people still having feelings, one can simply be sedated to a state of complete unconsciousness [1], in which case, feelings don't exist. My opponent argues that a person being gay at any moment negates the resolution. However, assuming that being gay for a few seconds is not a choice, after having one opportunity to suicide, a person has chosen to be gay rather than dead. This choice, however, lasts eternally [2], even after the suicide, in which case one has chosen death over being gay. If one measures the amount of time each occassion lasts, one realizes that there are more instances of gayness being a chose than not, which would actually negate the resolution. Conclusion: My opponent's definition cannot be accepted for any reason by the numerous reasons I have outlined above. Being gay is first a choice made by the parents (conceded), but later becomes a choice to eventually be taken by the homosexual himself. He can choose to suicide, and after perhaps a few minutes of lack of choice, a homosexual's homosexuality is a choice, as opposed to death. Therefore, at least for the most part, being gay is a choice. The resolution is negated in numerous ways. Vote CON. 1. <URL>... 2. <URL>... Note that most of CON's sources are entirely irrelevant to this debate, concerning irrelevant genetics and biology not to be debated here.

mongeese

My opponent claims that her own definition fits the debate more than the definition that I already established in Round 1, mostly by comparing the sources of the two definitions. She accuses of the debate being skewed in my direction by my own definition. However, the debate would be skewed in my opponent's favor if we choose her own definition. If my opponent did not like the definition that I initially chose, and felt that a debate using such a definition would be unfair, then she should have stated such in the Comments section. My opponent had the complete freedom to not accept this debate if she felt that the definition were unfair. However, if my opponent's definition is allowed to prevail, then I have no freedom whatsoever to back out of an unfair debate. As my debate with crackofdawn_jr already outlined, this freedom to back out is what already gives the Contender an equal ability to control the definition. However, if the Contender can accept a debate, then pick any definition whatsoever, no matter how biased it may be, then the Instigator is no longer debating the debate that he or she already prepared. That would be like writing and signing a contract, then passing it over to the other person, then watching as they rewrite the definitions for every single word so that you'll end up in massive debt to them and sign the contract. That hardly sounds fair. The only way for the signing of the contract to be completely fair for both parties is if after one person writes, defines, and signs the contract, the second person can either sign or try to negotiate the contract. After signing, it's too late, unless the original writer of the contract chooses allow it, which does not apply to this case in the slightest. Now, if we were to go with my opponent's definition, that would be completely unfair. I actually agree with the PRO position given PRO's definition. I am PRO with my opponent's definition, but CON with my own definition. I wished to debate as CON under my own definition, and my opponent has no right to force me to take a completely different side just because she doesn't feel my source to be adequate. The reason I chose the source I did was because it had the definition that I wished to debate with. The alternative to my posting a definition would be renaming the resolution to "Having the romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex is not a mental process of thinking involved with the process of judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one of them for action." It would be the only way to debate what I want to debate, and it can't even fit in the topic box. Essentially, when one reads the resolution, and the Instigator has already defined words in the resolution, the resolution should be treated with the defined words substituted out by their respective definitions, so that the topic is short and succint, while still being comprehendible. This is all outlined even more thoroughly in this debate of mine: http://www.debate.org... My opponent's second statement is that people who are inclined to possess feelings of homosexuality are, by my definition, homosexual. However, one reading the definition can easily find this to be false. Having an attraction is different from being inclined to pontentially have attractions. That would be like calling everybody alcoholics because their brains are wired to be potential alcoholics, even if they've never tasted alcoholic beverages. Therefore, my opponent's accusation is wrong. All of my opponent's arguments using her own definition are completely irrelevant to this debate, as I have already thoroughly outlined above. 2-. Suicide My opponent's arguments completely rely on her own definition, and are therefore void. My opponent ignored my sentence from Round 2, "Additionally, the gayness of infants is still a choice, but in this case, it would be the choice of the parents. The parents make the conscious decision to raise the child." As the parents make the choice to allow for the child to exist, the child's being gay is still a choice. This is a dropped argument, and therefore conceded. 3-. Seclusion If one has never known anybody else in his or her entire life, then they would not even understand sexuality at all. 4-. Sedation All references to genetics and biology are void, as detailed above. The rape case, as I'll more clearly address below, is not nearly enough to affirm a resolution. 1+. Rape My opponent misrepresents what I said. Rare examples are not enough to affirm a resolution. If one said, "Rectangles are rhombuses," the response would be, "That only applies in the case of squares." Squares being both rectangles and rhombuses is not enough to affirm "Rectangles are rhombuses." Similarly, just because some situations of being gay may be without choice, doesn't mean that the all-encompassing "Being gay is not a choice" is affirmed. Rare examples can be used as evidence, but only as evidence. Conclusions cannot draw only from rare examples, as outlined in the squares scenario. As for the rarity of rape, I never said it was extremely rare. I merely said that it was rare. 3% seems fairly rare to me. 2+. Being This contention completely relies on CON's skewed, un-consented to definition. Ignore it. Counter-Examples: False. The fact is that counterexamples disprove conjectures. Given the conjecture of being gay not being a choice, and the counterexample of being gay sometimes being a choice, the conjecture is inherently false. Additionally, my situations are not rare at all. Almost anybody can make the choice of suicide. Conclusion Analysis: Most of my opponent's conclusion relies on the definition not pertaining to this debate. As for the random throw-in of sedated people still having feelings, one can simply be sedated to a state of complete unconsciousness [1], in which case, feelings don't exist. My opponent argues that a person being gay at any moment negates the resolution. However, assuming that being gay for a few seconds is not a choice, after having one opportunity to suicide, a person has chosen to be gay rather than dead. This choice, however, lasts eternally [2], even after the suicide, in which case one has chosen death over being gay. If one measures the amount of time each occassion lasts, one realizes that there are more instances of gayness being a chose than not, which would actually negate the resolution. Conclusion: My opponent's definition cannot be accepted for any reason by the numerous reasons I have outlined above. Being gay is first a choice made by the parents (conceded), but later becomes a choice to eventually be taken by the homosexual himself. He can choose to suicide, and after perhaps a few minutes of lack of choice, a homosexual's homosexuality is a choice, as opposed to death. Therefore, at least for the most part, being gay is a choice. The resolution is negated in numerous ways. Vote CON. 1. http://www.asahq.org... 2. http://www.suicide.org... Note that most of CON's sources are entirely irrelevant to this debate, concerning irrelevant genetics and biology not to be debated here.

Society

Being-gay-is-not-a-choice./1/

Being in favor of abortion and against the death penalty, is not only morally wrong, it doesn't make sense. Kill babies that haven't had a chance at life save the adults that had a chance at life and chose to use it to murder people. I went through profiles of people I disagreed 50% or more on and most of them were liberal, in favor of abortion and against the death penalty. I personally think that is sick. How can you want to snuff out an innocent life, yet want to let an evil person, that has proved to society that they are willing to kill others, live out his life? Liberalism at its finest. Only in favor of killing those that can't defend themselves and opposed to killing people that would murder others. I am against abortion except in extreme cases like rape, if the birth would be danger to the mother, or the child would end up with severe disabilities. But I don't think it should be legal otherwise to be used as a form of birth control. I am in favor of the death penalty. First off it makes prison's safer for the guards and inmates, and it is a great way to make people think twice before doing something stupid. That is if it is used properly and often. That is my stance on those two subjects.

ericjpomeroy

Being in favor of abortion and against the death penalty, is not only morally wrong, it doesn't make sense. Kill babies that haven't had a chance at life save the adults that had a chance at life and chose to use it to murder people. I went through profiles of people I disagreed 50% or more on and most of them were liberal, in favor of abortion and against the death penalty. I personally think that is sick. How can you want to snuff out an innocent life, yet want to let an evil person, that has proved to society that they are willing to kill others, live out his life? Liberalism at its finest. Only in favor of killing those that can't defend themselves and opposed to killing people that would murder others. I am against abortion except in extreme cases like rape, if the birth would be danger to the mother, or the child would end up with severe disabilities. But I don't think it should be legal otherwise to be used as a form of birth control. I am in favor of the death penalty. First off it makes prison's safer for the guards and inmates, and it is a great way to make people think twice before doing something stupid. That is if it is used properly and often. That is my stance on those two subjects.

Politics

Being-in-favor-of-abortion-and-against-the-death-penalty-is-hypocritical-and-typically-liberal./1/

I also have a Definition for you Hypocrite: 1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs. <URL>... which is exactly my point. So you didn't unhinge crap. Now is abortion is ending a life, not just a life, and innocent life that hasn't had a chance to have an impact on the world at all. Trying to deny your ending life by having an abortion is a lie. At conception life begins, that is a fact. It may not spring up and start doing cartwheels for you but it is life. Now you say that conservatives that are "Pro Life" and for the death penalty are hypocrites? I totally challenge that. Being opposed to abortion, saying it is murder to kill a child that is alive and growing inside you, that you created, is very pro life. Also, killing a person that has shown a they have no respect for another person's right to live is actually defending life. You also state: "Many studies have shown that the death penalty is no more effective as a deterrent to murder than life without parole." This is complete bull. Think about the lifer's in prison, they are the most dangerous people in that prison simply because they have nothing to lose. The murder rate in in prison is over 50 to every 100,000. The majority of the offenders are men serving life in prison. Rather than execute them you would have them being a danger to other inmates as well as guards? Being alive they are a danger to life. As far as the death penalty being a deterrent, we don't use it enough to be a deterrent! Saying that 127 people could have been wrongfully executed isn't a reflection of the death penalty in any way. You could make that argument about life sentences, we should abolish those sentences too? How many killers got out of prison and went on to commit more violent crime? I bet you it is more than 127. Considering the average sentence served for commiting murder is less than 12 years, I think we NEED the death penalty to be used a lot more frequently. We don't use the death penalty nearly enough to be a deterrent. We have executed 1,056 people since 1976. That is about 35 a year, that is nothing. China executes around 1400 people a year and they have a low violent crime rate. You say: "Finally, one more argument against the death penalty states that its application is unequal and discriminatory. A black defendant on trial for murder is 38% more likely to be given they death penalty than a defendant of any other race; and nearly 90% of all victims in death penalty cases are white, despite the fact that whites make up only about 50% of all murder victims." Well, when you consider that Blacks make up 47.6% of all murderers, and only about 10% of the population, that is about right. They get convicted more cause they commit more violent crimes and are often repeat offenders. But another thing that is typically liberal is to accuse everything they don't agree with as being racist. Stop hiding behind the liberal shield of racism and face facts. The death penalty is a PENALTY, it isn't a random thing, they don't pull people off the street and execute them on a whim. Some times death is necessary to support life. <URL>... I wouldn't have as much of a problem if you were pro abortion and pro death penalty, or anti abortion and anti death penalty, but pro abortion and anti death penalty? Think about what your saying! You want to kill children and protect killers! That is the bottom line. That is evil. If you don't see it that way then that just shows how evil that liberal America is. Conservatism is giving people a lot of freedom, but holding them responsible for their actions. Liberalism is to give people some freedom but absolve them of all responsibility for their actions. That is exactly what you are saying. Sleep around, it is cool, you can just have an abortion later. Kill as many people as you want, we won't hurt you. That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. If we had a standard for the death penalty, like any type of murder results in the death penalty which is to be carried out within a year or after their first and only appeal. The murder rate would decline. If abortion were made illegal, the number of people using protection while having sex would increase, making people safer. The world would just be a better place. In closing, being pro abortion, is supporting the ending of innocent lives. Being anti death penalty, is protecting people who are anything but innocent. How is that not hypocritical?

ericjpomeroy

I also have a Definition for you Hypocrite: 1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs. http://dictionary.reference.com... which is exactly my point. So you didn't unhinge crap. Now is abortion is ending a life, not just a life, and innocent life that hasn't had a chance to have an impact on the world at all. Trying to deny your ending life by having an abortion is a lie. At conception life begins, that is a fact. It may not spring up and start doing cartwheels for you but it is life. Now you say that conservatives that are "Pro Life" and for the death penalty are hypocrites? I totally challenge that. Being opposed to abortion, saying it is murder to kill a child that is alive and growing inside you, that you created, is very pro life. Also, killing a person that has shown a they have no respect for another person's right to live is actually defending life. You also state: "Many studies have shown that the death penalty is no more effective as a deterrent to murder than life without parole." This is complete bull. Think about the lifer's in prison, they are the most dangerous people in that prison simply because they have nothing to lose. The murder rate in in prison is over 50 to every 100,000. The majority of the offenders are men serving life in prison. Rather than execute them you would have them being a danger to other inmates as well as guards? Being alive they are a danger to life. As far as the death penalty being a deterrent, we don't use it enough to be a deterrent! Saying that 127 people could have been wrongfully executed isn't a reflection of the death penalty in any way. You could make that argument about life sentences, we should abolish those sentences too? How many killers got out of prison and went on to commit more violent crime? I bet you it is more than 127. Considering the average sentence served for commiting murder is less than 12 years, I think we NEED the death penalty to be used a lot more frequently. We don't use the death penalty nearly enough to be a deterrent. We have executed 1,056 people since 1976. That is about 35 a year, that is nothing. China executes around 1400 people a year and they have a low violent crime rate. You say: "Finally, one more argument against the death penalty states that its application is unequal and discriminatory. A black defendant on trial for murder is 38% more likely to be given they death penalty than a defendant of any other race; and nearly 90% of all victims in death penalty cases are white, despite the fact that whites make up only about 50% of all murder victims." Well, when you consider that Blacks make up 47.6% of all murderers, and only about 10% of the population, that is about right. They get convicted more cause they commit more violent crimes and are often repeat offenders. But another thing that is typically liberal is to accuse everything they don't agree with as being racist. Stop hiding behind the liberal shield of racism and face facts. The death penalty is a PENALTY, it isn't a random thing, they don't pull people off the street and execute them on a whim. Some times death is necessary to support life. http://www.benbest.com... I wouldn't have as much of a problem if you were pro abortion and pro death penalty, or anti abortion and anti death penalty, but pro abortion and anti death penalty? Think about what your saying! You want to kill children and protect killers! That is the bottom line. That is evil. If you don't see it that way then that just shows how evil that liberal America is. Conservatism is giving people a lot of freedom, but holding them responsible for their actions. Liberalism is to give people some freedom but absolve them of all responsibility for their actions. That is exactly what you are saying. Sleep around, it is cool, you can just have an abortion later. Kill as many people as you want, we won't hurt you. That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. If we had a standard for the death penalty, like any type of murder results in the death penalty which is to be carried out within a year or after their first and only appeal. The murder rate would decline. If abortion were made illegal, the number of people using protection while having sex would increase, making people safer. The world would just be a better place. In closing, being pro abortion, is supporting the ending of innocent lives. Being anti death penalty, is protecting people who are anything but innocent. How is that not hypocritical?

Politics

Being-in-favor-of-abortion-and-against-the-death-penalty-is-hypocritical-and-typically-liberal./1/

ateInteresting debate. I'm not going to address the notion that these positions are typically liberal because that seems to be a fairly obvious assertion. Many liberals are against the death penalty and are for the women's right to choose, I absolutely agree. First off, I'm going to start with some definitions since my opponent decided not to provide any. Merriam Webster defines the following as such: Hypocrisy: feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion Murder: The unlawful killing of another person The first definition seems to unhinge my opponent's argument. Liberals only say that they believe in these two things, not some all-encompassing belief in a right to life. Therefore to believe in these two things is not hypocritical. Interestingly enough, it is conservatives who profess this aforementioned "right to life", and yet favor the death penalty, but that is neither here nor there. I suppose by hypocritical my opponent means morally inconsistent. The second definition is where most liberals find their point of stasis from conservatives. They believe that the fetus is not a "person", and many people tend to agree. The US Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey states that a fetus only becomes viable after 22 weeks and upheld a woman's right to an abortion before that point. Neurophysiological definitions of personhood state that one must be a sentient being in order to qualify as a person. Therefore, it is not inconsistent to support abortion because those who do don't see it as the killing of a person, but rather a medical decision made by the woman. As far as the death penalty is concerned, there are a multitude of reasons why liberals and non-liberals oppose it. Oddly enough, none of them include letting "an evil person, that has proved to society that they are willing to kill others, live out his life." Many studies have shown that the death penalty is no more effective as a deterrent to murder than life without parole (1, 2). Moreover, since 1973, 127 people on death row in the US have been exonerated based on DNA evidence, and experts say that numerous other innocent people have been put to death in that time frame (3). Opponents of the death penalty argue that this provides too high a risk of executing an innocent person to justify the use of capital punishment. Finally, one more argument against the death penalty states that its application is unequal and discriminatory. A black defendant on trial for murder is 38% more likely to be given they death penalty than a defendant of any other race; and nearly 90% of all victims in death penalty cases are white, despite the fact that whites make up only about 50% of all murder victims (4). In conclusion, to say that supporting a woman's right to choose and opposing the death penalty is not only un-hypocritical, it is also morally consistent, as I have shown. 1. <URL>... (197512)85%3A2%3C187%3ATIODII%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E 2. <URL>... 3. <URL>... 4. <URL>...

rwebberc

ateInteresting debate. I'm not going to address the notion that these positions are typically liberal because that seems to be a fairly obvious assertion. Many liberals are against the death penalty and are for the women's right to choose, I absolutely agree. First off, I'm going to start with some definitions since my opponent decided not to provide any. Merriam Webster defines the following as such: Hypocrisy: feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion Murder: The unlawful killing of another person The first definition seems to unhinge my opponent's argument. Liberals only say that they believe in these two things, not some all-encompassing belief in a right to life. Therefore to believe in these two things is not hypocritical. Interestingly enough, it is conservatives who profess this aforementioned "right to life", and yet favor the death penalty, but that is neither here nor there. I suppose by hypocritical my opponent means morally inconsistent. The second definition is where most liberals find their point of stasis from conservatives. They believe that the fetus is not a "person", and many people tend to agree. The US Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey states that a fetus only becomes viable after 22 weeks and upheld a woman's right to an abortion before that point. Neurophysiological definitions of personhood state that one must be a sentient being in order to qualify as a person. Therefore, it is not inconsistent to support abortion because those who do don't see it as the killing of a person, but rather a medical decision made by the woman. As far as the death penalty is concerned, there are a multitude of reasons why liberals and non-liberals oppose it. Oddly enough, none of them include letting "an evil person, that has proved to society that they are willing to kill others, live out his life." Many studies have shown that the death penalty is no more effective as a deterrent to murder than life without parole (1, 2). Moreover, since 1973, 127 people on death row in the US have been exonerated based on DNA evidence, and experts say that numerous other innocent people have been put to death in that time frame (3). Opponents of the death penalty argue that this provides too high a risk of executing an innocent person to justify the use of capital punishment. Finally, one more argument against the death penalty states that its application is unequal and discriminatory. A black defendant on trial for murder is 38% more likely to be given they death penalty than a defendant of any other race; and nearly 90% of all victims in death penalty cases are white, despite the fact that whites make up only about 50% of all murder victims (4). In conclusion, to say that supporting a woman's right to choose and opposing the death penalty is not only un-hypocritical, it is also morally consistent, as I have shown. 1. http://links.jstor.org... (197512)85%3A2%3C187%3ATIODII%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E 2. http://cad.sagepub.com... 3. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... 4. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

Politics

Being-in-favor-of-abortion-and-against-the-death-penalty-is-hypocritical-and-typically-liberal./1/

I will start by addressing your points from the last round: "I also have a Definition for you Hypocrite: 1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs. <URL>... ... which is exactly my point." Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. People who hold these views only say that they support a woman's right to choose and that the death penalty is unjust for the various reasons I have previously stated. That's not hypocritical. It would be hypocritical for them to bomb and abortion clinic or call for the execution of a murderer, but saying what they believe is not hypocrisy. "At conception life begins, that is a fact." True, an embryo may be alive, but that doesn't make it a person. You can only "murder" sentient beings. A house plant is alive, but if I cut it down that doesn't make me a murderer. You haven't addressed my argument that an embryo is not a sentient being until a certain point, and therefore it is not hypocritical to deny it the same rights as one would give to an actual living, breathing, thinking, sentient human being. "You also state: "Many studies have shown that the death penalty is no more effective as a deterrent to murder than life without parole." This is complete bull." How? I provided two studies, one from the Yale Law Journal, another from Crime and Delinquency Journal, both of which are peer-reviewed sources knowledgable to the subject. Nice try. "Saying that 127 people could have been wrongfully executed isn't a reflection of the death penalty in any way. You could make that argument about life sentences, we should abolish those sentences too?" The thing about life sentences is that they are reversible, you can release them from prison and pay them retributions for their false imprisonment. Can you un-kill someone? Until you can, then your argument doesn't hold water. "As far as the death penalty being a deterrent, we don't use it enough to be a deterrent!" The only countries that execute more people than the USA are China, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, and the Sudan (1). That should give you some insight into your twisted logic. Are these really the countries you want us to emulate as far as domestic policy goes? "China executes around 1400 people a year and they have a low violent crime rate." This is completely laughable. China's government has one of the worst human rights records in the world. The reason China executes so many people is because there are a total of 68 offenses punishable by death, including theft, embezzlement, tax fraud, and numerous other non-violent crimes (2). For those of you voting, I implore you to consider the implications of my opponent's suggestions. "Well, when you consider that Blacks make up 47.6% of all murderers, and only about 10% of the population, that is about right." You seem to have misinterpreted my statistic here. I'm not just saying that more blacks get the death penalty, I'm saying they are MORE LIKELY to get it. If a black man kills person X, he is 38% more likely to get the death penalty than if a person of another race were to kill person X. Understand? "it is typically liberal is to accuse everything they don't agree with as being racist" Not sure what your point is here, but I have provided facts and statistics to show that the application of the death penalty that is racially biased. You didn't refute those statistics in any way. "The death penalty is a PENALTY, it isn't a random thing, they don't pull people off the street and execute them on a whim. Some times death is necessary to support life. <URL>... ; This is my favorite part of your argument. I have chastised you for not providing any evidence to support your arguments and you finally do...and it supports MY argument! Here is a quote from the page you cited: "On average, two countries per year have abolished the death penalty since 1976, the year it was abolished in Canada. Since then the Canadian murder rate has dropped from about 3 to about 2, undermining the argument that capital punishment is a deterrent." Wow. Awesome. Thank you for that. "Think about what your saying! You want to kill children and protect killers! That is the bottom line. That is evil." This is what those in the debate community like to call a straw man. You can't refute any of my arguments, so you misrepresent them and then call them evil. I don't want to kill children, I wish there weren't any need for abortion, but I'm not going to tell a woman what to do with her body. As far as protecting killers goes, I think life in prison is a pretty bad way to live out your years and I think people who actually commit murder deserve harsh punishment. "If we had a standard for the death penalty, like any type of murder results in the death penalty which is to be carried out within a year or after their first and only appeal. The murder rate would decline. If abortion were made illegal, the number of people using protection while having sex would increase, making people safer. The world would just be a better place." Once again you fail to support your arguments with anything but your own opinions. I can say that if we outlaw violent video games, murder rates will drop, but that doesn't make it true. Your entire argument is opinion-based, and you simply aren't qualified to be making the statements you're making. There are people out there who have actually dedicated their lives to researching these topics, and they know a whole lot more about them than either of us. That's why I cite their studies and research. You might want to consider that in the future. I have shown that 1: Hypocrisy is to profess to believe something that you don't actually believe or practice, this is not a characteristic of the people my opponent is intent on villifying. 2: There are logical reasons to believe in both positions, and doing so does not make one evil, immoral, or hypocritical. 3: My opponent's arguments are not based in fact, they are based on opinion. 4: In the process of making his arguments, my opponent has praised such oppressive entities as the Chinese government for killing more of its own citizens than the rest of the world combined. This is morally questionable at best. What else is there to say? Vote con. 1. <URL>... 2. <URL>...

