text
stringlengths 1
25.8k
| label
int64 0
1
| author
stringlengths 2
25
| original_text
stringlengths 6
26.1k
| category
stringclasses 23
values | round
int64 0
8
| debate_id
stringlengths 7
103
| idx
int64 18
55.3k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ron Paul has shown amazing growth in the face of a media blackout and a lack-luster national campaign. He was the only candidate besides Romney and Huckabee to take a county in Iowa, and came in second place in Nevada. It is only a matter of time before America votes for Ron Paul and joins the revolution. | 0 | Paco3837 |
Ron Paul has shown amazing growth in the face of a media blackout and a lack-luster national campaign. He was the only candidate besides Romney and Huckabee to take a county in Iowa, and came in second place in Nevada. It is only a matter of time before America votes for Ron Paul and joins the revolution. | Politics | 0 | ron-paul-is-a-serious-candidate-with-a-serious-chance/1/ | 53,634 |
I disagree. This "hellish nightmare" you describe is simply a bad dream you are having after reading too much Upton Sinclair. The entire scenario is a moot point as the American economy is now moving away from factory labour and into the service sector. Ron Paul simply wants the government to step back and let society take its course. Americans feared that farmers who moved to the city to work in factories when they first arose during the industrial revolution would be abused an mistreated all day. These workers were abused and indeed mistreated, but eventually gained strength and established such things as a minimum wage. The factory workers who now go to work at Walmart will go through the same experience. Ron Paul does not seek to regulate employment, he would in fact do the opposite. Dr. Paul believes in the freedom of Americans to choose their employment. What you are describing is synonymous with Hitler, and WWII production of weapons by the jews. | 0 | Paco3837 |
I disagree. This "hellish nightmare" you describe is simply a bad dream you are having after reading too much Upton Sinclair. The entire scenario is a moot point as the American economy is now moving away from factory labour and into the service sector. Ron Paul simply wants the government to step back and let society take its course. Americans feared that farmers who moved to the city to work in factories when they first arose during the industrial revolution would be abused an mistreated all day. These workers were abused and indeed mistreated, but eventually gained strength and established such things as a minimum wage. The factory workers who now go to work at Walmart will go through the same experience. Ron Paul does not seek to regulate employment, he would in fact do the opposite. Dr. Paul believes in the freedom of Americans to choose their employment. What you are describing is synonymous with Hitler, and WWII production of weapons by the jews. | Politics | 1 | ron-paul-is-a-serious-candidate-with-a-serious-chance/1/ | 53,635 |
probably a bigger retard the superretardedboy or justcallmefvcktard. she wants to marry me without knowing me | 0 | izbo10V2 |
probably a bigger retard the superretardedboy or justcallmefvcktard. she wants to marry me without knowing me | Entertainment | 0 | royalpaladin-is-retarded/1/ | 53,636 |
royalretard is proving her fvckin stupidity mean i have to educate you retards every day. likew e have cerebralretard who thinks tht childrape is ok,a nd we have manisgay who doesnt know how to actually be a fvckin athetist this boad needs some serious eucation and retards like rayaldipsh1t cant help you but i can i hav a bachelors degree and win every debate | 0 | izbo10V2 |
royalretard is proving her fvckin stupidity mean i have to educate you retards every day. likew e have cerebralretard who thinks tht childrape is ok,a nd we have manisgay who doesnt know how to actually be a fvckin athetist
this boad needs some serious eucation and retards like rayaldipsh1t cant help you but i can i hav a bachelors degree and win every debate | Entertainment | 1 | royalpaladin-is-retarded/1/ | 53,637 |
im really sorry that my opponent is such an idiot please dont juge the quality of thi board by her. im really trying to teach some stuff to these idiots. apparently sh doesnt understand that marriage is vaolntary and that i dont know her, but i guess intelliegnece isnt her thing is it. | 0 | izbo10V2 |
im really sorry that my opponent is such an idiot please dont juge the quality of thi board by her. im really trying to teach some stuff to these idiots.
apparently sh doesnt understand that marriage is vaolntary and that i dont know her, but i guess intelliegnece isnt her thing is it. | Entertainment | 2 | royalpaladin-is-retarded/1/ | 53,638 |
As a Christian I am told that it is a sin to be gay or have homosexual feeling. After having months of prayer and meditation I have come to the conclusion that YES it is a sin and therefore is a choice. Reason 1. Any sexual contact is a sin outside of marriage. As a young man temptation is all around when it comes to this. Whether with a man or women. We are told to fight temptation (ref the lords prayer lead us not in to temptation). Reason 2. The bible says do not sleep with a man as you would a women (Leviticus 18:22) Although this is impossible it relates to homosexual thoughts. And my final reason which I cannot quote the verse as I have forgotten it, the bible say (somewhere) that any sin that is committed outside the body can be forgiven however any sin committed to the inner body damages the sole and God cannot forgive this. (Lame man terms if you self harm it can be forgiven, if you have a male/male sex session this is unforgivable. So the debate is on whether a person choices to be gay and then acts upon those feelings or whether a person is born gay. Choice cast Against votes Born cast For votes | 0 | rychi |
As a Christian I am told that it is a sin to be gay or have homosexual feeling. After having months of prayer and meditation I have come to the conclusion that YES it is a sin and therefore is a choice.
Reason 1. Any sexual contact is a sin outside of marriage. As a young man temptation is all around when it comes to this. Whether with a man or women. We are told to fight temptation (ref the lords prayer lead us not in to temptation).
Reason 2. The bible says do not sleep with a man as you would a women (Leviticus 18:22) Although this is impossible it relates to homosexual thoughts.
And my final reason which I cannot quote the verse as I have forgotten it, the bible say (somewhere) that any sin that is committed outside the body can be forgiven however any sin committed to the inner body damages the sole and God cannot forgive this. (Lame man terms if you self harm it can be forgiven, if you have a male/male sex session this is unforgivable.
So the debate is on whether a person choices to be gay and then acts upon those feelings or whether a person is born gay.
Choice cast Against votes
Born cast For votes | People | 0 | sexuality...-Choice/1/ | 53,758 |
Thank you for excepting this debate. And I will try to leave religious texts out of it. I would like to firstly point out that I am not homophobic. The fact that I have had feeling towards other males shows this however I have never acted upon them. I have chosen not to act on them and the have disappeared over time due to research and prayer. Another member of our church had same sex relationships when younger and is now married to a women and has children, he chose to do that. If you were to ask him his sexuality he would state "heterosexual" When you have people confused about there sexuality, have they not made there choice yet? I'm not saying take the choice away as that is wrong. I'm saying once a person has those thoughts its there choice to act upon them, likewise to if a person has thought to murder someone that's not wrong but acting upon it is | 0 | rychi |
Thank you for excepting this debate. And I will try to leave religious texts out of it.
I would like to firstly point out that I am not homophobic. The fact that I have had feeling towards other males shows this however I have never acted upon them. I have chosen not to act on them and the have disappeared over time due to research and prayer.
Another member of our church had same sex relationships when younger and is now married to a women and has children, he chose to do that. If you were to ask him his sexuality he would state "heterosexual"
When you have people confused about there sexuality, have they not made there choice yet?
I'm not saying take the choice away as that is wrong. I'm saying once a person has those thoughts its there choice to act upon them, likewise to if a person has thought to murder someone that's not wrong but acting upon it is | People | 1 | sexuality...-Choice/1/ | 53,759 |
But what you have forgotten to say is the most specific part of genes investigation, twins. One choices to be gay and the other is straight. Twins have the same genes. Maybe in many churches across the globe there is a stigma but the church I go to we are tought to love everyone the way Jesus did. Could the higher rate of mental health issues be that the person is unsure of there choice whether to act on the feelings or not. Yes there is a stigma around sexuality and this does scare a lot of "closet gays" however they make the choice not to come out and act in secret on "gay hookup sites" Back to the main purpose of this debate, it is a choice to be gay, using my older point of murderous thoughts and not acting on them similar tohaving homosexual thoughts and not acting on them. Something was pointed out to me by a close friend (who is a lesbian). All Christians are gay for Jesus but with this being said they wouldn't have sex with him. Its the having sex part which makes it a sin but its also a choice | 0 | rychi |
But what you have forgotten to say is the most specific part of genes investigation, twins. One choices to be gay and the other is straight. Twins have the same genes.
Maybe in many churches across the globe there is a stigma but the church I go to we are tought to love everyone the way Jesus did. Could the higher rate of mental health issues be that the person is unsure of there choice whether to act on the feelings or not.
Yes there is a stigma around sexuality and this does scare a lot of "closet gays" however they make the choice not to come out and act in secret on "gay hookup sites"
Back to the main purpose of this debate, it is a choice to be gay, using my older point of murderous thoughts and not acting on them similar tohaving homosexual thoughts and not acting on them.
Something was pointed out to me by a close friend (who is a lesbian). All Christians are gay for Jesus but with this being said they wouldn't have sex with him. Its the having sex part which makes it a sin but its also a choice | People | 2 | sexuality...-Choice/1/ | 53,760 |
I accept. I await my opponent's opening arguments. | 0 | Zarroette |
I accept. I await my opponent's opening arguments. | Sports | 0 | shahid-afridi-is-the-best-cricket-player/1/ | 53,767 |
Despite my opponent not providing an affirmative case, I will still construct a negative case. Negative Case A1: Donald Bradman is a much better batsman of all time B ased on test cricket, Shahid Afridi's batting average is considerably less (36.51 [1]) compared to the astounding average of Donald Bradman's of 99.94 [2]. Based on batting averages, Afridi is about a 1/3 of the batsman Donald Bradman was. Furthermore, Donald Bradman's highest score of 334 is more than double Afridi's. Donald Bradman was so much better as a batsman than Afridi that Bradman should be considered for the best cricket player over Afridi. A2: Gary Sobers is a better all-rounder of all time For test cricket batting-wise, Gary Sober's average of 57.78 [3] surpasses that of Afridi's (36.51 [1]). Furthermore, if you wish to consider the bowling, Sober's bowling average of 34.03 also beast Afridi's of 35.60 (lower is better). Clearly, in both batting and bowling, Sobers is better than Afridi, therefore making Afridi not the best cricket player of all time. References [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... | 0 | Zarroette |
Despite my opponent not providing an affirmative case, I will still construct a negative case. Negative Case A1: Donald Bradman is a much better batsman of all time B ased on test cricket, Shahid Afridi's batting average is considerably less (36.51 [1]) compared to the astounding average of Donald Bradman's of 99.94 [2]. Based on batting averages, Afridi is about a 1/3 of the batsman Donald Bradman was. Furthermore, Donald Bradman's highest score of 334 is more than double Afridi's. Donald Bradman was so much better as a batsman than Afridi that Bradman should be considered for the best cricket player over Afridi. A2: Gary Sobers is a better all-rounder of all time For test cricket batting-wise, Gary Sober's average of 57.78 [3] surpasses that of Afridi's (36.51 [1]). Furthermore, if you wish to consider the bowling, Sober's bowling average of 34.03 also beast Afridi's of 35.60 (lower is better). Clearly, in both batting and bowling, Sobers is better than Afridi, therefore making Afridi not the best cricket player of all time. References [1] http://www.espncricinfo.com... [2] http://www.espncricinfo.com... [3] http://www.espncricinfo.com... | Sports | 1 | shahid-afridi-is-the-best-cricket-player/1/ | 53,768 |
Thank you, sarmad5. Since this is the last round, I will not only respond to my opponent, but I will also bring attention to important facets of this debate. Negative Case Both arguments were dropped entirely. These arguments showed how: (A1) Shahid Afridi is nowhere near the best batsman in the world, and (A2) is nowhere near the best all-rounder in the world. Since these arguments went uncontested, they are devastating to my opponent's case as both show why Shahid Afridi is not the best cricketer in the world. I have displayed Shahid Afridi's record side-by-side on the macro-analysis that is batting average and bowling average, and I have shown how there are clearly players with better statistics than Shahid Afridi. Counter-case My opponent's only round of arguments does not come close to meeting the burden of proof. Firstly, his entire argument is completely unreferenced, meaning that all of his points are unsubstantiated. Secondly, even if we assume that these statistics and facts are true, why do they make him the best cricketer ever? Is the "biggest six ever hit" a true indication of cricketing greatness? As it seems, these are merely random, impressive (potentially true) facts. My opponent never defined or indicated what the requirements were for being the "best cricket player". This is a fundamental flaw with my opponent's arguments as they never begin to ascertain what the requirements are, hence the random fact recital aims to fulfil no purpose in regards to the resolution, therefore the resolution is never fulfilled. Conclusion My opponent only provides unreferenced assertions which do not substantiate as arguments, but even if they were referenced, the burden of proof still has not been met due to my opponent failing to link the resolution with the random fact recital. Comparatively, I showed how Shahid Afridi was indeed significanly inferior to other players in some major categories. The resolution was never affirmed. | 0 | Zarroette |
Thank you, sarmad5. Since this is the last round, I will not only respond to my opponent, but I will also bring attention to important facets of this debate. Negative Case Both arguments were dropped entirely. These arguments showed how: (A1) Shahid Afridi is nowhere near the best batsman in the world, and (A2) is nowhere near the best all-rounder in the world. Since these arguments went uncontested, they are devastating to my opponent's case as both show why Shahid Afridi is not the best cricketer in the world. I have displayed Shahid Afridi's record side-by-side on the macro-analysis that is batting average and bowling average, and I have shown how there are clearly players with better statistics than Shahid Afridi. Counter-case My opponent's only round of arguments does not come close to meeting the burden of proof. Firstly, his entire argument is completely unreferenced, meaning that all of his points are unsubstantiated. Secondly, even if we assume that these statistics and facts are true, why do they make him the best cricketer ever? Is the "biggest six ever hit" a true indication of cricketing greatness? As it seems, these are merely random, impressive (potentially true) facts. My opponent never defined or indicated what the requirements were for being the "best cricket player". This is a fundamental flaw with my opponent's arguments as they never begin to ascertain what the requirements are, hence the random fact recital aims to fulfil no purpose in regards to the resolution, therefore the resolution is never fulfilled. Conclusion My opponent only provides unreferenced assertions which do not substantiate as arguments, but even if they were referenced, the burden of proof still has not been met due to my opponent failing to link the resolution with the random fact recital. Comparatively, I showed how Shahid Afridi was indeed significanly inferior to other players in some major categories. The resolution was never affirmed. | Sports | 4 | shahid-afridi-is-the-best-cricket-player/1/ | 53,769 |
from by heart and my observations i saw from his first innings that he has miles of potential. he has clearly surpassed any other player | 0 | sarmad5 |
from by heart and my observations i saw from his first innings that he has miles of potential. he has clearly surpassed any other player | Sports | 0 | shahid-afridi-is-the-best-cricket-player/1/ | 53,770 |
first off, he has the fastest 50, fastest 100 , most sixes , biggest six and also the longest carrier as just to name a few of the world records he has set. he has gotten 2 50s of just 18 balls and he hit a six while he had a bad cramp in his foot and back and scored 128 in that innings with 7 sixes. | 0 | sarmad5 |
first off, he has the fastest 50, fastest 100 , most sixes , biggest six and also the longest carrier as just to name a few of the world records he has set. he has gotten 2 50s of just 18 balls and he hit a six while he had a bad cramp in his foot and back and scored 128 in that innings with 7 sixes. | Sports | 4 | shahid-afridi-is-the-best-cricket-player/1/ | 53,771 |
1:War. If Australia is at war with ISIS, and ceases that war, it could very easily interpreted as ISIS winning that war. This would not only damage Australia's standing, it would also provide a great deal of support to the Islamic State. This debate is about continuing a war, not starting one. It would be highly destabilizing to surrender to the newest and most vicious terrorist organisation yet. 2: Funding. You have stated that the money used in war could have other purposes, but that is a very optimistic idea of how money is used. Money is not the issue behind Ebola, it is direct support , medical expertise and staffing, education for those at risk. You would have to cut down the military spending, providing benefits to the soldiers you were no longer using, train doctors to deal with contagions and then pplan what support to give. 3: Who to help. The problem also lies in who you want to help. ISIS will continue growth if left unchecked, saving refugees is a short sighted solution , as ISIS will only continue providing new refugees, all of which require infrastructure to support. To stop fighting this war now would be to implicitly surrender, which would cause more harm than a small amount of aid to Ebola stricken countries. | 0 | Duncan |
1:War. If Australia is at war with ISIS, and ceases that war, it could very easily interpreted as ISIS winning that war. This would not only damage Australia's standing, it would also provide a great deal of support to the Islamic State. This debate is about continuing a war, not starting one. It would be highly destabilizing to surrender to the newest and most vicious terrorist organisation yet.
2: Funding. You have stated that the money used in war could have other purposes, but that is a very optimistic idea of how money is used. Money is not the issue behind Ebola, it is direct support , medical expertise and staffing, education for those at risk. You would have to cut down the military spending, providing benefits to the soldiers you were no longer using, train doctors to deal with contagions and then pplan what support to give.
3: Who to help. The problem also lies in who you want to help. ISIS will continue growth if left unchecked, saving refugees is a short sighted solution , as ISIS will only continue providing new refugees, all of which
require infrastructure to support.
To stop fighting this war now would be to implicitly surrender, which would cause more harm than a small amount of aid to Ebola stricken countries. | Politics | 0 | should-Australia-continue-to-be-involved-at-war-with-ISIS/1/ | 53,777 |
I'm not here to ask about beginning the war, the topic is about continuing it. You can't keep something like that secret either; ISIS only recently leaked US classified information online. Next up, it's not unity that is a risk; it's further agrression; something halted by air strikes. Yes, ISIS will attack any country that opposes it, but guess what? These are fundamentalists. It's a crime simply to not be Muslim to them. They'll target Australia eventually; giving up will only grant them confidence. Yes, war is not always the best solution to a problem. The issue here is that ISIS has declared itself the Islamic State. This is literally a war between countries, and to leave the war now is to indirectly surrender to a warring nation, one which has no terms of surrender. This is not about who started it. It's about whether Australia should be there to finish it with its allies, or to admit defeat to an international terrorism group. | 0 | Duncan |
I'm not here to ask about beginning the war, the topic is about continuing it. You can't keep something like that secret either; ISIS only recently leaked US classified information online. Next up, it's not unity that is a risk; it's further agrression; something halted by air strikes. Yes, ISIS will attack any country that opposes it, but guess what? These are fundamentalists. It's a crime simply to not be Muslim to them. They'll target Australia eventually; giving up will only grant them confidence.