rwebberc

I will start by addressing your points from the last round: "I also have a Definition for you Hypocrite: 1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs. http://dictionary.reference.com... ... which is exactly my point." Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. People who hold these views only say that they support a woman's right to choose and that the death penalty is unjust for the various reasons I have previously stated. That's not hypocritical. It would be hypocritical for them to bomb and abortion clinic or call for the execution of a murderer, but saying what they believe is not hypocrisy. "At conception life begins, that is a fact." True, an embryo may be alive, but that doesn't make it a person. You can only "murder" sentient beings. A house plant is alive, but if I cut it down that doesn't make me a murderer. You haven't addressed my argument that an embryo is not a sentient being until a certain point, and therefore it is not hypocritical to deny it the same rights as one would give to an actual living, breathing, thinking, sentient human being. "You also state: "Many studies have shown that the death penalty is no more effective as a deterrent to murder than life without parole." This is complete bull." How? I provided two studies, one from the Yale Law Journal, another from Crime and Delinquency Journal, both of which are peer-reviewed sources knowledgable to the subject. Nice try. "Saying that 127 people could have been wrongfully executed isn't a reflection of the death penalty in any way. You could make that argument about life sentences, we should abolish those sentences too?" The thing about life sentences is that they are reversible, you can release them from prison and pay them retributions for their false imprisonment. Can you un-kill someone? Until you can, then your argument doesn't hold water. "As far as the death penalty being a deterrent, we don't use it enough to be a deterrent!" The only countries that execute more people than the USA are China, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, and the Sudan (1). That should give you some insight into your twisted logic. Are these really the countries you want us to emulate as far as domestic policy goes? "China executes around 1400 people a year and they have a low violent crime rate." This is completely laughable. China's government has one of the worst human rights records in the world. The reason China executes so many people is because there are a total of 68 offenses punishable by death, including theft, embezzlement, tax fraud, and numerous other non-violent crimes (2). For those of you voting, I implore you to consider the implications of my opponent's suggestions. "Well, when you consider that Blacks make up 47.6% of all murderers, and only about 10% of the population, that is about right." You seem to have misinterpreted my statistic here. I'm not just saying that more blacks get the death penalty, I'm saying they are MORE LIKELY to get it. If a black man kills person X, he is 38% more likely to get the death penalty than if a person of another race were to kill person X. Understand? "it is typically liberal is to accuse everything they don't agree with as being racist" Not sure what your point is here, but I have provided facts and statistics to show that the application of the death penalty that is racially biased. You didn't refute those statistics in any way. "The death penalty is a PENALTY, it isn't a random thing, they don't pull people off the street and execute them on a whim. Some times death is necessary to support life. http://www.benbest.com... ; This is my favorite part of your argument. I have chastised you for not providing any evidence to support your arguments and you finally do...and it supports MY argument! Here is a quote from the page you cited: "On average, two countries per year have abolished the death penalty since 1976, the year it was abolished in Canada. Since then the Canadian murder rate has dropped from about 3 to about 2, undermining the argument that capital punishment is a deterrent." Wow. Awesome. Thank you for that. "Think about what your saying! You want to kill children and protect killers! That is the bottom line. That is evil." This is what those in the debate community like to call a straw man. You can't refute any of my arguments, so you misrepresent them and then call them evil. I don't want to kill children, I wish there weren't any need for abortion, but I'm not going to tell a woman what to do with her body. As far as protecting killers goes, I think life in prison is a pretty bad way to live out your years and I think people who actually commit murder deserve harsh punishment. "If we had a standard for the death penalty, like any type of murder results in the death penalty which is to be carried out within a year or after their first and only appeal. The murder rate would decline. If abortion were made illegal, the number of people using protection while having sex would increase, making people safer. The world would just be a better place." Once again you fail to support your arguments with anything but your own opinions. I can say that if we outlaw violent video games, murder rates will drop, but that doesn't make it true. Your entire argument is opinion-based, and you simply aren't qualified to be making the statements you're making. There are people out there who have actually dedicated their lives to researching these topics, and they know a whole lot more about them than either of us. That's why I cite their studies and research. You might want to consider that in the future. I have shown that 1: Hypocrisy is to profess to believe something that you don't actually believe or practice, this is not a characteristic of the people my opponent is intent on villifying. 2: There are logical reasons to believe in both positions, and doing so does not make one evil, immoral, or hypocritical. 3: My opponent's arguments are not based in fact, they are based on opinion. 4: In the process of making his arguments, my opponent has praised such oppressive entities as the Chinese government for killing more of its own citizens than the rest of the world combined. This is morally questionable at best. What else is there to say? Vote con. 1. http://www.amnestyusa.org... 2. http://news.bbc.co.uk...

Politics

Being-in-favor-of-abortion-and-against-the-death-penalty-is-hypocritical-and-typically-liberal./1/

Now this debate is going to be a tricky one... I will now lay the ground works: It is 5 rounds long Pro-con means nothing It is one what you think is the greatest country ever in the world Not currently Ever. Based on accomplishments, victories (wars), its goverment make up, culture, etc. anything you think makes that country the greatest evr. The first round will be like this. i will name a country i think is great in my opening argument, Then my opponent will name onew he thinks is great and leave it at that, it is similiar to this debate (please look at it for reference),: <URL>... Then in the next round (2-5) we will start discussing what makes the country great. Now don't except just to trash the country i have named b/c that is not the topic of the debate. Tell me your country then tell me why yours is better than mine. O.K. i thinmk i can get started: I believe the United States of America (USA) is the best country ever. Beased on its goverment make-up, accomplishments, etc., etc., ect. i will leave it at that giving my opponent whoever that might be a chance to state his/her best country, and remember do not back it up until your next round...

RepublicanView333

Now this debate is going to be a tricky one... I will now lay the ground works: It is 5 rounds long Pro-con means nothing It is one what you think is the greatest country ever in the world Not currently Ever. Based on accomplishments, victories (wars), its goverment make up, culture, etc. anything you think makes that country the greatest evr. The first round will be like this. i will name a country i think is great in my opening argument, Then my opponent will name onew he thinks is great and leave it at that, it is similiar to this debate (please look at it for reference),: http://www.debate.org... Then in the next round (2-5) we will start discussing what makes the country great. Now don't except just to trash the country i have named b/c that is not the topic of the debate. Tell me your country then tell me why yours is better than mine. O.K. i thinmk i can get started: I believe the United States of America (USA) is the best country ever. Beased on its goverment make-up, accomplishments, etc., etc., ect. i will leave it at that giving my opponent whoever that might be a chance to state his/her best country, and remember do not back it up until your next round...

Miscellaneous

Best-Country-in-the-World/1/

First of all thank you for following the ground works for the debate Second to answer your question we are trying to see who better displays whose country is best, while trying to also compare the two countries side by side. Not a simple task so I hope you're up to the challenge. Now to the debate: Now just in comparing the countries side by side mine is better. Just by the fact my country beat yours in war in that period...WW2...but there are also some other things...my country lasted 200 years. Yours lasted a period of not even 15 years...Your country was built on hate for Jews...mine was built on liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness. The United States started as 13 colonies and eventually quadrupled in size in less than 100 years. The United States fought off Great Britain in the Revolutionary War, the greatest superpower of the time. The United States wrote a constitution, originally the Articles of Confederation. The failure of the Articles prompted the U.S, to right a new constitution the Declaration of Independence that still stands to this day. The United States doubled it size quickly w/ the Louisiana Purchase and sent excavators into it to find the Pacific something it did successfully. The United States fought a War w/ Mexico and added the Republic of Texas The United States fought a war w/ itself, and successfully ended those ended that and resolve it and continued its greatness to today. The United States lead a Industrial Revolution and connected its whole country w/ a railroad, developed the cotton gin, the steam boat, interchangeable parts, etc. These innovations opened the door for all the technology we have 2day. The United States fought in the First World War and came out ending on the victorious side. The United States fell into a great depression, but rebounded nicely into WW2 The United States fought in the Second World War and took down your country the Nazi Germany and took down the Nazis and Communism in Germany for the most part. The United States was the first to land on the Moon and established NASA and innovated some of the most groundbreaking astronomical astronomy discoveries. The United States secured Kuwait, and slowed Saddams tyranny. The United States established one of the most successful governments ever, not dominated by one political party like many other governments, but two political parties, the Republicans, and Democrats. This is only some of the many great accomplishments the United States accomplished...I didn't go into detail since I don't want to run out of fire power for the 3 other rounds after this, so good luck.

RepublicanView333

First of all thank you for following the ground works for the debate Second to answer your question we are trying to see who better displays whose country is best, while trying to also compare the two countries side by side. Not a simple task so I hope you're up to the challenge. Now to the debate: Now just in comparing the countries side by side mine is better. Just by the fact my country beat yours in war in that period…WW2…but there are also some other things…my country lasted 200 years. Yours lasted a period of not even 15 years…Your country was built on hate for Jews…mine was built on liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness. The United States started as 13 colonies and eventually quadrupled in size in less than 100 years. The United States fought off Great Britain in the Revolutionary War, the greatest superpower of the time. The United States wrote a constitution, originally the Articles of Confederation. The failure of the Articles prompted the U.S, to right a new constitution the Declaration of Independence that still stands to this day. The United States doubled it size quickly w/ the Louisiana Purchase and sent excavators into it to find the Pacific something it did successfully. The United States fought a War w/ Mexico and added the Republic of Texas The United States fought a war w/ itself, and successfully ended those ended that and resolve it and continued its greatness to today. The United States lead a Industrial Revolution and connected its whole country w/ a railroad, developed the cotton gin, the steam boat, interchangeable parts, etc. These innovations opened the door for all the technology we have 2day. The United States fought in the First World War and came out ending on the victorious side. The United States fell into a great depression, but rebounded nicely into WW2 The United States fought in the Second World War and took down your country the Nazi Germany and took down the Nazis and Communism in Germany for the most part. The United States was the first to land on the Moon and established NASA and innovated some of the most groundbreaking astronomical astronomy discoveries. The United States secured Kuwait, and slowed Saddams tyranny. The United States established one of the most successful governments ever, not dominated by one political party like many other governments, but two political parties, the Republicans, and Democrats. This is only some of the many great accomplishments the United States accomplished…I didn't go into detail since I don't want to run out of fire power for the 3 other rounds after this, so good luck.

Miscellaneous

Best-Country-in-the-World/1/

O.k. This is going better than i thought w/ a opposing country i never expected...this will be fun... Now I will say it again...Nazi Germany was established in 1933, Germany was established in the the 8th century That's more than 1000 years apart, Germany was once made up of the territories of Germany, Austria, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, West Poland, the Low Countries, Eastern France, Switzerland, and most of Northern Italy, so even before Nazi Germany the Holy "Roman Empire of the German Nation" was bigger and better than its Nazi counterpart. This goes with the expansion. When Nazi Germany was introduced it already had its border, unlike the U.S. Nazi Germany was formed on the bases of Lebensraum, or,"Aryan" racial purity, anti-Semitism, revenge for Germany's territorial losses at the Treaty of Versailles. The United States was formed on the bases of Democracy, Capitalism and Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Now this is very important. You state: "Ideals ideals ideals. Why is liberty good? Why does this belief make the United States a better country. I'm sorry. I don't buy into democracy and liberty is better than fascism. I don't. Prove it." The U.S. was built where anyone can come into this country and lead a normal life...legally...(for those who know me best)...Now in Nazi Germany a Jew, Gypsy,...gay..., or anyone not a true human in Hitler's eyes could live there and lead a life...never mind a normal one. By the end of the war, Germany's major infrastructure was destroyed (very much at the hands of my superior country)-- and many of its major cities were in ruin as the result of Allied(aka United States, though not only allie but big one) bombings and intense urban warfare (especially in Berlin, there capitol, in 1945). In the War of 1812 the U.S. capitol was at similar attack to that of Berlin but even it wasn't in this much ruin. Now on your other points... "5. Ability to solve problems You mention Civil War and stopping Saddam. Nazi Germany need an army. They made one. They had too high unemployment, they lowered it from 6 million to almost nothing They were not faced with a civil war because nationalism was very high" Nazi Germany already had an army when Hitler took over. They didn't make one...Nazi Germany was a form of one country (germany...a unsuccessful form...(only lasting 13 years) They lowered there unemployment b/c of there Communist ways...they gave everyone compensation, but they also told them what to do and how to do it...evidently not the successful way...cough cough only lasting 13 years... Yes, "nationalism" was very high b/c of the FEAR...people where scared to be against the government...Hitler took down political opposers and anyone who threatened his tyranny and through them into concentration camps (similar to what Saddam and Castro did/does to anyone opposing them...Jew or not...cough cough Holocaust read up on it This is different than the U.S. b/c of the Freedom of Speech we have. We are not dominated by one party. There are two parties w/ 2 very different povs who control the government...checks and balances...This makes the U.S. a ever changing, ever opportunity giving country that stomps all others. "As said, Nazi only ended because of bad luck and a stupid decision by Hitler. The USA is very young by world standards." Now yes Hitler made some very stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid. SSSTTTUUUPPPIIIDDD, mistakes but that wasn't what lead to the downfall of Nazi Germany (even if it is many of the reasons)...The U.S.'s superior forces and superiority was what took them down. So.........the 200 year old U.S. is a "young country" in world standards...so what would a 13 year old(omg my age:-p) be...a fetus...hahahahahahah "Lowered unemployment" Communism "created public works jobs" Communism Now Communism is a big thing in this. Communism essentially gives everyone the same pay, social class and stateless societies. (now im going off my vague recollections of World Geography class last year so i may be a little shaky) Commie citizens get the same pay no matter the value of there work...This would essentially lower unemployment, and create public jobs. "huge industrial boom" Now please in your next round explain the ummm "boom" of it...tell me sum inventions...similar to like i did. "The government made sure that everybody could get a cheap radio" Wow...my government got me a cheap radio...so i could hear Hitler's suicide note broadcasted over the masses...big whoop...a radio really makes one country better than another... "Basically, everything the USA did, Nazi Germany did better, and in less time" Have you ever hear the expression "better done right than fast"...Well this is a perfect place for it... Hitler and the "founders"(can barely call them that" used scotch tape and Elmer's glue and rusty nails to built Nazi Germany...a quick fix after the First World War, But after some weight and tension in WW2 it fell apart... The United States is built of a strong concrete foundation...aka, the Constitution...and built with Pressure treated wood that can withstand the toughest wars...the Revolutionary, Civil, Spanish American, WW1-2, Vietnam, Gulf...And a strong roof that can hold with the most massive snow, rain, sleet, and hailstorm thrown at it...Hilary Clinton...and finished with a nice Red White and Blue coat of Liberty :'-)

RepublicanView333

O.k. This is going better than i thought w/ a opposing country i never expected...this will be fun... Now I will say it again...Nazi Germany was established in 1933, Germany was established in the the 8th century That's more than 1000 years apart, Germany was once made up of the territories of Germany, Austria, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, West Poland, the Low Countries, Eastern France, Switzerland, and most of Northern Italy, so even before Nazi Germany the Holy "Roman Empire of the German Nation" was bigger and better than its Nazi counterpart. This goes with the expansion. When Nazi Germany was introduced it already had its border, unlike the U.S. Nazi Germany was formed on the bases of Lebensraum, or,"Aryan" racial purity, anti-Semitism, revenge for Germany's territorial losses at the Treaty of Versailles. The United States was formed on the bases of Democracy, Capitalism and Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Now this is very important. You state: "Ideals ideals ideals. Why is liberty good? Why does this belief make the United States a better country. I'm sorry. I don't buy into democracy and liberty is better than fascism. I don't. Prove it." The U.S. was built where anyone can come into this country and lead a normal life...legally...(for those who know me best)...Now in Nazi Germany a Jew, Gypsy,...gay..., or anyone not a true human in Hitler's eyes could live there and lead a life...never mind a normal one. By the end of the war, Germany's major infrastructure was destroyed (very much at the hands of my superior country)— and many of its major cities were in ruin as the result of Allied(aka United States, though not only allie but big one) bombings and intense urban warfare (especially in Berlin, there capitol, in 1945). In the War of 1812 the U.S. capitol was at similar attack to that of Berlin but even it wasn't in this much ruin. Now on your other points... "5. Ability to solve problems You mention Civil War and stopping Saddam. Nazi Germany need an army. They made one. They had too high unemployment, they lowered it from 6 million to almost nothing They were not faced with a civil war because nationalism was very high" Nazi Germany already had an army when Hitler took over. They didn't make one...Nazi Germany was a form of one country (germany...a unsuccessful form...(only lasting 13 years) They lowered there unemployment b/c of there Communist ways...they gave everyone compensation, but they also told them what to do and how to do it...evidently not the successful way...cough cough only lasting 13 years... Yes, "nationalism" was very high b/c of the FEAR...people where scared to be against the government...Hitler took down political opposers and anyone who threatened his tyranny and through them into concentration camps (similar to what Saddam and Castro did/does to anyone opposing them...Jew or not...cough cough Holocaust read up on it This is different than the U.S. b/c of the Freedom of Speech we have. We are not dominated by one party. There are two parties w/ 2 very different povs who control the government...checks and balances...This makes the U.S. a ever changing, ever opportunity giving country that stomps all others. "As said, Nazi only ended because of bad luck and a stupid decision by Hitler. The USA is very young by world standards." Now yes Hitler made some very stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid. SSSTTTUUUPPPIIIDDD, mistakes but that wasn't what lead to the downfall of Nazi Germany (even if it is many of the reasons)...The U.S.'s superior forces and superiority was what took them down. So.........the 200 year old U.S. is a "young country" in world standards...so what would a 13 year old(omg my age:-p) be...a fetus...hahahahahahah "Lowered unemployment" Communism "created public works jobs" Communism Now Communism is a big thing in this. Communism essentially gives everyone the same pay, social class and stateless societies. (now im going off my vague recollections of World Geography class last year so i may be a little shaky) Commie citizens get the same pay no matter the value of there work...This would essentially lower unemployment, and create public jobs. "huge industrial boom" Now please in your next round explain the ummm "boom" of it...tell me sum inventions...similar to like i did. "The government made sure that everybody could get a cheap radio" Wow...my government got me a cheap radio...so i could hear Hitler's suicide note broadcasted over the masses...big whoop...a radio really makes one country better than another... "Basically, everything the USA did, Nazi Germany did better, and in less time" Have you ever hear the expression "better done right than fast"...Well this is a perfect place for it... Hitler and the "founders"(can barely call them that" used scotch tape and Elmer's glue and rusty nails to built Nazi Germany...a quick fix after the First World War, But after some weight and tension in WW2 it fell apart... The United States is built of a strong concrete foundation...aka, the Constitution...and built with Pressure treated wood that can withstand the toughest wars...the Revolutionary, Civil, Spanish American, WW1-2, Vietnam, Gulf...And a strong roof that can hold with the most massive snow, rain, sleet, and hailstorm thrown at it...Hilary Clinton...and finished with a nice Red White and Blue coat of Liberty :'-)

Miscellaneous

Best-Country-in-the-World/1/

The point i made about Berlin lying in ruins wasn't a attack on its greatess. It was a comparison to a similiar attack on the U.S. in 1812...In 1812 the U.S. was similiar to Nazi Germany, a new country that was trying a totally new brand of goverment (Nazi's Communism, U.S. democracy) The U.S. ws fighting the superpower of the tyme (Great Britian) and the Nazis were fighting the superpower of the time( and still, the U.S.) The White House was burned to the ground and really it lay in ruin like Berlin did some 100+ years later. The U.S. didn't really let it set them back and they continued to fight and even though the u.s. didn't win (it ended with tie b/c the treaty was signed b4 General Andrew Jackson defeated the Brits which really would of defeated the Brits [slow mail...no email or phones]) The U.S. rebuilt and proved it was a grand nation and would eventually be the best. The Germans had the same situation superpower fighting them, there capitol leveled but that really set them back and for them signalled defeat rather in the U.S. it was motivation to up end the new nation. Cody while i respect your opinion i believe that it isn't a "arguement in your favor" The Germans area which they took was heavily Germen ethnicity such as Austria, the Sudetenland and the territory of Memel. The other regions were sympathizers w/ the Nazi's...yes the German fought for land but contrary to your belief it wasn't as easy as the germans. The United States first had to get the Louisiana Purchase. Thomas Jefferson bought it from France while the U.S. and france had a cold war with each other. Napolean sold it to us, but it wasn't "easily aquired" Then the territory of Texas...we had a fight wit hthe Mexicans over that and it was a very bloody andf extreme war, at the Battle of the Alamo the U.S. Texan soldiers run out of Ammo and are preety much slaughtered, no Americans survived xcept for a few women and children. Then it was the Indians the Indians contrary to how you describe "not a country that could completely band together" actually the Indians were some of the toughest b/c of there knowledge of the landscape and there were so many: Cherokee Seminol Creeks Mandan Crow Chinook Tillamook Clatsop Salishan Blackfeet Assiniboine Crow Hidatsa Yankton Sioux Arikara Teton Sioux Ponca Omaha Otoe Kaw Missouri Osage Yakama Umatilla Walla Walla Nez Perce Flathead Wishram Wanapum Palouse Cayuse Klickitat Methow These are only a few out of the thousands that gave us greif about sitating on there land. And there being divided in my eyes was harder for us...unlike one nation were they were in one direct area they were scattered all over the nation...Have you heard the expression "If you take me down there will be another one there to replace me and if you take him down, another will take his/her place...etc" that was what it was like Believe me i would perfer not to debate you on ideals or communism...but it believe its very important in this one (ideals). First about the Japs. It was justified to put them in those camps (in that time not now but in that time/ we were at war w/ japan and who knew who was a spy or who was clean. We didn't go to the extent of killing them...Nazi Germany genocided 4 million Jews, gays,etc./ not as bad as slavery (slavery is horrible, but we came to our senses...didn't we...yes... Do you not think we didn't problem solve tons of things,: How to rewrite Constitution after Articles of Confederation our goverment, what goverment plan to use, Virginia Plan or New Jersey Plan really how many branches and legislatures from each state...etc Comprimise of 1850 Missouri Comprimise slavery, north vs. south Reconstructing after civil war womens rights, blacks rights WW1 The Great depression (We handled that to...) WW2 fighting you and japan Cold War, Civil Rights movement Cuban Missle Crisis 9/11 :'-( We've dealt wit hmuch and still conserved the Union for 232 years. The difference between Capitolism and Communism is Capitolism works when its citizens work to earn there money, and they get paid what there work is worth. Communism makes jobs for its workers to lower umemployment, Capitolism works when the goverment doesn't interfere w/ its workers...work. If jobs are low the goverment lets its citizens work it out...Giving its citizens more financial independence and freedom...Im not saying Communism is bad...but you can't not take into account ones economy when saying ones country is better than another...by this i mean that the economys system doesn't make one economt better than another...much like it doesn't make ones country better. The Germans were brainwashed into that...Hitler saw the Jews success and the countrys failure and made some false connections and essentiallymade the Jews the enemy...The Jews were falsly blamed for the Germans fall and the germans took it out on them...it was unjustified and pretty much i could make a case that the Nazi's whole...rise was built on hate for the jews...Hitler blamed the Jews for Germanys fall, Hitler used that to gain control of Germany, He built concentration camps and torch 4 million jews and and then the U.S. defeat them and saved the Jews that really pulled the plug on Nazi Germeny...I kno it isn't that easy but it essentially is the simplistic explanation Again I deeply respect your opinion but again i must disagree. in a one party system where one party dominates it wan become more corrupt and one sided. If the Nazis supported poisoning the jews and the major majority was Nazi what about the others, that oppose, there voice isn't heard and there is no voice of reason. In a two party system there are two sides and there isn't one opinion being dominated. hence with Bush, The war started and most supported it, but in 8 years there are some differences in opinion, In a one party system we could be stuck fighting a hopeless war (i don't believe that I believe the war is a success and Bush deserves credit backing up his beliefs through the hardest opposition) that were stuck in b/c there's no opposition challenging ones decision. I'll say it again "Better done right' who cares if some legislation takes a month to finish rather than a week...his way it is adjusted the right way instead of rushed through with errors. The Nazi G.s invent alot but here's a nice little list of what the U.S. did: <URL>... I to didn't have room so please look over my list which i believe consists of more widely used international inventions. Your list is impressive but most of your inventions have been improved and overshadowed while more of mine have lasted decades, some even centuries, bifocals, rifridgerator, coffee pot, sewing machine, revolver, etc, etc. Now what i mean is that many of yours has been replaced with more efficient different devices, wishbone cannon, geophones, Fischer Tropche process, injesting backteria-cure gut problems, chemical enhncing soldiers, many of your is still used to day but many are outdated... Now what really is a arguemant in my favor is you last one about the U.S. being Unstable...The u.s. coming bac kfrom the Civil War only supports its ability to rebound and continue in the way to success, All the riots signify our free speech which makes everyone equal and there right to there opinion, 100 amendments only means the U.S. can fix whats wrong and find a new and better policy, and in every society there are situations like JFK, murdering of Bhutto in Pakistan, Hitlers suicide which took place in your country...( :-/... Here are my reasons to say the U.S. is the greatest country: 1. 232 years exsistence 2. Using a fairly new goverment idea (democracy)to success 3. Being able to correct it self and rebounnd 4. One of the greatest militaries ever 5. quadrupiling its size in provenly hard areas 6. More technical innovations (ran out of space)

RepublicanView333

The point i made about Berlin lying in ruins wasn't a attack on its greatess. It was a comparison to a similiar attack on the U.S. in 1812...In 1812 the U.S. was similiar to Nazi Germany, a new country that was trying a totally new brand of goverment (Nazi's Communism, U.S. democracy) The U.S. ws fighting the superpower of the tyme (Great Britian) and the Nazis were fighting the superpower of the time( and still, the U.S.) The White House was burned to the ground and really it lay in ruin like Berlin did some 100+ years later. The U.S. didn't really let it set them back and they continued to fight and even though the u.s. didn't win (it ended with tie b/c the treaty was signed b4 General Andrew Jackson defeated the Brits which really would of defeated the Brits [slow mail...no email or phones]) The U.S. rebuilt and proved it was a grand nation and would eventually be the best. The Germans had the same situation superpower fighting them, there capitol leveled but that really set them back and for them signalled defeat rather in the U.S. it was motivation to up end the new nation. Cody while i respect your opinion i believe that it isn't a "arguement in your favor" The Germans area which they took was heavily Germen ethnicity such as Austria, the Sudetenland and the territory of Memel. The other regions were sympathizers w/ the Nazi's...yes the German fought for land but contrary to your belief it wasn't as easy as the germans. The United States first had to get the Louisiana Purchase. Thomas Jefferson bought it from France while the U.S. and france had a cold war with each other. Napolean sold it to us, but it wasn't "easily aquired" Then the territory of Texas...we had a fight wit hthe Mexicans over that and it was a very bloody andf extreme war, at the Battle of the Alamo the U.S. Texan soldiers run out of Ammo and are preety much slaughtered, no Americans survived xcept for a few women and children. Then it was the Indians the Indians contrary to how you describe "not a country that could completely band together" actually the Indians were some of the toughest b/c of there knowledge of the landscape and there were so many: Cherokee Seminol Creeks Mandan Crow Chinook Tillamook Clatsop Salishan Blackfeet Assiniboine Crow Hidatsa Yankton Sioux Arikara Teton Sioux Ponca Omaha Otoe Kaw Missouri Osage Yakama Umatilla Walla Walla Nez Perce Flathead Wishram Wanapum Palouse Cayuse Klickitat Methow These are only a few out of the thousands that gave us greif about sitating on there land. And there being divided in my eyes was harder for us...unlike one nation were they were in one direct area they were scattered all over the nation...Have you heard the expression "If you take me down there will be another one there to replace me and if you take him down, another will take his/her place...etc" that was what it was like Believe me i would perfer not to debate you on ideals or communism...but it believe its very important in this one (ideals). First about the Japs. It was justified to put them in those camps (in that time not now but in that time/ we were at war w/ japan and who knew who was a spy or who was clean. We didn't go to the extent of killing them...Nazi Germany genocided 4 million Jews, gays,etc./ not as bad as slavery (slavery is horrible, but we came to our senses...didn't we...yes... Do you not think we didn't problem solve tons of things,: How to rewrite Constitution after Articles of Confederation our goverment, what goverment plan to use, Virginia Plan or New Jersey Plan really how many branches and legislatures from each state...etc Comprimise of 1850 Missouri Comprimise slavery, north vs. south Reconstructing after civil war womens rights, blacks rights WW1 The Great depression (We handled that to...) WW2 fighting you and japan Cold War, Civil Rights movement Cuban Missle Crisis 9/11 :'-( We've dealt wit hmuch and still conserved the Union for 232 years. The difference between Capitolism and Communism is Capitolism works when its citizens work to earn there money, and they get paid what there work is worth. Communism makes jobs for its workers to lower umemployment, Capitolism works when the goverment doesn't interfere w/ its workers...work. If jobs are low the goverment lets its citizens work it out...Giving its citizens more financial independence and freedom...Im not saying Communism is bad...but you can't not take into account ones economy when saying ones country is better than another...by this i mean that the economys system doesn't make one economt better than another...much like it doesn't make ones country better. The Germans were brainwashed into that...Hitler saw the Jews success and the countrys failure and made some false connections and essentiallymade the Jews the enemy...The Jews were falsly blamed for the Germans fall and the germans took it out on them...it was unjustified and pretty much i could make a case that the Nazi's whole...rise was built on hate for the jews...Hitler blamed the Jews for Germanys fall, Hitler used that to gain control of Germany, He built concentration camps and torch 4 million jews and and then the U.S. defeat them and saved the Jews that really pulled the plug on Nazi Germeny...I kno it isn't that easy but it essentially is the simplistic explanation Again I deeply respect your opinion but again i must disagree. in a one party system where one party dominates it wan become more corrupt and one sided. If the Nazis supported poisoning the jews and the major majority was Nazi what about the others, that oppose, there voice isn't heard and there is no voice of reason. In a two party system there are two sides and there isn't one opinion being dominated. hence with Bush, The war started and most supported it, but in 8 years there are some differences in opinion, In a one party system we could be stuck fighting a hopeless war (i don't believe that I believe the war is a success and Bush deserves credit backing up his beliefs through the hardest opposition) that were stuck in b/c there's no opposition challenging ones decision. I'll say it again "Better done right' who cares if some legislation takes a month to finish rather than a week...his way it is adjusted the right way instead of rushed through with errors. The Nazi G.s invent alot but here's a nice little list of what the U.S. did: http://en.wikipedia.org... I to didn't have room so please look over my list which i believe consists of more widely used international inventions. Your list is impressive but most of your inventions have been improved and overshadowed while more of mine have lasted decades, some even centuries, bifocals, rifridgerator, coffee pot, sewing machine, revolver, etc, etc. Now what i mean is that many of yours has been replaced with more efficient different devices, wishbone cannon, geophones, Fischer Tropche process, injesting backteria-cure gut problems, chemical enhncing soldiers, many of your is still used to day but many are outdated... Now what really is a arguemant in my favor is you last one about the U.S. being Unstable...The u.s. coming bac kfrom the Civil War only supports its ability to rebound and continue in the way to success, All the riots signify our free speech which makes everyone equal and there right to there opinion, 100 amendments only means the U.S. can fix whats wrong and find a new and better policy, and in every society there are situations like JFK, murdering of Bhutto in Pakistan, Hitlers suicide which took place in your country...( :-/... Here are my reasons to say the U.S. is the greatest country: 1. 232 years exsistence 2. Using a fairly new goverment idea (democracy)to success 3. Being able to correct it self and rebounnd 4. One of the greatest militaries ever 5. quadrupiling its size in provenly hard areas 6. More technical innovations (ran out of space)

Miscellaneous

Best-Country-in-the-World/1/

Hello and Happy January 12, The War of 1812 draws even more similarities i hadn't even noticed do to your notions and reasons the invasion and attacks on Nazi Germany are different. -The Brits surrounded and invaded from all times, from the Great Lakes, the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, and the Indian land to the West the Brits utilized those foreign lands and attacked from them all -The United States Capitol was burned down and our leader James Madison couldn't lead properly, since he had no way to get his orders out -the Brits wanted to take the U.S. down afraid of the new country to help Napolean and France -Magnitude of Welfare is shown in War of 1812.l The brits Navy surrounded the U.S. from every Waterway making it unable to get dupplys from ally countrys, and taking all U.S. sailors captured into custidy and making them be Brit soldiers. i never said all obtained areas were supportors of Nazi Germany were a majority of the lands Germany took over (look over named in last round). So? The French were scared to have a War with us over the land...They had many Wars happening and were scared to mess with President Jefferson. Similiar to some of the land Hitler got many countries were scared to fight Nazu Germany. The brave soldiers who died at the Alamo were American. They were americans who moved in to the Republic of Texas for land the Tejanos were handing out. But they were Americans. And they were fighting to take Texas into american hands. And the Indians were aLOT tougher than you make them sound. The Indians were very vicious. They had arrows, spears, and many DID have guns. So I counter-stand the U.S. had a harder and more successful time expanding, than Nazi Germany I can totally make one injustice worse than another. The Japs, we were at war with there mother country. How d owe don't know one of there spies took a short trip over the Pacific here and is listening to our news and mailing and calling and emailing info to Japan.; Now we now it is a extreme idea, but then it was justified. The Germans...they killed 4 million Jews. That can NEVEr be justified. all the lies Hitler can tell could never justify what Hitler did. All Nazi Germany is built on is the lies Hitler told to get to put himself in power and the slaying of the Jews, your injustices is way more injustified than mine. All the "flaws" you pointed out in my problem solving (I won't rewrite and explain them) are false. The United States has proven through 232 years of conflict and comprimise the U.S. can hold itself together. The U.S. has fought with itself. It withstood that and lived some 150 more years. There is no possible way in any country, there will be no confict between interestss or rights...in your country there was a conflict of who should live...( :-/... People paying les than deserved? Teachers, since 1985 the teachers average pay has risen 40,000$ Police, get paid $35000...pretty comfortable in my mind... Firefighter, $55000-$70000, with hospitalization and retirement Soldiers, get paid 28,738.00-91,569.79, plus college, housing (in Connecticut there is a whole community for the Military familys and Soldiers right in Groton.) In Communism these people would all be paid the same. I don't want to be sexist but there are more men in high paying jobs so AVERAGE man salaries will be higher than women. So there are 1 million men and 1 million woman. 80,000 men are nowmal people who earn 50,000 dollars a year. Then the last 20,000 are athletes and actors and others that earn 1 million a year The women. 95,000 are normal people who earn 50,000 a year. The other 5,000are actors and athletes who earn 1,000,000 a year. Whos AVERAGE is higherwill be higher. There are tons more men playing sports earning millions a year drawing there dollars up and there are less woman. That really explains your "womens average pay" dilemma. The stability is unfair, similiar to the inovations. Yours only lasted 15 years so there was less time for unstable ness so yours was like this ------------------------\/\/\/\/\_ -_ -_ -_done your countyr was over. Since my county was 200 years old it had more time to do this: -----------------------\/\/\/\/\-----------------\/\/\/\//\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\----------------\/\/\/\/\/\/\--------------- now if you look at some of the stable periods they lasted longer than your country un all. That is the advantages and disadvantages of a long lasting contry. Now I never said the U.S. was always stable but a great country is a country that can say hold on and slow down and fix itself and get itself back on track like the U.S....No country will ever be perfect or always---------------------but a greats country will be able to fix it self if it ever gets /\/\/\/\/\/ Now longivity of a country does of course make it a little more superior. If a country like Nazi Germany lives on cloud nine for 15 yers than disinagrates is it really better than a country that held itself together for centuries. Its like saying wood from Lowes is better than wood from Home Depot not because it doesn't mold and reck but b/c Lowes is Blue and everyone nows blue is better than orange...rether than Home Depots wood lasts long and is resistant but its orange...it doesn't make sense...you dig? But democracy hadn't been seen for YEARS!!! and for them it was relitively new... Well, My army evidently was better then your b/c it beat yours... With a adventures heart and a will that can never be distroyed... Now this is my last arguement of a very fun informative debate so Cody30228 i hope you had fun b/c i had fun provin my country superior.

RepublicanView333

Hello and Happy January 12, The War of 1812 draws even more similarities i hadn't even noticed do to your notions and reasons the invasion and attacks on Nazi Germany are different. -The Brits surrounded and invaded from all times, from the Great Lakes, the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, and the Indian land to the West the Brits utilized those foreign lands and attacked from them all -The United States Capitol was burned down and our leader James Madison couldn't lead properly, since he had no way to get his orders out -the Brits wanted to take the U.S. down afraid of the new country to help Napolean and France -Magnitude of Welfare is shown in War of 1812.l The brits Navy surrounded the U.S. from every Waterway making it unable to get dupplys from ally countrys, and taking all U.S. sailors captured into custidy and making them be Brit soldiers. i never said all obtained areas were supportors of Nazi Germany were a majority of the lands Germany took over (look over named in last round). So? The French were scared to have a War with us over the land...They had many Wars happening and were scared to mess with President Jefferson. Similiar to some of the land Hitler got many countries were scared to fight Nazu Germany. The brave soldiers who died at the Alamo were American. They were americans who moved in to the Republic of Texas for land the Tejanos were handing out. But they were Americans. And they were fighting to take Texas into american hands. And the Indians were aLOT tougher than you make them sound. The Indians were very vicious. They had arrows, spears, and many DID have guns. So I counter-stand the U.S. had a harder and more successful time expanding, than Nazi Germany I can totally make one injustice worse than another. The Japs, we were at war with there mother country. How d owe don't know one of there spies took a short trip over the Pacific here and is listening to our news and mailing and calling and emailing info to Japan.; Now we now it is a extreme idea, but then it was justified. The Germans...they killed 4 million Jews. That can NEVEr be justified. all the lies Hitler can tell could never justify what Hitler did. All Nazi Germany is built on is the lies Hitler told to get to put himself in power and the slaying of the Jews, your injustices is way more injustified than mine. All the "flaws" you pointed out in my problem solving (I won't rewrite and explain them) are false. The United States has proven through 232 years of conflict and comprimise the U.S. can hold itself together. The U.S. has fought with itself. It withstood that and lived some 150 more years. There is no possible way in any country, there will be no confict between interestss or rights...in your country there was a conflict of who should live...( :-/... People paying les than deserved? Teachers, since 1985 the teachers average pay has risen 40,000$ Police, get paid $35000...pretty comfortable in my mind... Firefighter, $55000-$70000, with hospitalization and retirement Soldiers, get paid 28,738.00-91,569.79, plus college, housing (in Connecticut there is a whole community for the Military familys and Soldiers right in Groton.) In Communism these people would all be paid the same. I don't want to be sexist but there are more men in high paying jobs so AVERAGE man salaries will be higher than women. So there are 1 million men and 1 million woman. 80,000 men are nowmal people who earn 50,000 dollars a year. Then the last 20,000 are athletes and actors and others that earn 1 million a year The women. 95,000 are normal people who earn 50,000 a year. The other 5,000are actors and athletes who earn 1,000,000 a year. Whos AVERAGE is higherwill be higher. There are tons more men playing sports earning millions a year drawing there dollars up and there are less woman. That really explains your "womens average pay" dilemma. The stability is unfair, similiar to the inovations. Yours only lasted 15 years so there was less time for unstable ness so yours was like this ------------------------\/\/\/\/\_ -_ -_ -_done your countyr was over. Since my county was 200 years old it had more time to do this: -----------------------\/\/\/\/\-----------------\/\/\/\//\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\----------------\/\/\/\/\/\/\--------------- now if you look at some of the stable periods they lasted longer than your country un all. That is the advantages and disadvantages of a long lasting contry. Now I never said the U.S. was always stable but a great country is a country that can say hold on and slow down and fix itself and get itself back on track like the U.S....No country will ever be perfect or always---------------------but a greats country will be able to fix it self if it ever gets /\/\/\/\/\/ Now longivity of a country does of course make it a little more superior. If a country like Nazi Germany lives on cloud nine for 15 yers than disinagrates is it really better than a country that held itself together for centuries. Its like saying wood from Lowes is better than wood from Home Depot not because it doesn't mold and reck but b/c Lowes is Blue and everyone nows blue is better than orange...rether than Home Depots wood lasts long and is resistant but its orange...it doesn't make sense...you dig? But democracy hadn't been seen for YEARS!!! and for them it was relitively new... Well, My army evidently was better then your b/c it beat yours... With a adventures heart and a will that can never be distroyed... Now this is my last arguement of a very fun informative debate so Cody30228 i hope you had fun b/c i had fun provin my country superior.

Miscellaneous

Best-Country-in-the-World/1/

Ok, the United States of America is a country I am proud of living in. Don't get me wrong. I believe the best country in all of existence so far is: 1933 - 1945 Nazi Germany Please let me tell everyone I am not anti-semitic in any way. But the evidence in the strength of the Nazi military, economy, social revolutions and geography are amazing Now let me ask you a question. Are we going to be a) saying why our country is good and leave voting up to voters comparing b) saying why our opponents country is bad or c) saying who's country is better

cody30228

Ok, the United States of America is a country I am proud of living in. Don't get me wrong. I believe the best country in all of existence so far is: 1933 – 1945 Nazi Germany Please let me tell everyone I am not anti-semitic in any way. But the evidence in the strength of the Nazi military, economy, social revolutions and geography are amazing Now let me ask you a question. Are we going to be a) saying why our country is good and leave voting up to voters comparing b) saying why our opponents country is bad or c) saying who's country is better

Miscellaneous

Best-Country-in-the-World/1/

Let me summarize your achievements 1. Expansion 2. Military success 3. Technological innovation 4. Successful bi-partisan government 5. Ability to solve problems and then some comments above longevity and ideals 1.Expansion while the United States grew 4 times in 100 years, Nazi Germany grew four times in less than 15. It reached from ssible. This is evident in the advancements in technology and economy during a small period of 13 or so years. 5. Ability to solve problems You mention Civil War and stopping Saddam. Nazi Germany need an army. They made one. They had too high unemployment, they lowered it from 6 million to almost nothing They were not faced with a civil war because nationalism was very high As said, Nazi only ended because of bad luck and a stupid decision by Hitler. The USA is very young by world standards. Ideals ideals ideals. Why is liberty good? Why does this belief make the United States a better country. I'm sorry. I don't buy into democracy and liberty is better than fascism. I don't. Prove it. Some other things Nazi Germany did Economy Lowered unemployment created public works jobs huge industrial boom Workers were offered cut-price holidays, theater trips and concerts. In Berlin, 1933-38, the KdF sponsored 134,000 events for 32 million people (2 million went on cruises & weekend trips, and 11 million on theater trips). The government made sure that everybody could get a cheap radio. I could go into a list of inventions developed by the government. But I will hold that until later rounds too. Basically, everything the USA did, Nazi Germany did better, and in less time.

cody30228

Let me summarize your achievements 1. Expansion 2. Military success 3. Technological innovation 4. Successful bi-partisan government 5. Ability to solve problems and then some comments above longevity and ideals 1.Expansion while the United States grew 4 times in 100 years, Nazi Germany grew four times in less than 15. It reached from ssible. This is evident in the advancements in technology and economy during a small period of 13 or so years. 5. Ability to solve problems You mention Civil War and stopping Saddam. Nazi Germany need an army. They made one. They had too high unemployment, they lowered it from 6 million to almost nothing They were not faced with a civil war because nationalism was very high As said, Nazi only ended because of bad luck and a stupid decision by Hitler. The USA is very young by world standards. Ideals ideals ideals. Why is liberty good? Why does this belief make the United States a better country. I'm sorry. I don't buy into democracy and liberty is better than fascism. I don't. Prove it. Some other things Nazi Germany did Economy Lowered unemployment created public works jobs huge industrial boom Workers were offered cut-price holidays, theater trips and concerts. In Berlin, 1933–38, the KdF sponsored 134,000 events for 32 million people (2 million went on cruises & weekend trips, and 11 million on theater trips). The government made sure that everybody could get a cheap radio. I could go into a list of inventions developed by the government. But I will hold that until later rounds too. Basically, everything the USA did, Nazi Germany did better, and in less time.

Miscellaneous

Best-Country-in-the-World/1/

Yes this will be an interesting debate There is one point I would like to make before I dive into the countries. a)Nazi Germany laying in ruins and being destroyed at the end of the war has nothing to do how great the nation is. Why? Because as I described earlier, it was of no fault to the nation itself, but a military mistake in strategy and some bad luck. If the United States was attacked by a nuclear warhead from China today, and NY City laid in ruins, would you say it was not a great city? No. First, when you initiated this debate, you said any country from history. If the country is FROM history, obviously it has risen and fallen. So you knew that the country might already be destroyed. Anyway, my point is you can't use the fact the Nazi Germany fell as an argument against it. With that said, let me begin 1. Nazi Germany had border and USA did not. This is actually an argument in my favor. The fact the Nazi Germany had borders also means that the countries around it had borders. Thus, for the Nazi's to expand, they had to capture it from people who owned it. Nations who owned it. Nations who could and did go to war. The United States had no borders, so it had no one to fight against except Indians. And the Indians were not a country that could completely band together. So I agree with the facts, but the significance obviously leans to my favor. 2. Ideals The reason I said ideals did not matter is because they are inter-subjective. Please do not make me have a side debate with you over morality and communism in this large debate. Not everyone shares the same ideals. USA once had slavery. USA put thousands of Japanese CITIZENS in internment camps very similar to the Nazis. The USA did not treat early German and Irish immigrants well. Do not talk to me about ideals of the countries. Why? Because both were at fault and the impact of both are inter-subjective. Not always will democracy be looked at as a good thing. The Middle East hates it. So unless you want to debate who communism, holocaustic events, and ideals are good or bad ( and that would take a LONG time), let's skip those arguments. 3. Destruction Look at the first thing I say in this round 4. We are using bits and pieces of previous rounds so numbering my fluctuate 5. Problem Solving Hitler did make an army from almost nothing. After WWI, the German army was nothing "After the Great Depression struck, more Germans were attracted to Hitler's promises to improve the economy, defy the hated Treaty of Versailles, and rebuild Germany's military power" <URL>... There is more he did in the military, but this I will include in technological innovations. You attack communism. As said above, we do not know if communism is truly bad. But the fact still stands, he initiated social reforms, as I said above like giving benefits to all workers. Unemployment was very very low. You agree. What is the United States track record on unemployment? Laughable. Nationalism was supported because of the people's support for Hitler. They saw the economy improve, they saw their border's expand. They saw the positive social reforms. And they saw the Jews as the enemy. Nationalism was strong because the country was great, and the people knew it. 6. Government "This is different than the U.S. b/c of the Freedom of Speech we have. We are not dominated by one party. There are two parties w/ 2 very different povs who control the government...checks and balances...This makes the U.S. a ever changing, ever opportunity giving country that stomps all others." -Your wise words of wisdom, let them be, let them be. The United States two party system that you idolize is corrupt and not very representative. Here is my proof. Can anyone remember a candidate not supporting the cutting of spending? Can anyone remember a candidate not supporting change (besides incumbents)? Lobbyists are able to exploit our system because it is two party. Nazi Government never had to cater to special interest groups because they did not need the money. Why is nothing done in a speedy manner in America? Because The democrats and republicans always slow things down if they don't like it. Nazi Government, as one party, did not spend forever on changes, because they were unified. Any finally, if two party systems are so great why is front-runner Obama and Huckabee both supporting vertical politics? Both supporting a coming together of the two-parties into one party? Our system, I am sorry, is deeply flawed. 7. Military The United Stats, did not crush Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany, led by Hitler, made the stupid mistake of constantly expanding and thinning out his troops. The USA waited until France and Russia and England had already done most of the work. But as said above, this issue does not matter in the grand scheme of things. 8. Economy Communism, read above. And yes, you are slightly wrong. But it doesn't matter. Because the people in the USSR would look at you like democracy was the devil. All inter-subjective. Do you want to read my socialism is good debate? <URL>... 9. Technological Innovation Go here please. I couldn't not fit it in the character limit. Just scroll down and you will see it. <URL>... You ended with one main point a)Nazi Germany was a quick fix while the USA was stable Is that true? As I have proved above, Nazi Germany had a stable economy, stable society, and stable government. The USA is not stable. Let's go start from now and go back. Riots to War in Iraq. Assassination of President JFK, and others. Anit-war riots for Vietnam. Women's rights riots. Slavery revolts. Civil War ( the US coming back from this only shows that it was held together very weakly before ) , over one-hundred amendments to the Constitution. Failed Articles of Confederation. Here are my reasons why Nazi Germany is a MUCH better t country that the United States 1.More territorial expansion is more difficult lands to acquire 2.Very superior economy 3.Powerful government 4.Many technological innovations 5.Ability to fix problems My opponent cannot boast these things at the same magnitude as Nazi Germany

cody30228

Yes this will be an interesting debate There is one point I would like to make before I dive into the countries. a)Nazi Germany laying in ruins and being destroyed at the end of the war has nothing to do how great the nation is. Why? Because as I described earlier, it was of no fault to the nation itself, but a military mistake in strategy and some bad luck. If the United States was attacked by a nuclear warhead from China today, and NY City laid in ruins, would you say it was not a great city? No. First, when you initiated this debate, you said any country from history. If the country is FROM history, obviously it has risen and fallen. So you knew that the country might already be destroyed. Anyway, my point is you can't use the fact the Nazi Germany fell as an argument against it. With that said, let me begin 1. Nazi Germany had border and USA did not. This is actually an argument in my favor. The fact the Nazi Germany had borders also means that the countries around it had borders. Thus, for the Nazi's to expand, they had to capture it from people who owned it. Nations who owned it. Nations who could and did go to war. The United States had no borders, so it had no one to fight against except Indians. And the Indians were not a country that could completely band together. So I agree with the facts, but the significance obviously leans to my favor. 2. Ideals The reason I said ideals did not matter is because they are inter-subjective. Please do not make me have a side debate with you over morality and communism in this large debate. Not everyone shares the same ideals. USA once had slavery. USA put thousands of Japanese CITIZENS in internment camps very similar to the Nazis. The USA did not treat early German and Irish immigrants well. Do not talk to me about ideals of the countries. Why? Because both were at fault and the impact of both are inter-subjective. Not always will democracy be looked at as a good thing. The Middle East hates it. So unless you want to debate who communism, holocaustic events, and ideals are good or bad ( and that would take a LONG time), let's skip those arguments. 3. Destruction Look at the first thing I say in this round 4. We are using bits and pieces of previous rounds so numbering my fluctuate  5. Problem Solving Hitler did make an army from almost nothing. After WWI, the German army was nothing "After the Great Depression struck, more Germans were attracted to Hitler's promises to improve the economy, defy the hated Treaty of Versailles, and rebuild Germany's military power" http://www.cybergerman.addr.com... There is more he did in the military, but this I will include in technological innovations. You attack communism. As said above, we do not know if communism is truly bad. But the fact still stands, he initiated social reforms, as I said above like giving benefits to all workers. Unemployment was very very low. You agree. What is the United States track record on unemployment? Laughable. Nationalism was supported because of the people's support for Hitler. They saw the economy improve, they saw their border's expand. They saw the positive social reforms. And they saw the Jews as the enemy. Nationalism was strong because the country was great, and the people knew it. 6. Government "This is different than the U.S. b/c of the Freedom of Speech we have. We are not dominated by one party. There are two parties w/ 2 very different povs who control the government...checks and balances...This makes the U.S. a ever changing, ever opportunity giving country that stomps all others." -Your wise words of wisdom, let them be, let them be.  The United States two party system that you idolize is corrupt and not very representative. Here is my proof. Can anyone remember a candidate not supporting the cutting of spending? Can anyone remember a candidate not supporting change (besides incumbents)? Lobbyists are able to exploit our system because it is two party. Nazi Government never had to cater to special interest groups because they did not need the money. Why is nothing done in a speedy manner in America? Because The democrats and republicans always slow things down if they don't like it. Nazi Government, as one party, did not spend forever on changes, because they were unified. Any finally, if two party systems are so great why is front-runner Obama and Huckabee both supporting vertical politics? Both supporting a coming together of the two-parties into one party? Our system, I am sorry, is deeply flawed. 7. Military The United Stats, did not crush Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany, led by Hitler, made the stupid mistake of constantly expanding and thinning out his troops. The USA waited until France and Russia and England had already done most of the work. But as said above, this issue does not matter in the grand scheme of things. 8. Economy Communism, read above. And yes, you are slightly wrong. But it doesn't matter. Because the people in the USSR would look at you like democracy was the devil. All inter-subjective. Do you want to read my socialism is good debate? http://www.debate.org... 9. Technological Innovation Go here please. I couldn't not fit it in the character limit. Just scroll down and you will see it. http://www.schoolhistory.co.uk... You ended with one main point a)Nazi Germany was a quick fix while the USA was stable Is that true? As I have proved above, Nazi Germany had a stable economy, stable society, and stable government. The USA is not stable. Let's go start from now and go back. Riots to War in Iraq. Assassination of President JFK, and others. Anit-war riots for Vietnam. Women's rights riots. Slavery revolts. Civil War ( the US coming back from this only shows that it was held together very weakly before ) , over one-hundred amendments to the Constitution. Failed Articles of Confederation. Here are my reasons why Nazi Germany is a MUCH better t country that the United States 1.More territorial expansion is more difficult lands to acquire 2.Very superior economy 3.Powerful government 4.Many technological innovations 5.Ability to fix problems My opponent cannot boast these things at the same magnitude as Nazi Germany