Yes, war is not always the best solution to a problem. The issue here is that ISIS has declared itself the Islamic State. This is literally a war between countries, and to leave the war now is to indirectly surrender to a warring nation, one which has no terms of surrender. This is not about who started it. It's about whether Australia should be there to finish it with its allies, or to admit defeat to an international terrorism group. | Politics | 1 | should-Australia-continue-to-be-involved-at-war-with-ISIS/1/ | 53,778 |
The land ISIS has taken is through direct violence, which they have not stopped. I had the same stance as you on the previous war in the middle east, but as much as I hate to admit this; ISIS are not a force that can be reasoned with. They aren't a group that can be compromised with, and they're responsible for far worse than just slavery; they use child soldiers. But to focus on that as the main problem is to treat the symptoms and ignore the root of the problem. You help some women escape to Australia as refugees and ISIS will only take more women to replace them. These problems will continue until the Islamic State can be stopped, which can only be by conflict. And finally, this isn't War as a solution. ISIS has declared the western world its enemy. It has made attacks in France, cyber attacks on the US and killed military prisoners from both America and Russia. The answer is not "war", it is Solidarity. We need to work together to face ISIS if we want to overcome them, and for Australia to back out of such solidarity would be to undo any good followed upon it. | 0 | Duncan |
The land ISIS has taken is through direct violence, which they have not stopped. I had the same stance as you on the previous war in the middle east, but as much as I hate to admit this; ISIS are not a force that can be reasoned with. They aren't a group that can be compromised with, and they're responsible for far worse than just slavery; they use child soldiers. But to focus on that as the main problem is to treat the symptoms and ignore the root of the problem. You help some women escape to Australia as refugees and ISIS will only take more women to replace them. These problems will continue until the Islamic State can be stopped, which can only be by conflict.
And finally, this isn't War as a solution. ISIS has declared the western world its enemy. It has made attacks in France, cyber attacks on the US and killed military prisoners from both America and Russia. The answer is not "war", it is Solidarity. We need to work together to face ISIS if we want to overcome them, and for Australia to back out of such solidarity would be to undo any good followed upon it. | Politics | 2 | should-Australia-continue-to-be-involved-at-war-with-ISIS/1/ | 53,779 |
Australia shouldn't continue to be at war with Iraq, as war was never an answer to a solution, it only worsenes the situation. By being at war, its effecting Australia's economic expenditures, as Australia is spending alot of money on the weapons, where instead it could be used somewhere else. For example that money could be useful for the research of ebola! Also, whats the point of trying to save other countries, if we our own country is falling in the trap of terrorism instead? However, what Australia can do to save those innocencents by speeding and increasing Australia's taken in of refugees after making sure they have no terrorist backgrounds | 0 | Monkey62 |
Australia shouldn't continue to be at war with Iraq, as war was never an answer to a solution, it only worsenes the situation. By being at war, its effecting Australia's economic expenditures, as Australia is spending alot of money on the weapons, where instead it could be used somewhere else. For example that money could be useful for the research of ebola! Also, whats the point of trying to save other countries, if we our own country is falling in the trap of terrorism instead? However, what Australia can do to save those innocencents by speeding and increasing Australia's taken in of refugees after making sure they have no terrorist backgrounds | Politics | 0 | should-Australia-continue-to-be-involved-at-war-with-ISIS/1/ | 53,780 |
war was never an answer, instead of being at war with ISIS, Australia and US could secretly make a plan that will destroy ISIS, being at war will prove to ISIS that there plan of hurting people and getting our attention is working. "More forbiddingly, foreign air strikes will forge warring extremist groups into greater unity to focus on the common enemy: us" This war will brings out terrorism in Australia and puts its citzens at risk! Also if the money being spend on this war was surly going to give a solution and if it truly decreased the harsh situation in Iraq and Syria then no worries, because its being used on something that will definitly brings good results. But war was never the answer if it was then it couldve solved many other things, like the war in the middle east! | 0 | Monkey62 |
war was never an answer, instead of being at war with ISIS, Australia and US could secretly make a plan that will destroy ISIS, being at war will prove to ISIS that there plan of hurting people and getting our attention is working. "More forbiddingly, foreign air strikes will forge warring extremist groups into greater unity to focus on the common enemy: us" This war will brings out terrorism in Australia and puts its citzens at risk! Also if the money being spend on this war was surly going to give a solution and if it truly decreased the harsh situation in Iraq and Syria then no worries, because its being used on something that will definitly brings good results. But war was never the answer if it was then it couldve solved many other things, like the war in the middle east! | Politics | 1 | should-Australia-continue-to-be-involved-at-war-with-ISIS/1/ | 53,781 |
Ok it would be kind of embarrassing for Australia to admit defeat to an international terrorism group, but isn't more embarrassing that this war is going no where and its only increasing the hardships for those innocents? Instead of using our muscles to show that we are strong and can fight we should use our brain. ISIS will just keep on increasing, and by "thinking" that Australia is helping other countries they are really destroying their own. As one Iraqi Christian Victim spoke out in the government "Our women are being taken as slaves and sold in the slave market" this war is not stopping those innocents from being persecuted or starved or kicked out of the home that they lived in all their lives. This war is making the nations forget about the key of it, that the reason those nations are at war against ISIS is to "save" those victims, but instead they are all just fighting and worsening the situations in those countries! Instead of using war as a solution Australia could increase the chances of taking those innocents to Australia and protecting them, and Australia could work on the governments of those countries and try to improve them making them more inclusive! We can never end a war with war! | 0 | Monkey62 |
Ok it would be kind of embarrassing for Australia to admit defeat to an international terrorism group, but isn't more embarrassing that this war is going no where and its only increasing the hardships for those innocents? Instead of using our muscles to show that we are strong and can fight we should use our brain. ISIS will just keep on increasing, and by "thinking" that Australia is helping other countries they are really destroying their own. As one Iraqi Christian Victim spoke out in the government “Our women are being taken as slaves and sold in the slave market” this war is not stopping those innocents from being persecuted or starved or kicked out of the home that they lived in all their lives. This war is making the nations forget about the key of it, that the reason those nations are at war against ISIS is to "save" those victims, but instead they are all just fighting and worsening the situations in those countries! Instead of using war as a solution Australia could increase the chances of taking those innocents to Australia and protecting them, and Australia could work on the governments of those countries and try to improve them making them more inclusive! We can never end a war with war! | Politics | 2 | should-Australia-continue-to-be-involved-at-war-with-ISIS/1/ | 53,782 |
I feel it should be illegal but allowing for exceptions such as rap or life or death situations.... | 0 | Amanda1242 |
I feel it should be illegal but allowing for exceptions such as rap or life or death situations.... | People | 0 | should-abortion-be-illegal-in-The-United-States-of-America/1/ | 53,813 |
What are you trying to point out? | 0 | Amanda1242 |
What are you trying to point out? | People | 1 | should-abortion-be-illegal-in-The-United-States-of-America/1/ | 53,814 |
I don't mean to insult you but anyone with a brain could realize and see that women do not and I repeat do not enjoy being raped. Seriously thats sick. I still stand on my belief on when a person should be allowed to have an abortion. There are appropriate times for abortion and there are times that it is not appropiate such as inmaturity. And cultures, I am just talking about in the USA. | 0 | Amanda1242 |
I don't mean to insult you but anyone with a brain could realize and see that women do not and I repeat do not enjoy being raped. Seriously thats sick. I still stand on my belief on when a person should be allowed to have an abortion. There are appropriate times for abortion and there are times that it is not appropiate such as inmaturity. And cultures, I am just talking about in the USA. | People | 2 | should-abortion-be-illegal-in-The-United-States-of-America/1/ | 53,815 |
Abortion should be illegal. I feel like people that have a abortion and say they would never kill anybody in their life but they could kill a baby that's not right or fair. I can understand that having a baby is hard but, you have an adoption chose for that situation. when you have an abortion your taking away a life that could have did something big with them self. | 0 | neaya |
Abortion should be illegal. I feel like people that have a abortion and say they would never kill anybody in their life but they could kill a baby that's not right or fair. I can understand that having a baby is hard but, you have an adoption chose for that situation. when you have an abortion your taking away a life that could have did something big with them self. | People | 0 | should-abortion-be-legal-or-illegal/1/ | 53,816 |
I am completely against the idea that all teens should have cell phones. - Teenage is the most complicated age in persons life its where we leave our childhood and become mature. At this age teens are exposed to the world and giving them a phone is a not-so-good idea. Teens are exposed to the adult world before they should and a personal phone makes it harder for parents to stop them. - During teenage children feel they should be a social butterfly and waste most of their time on social websites and chatting while they could be studying for their Tenth or +2. - Studies have proven that teens with their own phones lack concentration in most other things and are absent minded. - When teens are given their phones they become so addicted to it that they cannot sit quietly without their phone for one moment. Due to this they start scoring low grades and sometimes fail in their studies. | 0 | mattyalby |
I am completely against the idea that all teens should have cell phones.
- Teenage is the most complicated age in persons life its where we leave our childhood and become mature. At this age teens are exposed to the world and giving them a phone is a not-so-good idea. Teens are exposed to the adult world before they should and a personal phone makes it harder for parents to stop them.
- During teenage children feel they should be a social butterfly and waste most of their time on social websites and chatting while they could be studying for their Tenth or +2.
- Studies have proven that teens with their own phones lack concentration in most other things and are absent minded.
- When teens are given their phones they become so addicted to it that they cannot sit quietly without their phone for one moment. Due to this they start scoring low grades and sometimes fail in their studies. | Technology | 0 | should-all-teenagers-have-mobile-phone/1/ | 53,826 |
If the talk is about tracking a teenager. Of course! Complement us teens with more brains, i don't think any teen who is a rule breaker would even let themselves get caught. And again as i said before, it influences teens into the wrong path of life and makes it miserable in the future. If he or she is kept in control at a young age then he will grow up as a good person. Study proves that giving teens phones at a young age raises the probability of them having a problematic future as drunkards. | 0 | mattyalby |
If the talk is about tracking a teenager. Of course! Complement us teens with more brains, i don't think any teen who is a rule breaker would even let themselves get caught. And again as i said before, it influences teens into the wrong path of life and makes it miserable in the future. If he or she is kept in control at a young age then he will grow up as a good person. Study proves that giving teens phones at a young age raises the probability of them having a problematic future as drunkards. | Technology | 1 | should-all-teenagers-have-mobile-phone/1/ | 53,827 |
I will argue that teens should indeed have cell phones, because of these reasons: 1. Emergencies and safety . I believe this is the biggest reason. Teens must need cell phones so they can call the police if for example someone try to kill them or something. They will also need it if a accident happens, especially teens, because most teen begins driving. So a teen should have a cell phone for safety, if a accident happens, or for life threating emergencies. Just these 3 reasons alone is enough to any rational person to know that a teen should indeed have a cell phone. And also, some cell phone companies offer GPS tracking programs that can help parents know the teenager's location. This can be very helpful if the teenager has been lost or kidnapped. 2. No excuses . Teens should have cell phones because it will eliminate the excuse for not calling home when they are going to be late or to ask permission about something. If teens have cell phones, they can't use none of these excuses. 3. Busy schedules. If teens have cell phones, the parents can call to let them know if they are running late or if there's been a change of plans etc. This is very important because of the fact that many families have such busy schedules these days. This basically becomes a important and very helpful issue for the parents. 4. Communication with Friends . Its very important to a teenager to be social. Basically, having a cell phone allow teenagers to communicate with their friends regularly, and encourage them to take time to sustain and grow relationships with their friends. 5. Responsibility . Giving a teen a cell phone teache teens responsibility. It also gives them a kind of independence. They are almost adults and they can't even have cell phones? Teens are almost adults and should therefore be ready to it. Giving your teen a cell phone is a perfect way to do so. He learns to take responsibility and becomes more ready for the adult life. just because your dad got his first phone when he has 40, it doesn't mean you have to follow his footsteps. 6. Impact on teen life A majority (57%) of teens view their cell phone as the key to their social life. 80% say their cell phone provides a sense of security while on the go, confirming that the cell phone has become their mobile safety net when needing a ride (79%), getting important information (51%), or just helping out someone in trouble (35%). Second only to clothing, teens say, a person's cell phone tells the most about their social status or popularity, outranking jewelry, watches and shoes. Conclusion We are living in the modern age, not in the stone age. Teens should indeed have cell phones for their own safety and for they own happiness. Thank you and I'm looking forward to your round. Sources The statistics showed at 'Impact on teen life', are from: <URL>... ... <URL>... ... | 0 | rit |
I will argue that teens should indeed have cell phones, because of these reasons:
1. Emergencies and safety . I believe this is the biggest reason. Teens must need cell phones so they can call the police if for example someone try to kill them or something. They will also need it if a accident happens, especially teens, because most teen begins driving. So a teen should have a cell phone for safety, if a accident happens, or for life threating emergencies. Just these 3 reasons alone is enough to any rational person to know that a teen should indeed have a cell phone. And also, some cell phone companies offer GPS tracking programs that can help parents know the teenager's location. This can be very helpful if the teenager has been lost or kidnapped.
2. No excuses . Teens should have cell phones because it will eliminate the excuse for not calling home when they are going to be late or to ask permission about something. If teens have cell phones, they can’t use none of these excuses. 3. Busy schedules. If teens have cell phones, the parents can call to let them know if they are running late or if there’s been a change of plans etc. This is very important because of the fact that many families have such busy schedules these days. This basically becomes a important and very helpful issue for the parents. 4. Communication with Friends . Its very important to a teenager to be social. Basically, having a cell phone allow teenagers to communicate with their friends regularly, and encourage them to take time to sustain and grow relationships with their friends. 5. Responsibility . Giving a teen a cell phone teache teens responsibility. It also gives them a kind of independence. They are almost adults and they can't even have cell phones? Teens are almost adults and should therefore be ready to it. Giving your teen a cell phone is a perfect way to do so. He learns to take responsibility and becomes more ready for the adult life. just because your dad got his first phone when he has 40, it doesn't mean you have to follow his footsteps. 6. Impact on teen life A majority (57%) of teens view their cell phone as the key to their social life. 80% say their cell phone provides a sense of security while on the go, confirming that the cell phone has become their mobile safety net when needing a ride (79%), getting important information (51%), or just helping out someone in trouble (35%). Second only to clothing, teens say, a person’s cell phone tells the most about their social status or popularity, outranking jewelry, watches and shoes. Conclusion We are living in the modern age, not in the stone age. Teens should indeed have cell phones for their own safety and for they own happiness. Thank you and I'm looking forward to your round. Sources The statistics showed at 'Impact on teen life', are from: http://www.marketingcharts.com... ... http://www.phoneservice.org... ...
| Technology | 0 | should-all-teenagers-have-mobile-phone/1/ | 53,828 |
Although some teenagers see cell phones as fashion accessories or gaming devices, the basic safety conferred by continual access to a telephone is reason enough for every teenager to own one. A teen with a cell phone can call parents . Cell phones also give parents the ability to check in on teenagers at parties or after-school events. For teens with a history of rule breaking, some cell phones double as GPS devices, allowing parents to confirm that the teenager is where he is supposed to be. | 0 | rit |
Although some teenagers see cell phones as fashion accessories or gaming devices, the basic safety conferred by continual access to a telephone is reason enough for every teenager to own one. A teen with a cell phone can call parents . Cell phones also give parents the ability to check in on teenagers at parties or after-school events. For teens with a history of rule breaking, some cell phones double as GPS devices, allowing parents to confirm that the teenager is where he is supposed to be.
| Technology | 1 | should-all-teenagers-have-mobile-phone/1/ | 53,829 |
I'm not quite sure what your position is, since the title is a question. But I shall argue the position that clothing is a necessity. Biologically speaking, humans have comparatively little fur. This is because we originated from areas of warm climate with the sun overhead. As bipedal organisms, the sun does not strike our bodies, but strikes our head. This is why he have hair on our heads, but not as much on our bodies. Body hair would cause heat stroke and do little to no protection from the sun's rays in exchange. However, as humans began to migrate out into colder climates, it is necessary for them to fashion their own methods of protection from the cold. Just as it is natural for us to migrate outwards, to be intelligent, and to abuse our environment for our own protection and means, so is it natural for us to construct and wear clothing. | 0 | Kleptin |
I'm not quite sure what your position is, since the title is a question. But I shall argue the position that clothing is a necessity.
Biologically speaking, humans have comparatively little fur. This is because we originated from areas of warm climate with the sun overhead. As bipedal organisms, the sun does not strike our bodies, but strikes our head. This is why he have hair on our heads, but not as much on our bodies. Body hair would cause heat stroke and do little to no protection from the sun's rays in exchange.
However, as humans began to migrate out into colder climates, it is necessary for them to fashion their own methods of protection from the cold. Just as it is natural for us to migrate outwards, to be intelligent, and to abuse our environment for our own protection and means, so is it natural for us to construct and wear clothing. | Society | 0 | should-clothing-be-mandatory/1/ | 53,881 |
Well, I guess I'm supposed to keep going. Clothing, aside from being used to protect the body from the cold or the sun, is used to hide parts of our body. Not purely out of shame, but because it may be necessary for society. One very simple example: Imagine if you will, primitive human beings in a society. The alpha male's mate is probably very attractive. This may make things very complicated when a beta male comes across the alpha and his mate and get an erection. Thus, one cannot simply say that clothing is unnecessary and we shouldn't be ashamed of our bodies. Simply speaking, clothing is quite natural for us. | 0 | Kleptin |
Well, I guess I'm supposed to keep going.
Clothing, aside from being used to protect the body from the cold or the sun, is used to hide parts of our body. Not purely out of shame, but because it may be necessary for society.
One very simple example: Imagine if you will, primitive human beings in a society. The alpha male's mate is probably very attractive. This may make things very complicated when a beta male comes across the alpha and his mate and get an erection.