Miscellaneous

Best-Country-in-the-World/1/

a) The fall of Berlin was what made Nazi Germany fall. Other contributing factors NOT in the war of 1812 -Invasion from all sides by USA and Russia -Hitler (leader of Nazi) shot himself and Germany was leaderless -Britain wanted war to end due to internal political support for America. American and Russia wanted Nazi Germany to be destroyed -Magnitude of warfare (air and advanced sea) not shared in 1812 and WWII 1. Expansion The closest surrounding areas were Nazi sympathizers. France, Russia, and Northern Europe were not. These areas Nazi Germany did have to use force to invade. The Louisiana Purchase was actually good for France. Why? Napoleon was worried Britain would invade France and take Louisiana for free. Thus, they sold it for money. Furthermore, they didn't need it. It was there to provide food for French Haiti, which went through a revolution and was liberated from France. Alamo and Texas's independence was not Mexico versus USA but Mexico versus the Republic of Texas. So no, American citizens were not slaughtered at the Alamo. And Texas wanted to be part of the USA. Indians were numerous, but not powerful or unified. American's had gunpowder, Indians did not. America had a unified front, the Indians did not. The ONLY thing Indians had was knowledge of landscape. But America had more numbers, and wanted war, Indians only wanted peace. So I stand, Nazi Germany had a tougher time expanding than America. 2. Ideals You just justified the putting of a whole race in internment camps and enslaving a whole race! I am not agreeing with what Hitler did, but you can not say one injustice is worse than another! I bet slaves or Japanese prisoners would disagree with you here. So yes, both sides committed horrible crimes, so we should not debate them. Furthermore, the extent of these crimes depends on who you are. 3. Problem solving How to rewrite Constitution after Articles of Confederation our goverment, what goverment plan to use, Virginia Plan or New Jersey Plan really how many branches and legislatures from each state...etc Good problem solving? The scandals of the Gilded Age of American turned our politics all around. They showed the flaws in our system. Comprimise of 1850 Good problem solving? Civil War still happened Missouri Comprimise Good problem solving? It was removed soon after. slavery, north vs. south Good problem solving? Started a war. Reconstructing after civil war Good problem solving? Was never finished so Jim Crow Laws and Pressy versus Ferguson was passed. womens rights, blacks rights Good problem solving? They ignored Seneca Falls Convention, ignored Republican Motherhood, was only changed when women became violent. Black rights were ignored until riots. Government never took initiative. WW1 Why is war a good compromise? We Formed the League of Nations which failed and led to WWII The Great depression (We handled that to...) Good problem solving? We handled the Great Depression by going to WWII and raising GDP. Furthermore, we solved it by enacting SOCILIAST measures and controlling civil service programs. Socialism good then huh? WW2 fighting you and japan Winning a war does not give proof that you have good problem solving skills. Cold War, Civil Rights movement Cold War was ended because Russia and the USA was afraid to nuke one another (Mutual Assured Destruction). Civil Right Movement was not sponsored by Government, but individuals rebelling. Cuban Missle Crisis Good problem solving. Yes, this ONE instance is. 9/11 :'-( We are in Iraq, people hate it, Terrorism still exists, Bin Laden is still alive. Al-Quieda is still alive. Great problem solving skills there Furthermore, you made no argument against Nazi Germany's problem solving, so all those arguments stand. 4.Economy Instances of socialism being good. -Ended Great Depression -Creates welfare and healthcare and public infrastructure (like roads). -Limits corruption between businesses In Capitalism, people are payed less than they deserve Teachers? Police Men? Fire fighters? Soldiers? Lawyers deserve a lot of money? So do actors? So do sports players? Really.... Capitalism does leave the people to sort there problems out. Hence, labor unions, strike, and 200$ monthly cuts from Texas Teachers to fund the union. "by this i mean that the economys system doesn't make one economt better than another...much like it doesn't make ones country better." So lets not debate it...like I said. 5. Government Once again, everyone committed crimes, so both are guilty. We can also blame the USA for having the power to stop it but doing nothing until they were attacked... A one-party government commits bad deeds and good deeds. A two-party government commits almost no deeds at all. Look at women's right. No legislation was passed from the begin of women's right (1775) to the today (still inequalities in pay between women and men). Those weeks turn into months, which turn into years, which turn into decades and centuries. There is still debate in a one-party system. Take a look at democratic party alone. Hilary wants universal healthcare, Obama does not. WOW! Debate in one-party! So there is still debate in one-party to combat injustice, but more is done. 6. Technological Innovation No duh! Nazi Germany is not alive to improve apon them. The USA still is. But your list spans over 2 centuries, while Nazi Germany lasted a little over a decade. Bout a 20 to 1 ratio of time, yet both equally impressive list. 7. Stability USA took many years to come back from the Civil war. Hence a few decades of reconstruction. Stable means that there is a constant rate. Exmaple, Stable line ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unstable line /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ A stable country would not need a war to fix itself. Thus, the USA was not stable if it had sooo many ups and down. And it did. In response to your reasons why you win 1.How many times do we have to agree that the longevity of a country does not make it better 2.Corruption, war, hated. Not much success. Besides, Democracy started in Athens, many many many many many years ago. 3.Stability is better than Instability. That, and the fact and proved almost all of your problem solving skills bad. 4.Yes, one of the best, not the best. 5.With money and a dis-unified inferior nation 6.Yes, over 2 centuries Reasons why I win 1. Expansion harder 2. Problem solving great (un-attacked) 3. Beneficial economy 4. Efficient government 5. Many new technologies 6. Stable nation 7. All this is under 15 year time! 8. None of my opponents arguments prove America is better than Nazi Germany. (Cauze it's impossible :))

cody30228

a) The fall of Berlin was what made Nazi Germany fall. Other contributing factors NOT in the war of 1812 -Invasion from all sides by USA and Russia -Hitler (leader of Nazi) shot himself and Germany was leaderless -Britain wanted war to end due to internal political support for America. American and Russia wanted Nazi Germany to be destroyed -Magnitude of warfare (air and advanced sea) not shared in 1812 and WWII 1. Expansion The closest surrounding areas were Nazi sympathizers. France, Russia, and Northern Europe were not. These areas Nazi Germany did have to use force to invade. The Louisiana Purchase was actually good for France. Why? Napoleon was worried Britain would invade France and take Louisiana for free. Thus, they sold it for money. Furthermore, they didn't need it. It was there to provide food for French Haiti, which went through a revolution and was liberated from France. Alamo and Texas's independence was not Mexico versus USA but Mexico versus the Republic of Texas. So no, American citizens were not slaughtered at the Alamo. And Texas wanted to be part of the USA. Indians were numerous, but not powerful or unified. American's had gunpowder, Indians did not. America had a unified front, the Indians did not. The ONLY thing Indians had was knowledge of landscape. But America had more numbers, and wanted war, Indians only wanted peace. So I stand, Nazi Germany had a tougher time expanding than America. 2. Ideals You just justified the putting of a whole race in internment camps and enslaving a whole race! I am not agreeing with what Hitler did, but you can not say one injustice is worse than another! I bet slaves or Japanese prisoners would disagree with you here. So yes, both sides committed horrible crimes, so we should not debate them. Furthermore, the extent of these crimes depends on who you are. 3. Problem solving How to rewrite Constitution after Articles of Confederation our goverment, what goverment plan to use, Virginia Plan or New Jersey Plan really how many branches and legislatures from each state...etc Good problem solving? The scandals of the Gilded Age of American turned our politics all around. They showed the flaws in our system. Comprimise of 1850 Good problem solving? Civil War still happened Missouri Comprimise Good problem solving? It was removed soon after. slavery, north vs. south Good problem solving? Started a war. Reconstructing after civil war Good problem solving? Was never finished so Jim Crow Laws and Pressy versus Ferguson was passed. womens rights, blacks rights Good problem solving? They ignored Seneca Falls Convention, ignored Republican Motherhood, was only changed when women became violent. Black rights were ignored until riots. Government never took initiative. WW1 Why is war a good compromise? We Formed the League of Nations which failed and led to WWII The Great depression (We handled that to...) Good problem solving? We handled the Great Depression by going to WWII and raising GDP. Furthermore, we solved it by enacting SOCILIAST measures and controlling civil service programs. Socialism good then huh? WW2 fighting you and japan Winning a war does not give proof that you have good problem solving skills. Cold War, Civil Rights movement Cold War was ended because Russia and the USA was afraid to nuke one another (Mutual Assured Destruction). Civil Right Movement was not sponsored by Government, but individuals rebelling. Cuban Missle Crisis Good problem solving. Yes, this ONE instance is. 9/11 :'-( We are in Iraq, people hate it, Terrorism still exists, Bin Laden is still alive. Al-Quieda is still alive. Great problem solving skills there Furthermore, you made no argument against Nazi Germany's problem solving, so all those arguments stand. 4.Economy Instances of socialism being good. -Ended Great Depression -Creates welfare and healthcare and public infrastructure (like roads). -Limits corruption between businesses In Capitalism, people are payed less than they deserve Teachers? Police Men? Fire fighters? Soldiers? Lawyers deserve a lot of money? So do actors? So do sports players? Really…. Capitalism does leave the people to sort there problems out. Hence, labor unions, strike, and 200$ monthly cuts from Texas Teachers to fund the union. "by this i mean that the economys system doesn't make one economt better than another...much like it doesn't make ones country better." So lets not debate it…like I said. 5. Government Once again, everyone committed crimes, so both are guilty. We can also blame the USA for having the power to stop it but doing nothing until they were attacked… A one-party government commits bad deeds and good deeds. A two-party government commits almost no deeds at all. Look at women's right. No legislation was passed from the begin of women's right (1775) to the today (still inequalities in pay between women and men). Those weeks turn into months, which turn into years, which turn into decades and centuries. There is still debate in a one-party system. Take a look at democratic party alone. Hilary wants universal healthcare, Obama does not. WOW! Debate in one-party! So there is still debate in one-party to combat injustice, but more is done. 6. Technological Innovation No duh! Nazi Germany is not alive to improve apon them. The USA still is. But your list spans over 2 centuries, while Nazi Germany lasted a little over a decade. Bout a 20 to 1 ratio of time, yet both equally impressive list. 7. Stability USA took many years to come back from the Civil war. Hence a few decades of reconstruction. Stable means that there is a constant rate. Exmaple, Stable line ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unstable line /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ A stable country would not need a war to fix itself. Thus, the USA was not stable if it had sooo many ups and down. And it did. In response to your reasons why you win 1.How many times do we have to agree that the longevity of a country does not make it better 2.Corruption, war, hated. Not much success. Besides, Democracy started in Athens, many many many many many years ago. 3.Stability is better than Instability. That, and the fact and proved almost all of your problem solving skills bad. 4.Yes, one of the best, not the best. 5.With money and a dis-unified inferior nation 6.Yes, over 2 centuries Reasons why I win 1. Expansion harder 2. Problem solving great (un-attacked) 3. Beneficial economy 4. Efficient government 5. Many new technologies 6. Stable nation 7. All this is under 15 year time! 8. None of my opponents arguments prove America is better than Nazi Germany. (Cauze it's impossible :))

Miscellaneous

Best-Country-in-the-World/1/

a) 1812 Let me try to explain why we are even talking about the War of 1812. You simply began by stating that the USA faced the same perils Nazi Germany did during WWII. Here are reasons why they didn't Only 6,000 or so British troops landed in Canada to invade Almost all of Europe's armies invaded Nazi Germany Blockade was quickly broken by ironclads Anyway, I am not sure why this matters. If my opponent wins this argument, he proves that America survived a war that was close to a war Nazi Germany lost. But since Nazi Germany was fighting Russia, France, America, and other allied countries, the war of 1812 between Britain and USA is not very similar. This point has little impact on over all debate. The key points to this debate are going to be: 1. Expansion Battle of Alamo was for Texas independence, not TX admittance into union. An American moves to Mexico and becomes a Mexican citizen. Is he still belonging to America? Not if he switches citizenship. Dis-unified Indians had arrows, spears, and some weak guns against a unified front of ALL advanced guns. USA got land through money, through land wanting in, and through killing an weaker people. Nazi Germany got land though waging constant war against STRONG enemies, and some land through fear. If you compare the two, Nazi Germany had a harder time expanding. 2. Injustice Tell Japanese people that America was not as unjustified as Nazi Germany. If you are anti-Semitic, you believe Hitler WAS justified. If you believe in paranoia, you believe the USA WAS justified. My point is, we come from similar cultures in America to believe we were right. But someone else on the other side of the world would believe different. The injustice created by one group is the same as another. 3. Problem Solving All my attacks are false? That is not an attack. They are all true. Re-read them. I stand firmly WITHOUT attack that Nazi Germany solved problems better. Be it unemployment or sectionalism, Nazi Germany succeeded. Your conflict argument here should be under stability, so that's where I will attack it. 4. Economy Are you still debating capitalism versus communism. You said last round, and I quote "by this i mean that the economys system doesn't make one economt better than another...much like it doesn't make ones country better." So why you still arguing it! Yes actors get paid millions, sports stars get paid millions. Singers get paid million. Neither teachers nor police nor fire-fighters nor soldiers get paid half of that. There salaries are nothing compared to jobs that don't matter like acting and playing sports. THIS IS A FLAW IN CAPATILISM! We need to look at the hard numbers your ignored. Unemployment. Nazi Germany had almost none, USA still has tons. Nazi Germany was able to FUND civil service programs while the USA still does not. Nazi Germanys economy is much better. 5. Government You ignored this completely USA two party system gets nothing done. Nazi Germany's one party system got a lot done Efficiency is better in Nazi Germany Government ran by lobbyists in USA. I win argument the Nazi Germany government better than USA. 6. Technology You ignored this too. Nazi Germany created more things in less time Obviously, they had a higher technological innovation. I win argument that Nazi Germany 7. Stability First, innovations if not unfair, since you had the advantage. Stability is a fair argument. You brought it up. This is what Nazi Germany was like --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------/\/ America was like this /\/\/\/\/\/\-----/\/\/\/\/\/\/\--------/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\----/\/\/\/\/\-----/\/\/\/\/\/\/----/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Both countries went through internal disagreement. I debate who should live in Nazi Germany? You debate the same. Death Penalty Abortion 2nd Amendment And, you debated Same-sex marriage War Immigration If stability is such an abusive argument, than fine, we will not debate stability. And everyone voting please do not vote off of this. 8. Random arguments Longevity - Like I have said multiple times, Nazi Germany only failed because of Hitler being stupid. If the USA was destroyed tomorrow by a coalition from the EU, would you say USA was inferior to England, Spain, Germany, Italy, etc. No. Multiple weaker enemies destroying one Strong country does not make country weaker. Democracy - England, House of Burgesses, elected. They wrote the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights. That was not new American democracy - Inspired by STILL ALIVE AT THE TIME John Locke. Army - Your army did not beat mine. Your army, along with Russia, and England, and France, beat my country. Adventures heart - What does that have to do with anything? Now I should win this debate because 1. Expansion US - easy time over 100 years Nazi Germany - hard time over 15 years Nazi Germany expanded more, in less time, in harsher conditions. 2. Problem Solving US - still hasn't solved many problems Nazi Germany - solved almost all of the civil problems Nazi Germany solved a large percentage of issues, in less time. 3. Economy US - raises unemployment, causes un-fair wages Nazi Germany - lowered unemployment, funded civil service projects Nazi Germany made positive trends in the economy while USA makes negative 4. Government US - corrupt, slow Nazi Germany - fast, efficient Nazi Germany has an effective government that gets the job done 5. Technology US - many innovation over 200 years Nazi Germany - many innovations over 15 years Nazi Germany created more in less time As you can see, Nazi Germany is superior to America in expansion, problem-solving, economy, government, and technology. Great debate, and good luck!

cody30228

a) 1812 Let me try to explain why we are even talking about the War of 1812. You simply began by stating that the USA faced the same perils Nazi Germany did during WWII. Here are reasons why they didn't Only 6,000 or so British troops landed in Canada to invade Almost all of Europe's armies invaded Nazi Germany Blockade was quickly broken by ironclads Anyway, I am not sure why this matters. If my opponent wins this argument, he proves that America survived a war that was close to a war Nazi Germany lost. But since Nazi Germany was fighting Russia, France, America, and other allied countries, the war of 1812 between Britain and USA is not very similar. This point has little impact on over all debate. The key points to this debate are going to be: 1. Expansion Battle of Alamo was for Texas independence, not TX admittance into union. An American moves to Mexico and becomes a Mexican citizen. Is he still belonging to America? Not if he switches citizenship. Dis-unified Indians had arrows, spears, and some weak guns against a unified front of ALL advanced guns. USA got land through money, through land wanting in, and through killing an weaker people. Nazi Germany got land though waging constant war against STRONG enemies, and some land through fear. If you compare the two, Nazi Germany had a harder time expanding. 2. Injustice Tell Japanese people that America was not as unjustified as Nazi Germany. If you are anti-Semitic, you believe Hitler WAS justified. If you believe in paranoia, you believe the USA WAS justified. My point is, we come from similar cultures in America to believe we were right. But someone else on the other side of the world would believe different. The injustice created by one group is the same as another. 3. Problem Solving All my attacks are false? That is not an attack. They are all true. Re-read them. I stand firmly WITHOUT attack that Nazi Germany solved problems better. Be it unemployment or sectionalism, Nazi Germany succeeded. Your conflict argument here should be under stability, so that's where I will attack it. 4. Economy Are you still debating capitalism versus communism. You said last round, and I quote "by this i mean that the economys system doesn't make one economt better than another...much like it doesn't make ones country better." So why you still arguing it! Yes actors get paid millions, sports stars get paid millions. Singers get paid million. Neither teachers nor police nor fire-fighters nor soldiers get paid half of that. There salaries are nothing compared to jobs that don't matter like acting and playing sports. THIS IS A FLAW IN CAPATILISM! We need to look at the hard numbers your ignored. Unemployment. Nazi Germany had almost none, USA still has tons. Nazi Germany was able to FUND civil service programs while the USA still does not. Nazi Germanys economy is much better. 5. Government You ignored this completely USA two party system gets nothing done. Nazi Germany's one party system got a lot done Efficiency is better in Nazi Germany Government ran by lobbyists in USA. I win argument the Nazi Germany government better than USA. 6. Technology You ignored this too. Nazi Germany created more things in less time Obviously, they had a higher technological innovation. I win argument that Nazi Germany 7. Stability First, innovations if not unfair, since you had the advantage. Stability is a fair argument. You brought it up. This is what Nazi Germany was like --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------/\/ America was like this /\/\/\/\/\/\-----/\/\/\/\/\/\/\--------/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\----/\/\/\/\/\-----/\/\/\/\/\/\/----/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Both countries went through internal disagreement. I debate who should live in Nazi Germany? You debate the same. Death Penalty Abortion 2nd Amendment And, you debated Same-sex marriage War Immigration If stability is such an abusive argument, than fine, we will not debate stability. And everyone voting please do not vote off of this. 8. Random arguments Longevity – Like I have said multiple times, Nazi Germany only failed because of Hitler being stupid. If the USA was destroyed tomorrow by a coalition from the EU, would you say USA was inferior to England, Spain, Germany, Italy, etc. No. Multiple weaker enemies destroying one Strong country does not make country weaker. Democracy – England, House of Burgesses, elected. They wrote the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights. That was not new American democracy – Inspired by STILL ALIVE AT THE TIME John Locke. Army – Your army did not beat mine. Your army, along with Russia, and England, and France, beat my country. Adventures heart – What does that have to do with anything? Now I should win this debate because 1. Expansion US - easy time over 100 years Nazi Germany - hard time over 15 years Nazi Germany expanded more, in less time, in harsher conditions. 2. Problem Solving US - still hasn't solved many problems Nazi Germany - solved almost all of the civil problems Nazi Germany solved a large percentage of issues, in less time. 3. Economy US - raises unemployment, causes un-fair wages Nazi Germany - lowered unemployment, funded civil service projects Nazi Germany made positive trends in the economy while USA makes negative 4. Government US - corrupt, slow Nazi Germany - fast, efficient Nazi Germany has an effective government that gets the job done 5. Technology US - many innovation over 200 years Nazi Germany - many innovations over 15 years Nazi Germany created more in less time As you can see, Nazi Germany is superior to America in expansion, problem-solving, economy, government, and technology. Great debate, and good luck!

Miscellaneous

Best-Country-in-the-World/1/

Each user will post 3 jokes per round......... Yo mamma so fat, you could slap her butt and ride the waves. Yo mamma so fat, when she entered a fat contest, she came in first, second, and third. Yo mamma so fat she broke your family tree.

emospongebob527

Each user will post 3 jokes per round......... Yo mamma so fat, you could slap her butt and ride the waves. Yo mamma so fat, when she entered a fat contest, she came in first, second, and third. Yo mamma so fat she broke your family tree.

Entertainment

Best-Yo-Mamma-Joke/1/

Yo mama is so stupid that when she saw the "Under 17 not admitted" sign at a movie theatre, she went home and got 16 friends. Yo mamma so fat not even Dora can explore her. Yo mama is so old that I told her to act her own age, and she died.

emospongebob527

Yo mama is so stupid that when she saw the "Under 17 not admitted" sign at a movie theatre, she went home and got 16 friends. Yo mamma so fat not even Dora can explore her. Yo mama is so old that I told her to act her own age, and she died.