Thus, one cannot simply say that clothing is unnecessary and we shouldn't be ashamed of our bodies. Simply speaking, clothing is quite natural for us. | Society | 1 | should-clothing-be-mandatory/1/ | 53,882 |
"clothing should be a personal choice and left up to the individual." Yes, so long as you cover up what needs to be covered up as dictated by society and what it feels is decent/indecent. "clothing might of been used as instinct but one should not be forced to cloth them self all the time even in summer. It should be a natural born right to remain the way we are born, naked !!!!!" I believe you mean "might have" not "might of". Your argument here is a false dichotomy. The fact that we do not need to wear as much clothing in the summer does not logically mean we should not wear any clothing at all. We should always wear SOME clothing in public, just different amounts. "it is proves that nudity is healthy and lets our body breath and absorb More sunshine and vitamin D we don't normaly get with clothing on.." False dichotomy. People who get exposed too much to the sun also have a high risk of skin cancer. The key is balance. Yes, sunlight helps us produce vitamin D. But being totally naked doesn't help us much more than wearing at least some decent covering, when you take into account the charge of public indecency. ""Many naturists are convinced that increased exposure to the natural environment, made easier through nudity, can result in numerous health benefits. Sunlight has been shown to be beneficial in some skin conditions, and is required by the body to make vitamin D" (science america on nudity)" I examined this source. It appears all over google and never in a neutral site. This source is always in articles catered to nudists. In this case, it is not a very effective piece of evidence supporting your position because it is just an opinion formed by more nudists, not scientists or professionals. "and in other studies the best sleep is achived while naked! "Not only is sleeping naked more comfortable, but it's good for your health too. Increasing your level of comfort makes it easier for you to relax and sleep, so you get a better night's kip. The resulting deeper, longer sleep makes it easier for your body to regenerate and repair itself, and build up your energy for the day ahead"(sleepnaked.org)" That's fine. As long as you don't sleep naked in public. I have no problem with what people wear in private. "further proves that being naked is a benefactor to our health and should also be up to the discretion of the individual" It doesn't "further prove" anything. Your first example was an opinion with some scientific merit, but fell apart because it didn't relate specifically to your argument. This example about sleeping is fine because my main concern is that a decent amount of clothing be worn at all times IN PUBLIC. I have no problem with people being naked in private. I don't think anyone else does either. *********** My opponent's argument is essentially that clothing has no use and we should simply abandon it. My opponent offers 3 basic benefits: 1. It will allow you to absorb more sunlight 2. It is more comfortable 3. We don't need to be ashamed. First, the sunlight example is useless because we can absorb more than enough sunlight wearing a modest amount of clothing. There's no need for us to be completely naked. That way, we can preserve some social dignity while getting a healthy benefit. Second, what we do in private is up to us. What we do in public we should do in accordance with social rules. Not being naked is one of them. Sleeping naked in private is fine. Third, I have shown that clothing as a method of hiding our genitalia is not a socially created "shame", but a biological necessity to maintain social harmony. My opponent, being blinded by the few positive points of nudity, fails to see and address all the reasons why clothing *should* be worn. I argue that clothing is as natural as human intelligence. When in public, you should be modestly clothed, at least covering the bare essentials. | 0 | Kleptin |
"clothing should be a personal choice and left up to the individual."
Yes, so long as you cover up what needs to be covered up as dictated by society and what it feels is decent/indecent.
"clothing might of been used as instinct but one should not be forced to cloth them self all the time even in summer. It should be a natural born right to remain the way we are born, naked !!!!!"
I believe you mean "might have" not "might of". Your argument here is a false dichotomy. The fact that we do not need to wear as much clothing in the summer does not logically mean we should not wear any clothing at all. We should always wear SOME clothing in public, just different amounts.
"it is proves that nudity is healthy and lets our body breath and absorb More sunshine and vitamin D we don't normaly get with clothing on.."
False dichotomy. People who get exposed too much to the sun also have a high risk of skin cancer. The key is balance. Yes, sunlight helps us produce vitamin D. But being totally naked doesn't help us much more than wearing at least some decent covering, when you take into account the charge of public indecency.
""Many naturists are convinced that increased exposure to the natural environment, made easier through nudity, can result in numerous health benefits. Sunlight has been shown to be beneficial in some skin conditions, and is required by the body to make vitamin D" (science america on nudity)"
I examined this source. It appears all over google and never in a neutral site. This source is always in articles catered to nudists. In this case, it is not a very effective piece of evidence supporting your position because it is just an opinion formed by more nudists, not scientists or professionals.
"and in other studies the best sleep is achived while naked!
"Not only is sleeping naked more comfortable, but it's good for your health too. Increasing your level of comfort makes it easier for you to relax and sleep, so you get a better night's kip. The resulting deeper, longer sleep makes it easier for your body to regenerate and repair itself, and build up your energy for the day ahead"(sleepnaked.org)"
That's fine. As long as you don't sleep naked in public. I have no problem with what people wear in private.
"further proves that being naked is a benefactor to our health and should also be up to the discretion of the individual"
It doesn't "further prove" anything. Your first example was an opinion with some scientific merit, but fell apart because it didn't relate specifically to your argument.
This example about sleeping is fine because my main concern is that a decent amount of clothing be worn at all times IN PUBLIC. I have no problem with people being naked in private. I don't think anyone else does either.
***********
My opponent's argument is essentially that clothing has no use and we should simply abandon it. My opponent offers 3 basic benefits:
1. It will allow you to absorb more sunlight
2. It is more comfortable
3. We don't need to be ashamed.
First, the sunlight example is useless because we can absorb more than enough sunlight wearing a modest amount of clothing. There's no need for us to be completely naked. That way, we can preserve some social dignity while getting a healthy benefit.
Second, what we do in private is up to us. What we do in public we should do in accordance with social rules. Not being naked is one of them. Sleeping naked in private is fine.
Third, I have shown that clothing as a method of hiding our genitalia is not a socially created "shame", but a biological necessity to maintain social harmony.
My opponent, being blinded by the few positive points of nudity, fails to see and address all the reasons why clothing *should* be worn.
I argue that clothing is as natural as human intelligence. When in public, you should be modestly clothed, at least covering the bare essentials. | Society | 2 | should-clothing-be-mandatory/1/ | 53,883 |
as it is well known that all humans born are not natural in garments but born of naked flesh then immediately are cloth and covered ,shamed. why is this because we are afraid of our naked truth ... we as humans have obtained shame from our first mother and father Adam and Eve .. it was those two who sin in the garden of eden forcing us to see our self's as grotesque and naked. "We live in an atmosphere of shame. We are ashamed of everything that is real about us; ashamed of ourselves, of our relatives, of our incomes, of our accents, of our opinions, of our experience, just as we are ashamed of our naked skins. George Bernard Shaw (<PHONE>), Anglo-Irish playwright, critic. Tanner, in Man and Superman, act 1." and | 0 | liberal_at_heart |
as it is well known that all humans born are not natural in garments but born of naked flesh then immediately are cloth and covered ,shamed. why is this because we are afraid of our naked truth ... we as humans have obtained shame from our first mother and father Adam and Eve .. it was those two who sin in the garden of eden forcing us to see our self's as grotesque and naked.
"We live in an atmosphere of shame. We are ashamed of everything that is real about us; ashamed of ourselves, of our relatives, of our incomes, of our accents, of our opinions, of our experience, just as we are ashamed of our naked skins.
George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), Anglo-Irish playwright, critic. Tanner, in Man and Superman, act 1." and | Society | 0 | should-clothing-be-mandatory/1/ | 53,884 |
clothing should be a personal choice and left up to the individual. clothing might of been used as instinct but one should not be forced to cloth them self all the time even in summer. It should be a natural born right to remain the way we are born, naked !!!!! it is proves that nudity is healthy and lets our body breath and absorb More sunshine and vitamin D we don't normaly get with clothing on.. "Many naturists are convinced that increased exposure to the natural environment, made easier through nudity, can result in numerous health benefits. Sunlight has been shown to be beneficial in some skin conditions, and is required by the body to make vitamin D" (science america on nudity) and in other studies the best sleep is achived while naked! "Not only is sleeping naked more comfortable, but it's good for your health too. Increasing your level of comfort makes it easier for you to relax and sleep, so you get a better night's kip. The resulting deeper, longer sleep makes it easier for your body to regenerate and repair itself, and build up your energy for the day ahead"(sleepnaked.org) further proves that being naked is a benefactor to our health and should also be up to the discretion of the individual | 0 | liberal_at_heart |
clothing should be a personal choice and left up to the individual. clothing might of been used as instinct but one should not be forced to cloth them self all the time even in summer. It should be a natural born right to remain the way we are born, naked !!!!!
it is proves that nudity is healthy and lets our body breath and absorb More sunshine and vitamin D we don't normaly get with clothing on..
"Many naturists are convinced that increased exposure to the natural environment, made easier through nudity, can result in numerous health benefits. Sunlight has been shown to be beneficial in some skin conditions, and is required by the body to make vitamin D" (science america on nudity)
and in other studies the best sleep is achived while naked!
"Not only is sleeping naked more comfortable, but it's good for your health too. Increasing your level of comfort makes it easier for you to relax and sleep, so you get a better night's kip. The resulting deeper, longer sleep makes it easier for your body to regenerate and repair itself, and build up your energy for the day ahead"(sleepnaked.org)
further proves that being naked is a benefactor to our health and should also be up to the discretion of the individual | Society | 2 | should-clothing-be-mandatory/1/ | 53,885 |
do you think so say yes or say no | 0 | 2006041 |
do you think so say yes or say no | Education | 0 | should-middle-schools-have-mcdonalds-as-a-chioce-at-lunch/1/ | 53,968 |
I wann say that school should start late because of how the kids will get bad grades and not get good ones | 0 | Goku5974 |
I wann say that school should start late because of how the kids will get bad grades and not get good ones | Education | 0 | should-school-start-later-or-not/1/ | 53,990 |
Hey I wanna say that your argument on round two was stupid school kids should get allot of sleep because of how you have to get up and have good grades and do more tests | 0 | Goku5974 |
Hey I wanna say that your argument on round two was stupid school kids should get allot of sleep because of how you have to get up and have good grades and do more tests | Education | 2 | should-school-start-later-or-not/1/ | 53,991 |
Schools should not have a later start time for many reasons. Good and Bad grades will still arise to the average student. Take as an example, the student will be more laid back on the sleeping curvue because they do not have to wake up so early. You are potentially causing more bad grades then good ones. | 0 | lexxxxxiwexxxxxi |
Schools should not have a later start time for many reasons. Good and Bad grades will still arise to the average student. Take as an example, the student will be more laid back on the sleeping curvue because they do not have to wake up so early. You are potentially causing more bad grades then good ones. | Education | 0 | should-school-start-later-or-not/1/ | 53,992 |
School also should not start later due to the lack of necessary needs to get ready for adulthood. Take this for an example, A student goes to school at a later time, because the school recognizes how tired he/she is. When that student graduates into the real world with a real job, they can tell their boss that they want to go to work later because they are tired, they will get fired. Its unrealistic to go to school at a later time due to a student's belief. | 0 | lexxxxxiwexxxxxi |
School also should not start later due to the lack of necessary needs to get ready for adulthood.
Take this for an example, A student goes to school at a later time, because the school recognizes how tired he/she is. When that student graduates into the real world with a real job, they can tell their boss that they want to go to work later because they are tired, they will get fired.
Its unrealistic to go to school at a later time due to a student's belief. | Education | 1 | should-school-start-later-or-not/1/ | 53,993 |
I am sorry, but your lack of grammar and style rules is really vexatious. As for the pro who stated, "Hey I wanna say that your argument on round two was stupid school kids should get allot of sleep because of how you have to get up and have good grades and do more tests", Wanna is not a proper word in the English Language, after the word stupid, the source should have added a semi-colon, "Allot" is spelled with ONE "L" and is two words "a lot", as well he should have added a variety of commas in the last of the sentence and took out the several "and's" in his statement. Furthermore, sleep may contribute to better test scores, but is not proven to. The student actually has to STUDY, and PREPARE. Going to school on later times is purely irrelevant because every student is different. Students who are not proactive and think with the end in mind, will take an advantage to the sleep time they get, for all we know they will still do horrible on their grades or even worse! Stupid, by the way, is a frivolous and puerile term that one should not use in a debate. | 0 | lexxxxxiwexxxxxi |
I am sorry, but your lack of grammar and style rules is really vexatious.
As for the pro who stated, "Hey I wanna say that your argument on round two was stupid school kids should get allot of sleep because of how you have to get up and have good grades and do more tests", Wanna is not a proper word in the English Language, after the word stupid, the source should have added a semi-colon, "Allot" is spelled with ONE "L" and is two words "a lot", as well he should have added a variety of commas in the last of the sentence and took out the several "and's" in his statement.
Furthermore, sleep may contribute to better test scores, but is not proven to. The student actually has to STUDY, and PREPARE. Going to school on later times is purely irrelevant because every student is different. Students who are not proactive and think with the end in mind, will take an advantage to the sleep time they get, for all we know they will still do horrible on their grades or even worse!
Stupid, by the way, is a frivolous and puerile term that one should not use in a debate. | Education | 2 | should-school-start-later-or-not/1/ | 53,994 |
P1. School uniforms won't help change discrimination P2. School uniforms cost more for the average household C. School uniforms are an impractical idea in modern society No matter what you do people will still form cliques and pass judgement on others. If they aren't judging people for the clothes they are wearing then they will do it on many other factors such as weight, height, or hair color. Also one of your main arguments was that financially disadvantaged people would finally fit in with the general populace. But school uniforms would cost more then average clothes therefore not making the financially disadvantaged equal but rather making them repugnant to their classmates. <URL>... I look forward to your rebutle. | 0 | anders1146 |
P1. School uniforms won't help change discrimination
P2. School uniforms cost more for the average household
C. School uniforms are an impractical idea in modern society
No matter what you do people will still form cliques and pass judgement on others. If they aren't judging people for the clothes they are wearing then they will do it on many other factors such as weight, height, or hair color. Also one of your main arguments was that financially disadvantaged people would finally fit in with the general populace. But school uniforms would cost more then average clothes therefore not making the financially disadvantaged equal but rather making them repugnant to their classmates.
http://www.angelfire.com...
I look forward to your rebutle. | Education | 0 | should-school-uniforms-be-made-compulsory-in-schools/1/ | 53,995 |
School uniforms should be compulsory for all students at all grade levels. There are many reasons,which justify this including discipline,discrimination and to give the students a sense of identity. If all students at a particular school didn't wear school uniforms,there would be discrimination between the financially advantaged people and the disadvantaged people. | 0 | maseerah |
School uniforms should be compulsory for all students at all grade levels. There are many reasons,which justify this including discipline,discrimination and to give the students a sense of identity. If all students at a particular school didn't wear school uniforms,there would be discrimination between the financially advantaged people and the disadvantaged people. | Education | 0 | should-school-uniforms-be-made-compulsory-in-schools/1/ | 53,996 |
The wealthier people would tend to look down and shun the poorer people as it gives them a chance to flaunt their wealth. When students wear school uniforms, it shows the similarities between them, and not the differences. Each school has their own rule of law and based on that, students need to obey on that law and respect. When a student wears a uniform, it shows a sign of dignity and it means that student has confirmed the school expectations and that student feels that he/she belongs to that school. | 0 | maseerah |
The wealthier people would tend to look down and shun the poorer people as it gives them a chance to flaunt their wealth. When students wear school uniforms, it shows the similarities between them, and not the differences. Each school has their own rule of law and based on that, students need to obey on that law and respect. When a student wears a uniform, it shows a sign of dignity and it means that student has confirmed the school expectations and that student feels that he/she belongs to that school. | Education | 1 | should-school-uniforms-be-made-compulsory-in-schools/1/ | 53,997 |
I strongly believe that wearing a school uniform is crucial to the way children behave and also affects them academically. Most importantly, wearing a school uniform shows respect for the school, and gives children a sense of belonging. We wear school uniforms to show pride in our school. Taking our identity away would mean that we could come from any school, any state, and in any country, making school uniforms an important and crucial part of our school life. Additionally, being identifiable from a particular school reduces the opportunity for students to skip school or get into trouble on the way to and from school. If students wore normal clothes they may be mistaken for adults and could do things they shouldn't, such as smoking or taking the day off. | 0 | maseerah |
I strongly believe that wearing a school uniform is crucial to the way children behave and also affects them academically. Most importantly, wearing a school uniform shows respect for the school, and gives children a sense of belonging. We wear school uniforms to show pride in our school. Taking our identity away would mean that we could come from any school, any state, and in any country, making school uniforms an important and crucial part of our school life. Additionally, being identifiable from a particular school reduces the opportunity for students to skip school or get into trouble on the way to and from school. If students wore normal clothes they may be mistaken for adults and could do things they shouldn't, such as smoking or taking the day off. | Education | 2 | should-school-uniforms-be-made-compulsory-in-schools/1/ | 53,998 |
I believe they should not implement a four day work week because its less learning | 0 | redallyonfire |
I believe they should not implement a four day work week because its less learning | Education | 0 | should-schools-implement-a-four-day-work-week/1/ | 54,000 |
School-based health centers can provide access to healthcare for students who may not otherwise receive care. Rural students may face barriers to accessing healthcare services including long distances to providers, lack of reliable transportation, work demands of students" parents, poverty, lack of health insurance, and the cost of healthcare. School-based health centers often operate as a partnership between the school and a community health center, hospital, or local health department to improve the health of students, as well as the community as a whole. | 0 | paridhi |
School-based health centers can provide access to healthcare for students who may not otherwise receive care. Rural students may face barriers to accessing healthcare services including long distances to providers, lack of reliable transportation, work demands of students" parents, poverty, lack of health insurance, and the cost of healthcare. School-based health centers often operate as a partnership between the school and a community health center, hospital, or local health department to improve the health of students, as well as the community as a whole. | Economics | 0 | should-schools-provide-healthcare-like-hospitals/1/ | 54,001 |
I think self belt should be illegal | 0 | jessie23 |
I think self belt should be illegal | Society | 0 | should-selt-belt-be-illegal/1/ | 54,006 |
I accept. Resolved: Should teachers be allowed to be armed with a gun? With a normative resolution, the burden is evenly split. However, CON doesn't give a single argumen. Therefore, i only need to provide a single positive argument to win this debate. I. Last line of defense against school shootings We know that criminals do not follow laws - so they will not obey if the school happens to be a "gun free zone." Instead, we're disarming the good guys, and removing their right to self-defense. | 0 | ResponsiblyIrresponsible |
I accept. Resolved: Should teachers be allowed to be armed with a gun? With a normative resolution, the burden is evenly split. However, CON doesn't give a single argumen. Therefore, i only need to provide a single positive argument to win this debate. I. Last line of defense against school shootings We know that criminals do not follow laws - so they will not obey if the school happens to be a "gun free zone." Instead, we're disarming the good guys, and removing their right to self-defense. | Education | 0 | should-teachers-be-aloud-to-be-armed-with-a-weapon/1/ | 54,039 |
II am against teachers being armed | 0 | mckinnahlynn |
II am against teachers being armed | Education | 0 | should-teachers-be-aloud-to-be-armed-with-a-weapon/1/ | 54,040 |
Animals, I believe, should be tested - if it's done properly. I don't believe in testing more than one animal. I think that when you test an animal, it is a living creature, and therefore its a procedure that should be done with strict caution. | 0 | TheXco |
Animals, I believe, should be tested - if it's done properly. I don't believe in testing more than one animal. I think that when you test an animal, it is a living creature, and therefore its a procedure that should be done with strict caution. | Science | 0 | should-testing-on-animals-be-banned/1/ | 54,041 |
nobody can defeat me try to defeat me i will only be the winner | 0 | maseerah |
nobody can defeat me try to defeat me i will only be the winner | Science | 0 | should-testing-on-animals-be-banned/1/ | 54,042 |
Plagiarism Plagiarism is the adoption or reproduction of the ideas or words or statements of another person without due acknowledgment. This can range from borrowing without attribution a particularly apt phrase, to paraphrasing someone else's original idea without citation, to wholesale contract cheating. When plagiarizing, students will often turn to the Internet, due the ease of copying and pasting from websites. Other more old fashioned forms of plagiarism such as paper mills and passing off obscure articles or chapters of books of others as original work also still occur. -From wikipedia That being said, I think that he draft should be reinstated, but with certain modifications. First off, there must be a genuine reason to draft. If there is a great lack of volunteers or a massive threat to our nation, then the draft would be justified. However, if it is to wage a controversial war, then no draft. Second, there should be many more exemptions. 1. The draft should not apply to any students who are enrolled in universities as undergraduates or attending graduate school. We need skilled professionals to rebuild after the war ends. 2. The draft should not apply to any man or woman over the age of 40 and under the age of 18. 3. The draft should not apply to a single child in a household. 4. Professionals should be able to opt out of combat in exchange for a position that relies on their particular expertise. For example, computer technicians would handle computers and health professionals would care for the wounded. | 0 | Kleptin |
Plagiarism
Plagiarism is the adoption or reproduction of the ideas or words or statements of another person without due acknowledgment. This can range from borrowing without attribution a particularly apt phrase, to paraphrasing someone else's original idea without citation, to wholesale contract cheating. When plagiarizing, students will often turn to the Internet, due the ease of copying and pasting from websites. Other more old fashioned forms of plagiarism such as paper mills and passing off obscure articles or chapters of books of others as original work also still occur.
-From wikipedia
That being said, I think that he draft should be reinstated, but with certain modifications.
First off, there must be a genuine reason to draft. If there is a great lack of volunteers or a massive threat to our nation, then the draft would be justified. However, if it is to wage a controversial war, then no draft.
Second, there should be many more exemptions.
1. The draft should not apply to any students who are enrolled in universities as undergraduates or attending graduate school. We need skilled professionals to rebuild after the war ends.
2. The draft should not apply to any man or woman over the age of 40 and under the age of 18.
3. The draft should not apply to a single child in a household.
4. Professionals should be able to opt out of combat in exchange for a position that relies on their particular expertise. For example, computer technicians would handle computers and health professionals would care for the wounded. | Politics | 0 | should-the-U.S-re-institute-the-military-draft/1/ | 54,054 |
Since my opponent has probably finished his school paper and does not require more from me to plagiarize off of, I will restate my arguments. 1. The draft should not apply to any students who are enrolled in universities as undergraduates or attending graduate school. We need skilled professionals to rebuild after the war ends. 2. The draft should not apply to any man or woman over the age of 40 and under the age of 18. 3. The draft should not apply to a single child in a household. 4. Professionals should be able to opt out of combat in exchange for a position that relies on their particular expertise. For example, computer technicians would handle computers and health professionals would care for the wounded. *5. A person should be exempt from the draft if his/her spouse/civil partner is enlisted or disabled or requires help in some form in the interests of raising children under the age of 18. | 0 | Kleptin |
Since my opponent has probably finished his school paper and does not require more from me to plagiarize off of, I will restate my arguments.
1. The draft should not apply to any students who are enrolled in universities as undergraduates or attending graduate school. We need skilled professionals to rebuild after the war ends.
2. The draft should not apply to any man or woman over the age of 40 and under the age of 18.
3. The draft should not apply to a single child in a household.
4. Professionals should be able to opt out of combat in exchange for a position that relies on their particular expertise. For example, computer technicians would handle computers and health professionals would care for the wounded.
*5. A person should be exempt from the draft if his/her spouse/civil partner is enlisted or disabled or requires help in some form in the interests of raising children under the age of 18. | Politics | 2 | should-the-U.S-re-institute-the-military-draft/1/ | 54,055 |
If by "debate" you mean I present an argument and you just sort of leave, no thanks. One hundred characters is ninety nine characters plus one character. | 0 | Kleptin |
If by "debate" you mean I present an argument and you just sort of leave, no thanks.
One hundred characters is ninety nine characters plus one character. | Politics | 3 | should-the-U.S-re-institute-the-military-draft/1/ | 54,056 |
I am doing this for a school debate and i need different opinions on this subject so please help me out. | 0 | TY |
I am doing this for a school debate and i need different opinions on this subject so please help me out. | Politics | 0 | should-the-U.S-re-institute-the-military-draft/1/ | 54,057 |
just 2 let u know i'm a she not a he ok. Next my debate was 2day and i did NOT plagiarize your work i just wanted different opinions so u did your job and i thank u for that so if u need to say anything ells go ahead but for now i am done with this topic. When i get another topic from my school i will post it up and u are welcome 2 debate me on that one also. If you choose not to it's ok it was nice doing this with you. You seem very intelligent. | 0 | TY |
just 2 let u know i'm a she not a he ok. Next my debate was 2day and i did NOT plagiarize your work i just wanted different opinions so u did your job and i thank u for that so if u need to say anything ells go ahead but for now i am done with this topic. When i get another topic from my school i will post it up and u are welcome 2 debate me on that one also. If you choose not to it's ok it was nice doing this with you. You seem very intelligent. | Politics | 1 | should-the-U.S-re-institute-the-military-draft/1/ | 54,058 |
I accept your challenge. It's your responsibility to construct an argument and my responsibility to cast reasonable doubt. | 0 | KristophKP |
I accept your challenge. It's your responsibility to construct an argument and my responsibility to cast reasonable doubt. | Economics | 0 | should-the-united-states-grant-amnesty-to-immigrants-who-came-here-illigally/1/ | 54,078 |
My opponent has put forth an argument for his belief that illegal immigrants should not be granted amnesty. He proposed that the morally right alternative course of action would be to deport these illegal immigrants back to whence they came. I will show that these two views do not contradict one another. His argument is straight-forward and sensible. He argues that illegal immigrants consume more welfare, that they do not have a high amount of education, and are thus in an advantageous position whereupon they can reap the benefit of tax returns and other tax-funded domestic services, without having to pay their faire share. This is fair conclusion to make and a worthy argument. If a person decides to live under the umbrella of a government's services then it should stand to reason that they comply with governmental policies. I will not counter this argument, but rather I will argue that my opponent has failed to provide a convincing case as to why we should not give amnesty to illegal immigrants. Amnesty is the exoneration and pardoning of past offences, which means that no punishment can doled to the individual in question. Recall that we are talking of illegal immigrants, people who are merely trying to survive in a cruel, harsh world. They want to make a meager living and are not intentionally trying to bankrupt the US or its citizens. They are being selfish, of course, but that is something we expect from everyone. Giving them amnesty would NOT give them citizenship. You'll recall that I mentioned above that my opponent would want these illegal immigrants to be deported. There is no reason that they shouldn't be deported. Deportment is not a punishment and does not contradict the purpose of amnesty. Amnesty is given in such a way that a past crime or offence is forgiven. It does mean that they can continue to live illegally within the country. They should instead be transferred towards the immigrations office and apply for refugee status or citizenship in the same manner that any other incoming immigrant would. I have reduced the argument to a semantic dialogue. I would apologize for this but it was my opponent who established his argument in the way that he did, leaving me no other choice but to single him out for not properly stating his case. On a final note to this round, I would like to refute an absolute claim that my opponent made. He claimed that the only solution to the lack of jobs was to deport an illegal alien, and I would simply like to point out that this certainly isn't the only method of reducing unemployment. One fair example would be to forbid the export of labor. | 0 | KristophKP |
My opponent has put forth an argument for his belief that illegal immigrants should not be granted amnesty. He proposed that the morally right alternative course of action would be to deport these illegal immigrants back to whence they came. I will show that these two views do not contradict one another.
His argument is straight-forward and sensible. He argues that illegal immigrants consume more welfare, that they do not have a high amount of education, and are thus in an advantageous position whereupon they can reap the benefit of tax returns and other tax-funded domestic services, without having to pay their faire share. This is fair conclusion to make and a worthy argument. If a person decides to live under the umbrella of a government’s services then it should stand to reason that they comply with governmental policies. I will not counter this argument, but rather I will argue that my opponent has failed to provide a convincing case as to why we should not give amnesty to illegal immigrants.
Amnesty is the exoneration and pardoning of past offences, which means that no punishment can doled to the individual in question. Recall that we are talking of illegal immigrants, people who are merely trying to survive in a cruel, harsh world. They want to make a meager living and are not intentionally trying to bankrupt the US or its citizens. They are being selfish, of course, but that is something we expect from everyone. Giving them amnesty would NOT give them citizenship. You’ll recall that I mentioned above that my opponent would want these illegal immigrants to be deported. There is no reason that they shouldn’t be deported. Deportment is not a punishment and does not contradict the purpose of amnesty. Amnesty is given in such a way that a past crime or offence is forgiven. It does mean that they can continue to live illegally within the country. They should instead be transferred towards the immigrations office and apply for refugee status or citizenship in the same manner that any other incoming immigrant would.
I have reduced the argument to a semantic dialogue. I would apologize for this but it was my opponent who established his argument in the way that he did, leaving me no other choice but to single him out for not properly stating his case.
On a final note to this round, I would like to refute an absolute claim that my opponent made. He claimed that the only solution to the lack of jobs was to deport an illegal alien, and I would simply like to point out that this certainly isn’t the only method of reducing unemployment. One fair example would be to forbid the export of labor.
| Economics | 1 | should-the-united-states-grant-amnesty-to-immigrants-who-came-here-illigally/1/ | 54,079 |
I do not believe that my argument was well received by my opponent and I will endeavour to make myself as clear as possible. My opponent was responsible for constructing an argument against the amnesty of illegal immigrants and I have shown that there are no negative impacts involved in doing so. Amnesty does not mean that they are granted citizenship. It simply means that they are forgiven for their crimes. Once amnesty has been given, the government faces the responsibility of deciding upon deportation or giving them citizenship, and since this isn't an argument about the government's ability to do its job, we must agree that they will do what is best for the country. I have indeed agreed that a person living under a government's umbrella should comply with its policies. This has nothing to do with amnesty. I believe that my opponent wanted to argue for their deportation, and not against their amnesty, for his arguments are not in line with his resolution. | 0 | KristophKP |
I do not believe that my argument was well received by my opponent and I will endeavour to make myself as clear as possible. My opponent was responsible for constructing an argument against the amnesty of illegal immigrants and I have shown that there are no negative impacts involved in doing so. Amnesty does not mean that they are granted citizenship. It simply means that they are forgiven for their crimes. Once amnesty has been given, the government faces the responsibility of deciding upon deportation or giving them citizenship, and since this isn't an argument about the government's ability to do its job, we must agree that they will do what is best for the country.
I have indeed agreed that a person living under a government's umbrella should comply with its policies. This has nothing to do with amnesty. I believe that my opponent wanted to argue for their deportation, and not against their amnesty, for his arguments are not in line with his resolution. | Economics | 2 | should-the-united-states-grant-amnesty-to-immigrants-who-came-here-illigally/1/ | 54,080 |
It was my opponent's role to define the parameters of the debate and he failed to do so. A straight-forward definition of amnesty means a pardon for one's crimes and makes no mention of whether they are granted citizenship. How am I to argue a subject when the instigator waits until the fourth round to define the question? My opponent accuses me of wasting of our time and yet he's the one who just negated an entire debate's worth. I urge you to use reason when deciding whether my opponent fairly framed the debate. On another note: America was founded on immigration. It's odd how one can turn around and say no to an outsider after only very recently barged in through the front door. | 0 | KristophKP |
It was my opponent’s role to define the parameters of the debate and he failed to do so. A straight-forward definition of amnesty means a pardon for one’s crimes and makes no mention of whether they are granted citizenship. How am I to argue a subject when the instigator waits until the fourth round to define the question? My opponent accuses me of wasting of our time and yet he’s the one who just negated an entire debate’s worth. I urge you to use reason when deciding whether my opponent fairly framed the debate.
On another note: America was founded on immigration. It’s odd how one can turn around and say no to an outsider after only very recently barged in through the front door.
| Economics | 3 | should-the-united-states-grant-amnesty-to-immigrants-who-came-here-illigally/1/ | 54,081 |
Thank you for accepting this debate. The Debate in general will follow the following format: Round One: Intro Round Two: main round Round three: CX Round four: rebuttal Round four: conclusion | 0 | wierdman |
Thank you for accepting this debate.
The Debate in general will follow the following format:
Round One: Intro
Round Two: main round
Round three: CX
Round four: rebuttal
Round four: conclusion | Economics | 0 | should-the-united-states-grant-amnesty-to-immigrants-who-came-here-illigally/1/ | 54,082 |
For a long time it was rational for the United States to Invite or rather allow many immigrants to come to the United States simply because they were fueling the Industrial revolution thus allowing the United States to help these immigrants as much as possible. This served as a way to help the immigrants as well as help the U.S citizens; however, during this economic downfall, it is almost impossible to house these immigrants and still protect the average United States citizen. According to a march 9th bloom berg article, 71 percent of illegal immigrants are consuming some sort of welfare, 52 percent of lawfully present immigrants are consuming some form of welfare". In contrast only 39 percent of the United States citizen headed household are consuming some sort of welfare. it is quite clear that immigrants no matter what nationality are consuming some incredible amounts of welfare. Many of these immigrants do not have a high school education thus they are highly unlikely to contribute a great deal to our economy. We must look into the Fact that these immigrants are taking advantage of our economy and in return increases the strain on our already strained economy. JOBS>>> there are fourteen million Americans without a job a vast majority of illegal immigrants have those jobs. The only solution to this problem is to deport an illegal alien thus creating a job for an American citizens. Many of us think that those jobs are jobs that Americans won't do; however in our current economy, it is clear that many are desperate for jobs and even in many fields were illegal aliens work, we find that American citizens also work in the same fields. The Illegal aliens are depressing the wages and taking the jobs of the home born citizen outright. if we truly care about our physical health, economic health or even the health of American citizens, the only option is to reduce the illegal immigrants. " Illegal immigrants don't do jobs that Americans "don't want" to do. A million Americans recently showed up to apply for a job at McDonald's. That is how desperate Americans are for work these days. Please don't try to tell me that there aren't millions of Americans out there that would not pick fruit for minimum wage. The millions upon millions of illegal immigrants in this country are stealing jobs, they are depressing wages in a whole host of industries and they are a huge factor in the erosion of the middle class." ( <URL>... ) "There is one group of Americans that would benefit from a dramatic cut in illegal immigration: high-school dropouts. Most economists agree that the wages of low-skill high-school dropouts are suppressed by somewhere between 3 percent and 8 percent because of competition from immigrants, both legal and illegal. Economists speculate that for the average high-school dropout, that would mean about a $25 a week raise if there were no job competition from immigrants." ( <URL>... ) Nest we must look at the benefits that many illegal immigrants qualify for. Like I mentioned in my first topic, illegal immigrants take advantage of our economy, many of these immigrants do not pay taxes rather they end up getting income tax credit which allows them to get money back from the federal government because they are low skilled, low waged workers. This means that these people do not pay federal taxes and in many cases they do not pay state taxes. Every single research in past ten years have shown that these illegal immigrants are consuming economic benefits. We must also look into the fact that illegal immigrants are consuming huge amounts of fiscal benefits which develops as a lost towards the American citizen. "Illegal aliens "pay fewer taxes because they have lower incomes and because their compliance rate [voluntarily filing of income taxes by themselves or by employers] is somewhat lower than our other immigrant groups," said Michael Fix, vice president of the Migration Policy Institute. "And their incomes are lower in large part because many have low levels of education and limited English skills." ( <URL>... ) "Steven A. Camarota, research director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a District-based group that favors tougher immigration policies, wrote a study in 2004 that found illegal aliens cost the federal government $26.3 billion in services in 2002 but paid only $16 billion in taxes. Illegal aliens that year created a net fiscal deficit of $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal alien household, he said. The costs reflected a burden on government services such as Medicaid, medical treatment for the uninsured, food-assistance programs, the federal prison and court systems, and federal aid to schools. " ( <URL>... ) When looking at the case of illegal aliens, we must see that there are winners and there are losers. The winners being the illegal aliens and the losers being the American citizens who loose there jobs as well as those who now get lower wages. | 0 | wierdman |
For a long time it was rational for the United States to Invite or rather allow many immigrants to come to the United States simply because they were fueling the Industrial revolution thus allowing the United States to help these immigrants as much as possible. This served as a way to help the immigrants as well as help the U.S citizens; however, during this economic downfall, it is almost impossible to house these immigrants and still protect the average United States citizen. According to a march 9th bloom berg article, 71 percent of illegal immigrants are consuming some sort of welfare, 52 percent of lawfully present immigrants are consuming some form of welfare". In contrast only 39 percent of the United States citizen headed household are consuming some sort of welfare. it is quite clear that immigrants no matter what nationality are consuming some incredible amounts of welfare. Many of these immigrants do not have a high school education thus they are highly unlikely to contribute a great deal to our economy. We must look into the Fact that these immigrants are taking advantage of our economy and in return increases the strain on our already strained economy.