Entertainment

Best-Yo-Mamma-Joke/1/

Yo mama is so fat that when she was diagnosed with a flesh-eating disease, the doctor gave her ten years to live. Yo mama is so stupid that she asked me what yield meant, I said "Slow down" and she said "What... does.... yield... mean?" Yo mama is so stupid that she spent twenty minutes lookin' at an orange juice box because it said "concentrate". Yo mama is so old that her birth certificate says "expired" on it. Yo mama's so fat that she expresses her weight in scientific notation. Yo mama is so skinny that instead of calling her your parent, you call her transparent.

emospongebob527

Yo mama is so fat that when she was diagnosed with a flesh-eating disease, the doctor gave her ten years to live. Yo mama is so stupid that she asked me what yield meant, I said "Slow down" and she said "What... does.... yield... mean?" Yo mama is so stupid that she spent twenty minutes lookin' at an orange juice box because it said "concentrate". Yo mama is so old that her birth certificate says "expired" on it. Yo mama's so fat that she expresses her weight in scientific notation. Yo mama is so skinny that instead of calling her your parent, you call her transparent.

Entertainment

Best-Yo-Mamma-Joke/1/

Yo mama is so stupid that she put a quarter in a parking meter and waited for a gumball to come out. Yo mama is so ugly that when she looks in the mirror, the reflection looks back and shakes its head. Yo mama is so stupid that she tried to commit suicide by jumping out of the basement window.

emospongebob527

Yo mama is so stupid that she put a quarter in a parking meter and waited for a gumball to come out. Yo mama is so ugly that when she looks in the mirror, the reflection looks back and shakes its head. Yo mama is so stupid that she tried to commit suicide by jumping out of the basement window.

Entertainment

Best-Yo-Mamma-Joke/1/

Yo momma so fat she's on both side of the family. Yo mama's a convenient proof that the universe is still expanding exponentially. Yo mama is so old that she walked into an antique store and they kept her.

emospongebob527

Yo momma so fat she's on both side of the family. Yo mama's a convenient proof that the universe is still expanding exponentially. Yo mama is so old that she walked into an antique store and they kept her.

Entertainment

Best-Yo-Mamma-Joke/1/

This is a yo mamma debate. Jokes must not be dirty or offensive. Before and after debate agreement is how funny the jokes are. Conduct is how dirty the jokes are. Spelling and grammar is irrelevant Convincing arguments are irrelevant Reliable sources are how original the jokes are.

jackwilliams141

This is a yo mamma debate. Jokes must not be dirty or offensive. Before and after debate agreement is how funny the jokes are. Conduct is how dirty the jokes are. Spelling and grammar is irrelevant Convincing arguments are irrelevant Reliable sources are how original the jokes are.

Entertainment

Best-Yo-Mamma-Joke/1/

Yo mammas so ugly, when she was born, the doctor looked at her face and her butt and said"Twins." Yo mammas so poor, when I walked in her front door, I tripped over the back fence. Yo mammas so short, she commited suicide by jumping off the sidewalk.

jackwilliams141

Yo mammas so ugly, when she was born, the doctor looked at her face and her butt and said"Twins." Yo mammas so poor, when I walked in her front door, I tripped over the back fence. Yo mammas so short, she commited suicide by jumping off the sidewalk.

Entertainment

Best-Yo-Mamma-Joke/1/

Imma catch up with six here Yo mammas so fat when she went outside in a yellow raincoat, the sun said "I quit." Yo mammas so stupid, she failed a blood test. Yo mammas so poor, she cant even pay attention Yo mammas so fat, when God said"Let there be light." he had to move her over. Yo mammas so stupid, when I asked her to buy a color TV, she asked me which color. Yo mammas so old, she saw herself on history channel.

jackwilliams141

Imma catch up with six here Yo mammas so fat when she went outside in a yellow raincoat, the sun said "I quit." Yo mammas so stupid, she failed a blood test. Yo mammas so poor, she cant even pay attention Yo mammas so fat, when God said"Let there be light." he had to move her over. Yo mammas so stupid, when I asked her to buy a color TV, she asked me which color. Yo mammas so old, she saw herself on history channel.

Entertainment

Best-Yo-Mamma-Joke/1/

You are three jokes ahead now, which isn't fair to me. If I post 6 jokes this round, and you post three, it will be even. Yo mammas so stupid, she bought a spoon to the Super Bowl Yo mammas so old she went out with Jesus in seventh grade. Yo mammas so stupid, she failed a survey. Yo mammas so fat, when she saw a bunch of white people go into a school bus, she said"Catch that twinkie!" Yo mammas so stupid, when somebody said spring was around the corner, she went looking for it. Yo mammas so stupid, when she got locked in a 99 cent store, she starved to death.

jackwilliams141

You are three jokes ahead now, which isn't fair to me. If I post 6 jokes this round, and you post three, it will be even. Yo mammas so stupid, she bought a spoon to the Super Bowl Yo mammas so old she went out with Jesus in seventh grade. Yo mammas so stupid, she failed a survey. Yo mammas so fat, when she saw a bunch of white people go into a school bus, she said"Catch that twinkie!" Yo mammas so stupid, when somebody said spring was around the corner, she went looking for it. Yo mammas so stupid, when she got locked in a 99 cent store, she starved to death.

Entertainment

Best-Yo-Mamma-Joke/1/

Yo mammas so poor, the ducks throw bread for her! Yo mammas so hairy, Jane Goodall set up base camp in her armpit. Yo mammas so ugly, Bob The Builder looked at her and said, "I cant fix that!"

jackwilliams141

Yo mammas so poor, the ducks throw bread for her! Yo mammas so hairy, Jane Goodall set up base camp in her armpit. Yo mammas so ugly, Bob The Builder looked at her and said, "I cant fix that!"

Entertainment

Best-Yo-Mamma-Joke/1/

Because of the length constraints a completely specified argument is impossible, indeed it would take a small book. I will however assert some premises which I hope are self-evident to my opponent. If they are not those topics must be clarified before meaningful debate on the resolution can be had. 1. Legality and morality are inherently linked, if something is moral it should be legal and if is legal it should be moral. The difference between them is the difference between what people think and what is. Morality is that which is right, the law is that which people (a majority of) think is right (as expressed through a democratic government). 2. To make moral claims one must have moral principles, to have moral principles one must have a moral theory. That is one must be aware of the field of philosophy which is ethics and subscribe to some system of thought in that field. 3. Baring a full derivation and support of a moral theory, the relevant theory in the case of bestiality/zoophilia is mutual consent of interacting parties + reasonable avoidance of foreseeable pain or biological damage . For those interested I hold a more constrained view as a universal principle for human society, i.e. volition is the prerequisite of all moral interaction between humans. From these premises I would like to preempt possible strategies of my opponent by implication. #1 means I will not entertain the notion that even if bestiality/zoophilia is moral it is detrimental to society and that constitutes a legal basis for banning it. For those who consider this unfair I ask you to think of all those things demonstrably detrimental to society that the law does allow for on the basis of personal freedom. #2 means that I will not entertain sentiments which associate the term morality with emotional appeals, religious dogma, or mindless. If it is not wrong and you wish to merely point out how it can sometimes be dangerous or play a negative role in someone's life then I'll leave you to it; that is not the resolution I wish to argue. #2 also means that there is no such thing as 'one case at a time' moral judgments, nothing is good or evil in a vacuum but can only be so in the context of a mountain of previously derived facts. Identifying and challenging double standards is a key technique in discovering moral fallacies. If someone can, on whim, use one standard of moral judgment in case A and another in case B then no moral debate is possible. Therefore if you are someone who thinks comparing zoophilia to homosexuality or to the practice of eating animal meat is a red herring then you should not accept the challenge. #3 means you are willing to debate the matter of consent, I love to debate ethics and no doubt I will on this site but if you do not believe consent is the moral principle involved here you are almost certainly going to turn this into a philosophical debate. Some notes on terms: I use the term Bestiality/zoophilia, some other people make distinctions between these terms; I mean the practice of interspecies sex specifically involving humans as one of the species. Is zoophilia a sexual orientation? I think so, as far as the word has objective meaning. Bottom line is that some people desire sexual relations with animals. I do not believe the causes of this phenomenon are relevant to the debate nor do I believe there is enough scientific ground work to attempt to answer that question. The homosexual movement has been chugging away for decades and nobody really has a clue what causes it. Consent, and this is important , is defined as " permission for something to happen or agreement to do something" <URL>... . I am fully aware that the idea of informed consent in legal circles is different and much stricter. I do not mean legal/informed consent when I say consent. No one who has a pet, no one who has partook in any animal derived products has ever had informed consent from any animals. It is an impossibility even for humans to give perfect informed consent because it presupposes that both parties are perfectly aware of the consequences of an action. Something that requires the ability to predict the future with 100% certainty. In practice what is meant by informed consent is that one party discloses any information about the interaction which may reasonably be expected to affect the other's decision. If one party does not have the information it cannot be given . If the other party is incapable of receiving the information it is not considered a requirement. For instance, you bring an unconscious stranger into a hospital, the doctor will still treat them on the presumption that they want to be healed. There is no consent informed or otherwise. Under the constraints set out above the question is: A.) Can an animal give permission or agreement to a member of another species for sexual interaction? There are two possible reasons why the answer to that could be no in all cases: No species is capable of communicating permission, agreement, or anything really to a member of another species implicitly or explicitly. No species is psychologically capable of granting consent to another species We can knock out #2 by the mere fact that this is an issue. Humans must be capable of granting consent to another species if they pursue sexual relations with them. Surely you could say humans are an exception but that would require some explanation. Why would humans be the only species capable of accepting interspecies sex? How could you reconcile this with observed instances of interspecies sex between two non-human species? Even if a creature is incapable of choosing between acting and not acting a certain way it cannot be said that it does not consent. Instead it is more accurate to say that consent is not conceptually applicable to that species. If a wasp stings you, you might think it was merely the sum of stimuli up to that point that caused it. There is not enough of an independent consciousness in a wasp brain to ever decide not to sting you given the same inputs. It is incorrect to say that the wasp accepts or refuses the interaction. It does neither but if you had to choose, it would be acceptance because if it did have the ability to choose obviously its actions would reflect its choice. #1 is a little harder but not by much. Consider the following premise It is impossible for a creature to pursue an action to which it does not consent provided it does not fear retribution for failure to comply. This can be established easily by looking at its negation which is "It is possible for a creature to pursue a course of action it does not consent to, even if there is no fear of retribution for failure to comply". It's a contradiction in terms. If it can agree with anything it must agree with itself. Therefore even in the absence of verbal or body language, if an animal pursues a course of action where no negative consequences have ever been employed as the result of failing to pursue said course of action, then it has implicitly communicated its intention and its acceptance of the action. If that action is in fact an inter action it must also consent to the interaction . To compound that point most animals which zoophiles are interested in mating with are quite capable of body language and vocal communication of a basic sort. Note that "Yes" and "No" are very basic communications which any higher animal owner can attest to understanding. Whether that decision is the result of some faculty of self-determination or is pure instinct is actually irrelevant. If it is pure instinct then the creature never had any freedom to violate. If it has self-determination then it is determining things for itself. In summation if there exists any example of an animal showing through action absent negative conditioning the acceptance of sexual relations with another species the answer to question A is Yes, at least in some cases. If in some cases an animal can consent to interspecies sex, then surely in some cases an animal can consent to sex with a human, thus on the consent principle it is moral to have sex with an animal.. in some cases. I want to wrap up with an example question: Horseback riding. Do you believe a horse can consent to being ridden? How would you know?

ADreamOfLiberty

Because of the length constraints a completely specified argument is impossible, indeed it would take a small book. I will however assert some premises which I hope are self-evident to my opponent. If they are not those topics must be clarified before meaningful debate on the resolution can be had. 1. Legality and morality are inherently linked, if something is moral it should be legal and if is legal it should be moral. The difference between them is the difference between what people think and what is. Morality is that which is right, the law is that which people (a majority of) think is right (as expressed through a democratic government). 2. To make moral claims one must have moral principles, to have moral principles one must have a moral theory. That is one must be aware of the field of philosophy which is ethics and subscribe to some system of thought in that field. 3. Baring a full derivation and support of a moral theory, the relevant theory in the case of bestiality/zoophilia is mutual consent of interacting parties + reasonable avoidance of foreseeable pain or biological damage . For those interested I hold a more constrained view as a universal principle for human society, i.e. volition is the prerequisite of all moral interaction between humans. From these premises I would like to preempt possible strategies of my opponent by implication. #1 means I will not entertain the notion that even if bestiality/zoophilia is moral it is detrimental to society and that constitutes a legal basis for banning it. For those who consider this unfair I ask you to think of all those things demonstrably detrimental to society that the law does allow for on the basis of personal freedom. #2 means that I will not entertain sentiments which associate the term morality with emotional appeals, religious dogma, or mindless. If it is not wrong and you wish to merely point out how it can sometimes be dangerous or play a negative role in someone’s life then I’ll leave you to it; that is not the resolution I wish to argue. #2 also means that there is no such thing as ‘one case at a time’ moral judgments, nothing is good or evil in a vacuum but can only be so in the context of a mountain of previously derived facts. Identifying and challenging double standards is a key technique in discovering moral fallacies. If someone can, on whim, use one standard of moral judgment in case A and another in case B then no moral debate is possible. Therefore if you are someone who thinks comparing zoophilia to homosexuality or to the practice of eating animal meat is a red herring then you should not accept the challenge. #3 means you are willing to debate the matter of consent, I love to debate ethics and no doubt I will on this site but if you do not believe consent is the moral principle involved here you are almost certainly going to turn this into a philosophical debate. Some notes on terms: I use the term Bestiality/zoophilia, some other people make distinctions between these terms; I mean the practice of interspecies sex specifically involving humans as one of the species. Is zoophilia a sexual orientation? I think so, as far as the word has objective meaning. Bottom line is that some people desire sexual relations with animals. I do not believe the causes of this phenomenon are relevant to the debate nor do I believe there is enough scientific ground work to attempt to answer that question. The homosexual movement has been chugging away for decades and nobody really has a clue what causes it. Consent, and this is important , is defined as “ permission for something to happen or agreement to do something” http://oxforddictionaries.com... . I am fully aware that the idea of informed consent in legal circles is different and much stricter. I do not mean legal/informed consent when I say consent. No one who has a pet, no one who has partook in any animal derived products has ever had informed consent from any animals. It is an impossibility even for humans to give perfect informed consent because it presupposes that both parties are perfectly aware of the consequences of an action. Something that requires the ability to predict the future with 100% certainty. In practice what is meant by informed consent is that one party discloses any information about the interaction which may reasonably be expected to affect the other’s decision. If one party does not have the information it cannot be given . If the other party is incapable of receiving the information it is not considered a requirement. For instance, you bring an unconscious stranger into a hospital, the doctor will still treat them on the presumption that they want to be healed. There is no consent informed or otherwise. Under the constraints set out above the question is: A.) Can an animal give permission or agreement to a member of another species for sexual interaction? There are two possible reasons why the answer to that could be no in all cases: No species is capable of communicating permission, agreement, or anything really to a member of another species implicitly or explicitly. No species is psychologically capable of granting consent to another species We can knock out #2 by the mere fact that this is an issue. Humans must be capable of granting consent to another species if they pursue sexual relations with them. Surely you could say humans are an exception but that would require some explanation. Why would humans be the only species capable of accepting interspecies sex? How could you reconcile this with observed instances of interspecies sex between two non-human species? Even if a creature is incapable of choosing between acting and not acting a certain way it cannot be said that it does not consent. Instead it is more accurate to say that consent is not conceptually applicable to that species. If a wasp stings you, you might think it was merely the sum of stimuli up to that point that caused it. There is not enough of an independent consciousness in a wasp brain to ever decide not to sting you given the same inputs. It is incorrect to say that the wasp accepts or refuses the interaction. It does neither but if you had to choose, it would be acceptance because if it did have the ability to choose obviously its actions would reflect its choice. #1 is a little harder but not by much. Consider the following premise It is impossible for a creature to pursue an action to which it does not consent provided it does not fear retribution for failure to comply. This can be established easily by looking at its negation which is “It is possible for a creature to pursue a course of action it does not consent to, even if there is no fear of retribution for failure to comply”. It’s a contradiction in terms. If it can agree with anything it must agree with itself. Therefore even in the absence of verbal or body language, if an animal pursues a course of action where no negative consequences have ever been employed as the result of failing to pursue said course of action, then it has implicitly communicated its intention and its acceptance of the action. If that action is in fact an inter action it must also consent to the interaction . To compound that point most animals which zoophiles are interested in mating with are quite capable of body language and vocal communication of a basic sort. Note that “Yes” and “No” are very basic communications which any higher animal owner can attest to understanding. Whether that decision is the result of some faculty of self-determination or is pure instinct is actually irrelevant. If it is pure instinct then the creature never had any freedom to violate. If it has self-determination then it is determining things for itself. In summation if there exists any example of an animal showing through action absent negative conditioning the acceptance of sexual relations with another species the answer to question A is Yes, at least in some cases. If in some cases an animal can consent to interspecies sex, then surely in some cases an animal can consent to sex with a human, thus on the consent principle it is moral to have sex with an animal.. in some cases. I want to wrap up with an example question: Horseback riding. Do you believe a horse can consent to being ridden? How would you know?

Society

Bestiality-Zoophilia-should-be-legal-and-is-not-inherently-immoral/2/

"Assuming that animals want YOU is a big leap." Not if you had seen what I have seen. When a male animal gets on your back and starts humping you, there is no other rational interpretation. The zoophile would have to believe that somehow they had telepathically taken over the animals mind. If you are going to say something like "they can't help themselves" don't bother, of course they can most people train their animals not to make aggressive moves of any kind towards humans. They learn and don't try but they couldn't learn if they had no choice. "Size/pain is not mentioned in your post." Of course not, I should hope it is obvious that not all animals are valid sexual partners. Temperament, human sociability, anatomy, and of course individual variation are all factors in determining if an individual of a species should be considered an appropriate partner. None have considered these matters with as much depth and concern than zoophiles I assure you. If you must have some specific species to work with, zoophiles have established that dogs [of general wolfish dimensions], horses, sheep, goats, and bovids are generally acceptable partners. They all have long histories of domestication. Humans have a long history of developing and understanding communication with them, especially with dogs and horses. The genital structures of dogs, sheep, and goats are similar enough in size and shape to humans in order to interface. It is generally not safe to be penetrated by full sized stallions or bulls but that is more a risk to the human than to the animal. There is no way in hell a mature mare or cow could be damaged by being penetrated by a human (penis). When animals are in pain they tell you. A horse's ears are a good example of body language humans can understand, dog vocalizations such as whimpering or growling indicate how they feel about something. The reactions of these animals despite being contrary to popular expectation quite in line with what one would expect before irrational prejudice took over. Sex is pleasurable, and in nature they get it when they can. Their reactions range from passive neutrality to actively soliciting future events. Unless they were hurt by it, or have a serious lack of trust for the human they typically don't show any negative reactions. I don't see how anyone could expect otherwise, animals have no cultural taboos to violate no preconceptions on what is demeaning. They don't know what they don't know, so they don't know how much smarter humans are. If you want to hurt them mentally or physically you essentially have to hurt them physically or behave in a very non-pack/herd like manner, they don't have the intelligence to take insult many other ways. Hitting them, yelling at them constantly, not sharing food when they are starving, or leaving them in a pit would be examples of the kind of insults animals would understand. In summation, considering the absolute and complete void where evidence of pain might exist I dismiss it as a serious possibility in the relevant cases. "You would need further regulation to prevent full sized humans for splitting chihuahuas" No I don't, intentionally causing severe pain or death to your animals is already covered by animal cruelty laws that need make no mention of sex. You may as well have said "you need further regulation to prevent a full sized human from hitting a Chihuahua with a hammer" "and SOMEthing to limit child-experimentation" You mean sexually mature adolescents experimenting with animals? Why? that is their parents purview. Better animals than other humans their age, no unwanted pregnancies. "AND, I do not see a comprehension of communicable diseases in your thinking." I comprehend communicable disease just fine, that is why my post does not make mention of it. Just like HIV doesn't make all human-human sex immoral no interspecies STD makes all interspecies sex immoral. Not to mention the fact that there isn't anything equivalent to HIV on the radar, all diseases communicable by sex are similarly communicable by any body fluid contact. Such may occur everytime you touch an animal unless the strictest precautions are taken. "Pets started by them coming to us willingly and staying with humans willingly." You can't possibly know that it was 8,000 years ago. "Genetics plays a big role in homosexuality and has been studied a lot. So, your point that no one has a clue about gayness is way off course." Afraid I am not way off. It has been studied a lot that is true but to little avail. If you heard stuff about a 'gay gene' being discovered you have been the victim of sensationalist news stories. It has been inferred that genetics plays a big role in homosexuality. If a 'gay gene' has been identified being homosexual could be predicted. If you think it has been identified tell me what chromosome it is on? Is it dominant or recessive trait? "The studies of horseback-riding have postulated that the first time a human got on a horse, it was, probably, teen-aged boys and it was, probably, consensual." Aside from the fact that this can't postulation can't possibly be supported what relevance does it have at all? Tell me if you will how somebody can author a study which estimates the consent of an animal which died a hundred generations ago but a zoophile can't do the same with a horse standing right next to him?

ADreamOfLiberty

"Assuming that animals want YOU is a big leap." Not if you had seen what I have seen. When a male animal gets on your back and starts humping you, there is no other rational interpretation. The zoophile would have to believe that somehow they had telepathically taken over the animals mind. If you are going to say something like "they can't help themselves" don't bother, of course they can most people train their animals not to make aggressive moves of any kind towards humans. They learn and don't try but they couldn't learn if they had no choice. "Size/pain is not mentioned in your post." Of course not, I should hope it is obvious that not all animals are valid sexual partners. Temperament, human sociability, anatomy, and of course individual variation are all factors in determining if an individual of a species should be considered an appropriate partner. None have considered these matters with as much depth and concern than zoophiles I assure you. If you must have some specific species to work with, zoophiles have established that dogs [of general wolfish dimensions], horses, sheep, goats, and bovids are generally acceptable partners. They all have long histories of domestication. Humans have a long history of developing and understanding communication with them, especially with dogs and horses. The genital structures of dogs, sheep, and goats are similar enough in size and shape to humans in order to interface. It is generally not safe to be penetrated by full sized stallions or bulls but that is more a risk to the human than to the animal. There is no way in hell a mature mare or cow could be damaged by being penetrated by a human (penis). When animals are in pain they tell you. A horse's ears are a good example of body language humans can understand, dog vocalizations such as whimpering or growling indicate how they feel about something. The reactions of these animals despite being contrary to popular expectation quite in line with what one would expect before irrational prejudice took over. Sex is pleasurable, and in nature they get it when they can. Their reactions range from passive neutrality to actively soliciting future events. Unless they were hurt by it, or have a serious lack of trust for the human they typically don't show any negative reactions. I don't see how anyone could expect otherwise, animals have no cultural taboos to violate no preconceptions on what is demeaning. They don't know what they don't know, so they don't know how much smarter humans are. If you want to hurt them mentally or physically you essentially have to hurt them physically or behave in a very non-pack/herd like manner, they don't have the intelligence to take insult many other ways. Hitting them, yelling at them constantly, not sharing food when they are starving, or leaving them in a pit would be examples of the kind of insults animals would understand. In summation, considering the absolute and complete void where evidence of pain might exist I dismiss it as a serious possibility in the relevant cases. "You would need further regulation to prevent full sized humans for splitting chihuahuas" No I don't, intentionally causing severe pain or death to your animals is already covered by animal cruelty laws that need make no mention of sex. You may as well have said "you need further regulation to prevent a full sized human from hitting a Chihuahua with a hammer" "and SOMEthing to limit child-experimentation" You mean sexually mature adolescents experimenting with animals? Why? that is their parents purview. Better animals than other humans their age, no unwanted pregnancies. "AND, I do not see a comprehension of communicable diseases in your thinking." I comprehend communicable disease just fine, that is why my post does not make mention of it. Just like HIV doesn't make all human-human sex immoral no interspecies STD makes all interspecies sex immoral. Not to mention the fact that there isn't anything equivalent to HIV on the radar, all diseases communicable by sex are similarly communicable by any body fluid contact. Such may occur everytime you touch an animal unless the strictest precautions are taken. "Pets started by them coming to us willingly and staying with humans willingly." You can't possibly know that it was 8,000 years ago. "Genetics plays a big role in homosexuality and has been studied a lot. So, your point that no one has a clue about gayness is way off course." Afraid I am not way off. It has been studied a lot that is true but to little avail. If you heard stuff about a 'gay gene' being discovered you have been the victim of sensationalist news stories. It has been inferred that genetics plays a big role in homosexuality. If a 'gay gene' has been identified being homosexual could be predicted. If you think it has been identified tell me what chromosome it is on? Is it dominant or recessive trait? "The studies of horseback-riding have postulated that the first time a human got on a horse, it was, probably, teen-aged boys and it was, probably, consensual." Aside from the fact that this can't postulation can't possibly be supported what relevance does it have at all? Tell me if you will how somebody can author a study which estimates the consent of an animal which died a hundred generations ago but a zoophile can't do the same with a horse standing right next to him?