JOBS>>> there are fourteen million Americans without a job a vast majority of illegal immigrants have those jobs. The only solution to this problem is to deport an illegal alien thus creating a job for an American citizens. Many of us think that those jobs are jobs that Americans won't do; however in our current economy, it is clear that many are desperate for jobs and even in many fields were illegal aliens work, we find that American citizens also work in the same fields. The Illegal aliens are depressing the wages and taking the jobs of the home born citizen outright. if we truly care about our physical health, economic health or even the health of American citizens, the only option is to reduce the illegal immigrants.
" Illegal immigrants don't do jobs that Americans "don't want" to do. A million Americans recently showed up to apply for a job at McDonald's. That is how desperate Americans are for work these days. Please don't try to tell me that there aren't millions of Americans out there that would not pick fruit for minimum wage. The millions upon millions of illegal immigrants in this country are stealing jobs, they are depressing wages in a whole host of industries and they are a huge factor in the erosion of the middle class." ( http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com... )
"There is one group of Americans that would benefit from a dramatic cut in illegal immigration: high-school dropouts. Most economists agree that the wages of low-skill high-school dropouts are suppressed by somewhere between 3 percent and 8 percent because of competition from immigrants, both legal and illegal. Economists speculate that for the average high-school dropout, that would mean about a $25 a week raise if there were no job competition from immigrants." ( http://www.npr.org... )
Nest we must look at the benefits that many illegal immigrants qualify for. Like I mentioned in my first topic, illegal immigrants take advantage of our economy, many of these immigrants do not pay taxes rather they end up getting income tax credit which allows them to get money back from the federal government because they are low skilled, low waged workers. This means that these people do not pay federal taxes and in many cases they do not pay state taxes. Every single research in past ten years have shown that these illegal immigrants are consuming economic benefits. We must also look into the fact that illegal immigrants are consuming huge amounts of fiscal benefits which develops as a lost towards the American citizen.
"Illegal aliens "pay fewer taxes because they have lower incomes and because their compliance rate [voluntarily filing of income taxes by themselves or by employers] is somewhat lower than our other immigrant groups," said Michael Fix, vice president of the Migration Policy Institute. "And their incomes are lower in large part because many have low levels of education and limited English skills." ( http://www.alipac.us... )
"Steven A. Camarota, research director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a District-based group that favors tougher immigration policies, wrote a study in 2004 that found illegal aliens cost the federal government $26.3 billion in services in 2002 but paid only $16 billion in taxes.
Illegal aliens that year created a net fiscal deficit of $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal alien household, he said. The costs reflected a burden on government services such as Medicaid, medical treatment for the uninsured, food-assistance programs, the federal prison and court systems, and federal aid to schools. " ( http://www.alipac.us... )
When looking at the case of illegal aliens, we must see that there are winners and there are losers. The winners being the illegal aliens and the losers being the American citizens who loose there jobs as well as those who now get lower wages. | Economics | 1 | should-the-united-states-grant-amnesty-to-immigrants-who-came-here-illigally/1/ | 54,083 |
My opponent has proved his case in a highly unusual method however despite the format in which he uses, he has provided no proof nor has he provided a reason why the United States should grant amnesty to these illegal immigrants. My opponent stated that these people come to the united States as a means to acquire a better life; however, we must think of our citizens first before trying to accommodate other people. My opponent stated that " It does mean that they can continue to live illegally within the country. They should instead be transferred towards the immigrations office and apply for refugee status or citizenship in the same manner that any other incoming immigrant would." but he neglected the fact that these citizens are still low skilled workers and would still receive the same benefits that they currently receive thus proving to be a waste of time rather than a solution. In conclusion: My opponent failed to provide any real prove that these immigrants are beneficial to the United States social and economic status. My opponent also agreed to my case by stating that " If a person decides to live under the umbrella of a government's services then it should stand to reason that they comply with governmental policies.". | 0 | wierdman |
My opponent has proved his case in a highly unusual method however despite the format in which he uses, he has provided no proof nor has he provided a reason why the United States should grant amnesty to these illegal immigrants. My opponent stated that these people come to the united States as a means to acquire a better life; however, we must think of our citizens first before trying to accommodate other people. My opponent stated that " It does mean that they can continue to live illegally within the country. They should instead be transferred towards the immigrations office and apply for refugee status or citizenship in the same manner that any other incoming immigrant would." but he neglected the fact that these citizens are still low skilled workers and would still receive the same benefits that they currently receive thus proving to be a waste of time rather than a solution.
In conclusion: My opponent failed to provide any real prove that these immigrants are beneficial to the United States social and economic status. My opponent also agreed to my case by stating that " If a person decides to live under the umbrella of a government's services then it should stand to reason that they comply with governmental policies.". | Economics | 2 | should-the-united-states-grant-amnesty-to-immigrants-who-came-here-illigally/1/ | 54,084 |
My opponent although very clear of his point, seemed to have mistaken the meaning of amnesty towards illegal aliens. My opponent describes amnesty as simply forgiving them of there crimes and choosing to deport or to grant legality, when in reality, amnesty gives the illegal alien the ability to continue living in the United States as it grants them legality in all ways as well as forgive them of there crimes of fake identity. "An amnesty for illegal aliens forgives their act of illegal immigration and implicitly forgives other related illegal acts such as driving and working using false documents. The result of an amnesty is that large numbers of foreigners who illegally gained entry into the United States are rewarded with legal status for their breaking the law." ( <URL>... ) " So if an illegal alien enters the country and stays clean for two or more years they will not be deported, what is this if it is not a form af amnesty? Illegal aliens now know that they can come to this country and they will not be punished as long as they do not commit another crime. No matter how you look at it this IS amnesty." ( <URL>... ) My opponent agrees that a person living under the United States should comply with his policies; however, he goes on to stating that this have nothing to do with amnesty. Like mentioned earlier, by granting amnesty you are allowing these people to still live in the United States and since they are still low skilled workers, they continue to damage our economy. In conclusion, for stating the disadvantages of granting amnesty to these aliens (low skilled workers (round one)), for successfully countering my opponents definition of the word amnesty and for the fact that my opponent wasted our time without presenting any significant case, i urge you to vote for me. Thank you. Thank you for your time... | 0 | wierdman |
My opponent although very clear of his point, seemed to have mistaken the meaning of amnesty towards illegal aliens. My opponent describes amnesty as simply forgiving them of there crimes and choosing to deport or to grant legality, when in reality, amnesty gives the illegal alien the ability to continue living in the United States as it grants them legality in all ways as well as forgive them of there crimes of fake identity.
"An amnesty for illegal aliens forgives their act of illegal immigration and implicitly forgives other related illegal acts such as driving and working using false documents. The result of an amnesty is that large numbers of foreigners who illegally gained entry into the United States are rewarded with legal status for their breaking the law." ( http://www.theamericanresistance.com... )
" So if an illegal alien enters the country and stays clean for two or more years they will not be deported, what is this if it is not a form af amnesty? Illegal aliens now know that they can come to this country and they will not be punished as long as they do not commit another crime. No matter how you look at it this IS amnesty." ( http://americaswatchtower.com... )
My opponent agrees that a person living under the United States should comply with his policies; however, he goes on to stating that this have nothing to do with amnesty. Like mentioned earlier, by granting amnesty you are allowing these people to still live in the United States and since they are still low skilled workers, they continue to damage our economy.
In conclusion, for stating the disadvantages of granting amnesty to these aliens (low skilled workers (round one)), for successfully countering my opponents definition of the word amnesty and for the fact that my opponent wasted our time without presenting any significant case, i urge you to vote for me.
Thank you.
Thank you for your time... | Economics | 3 | should-the-united-states-grant-amnesty-to-immigrants-who-came-here-illigally/1/ | 54,085 |
there is one thing that I have to say. freedom of expression. this is America. our founding fathers left Britain for this reason. they wanted a country so people would be more free. getting school uniforms would limit the freedom of a person. | 0 | alexkyl99 |
there is one thing that I have to say. freedom of expression. this is America. our founding fathers left Britain for this reason. they wanted a country so people would be more free. getting school uniforms would limit the freedom of a person. | Education | 0 | should-uniforms-in-school-be-required/1/ | 54,105 |
Should schools require school uniforms | 0 | kinger3040 |
Should schools require school uniforms | Education | 0 | should-uniforms-in-school-be-required/1/ | 54,106 |
I accept this debate. I will be arguing that iPods should not be used for music in school. I thank my opponent for the opportunity. The fact of the matter is that electronics of all sort are a distraction in school. iPods are not just used for music. There are also the problems that arise from stolen property. Tension, fighting, suspicions, and again, the overall distraction in the school. This can certainly affect student performance. Finally, there has been a general movement to make schooling more and more personally situated to each student's "needs". While this might be an ideal situation, the fact of the matter is that schools must operate on aiding the highest number of students. I don't believe the smorgasbord approach does this. It adds confusion and allows students to hide behind "preferences" instead of being challenged to complete in the current situation. This also promulgates an attitude of anarchy which overflows in the workplace and lowers overall productivity in the economy. Who wants an employee that needs their every whim satisfied before they can do their job every day? No one that intends on making a profit, certainly. | 1 | Naysayer |
I accept this debate. I will be arguing that iPods should not be used for music in school. I thank my opponent for the opportunity.
The fact of the matter is that electronics of all sort are a distraction in school. iPods are not just used for music.
There are also the problems that arise from stolen property. Tension, fighting, suspicions, and again, the overall distraction in the school. This can certainly affect student performance.
Finally, there has been a general movement to make schooling more and more personally situated to each student's "needs". While this might be an ideal situation, the fact of the matter is that schools must operate on aiding the highest number of students. I don't believe the smorgasbord approach does this. It adds confusion and allows students to hide behind "preferences" instead of being challenged to complete in the current situation.
This also promulgates an attitude of anarchy which overflows in the workplace and lowers overall productivity in the economy. Who wants an employee that needs their every whim satisfied before they can do their job every day? No one that intends on making a profit, certainly. | Music | 0 | should-we-be-allowed-to-use-ipods-durind-school-for-music/1/ | 54,115 |
We are debating whether or not to allow iPods in school to listen to music. I do not think that we should because they create distractions, they can create problems by being stolen, and finally I believe that the attitude that everyone should learn with their own methods is extremely inefficient and impractical as a schooling program. My opponent made an argument that infers since Olympic swimmers use music prior to performing that students in school should be allowed to use iPods. There are two issues with this argument: 1. They are Olympic swimmers. Dedication and drive are inherent to their successes. They"ve already demonstrated their self discipline in their rigorous training and eating habits as well as long term commitment. One would not get such sureties from the average student.[1] 2. The Olympic swimmers listened to music prior to performing, not during practice or performance. iPods are distracting by their very design. They dont just have music capabilities. They have games, video, and cameras, along with a near unlimited number of apps for download.[2][3] One cannot candidly expect students not to indulge in such distractions to the detriment of their schooling. Along with this is the fact that these features open students up to more serious forms of distraction. Young people have been known to take and pass along lewd pictures and video. This is often discovered in school as they share these images back and forth and the children end up charged with charges for having or spreading child pornography.[4] Electronics can be stolen. There are rates of nearly ten students per every thousand that experiencing theft in a single school year. It's to be noted that those reports are based on thefts of items over $10.[5] The natural reaction to theft is anger, frustration, helplessness and sometimes vengeance. These are all distracting and often troublesome emotions for groups to experience. It would be detrimental to a school environment for children to experience this. As electronics become more commonplace, so would the theft of those devices, and the suspicions attached to them. It would be better if electronics were completely banned from school grounds. Finally, schools are institutions. Most often, they are public institutions, run by tax payer funding and government bureaucracy. Institutions require funding and staff. The reason schools are directed as they are is because they must educate large numbers of children and so variation must be restricted because there is no proper way to assess children with a sundry and varied approach to training without a huge, inefficient staff that would require a budget that is not even possible much less practical. Also, what is the intent of schooling? Is it to push every child through? Or is it to teach those that can be taught for future careers and to assess the others" weaknesses to send them to other trades where they are more suited? Not everyone is going to be a rocket scientist. I don"t believe that sacrificing the core group for those that can"t fit the mold makes any sense. It would be more helpful to identify those and put them into trade schools or otherwise. I had also mentioned that to teach every child to their specific pleasure will lead to an attitude that requires personal preferences to be met before any effort can be gotten out of individuals. Schooling doesn't just teach facts and figures. It gives an impression of society and our position in it. If students are allowed to pick and choose every day how they want to meet the day, what use are they as employees. What if they decide they can't work until after eight, while everyone else shows up at six? What if they decide they need their music when safety requires earplugs? How will they function if the world is bent around them? It will certainly not bend so well once they get out of school and head into the "real world". iPods are not conducive to a strong learning environment. They cause distractions. The argument that school should be fit to each and every student is not practical nor is it to be desired. Schooling serves more purposes than just learning. It conditions people to accept the rules and regulations and inconveniences of life. As such, I do not believe that iPods should be allowed in schools. [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... [5] <URL>... | 1 | Naysayer |
We are debating whether or not to allow iPods in school to listen to music. I do not think that we should because they create distractions, they can create problems by being stolen, and finally I believe that the attitude that everyone should learn with their own methods is extremely inefficient and impractical as a schooling program.
My opponent made an argument that infers since Olympic swimmers use music prior to performing that students in school should be allowed to use iPods. There are two issues with this argument:
1. They are Olympic swimmers. Dedication and drive are inherent to their successes. They"ve already demonstrated their self discipline in their rigorous training and eating habits as well as long term commitment. One would not get such sureties from the average student.[1]
2. The Olympic swimmers listened to music prior to performing, not during practice or performance.
iPods are distracting by their very design. They dont just have music capabilities. They have games, video, and cameras, along with a near unlimited number of apps for download.[2][3] One cannot candidly expect students not to indulge in such distractions to the detriment of their schooling.
Along with this is the fact that these features open students up to more serious forms of distraction. Young people have been known to take and pass along lewd pictures and video. This is often discovered in school as they share these images back and forth and the children end up charged with charges for having or spreading child pornography.[4]
Electronics can be stolen. There are rates of nearly ten students per every thousand that experiencing theft in a single school year. It's to be noted that those reports are based on thefts of items over $10.[5]
The natural reaction to theft is anger, frustration, helplessness and sometimes vengeance. These are all distracting and often troublesome emotions for groups to experience. It would be detrimental to a school environment for children to experience this. As electronics become more commonplace, so would the theft of those devices, and the suspicions attached to them. It would be better if electronics were completely banned from school grounds.
Finally, schools are institutions. Most often, they are public institutions, run by tax payer funding and government bureaucracy. Institutions require funding and staff. The reason schools are directed as they are is because they must educate large numbers of children and so variation must be restricted because there is no proper way to assess children with a sundry and varied approach to training without a huge, inefficient staff that would require a budget that is not even possible much less practical.
Also, what is the intent of schooling? Is it to push every child through? Or is it to teach those that can be taught for future careers and to assess the others" weaknesses to send them to other trades where they are more suited? Not everyone is going to be a rocket scientist. I don"t believe that sacrificing the core group for those that can"t fit the mold makes any sense. It would be more helpful to identify those and put them into trade schools or otherwise.
I had also mentioned that to teach every child to their specific pleasure will lead to an attitude that requires personal preferences to be met before any effort can be gotten out of individuals.
Schooling doesn't just teach facts and figures. It gives an impression of society and our position in it. If students are allowed to pick and choose every day how they want to meet the day, what use are they as employees. What if they decide they can't work until after eight, while everyone else shows up at six? What if they decide they need their music when safety requires earplugs? How will they function if the world is bent around them? It will certainly not bend so well once they get out of school and head into the "real world".
iPods are not conducive to a strong learning environment. They cause distractions. The argument that school should be fit to each and every student is not practical nor is it to be desired. Schooling serves more purposes than just learning. It conditions people to accept the rules and regulations and inconveniences of life. As such, I do not believe that iPods should be allowed in schools.
[1] http://www.theguardian.com...
[2] http://www.apple.com...
[3] http://www.apple.com...
[4] http://www.wgal.com...
[5] http://www.census.gov... | Music | 1 | should-we-be-allowed-to-use-ipods-durind-school-for-music/1/ | 54,116 |
Pro attempts to bring in the fact that the internet and texting are cut off suggesting that this limits distractions on the iPod. While this may be the case to a point, it still doesn't speak to the several abilities inherent to the iPod previously discussed, such as videos, games, and pictures. Neither has Pro even approached my other arguments and as such, they stand. The iPod is a distraction in school. It (and all electronics) should be banned in schools because they degrade the learning experience and provide minimal benefit. | 1 | Naysayer |
Pro attempts to bring in the fact that the internet and texting are cut off suggesting that this limits distractions on the iPod. While this may be the case to a point, it still doesn't speak to the several abilities inherent to the iPod previously discussed, such as videos, games, and pictures.
Neither has Pro even approached my other arguments and as such, they stand.
The iPod is a distraction in school. It (and all electronics) should be banned in schools because they degrade the learning experience and provide minimal benefit. | Music | 2 | should-we-be-allowed-to-use-ipods-durind-school-for-music/1/ | 54,117 |
people should be able to smoke. yes it is bad for your health but its their body and they should be able to smoke if they want they know its bad for them. It is also addictive but what that's got to do with someone else. Its their habbit not yours. second hand smoke can give other lung cancer but its not like you have to be around it. The person that is not smoking can always get up and leave or ask the other person if they will go smoke some where else. When it comes to smoking in the car if it is your car you can just tell them that there is no smoking you the car and if they don't like the idea they don't have to ride with you. If it is there car they can smoke in it and the person riding don't have to ride with them. Someone can also say that there should be no smoking in public places but if you think about it not alt of places let you smoke inside anyways and the places that do you don't have to go to them and some of them have there our section to smoke or another room the it cut off | 0 | thearugment |
people should be able to smoke. yes it is bad for your health but its their body and they should be able to smoke if they want they know its bad for them. It is also addictive but what that's got to do with someone else. Its their habbit not yours. second hand smoke can give other lung cancer but its not like you have to be around it. The person that is not smoking can always get up and leave or ask the other person if they will go smoke some where else. When it comes to smoking in the car if it is your car you can just tell them that there is no smoking you the car and if they don't like the idea they don't have to ride with you. If it is there car they can smoke in it and the person riding don't have to ride with them. Someone can also say that there should be no smoking in public places but if you think about it not alt of places let you smoke inside anyways and the places that do you don't have to go to them and some of them have there our section to smoke or another room the it cut off | Health | 0 | smoking-should-legal/1/ | 54,185 |
Terran are great for experienced players. They have skills that can help in rushes and in major combat periods. | 0 | anotherkid |
Terran are great for experienced players. They have skills that can help in rushes and in major combat periods. | Miscellaneous | 0 | starcraft-terran-are-better/1/ | 54,250 |
well, if you rush, i can lift off and land somewhere else unknown... | 0 | anotherkid |
well, if you rush, i can lift off and land somewhere else unknown... | Miscellaneous | 1 | starcraft-terran-are-better/1/ | 54,251 |
If I work fast enough, i should be able to lift off and land in an isolated island area ureachable by early means. This will give me time to build a decent defense and a force of tanks, valkries, and firebats. Put to effect at just the right time, I will have 2+ bases at my disposal and it will take time for you to destroy all of them. Tanks, having the longest range in the game, can destroy any of your defences in seconds with their powerful siege attack. Since you mentioned lurkers, i will add science vessels into this. Now since your being massacred, you will probably bring in all your offensive units to save your base(s). that will aloow me to make up for my own loss of defences while my tanks are perfectly secured by firebats (with a good ground/splash attack) and valkries (with a deadly air attack). Now of course this all depends on context of situations, so time and location may differ the outcome... | 0 | anotherkid |
If I work fast enough, i should be able to lift off and land in an isolated island area ureachable by early means. This will give me time to build a decent defense and a force of tanks, valkries, and firebats. Put to effect at just the right time, I will have 2+ bases at my disposal and it will take time for you to destroy all of them. Tanks, having the longest range in the game, can destroy any of your defences in seconds with their powerful siege attack. Since you mentioned lurkers, i will add science vessels into this. Now since your being massacred, you will probably bring in all your offensive units to save your base(s). that will aloow me to make up for my own loss of defences while my tanks are perfectly secured by firebats (with a good ground/splash attack) and valkries (with a deadly air attack). Now of course this all depends on context of situations, so time and location may differ the outcome... | Miscellaneous | 2 | starcraft-terran-are-better/1/ | 54,252 |
i dont think mom should be paid to stay at home with your kids because its your own kid why be paid to take care of your own child | 0 | manuela12000 |
i dont think mom should be paid to stay at home with your kids because its your own kid why be paid to take care of your own child | People | 0 | stay-at-home-moms-should-be-paid./1/ | 54,253 |
Con's grammar, spelling and poor conduct make his resolution untestable. | 0 | emospongebob527 |
Con's grammar, spelling and poor conduct make his resolution untestable. | Education | 0 | stay-in-boarding-school-is-better/1/ | 54,254 |
and a very good morning i bid to the speaker of the house,the edjudicators,the wise time keeper and not to be forget to the members of the hall. | 0 | izyan.safira |
and a very good morning i bid to the speaker of the house,the edjudicators,the wise time keeper and not to be forget to the members of the hall. | Education | 0 | stay-in-boarding-school-is-better/1/ | 54,255 |
That is scientifically proven. | 0 | vakeelss |
That is scientifically proven. | Miscellaneous | 0 | sun-rises-in-east/1/ | 54,297 |
My friend has substantiated his arguments really well. He seems too logical but the fact he cannot defy is -- Cheers !! For adding flavors to GK. Now, I would have certainly typed arguments citing authorities..but my intention to learn keeps me apart. Advance wishes for Christmas. | 0 | vakeelss |
My friend has substantiated his arguments really well. He seems too logical but the fact he cannot defy is --
Cheers !! For adding flavors to GK.
Now, I would have certainly typed arguments citing authorities..but my intention to learn keeps me apart.
Advance wishes for Christmas. | Miscellaneous | 1 | sun-rises-in-east/1/ | 54,298 |
Accepting your thanks.. May god bless you | 0 | vakeelss |
Accepting your thanks..
May god bless you | Miscellaneous | 2 | sun-rises-in-east/1/ | 54,299 |
This is a formal debate not a rap battle. | 0 | emospongebob527 |
This is a formal debate not a rap battle. | Entertainment | 1 | super-villains-VS.-superheroes/1/ | 54,301 |
My opponent has made arguments suited for a rap battle, in a formal debate such as this they have little groundand no evidence. | 0 | emospongebob527 |
My opponent has made arguments suited for a rap battle, in a formal debate such as this they have little groundand no evidence. | Entertainment | 2 | super-villains-VS.-superheroes/1/ | 54,302 |
All the mighty heroes shall fall before my might. By working in the shadows and keeping out of the light. As long as hero's in my trap do not here my background story. I vanquish them and murder them and win eternal glory. My strength makes hulk a skinny boy. My IQ makes Richards rather coy. As you can see I'll always win. But try though your effort will be thin. | 0 | singingboy2 |
All the mighty heroes shall fall before my might.
By working in the shadows and keeping out of the light.
As long as hero's in my trap do not here my background story.
I vanquish them and murder them and win eternal glory.
My strength makes hulk a skinny boy.
My IQ makes Richards rather coy.
As you can see I'll always win.
But try though your effort will be thin. | Entertainment | 0 | super-villains-VS.-superheroes/1/ | 54,303 |
Unlike a superhero a super villain stands alone. And like all super villains for my crimes I'll not atone. A superhero lacking super villain is but a man in tights. But super villain lacking superhero is a thing to keep you up at nights. You may say good will always win but i say might makes right. And you will cry cause people will die when New York City I will ignite. | 0 | singingboy2 |
Unlike a superhero a super villain stands alone.
And like all super villains for my crimes I'll not atone.
A superhero lacking super villain is but a man in tights.
But super villain lacking superhero is a thing to keep you up at nights.
You may say good will always win but i say might makes right.
And you will cry cause people will die when New York City I will ignite. | Entertainment | 1 | super-villains-VS.-superheroes/1/ | 54,304 |
I was not raping simply stating my point in verse A hero needs a villain to be a superhero A villain can be a super villain without a hero besides i started with verse dose that not make verse ok | 0 | singingboy2 |
I was not raping simply stating my point in verse
A hero needs a villain to be a superhero
A villain can be a super villain without a hero besides i started with verse dose that not make verse ok | Entertainment | 2 | super-villains-VS.-superheroes/1/ | 54,305 |
Alright, I'm kinda tired, so if it's okay with you, I'm going to essentially reiterate my constructive I made in my argument with solo. I will perform this debate by stating how the dark lord of the sith would counter Superman's powers (all except strength). Speed: We must remember that all Jedi have shown themselves able to deflect a barrage of lasers with their uncanny light sabers. Also, during the second and third prequel, Yoda had shown himself able to deflect Lord Sidious' lightning spell with his hands alone. Scientist have estimated that a lightning bolt moves at half the speed of light or more. My point: Superman likely won't use his speed, but even if he did, Vader would easily counter it no harder than he had countered Han solo's laser blast in second film of the original trilogy. Heat Vision: Basically the same as the criteria covered in speed. Ice Breath: Vader should be able to dispel it with a simple force push. Invulnerability: In the comics, it is noted that Superman's invulnerability can be bypassed by any magical force. The force in the SW universe could be defined as magic, thus it could be used effectively against Superman. Expansion on the invulnerability argument: By the 1970s, Superman was given a bio electric aura. This aura serves to be his source of invulnerability and it is the reason his suit is never damaged. It is acknowledged that SW characters can bypass fields "barriers" and use the force to their heart's content. For instance, the force choke is performed by directly bypassing one's flesh and squeezing one's larynx. If it is indeed possible that the force doesn't serve as the equivalent to magic, Vader could just bypass this aura use the force to dispose of the kryptonian. Finally, in Return of the Jedi, Darth Sidious tells Vader that he had foreseen Luke Skywalker's arrival on Endor. This justice that force wielders can see into the future. If that is the case, Vader could simply prepare for this fight days in advance. Concerning my opponent's constructive, I question whether or not he is claiming that Superman would not be damaged by a light saber. Any way you look at it, Vader would be the champion in a brawl with Kal-el of krpton. I have made an edit concerning how Vader would counter Superman's strength (if all will notice, it has been removed). I believe that the above analysis alone is sufficient concerning how he can counter Superman's super strength. I now stand ready for my opponent's rebuttal. | 0 | Logical-Master |
Alright, I'm kinda tired, so if it's okay with you, I'm going to essentially reiterate my constructive I made in my argument with solo.
I will perform this debate by stating how the dark lord of the sith would counter Superman's powers (all except strength).
Speed: We must remember that all Jedi have shown themselves able to deflect a barrage of lasers with their uncanny light sabers. Also, during the second and third prequel, Yoda had shown himself able to deflect Lord Sidious' lightning spell with his hands alone. Scientist have estimated that a lightning bolt moves at half the speed of light or more. My point: Superman likely won't use his speed, but even if he did, Vader would easily counter it no harder than he had countered Han solo's laser blast in second film of the original trilogy.
Heat Vision: Basically the same as the criteria covered in speed.
Ice Breath: Vader should be able to dispel it with a simple force push.
Invulnerability: In the comics, it is noted that Superman's invulnerability can be bypassed by any magical force. The force in the SW universe could be defined as magic, thus it could be used effectively against Superman.
Expansion on the invulnerability argument: By the 1970s, Superman was given a bio electric aura. This aura serves to be his source of invulnerability and it is the reason his suit is never damaged. It is acknowledged that SW characters can bypass fields "barriers" and use the force to their heart's content. For instance, the force choke is performed by directly bypassing one's flesh and squeezing one's larynx. If it is indeed possible that the force doesn't serve as the equivalent to magic, Vader could just bypass this aura use the force to dispose of the kryptonian.
Finally, in Return of the Jedi, Darth Sidious tells Vader that he had foreseen Luke Skywalker's arrival on Endor. This justice that force wielders can see into the future. If that is the case, Vader could simply prepare for this fight days in advance.
Concerning my opponent's constructive, I question whether or not he is claiming that Superman would not be damaged by a light saber.
Any way you look at it, Vader would be the champion in a brawl with Kal-el of krpton.
I have made an edit concerning how Vader would counter Superman's strength (if all will notice, it has been removed). I believe that the above analysis alone is sufficient concerning how he can counter Superman's super strength.
I now stand ready for my opponent's rebuttal. | Entertainment | 0 | superman-could-kill-darth-vader-if-he-wanted/1/ | 54,316 |
My opponent states that my argument for super speed doesn't work as superman could more than quickly disarm vader of his light saber with a thunderous clap. Keep in mind that a thunder clap is a burst of air moving at the speed of sound (slower than light which jedi can already counter). Not only that, but if Superman were to perform a thunder clap, Vader could simply counter with a force wave. This would cancel out Superman's thunder clap In response about my opponent's point concerning heat vision, I remind the audience that a laser (by definition) moves at the speed of light. Suggesting that Superman's beam does not have the same attribute only weakens my opponent's argument. Of course, I never mentioned anything about Vader needing to use his lightsaber to counter Superman's heat vision as merely dodging it would be a suitable counter. My opponent concedes that the force would effect Superman, but that Supes would have an advantage if he kept moving. This argument is easy to counter as Darth Vader simply has to use a mind trick if Superman is able to outmaneuver his physical force abilities (not that he'd be able to, but this is just for the sake of the argument). Superman would not know when a mind trick was coming and has no means of dodging one. I never argued that Vader would attempt to throw objects at the man of steel as I've only advocated that he could use his force push abilities as a shield to negate Superman's assaults. Also, Vader would be fighting alone as the resolution states: Superman could kill Vader if he really wanted to. If does not state Superman (and friends) could kill Vader (and friends) if he really wanted to. Finally, my opponent does not respond to my points concerning invulnerability, precognition, and ice breath. He also doesn't answer my question concerning the lightsaber. And with that said, I now stand ready for my opponent's rebuttal. | 0 | Logical-Master |
My opponent states that my argument for super speed doesn't work as superman could more than quickly disarm vader of his light saber with a thunderous clap. Keep in mind that a thunder clap is a burst of air moving at the speed of sound (slower than light which jedi can already counter). Not only that, but if Superman were to perform a thunder clap, Vader could simply counter with a force wave. This would cancel out Superman's thunder clap
In response about my opponent's point concerning heat vision, I remind the audience that a laser (by definition) moves at the speed of light. Suggesting that Superman's beam does not have the same attribute only weakens my opponent's argument. Of course, I never mentioned anything about Vader needing to use his lightsaber to counter Superman's heat vision as merely dodging it would be a suitable counter.
My opponent concedes that the force would effect Superman, but that Supes would have an advantage if he kept moving. This argument is easy to counter as Darth Vader simply has to use a mind trick if Superman is able to outmaneuver his physical force abilities (not that he'd be able to, but this is just for the sake of the argument). Superman would not know when a mind trick was coming and has no means of dodging one.
I never argued that Vader would attempt to throw objects at the man of steel as I've only advocated that he could use his force push abilities as a shield to negate Superman's assaults.
Also, Vader would be fighting alone as the resolution states: Superman could kill Vader if he really wanted to. If does not state Superman (and friends) could kill Vader (and friends) if he really wanted to.
Finally, my opponent does not respond to my points concerning invulnerability, precognition, and ice breath. He also doesn't answer my question concerning the lightsaber.
And with that said, I now stand ready for my opponent's rebuttal. | Entertainment | 1 | superman-could-kill-darth-vader-if-he-wanted/1/ | 54,317 |
Thanks. I'm a huge fan of the series. lol! I love the creativity of your arguments in this round (particularly the amount of force Superman could produce). This should be fun. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My opponent states that it would be impossible for Jedi to actually block the laser without knowing what trajectory they were extending from, but this isn't the case. As acknowledged in the SW games, comics, cartoon, and books, jedi can use the force to increase the overall speeds of their bodies (although it is noted that at the beginning of episode I, Quigon and Obiwan used this ability to escape the trade federation droidekas) as well as increase their perception of time. In other words, while their speeds are drastically increase (in accordance with their control over the force), their perception of reality is comparable to our perception of "bullet time" from the Matrix films. Basically, with the force, Jedi have access to super human abilities. Otherwise, as my opponent suggest, Jedi would only be able to reflect laser fire based on anticipation of trajectories. I would also like to state that even if Superman's speed and reflexes were too great for Vader, he could always rely on mind control. After all, by the time it takes Superman to think of speed blitzing Vader, Vader could already think to employ a mind trick. In other words, before Superman's body is able to physically carry out the action of speed blitzing his Nemesis with the amount of force my opponent mentions, Vader would have complete control over him. After that, Vader could use any number of means to dispose of the kryptonian and win the match. Contrary to what my opponent states, the force is great and extremely powerful. In a previous debate, an opponent of mine stated that mind control does not work on Superman, but if you read "Superman #219" and "Action Comics #829 ", you'll notice that the villain known as Max Lord took control over Superman's mind which nearly resulted in Batman's death. My opponent states that Superman could just keep his distance while continually attempting to tag Vader. I submit that Vader could just counter with his force powers if need be. There's also no reason as to why he wouldn't be able to use a mind control while knowing the location of Superman. As for fighting alone, he fought Luke alone during Empire Strikes Back, did he not? He fought Obi-wan Kenobi alone on two different occasions, no? THis certainly disproves the argument that Vader cannot fight without help. Expansion of pre-cognition argument: Given that Vader could foresee Superman being a problem in the future, he could use his resources to locate the Man of steel (which can be done through an advanced version of force sight, or he could simply interrogate individuals around the universe who have met the Justice League . He could also just have Boba Fett find his location. After finding out Superman's location, Vader could look upon him via holo net, bypass his bio-electric field, and force choke his larynx while in the comforts of his favorite chair (similar to what he did in Empire Strikes Back). Even if Superman wanted to, he wouldn't be able to kill Vader. | 0 | Logical-Master |
Thanks. I'm a huge fan of the series.
lol! I love the creativity of your arguments in this round (particularly the amount of force Superman could produce). This should be fun.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My opponent states that it would be impossible for Jedi to actually block the laser without knowing what trajectory they were extending from, but this isn't the case. As acknowledged in the SW games, comics, cartoon, and books, jedi can use the force to increase the overall speeds of their bodies (although it is noted that at the beginning of episode I, Quigon and Obiwan used this ability to escape the trade federation droidekas) as well as increase their perception of time. In other words, while their speeds are drastically increase (in accordance with their control over the force), their perception of reality is comparable to our perception of "bullet time" from the Matrix films. Basically, with the force, Jedi have access to super human abilities. Otherwise, as my opponent suggest, Jedi would only be able to reflect laser fire based on anticipation of trajectories.
I would also like to state that even if Superman's speed and reflexes were too great for Vader, he could always rely on mind control. After all, by the time it takes Superman to think of speed blitzing Vader, Vader could already think to employ a mind trick. In other words, before Superman's body is able to physically carry out the action of speed blitzing his Nemesis with the amount of force my opponent mentions, Vader would have complete control over him. After that, Vader could use any number of means to dispose of the kryptonian and win the match. Contrary to what my opponent states, the force is great and extremely powerful.
In a previous debate, an opponent of mine stated that mind control does not work on Superman, but if you read "Superman #219" and "Action Comics #829
", you'll notice that the villain known as Max Lord took control over Superman's mind which nearly resulted in Batman's death.
My opponent states that Superman could just keep his distance while continually attempting to tag Vader. I submit that Vader could just counter with his force powers if need be. There's also no reason as to why he wouldn't be able to use a mind control while knowing the location of Superman.
As for fighting alone, he fought Luke alone during Empire Strikes Back, did he not? He fought Obi-wan Kenobi alone on two different occasions, no? THis certainly disproves the argument that Vader cannot fight without help.
Expansion of pre-cognition argument: Given that Vader could foresee Superman being a problem in the future, he could use his resources to locate the Man of steel (which can be done through an advanced version of force sight, or he could simply interrogate individuals around the universe who have met the Justice League . He could also just have Boba Fett find his location. After finding out Superman's location, Vader could look upon him via holo net, bypass his bio-electric field, and force choke his larynx while in the comforts of his favorite chair (similar to what he did in Empire Strikes Back).