Society

Bestiality-Zoophilia-should-be-legal-and-is-not-inherently-immoral/2/

"PLEASE DO NOT TYPE AS IF YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE WHO EVER SAW SUCH." If you have then explain how it cannot be described as 'an animal wanting you'. "NOW, SINCE YOU DIDN'T, PLEASE, CONSIDER THE FEMALES." It would be irrational to presume only males are capable of seeing humans as sexual partners, just so happens females tend to be very passive when they are consenting to sex so it's less obvious. We need to keep in mind that they behave pretty much the same for males of their own species. There are still strong indications, females will back up into men, show excitement in their species specific ways and immediately go on about other business right afterward. That last is important because if they simply didn't care at all they would go about their business and not wait. "SERIOUSLY, I DON'T CARE TO PREVENT THE SEX IF IT IS A GOOD THING" It is generally a good thing. Pleasure is good. <- caveman enough for you? "PEOPLE WHO WANT TO HURT THINGS, LIKE TO HURT ANIMALS BECAUSE ANIMALS DO NOT TELL ON THEM. BUT TOO MANY PEOPLE will HURT ANIMALS IF GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY." 1. Zoophiles are not 'people who like to hurt things'. 2. As I pointed out in the comments, anyone has the opportunity now. All they have to do is adopt an animal and then cause them pain in ways that don't leave permanent evidence. I am not offering a solution for that, and anti-zoophile laws never were a solution. "WHY DO YOU TYPE THE ABOVE /\ AND THEN, STATE THAT THERE CAN BE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE PAST BELOW?" I didn't type "there can be no knowledge of the past" below. I implied that pinpointing the first instances of horseback riding or animal domestication is quite impossible, much less identifying the circumstances surrounding those events. We know roughly when animals and people started living together and it was a long time ago. We can observe right now that we have significantly greater capacity to communicate with these long domesticated animals than we do with wild animals. "WE DO." You're ignorant of the law, there are animal cruelty laws that cover wanton violence. "I DID NOT TYPE "ADOLESCENT" BECAUSE I DID NOT MEAN ADOLESCENT. " Children who have not hit puberty will have little to no interest in sex even if they know about it. That is why I read it as 'adolescent'. "IF YOU GIVE PERMISSION FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE SEX WITH ANIMALS, A LOT MORE OF IT WILL HAPPEN. " Fine with me. "IF A LOT MORE OF IT HAPPENS, CHILDREN WILL ASSUME THAT THEY GET TO TRY." Children assume a lot, they assume they get to have sex with each other. Whether they are allowed to try or not should be a parents decision. All things considered it is safer for an adolesant to have sex with an animal. Animals won't betray the teen's trust by gossiping, won't get pregnant, won't transmit HIV. Even more an animal won't get it's heart broken when a fickle teen changes their attitude. I don't see the problem so long as legal guardian and animal are consenting. " CHILDREN ARE NOT GOOD WITH MANY SORTS OF ANIMALS IN NON=SEXUAL ACTIVITIES...BITES, SCRATCHES, PERMANENT FEAR. " If they are afraid of the animal why would they want to have sex with it? Or are you saying in trying they will get the animal mad and then get bitten? "I WOULD NOT WANT LITTLE KIDS PUTTING FINGERS IN FIDO AND I DON'T SEE HOW YOU ARE GOING TO STOP THAT FROM HAPPENING." Tell them "no"? Is this seriously your line of argument? Sensing the decriminalization of zoophilia legions of prepubescent children are going to somehow learn about sex before they get the birds and the bees speech. Shortly thereafter they will start sexually molesting animals despite having little to no sexual drive themselves?! Young children and animals typically learn to respect each other's boundries and ussually end up being pals for life, I have no idea where you are getting this ' hypothesis ' from. "THE SENTENCES ABOVE ARE IRRELEVANT BECAUSE OF THIS - NEXT - SENTENCE" No... they aren't. Disease transmission is not unique to sex therefore any ban based on that justification would have to apply to more than sex. You would have to make it illegal for a dog to lick a person or a person to feed a horse without wearing gloves. Clearly it is not that big of an issue. "I WANT TO INTRODUCE THE ABOVE SENTENCE /\ TO YOUR PREVIOUS SENTENCE" No one knows who built the first stone house, there is no way to be sure who did it, how, or what it looked like because it was 8000 years ago and it could have been buried somewhere we would never find it. Yet humans have a long history of stoneworking, and can now build fine stone houses. By the time writing and records were established animals were already well integrated into our life. " WHY ARE YOU AFRAID OF BEING NOT OFF? THERE IS ENOUGH INFO ON GAYNESS AND GENETICS FOR YOU TO LOOK SILLY SAYING THAT NO ONE KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT GAY NESS. " I said no one has a clue what causes it, not that nothing is known about it. I stand by that because it's correct not because I am afraid of being wrong (although I am afraid of being wrong, so should you). If you know what causes it I would be very interested in knowing. " WHAT RELEVANCE IT HAS IS IN ANSWER TO YOUR LAST STATEMENT. " Ah, so you believe speculation about ancient possibilities is how you know a horse can consent to being ridden... ok have it your way. -------------------------------------------------================------------------------------------------------------ Plenty of room to address a question asked in the comments. Is zoophilia a sexual orientation or a disorder? I believe a lot of this stuff is more political than objective disctinctions, however I will quote from this document which was typical of the kind of arguments that got homosexuality reclassified as a sexual orientation instead of a disorder. <URL>... " For a mental or psychiatric condition to be considered a psychiatric disorder it must either regularly cause subjective distress, or regularly be associated with some generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning. With the exception of homosexuality (and perhaps some of the other sexual deviations when in mild form, such as voyeurism), all of the other mental disorders in DSM-11 fulfill either of these two criteria. " The key things supposedly distinquishing an orientation from a disorder being "regularly cause subjective distress, or regularly be associated with some generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning " Both are false for zoophilia. It in of itself causes no distress nor social impairment. Zoophiles do tend to be eccentric in someway but most people seem to find it quite tolerable (if not charming). Many zoophiles hold jobs with a lot of social interaction with humans and handle it fine. The above paragraph is based on my person and conversations with other zoophiles online. I can of course not disclose any names for you to check on. Needless to say it is the truth and if it comes to it many zoophiles would volunteer to participate in an objective study. Until such time I would remind any who doubt it that ignorance is not the same as negation. If you are feeling brave you can visit a forum frequented by zoophiles, I think you'll their self-respect and social skills quite normal. On a last note I would like to remind readers that just because there may be some statistical association between a sexual orientation and a disorder does not mean they cause each other. Check out <URL>... that concludes "Findings from our study emphasize the fact that sexual orientation minorities are vulnerable to poor mental health outcomes, including suicide attempts. Clinicians need to be aware of these specific negative mental health consequences when assessing sexual orientation minorities." Does the orientation cause mental disorders or does the humiliation and fear of being part of a small taboo minority cause them?

ADreamOfLiberty

"PLEASE DO NOT TYPE AS IF YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE WHO EVER SAW SUCH." If you have then explain how it cannot be described as 'an animal wanting you'. "NOW, SINCE YOU DIDN'T, PLEASE, CONSIDER THE FEMALES." It would be irrational to presume only males are capable of seeing humans as sexual partners, just so happens females tend to be very passive when they are consenting to sex so it's less obvious. We need to keep in mind that they behave pretty much the same for males of their own species. There are still strong indications, females will back up into men, show excitement in their species specific ways and immediately go on about other business right afterward. That last is important because if they simply didn't care at all they would go about their business and not wait. "SERIOUSLY, I DON'T CARE TO PREVENT THE SEX IF IT IS A GOOD THING" It is generally a good thing. Pleasure is good. <- caveman enough for you? "PEOPLE WHO WANT TO HURT THINGS, LIKE TO HURT ANIMALS BECAUSE ANIMALS DO NOT TELL ON THEM. BUT TOO MANY PEOPLE will HURT ANIMALS IF GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY." 1. Zoophiles are not 'people who like to hurt things'. 2. As I pointed out in the comments, anyone has the opportunity now. All they have to do is adopt an animal and then cause them pain in ways that don't leave permanent evidence. I am not offering a solution for that, and anti-zoophile laws never were a solution. "WHY DO YOU TYPE THE ABOVE /\ AND THEN, STATE THAT THERE CAN BE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE PAST BELOW?" I didn't type "there can be no knowledge of the past" below. I implied that pinpointing the first instances of horseback riding or animal domestication is quite impossible, much less identifying the circumstances surrounding those events. We know roughly when animals and people started living together and it was a long time ago. We can observe right now that we have significantly greater capacity to communicate with these long domesticated animals than we do with wild animals. "WE DO." You're ignorant of the law, there are animal cruelty laws that cover wanton violence. "I DID NOT TYPE "ADOLESCENT" BECAUSE I DID NOT MEAN ADOLESCENT. " Children who have not hit puberty will have little to no interest in sex even if they know about it. That is why I read it as 'adolescent'. "IF YOU GIVE PERMISSION FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE SEX WITH ANIMALS, A LOT MORE OF IT WILL HAPPEN. " Fine with me. "IF A LOT MORE OF IT HAPPENS, CHILDREN WILL ASSUME THAT THEY GET TO TRY." Children assume a lot, they assume they get to have sex with each other. Whether they are allowed to try or not should be a parents decision. All things considered it is safer for an adolesant to have sex with an animal. Animals won't betray the teen's trust by gossiping, won't get pregnant, won't transmit HIV. Even more an animal won't get it's heart broken when a fickle teen changes their attitude. I don't see the problem so long as legal guardian and animal are consenting. " CHILDREN ARE NOT GOOD WITH MANY SORTS OF ANIMALS IN NON=SEXUAL ACTIVITIES...BITES, SCRATCHES, PERMANENT FEAR. " If they are afraid of the animal why would they want to have sex with it? Or are you saying in trying they will get the animal mad and then get bitten? "I WOULD NOT WANT LITTLE KIDS PUTTING FINGERS IN FIDO AND I DON'T SEE HOW YOU ARE GOING TO STOP THAT FROM HAPPENING." Tell them "no"? Is this seriously your line of argument? Sensing the decriminalization of zoophilia legions of prepubescent children are going to somehow learn about sex before they get the birds and the bees speech. Shortly thereafter they will start sexually molesting animals despite having little to no sexual drive themselves?! Young children and animals typically learn to respect each other's boundries and ussually end up being pals for life, I have no idea where you are getting this ' hypothesis ' from. "THE SENTENCES ABOVE ARE IRRELEVANT BECAUSE OF THIS - NEXT - SENTENCE" No... they aren't. Disease transmission is not unique to sex therefore any ban based on that justification would have to apply to more than sex. You would have to make it illegal for a dog to lick a person or a person to feed a horse without wearing gloves. Clearly it is not that big of an issue. "I WANT TO INTRODUCE THE ABOVE SENTENCE /\ TO YOUR PREVIOUS SENTENCE" No one knows who built the first stone house, there is no way to be sure who did it, how, or what it looked like because it was 8000 years ago and it could have been buried somewhere we would never find it. Yet humans have a long history of stoneworking, and can now build fine stone houses. By the time writing and records were established animals were already well integrated into our life. " WHY ARE YOU AFRAID OF BEING NOT OFF? THERE IS ENOUGH INFO ON GAYNESS AND GENETICS FOR YOU TO LOOK SILLY SAYING THAT NO ONE KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT GAY NESS. " I said no one has a clue what causes it, not that nothing is known about it. I stand by that because it's correct not because I am afraid of being wrong (although I am afraid of being wrong, so should you). If you know what causes it I would be very interested in knowing. " WHAT RELEVANCE IT HAS IS IN ANSWER TO YOUR LAST STATEMENT. " Ah, so you believe speculation about ancient possibilities is how you know a horse can consent to being ridden... ok have it your way. -------------------------------------------------================------------------------------------------------------ Plenty of room to address a question asked in the comments. Is zoophilia a sexual orientation or a disorder? I believe a lot of this stuff is more political than objective disctinctions, however I will quote from this document which was typical of the kind of arguments that got homosexuality reclassified as a sexual orientation instead of a disorder. http://www.torahdec.org... " For a mental or psychiatric condition to be considered a psychiatric disorder it must either regularly cause subjective distress, or regularly be associated with some generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning. With the exception of homosexuality (and perhaps some of the other sexual deviations when in mild form, such as voyeurism), all of the other mental disorders in DSM-11 fulfill either of these two criteria. " The key things supposedly distinquishing an orientation from a disorder being "regularly cause subjective distress, or regularly be associated with some generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning " Both are false for zoophilia. It in of itself causes no distress nor social impairment. Zoophiles do tend to be eccentric in someway but most people seem to find it quite tolerable (if not charming). Many zoophiles hold jobs with a lot of social interaction with humans and handle it fine. The above paragraph is based on my person and conversations with other zoophiles online. I can of course not disclose any names for you to check on. Needless to say it is the truth and if it comes to it many zoophiles would volunteer to participate in an objective study. Until such time I would remind any who doubt it that ignorance is not the same as negation. If you are feeling brave you can visit a forum frequented by zoophiles, I think you'll their self-respect and social skills quite normal. On a last note I would like to remind readers that just because there may be some statistical association between a sexual orientation and a disorder does not mean they cause each other. Check out http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... that concludes "Findings from our study emphasize the fact that sexual orientation minorities are vulnerable to poor mental health outcomes, including suicide attempts. Clinicians need to be aware of these specific negative mental health consequences when assessing sexual orientation minorities." Does the orientation cause mental disorders or does the humiliation and fear of being part of a small taboo minority cause them?

Society

Bestiality-Zoophilia-should-be-legal-and-is-not-inherently-immoral/2/

I kind of feel like you're phoning it in at this point Dawn. "Like cannibalism, so many people find it repugnant that no or few laws are needed." There are laws against murder.... I have no idea what point you are trying to make. "You seem pretty desperate to have sex with animals." Lol, then you seem pretty desperate for me not to have sex with animals. "I hope that you realize that a condom will only protect the skin that it covers and not the skin around it" Yea, I get that...

ADreamOfLiberty

I kind of feel like you're phoning it in at this point Dawn. "Like cannibalism, so many people find it repugnant that no or few laws are needed." There are laws against murder.... I have no idea what point you are trying to make. "You seem pretty desperate to have sex with animals." Lol, then you seem pretty desperate for me not to have sex with animals. "I hope that you realize that a condom will only protect the skin that it covers and not the skin around it" Yea, I get that...

Society

Bestiality-Zoophilia-should-be-legal-and-is-not-inherently-immoral/2/

Assuming that animals want YOU is a big leap. Size/pain is not mentioned in your post. Further - what you start with is not where you stay. You would need further regulation to prevent full sized humans for splitting chihuahuas and SOMEthing to limit child-experimentation AND, I do not see a comprehension of communicable diseases in your thinking. Pets started by them coming to us willingly and staying with humans willingly. Genetics plays a big role in homosexuality and has been studied a lot. So, your point that no one has a clue about gayness is way off course. You seem to be a bit light on the difference between choice and reflex. The studies of horseback-riding have postulated that the first time a human got on a horse, it was, probably, teen-aged boys and it was, probably, consensual.

dawndawndawndawn

Assuming that animals want YOU is a big leap. Size/pain is not mentioned in your post. Further - what you start with is not where you stay. You would need further regulation to prevent full sized humans for splitting chihuahuas and SOMEthing to limit child-experimentation AND, I do not see a comprehension of communicable diseases in your thinking. Pets started by them coming to us willingly and staying with humans willingly. Genetics plays a big role in homosexuality and has been studied a lot. So, your point that no one has a clue about gayness is way off course. You seem to be a bit light on the difference between choice and reflex. The studies of horseback-riding have postulated that the first time a human got on a horse, it was, probably, teen-aged boys and it was, probably, consensual.

Society

Bestiality-Zoophilia-should-be-legal-and-is-not-inherently-immoral/2/

I answer in caps because it's easiest for me. I am not "shouting" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Assuming that animals want YOU is a big leap." Not if you had seen what I have seen. When a male animal gets on your back and starts humping you, there is no other rational interpretation. PLEASE DO NOT TYPE AS IF YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE WHO EVER SAW SUCH. NOW, SINCE YOU DIDN'T, PLEASE, CONSIDER THE FEMALES. "Size/pain is not mentioned in your post." Of course not, I should hope it is obvious that not all animals are valid sexual partners. Temperament, human sociability, anatomy, and of course individual variation are all factors in determining if an individual of a species should be considered an appropriate partner. HOPE AWAY AS IF IT HELPS. PEOPLE WHO WANT TO HURT THINGS, LIKE TO HURT ANIMALS BECAUSE ANIMALS DO NOT TELL ON THEM. SERIOUSLY, I DON'T CARE TO PREVENT THE SEX IF IT IS A GOOD THING BUT TOO MANY PEOPLE will HURT ANIMALS IF GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY. They all have long histories of domestication. Humans have a long history of developing and understanding communication with them, especially with dogs and horses. WHY DO YOU TYPE THE ABOVE /\ AND THEN, STATE THAT THERE CAN BE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE PAST BELOW? \/ "You would need further regulation to prevent full sized humans for splitting chihuahuas" No I don't, intentionally causing severe pain or death to your animals is already covered by animal cruelty laws that need make no mention of sex. You may as well have said "you need further regulation to prevent a full sized human from hitting a Chihuahua with a hammer" WE DO. "and SOMEthing to limit child-experimentation" You mean sexually mature adolescents experimenting with animals? Why? that is their parents purview. Better animals than other humans their age, no unwanted pregnancies. I DID NOT TYPE "ADOLESCENT" BECAUSE I DID NOT MEAN ADOLESCENT. IF YOU GIVE PERMISSION FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE SEX WITH ANIMALS, A LOT MORE OF IT WILL HAPPEN. IF A LOT MORE OF IT HAPPENS, CHILDREN WILL ASSUME THAT THEY GET TO TRY. CHILDREN ARE NOT GOOD WITH MANY SORTS OF ANIMALS IN NON=SEXUAL ACTIVITIES...BITES, SCRATCHES, PERMANENT FEAR. IF YOU WANT THIS, AND IS SURE SEEMS LIKE YOU ARE VERY VERY READY, I WOULD NOT WANT LITTLE KIDS PUTTING FINGERS IN FIDO AND I DON'T SEE HOW YOU ARE GOING TO STOP THAT FROM HAPPENING. "AND, I do not see a comprehension of communicable diseases in your thinking." I comprehend communicable disease just fine, that is why my post does not make mention of it. Just like HIV doesn't make all human-human sex immoral no interspecies STD makes all interspecies sex immoral. Not to mention the fact that there isn't anything equivalent to HIV on the radar, all diseases communicable by sex are similarly communicable by any body fluid contact. THE SENTENCES ABOVE ARE IRRELEVANT BECAUSE OF THIS - NEXT - SENTENCE. >Such may occur everytime you touch an animal unless the strictest precautions are taken. I CAN SMELL IT FROM HERE! {"Pets started by them coming to us willingly and staying with humans willingly." You can't possibly know that it was 8,000 years ago. I WANT TO INTRODUCE THE ABOVE SENTENCE /\ TO YOUR PREVIOUS SENTENCE > "They all have long histories of domestication. Humans have a long history of developing and understanding communication with them, especially with dogs and horses. "} "Genetics plays a big role in homosexuality and has been studied a lot. So, your point that no one has a clue about gayness is way off course." Afraid I am not way off. It has been studied a lot that is true but to little avail. If you heard stuff about a 'gay gene' being discovered you have been the victim of sensationalist news stories. It has been inferred that genetics plays a big role in homosexuality. If a 'gay gene' has been identified being homosexual could be predicted. If you think it has been identified tell me what chromosome it is on? Is it dominant or recessive trait? WHY ARE YOU AFRAID OF BEING NOT OFF? THERE IS ENOUGH INFO ON GAYNESS AND GENETICS FOR YOU TO LOOK SILLY SAYING THAT NO ONE KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT GAY NESS. "The studies of horseback-riding have postulated that the first time a human got on a horse, it was, probably, teen-aged boys and it was, probably, consensual." Aside from the fact that this can't postulation can't possibly be supported what relevance does it have at all? I WILL INTRODUCE YOU TO THIS. PREVIOUS, SENTENCE OF YOURS "They all have long histories of domestication. Humans have a long history of developing and understanding communication with them, especially with dogs and horses. " WHAT RELEVANCE IT HAS IS IN ANSWER TO YOUR LAST STATEMENT. "I want to wrap up with an example question: Horseback riding. Do you believe a horse can consent to being ridden? How would you know?"

dawndawndawndawn

I answer in caps because it's easiest for me. I am not "shouting" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Assuming that animals want YOU is a big leap." Not if you had seen what I have seen. When a male animal gets on your back and starts humping you, there is no other rational interpretation. PLEASE DO NOT TYPE AS IF YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE WHO EVER SAW SUCH. NOW, SINCE YOU DIDN'T, PLEASE, CONSIDER THE FEMALES. "Size/pain is not mentioned in your post." Of course not, I should hope it is obvious that not all animals are valid sexual partners. Temperament, human sociability, anatomy, and of course individual variation are all factors in determining if an individual of a species should be considered an appropriate partner. HOPE AWAY AS IF IT HELPS. PEOPLE WHO WANT TO HURT THINGS, LIKE TO HURT ANIMALS BECAUSE ANIMALS DO NOT TELL ON THEM. SERIOUSLY, I DON'T CARE TO PREVENT THE SEX IF IT IS A GOOD THING BUT TOO MANY PEOPLE will HURT ANIMALS IF GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY. They all have long histories of domestication. Humans have a long history of developing and understanding communication with them, especially with dogs and horses. WHY DO YOU TYPE THE ABOVE /\ AND THEN, STATE THAT THERE CAN BE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE PAST BELOW? \/ "You would need further regulation to prevent full sized humans for splitting chihuahuas" No I don't, intentionally causing severe pain or death to your animals is already covered by animal cruelty laws that need make no mention of sex. You may as well have said "you need further regulation to prevent a full sized human from hitting a Chihuahua with a hammer" WE DO. "and SOMEthing to limit child-experimentation" You mean sexually mature adolescents experimenting with animals? Why? that is their parents purview. Better animals than other humans their age, no unwanted pregnancies. I DID NOT TYPE "ADOLESCENT" BECAUSE I DID NOT MEAN ADOLESCENT. IF YOU GIVE PERMISSION FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE SEX WITH ANIMALS, A LOT MORE OF IT WILL HAPPEN. IF A LOT MORE OF IT HAPPENS, CHILDREN WILL ASSUME THAT THEY GET TO TRY. CHILDREN ARE NOT GOOD WITH MANY SORTS OF ANIMALS IN NON=SEXUAL ACTIVITIES...BITES, SCRATCHES, PERMANENT FEAR. IF YOU WANT THIS, AND IS SURE SEEMS LIKE YOU ARE VERY VERY READY, I WOULD NOT WANT LITTLE KIDS PUTTING FINGERS IN FIDO AND I DON'T SEE HOW YOU ARE GOING TO STOP THAT FROM HAPPENING. "AND, I do not see a comprehension of communicable diseases in your thinking." I comprehend communicable disease just fine, that is why my post does not make mention of it. Just like HIV doesn't make all human-human sex immoral no interspecies STD makes all interspecies sex immoral. Not to mention the fact that there isn't anything equivalent to HIV on the radar, all diseases communicable by sex are similarly communicable by any body fluid contact. THE SENTENCES ABOVE ARE IRRELEVANT BECAUSE OF THIS - NEXT - SENTENCE. >Such may occur everytime you touch an animal unless the strictest precautions are taken. I CAN SMELL IT FROM HERE! {"Pets started by them coming to us willingly and staying with humans willingly." You can't possibly know that it was 8,000 years ago. I WANT TO INTRODUCE THE ABOVE SENTENCE /\ TO YOUR PREVIOUS SENTENCE > "They all have long histories of domestication. Humans have a long history of developing and understanding communication with them, especially with dogs and horses. "} "Genetics plays a big role in homosexuality and has been studied a lot. So, your point that no one has a clue about gayness is way off course." Afraid I am not way off. It has been studied a lot that is true but to little avail. If you heard stuff about a 'gay gene' being discovered you have been the victim of sensationalist news stories. It has been inferred that genetics plays a big role in homosexuality. If a 'gay gene' has been identified being homosexual could be predicted. If you think it has been identified tell me what chromosome it is on? Is it dominant or recessive trait? WHY ARE YOU AFRAID OF BEING NOT OFF? THERE IS ENOUGH INFO ON GAYNESS AND GENETICS FOR YOU TO LOOK SILLY SAYING THAT NO ONE KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT GAY NESS. "The studies of horseback-riding have postulated that the first time a human got on a horse, it was, probably, teen-aged boys and it was, probably, consensual." Aside from the fact that this can't postulation can't possibly be supported what relevance does it have at all? I WILL INTRODUCE YOU TO THIS. PREVIOUS, SENTENCE OF YOURS "They all have long histories of domestication. Humans have a long history of developing and understanding communication with them, especially with dogs and horses. " WHAT RELEVANCE IT HAS IS IN ANSWER TO YOUR LAST STATEMENT. "I want to wrap up with an example question: Horseback riding. Do you believe a horse can consent to being ridden? How would you know?"