Even if Superman wanted to, he wouldn't be able to kill Vader. | Entertainment | 2 | superman-could-kill-darth-vader-if-he-wanted/1/ | 54,318 |
My opponent is still suggesting that Vader cannot live without the emperor giving him 24/7 life support. This is not the case as we've seen too many instances where Vader and the Emperor have been light years apart. Plus, the life support system comes from the machines, not Darth Sidious. My opponent repeats the idea that Jedi cannot block a laser without knowing the trajectory, but as I've already stated, they are not only able increase their senses to the point to where time appears in slow motion to them, but can also gain super human speed at the same time. As far as force of the laser goes, we've never seen a Jedi get his/her armed snapped off through reflecting a laser, so my opponent is incorrect concerning that theory. As far as tracking down goes, Superman does not have precognition. Vader has precognition, thus being the reason as to where preparation is automatically built into this match for him. I've already explained the mind trick argument. Here is a better illustration. Both Superman and Darth Vader walk into their arena. Superman thinks: "If I move at my fastest, I can easily kill him." Darth Vader thinks: "By merely thinking about it, I can mind control this weak minded fool." Superman says: "I will now do your bidding, Lord Vader." It's as simple as that. By the time Superman is done thinking about killing Vader in the manner my opponent suggested, Vader will already have the man of steel under his control. As for keeping up with Superman, again, with force speed, Vader could see everything in slow motion and will have super human speed of his own to counter with, so this wouldn't be a problem. As for breathing, the current Superman needs to breathe. It's only because of his bio electric field as well as holding his breath for long amounts of time is he able to fly through nearly any environment. As I've suggested, Vader could just bypass this bio electric field with use of the force and kill the kryptonian in the comforts of his favorite chair. And that's all for now. | 0 | Logical-Master |
My opponent is still suggesting that Vader cannot live without the emperor giving him 24/7 life support. This is not the case as we've seen too many instances where Vader and the Emperor have been light years apart. Plus, the life support system comes from the machines, not Darth Sidious.
My opponent repeats the idea that Jedi cannot block a laser without knowing the trajectory, but as I've already stated, they are not only able increase their senses to the point to where time appears in slow motion to them, but can also gain super human speed at the same time. As far as force of the laser goes, we've never seen a Jedi get his/her armed snapped off through reflecting a laser, so my opponent is incorrect concerning that theory.
As far as tracking down goes, Superman does not have precognition. Vader has precognition, thus being the reason as to where preparation is automatically built into this match for him.
I've already explained the mind trick argument. Here is a better illustration.
Both Superman and Darth Vader walk into their arena.
Superman thinks: "If I move at my fastest, I can easily kill him."
Darth Vader thinks: "By merely thinking about it, I can mind control this weak minded fool."
Superman says: "I will now do your bidding, Lord Vader."
It's as simple as that. By the time Superman is done thinking about killing Vader in the manner my opponent suggested, Vader will already have the man of steel under his control.
As for keeping up with Superman, again, with force speed, Vader could see everything in slow motion and will have super human speed of his own to counter with, so this wouldn't be a problem.
As for breathing, the current Superman needs to breathe. It's only because of his bio electric field as well as holding his breath for long amounts of time is he able to fly through nearly any environment. As I've suggested, Vader could just bypass this bio electric field with use of the force and kill the kryptonian in the comforts of his favorite chair.
And that's all for now. | Entertainment | 3 | superman-could-kill-darth-vader-if-he-wanted/1/ | 54,319 |
In his final round, my opponent dropped all of my arguments. Therefore, you can extend my entire case. Concerning Superman being noble enough to win, the resolution states that superman could kill Darth Vader if he wanted to. Given that Superman believes killing to be "un-noble", my opponents point is hence a contradiction to his defense of the resolution. Closing statements: With my entire case extended, my opponent essentially concedes to my arguments, thus being the main reason the con wins today's debate. I like Superman and believe him to be very powerful, but even if he wanted to kill Darth Vader, he wouldn't be able to considering how Darth Vader would always have time to prepare for Superman due to precognition. Not to mention that Vader could kill Superman while being in a different quadrant of the universe or he could simply mind control him if the two confronted each other. Vader wins against the man of steel hands down. With that said, I thank my opponent for having this debate and look forward to debates with him in the future. I also would like to thank the audience for reading. Good night. | 0 | Logical-Master |
In his final round, my opponent dropped all of my arguments. Therefore, you can extend my entire case.
Concerning Superman being noble enough to win, the resolution states that superman could kill Darth Vader if he wanted to. Given that Superman believes killing to be "un-noble", my opponents point is hence a contradiction to his defense of the resolution.
Closing statements: With my entire case extended, my opponent essentially concedes to my arguments, thus being the main reason the con wins today's debate. I like Superman and believe him to be very powerful, but even if he wanted to kill Darth Vader, he wouldn't be able to considering how Darth Vader would always have time to prepare for Superman due to precognition. Not to mention that Vader could kill Superman while being in a different quadrant of the universe or he could simply mind control him if the two confronted each other. Vader wins against the man of steel hands down.
With that said, I thank my opponent for having this debate and look forward to debates with him in the future. I also would like to thank the audience for reading.
Good night. | Entertainment | 4 | superman-could-kill-darth-vader-if-he-wanted/1/ | 54,320 |
hit me with your best shot superman has the powers and the brains to trump vader and his ridiculos saber any day. | 0 | firemonkey6775 |
hit me with your best shot superman has the powers and the brains to trump vader and his ridiculos saber any day. | Entertainment | 0 | superman-could-kill-darth-vader-if-he-wanted/1/ | 54,321 |
ok your argument for super speed dosnt work super man more than quickly could disarm vader of his light saber with a thundereous clap then well take care of business second you cant deflect heat vision its not laser vision its heat vision which lightsaber would do no good against. the force would drive supes crazy. but it would really be not much good if supes keept moving the force would not be as good and since super man can punch holes through ships throwing stuff at him would do no real good. second vader technically would not be fighting alone since he has the emporer's help all the time. that poses a question does super man get help. | 0 | firemonkey6775 |
ok your argument for super speed dosnt work super man more than quickly could disarm vader of his light saber with a thundereous clap then well take care of business second you cant deflect heat vision its not laser vision its heat vision which lightsaber would do no good against. the force would drive supes crazy. but it would really be not much good if supes keept moving the force would not be as good and since super man can punch holes through ships throwing stuff at him would do no real good. second vader technically would not be fighting alone since he has the emporer's help all the time. that poses a question does super man get help. | Entertainment | 1 | superman-could-kill-darth-vader-if-he-wanted/1/ | 54,322 |
ok i know this should go in a comment but sweet picture one a jedi is not blocking each individual laser but is blocking the laser as an extention of the persons hand its impossible to think that they could actually block the laser the time from when it actually leaves the gun to the time it would hit the jedi is less time than he could move his light saber to hit him. ok now super speed ok he travels at near light speed which is so fast you cant even get enough of a thought put together to create a force push strong enough(if there is such a thing) to stop a projectile at near lightspeeds. ok this part is semi rough but bare with me ok well estimate super man weighs 220-300 pounds ok and im using the speed of light as 186000 miles a second. Which would be 669,600,000 miles a hour. Using those two points super man would have roughly 108,754,261,521,499,448,732 (that's using 220 as his weight) joules of energy I don't care who you are that is going to hurt when it rams into you. Ok light saber will do nothing at that speed and he will ram straight through Vader if he moves all superman has to do is either pull a u turn or just make a path adjustment. Ok the force may be great but nothing that powerful. "In response about my opponent's point concerning heat vision, I remind the audience that a laser (by definition) moves at the speed of light. Suggesting that Superman's beam does not have the same attribute only weakens my opponent's argument. Of course, I never mentioned anything about Vader needing to use his lightsaber to counter Superman's heat vision as merely dodging it would be a suitable counter." In this statement you forget with any distance superman would have more than a easy time tracking vaders evasions and could tag him sooner or later. "Also, Vader would be fighting alone as the resolution states: Superman could kill Vader if he really wanted to. If does not state Superman (and friends) could kill Vader (and friends) if he really wanted to." This paragraph only strengthens my debate because as I said Vader would be fighting with the emperors help and there for would not be able to do anything. Ok your turn | 0 | firemonkey6775 |
ok i know this should go in a comment but sweet picture
one a jedi is not blocking each individual laser but is blocking the laser as an extention of the persons hand its impossible to think that they could actually block the laser the time from when it actually leaves the gun to the time it would hit the jedi is less time than he could move his light saber to hit him.
ok now super speed ok he travels at near light speed which is so fast you cant even get enough of a thought put together to create a force push strong enough(if there is such a thing) to stop a projectile at near lightspeeds. ok this part is semi rough but bare with me ok well estimate super man weighs 220-300 pounds ok and im using the speed of light as 186000 miles a second. Which would be 669,600,000 miles a hour. Using those two points super man would have roughly 108,754,261,521,499,448,732 (that's using 220 as his weight) joules of energy I don't care who you are that is going to hurt when it rams into you. Ok light saber will do nothing at that speed and he will ram straight through Vader if he moves all superman has to do is either pull a u turn or just make a path adjustment. Ok the force may be great but nothing that powerful.
"In response about my opponent's point concerning heat vision, I remind the audience that a laser (by definition) moves at the speed of light. Suggesting that Superman's beam does not have the same attribute only weakens my opponent's argument. Of course, I never mentioned anything about Vader needing to use his lightsaber to counter Superman's heat vision as merely dodging it would be a suitable counter."
In this statement you forget with any distance superman would have more than a easy time tracking vaders evasions and could tag him sooner or later.
"Also, Vader would be fighting alone as the resolution states: Superman could kill Vader if he really wanted to. If does not state Superman (and friends) could kill Vader (and friends) if he really wanted to."
This paragraph only strengthens my debate because as I said Vader would be fighting with the emperors help and there for would not be able to do anything.
Ok your turn | Entertainment | 2 | superman-could-kill-darth-vader-if-he-wanted/1/ | 54,323 |
wow im cutting this close so here goes nothing first of all for the last time vadar can not live without the emporer giving him 24/7 life support ok next even with jedi's andvanced speed and all they cannot block a laser with out knowing the trajectory first because simpley if they went fast enough to block it from the time it exited the barrel to the time it would hit the lightsaber the amount of force would snap there arm or they would lose control of there lightsaber really nothing beats a lightspeed attack ok know if we are playing the whole tracking down and killing game well superman has an incredably deep well of alias (and Nemiesis) that span Not only space but time also. If we were to do the whole calling apon forces thing (i take this from your refrence to bobba fett) Darth vader is in deep trouble cause very quickly there would be the entire jlu on his door steep. ok next i understand mind trick is going to be my nemises for the rest of this debate but no matter what you say i dont one belivie it would work on him second lightspeed nothing beets that at that speed vadars optic sensors would probably go a blur and he would have a hard time following him let alone getting a force lock on him second what does it matter if he chokes him he dosnt need to breath he can breath in outerspace. (golden age comics are called that for a reason) well i think i have raised my blood prassure enough for one night your turn | 0 | firemonkey6775 |
wow im cutting this close so here goes nothing first of all for the last time vadar can not live without the emporer giving him 24/7 life support ok next even with jedi's andvanced speed and all they cannot block a laser with out knowing the trajectory first because simpley if they went fast enough to block it from the time it exited the barrel to the time it would hit the lightsaber the amount of force would snap there arm or they would lose control of there lightsaber really nothing beats a lightspeed attack ok know if we are playing the whole tracking down and killing game well superman has an incredably deep well of alias (and Nemiesis) that span Not only space but time also. If we were to do the whole calling apon forces thing (i take this from your refrence to bobba fett) Darth vader is in deep trouble cause very quickly there would be the entire jlu on his door steep. ok next i understand mind trick is going to be my nemises for the rest of this debate but no matter what you say i dont one belivie it would work on him second lightspeed nothing beets that at that speed vadars optic sensors would probably go a blur and he would have a hard time following him let alone getting a force lock on him second what does it matter if he chokes him he dosnt need to breath he can breath in outerspace. (golden age comics are called that for a reason)
well i think i have raised my blood prassure enough for one night your turn | Entertainment | 3 | superman-could-kill-darth-vader-if-he-wanted/1/ | 54,324 |
ok whatever you say man i have had enough of this you aint seeing what i am saying. im just going to say whatever you say man i still think superman would do better nothing beats lightspeed and i would say superman has a noble enough attitude to make it through any thing but what ever you say man. but i would love to debate the spiderman batman thing i get batman ok | 0 | firemonkey6775 |
ok whatever you say man i have had enough of this you aint seeing what i am saying.
im just going to say whatever you say man i still think superman would do better nothing beats lightspeed and i would say superman has a noble enough attitude to make it through any thing but what ever you say man.
but i would love to debate the spiderman batman thing i get batman ok | Entertainment | 4 | superman-could-kill-darth-vader-if-he-wanted/1/ | 54,325 |
it is a pro because it gives an explanation on everything | 0 | smallstar1200 |
it is a pro because it gives an explanation on everything | Education | 0 | teaching-creationism-in-schools/2/ | 54,356 |
i am referring to public schools. I think creationism is as valid of a scientific theory as evolution so it should as well be taught in schools. Thanks i look forward to the next round | 0 | smallstar1200 |
i am referring to public schools. I think creationism is as valid of a scientific theory as evolution so it should as well be taught in schools. Thanks i look forward to the next round | Education | 1 | teaching-creationism-in-schools/2/ | 54,357 |
i believe all religions are valid but, should only be taught if wanted to learn not just evolution. | 0 | smallstar1200 |
i believe all religions are valid but, should only be taught if wanted to learn not just evolution. | Education | 2 | teaching-creationism-in-schools/2/ | 54,358 |
I would like to thank fluffybunnypuff for challenging me to this debate. I will begin my arguments in this round. I. Constitutionality Since this debate does not concern the proposition of an amendment, this argument is relevant. Term limits violate the congressional qualifications area of the Constitution: "U.S. District Judge William L. Dwyer, in a broad ruling, said the Washington term limits initiative was unconstitutional because it wrongly attempted to add qualifications for congressional candidates beyond those stipulated in the Constitution -- age, citizenship and residency in the state represented. 'A state may not diminish its voters' constitutional freedom of choice by making would-be candidates for Congress ineligible on the basis of incumbency or history of congressional service,' Dwyer wrote."[1] In addition to this, term limits also violate both the 1st amendment and the 14th amendment: "The judge also said the measure violated the First and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, describing the term limits initiative as imposing 'unduly restrictive" ballot access requirements on incumbent candidates and inimical to the "freedom of association" guaranteed by the First Amendment.'"[1] This has been backed up by a recent Supreme Court ruling: "On May 22, 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (Sup. Ct. Doc. No. 93-1456) in a 5-4 decision held that Arkansas' constitutional amendment, Section 3 of Amendment 73, providing for limitations on congressional terms of office was unconstitutional in that it established an additional qualification for congressional office in violation of Article I, Sections 2 and 3 setting forth the three basic qualifications of age, citizenship and inhabitancy for Members of Congress."[2] Term limits violate both amendments to the constitution (including one from the Bill of Rights) and from the constitution itself. II. Experience I will cut this argument into two parts. First, I will explain why term limits are bad for new senators. Term limits also prevent legislators from gaining enough experience to be on the job. Every four to six years, a whole new process of experience training comes in. Without term limits, we can have more experienced members of Congress ruling us. "In the business world, experience is valued because with experience comes knowledge of how to be efficient in your job and how to perform your job well. In fact, running a government can be significantly more complicated than running a business. "Term limits are one of those ideas that sound good in theory but are madness in practice. You wouldn't want to go to a hospital filled with medical residents or stock a sports team with an ever-changing cast of rookies. Legislating is hard. We need to give people time to learn how to do it."[3] The Congressman must learn and master a wide variety of issues, and to do so takes time. Term limits prevent Congressmen from gaining the needed experience to effectively govern and make laws. One need look no further than the state government of California, which has enacted term limits and has been the premier example of fiscal ineptitude and poor governance.[3] One can also find the same pattern for Missouri: "A new report from the [University of Missouri] Truman School of Public Affairs argues that the shortening of lawmakers' careers has contributed to a lack of political expertise in the general assembly -- resulting in a less effective government.[4] Next, I will explain why they are bad for senators about to be ousted: "Term limits is and always has been a bad idea. The reason it's a bad idea is because it limits the choices of people the public has to vote for. If you have a really good public servant and you want to keep him, you can't. You have to get rid of the good candidate and replace him with someone who's inexperienced. By having term limits, we are eliminating the people who have wisdom and experience from political life. Like any job, it takes years to be good at what you do. About the time our elected officials have become good public servants, we're required to throw them out."[5] "Term limits kick out the good leaders who may deserve to stay in office for excellent work."[6] In addition to this, it is important to remember that when a Congressman is on his last term, he's not going to listen to the people he is representing because he doesn't have to. He's going to go out next term anyway. III. Power Shifting As a consequence of term limits, as I pointed out earlier, Congressman are now less experienced in performing the duties he was elected for. He now goes to bureaucrats and lobbyists for help in his job. This obviously puts a lot of power into the hands of said bureaucrats and away from Congress. This exacerbates the campaign finance and power problems. This explains it further: "[Reasearch associate professor] Valentine argues that the disappearance of long-term or career politicians in the general assembly has led to a deficit of policy experts. A former state senate staffer, Valentine said that the traditional route for lawmakers to distinguish themselves was to become a respected expert on a certain policy area and then become a resource for other lawmakers. Without this practice, Valentine said term limits have given more power to lobbyists who - as non-government employees - can remain in the halls of the capitol longer than any elected official in Jefferson City ever could. But at the same time, these lobbyists are not held accountable to constituents."[4] Term limits put more power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats who become the only ones who know how to work the system. Overall, term limits are an inefficient way to deal with the problems in today's problem, and in certain cases, they can actually increase those problems and even shift power from one group to another. Sources [1]: <URL>... [2]: <URL>... [3]: <URL>... [4]: <URL>... [5]: <URL>... [6]: <URL>... | 0 | Subutai |
I would like to thank fluffybunnypuff for challenging me to this debate. I will begin my arguments in this round. I. Constitutionality Since this debate does not concern the proposition of an amendment, this argument is relevant. Term limits violate the congressional qualifications area of the Constitution: "U.S. District Judge William L. Dwyer, in a broad ruling, said the Washington term limits initiative was unconstitutional because it wrongly attempted to add qualifications for congressional candidates beyond those stipulated in the Constitution -- age, citizenship and residency in the state represented. 'A state may not diminish its voters' constitutional freedom of choice by making would-be candidates for Congress ineligible on the basis of incumbency or history of congressional service,' Dwyer wrote."[1] In addition to this, term limits also violate both the 1st amendment and the 14th amendment: "The judge also said the measure violated the First and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, describing the term limits initiative as imposing 'unduly restrictive" ballot access requirements on incumbent candidates and inimical to the "freedom of association" guaranteed by the First Amendment.'"[1] This has been backed up by a recent Supreme Court ruling: "On May 22, 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (Sup. Ct. Doc. No. 93-1456) in a 5-4 decision held that Arkansas' constitutional amendment, Section 3 of Amendment 73, providing for limitations on congressional terms of office was unconstitutional in that it established an additional qualification for congressional office in violation of Article I, Sections 2 and 3 setting forth the three basic qualifications of age, citizenship and inhabitancy for Members of Congress."[2] Term limits violate both amendments to the constitution (including one from the Bill of Rights) and from the constitution itself. II. Experience I will cut this argument into two parts. First, I will explain why term limits are bad for new senators. Term limits also prevent legislators from gaining enough experience to be on the job. Every four to six years, a whole new process of experience training comes in. Without term limits, we can have more experienced members of Congress ruling us. "In the business world, experience is valued because with experience comes knowledge of how to be efficient in your job and how to perform your job well. In fact, running a government can be significantly more complicated than running a business. "Term limits are one of those ideas that sound good in theory but are madness in practice. You wouldn't want to go to a hospital filled with medical residents or stock a sports team with an ever-changing cast of rookies. Legislating is hard. We need to give people time to learn how to do it."[3] The Congressman must learn and master a wide variety of issues, and to do so takes time. Term limits prevent Congressmen from gaining the needed experience to effectively govern and make laws. One need look no further than the state government of California, which has enacted term limits and has been the premier example of fiscal ineptitude and poor governance.[3] One can also find the same pattern for Missouri: "A new report from the [University of Missouri] Truman School of Public Affairs argues that the shortening of lawmakers' careers has contributed to a lack of political expertise in the general assembly -- resulting in a less effective government.[4] Next, I will explain why they are bad for senators about to be ousted: "Term limits is and always has been a bad idea. The reason it's a bad idea is because it limits the choices of people the public has to vote for. If you have a really good public servant and you want to keep him, you can't. You have to get rid of the good candidate and replace him with someone who's inexperienced. By having term limits, we are eliminating the people who have wisdom and experience from political life. Like any job, it takes years to be good at what you do. About the time our elected officials have become good public servants, we're required to throw them out."[5] "Term limits kick out the good leaders who may deserve to stay in office for excellent work."[6] In addition to this, it is important to remember that when a Congressman is on his last term, he's not going to listen to the people he is representing because he doesn't have to. He's going to go out next term anyway. III. Power Shifting As a consequence of term limits, as I pointed out earlier, Congressman are now less experienced in performing the duties he was elected for. He now goes to bureaucrats and lobbyists for help in his job. This obviously puts a lot of power into the hands of said bureaucrats and away from Congress. This exacerbates the campaign finance and power problems. This explains it further: "[Reasearch associate professor] Valentine argues that the disappearance of long-term or career politicians in the general assembly has led to a deficit of policy experts. A former state senate staffer, Valentine said that the traditional route for lawmakers to distinguish themselves was to become a respected expert on a certain policy area and then become a resource for other lawmakers. Without this practice, Valentine said term limits have given more power to lobbyists who - as non-government employees - can remain in the halls of the capitol longer than any elected official in Jefferson City ever could. But at the same time, these lobbyists are not held accountable to constituents."[4] Term limits put more power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats who become the only ones who know how to work the system. Overall, term limits are an inefficient way to deal with the problems in today's problem, and in certain cases, they can actually increase those problems and even shift power from one group to another. Sources [1]: http://tech.mit.edu... [2]: http://digital.library.unt.edu... [3]: http://voices.washingtonpost.com... [4]: http://ozarksfirst.com... [5]: http://www.perkel.com... [6]: http://www.balancedpolitics.org... | Politics | 0 | term-limits/11/ | 54,394 |
I guess this round will be for rebuttals. "why do you want to have an eleite set of rulers who are able to be legislators for 70years.?" If the people want to have a legislator in office for 70 years (which some have approached that mark), who are the minority to deny them that? America is a representative democracy. We elect our legislators. If the majority like their policies, they stay in office. "their job is to represent the public, how can they do so when the public has very slim chance of ever becomeing in that position?" Do their qualifications wane with experience? More experienced politicans can actually better serve the people because they now how to work the system, which new politicians can't do so well. Here is an excrept from an article that explains this point: "In the business world, experience is valued because with experience comes knowledge of how to be efficient in your job and how to perform your job well. In fact, running a government can be significantly more complicated than running a business. "Term limits are one of those ideas that sound good in theory but are madness in practice. You wouldn't want to go to a hospital filled with medical residents or stock a sports team with an ever-changing cast of rookies. Legislating is hard. We need to give people time to learn how to do it.."[1] I've said this before, but, it is important to remember that when a Congressman is on his last term, he's not going to listen to the people he is representing because he doesn't have to. He's going to go out next term anyway. Not having term limits ensures that politicians always stay on their toes. "do you want obama to be a senator for 70years?" No, but that's not for me to decide. That's for the people to decide. It is a democracy after all. "w/o term limits, people like obama will be in ruleing positions for a long time and its hard to get them out w/o term limits." Is that necessarily a bad thing? I mean, I already made the experience argument. "do you work for or are you a member of, or did you get paid by, gov or do your friends of family work for or are members of, or got paid by gov?" That's not really relevant. do you plan on becomeing dictator of the us? Yet again, not relevant. No, I do not want to beome dictator. It's not only unconstitutional, but since this is a democracy, it would be impossible (I hope...). I hope this answers all your questions. The ball is still in your court. Sources [1]: <URL>... | 0 | Subutai |
I guess this round will be for rebuttals. "why do you want to have an eleite set of rulers who are able to be legislators for 70years.?" If the people want to have a legislator in office for 70 years (which some have approached that mark), who are the minority to deny them that? America is a representative democracy. We elect our legislators. If the majority like their policies, they stay in office. "their job is to represent the public, how can they do so when the public has very slim chance of ever becomeing in that position?" Do their qualifications wane with experience? More experienced politicans can actually better serve the people because they now how to work the system, which new politicians can't do so well. Here is an excrept from an article that explains this point: "In the business world, experience is valued because with experience comes knowledge of how to be efficient in your job and how to perform your job well. In fact, running a government can be significantly more complicated than running a business. "Term limits are one of those ideas that sound good in theory but are madness in practice. You wouldn't want to go to a hospital filled with medical residents or stock a sports team with an ever-changing cast of rookies. Legislating is hard. We need to give people time to learn how to do it.."[1] I've said this before, but, it is important to remember that when a Congressman is on his last term, he's not going to listen to the people he is representing because he doesn't have to. He's going to go out next term anyway. Not having term limits ensures that politicians always stay on their toes. "do you want obama to be a senator for 70years?" No, but that's not for me to decide. That's for the people to decide. It is a democracy after all. "w/o term limits, people like obama will be in ruleing positions for a long time and its hard to get them out w/o term limits." Is that necessarily a bad thing? I mean, I already made the experience argument. "do you work for or are you a member of, or did you get paid by, gov or do your friends of family work for or are members of, or got paid by gov?" That's not really relevant. do you plan on becomeing dictator of the us? Yet again, not relevant. No, I do not want to beome dictator. It's not only unconstitutional, but since this is a democracy, it would be impossible (I hope...). I hope this answers all your questions. The ball is still in your court. Sources [1]: http://www.perkel.com... | Politics | 1 | term-limits/11/ | 54,395 |
I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. However, most of my opponent's round three argument is a meaningless ramble. Here, I will just counter excerpts from my opponent's argument. "YOU JUST SAID YOU DONT WANT OBAMA TO BE SENATOR FOR 70YEARS YES IT IS A BAD THING." I'm not the sole voter in America. Very few of the people I want in office ever go into office, and term limits aren't going to fix that. Also, the replacer could be even worse than Obama (an Obama 2.0 if you will). "it takes no training or expirenence, and you dont need to be a policy expert to be a representive by defitinion, all it takes is a majority vote." Almost every job fits into a tiered system where people with more experience hold more responsibility and authority. But with term limits, there is no one with experience to take those positions. All the legislators are freshman so no one has any job experience. No business would boot all employees after 10 years- this just amounts to preventing the accumulation of experience. Congress shouldn't operate like that either. "It takes most new legislators about four years to learn the intricacies of the legislative process, the social organization of the House and Senate, the details of government, broader issues, and how to balance everything with the needs of their districts and the expectations of their party," he said. "By the time they gain this knowledge, they only have a relatively short time to utilize their knowledge before their term limit expires. In addition, the absence of experienced legislators precludes learning from more experienced peers.""[1] "the majority of the the public prefer term limits rather than no term limits, banning term limits wont happen unless the country throws the consitution and the public's wishes down the drain and turns into martial law authoritarian totalitarian hypocrities. the majority of the public want choice in is congress." This is the really bad epitome of my opponent's ramble. My opponent is commiting an Ad Populum fallacy - meaning he's calling on the wants of the majority for public policy. However, the majority isn't always right. Two cases would be the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany (both were popularly supported). "banning Term limits violate the congressional qualifications area of the Constitution. have you read the constituion?" Yes. There is no provision for term limits in the constitution. Amendment 22 wouldn't have been ratified if that weren't true. "there is the us consitution, then each state has their own consitution. the us consitution is supreme law. they are saying that an amendment in the arkansas consitution didnt comply with the us constitution because it established additional qualifications for congressional office." What they are saying is that Arkansas cannot impose term limits on its congressional politicians because it violates the constitution. The only qualifications listed in the constitution are age, citizenship, and inhabitancy. There is nothing else, including therm limits, in the constitution regarding this. "Term limits is and always has been a bad idea. The reason it's a bad idea is because it limits the choices of people the public has to vote for." this statement is contradictory." Not really. If the public likes a certain politicians, but that politicians is no longer allowed to run, the term limits have effectively limited the choices of the people because they took out a popular politician. If the people like a politician, let him stay. "when a congressman has no term limits, he's not going to listen to the people becacuse he's never going out unless recalled." Sorry, but thi is just really dumb. Representatives have elections every two years, and senators every six years. They are constantly concerned about getting reelected, which they wouldn't be (and therefore ambivalent to the people) if term limits existed. Overall, term limits will make an already delicate political situation first. They should not be implemented. Sources [1]: <URL>... | 0 | Subutai |
I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. However, most of my opponent's round three argument is a meaningless ramble. Here, I will just counter excerpts from my opponent's argument. "YOU JUST SAID YOU DONT WANT OBAMA TO BE SENATOR FOR 70YEARS YES IT IS A BAD THING." I'm not the sole voter in America. Very few of the people I want in office ever go into office, and term limits aren't going to fix that. Also, the replacer could be even worse than Obama (an Obama 2.0 if you will). "it takes no training or expirenence, and you dont need to be a policy expert to be a representive by defitinion, all it takes is a majority vote." Almost every job fits into a tiered system where people with more experience hold more responsibility and authority. But with term limits, there is no one with experience to take those positions. All the legislators are freshman so no one has any job experience. No business would boot all employees after 10 years- this just amounts to preventing the accumulation of experience. Congress shouldn’t operate like that either. "It takes most new legislators about four years to learn the intricacies of the legislative process, the social organization of the House and Senate, the details of government, broader issues, and how to balance everything with the needs of their districts and the expectations of their party,” he said. “By the time they gain this knowledge, they only have a relatively short time to utilize their knowledge before their term limit expires. In addition, the absence of experienced legislators precludes learning from more experienced peers.”"[1] "the majority of the the public prefer term limits rather than no term limits, banning term limits wont happen unless the country throws the consitution and the public's wishes down the drain and turns into martial law authoritarian totalitarian hypocrities. the majority of the public want choice in is congress." This is the really bad epitome of my opponent's ramble. My opponent is commiting an Ad Populum fallacy - meaning he's calling on the wants of the majority for public policy. However, the majority isn't always right. Two cases would be the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany (both were popularly supported). "banning Term limits violate the congressional qualifications area of the Constitution. have you read the constituion?" Yes. There is no provision for term limits in the constitution. Amendment 22 wouldn't have been ratified if that weren't true. "there is the us consitution, then each state has their own consitution. the us consitution is supreme law. they are saying that an amendment in the arkansas consitution didnt comply with the us constitution because it established additional qualifications for congressional office." What they are saying is that Arkansas cannot impose term limits on its congressional politicians because it violates the constitution. The only qualifications listed in the constitution are age, citizenship, and inhabitancy. There is nothing else, including therm limits, in the constitution regarding this. "Term limits is and always has been a bad idea. The reason it's a bad idea is because it limits the choices of people the public has to vote for." this statement is contradictory." Not really. If the public likes a certain politicians, but that politicians is no longer allowed to run, the term limits have effectively limited the choices of the people because they took out a popular politician. If the people like a politician, let him stay. "when a congressman has no term limits, he's not going to listen to the people becacuse he's never going out unless recalled." Sorry, but thi is just really dumb. Representatives have elections every two years, and senators every six years. They are constantly concerned about getting reelected, which they wouldn't be (and therefore ambivalent to the people) if term limits existed. Overall, term limits will make an already delicate political situation first. They should not be implemented. Sources [1]: http://newsok.com... | Politics | 2 | term-limits/11/ | 54,396 |
Terrorism is simply an extreme form of political expression. Given that terrorist attacks occur most often in countries which have despotic regimes, or in which no other form of political protest is available, these people use the only means they can of getting their point across. We need to remember that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Entirely hypothetically, if the United States were conquered by a despotic regime, and a rebel group was created to attempt to overthrow this regime, you would most likely look upon them as liberators and heros, rather than terrorists and criminals. In a world in which freedom of speech is limited in numerous countries, terrorism can be the only way of getting the word out. It all depends on perspective. So, for now, terrorists exemplify freedom of expression, a good thing. I would just like to take the time to point out that while I do not condone the killing of innocent people, I accept that there are often legitimate reasons for such actions when no other course is available. | 1 | LB628 |
Terrorism is simply an extreme form of political expression. Given that terrorist attacks occur most often in countries which have despotic regimes, or in which no other form of political protest is available, these people use the only means they can of getting their point across. We need to remember that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Entirely hypothetically, if the United States were conquered by a despotic regime, and a rebel group was created to attempt to overthrow this regime, you would most likely look upon them as liberators and heros, rather than terrorists and criminals. In a world in which freedom of speech is limited in numerous countries, terrorism can be the only way of getting the word out. It all depends on perspective. So, for now, terrorists exemplify freedom of expression, a good thing.
I would just like to take the time to point out that while I do not condone the killing of innocent people, I accept that there are often legitimate reasons for such actions when no other course is available. | News | 0 | terrorist-are-bad-for-the-world/1/ | 54,407 |
"1. Where is your evidence? 2. Some people just bomb a place trying to get attention. 3. Terrorists made be heros in some countries, but will be criminals in other countries. 4. Terrorist attacks can lead to having a war too. 5. People can become terrorists if they are angry when there president they chose didn't win the election." 1: Given that what we are debating is almost solely opinion based, the evidence for my argument is in the logic I used. 2: So? That does nothing to refute my point. Saying "terrorists are bad for the world" is universally condemning, and when I show that terrorism cannot be universally condemned, I win this round. 3: You are just proving my point. Universally condemning terrorism does not work, because opinion varies so widely based on who is being attacked, and the reasons for that attack. 4: So they can. But in the one example I can think of off of the top of my head, the war in Iraq, that was a war started because of fabricated evidence and straight up lies. The fault for that lies with the U.S not terrorists. You may as well say that because I punched you, its somehow my fault if you brutally murder my entire family. 5: Very true. They can also become terrorists when they become sick enough of being repressed and murdered by their own government. That is not a refutation of my point. My basic point has gone completely unrefuted. Terrorism is an acceptable form of political expression when there is no other option available. Given that I have shown the resolution is not universally true, that terrorism can have a positive impact on the world, by allowing for expression of ideas when it may not otherwise be possible, and can even be promoting the ideals which we arbitrarily determine to be good. I mean, from the point of the British, American rebels were terrorists, but you dont see them being attacked and denigrated for it. | 1 | LB628 |
"1. Where is your evidence?
2. Some people just bomb a place trying to get attention.
3. Terrorists made be heros in some countries, but will be criminals in other countries.
4. Terrorist attacks can lead to having a war too.
5. People can become terrorists if they are angry when there president they chose didn't win the election."
1: Given that what we are debating is almost solely opinion based, the evidence for my argument is in the logic I used.
2: So? That does nothing to refute my point. Saying "terrorists are bad for the world" is universally condemning, and when I show that terrorism cannot be universally condemned, I win this round.
3: You are just proving my point. Universally condemning terrorism does not work, because opinion varies so widely based on who is being attacked, and the reasons for that attack.
4: So they can. But in the one example I can think of off of the top of my head, the war in Iraq, that was a war started because of fabricated evidence and straight up lies. The fault for that lies with the U.S not terrorists. You may as well say that because I punched you, its somehow my fault if you brutally murder my entire family.
5: Very true. They can also become terrorists when they become sick enough of being repressed and murdered by their own government. That is not a refutation of my point.
My basic point has gone completely unrefuted. Terrorism is an acceptable form of political expression when there is no other option available. Given that I have shown the resolution is not universally true, that terrorism can have a positive impact on the world, by allowing for expression of ideas when it may not otherwise be possible, and can even be promoting the ideals which we arbitrarily determine to be good. I mean, from the point of the British, American rebels were terrorists, but you dont see them being attacked and denigrated for it. | News | 1 | terrorist-are-bad-for-the-world/1/ | 54,408 |