Society

Bestiality-Zoophilia-should-be-legal-and-is-not-inherently-immoral/2/

Like cannibalism, so many people find it repugnant that no or few laws are needed. You seem pretty desperate to have sex with animals. I hope that you realize that a condom will only protect the skin that it covers and not the skin around it

dawndawndawndawn

Like cannibalism, so many people find it repugnant that no or few laws are needed. You seem pretty desperate to have sex with animals. I hope that you realize that a condom will only protect the skin that it covers and not the skin around it

Society

Bestiality-Zoophilia-should-be-legal-and-is-not-inherently-immoral/2/

I am pretty grossed out that you find this to be important enough for such a detailed debate. Murder and cannibalism are not the same thing. There are laws against murder in most places but no laws against cannibalism in many places but it was so repugnant to so many people that it was felt that laws weren't needed. Mostly, the hunger for sex will not leave humans alone. So, when they can't find an interface, they have turned to animals forgetting that the smell lingers. The immorality in question would be if it hurt the animal but not if it hurt the human, if the human got hurt constantly and wanted us to pay for it or, the inability to control the sexual urge. In most cultures, some form or sexual control is taught, sometimes too drastically, but no culture encourages human to copy the bonobos. If it isn't immoral, legality is a secondary question. In that light, the only question is morality unless you, like me, are just grossed out and want to be SURE that no animals are harmed

dawndawndawndawn

I am pretty grossed out that you find this to be important enough for such a detailed debate. Murder and cannibalism are not the same thing. There are laws against murder in most places but no laws against cannibalism in many places but it was so repugnant to so many people that it was felt that laws weren't needed. Mostly, the hunger for sex will not leave humans alone. So, when they can't find an interface, they have turned to animals forgetting that the smell lingers. The immorality in question would be if it hurt the animal but not if it hurt the human, if the human got hurt constantly and wanted us to pay for it or, the inability to control the sexual urge. In most cultures, some form or sexual control is taught, sometimes too drastically, but no culture encourages human to copy the bonobos. If it isn't immoral, legality is a secondary question. In that light, the only question is morality unless you, like me, are just grossed out and want to be SURE that no animals are harmed

Society

Bestiality-Zoophilia-should-be-legal-and-is-not-inherently-immoral/2/

In this debate I will argue against the popular notion that we should legislate against bestiality in the US. Arguments may begin in Round 2. In this round my opponent will agree to the following conditions: For clarity's sake, I would like to mark the difference between "bestiality" and "zoophilia." Bestiality: acts of sex between humans and non-human animals Zoophilia: sexual or romantic desire for non-human animals Although zoophilia is relevant to the debate, Pro will only have to argue in favor of making general acts of sex with animals illegal, not the sexual or romantic desire. Also, for simplicity's sake, we can assume that any reference to "animals" implies non-human animals, unless otherwise stated. I sincerely thank my opponent. Hopefully we can get into a productive, substantive discussion on the topic and not get stuck in semantic ditches.

ravenwaen

In this debate I will argue against the popular notion that we should legislate against bestiality in the US. Arguments may begin in Round 2. In this round my opponent will agree to the following conditions: For clarity's sake, I would like to mark the difference between "bestiality" and "zoophilia." Bestiality: acts of sex between humans and non-human animals Zoophilia: sexual or romantic desire for non-human animals Although zoophilia is relevant to the debate, Pro will only have to argue in favor of making general acts of sex with animals illegal, not the sexual or romantic desire. Also, for simplicity's sake, we can assume that any reference to "animals" implies non-human animals, unless otherwise stated. I sincerely thank my opponent. Hopefully we can get into a productive, substantive discussion on the topic and not get stuck in semantic ditches.

Society

Bestiality-ought-to-be-illegal/1/

I thank my opponent for taking on this debate. To make a reasonable argument that bestiality ought to be illegal, my opponent will at least need to demonstrate that bestiality is A) a significant threat to the human who commits the act; B) a significant threat to the animal that receives the act; or C) a significant threat to society. Failing these, he will need to demonstrate the value of making a harmless act illegal. Argument B, that bestiality is a significant threat to the animal that receives the sex act, is the most common justification for making such acts illegal. Thus, this is what I will address as my primary counter-argument. Claim: Bestiality is physically abusive. Response: Bestiality is not necessarily committed with physical abuse. If the sex act does result in physical injury, existing laws against animal cruelty would account for that. For example, in the state of Oregon, there are three offenses for which a person could potentially be prosecuted[1]: -> Animal abuse in the second degree: "...Causes physical injury to an animal." -> Animal abuse in the first degree: "...Causes serious physical injury to an animal; or ... Cruelly causes the death of an animal." -> Aggravated animal abuse in the first degree: "...Maliciously kills an animal; or ... Intentionally or knowingly tortures an animal." Considering this, legislating against bestiality would be a frivolous gesture. Claim: Bestiality is rape. Response: While this sentiment may have compassionate intent, it not only mischaracterizes many acts of zoophilia, it also sets a misleading presumption for the nature of sex in animals. Consent is a normal part of human sexual relations, but not necessarily for that of animals. Sexual coercion has been observed, sometimes as a social strategy, in many mammal species, such as dolphins and other primates.[2][3] This does not justify a forceful sexual assault of an animal, but it shows that we should not expect to establish consent in the same way that we do for other humans. This said, animals can, in fact, show consent. A healthy, mobile animal is capable of resisting unwanted touch and encouraging pleasurable petting. Animals even initiate sex acts with humans, often in the form of a male animal advancing on a person to thrust his pelvis against the person.[4] Neither of these claims justify making bestiality illegal. Any additional concerns that my opponent may bring up will be addressed in the next round. I eagerly await my opponent's argument. Sources: 1. <URL>... 2. <URL>... 3. <URL>... 4. <URL>...

ravenwaen

I thank my opponent for taking on this debate. To make a reasonable argument that bestiality ought to be illegal, my opponent will at least need to demonstrate that bestiality is A) a significant threat to the human who commits the act; B) a significant threat to the animal that receives the act; or C) a significant threat to society. Failing these, he will need to demonstrate the value of making a harmless act illegal. Argument B, that bestiality is a significant threat to the animal that receives the sex act, is the most common justification for making such acts illegal. Thus, this is what I will address as my primary counter-argument. Claim: Bestiality is physically abusive. Response: Bestiality is not necessarily committed with physical abuse. If the sex act does result in physical injury, existing laws against animal cruelty would account for that. For example, in the state of Oregon, there are three offenses for which a person could potentially be prosecuted[1]: -> Animal abuse in the second degree: "...Causes physical injury to an animal." -> Animal abuse in the first degree: "...Causes serious physical injury to an animal; or ... Cruelly causes the death of an animal." -> Aggravated animal abuse in the first degree: "...Maliciously kills an animal; or ... Intentionally or knowingly tortures an animal." Considering this, legislating against bestiality would be a frivolous gesture. Claim: Bestiality is rape. Response: While this sentiment may have compassionate intent, it not only mischaracterizes many acts of zoophilia, it also sets a misleading presumption for the nature of sex in animals. Consent is a normal part of human sexual relations, but not necessarily for that of animals. Sexual coercion has been observed, sometimes as a social strategy, in many mammal species, such as dolphins and other primates.[2][3] This does not justify a forceful sexual assault of an animal, but it shows that we should not expect to establish consent in the same way that we do for other humans. This said, animals can, in fact, show consent. A healthy, mobile animal is capable of resisting unwanted touch and encouraging pleasurable petting. Animals even initiate sex acts with humans, often in the form of a male animal advancing on a person to thrust his pelvis against the person.[4] Neither of these claims justify making bestiality illegal. Any additional concerns that my opponent may bring up will be addressed in the next round. I eagerly await my opponent's argument. Sources: 1. http://asci.uvm.edu... 2. http://www.nytimes.com... 3. http://www.sciencedirect.com... 4. http://www.utilitarian.net...

Society

Bestiality-ought-to-be-illegal/1/

As requested, I've waited to post my argument. My opponent states his argument as "bestiality is similar to rape," but he has not demonstrated that this is true. But before I address my opponent's claims, I will note that he speaks with the assumption that many or most acts of bestiality are abusive or non-consensual. This ignorantly disregards healthy, mutually beneficial zoophilic relationships. "Animal DNA is hard coded to accept un consented sex within their species. even if they resist, that would only be applicable to that one species and it is still better than with another specie (human)." This is simply false. Scientists have widely observed sexual harassment and coercion in cross-species partnerships.[1] Animals even sexually harass humans -- a dog who humps someone's leg does not ask their consent beforehand. "Forceful assault does not necessarily leave obvious marks, and when it does there is no guarantee it can be traced, beyond a reasonable doubt, to the rape." This could be easily applied to sexual coercion between humans, yet we do not make all acts of sex illegal. My opponent is attempting to apply a human standard to animal affairs, but even the human standard does not make the case. "Unwanted action could still happen, and the human could say the animal consented, whose going to argue." Once again, my opponent tries to apply a strictly human standard to animal affairs when I have already shown that this is a faulty framework. We do not require consent for slaughtering, enslaving, or breeding animals, thus the human standard does not and cannot always legally apply. "I challenge con to think of away we can limit abuse to the point we can justify legalizing bestiality." Here my opponent makes two grand implications: 1) that sexual abuse to animals is an active problem, and 2) that making bestiality illegal will deter offenders. My opponent provides evidence for neither of these claims. Also, I would like to remind my opponent that, although there are currently laws against bestiality, the default state is that it is not prohibited by law. To claim that it ought to be gives you the burden of proof. My responses show the weighty flaws in the original claim, that "bestiality is similar to rape," and my opponent does not show why any remaining connections between those two acts justify legislating against bestiality. Sources: 1. <URL>...

ravenwaen

As requested, I've waited to post my argument. My opponent states his argument as "bestiality is similar to rape," but he has not demonstrated that this is true. But before I address my opponent's claims, I will note that he speaks with the assumption that many or most acts of bestiality are abusive or non-consensual. This ignorantly disregards healthy, mutually beneficial zoophilic relationships. "Animal DNA is hard coded to accept un consented sex within their species. even if they resist, that would only be applicable to that one species and it is still better than with another specie (human)." This is simply false. Scientists have widely observed sexual harassment and coercion in cross-species partnerships.[1] Animals even sexually harass humans -- a dog who humps someone's leg does not ask their consent beforehand. "Forceful assault does not necessarily leave obvious marks, and when it does there is no guarantee it can be traced, beyond a reasonable doubt, to the rape." This could be easily applied to sexual coercion between humans, yet we do not make all acts of sex illegal. My opponent is attempting to apply a human standard to animal affairs, but even the human standard does not make the case. "Unwanted action could still happen, and the human could say the animal consented, whose going to argue." Once again, my opponent tries to apply a strictly human standard to animal affairs when I have already shown that this is a faulty framework. We do not require consent for slaughtering, enslaving, or breeding animals, thus the human standard does not and cannot always legally apply. "I challenge con to think of away we can limit abuse to the point we can justify legalizing bestiality." Here my opponent makes two grand implications: 1) that sexual abuse to animals is an active problem, and 2) that making bestiality illegal will deter offenders. My opponent provides evidence for neither of these claims. Also, I would like to remind my opponent that, although there are currently laws against bestiality, the default state is that it is not prohibited by law. To claim that it ought to be gives you the burden of proof. My responses show the weighty flaws in the original claim, that "bestiality is similar to rape," and my opponent does not show why any remaining connections between those two acts justify legislating against bestiality. Sources: 1. http://news.bbc.co.uk...

Society

Bestiality-ought-to-be-illegal/1/

I thank my opponent for his prompt reply. On a quick note of conduct, my opponent has now incorrectly referred to me as a man multiple times. This is despite my portrait, my profile, and having been corrected in the comments section. BURDEN OF PROOF "Con has refused my challenge, instead of answering he shifted the burden back to me. This implies he does not have an answer" Simply, no. I, in fact, did respond to my opponent's "challenge" by showing that it was a flawed argument. I will do so again but with greater clarity. First, my opponent does not recognize that he has the burden of proof. I maintain that he DOES, and it it not difficult to understand why. Our legal system does not hold that everything is illegal unless made legal -- rather, the opposite. So by default, bestiality is legal unless specifically prohibited, the action which my opponent argues in favor of. By making this positive claim, he has the burden of proof. Thus, it is not up to me to "justify legalizing bestiality." And second, I will address my opponent's defense of his challenge. He has, indeed, shown the POSSIBILITY that a person could sexually abuse an animal, either knowingly or unknowingly. It remains that he needs to demonstrate that making bestiality illegal would be an effective deterrent for this offense, what he implies to be true. CONSENT My opponent's argument is largely based on the notion that an act of bestiality could be non-consensual, which he implies is bad enough on its own to justify legislating against the entirety of bestiality. Clearly he regards "consent" with great importance, but I will continue to show that this perspective is flawed. --> Non-consensual sex does not necessarily harm an animal. Our society regards non-consensual sex as inherently harmful and deviant. But it is important to ask, does an animal suffer when they experience non-consensual sex? I reason that we should not assume they suffer in the same way that humans do, primarily because sexual coercion is, to some extent, a normal part of animal behavior. My opponent on cross-species sexual coercion: "according to your source it is incredibly rare, and has only been observed in non-closely related species once." This is a heavy misrepresentation of my source. Allow me to quote it directly: "Harassment is common among pinnipeds ... and occasionally it happens between related species. Male grey seals have been known to harass and mate with female harbour seals, for example." It is, of course, more common in closer-related species, but the only "incredibly rare" part is when it occurs between different classes of vertebrates (bird, fish, reptile, etc.). --> The consent principle conflicts with existing condoned practices. As I noted in my previous post, consent is not required to slaughter, enslave, or breed animals, all acts sometimes committed for no benefit to society other than our own enjoyment. It would be difficult to argue that sex causes more harm to an animal than being killed, enslaved, or forcibly impregnated, yet that is the act for which my opponent believes deserves a high standard of consent. The hypocrisy needs no further explanation. My opponent on other practices that abuse animals: "This could possibly be the most dangerous argument in history. 'We are not perfect so lets do whatever we want.'" By making the straw man fallacy, he has failed to refute the hypocrisy I have identified. I have clearly shown what my opponent needs, and what he has neglected, to demonstrate. His argument in regards to consent simply falls through. This has been an engaging debate and I thank my opponent for his participation.

ravenwaen

I thank my opponent for his prompt reply. On a quick note of conduct, my opponent has now incorrectly referred to me as a man multiple times. This is despite my portrait, my profile, and having been corrected in the comments section. BURDEN OF PROOF "Con has refused my challenge, instead of answering he shifted the burden back to me. This implies he does not have an answer" Simply, no. I, in fact, did respond to my opponent's "challenge" by showing that it was a flawed argument. I will do so again but with greater clarity. First, my opponent does not recognize that he has the burden of proof. I maintain that he DOES, and it it not difficult to understand why. Our legal system does not hold that everything is illegal unless made legal -- rather, the opposite. So by default, bestiality is legal unless specifically prohibited, the action which my opponent argues in favor of. By making this positive claim, he has the burden of proof. Thus, it is not up to me to "justify legalizing bestiality." And second, I will address my opponent's defense of his challenge. He has, indeed, shown the POSSIBILITY that a person could sexually abuse an animal, either knowingly or unknowingly. It remains that he needs to demonstrate that making bestiality illegal would be an effective deterrent for this offense, what he implies to be true. CONSENT My opponent's argument is largely based on the notion that an act of bestiality could be non-consensual, which he implies is bad enough on its own to justify legislating against the entirety of bestiality. Clearly he regards "consent" with great importance, but I will continue to show that this perspective is flawed. --> Non-consensual sex does not necessarily harm an animal. Our society regards non-consensual sex as inherently harmful and deviant. But it is important to ask, does an animal suffer when they experience non-consensual sex? I reason that we should not assume they suffer in the same way that humans do, primarily because sexual coercion is, to some extent, a normal part of animal behavior. My opponent on cross-species sexual coercion: "according to your source it is incredibly rare, and has only been observed in non-closely related species once." This is a heavy misrepresentation of my source. Allow me to quote it directly: "Harassment is common among pinnipeds ... and occasionally it happens between related species. Male grey seals have been known to harass and mate with female harbour seals, for example." It is, of course, more common in closer-related species, but the only "incredibly rare" part is when it occurs between different classes of vertebrates (bird, fish, reptile, etc.). --> The consent principle conflicts with existing condoned practices. As I noted in my previous post, consent is not required to slaughter, enslave, or breed animals, all acts sometimes committed for no benefit to society other than our own enjoyment. It would be difficult to argue that sex causes more harm to an animal than being killed, enslaved, or forcibly impregnated, yet that is the act for which my opponent believes deserves a high standard of consent. The hypocrisy needs no further explanation. My opponent on other practices that abuse animals: "This could possibly be the most dangerous argument in history. 'We are not perfect so lets do whatever we want.'" By making the straw man fallacy, he has failed to refute the hypocrisy I have identified. I have clearly shown what my opponent needs, and what he has neglected, to demonstrate. His argument in regards to consent simply falls through. This has been an engaging debate and I thank my opponent for his participation.

Society

Bestiality-ought-to-be-illegal/1/

First round is for acceptance only. Bestiality = sex between a human and a non-human animal Because bestiality is currently legal in many states (such as Texas), the BOP is on Pro to argue for a change to the status quo.

bluesteel

First round is for acceptance only. Bestiality = sex between a human and a non-human animal Because bestiality is currently legal in many states (such as Texas), the BOP is on Pro to argue for a change to the status quo.

Entertainment

Bestiality-should-be-illegal-in-all-cases-in-the-United-States/2/

== Definitions == Bestiality = sex between a human and a non-human animal "Illegal in all cases" means that Pro must prove that every instance of bestiality should be illegal, regardless of circumstances. If Con wins a single example where bestiality should be legal, then Con wins the debate. Zoophile = a person who is sexually attracted to animals; the term is often used to denote someone who is part of the "zoophile" [or "zoo"] community, meaning the person has sex with animals on a semi-regular to regular basis. == Argument == 1) Animals can consent ---(A)--- Animals with advanced cognition and language skills If the only reason that humans cannot have sex with animals is lack of consent, Pro loses because there are clear examples of animals that can give consent. Chimpanzees have advanced cognition and language skills, including the ability to learn human sign language.[1] In theory, a person could teach a chimpanzee enough sign language so that the chimpanzee could actually consent to sex with a human. In addition, Homo sapiens are the most advanced animal species currently discovered . If humans found an ultra-intelligent alien species, it would be classified as part of the "Animal Kingdom." Animalia is characterized as a group of multi-cellular organisms that are capable of movement. An intelligent alien species that met this characterization would therefore be considered an "animal." If this alien species was equally as intelligent as humans, it could most definitely consent to sex with humans. Con wins even if you think bestiality should only be legal if it is with a small subset of [highly intelligent] non-human animals. ---(B)--- Less intelligent species can consent as well Even dogs can consent to sex with humans. According to an expert zoophile, "Animals cannot verbally say yes or no to sex in our human languages but they have other ways to show how they feel. Surely a dog who has mounted, say his human lover, experiences pleasure. This is evident because of his orgasm. Female dogs have orgasms too. Once a dog for example realizes you as a sexual being, they show sexual desire quite often: females will sway their tales revealing their swollen vagina's and dry hump the air in front of you, males will become erect and try to mount. Anyone who is [a] zoo[phile] will be aware of when their animals want sex. More importantly, they will respect their animal partner when they do not want sex. Sometimes when you rub your partner down there they will pull away and sit elsewhere. That is how animals show they are either interested or not. If an animal does not enjoy what is happening to them they will show bodily signs of this: they will tense up, their eyes and ears will move, tails might jitter, and they will pull away. If you continue it could bring painful results: Dogs have powerful teeth and will bite you! Horses can break bones (or worse) with a single kick. Quite simply, it is obvious to see what causes pleasure and pain." [2] This quote raises two important points: (1) consent can be inferred from an animal"s behavior, and (2) there are female zoophiles! If a human woman is having sex with her dog, it is hard to argue that the dog did not consent because the dog has to mount the woman and do all of the work. The dog could disengage at any time. Dog physiology is not conducive to the woman "being on top." Dogs can only do it doggy style. So there is literally no way that a female human could rape a male dog. The fact that zoophile sex happens between human females and male dogs proves consent. The fact that wild animals have made sexual advances on humans proves that they want inter-species sex. "Animal sexual advances on, and attempted interactions with humans . . . have been documented by ethologists such as Kohler, Gerald Durrell and Desmond Morris, [and] Birute Galdikas who studied orangutans in Borneo. For example, Peter Singer recounts: While walking through the camp with Galdikas, [our companion] was suddenly seized by a large male orangutan, his intentions made obvious by his erect penis. Fighting off so powerful an animal was not an option, but Galdikas called to her companion not to be concerned, because the orangutan would not harm her, and adding, as further reassurance, that 'they have a very small penis,' As it happened, the orangutan lost interest before penetration took place, but the aspect of the story that struck me most forcefully was that in the eyes of someone who has lived much of her life with orangutans, to be seen by one of them as an object of sexual interest is not a cause for shock or horror. The potential violence of the orangutan's come-on may have been disturbing, but the fact that it was an orangutan making the advances was not." [3] [7] 2) Even if animals cannot consent, sex with animals is morally permissible ---(A)--- Animals are not morally considerable beings Professor Oderberg argues that rationality is a necessary pre-requisite for a being to have moral rights because to be morally considerable, a being must have (1) knowledge of its moral rights, and (2) the freedom to exercise those rights. [4] Animals have neither. Animals lack the self-reflective ability to know that they have rights. Even if we granted moral rights to animals and gave them a right "not to be killed," an animal would not realize it had this right or know how to assert the right. In addition, animals do not have the freedom to exercise their rights because in our society, animals are viewed as property. An animal enclosed in a pen on a farmer"s land cannot assert that it has a "right to be free." The same conclusion is reached through social contract theory, which posits that humans give up certain rights when they become part of a society. As John Stuart Mills explained, humans agree that in order for the proper functioning of society, when their rights come in conflict with another person"s rights (and thereby harm that person), the State can adjudicate these competing rights claims and prohibit certain behavior. However, non-humans are not part of the social contract, in part because they are not part of "society" [since animals are property, not members of society] and in part because they do not themselves agree to be bound by the social contract (i.e., they never "signed" the contract). Therefore, under Mills" harm principle, harm to animals cannot be a basis for prohibiting conduct. Conduct can only be prohibited if it harms another human being. In conclusion, animals are not morally considerable beings, and therefore humans can do anything they want to animals. In our current society, humans can legally kill animals for pleasure when they are hunting. Since rape is generally considered to be less bad than murder, raping animals for pleasure cannot be worse ethically than murdering animals for pleasure [hunting]. The United States has no moral leg to stand on in banning bestiality unless it also bans hunting. In addition, animals rape each other all the time and are never held to account. For example, approximately one-third of all duck sex is forcible rape.[5] If the concern about animal rape is the violation of bodily autonomy, there is no moral distinction between a duck raping another duck and a human raping a duck. Once again, the US has no moral leg to stand on unless it starts incarcerating ducks for committing rape. Lastly, humans facilitate animal rape all the time. When humans breed animals, they often lock the female animal in a cage with an extremely enthusiastic male, and she is forced to copulate with him - whether or not she consents. There is no moral distinction between forcing an animal to copulate with another animal versus with a human [because the violation of bodily autonomy is the same]. The distinction cannot be out-of-species sex, since we force lions and tigers to breed (to form ligers) and donkeys and horses to breed (to produce mules). The only way that it could be morally permissible for us to facilitate animal rape is if animals are not morally considerable beings and are therefore merely property that the owner can do with as he or she likes. Liger: ---(B)--- Utilitarianism Utilitarianism posits that policies that cause more harm than good should be abandoned and policies that cause more benefit than detriment should be adopted . However, when evaluating harm in the utilitarian calculation, "harm to animals" is not considered (in our society). As philosopher Peter Singer has argued, if you take into account harm to animals, this mandates vegetarianism is most cases because humans could sustain themselves on nothing but vegetables and this avoids a great deal of suffering on the part of animals. The harm to animals would outweigh any marginal benefit to our diets or the pleasure from eating meat. Since the US is not a vegetarian nation, it cannot adopt a utilitarian framework that considers harm to animals as a factor. Ergo, if harm to animals does not matter, there is no reason that a human cannot have sex with an animal, even absent consent. However, even if animals were morally considerable, there is no evidence that rape harms them. Many animals (such as ducks) are raped all the time by others of their species. This is a normal form of reproduction in the wild. Animals do not have the same complex psychologies as humans, and often do not attach the same emotional significance to sex. Our emotional attachments from sex stem from our pair bonding instincts, but most animals do not form long term pair bonds in the wild. For this reason, their bodies do not secrete the pair bonding hormones during sex that create long-term emotional attachments. So even if harm to animals were considered under utilitarianism, the balance would still come out in favor of allowing bestiality because there is little to no lasting psychological or physical harm from the sex. The costs of illegality outweigh the benefits. Between 3.5 and 8 percent of Americans admit to having had sex with an animal at least once.[7] It would cost $5.4 trillion to incarcerate every bestiality offender in the United States. [6] In addition, studies show that sexual frustration leads to rape. [8] For example, when prostitutes and pornography are more available in a society, the amount of rape declines drastically.[8] If zoophiles are not allowed to satisfy their sexual urges on animals, they may take out their sexual frustration on other humans. On balance, making bestiality illegal does more harm than good. 3) Bestiality laws cannot be constitutionally enforced It is impossible to enforce a bestiality law without violating the Constitution. People have a right to privacy, and the Supreme Court said in Griswold v. Connecticut and reaffirmed in Lawrence v. Texas that the bedroom is a private place that the State should not be barging into. The Constitution does not allow the law enforcement tactics that would be necessary to enforce bestiality laws because such methods violate the Constitutional right to privacy inherent in the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Therefore, because bestiality laws are unconstitutional, vote Con. [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... [5] <URL>... [6] $28,000 average cost of incarceration per year (assuming 2 years in prison); $10,000 cost to arrest [ <URL>... ]; $42,000 per hour court costs (assuming a short 3 hour trial) [ <URL>... ] [7] <URL>... [8] <URL>...

bluesteel

== Definitions == Bestiality = sex between a human and a non-human animal "Illegal in all cases" means that Pro must prove that every instance of bestiality should be illegal, regardless of circumstances. If Con wins a single example where bestiality should be legal, then Con wins the debate. Zoophile = a person who is sexually attracted to animals; the term is often used to denote someone who is part of the "zoophile" [or "zoo"] community, meaning the person has sex with animals on a semi-regular to regular basis. == Argument == 1) Animals can consent ---(A)--- Animals with advanced cognition and language skills If the only reason that humans cannot have sex with animals is lack of consent, Pro loses because there are clear examples of animals that can give consent. Chimpanzees have advanced cognition and language skills, including the ability to learn human sign language.[1] In theory, a person could teach a chimpanzee enough sign language so that the chimpanzee could actually consent to sex with a human. In addition, Homo sapiens are the most advanced animal species currently discovered . If humans found an ultra-intelligent alien species, it would be classified as part of the "Animal Kingdom." Animalia is characterized as a group of multi-cellular organisms that are capable of movement. An intelligent alien species that met this characterization would therefore be considered an "animal." If this alien species was equally as intelligent as humans, it could most definitely consent to sex with humans. Con wins even if you think bestiality should only be legal if it is with a small subset of [highly intelligent] non-human animals. ---(B)--- Less intelligent species can consent as well Even dogs can consent to sex with humans. According to an expert zoophile, "Animals cannot verbally say yes or no to sex in our human languages but they have other ways to show how they feel. Surely a dog who has mounted, say his human lover, experiences pleasure. This is evident because of his orgasm. Female dogs have orgasms too. Once a dog for example realizes you as a sexual being, they show sexual desire quite often: females will sway their tales revealing their swollen vagina's and dry hump the air in front of you, males will become erect and try to mount. Anyone who is [a] zoo[phile] will be aware of when their animals want sex. More importantly, they will respect their animal partner when they do not want sex. Sometimes when you rub your partner down there they will pull away and sit elsewhere. That is how animals show they are either interested or not. If an animal does not enjoy what is happening to them they will show bodily signs of this: they will tense up, their eyes and ears will move, tails might jitter, and they will pull away. If you continue it could bring painful results: Dogs have powerful teeth and will bite you! Horses can break bones (or worse) with a single kick. Quite simply, it is obvious to see what causes pleasure and pain." [2] This quote raises two important points: (1) consent can be inferred from an animal"s behavior, and (2) there are female zoophiles! If a human woman is having sex with her dog, it is hard to argue that the dog did not consent because the dog has to mount the woman and do all of the work. The dog could disengage at any time. Dog physiology is not conducive to the woman "being on top." Dogs can only do it doggy style. So there is literally no way that a female human could rape a male dog. The fact that zoophile sex happens between human females and male dogs proves consent. The fact that wild animals have made sexual advances on humans proves that they want inter-species sex. "Animal sexual advances on, and attempted interactions with humans . . . have been documented by ethologists such as Kohler, Gerald Durrell and Desmond Morris, [and] Birute Galdikas who studied orangutans in Borneo. For example, Peter Singer recounts: While walking through the camp with Galdikas, [our companion] was suddenly seized by a large male orangutan, his intentions made obvious by his erect penis. Fighting off so powerful an animal was not an option, but Galdikas called to her companion not to be concerned, because the orangutan would not harm her, and adding, as further reassurance, that 'they have a very small penis,' As it happened, the orangutan lost interest before penetration took place, but the aspect of the story that struck me most forcefully was that in the eyes of someone who has lived much of her life with orangutans, to be seen by one of them as an object of sexual interest is not a cause for shock or horror. The potential violence of the orangutan's come-on may have been disturbing, but the fact that it was an orangutan making the advances was not." [3] [7] 2) Even if animals cannot consent, sex with animals is morally permissible ---(A)--- Animals are not morally considerable beings Professor Oderberg argues that rationality is a necessary pre-requisite for a being to have moral rights because to be morally considerable, a being must have (1) knowledge of its moral rights, and (2) the freedom to exercise those rights. [4] Animals have neither. Animals lack the self-reflective ability to know that they have rights. Even if we granted moral rights to animals and gave them a right "not to be killed," an animal would not realize it had this right or know how to assert the right. In addition, animals do not have the freedom to exercise their rights because in our society, animals are viewed as property. An animal enclosed in a pen on a farmer"s land cannot assert that it has a "right to be free." The same conclusion is reached through social contract theory, which posits that humans give up certain rights when they become part of a society. As John Stuart Mills explained, humans agree that in order for the proper functioning of society, when their rights come in conflict with another person"s rights (and thereby harm that person), the State can adjudicate these competing rights claims and prohibit certain behavior. However, non-humans are not part of the social contract, in part because they are not part of "society" [since animals are property, not members of society] and in part because they do not themselves agree to be bound by the social contract (i.e., they never "signed" the contract). Therefore, under Mills" harm principle, harm to animals cannot be a basis for prohibiting conduct. Conduct can only be prohibited if it harms another human being. In conclusion, animals are not morally considerable beings, and therefore humans can do anything they want to animals. In our current society, humans can legally kill animals for pleasure when they are hunting. Since rape is generally considered to be less bad than murder, raping animals for pleasure cannot be worse ethically than murdering animals for pleasure [hunting]. The United States has no moral leg to stand on in banning bestiality unless it also bans hunting. In addition, animals rape each other all the time and are never held to account. For example, approximately one-third of all duck sex is forcible rape.[5] If the concern about animal rape is the violation of bodily autonomy, there is no moral distinction between a duck raping another duck and a human raping a duck. Once again, the US has no moral leg to stand on unless it starts incarcerating ducks for committing rape. Lastly, humans facilitate animal rape all the time. When humans breed animals, they often lock the female animal in a cage with an extremely enthusiastic male, and she is forced to copulate with him - whether or not she consents. There is no moral distinction between forcing an animal to copulate with another animal versus with a human [because the violation of bodily autonomy is the same]. The distinction cannot be out-of-species sex, since we force lions and tigers to breed (to form ligers) and donkeys and horses to breed (to produce mules). The only way that it could be morally permissible for us to facilitate animal rape is if animals are not morally considerable beings and are therefore merely property that the owner can do with as he or she likes. Liger: ---(B)--- Utilitarianism Utilitarianism posits that policies that cause more harm than good should be abandoned and policies that cause more benefit than detriment should be adopted . However, when evaluating harm in the utilitarian calculation, "harm to animals" is not considered (in our society). As philosopher Peter Singer has argued, if you take into account harm to animals, this mandates vegetarianism is most cases because humans could sustain themselves on nothing but vegetables and this avoids a great deal of suffering on the part of animals. The harm to animals would outweigh any marginal benefit to our diets or the pleasure from eating meat. Since the US is not a vegetarian nation, it cannot adopt a utilitarian framework that considers harm to animals as a factor. Ergo, if harm to animals does not matter, there is no reason that a human cannot have sex with an animal, even absent consent. However, even if animals were morally considerable, there is no evidence that rape harms them. Many animals (such as ducks) are raped all the time by others of their species. This is a normal form of reproduction in the wild. Animals do not have the same complex psychologies as humans, and often do not attach the same emotional significance to sex. Our emotional attachments from sex stem from our pair bonding instincts, but most animals do not form long term pair bonds in the wild. For this reason, their bodies do not secrete the pair bonding hormones during sex that create long-term emotional attachments. So even if harm to animals were considered under utilitarianism, the balance would still come out in favor of allowing bestiality because there is little to no lasting psychological or physical harm from the sex. The costs of illegality outweigh the benefits. Between 3.5 and 8 percent of Americans admit to having had sex with an animal at least once.[7] It would cost $5.4 trillion to incarcerate every bestiality offender in the United States. [6] In addition, studies show that sexual frustration leads to rape. [8] For example, when prostitutes and pornography are more available in a society, the amount of rape declines drastically.[8] If zoophiles are not allowed to satisfy their sexual urges on animals, they may take out their sexual frustration on other humans. On balance, making bestiality illegal does more harm than good. 3) Bestiality laws cannot be constitutionally enforced It is impossible to enforce a bestiality law without violating the Constitution. People have a right to privacy, and the Supreme Court said in Griswold v. Connecticut and reaffirmed in Lawrence v. Texas that the bedroom is a private place that the State should not be barging into. The Constitution does not allow the law enforcement tactics that would be necessary to enforce bestiality laws because such methods violate the Constitutional right to privacy inherent in the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Therefore, because bestiality laws are unconstitutional, vote Con. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] $28,000 average cost of incarceration per year (assuming 2 years in prison); $10,000 cost to arrest [ http://tinyurl.com... ]; $42,000 per hour court costs (assuming a short 3 hour trial) [ http://tinyurl.com... ] [7] http://web.archive.org... [8] http://www.debate.org...

Entertainment

Bestiality-should-be-illegal-in-all-cases-in-the-United-States/2/

Remember, based on the rules for this debate in Round 1, Pro accepted the burden of proof. Pro completely fails to justify bestiality"s illegality (in all cases). Pro does not offer any example of an ethical system that would justify the adoption of anti-bestiality laws. Pro merely attempts to shift the burden to me and offers a few scant refutations of my arguments. Do not let Pro bring up new arguments in the final Round because I do not have a chance to respond. ==Rebuttal== R1) Animal Consent Isn"t Valid Pro argues about age of consent laws. However, there can only be two possible justifications for age of consent laws: (1) people under the age of consent are not sexually mature, so they are too young to make decisions about sex [pre-puberty] or (2) people under the age of consent lack the emotional sophistication to consent because they do not realize the ways in which sex can be emotionally harmful. As to #1, animals reach sexual maturity at much younger ages than humans, and only mature animals would show sexual interest in others. Animals are driven by biology, so without sex hormones coursing through their bodies, immature animals would never make sexual advances upon humans. Remember my argument about consent from last Round says that consent would be inferred from the animal"s behavior. So there is no need for complex laws (as my opponent claims) to define the age of consent for each animal. The rule would simply be that only consensual bestiality would be legal. And because sexually immature animals would never engage in sexual behavior, they could never be deemed to have consented to sex. As to #2, remember my argument from the previous Round [under 2B], in which I argued that animals do not attach any emotional significance to sex. The burden is on my opponent to prove that animals can be harmed psychologically by sex. If animals cannot be harmed psychologically by sex, then the argument cannot be used that they are not "emotionally advanced" enough to consent. Because they do not have the same emotions as humans in the first place, animals cannot have these emotions "hurt." Therefore, my opponent cannot use an analogy to sexually and emotionally immature humans to argue that animals cannot consent. If animals can consent, my opponent loses. My opponent brings up that animals lack "theory of mind," but my opponent never explains what is uniquely important about theory of mind. Theory of mind is the ability to see something from another"s perspective. Here is the typical theory of mind test: There is a basket and a box in the room. The subject watches one person (Sally) come into the room and place a marble inside the basket. Then Sally leaves the room. The subject watches another person (Anne) come into the room and move the marble from inside the basket to inside the box. The subject is then asked where Sally will look for the marble when she re-enters the room. Someone without theory of mind will answer, "the box," because the person knows that the marble is in the box and is unable to see things from Sally"s perspective. Someone who has theory of mind says, "the basket," because this person realize that Sally did not see Anne move the marble, so Sally will still think it"s in the basket. However, my opponent never explains why "theory of mind" is necessary for consent to sexual intercourse. The burden of explaining this is on my opponent. Thus, Pro offers no definitive proof that animals cannot consent. Therefore, Con wins the debate on the consent argument alone. R2) Sex with non-consenting animals is morally permissible My opponent merely asserts that "animal cruelty is unethical." He never explains why. Moral Nihilism posits that beliefs about morality are entirely subjective, and therefore the statement that "X is immoral" is nothing more than a personal opinion. There cannot be objective morality because people have disagreements about what is moral and immoral (e.g. about the death penalty, abortion, etc.) However, if there are no objective moral truths, then all morality is subjective, which means that every single moral assertion is simply one person"s opinion. And there is no reason that one person"s opinion is any more valid than another person"s opinion. In contrast to Pro, who merely recites an opinion about what is ethical, I show that we cannot accept animals as being morally considerable beings because under utilitarianism, if animals were morally considerable we could not hunt them for pleasure and we could not eat them [because we could instead survive on vegetables, without causing pain to animals]. However, currently the United States allows hunting and allows people to consume meat. Therefore, there is no moral basis for considering animals to be morally considerable for purposes of bestiality, but not for any other purpose. In fact, rape is less bad than murder. And we can murder animals just for the fun of it [hunting]. In addition, my opponent drops the argument under social contract theory (SCT). SCT attempts to derive the ethical justification for the state"s use of power because people have an inalienable right to liberty. Mills argued that people choose to join a society for protection from other people, so they agree that the only time the state can restrict their liberty is when their actions might harm other people. Animals are not part of the social contract, so using the state police power to outlaw bestiality based on harm to animals is an illegitimate and unethical use of the state coercive power to impinge upon the inalienable right to liberty. Illegalizing bestiality therefore is itself immoral. The State should not be allowed to criminalize anything it pleases, otherwise it could make anything illegal. Thus, vote Con because there are ethical limits on the State"s power to criminalize. And harm to animals is not morally sufficient reason to restrain liberty. R3) Bestiality laws can and should be enforced In the case of statutory rape, the State has decided that protecting children is such a substantial state interest that it outweighs the private to privacy. However, this is not the case for animals. There is not a single Supreme Court case in which the Court has held that animal welfare is a reason to deny people their fundamental rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Therefore, bestiality laws are still unconstitutional. Pro claims that gay marriage is illegal in many states, but "illegal" in this context merely means that the State refuses to grant them a marriage license. It does not mean they are not allowed to have sex. Pro claims sodomy is illegal in 14 states, but these laws were found to be unconstitutional in the Supreme Court"s decision in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. Pro also makes some claims about me being a hypocrite, but none of the views on my profile reflect my true beliefs. Even if they did, this isn"t a good argument. In conclusion, Pro loses because Pro fails to offer any ethical system that would justify adopting a bestiality law, whereas I show that our current society has decidedly refused to recognize animals as morally considerable beings [because we can hunt and kill animals for pleasure]. There is therefore no moral justification for prohibiting even the raping of animals. Since Pro fails his BOP, vote Con.

bluesteel

Remember, based on the rules for this debate in Round 1, Pro accepted the burden of proof. Pro completely fails to justify bestiality"s illegality (in all cases). Pro does not offer any example of an ethical system that would justify the adoption of anti-bestiality laws. Pro merely attempts to shift the burden to me and offers a few scant refutations of my arguments. Do not let Pro bring up new arguments in the final Round because I do not have a chance to respond. ==Rebuttal== R1) Animal Consent Isn"t Valid Pro argues about age of consent laws. However, there can only be two possible justifications for age of consent laws: (1) people under the age of consent are not sexually mature, so they are too young to make decisions about sex [pre-puberty] or (2) people under the age of consent lack the emotional sophistication to consent because they do not realize the ways in which sex can be emotionally harmful. As to #1, animals reach sexual maturity at much younger ages than humans, and only mature animals would show sexual interest in others. Animals are driven by biology, so without sex hormones coursing through their bodies, immature animals would never make sexual advances upon humans. Remember my argument about consent from last Round says that consent would be inferred from the animal"s behavior. So there is no need for complex laws (as my opponent claims) to define the age of consent for each animal. The rule would simply be that only consensual bestiality would be legal. And because sexually immature animals would never engage in sexual behavior, they could never be deemed to have consented to sex. As to #2, remember my argument from the previous Round [under 2B], in which I argued that animals do not attach any emotional significance to sex. The burden is on my opponent to prove that animals can be harmed psychologically by sex. If animals cannot be harmed psychologically by sex, then the argument cannot be used that they are not "emotionally advanced" enough to consent. Because they do not have the same emotions as humans in the first place, animals cannot have these emotions "hurt." Therefore, my opponent cannot use an analogy to sexually and emotionally immature humans to argue that animals cannot consent. If animals can consent, my opponent loses. My opponent brings up that animals lack "theory of mind," but my opponent never explains what is uniquely important about theory of mind. Theory of mind is the ability to see something from another"s perspective. Here is the typical theory of mind test: There is a basket and a box in the room. The subject watches one person (Sally) come into the room and place a marble inside the basket. Then Sally leaves the room. The subject watches another person (Anne) come into the room and move the marble from inside the basket to inside the box. The subject is then asked where Sally will look for the marble when she re-enters the room. Someone without theory of mind will answer, "the box," because the person knows that the marble is in the box and is unable to see things from Sally"s perspective. Someone who has theory of mind says, "the basket," because this person realize that Sally did not see Anne move the marble, so Sally will still think it"s in the basket. However, my opponent never explains why "theory of mind" is necessary for consent to sexual intercourse. The burden of explaining this is on my opponent. Thus, Pro offers no definitive proof that animals cannot consent. Therefore, Con wins the debate on the consent argument alone. R2) Sex with non-consenting animals is morally permissible My opponent merely asserts that "animal cruelty is unethical." He never explains why. Moral Nihilism posits that beliefs about morality are entirely subjective, and therefore the statement that "X is immoral" is nothing more than a personal opinion. There cannot be objective morality because people have disagreements about what is moral and immoral (e.g. about the death penalty, abortion, etc.) However, if there are no objective moral truths, then all morality is subjective, which means that every single moral assertion is simply one person"s opinion. And there is no reason that one person"s opinion is any more valid than another person"s opinion. In contrast to Pro, who merely recites an opinion about what is ethical, I show that we cannot accept animals as being morally considerable beings because under utilitarianism, if animals were morally considerable we could not hunt them for pleasure and we could not eat them [because we could instead survive on vegetables, without causing pain to animals]. However, currently the United States allows hunting and allows people to consume meat. Therefore, there is no moral basis for considering animals to be morally considerable for purposes of bestiality, but not for any other purpose. In fact, rape is less bad than murder. And we can murder animals just for the fun of it [hunting]. In addition, my opponent drops the argument under social contract theory (SCT). SCT attempts to derive the ethical justification for the state"s use of power because people have an inalienable right to liberty. Mills argued that people choose to join a society for protection from other people, so they agree that the only time the state can restrict their liberty is when their actions might harm other people. Animals are not part of the social contract, so using the state police power to outlaw bestiality based on harm to animals is an illegitimate and unethical use of the state coercive power to impinge upon the inalienable right to liberty. Illegalizing bestiality therefore is itself immoral. The State should not be allowed to criminalize anything it pleases, otherwise it could make anything illegal. Thus, vote Con because there are ethical limits on the State"s power to criminalize. And harm to animals is not morally sufficient reason to restrain liberty. R3) Bestiality laws can and should be enforced In the case of statutory rape, the State has decided that protecting children is such a substantial state interest that it outweighs the private to privacy. However, this is not the case for animals. There is not a single Supreme Court case in which the Court has held that animal welfare is a reason to deny people their fundamental rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Therefore, bestiality laws are still unconstitutional. Pro claims that gay marriage is illegal in many states, but "illegal" in this context merely means that the State refuses to grant them a marriage license. It does not mean they are not allowed to have sex. Pro claims sodomy is illegal in 14 states, but these laws were found to be unconstitutional in the Supreme Court"s decision in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. Pro also makes some claims about me being a hypocrite, but none of the views on my profile reflect my true beliefs. Even if they did, this isn"t a good argument. In conclusion, Pro loses because Pro fails to offer any ethical system that would justify adopting a bestiality law, whereas I show that our current society has decidedly refused to recognize animals as morally considerable beings [because we can hunt and kill animals for pleasure]. There is therefore no moral justification for prohibiting even the raping of animals. Since Pro fails his BOP, vote Con.

Entertainment

Bestiality-should-be-illegal-in-all-cases-in-the-United-States/2/

I beleive that animals, being slaves to humans, have no rights against sex acts- and therefore there should not be laws against sex acts between a man and his property, whatever that property might be.

DucoNihilum

I beleive that animals, being slaves to humans, have no rights against sex acts- and therefore there should not be laws against sex acts between a man and his property, whatever that property might be.

Politics

Bestiality-should-be-legal-so-long-as-permission-is-given-by-the-owner-of-the-pet-or-animal./1/

There are major differences between animals and people. The simple fact that animals can feel pain does not mean we can or should afford them rights- every mildly complex living creature (even plants) react to 'pain'. Should we all die from lack of food? After all, wouldn't killing an animal, plant, insect, etc be a form of murder- or even worse- slavery? Most people would disagree, why? Because animals, plants, etc do not deserve human rights. They're not human, they can not possibly (as a species) ever follow by our laws or responsibilities. They are brutes. Bestiality is most likely painful, but animals have no rights against such. After all, much more severe crimes than rape are subjected to animals with no consequences, included in those would be slavery and mass murder. If you argue that animals should have rights, wouldn't it be hypocritical to say that 'well, slavery and murder is legal, but rape- oh gosh no'.

DucoNihilum

There are major differences between animals and people. The simple fact that animals can feel pain does not mean we can or should afford them rights- every mildly complex living creature (even plants) react to 'pain'. Should we all die from lack of food? After all, wouldn't killing an animal, plant, insect, etc be a form of murder- or even worse- slavery? Most people would disagree, why? Because animals, plants, etc do not deserve human rights. They're not human, they can not possibly (as a species) ever follow by our laws or responsibilities. They are brutes. Bestiality is most likely painful, but animals have no rights against such. After all, much more severe crimes than rape are subjected to animals with no consequences, included in those would be slavery and mass murder. If you argue that animals should have rights, wouldn't it be hypocritical to say that 'well, slavery and murder is legal, but rape- oh gosh no'.

Politics

Bestiality-should-be-legal-so-long-as-permission-is-given-by-the-owner-of-the-pet-or-animal./1/